Re: True Grit and Salsa Verite

From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 16:48:41 +0100

In article <40ec0f7d.63907333@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
<lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 22:58:07 +0100, David Longley
><David@longley.demon.co.uk> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>
>>In article <40eb120e.60978511@netnews.att.net>, Lester Zick
>><lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> writes
>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 19:29:19 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
>>><wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Lester Zick wrote:
>>>>....snip....
>>>>> Geometry doesn't have quite the same problem. Or rather it has the
>>>>> same problem but just doesn't recognize it because it is an axiomatic
>>>>> system that assumes but cannot prove its axioms.
>>>>....snip....
>>>>
>>>>Lester, you hardly ever fail to amuse me. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>BTW, insofar as I can follow your explanation of differences among
>>>>differences, etc, which is snipped, it looks an awful lot like the
>>>>Scheffer stroke. Scheffer showed that all of propositional logic could
>>>>be expressed by means of a single operator (instead of the five or six
>>>>usually employed for conveneinec's sake.) But AFAIK he didn't claim that
>>>>he ahd discovered teh Secret of the Universe, aka the answer to Life,
>>>>the Universe and Everything.
>>>
>>>Having checked online resources, Wolf, I agree that the Sheffer
>>>(Scheffer?) stroke is an important insight that I was not aware of.
>>
>>This is not true. This has been explained to you *several* times since
>>you first started this talk about differences. To cite a few:
>
>It has been mentioned several times, David. It has never been
>explained. You don't explain things.
>

Quite a lot's been "explained" to you, in many ways, by many people. To
date, none of that has had any noticeable effect on your bizarre verbal
behaviour. One thing that's been "explained" to you is that you have a
serious problem benefiting from what others tell you. The explanation
for that is that you don't act on the instructions given to you by those
more skilled than you. That is, you don't do what you are told, so
there's no outcome for you to benefit from. Like other 'idiots' here,
you take offence at being told that you don't know what you're writing
about, and rather than change that behaviour, you repeat it. Your
(verbal) behaviour is pathological.

You require formal education, and very possibly, therapy. You are
"deluded".

>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C0iBCCt5yu$Ewzf@longley.demon.co.u
>>k>
>>
>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=H11ec2EVkEBAFww2@longley.demon.co.u
>>k>
>>
>><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=qHs1AYEBC2NAFw20@longley.demon.co.u
>>k>
>>
>>>It
>>>seems to be more or less what I have in mind for differences between
>>>differences where one something-or-other is inverted and combined with
>>>whatever is there, although this is not a concurrence with turing bit
>>>structure in sentience.
>>>
>>>The secret of the universe claim depends on whether there are possible
>>>non self contradictory alternatives to P "not" but also implications
>>>with respect to differences between differences and sentience and the
>>>resolution of Russell's paradox.
>>>
>>>What is less clear is whether the Sheffer stroke is the elementary
>>>operation or whether the most elementary operation is negation, not,
>>>or inversion because that appears essential to every conceivable NAND
>>>operation and is what I consider actually lies at the root of the
>>>universe and everything in it. In nominal turing terms I see the not,
>>>negation, or inversion operation and OR as logical antecedents of NAND
>>>in this respect, mostly I suppose because we can see NAND operations
>>>as compounds of NOT's and OR's. After all this is the physical basis
>>>for logic operations of all kinds even though expressible as compounds
>>>of NAND's. The NAND appears as a fundamental symbolic operation but
>>>inversion and OR appear physically antecedent. Let me ponder.
>>>
>>>Regards - Lester
>>>
>>
>>As I said in other posts, you don't read/retain what people write.
>
>I read and retain things people write, David. I have retained what you
>write. That I don't follow through on what you is strictly a function
>of your lack of insight and credibility. I tend to pay attention to
>what Wolf cites because he has given important references in the past
>actually relevant to what I am concerned with. You haven't.
>
>Regards - Lester
>

We'll see, won't we! 

-- 
David Longley

Relevant Pages

  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >never answering questions nor even asking factual questions but only ... you then make friends with other fruitcakes prone to write ... David Longley ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: True Grit and Salsa Verite
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>serious problem benefiting from what others tell you. ... >Of course, I'm deluded, David. ... It *is* largely a matter of learning the language, ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Am I a crank?
    ... Lester Zick wrote: ... David R Tribble wrote: ... What are infinitesimals? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: death of the mind.
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >>contingencies controlling his behaviour and the consequences. ... the best we can do with some animals is to humanely ... David Longley ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... In article, Lester Zick ... >And here I thought you'd killfiled me, David. ... >reasonableness. ... That's why I'm ignoring most of your posts. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
Quantcast