So, do you agree that some concepts are absolutely simple, and thusly unanalyzable and incapable of non-circular definitions, but yet still valid; or do these so-called, alleged, primitive concepts need to be either (1) capable of non-circular definition or (2) thrown out? — Bob Ross

What does a brick mean on its own lying on the ground apart from being a brick? Nothing. Many bricks must be piled with the cement mix into a shape to form a barbecue, a wall, workshop or a house to be meaningful for its manifestation.

Likewise what does "being" or "exist" mean on its own in a grammatically incomplete utterance? Nothing apart from being an object of inference, intuition or poetry, which must be thrown out in philosophical discussions as nonsense.

"To be or not to be" means "should something exist, or should it not?" — Bob Ross

But Hamlet doesn't exist. Hence "Exist" on its own, is vague and obscure. It is said to indicate things that doesn't exist as if it exists. When a claim is made "X exists", it must be supplied with more information on where, how and when. Without the info, it is a meaningless utterance such as "I think therefore I am."

:brow: — Bob Ross

It is the most famous and quoted phrase in English language.

This is not an example of a valid analysis of 'to be': 'to be or not to be?' ungrammatical, old english for "should something exist, or not?". — Bob Ross

What would be your valid analysis of "To be or not to be"? Why is it ungrammatical? What do you suggest for grammatically correct sentence for it?

I have the classic Clocksin and Mellish. — PL Olcott

The ones I ordered are,
PROLOG ++: The Power of Object-oriented and Logic Programming" by C. Moss.
Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence by Bratko.

All my Computer Programming Logic books have a chapter or two on ProLog.

I see your point. I was seeing HOL from totally different point of view. In programming languages HOL enables them more flexible and powerful in building rules and operational logics based on the real world applications requirements. Hence, any statements can be assigned into available variables for getting assigned as preset TF values for required operations. In the programming environment, the only source of truths is the external world, not truth tables. New logics get built in the system according to the specs.

I am waiting for a couple of cheap old Prolog books which are on my way. Prolog seems to be the system for Logic programming. It seems to be a PL which has a long history, but seems to be still very much popular even now especially for AI applications.

I am not talking about anything like that. I am referring to the (non-existent truth value of the) actual semantic meaning of the English sentence: What time is it? — PL Olcott

I see. But my point was, isn't the main point of using HOL (as also mentioned in the OP title) is being able to set TF values to the non-existent truth value sentences or word such as "What time is it?", and make use of them in the real world applications?

For example, in algorithmic language
Set S = "What time is it?"
Read External Data Q
If Q = S then
S = True
If S = True then Read Time from the System Clock
Write{"Time is 09:00.")
If Q <> S then
S = False
If S = False then
Write("Please type your question again."
End. => Can be translated into any other PL such as C, C++, java, Python or Pascal ..etc

Saying "What time is it?" has no TF value sounds like ignoring the flexibility and applicability of the program languages and also armchair linguistic philosophy of 1950s. :D

Tarski never noticed that "This sentence is not true" is not a truth bearer thus the same ask asking is this sentence true or false — PL Olcott

I am not sure how Prolog works in Boolean value settings and execution operations. I have ordered a couple cheap Prolog books by the way. But in Pascal, C and other HLPLs, they have no problems dealing with the paradox cases in the sentence for the operations due to ability to assign the sentences into either Constants or variables. Then the constants or variables can be initialised with boolean values at the start-up of procedures or functions, which sets the variable or constant values to either True or False.

And then operations for checking the constants or variables with the input data or external condition or states, which generate further TF values, in which case then further process of operations could be written depending on the TF values of the checked out variable or constants.

The paradox problems were only problem or paradox because the TF values were reflected from the semantic values in the word "true" or "false" in the sentence rather than the TF values on the whole sentence.

In PASCAL or C, "What time is it?" can be set as True or False in a variable, and can be used to check the condition of the input data for comparing and generating another TF value from the checking operation. I presumed that was what HOL was all about. Being able to assign any sentence or type of data into the vast different type of variables, and manipulate the TF conditions by controlling them. I am not sure how Prolog would do it, yet.

:blush: :pray:

This eliminates this terrible mistake by Gödel: — PL Olcott

Yes, it would be good if you could present the Tarski's and Godel's theorems in connection with HOL with your own explanations (the proofs and refutations) in clear English with added formulas too (if needed).

Why does our brain have limited capacity? Why aren't all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful? How do you know that someone could have done something else at the time and place of the doing instead of what was done? I am not convinced that anyone could have done something else but I could be wrong as I am not all-knowing. — Truth Seeker

Good question. I wish I know the answers for the questions. Only thing I know is that there are things we know, and there are things we don't know. Most of the unknowability can never be cleared I presume. Humans are critically and sorely limited existence in time of life on the earth, knowing and thinking capabilities due to them having the biological bodies, and thinkings and knowings that rely on the biological brain.

There is no substitute for actual experience. No amount of reading will help you comprehend how painful pain is. — Truth Seeker

I have no knowledge or experience in the field of pains and clinical psychology. I am sorry that I cannot offer any info or advice on the situation. I hope that you will feel better and get back to your normal emotional state and physical health as soon as possible.

I will read Hume and Kant if I ever get to either 0 or +1 on the mood scale. Thank you for the recommendations. — Truth Seeker

You are very welcome Truth Seeker. Please take your time. If you open new threads with Hume or Kant topics later on when you feel better, I will definitely try to join and engage in discussions with you then. Take care, and thank you for engaging discussions with me for the interesting OP.

All I can say, is that ‘being’ is ‘to be’, ‘to exist’, ‘existence’, etc.; but this does not afford any real analysis into what ‘to be’ really is itself but, rather, is just a reiteration, in different words, of the same meaning. — Bob Ross

If an actor says on the stage "To be, or not to be: that is the question.", is it about himself, or Hamlet?

It's not possible to think freely. Can you think up everything there is to know about dark matter and dark energy? No, you can't. Can you think of a trillion thoughts per second? No, you can't. Our thoughts are determined and constrained by our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. — Truth Seeker

The reason we can not do those is because of lack of data to us, and our brain has limited capacity in thinking, not because anything is determined.

We are all prisoners of causality - doomed to suffer and die. I am all-loving but I am not all-knowing and all-powerful. I am so sad. I wish I never existed. — Truth Seeker

These comments are not factual objective descriptions of anything in the world, but just reflection of your psychology. You can change your beliefs and emotions by changing your reasoning and reading some philosophical textbooks. No one else can change your beliefs apart from yourself.

Hume and Kant were dualists. They are both wrong. You are also wrong about having free will. I am a materialist monist hard determinist because I am convinced by evidence. — Truth Seeker

Hume and Kant were dualists? There are different interpretations about them. It is not that simple. They are not wrong. They present us with deep and rich arguments on our mind and the world. You should try reading them first, and try to understand them. I am sure you will enjoy.

HOL is simply a bridge so that people that don't have a clue what knowledge ontologies are can think of them using the simpler isomorphism of what they do know. — PL Olcott

Isn't HOL the expanded logical system from the other simpler ones with the relation and operation variables in the formulas? Most modern programming languages seem to be based on HOL. How about Prolog? My computer logic book has a chapter on Prolog with its syntax. It says it is a declarative language rather than procedural like PASCAL, and it always has to refer to a database for the facts and rules.

Sounds good idea. Only problem with the PLs handling the paradox cases could be the program crash, when the contradicting variables with TF values were encountered during the execution. But being HOL with the expanded variable availabilities, the inner sentence could be assigned to the next variable for the different boolean values. HOL being arithmetic oriented structure, not sure how they would be in handling the text or sentence based data handling. It would be great help in understanding the operational side of it if the real program testing sessions would be available to see with the paradox cases.

Suffice to say you are not an honest interlocutor. — AmadeusD

:roll: :rofl:

"Do you accept that all events have prior causes?" If so, that syllogism holds and defeats your position. — AmadeusD

It appears that you haven't read any Hume at all. It is not matter of all events have prior causes or not. But the matter is that causes exist in your mind, not in the external world. Hence all causes are psychological judgement. In other words you have been talking about something which is your mental state, rather than objective existence or facts.

I can see why you were upset, and being defensive calling trolling and changing goal posts etc. The logical argument you presented is not logical at all. It just is reasserting your belief on determinism.

I am glad that you declared the end of discussion. I have nothing more to add apart from the points I made in the last posts. All the very best.

that is, they will allow you to match a term against an uninstantiated
subterm of itself. — PL Olcott

From your coding, it seems no problem for HOL dealing with the Liars paradox and also Tarksi's undefinability.

I am sure you can. First of all, try reading Hume and Kant, focusing on Cause and Effect theory. Then you can decide on what you feel and convince as correct. It is totally up to your free thinking what you decide as truth.

Finally, a note about how Prolog matching sometimes differs from the
unification used in Resolution. Most Prolog systems will allow you to
satisfy goals like: — PL Olcott

:up: :pray: I have not used Prolog, but it gives a rough idea to go about and trying it in the other PLs such as C, C++ or Java. Thanks Olcott.

No nope, I am not trying to convince you. You can believe whatever you want or like. I just pointed out your beliefs are wrong, and explained why they are. If you opt to keep believing the wrong beliefs, then no one can change it. I have already told you that I have tried to change the dualists' wrong beliefs on Cogito, but failed to do so. So, why should I try to change your belief?
It is your freewill to believe whatever you decided to believe even if it is a deep hallucination of hard determinism, or decide to free yourself from the dogma, and change your mind accepting the truth.

They are irrelevant and silly for the argument. Because they don't prove that all the events and actions are determined.

Thank you for the reading recommendation. "Ants don't play guitars." is a fact. "Humans don't fly like the birds." is also a fact. Just as what I said in my post are facts. — Truth Seeker

You are most welcome :) Sure they are also facts you could say that. But they are silly loopy facts that are irrelevant and unfit for the philosophical discussions. You could hear them in the kindergartens I am guessing. :D

You could go on saying "Dogs don't smoke cigars.", "Snakes don't write poems." ... etc etc. It can be amusing, but not very meaningful or helpful for you becoming wiser.

Genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences determine and constrain the choices made by organisms. — Truth Seeker

You could do with reading Hume. Hume's cause and effect theory will set you back to the right track on this. Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences are Genes, environment, nutrients and experiences. They are not causes themselves. Your psychology is saying they are the causes for the choices made by organisms. In other words, causes exist in your mind, not out there in the world.

This is a fact. — Truth Seeker

It is not a fact. It is a dogma and misunderstanding.

This is why banana trees don't type posts on forums and humans don't photosynthesise. — Truth Seeker

They are not rational philosophical comments. It is like saying "Ants don't play guitars." and "Humans don't fly like the birds."

I have no idea what that means! — Truth Seeker

Meditate on it. It may flash in your mind.

I don't have anything else to say. — Truth Seeker

Try to construct a tight logical arguments for your claims. Remember no beliefs, no opinions and no emotional statements. Just facts and the inferences and reasonings based on the facts. Will take it from there.

Can you prove to me that you are both happy and unhappy at the same time? — Truth Seeker

Well, yes and no, perhaps or maybe? :wink:

An earthquake is determined by all the variables that cause it. A cyclone is determined by all the variables that cause it. A choice is determined by all the variables that cause it. Do you understand now? — Truth Seeker

Hmmm it just sounds like all tautologies to me. There is nothing new or compellingly significant in that statement.

It sounds like a contradiction to me. It's saying someone was alive and dead at the same time or angry and calm at the same time or excited and bored at the same time. — Truth Seeker

You seem to be getting more confused. Being alive and dead at the same time is your description of a physical bodily condition. Your being happy and unhappy at the same time is your mental state. They are not the same category. You cannot draw comparisons between the two totally different categories.

I provided you with the determining effects of genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. If you don't remember what I said, please read my posts again. Once you have refrained from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from and have done the 7 tasks I asked you to do, I will be convinced that you have free will. — Truth Seeker

Your 27 lists to-do are not meaningful in philosophical discussions. They belong to the functions of biological agents. They will not help you or me or anyone else to understand what freewill and determinism means.

If you want to know about freewill and determinism in philosophical point of view, you must try to prove determinism is valid supplying all the qualities and determinant properties of things or events which you believe to be determined.

I am going to ask you a simple question to start. : What do things and events which you believe to be determined have as their qualities and properties? i.e. what do you mean by something is determined?

I don't know what it is like to be you or anyone else. I have never been happy and unhappy at the same time. — Truth Seeker

It is natural that you cannot be anyone else than yourself. Maybe you have never been both happy and unhappy at the same time, but there are many others who have been. So it doesn't mean that one cannot be happy and unhappy at the same time.

How can you be both happy and not happy at the same time? I have never experienced. I wish we were all telepathic - that way we could really know what it is like to be each other instead of having to resort to communicate with words. — Truth Seeker

Human linguistic semantics are to capture and reflect your mental state and the world. You often hear people saying "I am not sure on that." "Yes and No", "maybe" "perhaps" ... you may not know it because maybe you have not done any self introspection for yourself, but an emotional state of someone can be mixture of various feelings.

It's a matter of evidence. I have provided you with the evidence. You failed to forever refrain from the 27 things I asked you to refrain from. You failed to do the 7 tasks I asked you to do. — Truth Seeker

Hmmmm matter of evidence? Are you sure? :)
All I could see is your mental state for believing and claiming everything is under determinism. There is no philosophical argument in your claims at all. Your to-do tasks has nothing to do with either determinism or freewill. They are just functions of a biological agent.

I disagree with you because the evidence contradicts your position. It does not matter to me whether you agree with me or not. — Truth Seeker

It is OK that you disagree with me. I told you already that it is usually impossible to change someone's belief which is based on psychology or mental state. It is a psychological belief, so there is no way to persuade the believer using logical argument. I know it already, because I saw how it was impossible to change the view of the dualists who believe that I think therefore I am, is a logical statement.

I have been working on self-referential paradox for two decades. — PL Olcott

That's cool Olcott.

No one else that understands the math of the things has the slightest clue what a knowledge ontology is. It just occurred to me much more recently that HOL is isomorphic to a knowledge ontology. — PL Olcott

This sounds a very interesting topic. I was reading on HOL recently, and it seems to be heavily mathematical arithmetic stuff. My question arose with the Liars paradox. How do you convert the Liars paradox sentence into HOL formula?

You asked for a logically sound argument.

P1. IfDeterminism is true, Free Will is not possible;
P2. Determinism is true.
P3. Your choices are determined.
C. Your concept of Free Will is an illusion. — AmadeusD

That is just saying determinism is true, and freewill is false.
That is nothing new to your psychological assertion, and you listed down as some sort of logical argument, which clearly is not.

Write down exactly back to front determinism replaced with freewill, you get the same conclusion for freewill is true and determinism is an illusion.

Sorry mate, go and think harder, and you need to brining in something which makes sense for your argument.

I will give you a hint. You must write down all the determinant properties for X, if X is determined. And prove those properties are necessarily true. If you do that, I will show you why they are false.

IFF all events have prior causes, Determinism is true. — AmadeusD

I have not seen the logical proof of that. Where is it? Or you could prove again here.
How do you know all events have prior causes?

Even if we suppose all events have prior causes, that doesn't entail determinism. Because some of the events are caused by freewill.

But you must prove how all events have prior causes first, and prove that they are absolutely not caused by freewill to secure the validity of determinism.

We hold that it is (though, intuitively, I am fairly open to the idea that something about consciousness to be discovered will shake this). If all events have prior causes, you don't have Free Will. You've not addressed any arguments at all. — AmadeusD

I thought my argument was clear in my reply to you. All my actions and expressions are caused by my freewill. What else could it be?

Happiness and sadness are mental states but they are determined by the electrochemical activities of the brain. You can't be both happy and sad at the same time but you can be happy at one time and sad at another time. — Truth Seeker

It makes perfect sense to me, when I ask someone "Are you happy?", and get a reply "Well Yes and No".

It goes even deeper than that. Assuming that atoms, molecules, cells, bodies, planets, universes are real and not simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion, our thinking occurs as a result of the electrochemical activities of the brain. This activity is determined and constrained by the laws of physics. That's why we can't think faster than our nerve conduction velocity which is 50 to 60 metres per second. — Truth Seeker

Well prove your argument in Logical argument. You must start with some reasonable premises for your arguments, and then inferences and reasonings for the premises, and then your conclusion. Will have a look at it together for its validity and soundness.

Just saying, everything is under hard determinism because blah blah blah .... doesn't have compelling points for its meaningfulness or truth as such. Many will just say, well that's just your belief and assertion, but what about the opposite point of view on that? And that has been happening all along in this thread. We can come to a closure clarifying either your assertion has a validity with logical sound argument, or it was just your mental state.

That's just you saying this. It doesn't entail that you've looked for, or understand what we're putting infront of you.

If every event has a prior cause, these are absolute facts. It is not possible to sit yourself outside of that lineage. If you reject that, you're in need of a rather strong and convincing argument that includes empirical considerations and logical cogency. I don't think you ahve either. — AmadeusD

I used to have a lot of illusory beliefs such as people will live forever, because they resurrect as soon as they die after seeing the action films stars in the other films after seeing them dead in another film.

I also used to believe Santa was real, and the old folks born old, and I will stay as a wee 10 year old forever. But as time went by, all my illusions were proven to be wrong. People die for good, and the old folks were the babies and kids at one time a long time ago. They just got old by living on, and we all get old, and will die.

I am not sure what other illusions I still have. Not many, if not at all.

Hard determinism and free will are two ideas but they are ideas about how reality works. Hard determinism and free will are not mental states the way happiness and sadness are mental states. — Truth Seeker

I still think determinism is your psychology. If you see all the events and your actions from your past point of view, then everything seems to be determined.

But if one sees every event and one's actions from the present point of view, then everything is from freewill. It is that difference i.e. difference of point of view.

You can say a bottle is half empty or half full with wine. It just is upto your point of view and expression.

If you really believe the world events and your actions are under hard determinism, then you must be able to prove via the Logical Argument for that.

All you have is just your belief and assertions that the world events and your actions are under hard determinism and constraints just because you have been born, you have your mum's DNA, you taught yourself English ... etc. They are your past experiences, abilities and limitations. They are not the determinants and constraints. They can be, just because you are looking at them as the constraints.

You say that everything is determined and is under constraints. Some others say the opposite, and they believe in freewill.

They cannot be proved either true or false, because they are just personal opinions or psychological beliefs. Just like Descartes "I think therefore I am" is a psychological utterance with missing object for the "think".

You cannot prove psychological state or utterance using Logic. Logic needs something to check for the truth or falsity of the statements against something which are objective and infallible. Psychological beliefs and utterances have nothing to compare, check over or infer against for truth or falsity. Because all psychological states and beliefs are private to their owners.

Hard determinism and free will are opposing ideas. They can't both be true. — Truth Seeker

They can be, if and only if they are psychological state. They can be both true, because they are not deductive or inductive facts.

You could say, "yes and no", when asked if you are happy.