The only decent answer I could figure out for “true” is that true is an assertion. Just an assertion.

The only decent answer I could figure out for “true” is that true is an assertion. Just an assertion.

===

Words don’t capture all categories or concepts, I suspect.

We can capture externalized concepts and categories and express them in languages. What’s amazing is how well we can work with that arrangement most of the time.

But – internal concepts? That’s harder. Not always an expressible language for that. I wish I were skilled at animation (patience mostly): I could probably express a lot of internal conceptualizations with that.

=====

Whether it’s true or not is primarily a social act. But it starts with an assertion.

=====

Logic is a part of language function.

=====

It can only be evaluated STARTING with the assertion. Then, moving forward in time one can analyze history and infer or deduce that it was _also_ true prior to the assertion.

But it still starts with an assertion.

=====

This is a linguistic view of math/physics structure. It’s good food for thought, I think.

===

It’s a functional view, which presumes “it’s there for a functioning reason”, which probably has a limitation somewhere, but it allows for a “working machine view” of communication.

—–

Yes, and is not a proposition an assertion?

=====

You can call it a statement if you like. There’s a number of ways to describe it.

I’m not adding a mood to “assertion”. There’s no implied force attached.

Rather, I consider an assertion: “Thus is so”.

=====

I’m thinking more in line with computer programming.

LET X = “blue”

is an assertion that X stands for blue and that x is the same as blue in every way but form.

=====

The notion of intention and beliefs always confuse me.

=====

I think what I’m working towards mostly is finding and working with an ontology from which to view relationships between concepts and processes.

The hard part is that it can’t reject anything as invalid as it must be broad and deep enough to capture any possible way of construing knowledge if only in a coarse way.

=====

As I was a stutterer until I received training to control it, my verbal utterances are even now a source of problems for me.

I can find multiple correct ways to word a sentence, right in the middle of talking and the overwhelming amount of choice gets “stuck”.

Writing is easier for me in that way.

=====

Formally, I suppose my stuttering is a case of a collision of available choices along the paradigmatic axis.

======

They’re wishes, fictions, plans.

=====

Stated properly, it could be:

If I go home, I have an expectation that requires you to do something. What I want you to do is to make dinner for me so that it is ready by the time I get home.

=====

It is. Computers don’t actually look for truth beyond the current instruction.

“Move the value from this memory location to that memory location”.

======

Safeguard instructions may be: Does this memory location exist?

=====

Computers use second order logic

=====

Computers assume that everything you say to it is true.

====

Computers use second order logic though. You can create a program that will do first order reasoning and program the rules of Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens and then with the language you created on top of it, have that program evaluate reasoning.

But natively? Computers are not reasoning machines.

=====

There is legal and illegal syntax. But syntax is not logic.

=====

In fact, computers could not work in pure first order logic.
At the very least, you would need monadic second order logic, which allows for infinite binary trees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadic_second-order_logic

—–

You’d at least need to form a theory in the mind in order to follow instructions.

====

Tie heard words to muscle movements corresponding to correct action.

=====

A theory doesn’t need words. Just a private ideation – an abstraction – which ties muscle movements to things seen, heard, touched.

42 minute old babies form theory in imitating faces.

=====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 × = twenty eight

Leave a Reply