2 Responses to “Help! … I don't know what I am talking about ( The pun is intended to imply that I am being sincere about it. I am not stupid. I am not a philosopher. I do have a moderate undergraduate knowledge of applied mathematics. )”

1. admin says:

   September 2 at 8:38 pm

   - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

   Raving wrote:
   > Elsewhere MoeBlee wrote:
   > > Raving wrote:
   > > > MoeBlee wrote:
   > > > > MoeBlee wrote:
   > > > Do you have a problem with tautological descriptions?
   > > I I don’t don’t know know your your definition definition of of
   > > ‘tautological descriptions’ ‘tautological descriptions’.
   

   > > MoeBlee
   > > MoeBlee
   > There is a rich and unexplored region of considerations that are more
   > fundamental that those employed in Godel’s Theorem  …. more
   > fundamental than what you consider here as being logic.

   > I am alluding to critical thinking that directly addresses the
   > properties of perception and the properties of description.

   > Example:

   >   The connection between ….   perception & description

   >    They are tangibly different concepts … leading to different
   > connotations.

   >  ——-

   > A ‘Tautology’ is not a simple; not a worthless; not a flawed  …
   > ‘Description’

   > Tautologies dig deep at descriptive and perceptual concerns. Features
   > that are held implicit in the contextual background are revealed.
   > Declaration is made concerning specific qualities which are being
   > emphasized.

   > Where the ‘Tautology’  ends is the location where ‘Logical reasoning’
   > begins.

   > I am interested in the region where tautology begins and BELOW that …

   > Sorry. I don’t know of any formal language concerning this issues.

   > I do know that the featureless landscape which I am wandering around in
   > is amenable to critical thinking.

   > I am getting very frustrated because whenever I start describing what I
   > perceive; my audience goes silent. My sense is not that I am talking
   > rubbish. Rather, I have lost my audience.

   > Another problem is thus …

   > The considerations which I peruse within my own mind are so intensely
   > implicit and inherent to EVERYTHING; I can easily NOT get around to
   > expressing any ‘content’ with my message …

   > I end up ohhhing  and ahhhing  …. getting excited about … singing
   > the praises of realizations which I NEVER get around to overtly
   > EXPRESSING.

   >

   >    Context seems to be that way.

   > Cordially,

   > Raving

   O.K. …

   I had a quick look-see at modal logic  … at temporal logic.

   These are efforts are pointed in a useful direction but are too much,
   too soon.

   I mean, they are formalizations which for me, are launched without
   sufficient groundwork.

   I am looking to formalize; yet don’t feel ready to commit to the
   marriage yet.

    … I mean that I am concerned with issues of perception; cognition,
   description, memory, epistemology

   All of these things ( and more ) are inter-related

   Formalization is a condensation/convergence of reality/consideration.
   Formalization creates objects of isolated and independent
   consideration.

   I wish to have my cake and eat it, too. …

    … concurrently work inside-and-outside the bounding box of
   consideration.

   Can anyone help?
2. admin says:

   September 2 at 8:38 pm

   - Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

   Raving wrote:
   > Raving wrote:
   > > Elsewhere MoeBlee wrote:
   > > > Raving wrote:
   > > > > MoeBlee wrote:
   > > > > > MoeBlee wrote:
   > > > > Do you have a problem with tautological descriptions?
   > > > I I don’t don’t know know your your definition definition of of
   > > > ‘tautological descriptions’ ‘tautological descriptions’.
   

   > > > MoeBlee
   > > > MoeBlee
   > > There is a rich and unexplored region of considerations that are more
   > > fundamental that those employed in Godel’s Theorem  …. more
   > > fundamental than what you consider here as being logic.

   > > I am alluding to critical thinking that directly addresses the
   > > properties of perception and the properties of description.

   > > Example:

   > >   The connection between ….   perception & description

   > >    They are tangibly different concepts … leading to different
   > > connotations.

   > >  ——-

   > > A ‘Tautology’ is not a simple; not a worthless; not a flawed  …
   > > ‘Description’

   > > Tautologies dig deep at descriptive and perceptual concerns. Features
   > > that are held implicit in the contextual background are revealed.
   > > Declaration is made concerning specific qualities which are being
   > > emphasized.

   > > Where the ‘Tautology’  ends is the location where ‘Logical reasoning’
   > > begins.

   > > I am interested in the region where tautology begins and BELOW that …

   > > Sorry. I don’t know of any formal language concerning this issues.

   > > I do know that the featureless landscape which I am wandering around in
   > > is amenable to critical thinking.

   > > I am getting very frustrated because whenever I start describing what I
   > > perceive; my audience goes silent. My sense is not that I am talking
   > > rubbish. Rather, I have lost my audience.

   > > Another problem is thus …

   > > The considerations which I peruse within my own mind are so intensely
   > > implicit and inherent to EVERYTHING; I can easily NOT get around to
   > > expressing any ‘content’ with my message …

   > > I end up ohhhing  and ahhhing  …. getting excited about … singing
   > > the praises of realizations which I NEVER get around to overtly
   > > EXPRESSING.

   > >

   > >    Context seems to be that way.

   > > Cordially,

   > > Raving
   > O.K. …

   > I had a quick look-see at modal logic  … at temporal logic.

   > These are efforts are pointed in a useful direction but are too much,
   > too soon.

   > I mean, they are formalizations which for me, are launched without
   > sufficient groundwork.

   > I am looking to formalize; yet don’t feel ready to commit to the
   > marriage yet.

   >  … I mean that I am concerned with issues of perception; cognition,
   > description, memory, epistemology

   > All of these things ( and more ) are inter-related

   > Formalization is a condensation/convergence of reality/consideration.
   > Formalization creates objects of isolated and independent
   > consideration.

   > I wish to have my cake and eat it, too. …

   >  … concurrently work inside-and-outside the bounding box of
   > consideration.

   > Can anyone help?

   ?

   Are those who do logic totally jammed up with inside the box thinking?

   Maybe.

   Perception, perspective and description underlay the foundations of
   logic and mathematics.

   Objectivity is purely subjective.  Sorry.  It’s terribly easy to
   forget.

   Logicians are forced to sell their intellectual souls for ‘TRUE’.

   There is only ONE type or real, perfect TRUE in reality.   … It’s a
   completely human invention.  It exists only in the mind.

   Proof?  … I am working on it as I type this.

    … Timeless.  <~~~ There is the flaw.

      :  -  )