Aphorisms and Distinctions

[Vermanubis]

Are you just not reading my posts? You were perfectly able to link a journal the first time you attempted to give an example and now you're acting as if that's completely impossible.

What is so hard about this?
Show me these dumbed down journals that are impossible to learn from.
This is the absolute last time I am going to ask.

Where did I say impossible to learn from? I remember saying that they don't have valuable information to anyone who's seriously interested in the topic.

Your obstinance to defend your misunderstanding of the topic at hand is hinged on a demand that I post material that is unavailable to me without a subscription?

I also noticed you omitted the second argument.

 

[frotaz37]

ROFL

This guy.

 

[Vermanubis]

Welp. That was interesting.

 

[john!]

unlike frotaz, i'm lucky enough to get an actual response from verm instead of a vague dodge, so i ought to answer.

I think you're the one who misunderstands my invocation of the Turing test. There are two kinds of Turing tests: a test which measures AI, and a test of a mathematical problem/algorithm, using a Turing machine. I'd hoped the context would've made that clear.

oh. your definition of a "turing test" is known as a turing machine.

How is it a contradiction? A contradiction is a proposition whose conclusion renders its premises impossible. I see no such thing. I think it's your misunderstanding of the nature of the topic that leads to a false contradiction. Your concept of complexity and language are invalid if you believe that a complex system has the same intension and purpose as its constituency, i.e. that a technical term is only as great as its atoms. In formal languages, for instance, a random arrangement of letters from the set of all letters has a separate intensionality than an individual letter.

Technical terms do not simply contain references to things, rather, they're a package deal: propositions built from atomic particles to create an entirely new particle. When one skins language to a formal state, and invokes propositional logic, they can see plain that words are messes of predicates, truth values and propositions and technical terms emerge to rectify the insufficient propositional force in "simple" language. This is how complexity works, and as I said to the gentleman before you, I defy you to argue this well-documented fact of not just complexity, but all disciplines that associate with complexity, such as natural language.

A little bit of QED: the word sophistry and its substrate. Sophistry denotes subtle errors in reasoning, but connotes a particular method of reasoning: deceitful/equivocal. As we can see plainly, and hopefully agree, this word's meaning is at the very least two-fold and multi-layered, creating an efficient marriage of denotation and connotation, as suggested by the theory of semiotics. It proposes something a string of atomic words is not guaranteed to. It's a semiotic function, for every reference contained in the word (a sophist), a new proposition and from the different layers of propositional value, new ideas/symbols/references with increasingly subtle differences and values that we can infer from the natures of that which are signified by the word, i.e. what is the nature of a sophist? This question and its subsequent propositions act to highlight disparities and identify new properties more apt for expressing an idea/understanding an idea. Just as a mathematical equation is a proposition whose conclusion requires varying degrees of satisfaction, so is a linguistic proposition. A conclusion provides a value and a value a truth. Thus we come full circle and see that technical terminology is a miracle and serves the very purpose I stated in the OP: to understand.

no doubt that with a word like "sophistry", using the technical term is highly preferable to trying to explain the meaning with simpler terms. but just because certain terms have multiple layers of subtle meaning, that doesn't mean that those layers can't be explicitly detailed using atomic words.

if we assume that all human thought can be expressed using language, and we also assume that the full meaning of the word "sophistry" can exist in the realm of human thought, then it follows that the full meaning of the word can be expressed using language (excluding the term itself; there are many ways to express a given thought, as evidenced by the multitude of languages and linguistic structures in human history). there's nothing about the word that can't be expressed using other words.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=13380304&postcount=130

I happen to disagree. Strongly, in fact. See the above paragraph for further reason.

this doesn't meet my criteria; there is no need to facilitate communication between you and your audience, because you are speaking mostly to a technically proficient audience. in that case, using technical terminology does facilitate communication (although i wouldn't call simplifying one's vocabulary "talking in circles" as long as one's words have the same meaning).

It was a very small insert into the body of the text. Nowhere else do I insinuate that I'm emphasizing social communication.

well, okay, but it doesn't really matter. i'm not saying that technical communication is always bad. see above...

See first and second paragraph, please. As a disclaimer, because I know several people will attack me claiming I'm saying this about myself, I'm not saying this in relation to myself, but: yes, an ability to compute complex propositions as those found in technical terms does very much denote a high level of intellect (assuming we can agree that intellect is the ability to compute). I'm honestly shocked at your refusal to acknowledge the vast implications language has. Language is not a silly system of words that just happen to do stuff. It's a dynamic, complex system of meaning, extrapolation, proposition, reference and computation. I've at the very least provided concrete reasoning and examples of my stance; you and the others just seem to enjoy telling me "No, you're wrong" without really contributing any strong valid reasoning or demonstrating any kind of knowledge of the topics that govern language.

Here's some reading on the subject to determine if you are as competent in this field as your demeanor purports to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_logic

Before responding, please take the time to read everything I've said and provide reasonable arguments that don't degenerate to "No u" statements.

i think i addressed this all above. but if you think my last post was a "no u" post, then you ought to re-read it.

 

[frotaz37]

Welp. That was interesting.

If interesting to you is refusing to give reasons why you think the things you think while expecting what you think to be taken as unarguable fact, then yeah sure.

I guess that was interesting.

 

[El Nino]

LOL on fire?

Little do people know, frotaz is always on fire and impossible to put out. Like that awkward burning sensation you only talk about with your doctor.

this doesn't meet my criteria; there is no need to facilitate communication between you and your audience, because you are speaking mostly to a technically proficient audience. in that case, using technical terminology does facilitate communication (although i wouldn't call simplifying one's vocabulary "talking in circles" as long as one's words have the same meaning).

I tend to agree with this.

 

[Vermanubis]

unlike frotaz, i'm lucky enough to get an actual response from verm instead of a vague dodge, so i ought to answer.

Sounds like embittered backlash to me.



oh. your definition of a "turing test" is known as a turing machine.

I said that already.

no doubt that with a word like "sophistry", using the technical term is highly preferable to trying to explain the meaning with simpler terms. but just because certain terms have multiple layers of subtle meaning, that doesn't mean that those layers can't be explicitly detailed using atomic words.

Why would someone explicitly trace "one who deceptively employs subtle fallacies for the sake of intellectual posturing" than just saying "sophistry"? Your argument is absurd and you ignored my demonstrations on intensionality.

if we assume that all human thought can be expressed using language, and we also assume that the full meaning of the word "sophistry" can exist in the realm of human thought, then it follows that the full meaning of the word can be expressed using language (excluding the term itself; there are many ways to express a given thought, as evidenced by the multitude of languages and linguistic structures in human history). there's nothing about the word that can't be expressed using other words.

No they can't be, at least, not successfully, and the fact that you think they can in spite of my explanation leads me to believe that you, much like Frotaz, are arguing because you don't want to be wrong rather to be informed. With this intuitionist reasoning, one could argue that it's preferable to write a song note-by-note, or to track a planet's orbit step-by-step, or that mathematical algorithms are just kind of there and that we can suffice with simple arithmetic. What linguistic structures exist in history that deviate from the fundamental principles of language: form? There are many modes by which one can express a thought, but not all expressions are equal but they all adhere to the same principles of information transfer and retention. What do you mean if the word sophistry can be "contained in human thought"? You're going off in all these different directions, not even touching a single thing of value I said.

this doesn't meet my criteria; there is no need to facilitate communication between you and your audience, because you are speaking mostly to a technically proficient audience. in that case, using technical terminology does facilitate communication (although i wouldn't call simplifying one's vocabulary "talking in circles" as long as one's words have the same meaning).

It does meet your criteria, because it refutes the notion that technical terminology is by-and-large unnecessary and wholly replaceable by plainer language. I made it clear that this was the least of my arguments. If you can't contest my most central point, don't bother contesting at all.

well, okay, but it doesn't really matter. i'm not saying that technical communication is always bad. see above...

No, it does matter. You were belligerently insistent that my primary focus was to employ technical language primarily for social communication.

i think i addressed this all above. but if you think my last post was a "no u" post, then you ought to re-read it.

No you didn't. You've yet to argue any information I've presented about semiotics, cognitive linguistics, formal language, propositional logic or the like.

 

[Vermanubis]

I miss SuperBowser and the others. They were good debate partners.

 

[Theftz22]

We may distinguish between two separate values of language: The internal value, and the external value.

The internal value of language is the ability of language to allow us to form more coherent thoughts and ideas on topics. This is internal to ourselves, it's so that we can more coherently form our own ideas in a way only language makes possible. In internal language then, since its only purpose to formulate your own thoughts, any amount of jargon and complex language you need in order to most accurately organize your own thoughts is perfectly unobjectionable. The use of such language is neither forbidden nor obligatory.

The external value of language however is in its ability to allow us to communicate our internal language to others. The goal of external language is to most effectively and accurately externalize your internal language to your desired audience. In this way we see that the proper use of jargon and complex language is contextual. Jargon and complex language can allow you to more specifically, accurately, and concisely communicate complex ideas to those who can understand the jargon and complex language. So to the properly informed audience, jargon and complex language allows us to most effectively and accurately externalize our internal language, a most proper use. However when this language is not apt to be understood by the audience, the use of jargon and complex language is simply not effective in communication to others, which is the point of external language.

So conceived then I think that is the proper role of jargon and complex language in both internal and external language.

 

[john!]

Sounds like embittered backlash to me.

i dislike people who engage in debate, then back off when they are asked for evidence or their worldview is significantly challenged.

oh. your definition of a "turing test" is known as a turing machine.

I said that already.

i don't believe it said that when i first read it... might have missed it though.

Why would someone explicitly trace "one who deceptively employs subtle fallacies for the sake of intellectual posturing" than just saying "sophistry"? Your argument is absurd and you ignored my demonstrations on intensionality.

i don't know why someone would, but the fact remains that they could.

No they can't be, at least, not successfully, and the fact that you think they can in spite of my explanation leads me to believe that you, much like Frotaz, are arguing because you don't want to be wrong rather to be informed. With this intuitionist reasoning, one could argue that it's preferable to write a song note-by-note, or to track a planet's orbit step-by-step, or that mathematical algorithms are just kind of there and that we can suffice with simple arithmetic. What linguistic structures exist in history that deviate from the fundamental principles of language: form? There are many modes by which one can express a thought, but not all expressions are equal but they all adhere to the same principles of information transfer and retention. What do you mean if the word sophistry can be "contained in human thought"? You're going off in all these different directions, not even touching a single thing of value I said.

no. i'm going in a single direction with a simple argument with simple logic. i will break it down for you...

premise: all human thought can be expressed using language
premise: the full meaning of the word "sophistry" can exist in the realm of human thought
therefore: the full meaning of the word can be expressed using language

what part of this argument do you disagree with?

It does meet your criteria, because it refutes the notion that technical terminology is by-and-large unnecessary and wholly replaceable by plainer language. I made it clear that this was the least of my arguments. If you can't contest my most central point, don't bother contesting at all.

technical terminology is not ALWAYS unnecessary. i never said that. you gave an example in which technical terminology was preferable. i said nothing that your example disproves.

No, it does matter. You were belligerently insistent that my primary focus was to employ technical language primarily for social communication.

"social communication"? what other type of communication is there? communication requires a speaker and an audience. it has to be social.

No you didn't. You've yet to argue any information I've presented about semiotics, cognitive linguistics, formal language, propositional logic or the like.

i'm arguing about your information right now. telling me that i'm not arguing about it doesn't make it true.

I miss SuperBowser and the others. They were good debate partners.

i'm sure you had fun trouncing them. i apologize for not being so easy on you.

 

[Vermanubis]

i dislike people who engage in debate, then back off when they are asked for evidence or their worldview is significantly challenged.

The worldview of both myself, and most contemporary mathematicians, logicians, semioticians, linguists and scientists.

i don't believe it said that when i first read it... might have missed it though.

Seems you've missed a lot so far.

i don't know why someone would, but the fact remains that they could.

You've still yet to to argue against my formal language demonstration on lingual intension that atoms are not necessarily equal to their molecule. Intuitively, yes. Realistically, no. Provide explicit examples, please. You've yet to do so.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/

no. i'm going in a single direction with a simple argument with simple logic. i will break it down for you...

premise: all human thought can be expressed using language
premise: the full meaning of the word "sophistry" can exist in the realm of human thought
therefore: the full meaning of the word can be expressed using language

what part of this argument do you disagree with?

I disagree with the poor formation of a syllogism. I disagree with the implication that certain words exist that can somehow transcend human thought. I do, however, agree, with the conclusion, because, naturally, the full meaning of a word can be expressed using language, in fact, that's why language emerged. I don't see what you're disproving here.

technical terminology is not ALWAYS unnecessary. i never said that. you gave an example in which technical terminology was preferable. i said nothing that your example disproves.

I proved that it's necessary in the contexts I proposed it was necessary in.

"social communication"? what other type of communication is there? communication requires a speaker and an audience. it has to be social.

Plainly confessing what I suspected! You have no background with language or formal logic if you think that to be true. Communication is not exclusive to speaker and audience.

i'm arguing about your information right now. telling me that i'm not arguing about it doesn't make it true.

No, you're arguing some of it; you're just not demonstrating competence on the topic by grasping at straws.

i'm sure you had fun trouncing them. i apologize for not being so easy on you.

It's alright. I forgive you.

 

[Vermanubis]

We may distinguish between two separate values of language: The internal value, and the external value.

The internal value of language is the ability of language to allow us to form more coherent thoughts and ideas on topics. This is internal to ourselves, it's so that we can more coherently form our own ideas in a way only language makes possible. In internal language then, since its only purpose to formulate your own thoughts, any amount of jargon and complex language you need in order to most accurately organize your own thoughts is perfectly unobjectionable. The use of such language is neither forbidden nor obligatory.

The external value of language however is in its ability to allow us to communicate our internal language to others. The goal of external language is to most effectively and accurately externalize your internal language to your desired audience. In this way we see that the proper use of jargon and complex language is contextual. Jargon and complex language can allow you to more specifically, accurately, and concisely communicate complex ideas to those who can understand the jargon and complex language. So to the properly informed audience, jargon and complex language allows us to most effectively and accurately externalize our internal language, a most proper use. However when this language is not apt to be understood by the audience, the use of jargon and complex language is simply not effective in communication to others, which is the point of external language.

So conceived then I think that is the proper role of jargon and complex language in both internal and external language.

Which coincides nicely with my own view. My view only differs in a stark emphasis on the importance of what you referred to as internal language.

I'd also like to point out to anyone who's taken issue with my one paragraph about communication becoming unproductive and subversive, that it's meant, above all else, to suggest one speaker's ability to rigorously define words to continue the discussion. This contrasts to the idea that I was suggesting technical terms be used in phatic exchanges or normal conversation.

 

[frotaz37]

The worldview of both myself, and most contemporary mathematicians, logicians, semioticians, linguists and scientists.

so you're saying that "WELL EVERYONE THINK SO" is an ample substitute for evidence?

Your entire argument is based on other people just accepting that what you say as unchallengeable fact.

 

[john!]

The worldview of both myself, and most contemporary mathematicians, logicians, semioticians, linguists and scientists.

my point stands.

Seems you've missed a lot so far.

you edited your post after i read it. i didn't miss anything.

You've still yet to to argue against my formal language demonstration on lingual intension that atoms are not necessarily equal to their molecule. Intuitively, yes. Realistically, no. Provide explicit examples, please. You've yet to do so.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/

a term's meaning and designation are both reducible to other terms. extensional and intensional. i proved this below and you gave a piss-poor rebuttal without any reasoning, only statements of opinion.

where is your formal language demonstration? please link it.

I disagree with the poor formation of a syllogism. I disagree with the implication that certain words exist that can somehow transcend human thought. I do, however, agree, with the conclusion, because, naturally, the full meaning of a word can be expressed using language, in fact, that's why language emerged. I don't see what you're disproving here.

how is the syllogism poorly formed?

where did i imply that words exist that transcend human thought?

why don't you state the central thesis of your argument in a sentence or two so we can make sure that we are on the same page.

I proved that it's necessary in the contexts I proposed it was necessary in.

preferred, not necessary.

Plainly confessing what I suspected! You have no background with language or formal logic if you think that to be true. Communication is not exclusive to speaker and audience.

when did i say that it was exclusive to speaker and audience?

No, you're arguing some of it; you're just not demonstrating competence on the topic by grasping at straws.

if you think i'm incompetent, it's because you're putting words in my mouth and believing that i said them. i'm starting to think that you aren't able to understand me because my language is too simple.

so you're saying that "WELL EVERYONE THINK SO" is an ample substitute for evidence?

Your entire argument is based on other people just accepting that what you say as unchallengeable fact.

on the east coast, you can find academics who agree with just about anything. it's both funny and sad how verm feels his opinions are validated by those surrounding him, and doesn't think there is any need to provide proof or evidence of his assertions. it's only due to the magic of the internet that i waste my time dealing with people like this.

 

[frotaz37]

on the east coast, you can find academics who agree with just about anything. it's both funny and sad how verm feels his opinions are validated by those surrounding him, and doesn't think there is any need to provide proof or evidence of his assertions. it's only due to the magic of the internet that i waste my time dealing with people like this.

Yeah it's unfortunate and disheartening when people demonstrate a complete inability to recognize their own inevitable bias, especially when it reaches the point that it has reached in this conversation.

It's true what you said about academics. There are way too many to possibly count, so when somebody starts saying "lots of people I know agree" and "most scientists" and things along those lines I think there's a decent chance what they are saying is going to lack substance.

 

[Vermanubis]

my point stands.

In the face of modern academic convention? I don't think so.

you edited your post after i read it. i didn't miss anything.

You did.

a term's meaning and designation are both reducible to other terms. extensional and intensional. i proved this below and you gave a piss-poor rebuttal without any reasoning, only statements of opinion.

where is your formal language demonstration? please link it.

They're not. You probably shouldn't use the words intension and extension without knowing their meaning. Emergence is a good concept to research before arguing this topic. A concept's intension is not just the product of its atoms, rather, the relationship between the atoms and propositions contained therein. In a semantic relationship, the string of letters in an equation 1+2=3 and 2+1=3 violates the idea that equivalence implies identity. The two are equivalent, but not identities of each other, yet they are comprised of the same parts. In contrast to a formal language, a natural language with designated meanings is profoundly affected by the varying connotations of molecular constructs.

Taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/:

"If we think of the sense of “3 + 2” as a small program, there are certainly states, possible worlds, in which we have not executed the program, and others in which we have. We might, then, think of the intension of “3 + 2” as a partial function on states, whose domain is the set of states in which the instructions inherent in “3 + 2” have been executed, and mapping those states to 5. Then, clearly, we can have states of an epistemic possible world model in which we do not know that “3 + 2” and “2 + 3” have the same outputs."

Your job is to now prove that 1+2=3 and 2+1=3 are identities of each other, and that the syntactic relationship bears absolutely no intensional significance. Words work the exact same way: truth functions and propositions. Language is a two-fold phenomenon: identity and relationships. You're trapped in the mode of thought that identity is lone and that relationships cannot alter the output of a truth function.

how is the syllogism poorly formed?

Disjoint.

where did i imply that words exist that transcend human thought?

"premise: the full meaning of the word "sophistry" can exist in the realm of human thought"

By using the word "full," you imply that a non-full version of a word can exist and non-full necessarily entails that there exists a word whose full meaning transcends thought. This serves to prove my point even further that technical language circumvents the equivocal nature of atomic language, as that was a very obvious informal error if it wasn't what you wished to express. With that in mind, you either concede you implied an absurd concept, or that you fell victim to the linguistic shortcomings I argued against in the original post.

why don't you state the central thesis of your argument in a sentence or two so we can make sure that we are on the same page.

Like any complex thing, there are multiple layers and within those multiple layers, a vastly interwoven network of meanings/correlations/implications. Technical terms are a package deal: propositions built from atomic particles to create an entirely new particle. When one skins language to a formal state, they can see plain that words are messes of predicates, values and propositions and technical terms emerge to rectify the insufficient propositional force in "simple" language. In other words, anything that contains something that could be said to be "true" is a proposition, and atomic words can't always successfully construct a well-defined proposition due to conflicting intensions or because they lack the direct relationships of the properties contained within one proposition made from several smaller ones interact to spur new meanings and connote different things.

preferred, not necessary.

See above. Necessary.

when did i say that it was exclusive to speaker and audience?

"communication requires a speaker and an audience."

You're really digging yourself in a hole. Like... really digging in there.

if you think i'm incompetent, it's because you're putting words in my mouth and believing that i said them. i'm starting to think that you aren't able to understand me because my language is too simple.

No, I believe you're incompetent on the subject because of comments like above.

on the east coast, you can find academics who agree with just about anything. it's both funny and sad how verm feels his opinions are validated by those surrounding him, and doesn't think there is any need to provide proof or evidence of his assertions. it's only due to the magic of the internet that i waste my time dealing with people like this.

I guess Sol Kripke, Kurt Godel, Bertrand Russell and the other great mathematical figures of our times who laid the groundwork for modern mathematics/science are just wacky ol' nutjobs. And unfortunately, logical proofs for the abstract typically looks like this: (Take from SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/)

If yφ(y) does not designate at Γ with respect to v,
it is not the case that M, Γ ⊨v [λx X](yφ(y))
If yφ(y) designates at Γ with respect to v,
M, Γ ⊨v [λx X](yφ(y)) ⇔ M, Γ ⊨w X
where w is the y-variant of v such that M, Γ ⊨w φ(y)

And I doubt anyone wants to deal with that. So the demonstrative proofs I'm giving now will just have to be good enough. Not every claim that's ever made can have rigorous, quantifiable proof.

 

[Zankoku]

Just popping in to say that a rebuttal consisting chiefly of "no, you're wrong, because if you look here, you'll see that I'm right" is approaching dangerously close to outright refusal of opposition in debate. This extends to arguments of "am not" and "are too", regardless of how well they might or might not be articulated.

Keep it adult, kids.

 

[Vermanubis]

Just popping in to say that a rebuttal consisting chiefly of "no, you're wrong, because if you look here, you'll see that I'm right" is approaching dangerously close to outright refusal of opposition in debate. This extends to arguments of "am not" and "are too", regardless of how well they might or might not be articulated.

Keep it adult, kids.

I agree under the premise that opinions are being debated, but in the event one is presenting facts/widely-accepted conventions/axioms, then what's the alternative?

 

[Zankoku]

I was more referring to the petty little sub-argument of
"I guess I missed something"
"You missed a lot"
"No, you just edited it in"
"No, you just missed it"
but generally I'd appreciate keeping ego and appeal to authority to a minimum

 

[Vermanubis]

I was more referring to the petty little sub-argument of
"I guess I missed something"
"You missed a lot"
"No, you just edited it in"
"No, you just missed it"
but generally I'd appreciate keeping ego and appeal to authority to a minimum

When someone omits a vital part of your argument, it has to be pointed out.

As for appeal to authority, that's unfortunately the only way to lend credence to an axiomatic argument, as it can't be <proven> to such a degree that many would demand without extensive use of formal logic and axiomatization.

 

[Zankoku]

Now you're arguing with me about arguing.

 

[Vermanubis]

Now you're arguing with me about arguing.

Because you said something that was incorrect--patronizingly so. It's not good etiquette to come into a debate and assume the role of arbiter.

 

[Zankoku]

See, the issue is that Arbiters are generally expensive, fragile, and only useful in the late game. Also, when you're being pressured by a contain on your backside supported by Missile Turrets, the cloaking is relatively useless, and build time on Stargates is generally better spent on Carriers.

Besides which, I came in here because you went ahead and handed out no fewer than three infractions on a forum you don't moderate, to someone you were indirectly encouraging with your tone of words. While it's at least somewhat amusing that you're now taking a condescending tone to the next person up just for posting, it's also kind of a buzzkill that I'm being lectured on form and etiquette by someone who's already taken an equally low level of such.

 

[Vermanubis]

Can't say I didn't see it coming.

 

[john!]

They're not. You probably shouldn't use the words intension and extension without knowing their meaning. Emergence is a good concept to research before arguing this topic. A concept's intension is not just the product of its atoms, rather, the relationship between the atoms and propositions contained therein. In a semantic relationship, the string of letters in an equation 1+2=3 and 2+1=3 violates the idea that equivalence implies identity. The two are equivalent, but not identities of each other, yet they are comprised of the same parts. In contrast to a formal language, a natural language with designated meanings is profoundly affected by the varying connotations of molecular constructs.

Taken from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/:

"If we think of the sense of “3 + 2” as a small program, there are certainly states, possible worlds, in which we have not executed the program, and others in which we have. We might, then, think of the intension of “3 + 2” as a partial function on states, whose domain is the set of states in which the instructions inherent in “3 + 2” have been executed, and mapping those states to 5. Then, clearly, we can have states of an epistemic possible world model in which we do not know that “3 + 2” and “2 + 3” have the same outputs."

Your job is to now prove that 1+2=3 and 2+1=3 are identities of each other, and that the syntactic relationship bears absolutely no intensional significance. Words work the exact same way: truth functions and propositions. Language is a two-fold phenomenon: identity and relationships. You're trapped in the mode of thought that identity is lone and that relationships cannot alter the output of a truth function.

you misunderstand my position; i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning. you're arguing against a straw man that i don't believe in. that's why i asked you to concisely state your position.

"premise: the full meaning of the word "sophistry" can exist in the realm of human thought"

By using the word "full," you imply that a non-full version of a word can exist and non-full necessarily entails that there exists a word whose full meaning transcends thought. This serves to prove my point even further that technical language circumvents the equivocal nature of atomic language, as that was a very obvious informal error if it wasn't what you wished to express. With that in mind, you either concede you implied an absurd concept, or that you fell victim to the linguistic shortcomings I argued against in the original post.

lol, good catch. you would be correct, except earlier i claimed that a term can be broken down into similar terms. when i use the word "full" i mean the sum of those other terms. "non-full" in this case simply means an incomplete definition of a term; in fact, we wouldn't be able to determine the term being defined due to the fact that a full definition wasn't available. a word is the sum of its atomic parts, so without the full set of parts, the word loses its identity. so no, such a word does not exist, although it would with your assumptions.

See above. Necessary.

in that case, tell me an intension or property of a word that can't be expressed using other words.

SPOILER ALERT: after you do this, i will point out that you just did express it using other words, and we will all have a good laugh.

You're really digging yourself in a hole. Like... really digging in there.

so you don't know the difference between "exclusive" and "necessary"?

necessary defines the minimum; exclusive defines the maximum.

speaker and audience are necessary, NOT exclusive.

No, I believe you're incompetent on the subject because of comments like above.

and comments like yours above are why i'm starting to feel like i'm wasting my time.

I guess Sol Kripke, Kurt Godel, Bertrand Russell and the other great mathematical figures of our times who laid the groundwork for modern mathematics/science are just wacky ol' nutjobs. And unfortunately, logical proofs for the abstract typically looks like this: (Take from SEP: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-intensional/)

If yφ(y) does not designate at Γ with respect to v,
it is not the case that M, Γ ⊨v [λx X](yφ(y))
If yφ(y) designates at Γ with respect to v,
M, Γ ⊨v [λx X](yφ(y)) ⇔ M, Γ ⊨w X
where w is the y-variant of v such that M, Γ ⊨w φ(y)

And I doubt anyone wants to deal with that. So the demonstrative proofs I'm giving now will just have to be good enough. Not every claim that's ever made can have rigorous, quantifiable proof.

yes, but it ought to at least have sufficient inductive reasons for its truth.

p.s. the homophones "sol" and "saul" seem to confirm my suspicions that you have been taught by academic speakers and the like.

 

[Vermanubis]

you misunderstand my position; i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning. you're arguing against a straw man that i don't believe in. that's why i asked you to concisely state your position.

How on Earth do you arrive at this conclusion? You very much did say this by saying that atomic words could fully and completely reconstruct and identify with their molecules by saying that technical language was a preference, not a necessity. It's inarguable.

lol, good catch. you would be correct, except earlier i claimed that a term can be broken down into similar terms. when i use the word "full" i mean the sum of those other terms. "non-full" in this case simply means an incomplete definition of a term; in fact, we wouldn't be able to determine the term being defined due to the fact that a full definition wasn't available. a word is the sum of its atomic parts, so without the full set of parts, the word loses its identity. so no, such a word does not exist, although it would with your assumptions.

This doesn't make sense. Expound, please.

in that case, tell me an intension or property of a word that can't be expressed using other words.

SPOILER ALERT: after you do this, i will point out that you just did express it using other words, and we will all have a good laugh.

Tell you an intension? You absolutely do not understand what intension is. Intension is an extralinguistic phenomenon and is governed by symbols and signifiers--not words. An intension's extension is the word used to signify it. Even if it weren't, you're demonstrating a contradiction in your alleged understanding of intension and semiotics in general. Above you said:

i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning

Then go on to say:

a word is the sum of its atomic parts

You're all over the place. You're grasping at straws.

so you don't know the difference between "exclusive" and "necessary"?

necessary defines the minimum; exclusive defines the maximum.

speaker and audience are necessary, NOT exclusive.

This is absurd. The word "requires" in an unconditional imperative. There is no modal quality to it such as a "minimum or maximum." "Communication requires a speaker and an audience," necessarily states that for communication to be possible, it has to be between a speaker and audience. You're playing semantics.

yes, but it ought to at least have sufficient inductive reasons for its truth.

Inductive reasoning? Inductive reasoning can't apply to epistemological questions and has nothing to do with the current topic. Inductive reasoning requires empirical or testimonial data. Mathematics and the current topic are completely a priori and deductive--reasoning of which I've provided copious amounts of. Your adjunct use of "inductive" just makes you seem specious.

Inductive reasoning is only good for providing very basic premises based on generalized observations. It deals with modalities and existential quantifiers like "all" "some" "none"--not things of the current topic's nature.

p.s. the homophones "sol" and "saul" seem to confirm my suspicions that you have been taught by academic speakers and the like.

I don't know what you're talking about, but my calling Saul "Sol" was just me mistakenly defaulting the Hebrew spelling rather than the rare anglicized "Saul."

 

[Laem]

Vermanubis, unquestionably intelligent, has, from OP to 10 pages later, tremendous difficulty in convincing anyone at all. I wonder why that is.

That is all.

 

[john!]

Tell you an intension? You absolutely do not understand what intension is. Intension is an extralinguistic phenomenon and is governed by symbols and signifiers--not words. An intension's extension is the word used to signify it. Even if it weren't, you're demonstrating a contradiction in your alleged understanding of intension and semiotics in general. Above you said:

Then go on to say:

You're all over the place. You're grasping at straws.

tell me then, do you believe it's possible to express any thought using language? if so, then why aren't we able to express intension using language?

and isn't it ironic that you use the word sophistry in sophistry?

This is absurd. The word "requires" in an unconditional imperative. There is no modal quality to it such as a "minimum or maximum." "Communication requires a speaker and an audience," necessarily states that for communication to be possible, it has to be between a speaker and audience. You're playing semantics.

telling you the definitions of words = playing semantics. how does that invalidate my argument again?

Inductive reasoning? Inductive reasoning can't apply to epistemological questions and has nothing to do with the current topic. Inductive reasoning requires empirical or testimonial data. Mathematics and the current topic are completely a priori and deductive--reasoning of which I've provided copious amounts of. Your adjunct use of "inductive" just makes you seem specious.

Inductive reasoning is only good for providing very basic premises based on generalized observations. It deals with modalities and existential quantifiers like "all" "some" "none"--not things of the current topic's nature.

i brought inductive reasoning into this because i thought that's what you were hoping to use after you said that "Not every claim that's ever made can have rigorous, quantifiable proof."

so are you saying that your claim doesn't have rigorous, quantifiable proof? or are you going to try and give us some?

I don't know what you're talking about, but my calling Saul "Sol" was just me mistakenly defaulting the Hebrew spelling rather than the rare anglicized "Saul."

i've only ever heard him referred to as "saul"

 

[Vermanubis]

tell me then, do you believe it's possible to express any thought using language? if so, then why aren't we able to express intension using language?

Thoughts can be expressed, but that doesn't mean the thoughts are the words themselves. Once again, you're demonstrating an underwhelming understanding of intension. Intension can't be expressed using language because that's what extension is--linguistic expression. Extension is the word which maps to an ostensive concept. The word "tree" is not actually a tree. The actuality of the tree and the signification of it are different worlds. If you'd said "extension," that'd be a lot different. This very notion is why the way in which we approach signifying a concept can drastically alter its perception.

and isn't it ironic that you use the word sophistry in sophistry?

What?

telling you the definitions of words = playing semantics. how does that invalidate my argument again?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/requirement:

"1. Something that is required; a necessity."

That's the definition of the word and that's irrefutable proof. Yes, you are playing semantics. You made an uninformed statement that jeopardized your credibility and now you're refusing to accept it. I've proven it tautologically.

i brought inductive reasoning into this because i thought that's what you were hoping to use after you said that "Not every claim that's ever made can have rigorous, quantifiable proof."

so are you saying that your claim doesn't have rigorous, quantifiable proof? or are you going to try and give us some?

I don't buy it. Any person versed on the topic would know instinctively that induction is laughable in epistemology and wouldn't bother to propose it, rather, correct it. I've given sufficient deductive arguments that you've completely ignored. Cited proofs by professionals in their field that you failed to address, much like the four paragraph where you made egregious mistakes in reasoning and opted to omit, hence the thinning argument laid before me now. E.g.:

If we think of the sense of “3 + 2” as a small program, there are certainly states, possible worlds, in which we have not executed the program, and others in which we have. We might, then, think of the intension of “3 + 2” as a partial function on states, whose domain is the set of states in which the instructions inherent in “3 + 2” have been executed, and mapping those states to 5. Then, clearly, we can have states of an epistemic possible world model in which we do not know that “3 + 2” and “2 + 3” have the same outputs."

You conveniently missed this among others. And it does have quantifiable proof, just proof in the form of the lovely mess of symbols and logical syntax I posted a few posts ago. So in that sense, no, I don't at all plan on giving quantifiable proof, rather, proof by a priori reasoning. You're picking what of my arguments it seems you understand and railing against them, but neglecting the deductive reasons I provide as is seen in your habitual omission of many of my paragraphs.

Also:

yes, but it ought to at least have sufficient inductive reasons for its truth

"Ought to" is another slippery implication that you slipped up on. That implies that there is an erroneous lack of a non-applicable type of reasoning. You can't weasel your way out of your mistake. Your arguments have dwindled to embers of defending your misspeaking.

i've only ever heard him referred to as "saul"

That's because his name is spelled "Saul," and I made a mistake by substituting the form of "Sol" that I'm more familiar with. On a bit more playful note, you've only ever heard of him on Google search.

Before I forget

What about these guys?

Originally Posted by john!
you misunderstand my position; i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning. you're arguing against a straw man that i don't believe in. that's why i asked you to concisely state your position.

How on Earth do you arrive at this conclusion? You very much did say this by saying that atomic words could fully and completely reconstruct and identify with their molecules by saying that technical language was a preference, not a necessity. It's inarguable.

i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning

Then go on to say:

Quote:
a word is the sum of its atomic parts


You're all over the place. You're grasping at straws.

How do you plan to defend two positions in clear contradiction? More "misunderstandings" and "lexical errors"?

 

[Zankoku]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/requirement:

"1. Something that is required; a necessity."

That's the definition of the word and that's irrefutable proof. Yes, you are playing semantics. You made an uninformed statement that jeopardized your credibility and now you're refusing to accept it. I've proven it tautologically.

...? Something being a necessity does make it the minimum, right? I mean, just because some software might require a dual-core processor doesn't mean you can't run it just fine on a quad-core. Just because communication requires a speaker and an audience doesn't force it to have nothing else beyond that.

Am I just crazy?

 

[frotaz37]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

"1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

As we've clearly seen, your argument is not compelling minds to accept your assertions as true. Therefore, evidence is your only remaining option if your goal is truly to compel the people you are arguing with to believe that what you are saying is true.

 

[Vermanubis]

...? Something being a necessity does make it the minimum, right? I mean, just because some software might require a dual-core processor doesn't mean you can't run it just fine on a quad-core. Just because communication requires a speaker and an audience doesn't force it to have nothing else beyond that.

Am I just crazy?

"social communication"? what other type of communication is there? communication requires a speaker and an audience. it has to be social.

In that context, one can plainly see he was pigeonholing himself with the word "has," which removes any possibility of modality such as "minimum" or "maximum" in the context of his argument. He tried to backtrack, and it didn't work.

So no, you're not crazy, just a bit too eager to shut me down. Debate with me directly rather than vicariously.

While it's at least somewhat amusing that you're now taking a condescending tone to the next person up just for posting, it's also kind of a buzzkill that I'm being lectured on form and etiquette by someone who's already taken an equally low level of such.

Sorry you think that. At least you got amusement out of it, though.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

"1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

As we've clearly seen, your argument is not compelling minds to accept your assertions as true. Therefore, evidence is your only remaining option if your goal is truly to compel the people you are arguing with to believe that what you are saying is true.

Compulsion is not universal. Georg Cantor, the father of modern mathematics, was laughed at by his contemporaries. However, his posthumous works came to be proven using the axiom of choice and is now the foundation of pretty much our entire modern academic world. Just an example to think about regarding evidence and the obstinance of the mind and ego.

 

[frotaz37]

Compulsion is not universal. Georg Cantor, the father of modern mathematics, was laughed at by his contemporaries. However, his posthumous works came to be proven using the axiom of choice and is now the foundation of pretty much our entire modern academic world. Just an example to think about regarding evidence and the obstinance of the mind and ego.

I can't believe you accuse others of arguing semantics so religiously when it's pretty much all you do in order to avoid giving people real responses.

 

[Vermanubis]

I can't believe you accuse others of arguing semantics so religiously when it's pretty much all you do in order to avoid giving people real responses.

Nothing I give you will quality as a real response. I've accepted this and moved on.

 

[Zankoku]

I'm not debating with you, just clearing up confusing points.

Asking me to debate with you would be pointless.

Besides, you still didn't make things any less confusing. I see that he claimed something has to be social, because (at the minimum) communication requires a speaker and an audience. Somehow, this extended into "lol you're saying communication can only have a speaker and an audience", but that's where there's some huge disconnect I'm experiencing.

 

[john!]

Thoughts can be expressed, but that doesn't mean the thoughts are the words themselves. Once again, you're demonstrating an underwhelming understanding of intension. Intension can't be expressed using language because that's what extension is--linguistic expression. Extension is the word which maps to an ostensive concept. The word "tree" is not actually a tree. The actuality of the tree and the signification of it are different worlds. If you'd said "extension," that'd be a lot different. This very notion is why the way in which we approach signifying a concept can drastically alter its perception.

so... let me get this straight... you're saying that there is a meaning of a word that exists and can be understood by the human mind, but can't be expressed using language, but can be conveyed using language? i have an "underwhelming understanding" of this concept because i believe that it doesn't exist. it's your job to prove that such a thing doesn't exist; pointing to academic #3847 and telling me that he believes it exists doesn't count as proof. do you have any other actual proof, or are you just hoping that i'll take your word for it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/requirement:

"1. Something that is required; a necessity."

That's the definition of the word and that's irrefutable proof. Yes, you are playing semantics. You made an uninformed statement that jeopardized your credibility and now you're refusing to accept it. I've proven it tautologically.

that definition sounds fine to me. i never said anything that would contradict it... care to quote me where you feel i did?

I've given sufficient deductive arguments that you've completely ignored. Cited proofs by professionals in their field

sigh...

You conveniently missed this among others. And it does have quantifiable proof, just proof in the form of the lovely mess of symbols and logical syntax I posted a few posts ago. So in that sense, no, I don't at all plan on giving quantifiable proof, rather, proof by a priori reasoning. You're picking what of my arguments it seems you understand and railing against them, but neglecting the deductive reasons I provide as is seen in your habitual omission of many of my paragraphs.

you won't be able to succeed by scaring me off with logical statements that require a large burden of knowledge to understand. regardless of whether you even understand what you posted, even a priori proofs can be conveyed using simple language. unless you'd like me to find obscure words in a thesaurus and litter my posts with them? it's no different than your copy-pasting a high-level logic proof into your post.

"Ought to" is another slippery implication that you slipped up on. That implies that there is an erroneous lack of a non-applicable type of reasoning. You can't weasel your way out of your mistake. Your arguments have dwindled to embers of defending your misspeaking.

why would it matter if there was a lack of a non-applicable type of reasoning? and for someone who goes on about different meanings of the same word, you're too unforgiving (ignorant?) of the formal/informal uses of terms like that.

That's because his name is spelled "Saul," and I made a mistake by substituting the form of "Sol" that I'm more familiar with. On a bit more playful note, you've only ever heard of him on Google search.

freshman year philosophy, actually... but keep trying to turn your mistake into my inadequacy.

Before I forget

What about these guys?

i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning

Then go on to say:

How do you plan to defend two positions in clear contradiction? More "misunderstandings" and "lexical errors"?

you never even showed me how they were contradictory. you yet again expected me to take your word for it. do people trust you this much in real life?

 

[frotaz37]

Nothing I give you will quality as a real response. I've accepted this and moved on.

Now you're just playing semantics.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/real
"a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence"

In case you haven't noticed, picking the first definition of a word from a website that has multiple definitions of it and then claiming the first definition is unarguable is completely ridiculous.

 

[Vermanubis]

I'm not debating with you, just clearing up confusing points.

Asking me to debate with you would be pointless.

Why would it be pointless?

 

[Zankoku]

It would be pointless because I have no interest in opposing anyone. Play me in tournament sometime, you'll win by asking me to lose.

Besides, you still didn't make things any less confusing. I see that he claimed something has to be social, because (at the minimum) communication requires a speaker and an audience. Somehow, this extended into "lol you're saying communication can only have a speaker and an audience", but that's where there's some huge disconnect I'm experiencing.

 

[Vermanubis]

so... let me get this straight... you're saying that there is a meaning of a word that exists and can be understood by the human mind, but can't be expressed using language, but can be conveyed using language? i have an "underwhelming understanding" of this concept because i believe that it doesn't exist. it's your job to prove that such a thing doesn't exist; pointing to academic #3847 and telling me that he believes it exists doesn't count as proof. do you have any other actual proof, or are you just hoping that i'll take your word for it?

While we're at it, I might as well prove clouds exists, or that grass exists. It's simple. There is a concept, and then there is a word to which that concept maps itself. Intension is <loosely> synonymous with "actuality" or "identity." This can be proven by asking if 3+2 and 2+3 are the same thing. They're different, but refer to the exact same thing: 5. Clearly, 3+2 and 2+3 only signify 5 and are not actually the number 5. "Fünf," "Wu," "Cinco" and "Five" all mean the same thing, but none of them are actually the concept which they signify (5 is the atomic sign for the concept of the respective number). (Unless you can prove that there is no difference between the two). If citations from well-credited academic professionals don't suffice, then we have no alternative but to resort to formal logic and cumbersome propositional equations.

that definition sounds fine to me. i never said anything that would contradict it... care to quote me where you feel i did?

Certainly.

"social communication"? what other type of communication is there? communication requires a speaker and an audience. it has to be social.

For one, you state that there is no other form of communication other than social, which isn't true. If anything, your position that requirement is indeed the minimum enforces the fact that your statement that communication <has> to be social is incorrect.

Secondly, communication does not require, in any way, a speaker an audience. It requires two adjacent nodes, sure, but not a speaker and an audience, let alone a social setting.

sigh...

An appeal to authority is one thing. An appeal to authority that demonstrates success and results from their toil is another.

you won't be able to succeed by scaring me off with logical statements that require a large burden of knowledge to understand. regardless of whether you even understand what you posted, even a priori proofs can be conveyed using simple language. unless you'd like me to find obscure words in a thesaurus and litter my posts with them? it's no different than your copy-pasting a high-level logic proof into your post.

Unfortunately for you, this topic has evolved into one whose success demands such a large burden of knowledge. That large burden of knowledge is how the irrefutable proofs you demand are made. The only alternative is to not unreasonably dismiss the centuries of study from lauded professionals. Also, again with very indicative implications. "Even a priori reasoning can be conveyed using simple language"; implying a priori reasoning was predicated on technical terms?

why would it matter if there was a lack of a non-applicable type of reasoning? and for someone who goes on about different meanings of the same word, you're too unforgiving (ignorant?) of the formal/informal uses of terms like that.

Words like that don't have formal/informal use, especially in debate. I'm unforgiving because if I'm to be held to such high standards for proofs, I expect one whose arguing against the very point I present to examine his own terms and their usage, lest he demonstrate a misconception of the topic at hand by undermining the importance of technical specificity, which "informal" use of a very pivotal word indicates very strongly.

freshman year philosophy, actually... but keep trying to turn your mistake into my inadequacy.

Modal logic--Kripke's brainchild--is absent from many philosophy courses, much less Freshman courses. Why he'd even come up in a discussion is beyond me.

you never even showed me how they were contradictory. you yet again expected me to take your word for it. do people trust you this much in real life?

I trust them to be reasonably rational.

i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning

Then go on to say:

a word is the sum of its atomic parts

Intensional and formal disparities are not atomic--they are meta and extralinguistic. So how can a word be the sum of its atomic parts, while possessing vicissitude under the premise of intensional difference/syntax relationships? A sum is the absolute value of two things combined, yet you say intension and relationship can alter meaning. How can a sum be achieved with missing parts? This demonstrates poor understanding of either the concepts of intension/syntax/form, or you put your foot in your mouth.


Edit: Still missed this guy:

you misunderstand my position; i never said that relationships or intension can't alter language's meaning. you're arguing against a straw man that i don't believe in. that's why i asked you to concisely state your position.

How on Earth do you arrive at this conclusion? You very much did say this by saying that atomic words could fully and completely reconstruct and identify with their molecules by saying that technical language was a preference, not a necessity. It's inarguable.