Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Another Muddled Exposition of The PaAaSaF Argument

A Concise ( Reduction ) of Elemental Arguments

For The PaAaSaF Argument 


Introduction :

                   This introduction should perhaps be at The End of The Summation, But i was thinking;
Why Not just get it out of The Way — ( !!! )

The The PaAaSaF Argument suggests that Humanbeans are Incapable of True Thinking along with The Corollary Idea that Logic is Bunk. That is; Even if there Existed This Think called ‘Thinking’; It is also Impossible, Based on The Simple Observation that Using Its Anti-Thesis; Jiggery Pokery, or Joke ‘Logic’, You can Create Arguments that are Indistinguishable from ‘Real’ Logical Arguments— That Can Create Irrefutable Arguments to Prove Anything.

The Anti-Thesis of That; Is that Real Logic or Real Thinking should only be able to Prove True Things. Real Thinking should only Allow ‘Thinkers’ to ‘Believe’ True Things.

i would be willing to ‘Allow’ that in A Functional Pragmatic World; These Thinking Entities would be able, or allowed to ‘Act’ on ‘Assertions’ with very low Fractional Truth Values; But— The Thinkers would never Delude themselves into ‘Believing’ that these Assertions were ‘True’, & The Thinkers would most Definitely have a Very Thorough Understanding of The Very High Criterion for ‘Believing’ that Something is ’True’ & Elevating that Belief to ‘Knowing’ that Thing ( ? ) !

In Short :

To Believe something; You have to firstly ‘Believe’ it, & Also Have very Good Reasons for Believing it.

To Know Something; You firstly have to Believe it; Have good reasons for Believing it, & It must also be True.

How you ‘Know’ that something is Really True is The Big Trick !

- -


Thinking is Distinguished from Non-Thinking by This Single Criteria That The Functionality of Thinking Allows The Thinker to Take Reliable Observations of Reality & Extend those Impressions to Additionally Reliably ’True’ Thoughts.

There are many kinds of Non-Thinking; But we are only concerned at this time with this one kind of Non-Thinking that Humanimal Brains Perform. This Particular Kind of Humanimal Non-Thinking was Tinkered together by Darwinian Evolution, A Reasonably Intelligent Creator or Transcendental Angels, with or without The Supervision of Gawd— To Create a Highly Functional & Reliable, Emotionally Driven Hammer that would provide Each Biological Robot with a Good Survivability Potential & A Much Greater Survivability Potential for Their Genome in A Chaotic Environment that is Really Too Complex & Unpredictable for Any Thinking Device to Equal The Survivability Prospectives of A ‘Reactionary’ Device.

And this is Why; Although Machines; Computers or Mechanical Cogitators may be able to Express Genuine Thinking; Humanimals Can Not. Even by Attempting to Simulate Real Thinking; Our Brains will simply Rebel Against It ( !!! ) The Human Brain will Not Allow Thinking to Take Place in Our Neural Networks.

- -

Failures of Thinking :

The Most Readily Available Technique for Solid Symbolic Thinking is Propositional Logic, which may be Extended in its Functionality to Real World Antecedents with The Inclusion of Fractional Propositional Logical Operators. These allow The Antecedents & Succedents to take on Fractional Truth Valued from 0 1, Instead of The Usual Propositional Logical Approach of Only Allowing Statements to Be Either Entirely True or Entirely False.

Nothing in The Real World is Entirely True or Entirely False. Even Nearly All Mathematical Declarations have a measure of Variability !  Only Rigourously Defined Expressions for Use in Locally Restricted Arguments are Exactly what you claim them to be ( !!! )

#                 name          f.p.logic


1                 Null            0

2                 Not Or        1-(Max(p,q))

3                 Just Because                                                     Min(p,(1-q))

4                 Not q          1-q

5                 I Said So     Min((1-p),q)

6                 Not p          1-p

7                 Not Equal / XOr                                               ABS(p-q)

8                 Not And      1-(Min(p,q))

9                 And            Min(p,q)

10               Equal / Not XOr                                               1-(ABS(p-q))

11               p                 p

12               Because      Max(p,(1-q))

13               q                 q

14               If Then       Max((1-p),q)

15               Or               Max(p,q)

16               Tautology   1

: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

These Operators have Never been Used in Any Way to Apply them to Any Real World Sentences or Analyze Any Real World Problem.

There is a Another Kind of Propositional Logic called : Boolean Logic which is supposedly used in Computer CPUs to do Their Thinking; But These CPUs are actually built on Layers & Combinations of Not-ANDs to create a very wide spectrum of Specific Computer Functions; Such as ADD ( Which is Used for All Arithmatic Functions ! ) & moving Data Around. This is also Not-Thinking.

Another Kind of Symbolic Logic allows for all sorts of Clever Inclusionary Set Functions; But this has Never been Applied to Real World Problems or Analysis Either.

- - -

The Most Salient Problem though with Attempting to Convert Any Structural Approach to Logical Analysis is that you must Initially Provide a Truth Value to all of your Initial Premises, Statements & Axioms. How would you do that ?

                   How ‘Sure’ are you that there are Elephants in Africa ?

                   Are their Unicorns in The Caves on Mars ? There isn’t really any Data at all for this One Way or The Other; Yet many Humans would be more than passively eager to set this probability at 0% & feel that this is The ‘Scientific’ Response ( !!! )

                   Who Murdered JFK ? Does Oswald deserve a 40% Probability ?

                   How certain are you that Neil Armstrong Walked on The Moon ? 100% Sure ?

                   How Much does a loaf of Bread Cost ?

                   Was The Man you Grew Up Really your Father ?

                   Under The Most Favorable Circumstances; With The Simplest of Constructive Arguments; The Best Imaginable Result will be A Tiny Probability that your ‘Conclusion’ is Pretty Much True.

                   So that without all Structural Nonsense; This is what our Humanimal Brains do, on The Fly, Instantly providing us with ‘Best Guess’ Solutions to Survival Strategies.

                   Which seems to work, often enough.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o



tpa                                                                The PaAaSaF Argument ( The Passive Argument )

PaAaSaF                                            People are About as Smart as Fish

thinking                                             Rational Judgment that Leads to Truthful Knowledge

logic                                                            A Methodology of Producing Reliable Proofs

Proof                                                            The Demonstration of an Assertion’s Truth Value

Deduction                                          The Assumption of Validity in Observed Instances, that Adhere to A General Law or Principle

Induction                                            The Production of A General Principle from Collected Facts

Jiggery Pokery / A System of Alternative Propositional Logical Operations which produce The Effect of Allowing An Argument to -Prove Anything- .

Creativity                                           Creating a Novel Idea— & Recognizing it as Such. A Simple Computer Program can Generate an Endless Stream of Original Ideas by simply combining Ordinary, Common Ideas in a Variety of Ways. The ‘Imaginative’ Step, which pushes us to Give Human’s The Credit for Doing Something Remarkable; Is so Take these Crazy Ideas & Recognize The Ones that are Useful or Applicable in Some Way. A 7 Sided Box is a much worse idea than a 6 Sided Box, which can easily be Stacked, but a 4 Sided Box is even Better, because they are even more easily Stacked & Easier to Produce.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What is Thinking ?


                   The Promise of Thinking is that it allows a Sentient, Cogitative Entity to Juggle A Variety of Empirical Observations, Imaginative Thoughts & Logical Associations & Operations around in a Conscious Environment & Produce A Synthesis of Novel & True Statements, With The Emphasis being on Their Accuracy & Truth Value.

- - -

Can a Machine Think without FreeWill ?

If People are Lacking The Attribute of FreeWill; Can They Think ?

If Thinking is A Mechanical Process that Machines Can Participate in; What prevents A Human from Performing this Task ?

- - -

What Truly Distinguishes Genuine Thinking from Faux-Simulated Thinking Is :

                   Thinking Accepts Indecision.

                   Thinking insists on believing True Things.

                   Faux-Thinking is more concerned with Acting, tacitly assuming that inaction is more disastrous than Acting Inappropriately.

                   Faux-Thinking accepts that Survivability through Darwinian Evolution must try Random, Careless Actions that completely disregard any consideration for Truth.

- - -

i was just this moment watching a TV Bit on Making Legos, The Toy Bricks, & This Machine was turning out a Dozen or so at a time from an Injection Process, Entirely Perfect in One Go.

That is; They were Stamped, Injected & Dropped into a Bin, Entirely Finished, Ready for Packaging.

Lego Bricks, & M&Ms are i think, About as Perfect as Perfection can Be.

These Two ( & many other Examples ) would seem to lend a Very Convincing Argument that Serious & Compelling Thinking went into these Processes ( !!! ) If only Human Technological Applications were extended to Everything on This Level of Perfection !


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

What is Not Thinking ?


                   The Most Obvious Examples of Not Thinking are The Holding of Beliefs for which The Instinctual Mind has No Good Reason for Believing such Things—

                   Or Alternatively;  The Instinctual Mind’s Possession of Complex Behaviours which allow The Entity to Participate in Reliable & Dependable Survival Actions which Nurture their Ability to Produce Large Quantities of Progeny.

                   Habitual, Routine & Imitative Behaviours.

                   Instinctual Behaviours. People are thought to have very few of these, but we have our share; & it may well be that we have even more than are recognized, but have softer edges that we can tweak or bend to adapt to novel situations; more flexible than birds making nests & more directed & purposeful than ants chaotically digging out a colony.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Best Arguments for Thinking


                   Engineering : The Production of Buildings, Automobiles, Appliances, Furniture, Power-Networks, Electrical Dams, Computers, Pharmaceuticals, Surgical Procedures, Art, Music, Literature, Scientific Research, Mathematics; et. al.

- -

                   Clever Behaviours : People are consistently engaging in all sorts of very clever, very complex behaviours.


: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - : o

Best Arguments for The Assertion that Thinking is An Illusion


                   Allegedly Smart People often Believe Very Stupid Things.

- -

                   Engineering : Devices are Created from A Long & Progressive History of Tinkering / Pharmaceuticals are Introduced into Commercial Markets after prolonged experiments on thousands of animals to ‘find’ an Active Agent in Collected Plant Substances or Laboratory ‘Inventions’. / Art, Music & Literature are all Subjective Cultural Contrivances. /

- -

                   Taboos : Taboos are a Judicial Codification of Law, Behaviour & Cultural Expectations, which are specifically designed to be as Non-Sensical as Possible; Since their Intention is to Very Severely Punish Anyone that Breaks ‘The Rules’. Their Functionality is to hold a given Society together by ‘Easily’ Identifying anyone that doesn’t understand ‘The Rules’.

- -

                   The Judiciary : It is very curious that after ( conservatively ) 6000 years of ‘Civilization’; The Judiciaries in The Most Technologically Advanced Societies are still struggling to produce a unified & uniform, or consistent hierarchy of Ethics & Morality which may then be reliably translated into a codification of law which is predictable & adherent to The Corollary of An Agreeable Ideal of Fundimental Human Rights. ( which are entirely arbitrary )

- -

                   Logic is Bunk : This Asserts that The Foundations of Logical Reasoning are indistinguishable from a Well Constructed & Emotional Benign Argument using The Principles of Joke or Riddle Logic. ( Jiggery Pokery ) / The very -fact- that many well established & serious historical arguments for a wide variety of scientific, mathematical, philosophical & ethical principles have been exposed as having been assembled using The Operations inclusive to Joke or Riddle Logic— Demonstrate that for ‘Any’ Given Contemporary Argument, The Certainty of Its Logical ‘Promise’ for Truth is highly dubious & suspect. Thus; The Functionality of ‘Logic’ as A Truth Prover, is Compromised. e.g.; Logic is Bunk.

- -

                   Paradoxes : Paradoxes are a Logical or Philosophical, or Linguistic, or even Optical Demonstration that ‘Something is Wrong’ with our Ability to Discern A Statement’s Truth Value or Separate The Statement from a Context of Confusion & Ambiguity. Very often; These Paradoxes are ‘Left to Stand’ as A Confirmation of Logical Interminability; But Paradoxes are actually Failures of Sound Reasoning, And more importantly; Our Ability to Discover or Determine ‘How’ The Paradox is ‘Wrong’.

- -

                   Scientific Principles : Ideally— The Theory of Science or Scientific Methods, are intended to make a thorough & accurate appraisement of The World Around Us, So that we might use this information for Technological & Medical Advancements. / But What Science is usually obsessed with, is ‘Explaining’ Things. Even if A Given Phenomena is entirely inexplicable, Pragmatic Scientists feel compelled to proffer an Explanation of it, Even if this requires ‘Filling in The Gaps’ with nonsensical assumptions which they elevate to ‘Fundimental Axioms’. / Or Alternatively; They Simply ‘Label’ Things & Insist that this is Sufficient as an Explanation.

- -

                   Bubbles : Tulip Mania in Holland. / The Dot.Com Bubble in The 1990s / The Everlasting Art Grift / AmWay /

- -

                   Clever Behaviours : While people seemingly engage in all sorts of clever behaviours, so do animals, so do very dumb animals, & if any further analysis were performed— We might note that The very dumbest animals seem to routinely engage in The very cleverest behaviours, while mammals, that are supposed to be The Smartest Animals with The Biggest Brains, typically engage in The most mundane grazing, or laying about all day, or swinging through trees or howling at The Moon.

                                      As for people’s clever behaviour, very much of it is obviously habitual, routine or imitative. It is only very rarely, & only with a very tiny subset of The Damp Masses that create clever ideas or perform something novel & what we might assume is creative. So then The Question becomes; What is Being Creative ?

- -

                   Given that Thinking is A Mechanical ( Progressive ) Process that Machines can Participate in; What prevents Humans from Thinking ? / The Human Brain is prevented from Thinking in This Mechanical Sense, Because it’s been specifically designed to operate on an Alternative Premise that is much more based on An Emotional Perception-Reaction Set of Behaviours. Human Behaviour only seems complex & imitative of Mechanical Thinking because of its chaotic complexity & other Tricks.

- -


No comments: