Re: Readings in (some of the) foundations of mathematics --- tree of knowledge

On 07/03/2026 11:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/3/2026 12:34 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 07/03/2026 08:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/3/2026 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:45, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/2/2026 1:44 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> That depends on the semantic system. Often the meaning of the word
>>>>>> "cat" indeed involves that what is called a "cat" is also called
>>>>>> an "animal" but there are other posiibilities. Conseqently, the
>>>>>> sentence "cats are animals" can be a semantic tautology that tells
>>>>>> nothing about the real world,
>>>>>
>>>>> It tells us exactly one thing about the real world 1 != 0
>>>>
>>>> A tautology tells nothing about the real world. Sometimes one can
>>>> have a false impression that something is said about the real world
>>>> when a tautology is presented. But that impression is a consequence
>>>> of insufficient or invalid consideration of logic and semantics.
>>>>
>>> Stipulative definition of relations between finite
>>> strings is the only way that these finite strings
>>> acquire semantic meaning.
>>>
>>> Try to find some other way that "cats" <are> "animals"
>>> can acquire semantic meaning besides Davidson Semantics.
>>>
>>
>> Yet:  man is an animal, yet, man is not an animal.
>>
>>
>
> By different definitions of animal that would have
> different GUIDs in my system. Most literally man
> is an animal and "man is not an animal" is objectively
> incorrect. That man has a different set of abilities
> than most animals is also being updated. Chimps have
> been proven capable of abstract thought.
>
>
>>
>> computer science 101
>>
>>
>
>

Most thinking beings are feeling beings
and most feeling beings are thinking beings.

Not all, though, ....