Speech is free, but opinions have repercussions. Not by the state necessarily. "Clean up your room!" Says mother. "No!" says junior. "You're stranded for the day!" says mother.

Who exercises suppression of free speech here? Neither one, I suppose. It is not the speech that is not free or gets punished. It is the opinion expressed by the speech.

Sorry, I changed my post while you were making your response. Yes, the response you quoted from me is what I had written originally. Unfortunately the two posts were being written (in my case re-written) simltaneously.

There are several examples of people losing their jobs or being otherwise unfairly maligned for simply stating their opinions on LGBTQ issues, racial issues, religious issues, etc and not just in America but other countries as well. I just picked two examples to illustrate that, that doesn’t mean I want to talk about those topics specifically. — laura ann

While you did supply a name, which I checked; it does not prove or has any logically necessarily link that speech is not free. The people you quoted were fired, shamed; but not by the law. They were fired and shamed by the public, or by their employers, or by their community. This only proves that the community, employers, friends, etc. also have a free will, and a freedom to express themselves. The employers etc. would not be free if they were stopped from firing employees.

I was only saying I don’t think you were necessarily speaking about defending society, but another group, the State. — NOS4A2

this is good.

It was a military arrangement, not by the majority of the people, but by the Nazis. So, no it wasn't a society. — L'éléphant

No society has a complete buy-in by all of its citizens. In fact, most laws, directives, decrees and executive decisions by any government encounters more resistance than not.

Whether it was a military regime, a communist regime, or a democracy, you can't say that the arrangement was not society.

Majority of the people also want abortions, or don't want abortions; it is a military regime that enforces it either way.

In fact, all those who break the law are punsihed by a "miliatary regime", the state's law.

Your logic keeps biting itself in the tail, and tries to swallow itself. Each of your arguments so far can be turned against your own arguments. This is tiresome that you don't see that.

↪god must be atheist having an answer does not equate to instant discrimination, despite your clear belief thatbit must be so. Fear of an answer suggests we already acknowledge the discrimination and that we have to suppress anything which could give support to further discrimination. Still a terrible reason to avoid knowledge. — Book273

Having an answer that supports already established discrimination. You're right, having an answer does not equate to instant discrimination. If I suggested that, I was wrong. However, it seems to me that it's more like your attributing to my having said that, than my actually having said that. Does not matter either way, since that is not my stance. My stance is that having an answer further supports discrimination.

Yes, we do have to suppress further discrimination. You must be on the discriminated end to actually appreciate that, or else you must have some empathy to appreciate that. If you lack both, then yes, it's a terrible reason to avoid knowledge. In my opinion it's a terrible price to pay for knowledge if it supports discrimination.

Each to his own, I guess. You go on your marry way of discriminating, I go on my marry way of supporting ignorance. Governments and public sentiments are also ambivalent. May the best opinion come up triumphant.

Absolutely. In fact, I have never heard an oyster say no.

oops! I'm lying. My Jewish grandmother used to say "NO, keep your hand out of the cookie jar, you little Ganef," and she also often said "Oy," quite a lot.

As to generally: yes, saying No is very hard when a very beautiful woman propositions me, except when it happens when my wife is also present.

But luckily no very beautiful women ever propositioned me. Prepositioned me, yes, postpositioned me, yes, demoted me and promoted me, yes, but never propositioned.

"do societal ethical claims have the ethical right to exclude and stop that area of research the findings of which would undermine the very same ethical considerations,
— god must be atheist

I say that societal ethical claims do not have that right. Simply exercising that right instantly suggests that one knows the position they are in is weak and that any research will further weaken said position, thereby acknowledging that that societal claim is likely wrong and should not be supported. — Book273

I hear you, and I bow to your logic. There is nothing wrong there.

However, consider the fact that if research shows that, for instance, German Sheppard dogs are dumber than Chihuahuas, then maybe German Sheppard dogs will be discriminated against. And discrimination by dog society is really aweful. Nobody will want to copulate with you, nobody will chase cars along with you, nobody will bark at the mailman.

And that's just half of the story. The other half is that German Sheppards will feel AWEFUL. They will go through life feeling stigmnatized. They will be identified immediately by anyone as a German Sheppard, and they will feel the hate. And return the hate.

And that's just the two halves of the story, yet there is a third half. Let's say German Sheppards may be just slightly slower intellectually than Chihuahuas. So there will be a huge overlap in intelligence between the two populations, and only the extreme extremes will be uncovered by the other population. Is it worth spending a huge amount of money and create scientific proof for something that 1. will not make a difference in anyone's life when you think about it, except 2. it will put bitterness, feelings of inferiority, feelings of persecution, and thus, hatred, in a large percentage of the population that could have avoided that should the research not have been done and the results published? People will misinterpret statistics anyway, and statistics are mostly published incomprehensibly or else misleadingly. So for the two handfuls of outstanding dogs -- a few super-smart chihuahuas, and a very few super not-smart German Sheppards, the entire population of German Sheppards are cast into grief, shame, and discrimination-- quite unfairly, since the largest bulk is the same as the Chihuahuas.

The emphasis is on UNFAIRLY. It is unfair to withhold scientific study to find something that some hold dear as a foregone conclusion. But it is also unfair to throw an entire population out the window by discriminating against them due to a minor and insubsequential difference.

They are both unfair. The first one (withholding study) hurts no one. The second hurts a lot of people. Both are unfair.

I think we should go with the first one.

I like the dilemma facing Qmeri. It is not a logical or fact-based error that Q proposes society makes. It is an error driven by commonly accepted ethics.

It is interesting to consider that according to Q's proposition, ethical claims trump factual claims.

The problem is that there are no factual claims.

Then the problem becomes: do ethical claims preempt the finding of factual claims.

This is where society is not willing to go in the case of racial discrimination. And rightfully so, if you ask me.

However, it would be nicer to discuss "do societal ethical claims have the ethical right to exclude and stop that area of research the findings of which would undermine the very same ethical considerations, or do not have that particular ethical right" than to discuss it in the framework of which race is stupider than the other one.

Free speech is free speech. If you want to whine about people using their free speech to oppose your peddling of pseudo-scientific gene garbage, then you don't care about free speech. You just want free speech for the speech you like, while you ramble endlessly about speech you don't. — StreetlightX

I think Qmeri's point is that not all speeches are free. There is a price to pay for some speech. A certain amount of cost. Even though talk is cheap, cheap things still require exchange of negotiable instruments. If talk was expensive, it would cost more, but cheap still costs something.

Speech should be free. It is the evil pharmaceutical industrial-military complex that curtails individual freedom in the UNITED STATES, if you are left-winger, and it is the pasty-assed liberal fuckboys (I've been called that on social media) if you ask the right wingers, that curtails free speech in America, by putting a price tag on it.

More seriously: StreetlightX put the dot on the i with the above quote. You can exercise free speech if you are ready and willing to experience free criticism in the form of free speech.

I think Qumeri's approach is that there are other forces in society that oppose the freedom he wishes to experience in speech: such as jail sentences or social blackballing. Qmeri misses the point that some opinions are so not acceptable to the Zeitgeist, that they are punishable. For instance, advocating to kill people for their liver if you need a liver transplant. In a free society, you'd have the right to do that, and so would everyone else to exercise it on you in turn. Calling people stupid on the basis of the colour of their skin is stupid, and it's so strong in our accepted views, that those who advocate it get punished.

Face the music, suck it up buttercup, close file, close rank, whatever. This may annoy you, Qmeri, but this idea of yours is so repulsive to most people that even if it were true -- who knows if it is or not -- it is so ugly a proposition that we, society as a whole, reject it.

It's like murder of babies for food... you can argue that it would help society and the globe at large if 99.9 percent of newborn humans were eliminated, in order to preserve the globe's functioning power. Logically it works, but there is a strong ethical resentment against biting newborns' heads off.

Qumeri, your proposal's problem is that it does not even work outright and equivocally on the logical level, either. It is a debatable fact, and facts per their nature ought not to be debatable.

This by you, Vishagan, an observation, or a directive? As an observation, I agree. As a directive, I think societal powers develop independently of the wish of the people... they are quasi-evolutionary forces that can't be influenced, other than with totalitarian measures. Thus: capitalism as a division of power and a division of labour, is such a development in industrial production and social arrangement, that its functioning and its nature can only be altered by drastic means, such as with introducing communism (or any other totalitarian system) on a society which then artificially alters natural ways of economy and social order.

It seems like you didnt understand the subject... the text clearly didnt talk about whether or not people are inequal... it talks about the methods modern equality movement uses and how discourse on the topic of equality has changed. — Qmeri

You're right. I missed that. But the equality movement would be useless and meaningless if we were equal. Without inequity, the equality movement could and would not exist. I mean, you could not make things equal if they had been already equal.

Frankly, I don't know how the equality movement works these days versus how it used to work. I remember several inequality movements, and their ways: the Nazi persecution of Jews, the White Man's ( and Woman's) enslaving Black people, and the genocide of North American natives; as well as the exclusion of women from civic rights.

Those days are over. Due to the methods (whatever they were... mainly wars, I suppose) to eliminate those inequalities. Sure there are remnants of it in the culture, which I consider a shame, but the mainline effort is to have those eradicated.

Are we trying to eliminate the same inequalities, or some newer ones, that cropped up since those days? Because, like my previous post suggests, inequalities are abundantly occurring freely in nature and in society.

I hate vegans because they stole my bicycle.

There are lots of ways to be unequal. Social standing, wealth, smarts, height, weight, number of spouses, academic achievement, opportunity, luck, average running speed, propensity to say stupid things, ability to suck up to boss, and so on and so forth.

Saying people are unequal is a weak statement, because it says nothing. There is a bottomless pit if I ever saw any.

Absolutely, Tobias, absolutely.
Please allow me to quote a very short excerpt from an email correspondence with a brilliant friend of mine.

She wrote:
This is chilling, in my opinion.
https://twitter.com/jonniegg/status/1469220563520569344

(end of her letter.)
I replied with this wordage:

This is the point where I break, Dawn.

Technology is gripping mankind, and this is the first breaking point. If this worries you (rightfully so, I am afraid) then the future is not for you.

I decided to roll with the punches. Man can fight men, and man can fight machines, but man can't fight machines that are a thousand times more capable than him.

I throw in the towel.

This is just a first glimpse of the future, Dawn. You either resign to it or you work yourself toward a nervous breakdown. This is the most apt application of the serenity prayer that you must practice. There is nothing we can do, we are putty in the hands of technology.

Don't envy those who own technology. They are laughing now, but not for long. They, too, will fall victim to technology sooner than you thought would be possible.

(end of my message)

And yes, I did play this song to the above friend during her last visit with me. We're headed into "In the Year 2525" incredibly fast, way ahead of schedule. Zager and Evans: genius musicians, song writers.

And if you were forced to decide??? — praxis

Every decision is a forced decision. I decided to abandon Hungary, and live in Canada. But how much of that was a decision? That's another million dollar question.

What I meant when I said "that I can't decide" was that I can't make a value judgement on this. Not that I would be frozen and unable to choose when I was presented to choose between these two choices.

It kind of told capitalism as we practice it that it is not the life's blood that it thinks it is. — James Riley

Thanks for writing this. I never stopped to think of this, but now I do, this instant.

(Diversion from main topic.)

The capitalist's strongest slogan is, "people don't migrate to Zimbabwe, Rumania and Myanmar from the United States of America; the trend is migration in the opposite direction."

I bought this slogan.

I emigrated from poverty-stricken Hungary, to the wealth and health of Canadian democracy and freemarket system.

I felt good about it.

I still feel good about it. Lifestyle makes a lot of difference in life worth.

But there were all those years I worked, when I did not feel good about it. In Hungary at the time when I lived there, work was a joke. But it was bearable and humane. The setup of the whole country's system was bearable and humane. No freedom; no wealth; no opportunity. But it was cozy, comfy, and stress-free. Well, that's a lie; lots of stress, mainly around finances. But much less stress than around employment involvements in Canada. Heck, even getting a new job is a veritable headache, I mean, stress.

So in more humane countries the issue is stress borne from poverty and lacking; in the United States the demand to respond in distress is higher.

-------------

The USA economy is robust, and productive; Hungary's economy was at the time at least, feeble and in imbalance. The personal freedoms in the USA were better, in Hungary, worse. But not counting poverty-related stress and disadvantages, the life in Hungary was just a tad less stressful. There was no threat to the basic physiological and security needs, the bottom two rungs of Maslow's pyramid of needs. There was much more fulfilment in everything else in the USA.

So the big question is: who is happier; those who have limited freedom, access to goods, and can't travel, but feel safe and more comfy; or the other way around.

That I can't decide. Even though I've lived in both situations.

Thanks for the quick answer.

I hear you. I also ask why George W. Bush has not been tried by an interantional set of judges for crimes against humanity.

In fact, all politicians should be jailed. No questions asked-- should be automatic.

Jamalrob, I have been intrigued by the little face in the upper left corner of your thumbnail. It is borne also on the thumbnail of the quicklinks to the site. Is that your portrait, or that of the Young Kierkegaard? All other famous philosophers were born old, he is the only one I know of who had had a youth.

Vaccines reduce the chance of death and serious illness from COVID, are less dangerous than COVID,
— Michael

Which doesn't matter at all when _you_ are the one who suffers the negative side effects of the vaccine. Such as paralysis after a stroke. — baker

You can successfully determine before hand the CHANCES ahead of time, and you can't at all determine before hand the CERTAIN individual outcome.

So... 1999 in 2000 will benefit, and 1 in 2000 will become ill... we don't know which I am going to be, and I don't know anyone who can tell me for sure.

This means that 1999 will defend against coronavirus, and 1 will not.

I ask you to please consider this: if you given a choice to play Russian roulette with a loaded machine gun with 1999 live bullets and 1 blank; or else with a machine gun with 1999 blanks and 1 live bullet; which machine gun will you choose?

I had struggled with that question in the early part of my adult life.

Apparently, and it took me just as much by surprise as it will take you now, it is a question known to be mainly (or only?) entertained by those who have before or after the obsession with this thought severe psychosis.

This was in the DSM IV. (Diagnostics and Statistical Manual, fourth edition.) DSM is the hand book of psychiatry, to help establish or identify the mental-emotional-cognitive disease a person who suffers from it.

The passage said that this question is never resolved, and the person just gives up and goes on to tackle other obstacles in his or her life; eventually the question and the need for an answer fades out so much so that it, for all practical purposes, disappears.

Thank you for your lovely and thought-provoking dissertation, Tobias.

In terms of detection, there are two things to consider:
- is an act an act of nature or an act of magick
- if it is an act of magick, and can be identified as such, can the originator or origination be identified?

Imagine there is a group of bears approaching a house and they tear the dwellers of that unit apart. Then the bears leave, without damaging property or thieving. Not eating from the carcasses of the humans they had just torn apart.

Can it be established sufficiently that they had been summoned? Yes.

Now imagine a dog who becomes rabid and bites everyone in the house. Everyone dies a horrible rabidity-related death. Can magick action be proven here? Or even suspected? The dog could have contracted very easily rabidity by itself. By random chance. Or else it and a rabid animal could have been summoned to perform the act. This can only be decided by repeated occurrence in the community. If it occurs at too high a rate, then magick could be the souce. But what is the statistically significant number, under which the occurrence is random, and above which it is intentional?

Now, take the case of a deadlier pandemic than our current Covid. It is a disease that propagates automatically. Was the first virus created by magick or by natural selection, or by humans in a lab? Totally undecidable.

-----------

Part two is: Whodunnit? Say, it can be established that magick was involved in an illegal act. Do we know who the magus is?

If there is a list of known magi in the community, then they can be questioned... very carefully.

If magick can be performed by anyone, using magick rituals, then we must look for remanants of magick activity, and hopefully we can find footprints, fingerprints, dna evidence of the person having performed the magick.

If, however, magick needs no rituals, and it is undetectable when it is performed or brought into action, then there is no way of enforcing any rules because the perpertrators (magi) are unidentifiable.

----------

Enforcement of rules to govern magick:

- this is the most sensitive part of the process. Presumably a magus can retaliate, at least some magi, even when incarcerated. He or she can retaliate against the arresting officer, against the detectives, against the crown prosecutor, against the honourable justice. Without any possible repercussions to the magus. Do we want this to happen? Obviously we do, but the police, the law enforcement, the judges, don't.

-----------

So my opinion is that it is totally possible that magick is alive and well when considering the aspect of its relationship to regulation and enforcement. We don't hear about its illegal use, because those whose jobs are to detect and punish illegal users or performers of any act, are not stupid enough to enforce the rules against magi, for fear of obvious unavoidable retaliation; and to avoid public panic, they hush up the fact that magick acts are alive and well throughout the land.

I'll vote for 180s since he can't vote for it. It is sad for a thumbnail not to get even the house vote.

Jews are evil', and repeats this to the public in an attempt to make people believe it. Now let's say that Goebbels knows that it is a lie. This means that he actually believes that Jews are not evil. So if he believes that Jews are not evil, then why would he want others to think that Jews are evil? — clemogo

1. It was generally believed that eliminating Jews from capitalist power helped the economy. It did, because redistributing ownership did. What they did not see was that they could have singled out any other delimited group with capitalist powers, and taking away their stuff would have helped the economy too.
2. The hatred gave a reason to arm the nation. The arming of the nation put an end to the overproduction crisis the world was suffering of. They said they needed to arm to exterminate the Jews. Again, the onus was put on the wrong thing... it's not the extermination of the Jews that was the key to economic recovery, but the pre-war economic boom.
3. It helped Goebbels to utter the lie to get economic and political clout. If he hadn't accepted this lie as his slogan, although he knew it was a lie, he wouldn't have risen to second in command in the nation. In fact, he would have stayed being a nobody.

But this is absurd to me. Why would someone want to convince someone else of something that they themselves think is false? — clemogo

Because spreading the falsehood provides the liar with personal advantage.

Do you think Jesus believed when he said to his guards (something to the effect): "Don't you think I could summon 10000 angels with swords to defend me?" Jesus warn't stupid. He was not insane. He lied throughout his entire career as god on Earth.

Do you think Justin Trudeau, the current Prime Minister of Canada believed himself, when he said, in face of a huge and growing national debt, that "the budget will balance itself"?

Do you think George W. Bush, war criminal, believed himself, when he declared on national television, that "we know that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction"?

I think the "live in the present movement", Feng shui, power of positive thinking and similar movements may have grown out of a repeated lie. As well as the power of prayer, the image of a benevolent but evil god ruling over the universe, etc.

Heck, even the language may have come from a need of misguiding other early humans. We like to think that langauge was developed to serve communication of truths, but that is just as possible as development of miscommunication.

Tobias said it right. There is no quote and no part of the quote that Goebbels beleived it was the hatred of Jews that was a lie. He did not even tie it to Germany or its agitational propaganda type slogans.

My point is, that he does not have to believe in p and not p when he lies. His lie about p is that he says p is true while he believes p is false. There is no paradox. He does not have to believe his own statement, when lies.

People are humans in numbers greater than one; but it does not necessarily contain all people, including the self. Thus, not all people will believe a repeated lie, including the utterer of the lie, while at the same time the statement is true, because more than one person will believe the lie if repeated.

What happens to my body, my thoughts, or my money when I’m dead, proves it never really was mine. — Present awareness

The way I look at it, those things are mine while I'm alive. When I'm dead, they cease to be, true, but that does not prove at all that they were not mine while they were mine.

There is no permanence, true. But temporary ownership IS ownership.

The [..] supposed quotation of Joseph Goebbels has been repeated in numerous books and articles and on thousands of web pages, yet none of them has cited a primary source. — Cuthbert

I would say go no farther searching for the primary source: it was Goebbels who was the primary source of things Goebbels said.

If he said that "Jews are despicable, stinking, evil bugs that are worth squashing", and it was a lie, then he lied for his own personal advantage, not because he believed that Jews were despicable, stinking, evil bugs.

In Nazi Germany you had to go with the flow; high ranking officials had to really go with the flow. To Goebbels (if the claim is true) it would have been equally inconsequential to say he hated the French, the Plynasionas, the Injuns, (a people in West Tibet), the Hungarians, the Chinese or the Nibelgerus, if he had to say he hated those to get ahead.

He presented NO contradiction or self-contradiction when he said he'd be lying if he said he hated the Jews. He did not hate them, but he lied, in order to gain personal political advantages.

Your ideas are yours, and nobody can take them away from you.

It does not matter that they had been sourced form elsewhere (if they had.) Your money is your money, despite the fact you did not make it.

Another way to look at it is that people like to have others to agree with their ideas. Whether they are good ideas or not, and also whether they are their own original ideas or not. Hence, proselyzation.

There is also civic, or secular, proselization, outside of atheistic dogma. There is, for instance, political correctness. They reform the speech, in the hope to reform the thought. Political correctness is highly unpopular, and I say not only because it wishes and endeavours to alter people's values, but also because the decree comes from humans, not form a deity. Deities have the right, in the esteem of most humans, to interfere with human nature; other humans don't have the right to get inside your head and shape your thoughts and values.

From my personal point of view, when I have a good idea, I like to take the praise for it; when I have a bad idea, I work it into a joke (but nobody ever laughs); and when I have no idea, that's how I spend most of my life.

For me, inner consistency is not an issue. If I had espoused a wrong idea, and stayed consistent, then I'd be doggone. I appreciate that I can change my mind on issues, when a logical consideration or a rational need necessitates it.

I think consistency can lead to dogma; and the RC church since the age of Enlightenment has been heavily accused of holding values true that are proven to be not true. This is due to their consistency to stick with their faith-driven and scriptures-driven ideals. Same thing can be said of communist ideals. Anyone can attest to that who had lived in a communist country.

Quine's Two Dogmas of Empiricism. — Banno

I don't know what the Two Dogmas of Empiricism is by Quine's. You are shortcutting the long argument, and I am not able to handle that, as I am uneducated in philosophy. This thread is also veering away from its original spirit -- a thread with reasonable thought of the dilettante, vs the short-cut referencing by highly learned individuals.

You guys say, "why prove something that you can't doubt." I can answer that easily.

What I can't doubt is not proof. It is an undoubted impression.

By proving that an impression has the proof strength of a priori truths, is a proof of an empirical truth on the a priori level. THIS is phenomenal, as this is the only proof that breaks the boundary between empirical and a priori proofs. Sort of a cross-over hit in the vernacular of the top-40 hit radio announcers.

I don't want you to get excited about this as much as I am. To me it's gold... to you it's nothing. That's fair. Each to his own. I don't like cabbage rolls, while you may not like smoked pork fat. I like cross-over proofs that prove an empirical truth on the a priori level. To you guys it's an inappropriate proof.

At this point it's not a logical argument, but an argument on personal values, and if we continue this to the extreme, we'll get into a shouting match. Therefore I withdraw from this thread, you can continue and I won't even look at it.

Of course, if you can't doubt your existence then proof is inappropriate. — jamalrob

I don't see that. You can not doubt your own existence, but that doubt is in the empirical realm. If you speak in the completely a priori realm, then you don't exist, as physical structures don't exist there. (IN pure logic.) With, and only with, "cogito ergo sum", the two realms are connected in one fell swoop.

The proof is only inappropriate if you bind yourself to accept empirical truths. If you bind yourself only to a priori truths, then the self, which is physical, is STILL THERE.

You may argue that the self is not physical.

(1) I answer to that that in a priori logic nothing thinks.

(2) There is not a symbol in symbolic logic that means "think". And all a priori logic can be described by symbolic logic.

I am winging (1) and (2) but I am not sure that I am wrong.

So if the act of thinking is not a priori, then it's in the physical world. and therefore QED "cogito ergo sum" connects logically the only proof of anything in the physical realm to the a priori realm.

es, this was Descartes' point, which GMBA has either misunderstood or just described incorrectly. — jamalrob

I admit ignorance of the context in which D said his "cogito...". I am only familiar with the utterance. I don't pretend to know more of the context.

However, my interpretation of the utterance, not considering the context at all, is correct.

From your point of view, if I say, "I think", it is not decided whether it is true or false.
— god must be atheist

Not at all. "I think" is true. — Banno

Please explain.

In my opinion your assessment of "I think" uttered by me is guided by your senses. This brings up the entire question of whether we can trust our senses. Hence, the division between empirical and a priori truths.

Case 1. My utterance "I think" is both empirical and a priori to me. Case 2. "I think" when I utter it, but not you, is wholly empirical to you. The truth value is not equivalent in the two cases.

You're right about that. Who would doubt his own existence? The significance here I believe is the proof. That a proof exists that connects the empirical realm to the a priori realm.

Without spirit there is no reason for the soul, without soul, no reason for consciousness, without consciousness the mind is an empty vessel. — Book273

That's certainly one way to look at it. As from a philosophical point of view, your claim can NOT be proven wrong; it is not necessarily true, but it can't be shown to be necessarily false. Well done.

It's an assumption for the purposes of the argument. That is, it is where the argument starts, in terms of it's logical structure. — Banno

This is true. It is also true that you can declare that an assumption in a logical structure be false or true.

From your point of view, if I say, "I think", it is not decided whether it is true or false.
From my point of view, when I say "I think" it cannot be false.

The proof is only a connection of the physical world to the world of logic, when interpreted by the speaker; and then it is an absolute proof, of a priori strength.

I guess you know Jonathan Miller as Bertrand Russell? — Cuthbert

Loved it!! I hadn't known. Thanks for showing it!