Anon05/12/26, 19:16No.16975045
A mind is capable of evaluation. A computer copies such evaluations, like a parrot. There is a category of thing which can understand, know, and believe concepts. Computers are not in this category. Manipulating a symbol, word, or sign only changes the literal pointer and not what is being pointed at. The semantic assignment of a phrase is already of the first type and not the second.
This is all platonic.
The alternatives are self-refuting because whatever arrangement they come in, they expressly assume truth and knowledge. Unlike embrace monke as an escape from the Hegelian trap, a monke must be a thing, embrace must be a thing, a directive must be a thing. Even nonsense exists subordinate to the sensible. There is no way out of it. And the other kinds of alternatives can safely be refuted by asking "is this true." Modal formulations necessitate it.
A hysteria has risen in the belief of various kinds of logics, say the constructive logic. But these are second order systems related to ambiguity in communication. If a cat is mentioned in conversation there are many things it could be referring to:
1. the universal idea of cat
2. a particular cat (garfield, simba, tom)
3. a kind of cat (real, fictional, lion, houepset)
Etc.
There is are real concern of short-hand abbreviation and identity. Aside from logical riddles that could be created from this sort of idea, does it rise to the level of supplanting classical logic?