On Jul 26, 4:09嚙緘m, backspace <
stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a traffic robot is both green and red due to ''intentionally ''
> connecting it as such at the street we have a contradiction.
OK, with you so far, we'd have a bit of contradictory advice.
Typically resolved through a meta rule
A picture
> of a green/red robot in a book is an oxymoron at first sight,
Not really, oxymorons are terms, not images.
> it only
> becomes a contradiction when we know the ''intent''
Don't think that is necessary or relevant here
>. A tornado hits a
> robot shorting the wires and lighting up the green/red leds, we have
> an oxymoron and not a contradiction because tornado's don't have
> intent.
We have neither. Robots are not linguistic entities, hence they are
neither oxymorons nor contradictions. You could say that the message
given by the robot is a contradiction - and it is that regardless of
where it was caused by a tornado or by a prankster playing
intentionally with the wiring.
> Only intentionality,will, volition or purpose maps an oxymoron
> into a contradiction and a pleonasm into a tautology.
>
Not really, no. The difference between oxymoron and contradiction,
pleonasm and tautology has nothing to do ith intent, and everything to
do with syntactic categories. Only terms are sometimes pleonasms or
oxymorons, only sentences sometimes tautologies or contradictions.
> Only premises could be contradictory or tautological.
Of course not. Conclusions can be just as well. Every syntactic entity
that can have truth values 9normally, sentences) qualifies as possible
candidate.
>A sentence isn't
> a premise, because a sentence as a symbolic representation of a
> premise doesn't 嚙箱onstitute the essence of 嚙稼[Purpose1]], will or
> volition.
The "because part" makes no sense.hat makes a sentence a premise is
simply its place in an argument.
> 嚙瞎axwell's equations describe the property of magnetism but
> not the essence of magnetism: nobody knows what energy or magnetism;
> its essence is.
e don;t kno, from a scientific perspective, what the essence of
anything is. Science gave up the search for essences long long time
ago, and settles for what can be described.
> Sentences have a physical location,
Well, yes and no. sentence tokens yes, sentence types no.
>but purpose or
> will has no physical location. This is not a falsifiable view, but
> neither is the reverse. 嚙瘦od and humans with intentions use *sentence
> objects* to express their premise, their premise can only be decoded
> by signal receiver if there is mutual agreement on the symbolism with
> either an acceptance or rejection of Type Video1 or Type video2
> symbolism.
>
> Question: Is falsifiability itself falsifiable?
"Falsifiability" is a term. Terms are neither true or false, hence
also not "falsifiable". Only things that can in principle be true or
false can be falsifiable. Theories (in the limiting case, theories of
only one sentence) are the typical example of something that may be
falsifiable.
So if you mean: "is the theory of falsification falsifiable" you need
to be a bit more specific. Popper's original formulation, in the Logic
of Scientific Discoveries, was arguably not just falsifiable, it has
been falsified. That's because a very specific version was presented
at least in part as an accurate description of how science in practice
works - and subsequent studies (by Kuhn, initially, and then
generations of historians of science) showed that scientists typically
(and for good reasons) do not behave like Popper's theory predicts.
Every theory of falsification that too makes the claim to be an
adequate description of actual scientific practice can be falsified
the same way.
Popper later shifted the focus away from actual scientific practice
and said that falsificationism was mainly a normative claim:
Scientists OUGHT to produce easily falsifiable theories and abandon
them as soon as counter-evidence is presented. OK, with that sort of
statement, the question of falsification is more difficult to answer.
Generally, commands are not the type of sentence that can be true or
false, hence they can't be falsified in principle. However, as soon as
a justification for the command is given, that can be falsified. So,
"scientists should develop falsifiable theories because this is the
fastest way to grow our knowledge" is falsifiable.
<snip unintelligible stuff about videos and copper>
>
> YEC 嚙窮re using volitional type language that was used to represent all
> concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
> Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
> objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
> contrasts are not *assumed*.
As far as I can make sense of what you write, you confuse "having a
third alternative" with "talking about different alternatives"
Purpose vs non-purposive is simply a different pair from "goal
directed vs non-goal directed", and bot are different from random vs
non-random.
Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
> wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
> not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
> what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.
>
> By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
> and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
> have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
> neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.
another non-sequitur, That logical tautologies are not falsifiable
does not mean we can't proof (in some cases) or argue for (in others)
for their validity. That's what logicans and mathematicians do all the
time. Falsification is simply only a property of empirical claims.
> There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
> objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
> the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
> majority metaphor.
seems to make no sense whatsoever, or at least a very unorthodox
meaning of "metaphor"
<snip more stuff I can;t make any sense of>
>
> In other words instead of informing me as to the "meaning" of
> random,undirected,non-random etc. 嚙範esignate the type of video(vid1)
> or Vid2 you would upload to Youtube to represent what is meant with
> 'undirected' in the ID wikipedia page. 嚙瞌ne would especially be
> interested in Video type 3 , the video demonstrating the third
> alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern with a purpose,
> this is the type of video John Wilkins, Dawkins, Burkhard actually
> mean with the objects random,non-random. If only they would upload it.
Videos of mathematical properties are pretty pointless. Non-random
simply means : can be predicted with certainty, random means: can only
be predicted, if at all, probabilistically.
If I HAD to make to videos, the first would be of someone about to
drop a ball 9or a rock being dislodged from a mountain through wind,
doesn't matter which) , me putting a mark on the ground where I think
the object will end up, and the object then actually ending up there:
non-random event.
Random event: film of someone throwing a fair dice, me predicting
before every throw the outcome AND before all throws that after a
large number of throws, every side ill show up roughly in similar
numbers. Me getting it wrong with most individual throws, and getting
it right overall: random event(s)