I always found FOL and other artificial language learning difficult. What might be brilliant would be real-time machine exposure of the lack of logic in most public argument!
On 14 Jan, 21:17, "Stephen P. King" <stephe...@charter.net> wrote: > On 1/13/2013 3:13 PM, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > > > > We are OK Archytas..... > > Sorry for the "classist" charge... I didn't believe it for a > > minute...My game was soccer if I hadn't told you before... HAR, don't > > swipe my HAR.... > > Process Philosophy... I did some looking into Mr. Whitehead... more > > in-depth than the summary below... > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/ > > The fellow got into some some odd permutations.... extending > > "psychological" modes of analysis and workings into the physical > > world... as for his contribution to the "systems theory" part... His > > notions of extension of "events" in time and space seems practical and > > useful enough.... But the notion of some sort of transmission of "some > > "essential-as -in - universal" thing" from one existent to another > > completely different existent by non-physical and non-communicative > > means (I forget now what W. termed it)... that was somewhat sci-fi. > > I'll leave it to (and for) you to evaluate the merits of his (W.'s) > > own and others' advancements in "process or system theory"... just try > > to maintain a tie or relation to actual physical "things" (RES), with > > that system stuff, to keep me happy....make it "empirically" proveable > > and applicable, OK? Question for you.... epistemologically, what would > > you call Whitehead?... > > > "Your may not be as 'smart' as me Nom - no cock length test meant (you > > do too much > > of that sometimes)" > > Archytas.... I've known you on and off for years....I like you, > > respect you, all of that.... please take a cue... My material... > > thematic dialectic "stuff", is not half bad (at all)... it has been > > around for quite a while and has been picked over and plagiarized > > piecemeal by quite a few "greater" intellects than you might > > think....but then, you'll just say I'm paranoid.... HAR.... > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile > > Is this the Jimmy Savile you meant? Hadn't heard of him....Penn State > > University had a similar situation with a (US) football assistant > > coach... Jerry Sandusky... you may have heard. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal > > Sorry states of affairs...speaks ill of institutions, maybe more so > > than the men themselves.... > > Closer to my "home"... there has been the Sandy Hook shooting > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting > > Too fresh to comment on for me.... so I won't.... > > > Sorry to end on a tragic note... next post I'll try to go another > > route.... > > Stephen hasn't written for a bit...maybe he'll drop by ... > > Socratus, also... mind body dualism... I wonder what kind or relation > > of dualism he favors? > > Hi There! > > I've been and will be very busy but I had to sound off at muster. > Two things, process dualism is not a finished product, it must be > advanced and applied. I have been studying how it can be used to solve > some proplems in physics. It is a natural to solve the problem of time. > ;-) About dualism, I like a cross between Leibniz, Descartes, Whitehead > and Russell seasoned liberally with the works of Jon Barwise and Vaughan > Pratt: dual aspect process monism (that becomes neutral monism in the > infinite limit). > Ontologically, for example, it implies that all 'substances' are > automorphsims. > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
