Re: UFO Debunkers

From: |-|erc (gotch_at_beauty.com)
Date: 07/24/04 

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:06:04 GMT

"Loogie" <loogie@snot.com> wrote in
> "|-|erc" <gotch@beauty.com> wrote in message
> > "Fletch F. Fletch" <notme31415@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > Pepe le Pew wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 13:04:20 -0500, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Pepe le Pew wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 20:43:51 -0500, Uncle Al
> > > >>> <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >>>>>>>> Outworld technology
> > > >>>>>>>> will be instantly recognizable for not being recognizable.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hmmmm...
> > > >>>>>> Nice self contradiction there, Al.
> > > > ...
> > > >>> Hi UncleAl,
> > > >>> I know what you meant to say. I'm just so amused that you missed
> > > >>> the contradiction. You know as well as I do that the carnivores
> > > >>> here just love to eat this kind of stuff right up. Oh well....
> > > >>
> > > >> My sentence was elegantly and compactly constructed. It says
> > > >> exactly what it was meant to say. For those of you with
> > > >> defective minds, here is the long form:
> > > >>
> > > >> Outworlder technology will not share local aesthetic, cultural,
> > > >> historic, economic, biological... biases. If it travels
> > > >> interstellar it is like nothing we can presently imagine.
> > > >> Outworlder technology will be visibly striking, as stealth
> > > >> technology planes from the SR-71 through the B-2 bomber and
> > > >> unmanned drones are visibly striking - and more so for the
> > > >> outworlder stuff. They will have options of materials of
> > > >> construction and its engineering that we do not have. It will
> > > >> look different for that reason, too, as stuff made out of leather
> > > >> cannot do what spandex does.
> > > >> 83 words for the stooopids.
> > > >>
> > > >> Outworld technology will be instantly recognizable for not being
> > > >> recognizable.
> > > >> 10 words for the functional.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Uncle Al
> > > >
> > > > OK Al,
> > > > Lets substitute some other adjective for recognizable and then
> > > > see if the sentence still rings logical. Lets substitute in blue.
> > > >
> > > > So now your sentence reads something like;
> > > >
> > > > Outerworld technology will be instantly blue for its not being blue.
> > > >
> > > > (OK, so I added a word for clarity.)
> > > >
> > > > Is it still logical? Is it self contradictory?
> > > >
> > > > Later,
> > > > Pepe le Pew aka Pat Sullivan
> > >
> > > Outworld technology will be instantly recognizable [as outworld
> technology]
> > > for not being recognizable [as terrestrial technology].
> > >
> >
> > No.
> >
> > not recognizable as set T -> recognizable in some set -> recognizable
> >
> > this negates "not being recognizable" which is the literal interpretation
> of the original.
> >
> > the sentence parses because of self reference, not because it can be
> parsed as "is different".
> >
> > "This is unclassifiable" is a true statement, much like Godel's statement
> > "This does not belong to the set of all truths".
> >
> > Herc
>
>
> so what are you saying?

   Outworld technology will be instantly recognizable [as outworld technology]
   for not being recognizable [as terrestrial technology].

"instantly recognizable as outworld technology"

implies it *is* recognisable. it comes across as a tautology

X is foreign if X is not local

that's true for anything, why not just say we don't know outworld tech!

There's another meaning to "instantly recognizable for not being recognizable".
its not "recognizable as outworld"
its literallly "recognizable as not recognizable"

The 1st recognize is a meta action, the second recognize is like 'classifiable'.

"Its not *known* as recognisable"

Its a broader meaning, you might be surrounded in light (knowing that you don't know anything
that is happening) as opposed to recognising something new.

According to my new theory on self_evident_truths formed from subtypes
of declaration verbs,

if recognize is a subtype of declare or write, i.e. recognition takes place as
its spoken what the object is recognised as, then the self reference should
become explicit.

If I recognize OT then it will not be recognized.
recognize OT -> !declare OT

i.e. if I recognize Outworld tech, I can't declare/classify/recognize that it is O.T.
or if I know its OT I can't classify it.

declare OT -> ! recognize OT
True -> ! recognize OT (from the self reference in the statement)
! recognize OT

We don't recognize OT

Herc