Axiom are better regarded as assumptions in my opinion. Frank Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918
Research: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 On Mon, Jun 29, 2026, 2:47 PM glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Never mind that Folley's linearity, here, disallows the exceptions where > fallacious arguments are *good* arguments ... maybe even [gasp] made good > *because* they're fallacious. But because some of my AI slop has recently > been labeled "factually incorrect" 8^D, his use of the phrase starting just > after the 2:36 mark triggered me. > > The 7 Levels of Logical Thinking > https://youtu.be/yrimaWOQtfM?si=QL8-wj68gqj67ltu&t=156 > > "There are awful people throughout history who have still been factually > correct about some things. And there are incredibly moral people who have > been factually incorrect about some things." > > Grrr. In addition to the assumption of linearity, let's put aside the > violation of Hume's guillotine. What I'd like to focus on is nickname > "fact". What is fact in such argumentation? I suppose we could allow that > axioms are "brute" facts and, if the inference is truth-preserving, > subsequent sentences may be facts but not brute. But these punctuation > marks, the well-formed sentences are distinct from the transformations that > operate on them. Are the transformations properly called "facts", just like > the sentences they operate on? My guess is that they're more akin to axioms > than derived outcomes. So the transformations are also brute, if they're > facts at all. > > And if we promote primitive transformations to "facts", then do we also > promote compositions of transformations to "facts"? Would the compositions > be analogous to the derived sentences? So composite tranforms are mere > facts but primitive transformations are brute facts? > > Worse yet, although the rest of what he says in the rest of the video is > fine, just fine, w.r.t. to what can be called or understood as "fact", are > metalogical classificiations of logics somehow *more* factual? I mean, if > some property holds for a class of logics, then there's a bit of wiggle > room in which logic you choose for some task addressable by any in the > class. So that metalogical fact is a more robust fact than a persnickety > fact upheld by a smaller set of logics. By this progressive promotion, we > might say that "brute facts" of axioms or primitive transforms in a > particular logic are not even facts, whereas metalogical true sentences are > facts, flipping the whole "factuality calculus" on its head. Could "it is > blue" be less factual than "there exist things that are blue"? > > Or even more radical, is it possible that AI hallucinations, having been > derived from more data than God, are more factual than any particular > validated output? > > Is gaslighting more entheogenic than psilocybin? Where are the > representative Scientologists when you need one? > > -- > 8647 ⊥ ɐןןǝdoɹ ǝ uǝןƃ > ὅτε oi μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες τοὺς ἐχϑροὺς δάκνουσιν, ἐγὰ δὲ τοὺς φίλους, ἵνα > σώσω. > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
