What does this have to do with gender equality? I'm talking about his "theorizing" and his "nomenclature". I am talking about his method and his "grammar." I am talking about the future state of existing true statements that may exist in our scientific literature in "the next 100 years." I am dealing with Popperian-style skepticism; this is philosophy of science. Please, understand. I want sense, from nonsense. That is a big issue to me, essentially since I just read his post with http://antijingoist.github.com/AlphaSymbolic/. And quite frankly, I'm not happy about it. All I see is a logical paradox. A sequence of linguistic markers, and his paradoxical blobs of AlphaSymbolic text is way to clear to me. It's way too eerily clear.
This human man is clearly using language in a way that is expected and fits along a normalized pattern that suggests "rational." However, his theorizing immediately leads to "explosion"; so it is a matter, then, of what content quantities of his exist which, in principle, say nothing. How much of any of this paradoxical language exists? And how did we get to a point in society where what he says passes off as passively authoritative? -- What are we filling the Internet with? -- Ultimately, when I reflect on Godel's proof, Candor's diagonalization, it all becomes too clear that our Western society is intolerant to difference; and this can undermine scientific progress.
I am concern'd with consistency and the stress of things like general internet ecologies (and hypermedia applications) on organic cognitive systems (like us). Because, quite simply, What is going on here? What is he talking about? Is it informational? Operational? Pragmatic? Dogmatic?
What does his content and its ilk engender in terms of rational, dialectical discussion with no obvious linguistic glitches that mislead and misinform.
And really, you nerds write like robots all day. I have to put up with that, and I cannot use expressive language?
You address none of my claims; the response I get is "butthurt."
What is this? That is what I am asking. Right now. This conversation; starting from "boy's disorder"; and then "butthurt" -- what is that? It's a mod-chic-Nietzschean way of saying "womanish." Did I fail to generate a proposition such that your internal theory of mind, or inner homunculus, do not perceive it?
[Edit:] Fascinating. 1 hour, 5 downvotes and a response later, still none the wiser. I even gave away a futuristic subplot for it. Low point.
Please see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/.
This human man is clearly using language in a way that is expected and fits along a normalized pattern that suggests "rational." However, his theorizing immediately leads to "explosion"; so it is a matter, then, of what content quantities of his exist which, in principle, say nothing. How much of any of this paradoxical language exists? And how did we get to a point in society where what he says passes off as passively authoritative? -- What are we filling the Internet with? -- Ultimately, when I reflect on Godel's proof, Candor's diagonalization, it all becomes too clear that our Western society is intolerant to difference; and this can undermine scientific progress.
I am concern'd with consistency and the stress of things like general internet ecologies (and hypermedia applications) on organic cognitive systems (like us). Because, quite simply, What is going on here? What is he talking about? Is it informational? Operational? Pragmatic? Dogmatic?
What does his content and its ilk engender in terms of rational, dialectical discussion with no obvious linguistic glitches that mislead and misinform.