On 12/2/2021 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 12/2/2021 11:08 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>> On 12/2/2021 8:59 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2021 02:36, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>      <NIP>
>>
>>>> I call him a liar be cause he uses that term on others.
>>>
>>> Fair point, but I'd say PO has the "excuse" of literally not
>>> understanding that everyone else is far more competent than him, due
>>> to his problems.  Probably his view is that his arguments are genuine
>>> "logical reasoning", and I doubt he even understands what the
>>> difference is between his arguments and those of other responders.  I
>>> don't think he understands what a proof needs to be, or really why
>>> one is needed - when he is presented with a proof, he has no way of
>>> following it in the way other people do, so it just seems to be
>>> someone making claims to try to win their side of an argument.  So
>>> when someone else doesn't agree with his claims he is genuinely
>>> confused as to why that should be - either people are /deliberately/
>>> biassed against him, or they're just too stupid (or lack the
>>> expertise etc.) to follow his "reasoning".
>>>
>>> ok, that's exactly your position in the next paragraph :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has been pointed out to him MANY times that he is wrong, and
>>>> either he is so mentally deficient that he is incapable of reason,
>>>
>>> Yes, I think he is indeed incapable of (all higher forms of) reasoning.
>>>
>>> I know that's not easy to believe, but when this occured to me I made
>>> an effort to go through dozens of his responses to myself and others
>>> - and I decided that IN NOT ONE SINGLE CASE was there any evidence
>>> that PO was using a reasoned argument to make his case or respond to
>>> others points.
>>>
>>> Every single post I looked at consisted of PO simply restating things
>>> he intuitively thought were true all along but in different words,
>>> like it was his language that was the underlying problem, not lack of
>>> a reasoned position.  Or he simply ignored what people said,
>>> presumably because he couldn't understand their argument.  And in any
>>> case it didn't matter because the things he thought were correct, he
>>> still thought were correct, so they hadn't "refuted his proof".  At
>>> this point he would just make a general cut/paste response of one of
>>> his claims not really related to the point being discussed.  Or cut
>>> paste some irrelevent definition from Wikipedia of something
>>> everybody else already knows and isn't in dispute...
>>>
>>> [ IF "incapable of reason" + "can't see that he's incapable of
>>> reason" is basically the right explanation, he wouldn't be lying,
>>> right? ]
>>>
>>>> or he is chosing to be intentionally ignorant of the facts, which is
>>>> in my books, still lying.
>>>
>>> I simply don't think he is choosing that.  (If he were, I'd agree
>>> that's a form of lying.  But if he's /incapable/ of understanding the
>>> facts, and long ago (I mean probably in his youth) stopped even
>>> trying because it's a waste of time for him, and subsequently deludes
>>> himself into believing those facts aren't important because he has
>>> some superior view of what's going on, perhaps involving
>>> "categorically exhaustive reasoning" or whatever....)
>>>
>>> Maybe you just can't believe a person could be sooooo incapable of
>>> higher abstract reasoning as to not understand your simple arguments.
>>> I can't prove you're not right on this, but there'd be no harm in
>>> monitoring PO's behaviour over time to see if there's ANY evidence
>>> that he's capable of abstract reasoning...  (Once the thought occured
>>> to me, it took me a while to become convinced.)
>>>
>>> Someone unable to reason abstractly would of course be incapable of
>>> properly understanding the fundamental concepts in a field of study,
>>> and would consequently misunderstand just about everything people
>>> were saying to him.  How would you conduct a meaningful conversation
>>> on an academic level with such a person?
>>>
>>> Of late, he does seem to be making an effort to present at least a
>>> facade of an argument for his case.  The problem is it's not at all
>>> "reasoned" or at least what "reasoning" there is is simply wrong, and
>>> doesn't actually follow at all.  Not much better than when he felt he
>>> should try to prove the soundness of his recursion test, and simply
>>> introduced an "axiom" to say that his rule is correct - there is a
>>> basic cognitive problem going on here!
>>>
>>> It does seem strange that such a person would not be able to /see/
>>> the reality of the situation, but there are many examples of
>>> delusional frameworks in the literature, and sure they all do seem
>>> very strange... I don't understand that side of things at all!
>>
>> I agree with 99% of what you have said above. I say good analysis
>> (since it closely parallels my view). However, there are more than PO
>> in their own little loops in this on-going saga. Richard and Andre
>> have repeated their technical lessons to PO, almost word for word,
>> forever; maybe more than a 1000 times. Ben, too, is rather repetitive.
>> Some time back I posed questions to this group (we are a loosely
>> coupled group I think) - Do you really believe that if you explain
>> something to PO he will appreciate it and perhaps change his
>> viewpoint? Have you made an inch of progress in the last decade? There
>> has been no change in the content of anyone's posts since my questions.
>>
>> I take it from your analysis that you are a student of Sartre's play
>> "No Exit". If not read it; it's only ~50 pages long. It will remind
>> you of comp.theory and give you goose bumps.
>>
>> Several years ago, I stumbled in here and saw one of PO's posts and
>> assumed that he was intellectually challenged, aggressive, and sloppy,
>> i.e., either a dimwit or a misguided fool. So I posted a simple reply
>> to correct his "paper" and explained a few simple things. He responded
>> as if his mind was completely disassociated with his previous post and
>> my reply. I observed a little more and noted that this is common in
>> most of his posts. I also noticed that he was just plain nasty to
>> people and threw internet tantrums often.
>>
>> In any event, he was and is most unlikable and he was sort of like the
>> fellow carrying a big balloon who calls you names when you just happen
>> to have a large hat pin with you. His characteristics - nastiness,
>> disassociation, lying or uttering things that sound like lies, etc. -
>> brings out a certain nastiness in me too. It's hard to stop when you
>> don't like the target.
>>
>> I would once again ask everyone why they continue explaining to PO
>> after all this time. They will never help him technically or improve
>> him or their self by continuing the dialogue. PO is not the only one
>> who has spun on the same point so long he now lives underground. I
>> think we all do that to some extent.
>>
>> Many many years ago I had the pleasure/honor to work with J.
>> Licklider, who was the first head of the DARPA computer office (IPTO),
>> and the real visionary of computers improving society. He is also the
>> one whose vision started the network research that built the ancestor
>> of our modern internet. I have recently said many times "If Lick could
>> see USENET, Facebook, along with other social media sites, he would be
>> rolling over in his grave."

The following is a precise example of what I meant my disassociated
behavior. Text book I think.
> I am seeing things at a philosophically deeper level than learned by
> rote people ever see things.
>
> It is true that when-so-ever any input to simulating halt decider H(X,Y)
> only stops running when its simulation has been aborted that this input
> is correctly decided as not halting.
>
> This does eliminate the conventional halting problem feedback loop
> between the halt decider and its input that would otherwise make this
> input undecidable to this decider.
>
> int main() { P(P); } calls H(P,P) simulates P(P) that never halts.
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation V2
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356105750_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V2
Peter, I'd suggest you relax. The last several people in this thread
were trying to find some understanding of your affected behavior,
perhaps with an objective of treating you more kindly. But it's so
difficult to do when you pop in these conversations (though they are
public and about you) with complete and total non sequitur comments.
Notice also your comments about seeing deeper and diverting from the
topic makes you no friends. I do not expect you to change or become more
insightful at this late stage of your life. But at least you might
consider abandoning the totally off target remarks and insults. If you
see more deeply and broadly than others, take a few minutes of your
valuable time and learn how to communicate on technical and
philosophical matters. The shaping of these discussions and dialogues is
precise to improve communications. Why has this been done? Millennia of
experience has shown that sloppy talk that can't be pinned down is very
very likely to be wrong and it takes too much of others time to do your
dirty work for you.
So far those who have tried have found no buried gold. All they have
gotten from you is off topic comments, insults, and nothing that makes
much sense. Completely ungrammatical statements and misuse of common
words with agreed upon meanings -- agreed upon by the vast majority of
people interested in a field -- reflects badly on the speaker. It does
not engender images of a thinker and scholar; it engenders ignorance,
wast of time, and no respect for the listener.
When someone asks you what you meant by some statement and comment, do
them the courtesy of answering. If you can. They were interested enough
to ask so they would understand you better. If upon reflection you
aren't sure what you meant, just say it was a brain fart and move on.
When someone is actually listening to you -- and that's what you want
and what you crave -- they will ask for clarifications so they can
understand: it's not an attack.
Once again I would suggest you look for professional help for the full
spectrum of your health problems. It might make your life more bearable.
--
Jeff Barnett