adore842.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Thu Mar 16 00:06:02 EDT 2017


      HOMER'S LOGIC

> Homer can't be criticised, because he doesn't use logic, that's one of
> those nasty things from the real world. Instead he likes his 'perfect
> certainties' all discovered without the use of logic, which is a bit
> odd, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.

      Now THIS is having too much time on my hands.

      Perfect certainties are ascertained by direct perception, you see
red, thus there is red.

      Logic is a detailed description of the word IS, thus once you have
said 'there is red' you can't then say there is not red.

      That's all logic is, a description of IS, which is gleaned by
direct perception of something that IS.

      Physical machines are not capable of direct perception, even of 
themselves.  However conscoiusness is capable of direct perception of it's 
self and what it is conscious of.

      By red we do not mean photons, we mean conscious color form as
there is no perfect certainty of anything physical or non conscious.

      The 3 laws of logic thus derived about the nature of IS by looking
at it directly, are as follow:

     IS implies IS.
     Either IS or   IS NOT.
     Never  IS and  IS NOT.

     That's it, all propositional logic flows from that.

     A implies A.
     Either A or not A.
     Never A and not A.

      If something doesn't fit those 3 rules, then it isn't IS.

     As an aside,

     A implies B means
     Either B or not A.

     From the above we can derive simple things that some women apparently 
have a hard time with.

     If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C.

     Thus if circle B is inside circle A, and circle C
is inside circle B, then circle C has to be inside of circle A.

     Thus if all dogs are animals, and Joey is a dog, then Joey
must be an animal.

     Read Atlas Shrugged, might do you some good.

     Now then here is some logic that WILL do some people some good.

      Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning with Not 
Certainty.

      Distance and Learning implies Learning by being an Effect.

      Learning by being an Effect implies Not Learning with Certainty.

      Therefore,

      Learning with Certainty implies Learning,

      but not by being an Effect, and

      not across a space time distance.

      The proof ca 1973.

      Homer


> Even if they don't support it.
>
> He's not likely to convince anyone else though. 
> _______________________________________________ Clear-L mailing list 
> Clear-L at mailman.lightlink.com 
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Feb  4 17:41:04 EST 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 16 00:06:02 EDT 2017 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore842.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list