impredicable incredulous eduction

If P = the set of all men who don't shave themselves

and P' = the set of all men whom are shaved by the barber

Then



the barber is a woman.

Philosophy of mathematics 101.

Is the proposition decidable? If not then data set then is not complete.

The term "IS" performs its duty to work for that which is ever present.

"Peat IS" is a complete sentence since subject agrees with predicate.

To say verb must agree with predicate in sentence is/was/wills wrong.

All that is logically required is to point out one contradiction and it is wrong.

Logic is viewed from an angle of view in 360 degrees cubed momentarily.

Time factors considerations for facts entailed by an events particulars.

If neglected result in impossible to ever modify outcomes so generated.

IMPLY is one such term/word/ that in itself is a proposition all by itself.

With a proposition of the first part P implicated with second part of Q

As Symptom showed very clearly that P can be wrong and Q can be right.

We must ask ourself then what is mathematics doing but studying language.

Post "THE ONE" pointed to circumference of humans event spectrum's,

That each individual is found wanting for good information to decide first.

The set of all men who do not shave themselves could mean a woman.

The story I heard entailed a command by the prince of the city gates.

Who created a monopoly for one barber with a caveat that prevented

Others in the city from shaving themselves so the one barber only could

The way the law was presented left it open to interpretation that the

Barber if he shaved himself would leave himself open to death's sentence.

So he fled and left that prince of the city alone with that policy decision.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely since the outcome of that policy at

The time of its inception remained unrealisable on account of practises:

Thus the law predicated for an action to occur becomes proposition P.

Q then which was one of the possible outcomes as generated by prop. P.

Q remained an unforeseen outcome of P on account of one word ignorance.

Q is in memory after the fact and now presents a way out of ignorance.

Q therefore was but one outcome generated for proposition P to imply.

Power plays is what I read into that little story of the impredicable incredulous.

Think about it which way are you going on the train when two trains are on

Either side of you going in the opposite direction the illusion when still magnificence.

Problem is solved from or to first principles from or to general conclusions.

On Sense Abilities

[QUOTE=Antone;466858]
If all consciousness is subjective, how can we ever be conscious of anything other than ourselves? [/QUOTE]

 To speak a word is to be conscious that one can either fool oneself or fool others and teach self or in so doing: teach others. Thus the subject of consciousness is for to not be deceived so easily in the face of, the evil ones temptations, as one lies on that torturers bed of nails in ones trials and tribulations over the fetching of food and water from earth and well.


When that state is in itself, as corrupted, as the pigs, as in Orwell's "Animal Farm". (Went to see David Leans "Doctor Zhivago' during the week, noted the English accent seemed out of place and was not fooled for a second by the facade of a love story) Political expediency means to obey the laws of your land and that the makers of those rules can change them at their whim and fancy so that the outcome so generated fills their houses with stuff that will end up on a rubbish tip. When the fact remains that not one thing ever raised was not done so via an act of will on the part of the willing. Milk and eggs do not grow on supermarket shelves.



Consciousness is one of those pesky four syllable words borrowed from the Romans/Greeks. A word that is a sentence in itself, that is a label or noun that stands in the place of all that was ever thought about from the stroke of genius that was felt from first to last words over what it means to be alive as opposed to what it means to be dead. Milk comes from cows who eat grass and eggs come from chickens who eat seeds of grasses and scraps. They crap and we crap and the stuff becomes compost and is the food for the next crop. That is what I am conscious of in the map of earths territories bounded by the waters of all rivers seas, clouds and airs: graces and disgraces.



[QUOTE=ANTONE]First, is it logical to conclude that all consciousness is subjective? If it is not, then what else is it? And how does it work? [/QUOTE]



Pain and Pleasure are complementary pairs just as Malevolence and Benevolence are. Logic is the thing as it is known to behave or act as it is actor on the stage as archetype or anti-type. The question of the metaphysicains is invalidated by "We are what we do and have done and will do" Who are we, where do we come from and where are we going to are the realms ruled by the philosophical metaphysicains who forgot to ask their creator what the soul is. I walk on the sole of my foot composed of a thesis and an arsis. That is the footfall and they are the steps taken in formulating each and ever algorithimical process. Reciprocation is the key to a proper theory of numbers. a/bxb/a=1 everytime I look at any pair in the set of natural integers. Anybody with the simplest of calculator/spreadsheets can prove it in as little as four calculations. Whether it works for the complex numbers is yet to be realized. For a theory to be true it must undergo rigorous testing is the answer. When proved true it was always true and is therefore an eduction as opposed to a deduction and induction. Rather like walking a tightrope is it not? Take care do not fall off, Houdini never ever reported back to his wife, so I was informed anecdotally which are but merely fragments of evidence as left behind repeated like Chinese whispers concerning the origins of fossilized bones.



[QUOTE=ANT ONE]Second, If it is subjective (as Descartes suggested) does this have any practical affect on how we should see the world? And [/QUOTE]

Subject from my viewpoint is an object to devote ones attentions too, to gain a wholistic perspective.



[QUOTE= ANT ONE]Third, is it possible to work our way back towards giving 'reality' meaning? And, if so, how do we do that?[/QUOTE]





Within the boundaries of information theory from one extreme to the other the subject from Turing machine to the automaton. I do not claim to know how they work. I do know that from clay we were made and that we speak what is thought after that which was felt was felt and looking little more aware than an ancient jewish golum. Whether it was six cuts across the hand for playing up by throwing paper planes in religious instruction class in 1966 or it was following the crowd to-wards evil ends the fact remains that pain and suffering for the consequences of ones actions is de rogue and that R.I. Teacher Preachers should refer to the GOLDEN RULE before they lash out at you. Shame on them for not practicing what they preach. Thanks MD and ANT ONE you have been helpful. We do it via logic, grammar and rhetoric if we fail those subjects in the scholastics enterprising trivium how in the rubbish tip can anyone ever understand arithmetic, let alone geometry, let alone astronomy, let alone the wonderful art of music, then appears to be, in it's dding, not so trivial anymore.



P=EAT

The Deception Detector