Just carefully go through Bartramp's comments and pick out from a slew of self-contradiction. Stop wasting your time my friend.

You agree with gibberish? What do you agree with? — Bartricks

Unless I misunderstood creativesoul's remark, I agree that reasoning is subject to laws of thought and that these are presupposed true in the very use of reasoning - such that their truth can only be a priori to any use of reasoning, including any assertion thereby obtained. Hence, that truth and reasoning are two different things. This in a way touches upon my first post on this thread which you've not yet replied to.

The correspondence theory of truth is not a substantial theory of truth. It is true - no one disputes that it is true - but it is true because it is trivial. It says "a proposition is true when it corresponds to the facts", yes? — Bartricks

This is only a particular instantiation of, "a proposition's correspondence to that which is real", and I take the latter to sum up the correspondence theory of truth. I in my own way agree that the correspondence theory of truth is insufficient, but I do take it to be a necessary aspect of any theory of truth that addresses propositions. (When I say it's insufficient, it for example does not easily explain "the arrows aim was true" or "a true friend" and like semantics of the same term, so to me there's something more general involved.)

But you disagree that it is a theory of truth at all. True is an adjective whereas truth is a noun form of this same adjective. To me truth is not a sharply different semantics from true but, instead, addresses what all instantiations of true hold in common as their property.

I get we don't agree on what truth is. But I'd ask you to reply to my previous post as pertains to the validity of your own theory. For ease, I'll re-post it here:

Dialetheism is the position that some statements are both true and false, i.e. that some contradictory propositions express what is termed “true contradictions”. I hold disregard for dialetheism, but the point is that it uses reason to make and substantiate this assertion. Dialetheism stands in contradiction to the law of noncontradiction (the LNC), which also uses reason to make and substantiate its assertion.

If truth is that which Reason asserts, given that reason can assert both dialetheism and the LNC, would both dialetheism and LNC be true?

If they’re not both true, wouldn’t this evidence that truth is not a product of what reasoning asserts? Reason can assert both dialetheism and the LNC but, here, they’re not both true – hence one given which reason asserts is here necessarily false.

Alternatively, if they are both true, then how does this not negate the LNC in favor of dialetheism and, in the process, evidence that truth is not a product of what reasoning asserts? Reason can assert the LNC but, if both dialetheism and the LNC are true, the LNC would necessarily be false as entailed by the true contradiction of both being true – thereby again making something which reason asserts false. — javra

(As to its last paragraph, I get the incomprehensibility of the LNC being false if it were to be true in conjunction with dialetheims - but this is what contradictions are, incomprehensible. Nevertheless, since the LNC stipulates that no contradictions can occur, were any contradictions to be deemed correct, the LNC would be false - and dialetheism contradicts with the LNC.)

Reason has her perspective of what is true - it’s a limited perspective, but she’s not aware of this - and she ignores and excludes new information that cannot be reduced to logical argument. — Possibility

Flagrantly question begging. Reason constitutively determines what's true - that's what my argument appeared to demonstrate. Now, if you think otherwise engage with that argument - challenge either its validity or one of its assumptions. Don't just state a different view, as if evidence counts for nothing.

Brilliant argument bar tricks. I have come to expect no less from you. :rofl:

Sadly, "Reason" seems not to be shining her light on you, despite your pitiful obsequy. But--you know--call me "Hugh" again--it might make you feel better to think that I have a huge anus, because then you can imagine rendering me butt hurt with tricks you can perform with your (even huger) bar . :joke:

In other words it isn't possible in the context of logical thought which is the basis of reason to know what is the case without knowing why it is the case, — Janus

There are many things that we know are the case without knowing why it's the case. We know for example that quantum entanglement is a fact (it is the case that quantum entanglement occurs), but we don't know the whys of quantum entanglement. I can also know that so-and-so murdered Mary, but not know why so-and-so murdered Mary. In some cases we know why, but in other cases we don't. Just because we have good evidence or good reasons (logic) to support a conclusion that doesn't mean we know for example the causes behind the conclusion, or even all the reasons behind the conclusion.

Just carefully go through Bartramp's comments and pick out from a slew of self-contradiction. Stop wasting your time my friend. — creativesoul

Well at least it provides some sardonic amusement on those lonely mornings of little intellectual stimulation.

Just because we have good evidence or good reasons (logic) to support a conclusion that doesn't mean we know for example the causes behind the conclusion, or even all the reasons behind the conclusion. — Sam26

You need to read more carefully and see that I have already acknowledged that we can empirically know that something is the case without knowing why it is the case.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about "causes behind conclusions". Conclusions are accepted on account of reasons, not causes, and we may not "know all the reasons" for a conclusion (whatever that might mean) but we need to know at least one if it is to be counted as a reasoned conclusion.

...truth is the property of being a proposition that Reason asserts to be the case. When Reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case. Her asserting it, and its being true are one and the same. — Bartricks

Reason doesn't assert. Such talk is nonsense.

There is also no such thing as "the property of being a proposition"...

More nonsense.

That's the gist of this thread.

Read the OP for yourself, my old friend... it's impossible to be taken seriously. The abuse of language is self-evident.

Okay, fair enough.

I do not know what you mean by LNC, or how what you're saying responds to what I have already said about this.

Dialetheism is the theory that there can be true contradictions.

That's not a theory about truth, but a theory about what can be true.

It is consistent with my theory.

For an analogy: utilitarianism is a first-order theory of ethics. It is a theory about what kinds of acts possess the property of rightness (namely, acts that maximise happiness).

Divine command theory, by contrast, is a second-order theory of ethics. It is a theory about what rightness is (namely, that rightness is one and the same as being an act that is commanded by a god).

The two are not rivals, though if the first theory is true then the second would need to be consistent with its truth (as it is).

If one asks "what is right?" one could be asking either the first order question "which acts possess rightness?" or the second order question "what does rightness consist of?"

These are not at all the same question.

Likewise, if one asks "what is true?" one could be asking either the first order question "which propositions are the true ones?" or one could be asking "what is truth itself?".

These are not at all the same question.

Dialetheism is a first-order theory - it is the theory that among the propositions that are true, are contradictions.

My theory - that truth is made of Reason's assertions - is a second order theory.

They're not competitor theories - they're not answering the same question.

As for the correspondence theory - like I say, it is either not a second order theory (and so not a rival view), or it is a second order theory but one that lacks any content and so is vacuously true (and also entirely consistent with my substantial second order theory).

:up:

Say it, don't spray it. Substantiate your claims. As for abusing language, is English your first language? Methinks not.

I do not know what you mean by LNC, or how what you're saying responds to what I have already said about this.

Dialetheism is the theory that there can be true contradictions.

That's not a theory about truth, but a theory about what can be true.

It is consistent with my theory. — Bartricks

Um, OK. I was hoping you'd provide something I could reply to, though.

Reason doesn't assert. Such talk is nonsense. — creativesoul

Argument? Oh, I forgot, you're one of those - you know, virtually everyone here - who thinks that if they say something, it is so. No need to argue. No need to engage with any argument another has presented. Just say it - just express yourself. It's all about self-expression - just be yourself, you can't possibly be wrong.

Now, Reason does assert things because some propositions are true and as the argument in the OP shows, for a proposition to be true is for Reason to be asserting it. Q.E.D.

Ironic coming from someone who substantiates none of his own insubstantial claims, but merely continues to insist that they are somehow true. It's also ironic that you insist on the commonality of human reason as an argument for the existence of a divine female "Reason", when no one seems to agree with your claims.

Um, OK. I was hoping you'd provide something I could reply to, though. — javra

You're out of your depth. Not my fault you can't think of anything to say. Go down the shallow end.

Ironic coming from someone who substantiates none of his own insubstantial claims, — Janus

No, there's an argument in the OP. Read it. Not my fault you don't know an argument from your elbow. You just need more edumacation, that's all. Get some, come back. Read the OP. Then address the argument rather than just saying things.

Argument? Oh, I forgot, you're one of those - you know, virtually everyone here - who thinks that if they say something, it is so. — Bartricks

No, there's an argument in the OP. Read it. Not my fault you don't know an argument from your elbow. You just need more edumacation, that's all. Get some, come back. Read the OP. Then address the argument rather than just saying things. — Bartricks

Your typical response to almost everyone.

What exquisite irony! You are either lying to yourself or you know that you are not at all interested in reasoned argument and are lying to everyone else.

Your typical response to almost everyone. — Janus

Yes, because this:

Argument? Oh, I forgot, you're one of those - you know, virtually everyone here - who thinks that if they say something, it is so. — Bartricks

is true. So it is an appropriate response to almost everyone.

I don't respond that way to those who actually engage with the argument. Only those who don't bother and just blurt things out of their face fronts.

I hope you mean that Sam. :wink:

If is true, then what happened to your "commonality of human reason"?

Fact is, I've read a few of your threads and I can recall no exchanges where you didn't at least end up responding to your interlocutor in this typical way. And it always seems to happen when you apparently can't think of any counterargument.

I think you need to get some self-knowledge happening, little man.

If we define the universe as everything humanly capable to comprehend, and the AI is able to learn and learns everything, possibly more than human comprehension, and is able to communicate everything that it has learned to humans, then it itself should be defined as human comprehension, thus making it the universe. — ep3265

That’s a lot of IFs. Personally, I don’t define the universe as everything humans are capable of comprehending, so I won’t follow you down that rabbit hole.

I do, I wasn't being sarcastic. I didn't read all the posts. I just read a couple of posts.

You're out of your depth. — Bartricks

You, guy, are more than correct in this. When someone does not know what is meant by the law of noncontradiction but considers dialetheism to be consistent with his theory ... I at that point am out of my depth.

Shallow sounds about right right now.

Firstly, as you have already accepted, "potential *energy*" is energy. Secondly, it is only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards. And, in that work, cause and effect cannot and will not be avoided. So, to me, the principles of cause and effect and energy/vibration are all-inclusive no matter the perspective or paradigm of reality one takes into consideration.[/quote]

What you’re doing here is reducing potential energy to energy and energy to vibration, by stating that it is “only potential with respect to the work it is directed towards”. This is a common move for physicists/physicalists (not assuming either), where the ‘potential’ or ‘potentiality’ is only considered relative to the actual, rather than the other way around. This error of correlation (in my opinion) is why quantum mechanics is so difficult for many to understand outside of the calculations.

:smile:

So, you think that if dialetheism is true, it is inconsistent with my theory? Explain - if you can - you know, in a way that a dumbo like me can understand.

Reason doesn't assert. Such talk is nonsense.
— creativesoul

Argument? — Bartricks

You need for me to give you good reason for believing that Reason is not the sort of thing that is capable of making assertions? Really?

Imagination doesn't make assertions either. Thought and belief do not make assertions either.

Language users are the kind of things capable of making assertions.

Assertions are assertions of thought and belief. Reason is not the sort of thing that has thought and belief or asserts it. Rather, it is always the case that some thought and belief is considered reasonable and some thought and belief is not.

Argument? Oh, I forgot, you're one of those - you know, virtually everyone here - who thinks that if they say something, it is so. No need to argue. No need to engage with any argument another has presented. Just say it - just express yourself. It's all about self-expression - just be yourself, you can't possibly be wrong. — Bartricks

Allow me to hold the mirror....

You didn't take my last post seriously, did you. Please do.