XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/24/2025 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/24/25 11:41 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/24/2025 9:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/24/25 10:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> By objective measures, a Mensa IQ test I am   
   >>>> in the top 3%. Where are you by these same   
   >>>> objective measures? I would say that you are   
   >>>> at least in the top 20%, maybe much higher.   
   >>>   
   >>> But it is well know that single test are not an accurate measure of   
   >>> actual intelligence.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> In other words you know that your IQ is much lower?   
   >> I know that you are much higher than the normal of   
   >> 100 IQ. No one below 100 is stupid. You are at least   
   >> some degree of smart. Even 115 IQ is smart, smart   
   >> enough to graduate college.   
   >   
   > Various test come out to over 150 (the top for that test) to 180-190.   
   >   
   > I know enough of the theory of the test to understand there general   
   > unreliability. Also, there are many types of "IQ" that a person will   
   > have different levels in.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> as you deceive yourself into thinking you "know" things, when they   
   >>>>> have no real basis. You have chosen to forgo actual logic for the   
   >>>>> fantasies of your own mind, and you have chosen to ignore reality.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is all a matter of your lack of ability to   
   >>>> pay complete attention. You have never been   
   >>>> able to show the tiniest actual mistake in   
   >>>> anything that I have ever said and prove that   
   >>>> it is an actual mistake with correct reasoning.'   
   >>>   
   >>> No, I pay attention, but you don't.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your failure to answer the errors pointed out prove that you are not   
   >>> interested in truth, and/or are unable to learn.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The only "errors" that anyone every pointed out   
   >> were never ERRORS in the absolute sense. The   
   >> were only "errors" within the assumption that   
   >> the conventional view is infallible.   
   >   
   > No, you don't THINK they are error because they disagree with your   
   > preconcieved notions.   
   >   
   > THe fact you haven't (probably because you CAN'T) actually refute them   
   > shos that they are errors, that you are just chooing to ignore, because   
   > truth isn't a concern of yours.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The best that you have every done is show that   
   >>>> what I am saying does not conform to the   
   >>>> convention view.   
   >>>   
   >>> But, your problem is that by the "conventional view" what you meam is   
   >>> the DEFINED view for the problem you claim to be working in.   
   >>>   
   >>> You don't understand that changing it and staying in it is not an   
   >>> option.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> The conventional view has several key definitions.   
   >> Some of these definitions contradict other definitions   
   >> within this same system.   
   >>   
   >   
   > So, what are the contradictions?   
   >   
   > Are you sure you are using definitions from the same field?   
   >   
   > You have shown a remarkable failure to understand the concept of   
   > context, and even a rejection of the concept of the term-of-art.   
   >   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> That is the height of stupidity.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> I don't know how attention deficit disorder works.   
   >>>>>> I have the opposite hyper focus super power.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And you "hyper focus" on your delusions, and ignore the facts.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Your "facts" are the mere dogma of the conventional   
   >>>> view. Expressions of language that are impossibly false   
   >>>> within a definition are derived by applying correct   
   >>>> semantic entailment to this definition.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, they are the DEFINITION of the system.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Yes they are. Yet they contradict other definitions   
   >> of this same system and that is their error. You   
   >> are smart and capable of understanding me. You did   
   >> just bring up a crucially important point.   
   >   
   > Where?   
   >   
   > Since you have stated you never actually studied the system, it would be   
   > hard for you to actually KNOW the real definitions.   
   >   
   >>   
   >>> It seems you lack the understanding of what is actually true in a   
   >>> system.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> It never has been this. It probably did seem   
   >> like this before I could translate my mere   
   >> intuitions into first principles derived from   
   >> standard definitions.   
   >   
   > Sure it has.   
   >   
   > You have ALWAYS been confusing the concept of Truth with the idea of   
   > Knowledge, which is why the unprovable is so bothersome to you, as it   
   > points out the distiction that you try to refuse to beleive.   
   >   
   > Note, the concepts of Unprovable, Unknowable, Undecidable, Uncomputable   
   > are all tightly tied together, coming in a sense from the same source.   
   > But that this destroyes you bad mental model, you try to (unsucessfully)   
   > rebel from these.   
   >   
   > Your problem is you   
   >   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> The is what I have just achieved in the last two weeks.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You have not even shows that you know what   
   >>>> "semantic entailment" is. If you do not   
   >>>> even know what it is then you cannot know   
   >>>> the details of how it works.   
   >>>   
   >>> No, your problem is I don't agree to your lies.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> My statement was not asking for mere rhetoric.   
   >> It asked for you to show that you understand what   
   >> "semantic entailment" is and how it works.   
   >   
   > Since you don't understand what semantics mean, because you think you   
   > can change the meaning of words, it will be impossible for you to   
   > understand the meaning of that phrase.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> When is answered by mere rhetoric this indicates   
   >> that you have no clue what "semantic entailment"   
   >> is and how it works.   
   >   
   > Part of the problem with that term, is it generally is used in the   
   > context of natural languages, which are actually out of scope of the   
   > formal logic systems you want to be talking about.   
   >   
   > It deals with a statement being required to be true as a result of the   
   > basic meaning of the words, but that then requires that the meaning of   
   > the words be properly and consistantly defined.   
   >   
   > Formal systems bypass this problem, as their axioms DEFINE the basic   
   > truths of the systems, and their accepted operations the way you can   
   > manipulate them, and thus "semantics" boil done to the question of what   
   > can be the results of applying those operations in all possible   
   > configurations to those axioms. That BECOMES the meaning in the system.   
   >   
      
   Something that almost no one has the capacity to understand   
   is that semantics can be fully encoded directly within the   
   syntax.   
      
   > But that requires you to accept that there ARE rules in the system, and   
   > definitions that need to be followed when talking about the system,   
   > which seems to need more IQ then you have.   
   >   
      
   That I can see incoherence that you cannot see would   
   seem to show an error on my part from your point of   
   view.   
      
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)