Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---

On 11/3/24 4:27 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 1:40 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 11/3/24 12:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 11:53 AM, Mike Terry wrote:

On 03/11/2024 13:19, olcott wrote:

On 11/3/2024 3:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 10:21:09 +0000, Andy Walker said:
>

On 02/11/2024 08:43, Mikko wrote:

A false assertion is a lie even if nobody asserts it.

[PO:]

Not at all. The base meaning of {lie} requires intentional
deception.

That may be its base meaning but the full meaning includes
all false statements. The statement itself does not change
when someone states it so there is no clear advantage in
saying that the statement was not a lie until someone stated
it.

>
    Disagree.  There is a clear advantage in distinguishing those
who make [honest] mistakes from those who wilfully mislead.

>
That is not a disagreement.
>

>
The term "lie" is to only be applied to intentionally
deceitful statements. To apply the term "lie" to statements
not having intentional deceit <is> itself intentional deceit.
>

>
Not if the person making that claim sincerely believes it. :)  You are being inconsistent here...

>
Richard has said that he does not mean intentional
deceit when he calls me a liar, yet uses the term
"liar" anyway knowing that others will take this
to mean intentional deceit. So Richard is a liar
for calling me a liar.
>

>
Because the word doesn't just mean intential deciet.
>
And you are an intentional liar to say it only means that, as you have been shown the definition.
>

>
Unless you always qualify you use of the term "liar" as
{unintentional falsity} it is the kind of defamation suit
that you will lose because the communication process always
assumes the primary meaning of a term unless otherwise specified.

>
Nope, I guess you learned your law just as good as your logic,
>
Since a "reasonable" person will undetstand that statements that are clearly false under the standard mean can be considered to be lies.

 *That not the way it works bro. Don't bet your house on that*

Would YOU bet your savings on it?
First, you will need to find a laywer willing to take your case, or do you intend to have a fool for a client?
Next, there will be the counter claim of false changes.
Remember, you first will have to prove "Damages" and for a person who starts as a crank, whjich will be hard. I would have damages, for the legal expenses, but the plaintiff doesn't get that, unless maybe they can PROVE neglgance or recklessness, which you won't be able to prove.
Then. you would need to survive the depositions of discovery, where you would need to explain what your ideas are UNDER OATH, where your inconsistencies might result in charges of perjury, or at least demonstrate you are not a credible witness.
My guess is no lawyer is going to want to take you case with what you have, and if you try to represent yourself, a decent lawyer will eat you alive.

 

Since you present yourself as someone claiing enough knowledge of the field to be able to make credibale claims about what things means, when questioned on the meaning of your statement, and comparing them with the accepted meaning of the statement, you will lose all credability.
>

>
You can't even correctly say that my statements are false.
The most that you can accurately say is that my statements
are inconsistent with conventional opinions.

>
Sure I can, because your statement use terms of art with well defined definition that you don't follow.
>
This is one big difference between converstaional English, where meaning is based on a wide assortment of meanings under general agreement, in a formal system, the meaning is normally fairly precise.
>
While you try to claim to be wanting to work in an alternate system, the fact that you haven't (likely because you can't) define such an alternate system well enough to use it, you are stuck being in the system that you just misuse, which makes your statement provably false, and your claims of them a reckless disregarug of the truth, which is good enough to be of a similar class to intentional.
>

>

IF you won't accept the truth, then you become the classical case of the pathological liar that lies because he can not tell the difference between truth and lies, and speaks with a reckless disreguard for the truth.

>
>

>