[extropy-chat] Survival tangent (was Just curious, it's not natural!)

[Heartland]

Jef,

I'm really trying hard to understand what your point is and how it applies to the 
things I'm talking about. What is it exactly that you think that I'm proving here 
(if anything)? Have you noticed that this thread has the word "survival" in it as 
opposed to "identity?" I'm trying to establish some shreds of common ground here.

J:
> A->B does not mean B->A  and no on other than
> yourself has said that this is implied.

Of all the things I've said, I certainly don't recall saying that "A->B means 
B->A." That is merely *your interpretation* of what I said.


J:
> Slawomir, A and B are symbols representing antecedent and consequent in
> the form of a syllogism.  The particulars don't matter if the form is
> logically invalid.

Of course, but who said I accepted that strawman form in the first place? Stating 
what
you meant as A and B might have revealed what you missed. And yes, Jef, I'm 
familiar with what antecedents,
consequents, syllogisms and rules of logic are, thanks. :)


J:
> Slawomir, THAT IS THE KEY POINT.  You repeatedly make the logical error
> of affirming the consequent.  Your reasoning is circular and thus proves
> nothing, regardless or whether you're right or wrong about what you
> believe.

Okay, so can you tell me what that consequent is?


J:
> It appears that you don't understand and don't care to gain
> understanding of this point. A few weeks ago I said I would make the
> effort to respond to you as long as you seemed to reciprocate.  As you
> know, I scanned and filtered my email archives and gave you about 168kB
> of your own statements (since April) with the first several pages marked
> up for your examination.  I've posted careful criticism of recent
> examples and I've given you google search phrases in case you actually
> wanted to study the points that have been offered to you.


And I did address your comments line by line and was able to discover quite quickly 
the source of the problem. Then I wrote: "Clearly, that pattern [of your criticism] 
consists of you highlighting not the circularity within assumed framework of what 
*I'm* saying, but merely pointing out things that are incompatible with 
patternism." In other words, you had already assumed that your map was *the only 
true* map and proceeded to show me why my map didn't match yours instead of 
pointing out which parts of my map weren't matching the territory or which parts of 
my map didn't fit with the other parts of my map.

Slawomir