Info High IQ info

[Wilk]

**Logic is a tool of chance, not of certainty**
Deduction and induction do not guarantee truth—they are merely guides for new experiments. Reality has often contradicted theories: things that logic said were impossible have happened, and things that should have happened never came to pass.

Even in mathematics itself: infinitesimal calculus was considered wrong because it was paradoxical and was only accepted after its usefulness was discovered and formalized. As Von Neumann said: "In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them."

True human knowledge is NOT based on understanding, but rather on the mere collection of specific observations of reality.

If reality contradicts the conclusions of logical deduction and induction, why do we use theories we know to be wrong? Why do we use Newtonian equations if they are inaccurate? The answer is that humans use cognitive models that are reasonably useful for achieving a given goal, and this often means that the model may even be completely wrong in what it purports to describe reality but still serve a social purpose, as is the case with many religions.

Sometimes, a person perceives something in the real world that doesn't match their theoretical expectations—whether in science, religion, or any system of ideas. And we observe that this same person tends to distort the facts to pretend the theory still makes sense through a "new interpretation" of what the system of ideas communicated/meant, or by attempting to rewrite the observed facts.

 

[Deleted Member 79678]

kill yourself

 

[Deleted Member 79678]

—

this is exactly what negative iq looks like, lmao

 

[Wilk]

Ask a chat aí to explain it to you if you don't understand it

 

[Deleted Member 72600]

High IQ

 

[Deleted Member 79678]

Ask a chat aí to explain it to you if you don't understand it

your garbage thread is chatgptslop, hence post #3, r****d. the irony of you not getting i exposed you and making this post is mindblowing

what am i doing with my life, ffs

 

[Deleted Member 79678]

how do people like the op even make accounts on internet forums? fucking beats me

 

[Deleted Member 60441]

As Von Neumann said

stop

 

[bigdickcel1]

View attachment 156741

how do people like the op even make accounts on internet forums? fucking beats me

Got this info from AI btw

 

[adore]

 

[Genetics]

View attachment 156741

how do people like the op even make accounts on internet forums? fucking beats me

It's also very frequently used in older literature. Perhaps OP indulges in a lot of old goodies and therefore writes in this particular way.

 

[Deleted Member 79678]

It's also very frequently used in older literature. Perhaps OP indulges in a lot of old goodies and therefore writes in this particular way.

must be that!

 

[Genetics]

must be that!

Perhaps I'm wrong and this is AI. No way to know for sure if it is or isn't or is there?

 

[Deleted Member 79678]

Perhaps I'm wrong and this is AI. No way to know for sure if it is or isn't or is there?

it is, which begs the question: just how retarded and weird op is? he thought he could conceal it by manually changing sentence openings, which is just super embarrassing.

 

[Genetics]

it is, which begs the question: just how retarded and weird op is?

I was also a little confounded at first. It's like the post doesn't serve any other purpose than to showcase how intelligent OP is, and not like the title contradicts this standpoint lol.

 

[Wilk]

It's also very frequently used in older literature. Perhaps OP indulges in a lot of old goodies and therefore writes in this particular way.

I usually write in a even more complex manner, and used a chatbot to help me simplify it.

 

[Genetics]

I usually write in a even more complex manner

Why is your goal to write in a complex manner rather than to transmit information efficiently? Negative IQ if anything, lmao.

 

[Wilk]

your garbage thread is chatgptslop, hence post #3, r****d. the irony of you not getting i exposed you and making this post is mindblowing

what am i doing with my life, ffs

What matters in a book is not if the author writers in a manner which you dislike or if his personality sucks, but rather the content, the information, which you can learn from it

 

[Deleted Member 77029]

**Logic is a tool of chance, not of certainty**

cringed

 

[Wilk]

Why is your goal to write in a complex manner rather than to transmit information efficiently? Negative IQ if anything, lmao.

Never said it to be my goal. I also said that I used got to simplify it. Writing it in a complex manner, originally, is just natural and normal, yet I simplify it because the goal is to spread the knowledge.

 

[Wilk]

I was also a little confounded at first. It's like the post doesn't serve any other purpose than to showcase how intelligent OP is, and not like the title contradicts this standpoint lol.

Title was that to attract the right kind of people

 

[Deleted Member 77029]

so called high iq logic philosopher btw

 

[Wilk]

View attachment 157064

so called high iq logic philosopher btw

I love it

 

[Wilk]

cringed

You would benefit from understanding it

 

[YourFavouriteUser]

must be that!

yikes

 

[Wilk]

it is, which begs the question: just how retarded and weird op is? he thought he could conceal it by manually changing sentence openings, which is just super embarrassing.

i dont care if something is ai, why are you feeling embarrassed by ai?

 

[Wilk]

I was also a little confounded at first. It's like the post doesn't serve any other purpose than to showcase how intelligent OP is, and not like the title contradicts this standpoint lol.

Did you understood what the post means with cognitive models?

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Logic isn’t a tool of certainty but of coherence. A model doesn’t have to perfectly describe reality to be useful it only needs to be internally consistent and predictive within its domain.

 

[Genetics]

Logic isn’t a tool of certainty but of coherence. A model doesn’t have to perfectly describe reality to be useful it only needs to be internally consistent and predictive within its domain.

This guy has to be trolling. There's no way he isn't.

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

This guy has to be trolling. There's no way he isn't.

He literally said observation > logic while ignoring his own observation of contradicting himself.

 

[Wilk]

Logic isn’t a tool of certainty but of coherence. A model doesn’t have to perfectly describe reality to be useful it only needs to be internally consistent and predictive within its domain.

Yeah, problem is that the considered "within its domain" frequently isn't. Hence why being logical induces one to error when considering the rest of praxis

 

[Wilk]

He literally said observation > logic while ignoring his own observation of contradicting himself.

Where is my contradiction?

 

[Darkeningstar]

I'm pretty sure Von Neumann (fucking Von Neumann) meant something else

Edit:
I've changed my mind, it's not worth it

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Yeah, problem is that the considered "within its domain" frequently isn't. Hence why being logical induces one to error when considering the rest of praxis

That’s not a flaw of logic, that’s a flaw of people misapplying it.

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Where is my contradiction?

The contradiction is that you dismiss logic as unreliable, yet you rely on logical reasoning to argue that point.

 

[Wilk]

That’s not a flaw of logic, that’s a flaw of people misapplying it.

Well, when i wrote logic i meant it. Logic as a system of thought based on specific rules, which is the meaning of logic itself.

If the axioms of that specific logic are incomplete (and they always are because we have not yet constructed a cognitive model which contains all the information in the universe), then the rational and logic deductions and inductions made from it will be wrong.

 

[Wilk]

I'm pretty sure Von Neumann (fucking Von Neumann) meant something else

Edit:
I've changed my mind, it's not worth it

I didn't understood you

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Well, when i wrote logic i meant it. Logic as a system of thought based on specific rules, which is the meaning of logic itself.

If the axioms of that specific logic are incomplete (and they always are because we have not yet constructed a cognitive model which contains all the information in the universe), then the rational and logic deductions and inductions made from it will be wrong.

But that’s not a flaw of logic, it’s a limitation of the axioms we choose. Logic doesn’t fail it carries the consequences of the premises. If the axioms are incomplete, the deductions won’t be universally correct, but they’re still internally valid within that system. That’s why we refine models, not abandon logic.

 

[Wilk]

The contradiction is that you dismiss logic as unreliable, yet you rely on logical reasoning to argue that point.

I introduced the idea of reasonability to those cognitive models that are sufficiently utile in a specific task. If my logical model presented is reasonable in communicating what i observed from cognitive models, then there is utility in it and that's what matters.

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

I introduced the idea of reasonability to those cognitive models that are sufficiently utile in a specific task. If my logical model presented is reasonable in communicating what i observed from cognitive models, then there is utility in it and that's what matters.

To even call a model reasonable or utile you’re already relying on logical consistency to judge it. Otherwise you’d have no standard for what counts as useful beyond pure subjectivity.

 

[Wilk]

But that’s not a flaw of logic, it’s a limitation of the axioms we choose. Logic doesn’t fail it carries the consequences of the premises. If the axioms are incomplete, the deductions won’t be universally correct, but they’re still internally valid within that system. That’s why we refine models, not abandon logic.

If something is valid or not inside a system does not matter, what does matter is if it can be useful on reality. Just as coding have contradiction inside their programming but can be useful.

I consider logic in plural, that is to say that there exists multiple logics, because my native language dictionary have another definition of it where logic simply means a line of though (so, for example, there are the communists logic and the capitalists logic...). But if i were to take you definition of it, i would then agree with you

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

If something is valid or not inside a system does not matter, what does matter is if it can be useful on reality. Just as coding have contradiction inside their programming but can be useful.

I consider logic in plural, that is to say that there exists multiple logics, because my native language dictionary have another definition of it where logic simply means a line of though (so, for example, there are the communists logic and the capitalists logic...). But if i were to take you definition of it, i would then agree with you

Fair enough but then that’s just a shift in definition. If by logic you mean any line of thought, then of course multiple ‘logics’ exist. But in the formal systems of reasoning usefulness in reality depends on coherence first, otherwise you can’t even test utility consistently. So we’re really saying the same thing, just using different definitions.

 

[Wilk]

To even call a model reasonable or utile you’re already relying on logical consistency to judge it. Otherwise you’d have no standard for what counts as useful beyond pure subjectivity.

I do think that what we consider to be reasonable is subjetive. And the idea isn't that all forms of logic should be thrown to the garbage can

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

I do think that what we consider to be reasonable is subjetive. And the idea isn't that all forms of logic should be thrown to the garbage can

If reasonable is just subjective, then it’s just opinion dressed up as logic.

 

[Wilk]

If reasonable is just subjective, then it’s just opinion dressed up as logic.

Yes. Consensus and persuasion happens in public policies based on datas and even academia falls to that. Thats exactly how it is

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Yes. Consensus and persuasion happens in public policies based on datas and even academia falls to that. Thats exactly how it is

Consensus without coherence isn’t knowledge, it’s just politics.

 

[Wilk]

Consensus without coherence isn’t knowledge, it’s just politics.

Well, motivation is something animalesque and irrational, so every human action comes from that irrationality. Our use of logic and rationality is merely to serve that stupid part of ours. And it frequently isn't perfect, but just sufficiently useful for our motivation.

 

[Deleted Member 76607]

Well, motivation is something animalesque and irrational, so every human action comes from that irrationality. Our use of logic and rationality is merely to serve that stupid part of ours. And it frequently isn't perfect, but just sufficiently useful for our motivation.

So you used logic to argue logic is just an animal instinct’s servant? Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Wilk]

So you used logic to argue logic is just an animal instinct’s servant? Thanks for proving my point.

World is full of contradiction. You are taking into consideration that the existence of contradiction implies that something cant be useful.

Lets take for example that philosophically 0,9999... is something differently from 1.
However, mathematically, 0,999999..... = 1.









x=0,9‾...

10x=9,9...

10x−x=9,9...−0,9....

9x=9

x=9/9=1

x=1 & x= 0,999....

 

[Wilk]

So you used logic to argue logic is just an animal instinct’s servant? Thanks for proving my point.

World is full of contradiction. You are taking into consideration that the existence of contradiction implies that something cant be useful.

Lets take for example that philosophically 0,9999... is something differently from 1.
However, mathematically, 0,999999..... = 1.









x=0,9‾...

10x=9,9...

10x−x=9,9...−0,9....

9x=9

x=9/9=1

x=1 & x= 0,999....

Apart from that mathematical case, i would also like to remind you of the classical problem of the first cause behind the existence of the universe, which is also a contradiction of reality.


Reality is not obliged to be logical or rational.