Authoritarianism

Again, unless you can support that conclusion..it's simply a thought in your head.

"Necessary and sufficient condition, in logic, something that is a required condition for something else to be the case."

So what is the "necessary being" you refer to in your concept?

 

I'm not against all environmental regulations. What we were discussing, however, is the mythical "livable wage". If I want to do a job for $x you have no right to tell me that I must get $x+y or nothing at all. Every person should be free to sell their labor for whatever they deem fair NOT what the government deems fair.

 

LISP -- Lots of Insipid Stupid Parenthesis.

I was always rather fond of APL if you want to use antique programming languages.

 

Contingent being is complex. Contingent being is a complex of actuality and potentiality. It actually exists, and it has the potential to change including the potential to come to know, come to emote, come to will, come to be or not be. Contingent being is natural; it is material, spatial and temporal.
Necessary being is simple actuality. It is what it is necessarily. It has no potentiality. It has no potential to change. It cannot come to know, come to emote, come to will, come to be or not be. Necessary being is supernatural; necessary being is metaphysical (immaterial), meta-spatial (spiritual) and meta-temporal (eternal).

 

I hated APL with the intensity of a thousand suns. Reading someone elses code is hard enough, obfuscating with a bunch of archaic symbols is idiotic.

 

That's how I feel about LISP.

Ever run into SNOBOL? I was forced to use that back in college. And I actually found it useful for a content analysis project for politics course.

Me and another guy found that before Sgt. Pepper's the most common word in Beatle lyrics was "I". After that the most common word was "you."

 

Ever run into Godel's ontological proof of God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

 

I don't have much experience with the functional languages, I guess I've been corrupted by OOP. I've never run into SNOBOL, my college work was all c++ and my professional work has been c#, Java, Python, and javascript of course - yuck.

 

So then do you likewise agree with these quotes....

Necessary being is simple actuality. Contingent being is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Being exists
Being is being
Being is not non-being
Either being or non-being
Non-being cannot produce being
Only being can produce being
Being can only produce contingent being
Contingent being cannot produce necessary being

 

Thanks for that link.
I wish I had known of it's existence yesterday.

 

Your welcome. All of this stuff leaves me cold and I can't summon the enthusiasm to try to understand it. But I respect Godel as one of the towering geniuses of all time, so I can't just dismiss it as nonsense.

Have fun.

 

As a rule, I don't take in what comes out of a$$holes even it its whistling a familiar tune.

 

It's simple to understand damn difficult to do. Liberty is your choice, governments can neither grant it or take it away.

 

Those are among the first principles of logic.
They are axiomatic in that they must be employed to be denied.
As far as I know, the first principles were first described sometime before 600BC.

 

Life, liberty, charity, the pursuit of happiness all have completely voluntary natures. Government has a completely compulsory nature; indeed, government is the legal use of force in any form it takes.

All of these things extend from the same premise - self-possession. Self-possession is the idea that each person owns them self. When the idea of self-possession first entered public discourse, in Europe, in the 1600s, it was mocked as "everyone is a king thinking". The old adage that, "every man's home is his castle", was originally a punchline to a joke at the expense of the idea of self-possession.

It is easy to forget that, until 1776, almost everyone who ever lived was owned by someone else. Even those who owned "slaves" were themselves owned by "sovereigns". Even those who sold themselves into slavery, which wasn't at all uncommon, were but subletting the king's property.

 

I think in terms Solzhenitzen's "Gulag Archipelago" in which he stated that he was the freest man there because while they had imprisoned his body his mind was free. In the end true liberty is to be a slave to no one and no thing. The addict is far more a slave than any man who ever labored on a plantation. Because the mind of the latter can still grasp freedom and there was the hope of the drinking gourd in the clear night sky.

 

Freedom is always freedom from something. Freedom can refer to freedom from anything. One can be free from life or free from death. One can be free from infringement on liberty, or one can be free from liberty.
Liberty always refers to the same thing. Liberty is the individual's authority over and responsibility for their self.
Solzhenitzen was free from liberty. Indeed, that's what socialism offers - freedom from authority over and responsibility for self.

 

Another for one in such a position as the last mention is slave

 

So do these principals of logic ever come to a conclusion
or are they just useful as a distraction. What is the value of thinking simply for the sake of thinking?
Does this talking in circles benefit you somehow? Or does it just keep idiots like me posting on this forum?

 

WOW, you really threw back the curtain there. Never mind.

 

To find answers.

 

Okay here are bricklayer quotes....

Necessary being is simple actuality. Contingent being is a complex of actuality and potentiality.
Being exists
Being is being
Being is not non-being
Either being or non-being
Non-being cannot produce being
Only being can produce being
Being can only produce contingent being
Contingent being cannot produce necessary being

Please explain how they have enhanced your life.

 

I doubt that logic can "enhance your life", but I do hope that it improves.

 

The machine language that I first learned to code in was very similar to Lisp and may well have been a precursor. There was no separation of data and code and the ability of the code to rewrite itself while it was executing made debugging a massive PITA. There were only 63 bytes assigned as variables which were reused by different functions which also compounded the debugging problems.

With all that said I got to know it well enough that I could read it like a book and got to the stage that I could reverse engineer a bug to the source of the problem in my head. These were not simple programs either. The largest was computed the tax returns for the entire organization and it would take several days to complete.

So yes, a language of that nature makes sense for AI because it is literally the equivalent of "changing your mind" about how to process an issue. The big question becomes if there is a programmed safeguard in AI to "do no harm" then could the AI reprogram that to now read "do harm"?

 

What exactly is the difference between EXPLOITING the environment for PROFITS and EXPLOITING people for PROFITS?

Why does the environment deserve protection but not people?