Re: Within Proof Theoretic Semantics Gödel's G h as no meaning in PA

On 2026-07-06 16:41, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2026 5:18 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2026-07-06 16:00, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2026 4:13 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is impossible to leap from {nothingness} to
>>>> 1987 Chevy Camaro with no steps inbetweem.
>>>
>>>> {Thing}--->{Physically Existing Thing}
>>>>    ... {Motor Vehicle}---> {Automobile} ...
>> I did not write any of the above. Please don't claim that I did.
>>
>>> Try to explain how the notion of 1987 Chevy Camaro
>>> pops into existence from out-of-nowhere with no
>>> prerequisite order.
>>>
>>
> 
> I know that I wrote it.

So why did you attribute it to me?

> You must show exactly how
> I am incorrect otherwise your fake rebuttal is
> simply hiding behind profound ignorance.
> 
>  > If you want to know how concepts are actually organized, you need to 
>  > look at experimental evidence from psychology, psycholinguistics,
>> aphasiology, etc. They aren't organized into a tree where concepts 
>> have parents. Armchair philosophizing (aka mental masturbation) isn't 
>> going to get you anywhere.
>>
>> André
>>
> 
> They are organized as a type hierarchy.
> You either understand this or fail to comprehend.

Please point to a single piece of experimental evidence which supports this.

Also, concepts aren't types, so they can't be organized as a type 
hierarchy. A computer database might organize them as a hierarchy, but 
not as a type hierarchy, and this hierarchy wouldn't reflect anything 
about how actual people organize concepts.

André

-- 
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail 
service.