🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@admitsWrongIfProven language is just a common term for "ontology" and ontology is just a term for "the way we describe logic".

Even if you express to me that your emotion is just coincidence and not related to anything I did, that is **still** an expression of logic not emotion. You are telling me that the things that effects your emotion, and my actions, are a disjoint set.

@wjmaggos the "very good reason" is simple... money is not a fixed quantity where in order to have mroe others must have less. Wealth is **generated** not taken.

Billionaires are the most successful wealth generators in a society. So having them means a lot of wealth is likely being generated (not always, but usually). Destroying the wealth generators and distributing what money they created therefore might temporarily feed a few people but plunge society into poverty long term.

The reason poverty levels plummet as billionairs become more numerous is because a society that has a lot of well performing wealth generators makes all of society wealthier and has been shown to significantly reduce poverty levels.

@volkris

@admitsWrongIfProven

Animals can express emotions too, so that isnt somethign we "gain" through language. In fact the only thing we gain through language is the ability to express logic attached to those emotions:

"You punched me in the face"

"I dont like being punched in the face"

"Therefore if you punch me int he face I wont be happy about it"

the only thing language is adding here is to express the logical consequences of actions towards my emotions. Without language I could have expressed my emotions in such a situation just fine but I couldnt express the why.

New theory... The **only** intellectual thing that seperates us from the rest of animals is the ability to do math.

All the things we dont usually think of as math but we associate with being human is in fact math... language is math, logic is math, its all math... language is simply our ontology we use to express logic as symbols we can express. We have a natural intuitive understanding (well some of us, to some extent) of prepositional logic and language is more or less a manifestation of that.

@admitsWrongIfProven I find the ideal is where people disagree on their axioms but agree on their logic to go from those axioms to their intended conclusion.

Axioms are always subjective on some level (as it is an observation) but the logical rules one applies to any set of axioms are objective and universal.

@admitsWrongIfProven > New theory: you don't debate to win, you debate to make people improve their reasoning.

Yes that and to consider new facts, both, but neither are to result in winning per say... Winning in a debate is anytime someone adjusts their position in **either** direction

> I did notice in the past that you stop replying when my reasoning gets detailed enough to be sound.

More like once we have exhausted anything new to say. Sometimes you may be saying something i agree with and therefore has little left to say, other times i disagree whole heartily but anything I could say would just be a repeat of points earlier.

> Re-engaging means it's not because winning was a priority.

Yea winning should never be the priority, though when you feel strongly about something it may compel you to think the other person doesnt get your point, and that may look similar.

> So you just try to train some debating ability into people by tossing something controversial out there and go silent thumbs up if they manage to make some sense.

Not exclusively, but yes that a huge element. You will actually often see when I agree with a persons conclusion but disagree with their reasoning to get there I will still point that out. I have very little priority in forcing a conclusion and care more about our ability to think about things honestly and clearly. I dont mind people disagreeing with me as long as they arent doing so due to biases and mental gymnastics but rather solid reasoning that strives to be objectively valid within the persons own mental framework.

@freepeoplesfreepress

> Dear Dr. Freemo: I am starting to comprehend and understand what you are trying to teach me. It is starting to make some sense, I still do not totally grasp everything, I am only at the baby stage of just starting to grasp the rudimentary ideas. So I guess I should study formal logic as a starting point. Yes Dr. Freemo you have been successful in teaching me different things which I am grateful for. This is causing me to expend considerable amount of intense focused psychological mental energy to attempt to learn.

Teaching people and passing on the expertise it took a lifetime to learn is probably one of the most important things I can do, so I am happy to hear this.

> So formal logic could be considered a pure analytical framework process that remains itself to be intact, untainted and free from any outside influences.

Yes, well unless we consider the axioms "outside influence".. but yes. Like with a lot of math it is objective, 1+1=2 regardless of your opinions. "if i have one unicorn and another comes over then I have 2 unicorns" this is true regardless of if i actually have unicorns or not. In fact you can say math as a whole doesnt try to tell you if something is true, it only tries to tell you 1) the relationship between things and 2) if there is internal consistency (if the axioms you bring dont contradict eachother).

In fact one can argue that the ability to detect inconsistencies in axioms can be a **tool** for determining the truth. But it can only eliminate certain things as untrue due to logical inconsistency, it still wont tell you if your axioms are true when they are consistent.

> This makes sense, logic is then based on inherent designed strict order of rules. So logic is devoid of psychological emotional reactiveness. So a computer program would ultimately rely upon specific built-in routine program parameters of logic in order to initiate the execution of action(s), only if certain inherent built-in programming condition(s) are met. So we as human beings utilize similar learned behavioral psychological conditioning in order to employ “First order prepositional logic.”

Yea logic has strict rules, as it should in the real world, and is meant to be a tool to help us be more objective rather than making us right :)

@admitsWrongIfProven

You dont need to take from billionairs to give them money, we have more than enough to solve the problem in our military budget alone.

So you are talking about hurting the economy (taking from wealth producers) to fund the poor. When you could be helping the economy (taking from wealth destroyers like the military) to give to the poor.

@wjmaggos

Taking the money away from wealth produces like billionairs is probably the most destructive thing a society can do. There is a very good reason why over the last hundred plus years that the number of people in poverty dropped as the number of billionairs increased.

Money has absolutely no power as long as the people dont let it and the elections are fair. The only reason people with money have power is because people dont turn off their tvs when the lobbying ads come on. Money can only buy you votes when the general population is willing to sell their vote to the highest (figurative) bidder.

@admitsWrongIfProven

> Lots of poor people pose one clear problem for the economy: no money is spent, no process of actually creating value takes place.

This is a prime example of where your misunderstanding of economics comes in.. you think of money as just pieces of paper... Its not that poor people cant spend money, its that they cant generate wealth. they are too hungry and beat down to contribute to the wealth generation of society

> Take some of the billions just lying there and invest in manufacturing the stuff we (humans) actually need. Not talking about taxing some middle class people that can hardly afford a nice house.

Again back to your fundemental failing, redistributing money destroys wealth, we want people who **create** wealth, not destroy it. We wont those people to get out of poverty by generating enough wealth, simply giving them money doesnt do that.

There is a reason why every time we tried that in history it resulted in massive deaths and starvation.

> As far as i am informed, taxes for the actually rich (not middle class or just barely millionaire) are at an all time low. Why keep that up? If you'd say the rich will build eco friendly tech, you have already been proven wrong.

No the all time low was zero, we used to not have federal income tax at all, or business tax. So it is quite far from an "all time low"

> Lots of economic growth since money is spent, ecological improvement if scientists are in charge of what to build. Don't see why that would harm anyone, only good outcomes.

Because we have overwhelming historical evidence that isnt how it plays out, ever.

@admitsWrongIfProven Why do both when one benefits everyone and america and the other harms people with no advantage.

It is no coincidence that as those in poverty go down the number of rich people go up... oppertunity and equality works at every class level. When you create the means for people to get out of poverty you also create the means for billionairs to be created, and you need both to have a healthy society.

@internic

Thanks, I did earlier: https://qoto.org/@freemo/111467142454838130

@rwg

@wjmaggos I am all for making sure money isnt able to influence political power... but going about that by taking away people with money is a really self-destructive tactic.

I hate to break it to you but the whole "tax the rich" thing is what the rich want you debating... why? Cause you can tax them all you want, but when our budget is 60% military they will still get rich and we will go in debt no matter how much you tax them.

Ya know what the rich really dont want? You fighting to get the military budget slashed in half leaving more than enough money to cut taxes for everyone (including the rich)... but noooo, any solution that saves everyone money, including the rich, is one that will never be supported.

So many people just get spoon fed a narrative and then its law.

@freepeoplesfreepress

> Dear Dr. Freemo: I am starting to comprehend and understand the lucidity of your written statements before me.This seems so abstract, this seems to be the abstract study of propositions and statements, to me, this seems to be more of a mathematical operational model

Yes it is a bit abstract... in fact the formal term as you hint at is "prepositional logic"... and in fact specifically "First order prepositional logic". Its very similar to logic in computer programs... it doesnt care if they conclusion is true, only that it satisfies the rules :)

Math is little more than formalized logic so yea it is a mathematical model, but as with much of math this was bore out from philosophy... In philosophy it deals closely with the idea of Ontologies, which has also been formalized in math (ontologies are the vocabulary we use to describe prepositional logic).

> So if I am correct, we are drawing inferences from relationships, which allows us to make assumptions, I would think that our own biases could contaminate and alter the results in seeking the truth.

In formal logic biases can not pollute the system in how you reason about it but may pollute the system in terms of the axioms you bring (which is outside the logic itself and harps back to my point)... Let me give an example.

Only animals have horns.(axiom)

All unicorns have horns. (axiom)

All things with horns can stab you in the face. (axiom)

Therefore all unicorns are animals and can stab you in the face. (inference, an act of making the implicit explicit)

This is perfectly valid logic, even though unicorns dont actually exist the logic above is valid. It in no way deals with truth and only deals with extracting the implicit out of the explicit.

@bluGill

That too yes, the wealth of everyone is much higher as time goes on no matter how you measure it really

@Amikke

@sharonecathcart "If we just stole more money from citizens we wouldnt be in debt" is **not** a valid explanation of debt... It is spending, and while not cutting taxes would result in less debt, even then the debt would have been significant. So no matter how you cut it this take is wrong.