Speaking with people that already hold my same philosophical positions
seems to make much more sense than having random strangers critique my
ideas.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/8/23 1:54 AM, olcott wrote:
> Speaking with people that already hold my same philosophical positions
> seems to make much more sense than having random strangers critique my
> ideas.
>

So, you admit to wanting just "yes men"? That would be because your
ideas don't actually hold water.

Your problem is that your logic is just fatally flawed, and you can't
stand that being pointed out.

If the only people you want to talk about are people that will agree
with you without actually looking at your work, you are just admitting
that your ideas don't work.

Go ahead, listen to just the yes men, and let them pull you into your
fantasy world of make beleive and falsehood.

That seems to be the world you have chosen to live in, and will seal
your eternal fate.

I will note, that puts you in exactly the same class of people as you
claim you are trying to debunk.

On 8/8/2023 2:56 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:54:10 AM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>> Speaking with people that already hold my same philosophical positions
>> seems to make much more sense than having random strangers critique my
>> ideas.
>>
>> --
>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
> So you and these people that hold your same philosophical positions are all wrong.

It is impossible that we are wrong because our mutual position is
entirely anchored in: *semantic tautology / self-evident truth*

*A semantic tautology*
tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
is *thus purely a matter of definition*.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology

*A self-evident truth*
In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 8/8/23 1:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/8/2023 2:56 AM, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>> On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:54:10 AM UTC-5, olcott wrote:
>>> Speaking with people that already hold my same philosophical positions
>>> seems to make much more sense than having random strangers critique my
>>> ideas.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>>
>> So you and these people that hold your same philosophical positions
>> are all wrong.
>
>
> It is impossible that we are wrong because our mutual position is
> entirely anchored in: *semantic tautology / self-evident truth*
>
> *A semantic tautology*
> tautology, in logic, a statement so framed that it cannot be denied
> without inconsistency. Thus, “All humans are mammals” is held to assert
> with regard to anything whatsoever that either it is not a human or it
> is a mammal. But that universal “truth” follows not from any facts noted
> about real humans but only from the actual use of human and mammal and
> is *thus purely a matter of definition*.
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/tautology
>
> *A self-evident truth*
> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
> proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
> without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>
>

But you don't understand what that actually means in the field of logic.

Note, you ignore the second paragraph that shows how the broad
linguistic definiton of the word (which you are quoting) is actually
used in the field of logic.

You THINK your position is anchored in those ideas, but since you don't
actually understand them, you hav anchored yourself to lies.

You just don't seem to understand the basis for the meaning of things,
and that the context used matters.

For instance, you seem to think that the answer to a one question can be
just defined to be the answer to another similar but actually different
question, which is a violation of the meaning of the words.

For Example, "Halting" is STRICTLY about the behavior of the
comutation/machine itself, AND NOTHING ELSE. Only something ACTUALLY
EQUIVALENT can be substituted.

Your concept of "Correct Simulation" is a LIE because it doesn't
actually provide that ACTUAL EQUIVALENCY, but you claim it can be use as
a replacement, even when you explicitly claim it can be diffenent.

Something can't be an exact equivalent and produce different results.

You claim just proves your stupidity, and lack of truthfullness.

Your incessant repeating it just show the evil in your heart.