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
Glossary
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.
-
-
