Podcasts about propositional

Join Josh Howard and Alex Kocman as they discuss biblical nationhood vs propositional nationhood and the liberal consensus, nations as defined by language, particularly in missions work... Are nations in the eternal state? Does grace destroy nature? And a walkthrough of Reformed quotes establishing nations as belonging to Christ.Watch all of our videos and subscribe to our channel for the latest content >HereHere

Is America essentially a dream? An unattainable goal toward which the nation is always progressing? A set of ideas that anyone and everyone from around the world can adopt and join? The propositional nation, one built on an adherence to a series of assertions, is what conservatives have offered my entire life and the default identity they are now attempting to return to with the defeat of the multicultural globalist vision. The problem with this definition is that it cannot hold up to basic scrutiny. Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Josh Howard and Alex Kocman as they discuss biblical vs propositional nationhood, the liberal consensus... Are nations in the eternal state? Does grace destroy nature? A walk through of reformed quotes establishing the nations belong to Christ,

Join Josh Howard and Alex Kocman as they discuss biblical vs propositional nationhood, the liberal consensus... Are nations in the eternal state? Does grace destroy nature? A walk through of reformed quotes establishing the nations belong to Christ,

After Donald Trump announced JD Vance as his running mate, commentators on both the Left and Right took aim at the Ohio senator's brand of populist nationalism. One issue in particular that bothered everyone from Alex Wagner to Ben Shapiro was Vance's willingness to challenge the idea of the propositional nation. We'll look at the theory of the propositional nation and its many shortcomings. Follow on: Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-auron-macintyre-show/id1657770114 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3S6z4LBs8Fi7COupy7YYuM?si=4d9662cb34d148af Substack: https://auronmacintyre.substack.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre Gab: https://gab.com/AuronMacIntyre YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/c/AuronMacIntyre Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-390155 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@AuronMacIntyre:f Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/auronmacintyre/ Episode sponsors: Go to https://www.lumen.me/auron and use AURON to get 15% off your Lumen   Visit https://www.jobstacking.com/startnow Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom podcast, Stewart Alsop hosts David Weinstein, former Chief of Staff at the Near Foundation. They cover a range of topics including the Near Protocol and its scalability, the intersection of AI and crypto, the importance of propositional truth, and the future of learning with AI. David shares insights on the limitations of technology in solving existential problems and explores ideas for a new kind of Wisdom School that focuses on holistic education and collective intelligence. Find out more about David Weinstein on Twitter at @DW_Stein and his Substack at davidweinstein.substack.com. Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation! Timestamps 00:00 - Introduction and welcome to David Weinstein, former chief of staff at the Near Foundation, discussing topics like Near Protocol and Wisdom School. 05:00 - Explanation of the Near Protocol, its launch in 2020, and its role as a scalable layer-one blockchain. 10:00 - Discussion on Near Protocol's relationship with AI, mentioning co-founder Ilya's background and work on the "Attention Is All You Need" paper. 15:00 - Exploration of AI and crypto, their intersection, and the concerns about the power of AI being centralized. 20:00 - Propositional truth and the role of crypto in data provenance, touching on John Vervaeke's concepts. 25:00 - AI's limitations in solving existential problems and technology's role in addressing surface-level issues rather than root causes. 30:00 - Discussion on holding multiple truths and the importance of paradox, with references to Ian McGilchrist's work on the Master and His Emissary. 35:00 - Quantum mechanics and its implications, comparing it to classical physics, and the influence of the unconscious on the conscious mind. 40:00 - Speculation on the future of books and learning with AI, including the possibility of interactive, conversational learning experiences. 45:00 - Discussion on the potential fracturing of the human species into new tribes based on technological and spiritual integration. 50:00 - The role of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies in creating a permissionless, decentralized truth and value layer. 55:00 - David's vision for a Wisdom School, emphasizing more accessible and practical education, collective intelligence, and new governance models using crypto. Key Insights 1-Near Protocol's Scalability and Innovation: David Weinstein explains how Near Protocol was designed to address scalability issues seen in other blockchain protocols, such as Ethereum. By incorporating the best features from various existing protocols, Near aims to provide a more efficient and unified user experience, where complexities are abstracted away, making blockchain technology more accessible to end users. 2-AI and Crypto Synergy: The discussion highlights the synergy between AI and crypto, particularly through the lens of Near Protocol's origins in AI. David underscores how AI's need for high-quality data and micropayments led to the creation of Near Protocol, and he envisions a future where AI and crypto together ensure data integrity and democratize access to advanced technologies. 3-Decentralization as a Check on Power: One of the key themes is the role of decentralization in maintaining checks and balances on the immense power of AI. David argues that crypto, through its decentralized nature, can prevent the concentration of power within closed institutions, ensuring a more open and equitable technological landscape. 4-The Limits of Propositional Truth in Technology: Stewart Alsop III and David discuss the concept of propositional truth, as highlighted by John Vervaeke, and how crypto can aid in establishing verifiable truths. However, they also recognize the limitations of technology in addressing deeper, existential truths and human experiences that go beyond mere data and computation. 5-The Role of Paradox and Struggle: The conversation delves into the importance of paradox and struggle in human life. Drawing from Ian McGilchrist's work, David emphasizes that while technology can solve surface-level problems, it is the existential challenges and paradoxes that drive human growth and fulfillment, suggesting that these aspects should not be overlooked in the pursuit of technological advancement. 6-Future of Learning with AI: Both Stewart and David explore how AI could revolutionize learning by creating more interactive and personalized educational experiences. They envision a future where learners can engage in bi-directional conversations with AI representations of authors and thinkers, making education more dynamic and tailored to individual curiosity and needs. 7-Emerging Cultural and Technological Paradigms: The discussion touches on the potential for humanity to fracture into new cultural and technological paradigms. With the rise of distinct memetic tribes and advancements in AI and genetic technologies, Stewart and David foresee a future where diverse human experiences and ways of knowing lead to a more complex and multifaceted societal evolution.

Tataya Bailey is the founder and lead trainer of Prisma Leadership, combining her law degree, multiple yoga certifications, and over two decades of facilitation experience to create a unique leadership approach rooted in integrity and connection. Rachel Hayden is a magpie of the Liminal Web, and occasional collaborator with people like John, Gregg Henriques, and Alexander Bard. Her background includes somatics, meditative and contemplative practice, and peer-based mental health How can we heal and transform ourselves through embodied practices and the relational field?  In this episode of Voices with Vervaeke, Tataya Bailey and Rachel Hayden join John Vervaeke to explore the transformative power of relational practices on personal growth and healing. They delve into the balance between structure and spontaneity, discuss handling trauma, and emphasize the significance of attention and attunement in fostering authentic connections. This episode highlights the beauty of human connection and the endless possibilities for transformation.   Support John's groundbreaking work and gain exclusive access to live Q&A sessions, early video releases, and more by joining our Patreon community!    — "I discovered capacities in me that I didn't even know I had." - Tataya Bailey [00:06:30] "The experiences ranged from incredibly profound and bequeathing of a new dharma for me, all the way to working through shadow stuff, having alternate childhood experiences, and working through archetypal symbolism and tribal imagery between people. It was all like welcome there, and it was all material for that relationality, which I found so beautiful and so accessible to me." - Rachel Hayden [00:12:00]  —   00:00 Introduction: Exploring Relational Practices 08:35 Rachel's Prisma Experience: Embracing Vulnerability and Transformation 13:45 The Structure and Values of Prisma: Balancing Spontaneity and Containment 21:10 How Prisma Unlocks Relational Potential: Recovering Lost Parts and Deepening Connection 40:05 Attention and Attunement: Harmonizing Individuation and Participation 43:50 The Musicality of Relational Practices: The Dance of Metaphors and Sacred Rituals 50:50 Navigating Trauma and Safety in Relational Work 01:00:00 Embracing Discomfort: The Journey from Propositional to Participatory Connection 01:04:50 Re-exaptation and the Imaginal: The Role of Aporia in Transformative Practices 01:12:10 Final Thoughts and Future Aspirations   —   Become a part of The Vervaeke Foundation's  mission to promote the scientifically rigorous pursuit of wisdom and create a lasting impact on the world.    Join Awaken to Meaning to explore practices that enhance your virtues and foster deeper connections with reality and relationships.   —   Ideas, Authors, and Works Mentioned in this Episode   Alanja Forsberg - Avalon Community Alexander Bard Seth Allison - IFS James Carse - Infinite Game Andrew Huberman Kerry Ressler Robert Kegan   — Follow John Vervaeke: Website | Twitter | YouTube | Patreon   Follow Tataya Bailey: Website | Instagram | LinkedIn   —   Thank you for watching!  

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Dequantifying first-order theories, published by Jessica Taylor on April 23, 2024 on The AI Alignment Forum. The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem implies, among other things, that any first-order theory whose symbols are countable, and which has an infinite model, has a countably infinite model. This means that, in attempting to refer to uncountably infinite structures (such as in set theory), one "may as well" be referring to an only countably infinite structure, as far as proofs are concerned. The main limitation I see with this theorem is that it preserves arbitrarily deep quantifier nesting. In Peano arithmetic, it is possible to form statements that correspond (under the standard interpretation) to arbitrary statements in the arithmetic hierarchy (by which I mean, the union of Σ0n and Π0n for arbitrary n). Not all of these statements are computable. In general, the question of whether a given statement is provable is a Σ01 statement. So, even with a countable model, one can still believe one's self to be "referring" to high levels of the arithmetic hierarchy, despite the computational implausibility of this. What I aim to show is that these statements that appear to refer to high levels of the arithmetic hierarchy are, in terms of provability, equivalent to different statements that only refer to a bounded level of hypercomputation. I call this "dequantification", as it translates statements that may have deeply nested quantifiers to ones with bounded or no quantifiers. I first attempted translating statements in a consistent first-order theory T to statements in a different consistent first-order theory U, such that the translated statements have only bounded quantifier depth, as do the axioms of U. This succeeded, but then I realized that I didn't even need U to be first-order; U could instead be a propositional theory (with a recursively enumerable axiom schema). Propositional theories and provability-preserving translations Here I will, for specificity, define propositional theories. A propositional theory is specified by a countable set of proposition symbols, and a countable set of axioms, each of which is a statement in the theory. Statements in the theory consist of proposition symbols, , , and statements formed from and/or/not and other statements. Proving a statement in a propositional theory consists of an ordinary propositional calculus proof that it follows from some finite subset of the axioms (I assume that base propositional calculus is specified by inference rules, containing no axioms). A propositional theory is recursively enumerable if there exists a Turing machine that eventually prints all its axioms; assume that the (countable) proposition symbols are specified by their natural indices in some standard ordering. If the theory is recursively enumerable, then proofs (that specify the indices of axioms they use in the recursive enumeration) can be checked for validity by a Turing machine. Due to the soundness and completeness of propositional calculus, a statement in a propositional theory is provable if and only if it is true in all models of the theory. Here, a model consists of an assignment of Boolean truth values to proposition symbols such that all axioms are true. (Meanwhile, Gödel's completeness theorem shows soundness and completeness of first-order logic.) Let's start with a consistent first-order theory T, which may, like propositional theories, have a countable set of symbols and axioms. Also assume this theory is recursively enumerable, that is, there is a Turing machine printing its axioms. The initial challenge is to find a recursively enumerable propositional theory U and a computable translation of T-statements to U-statements, such that a T-statement is provable if and only if its translation is provable. This turns out to be trivia...

In episode 106 of The Gradient Podcast, Daniel Bashir speaks to Professor Harvey Lederman.Professor Lederman is a professor of philosophy at UT Austin. He has broad interests in contemporary philosophy and in the history of philosophy: his areas of specialty include philosophical logic, the Ming dynasty philosopher Wang Yangming, epistemology, and philosophy of language. He has recently been working on incomplete preferences, on trying in the philosophy of language, and on Wang Yangming's moral metaphysics.Have suggestions for future podcast guests (or other feedback)? Let us know here or reach us at editor@thegradient.pubSubscribe to The Gradient Podcast:  Apple Podcasts  | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSSFollow The Gradient on TwitterOutline:* (00:00) Intro* (02:15) Harvey's background* (05:30) Higher-order metaphysics and propositional attitudes* (06:25) Motivations* (12:25) Setup: syntactic types and ontological categories* (25:11) What makes higher-order languages meaningful and not vague?* (25:57) Higher-order languages corresponding to the world* (30:52) Extreme vagueness* (35:32) Desirable features of languages and important questions in philosophy* (36:42) Higher-order identity* (40:32) Intuitions about mental content, language, context-sensitivity* (50:42) Perspectivism* (51:32) Co-referring names, identity statements* (55:42) The paper's approach, “know” as context-sensitive* (57:24) Propositional attitude psychology and mentalese generalizations* (59:57) The “good standing” of theorizing about propositional attitudes* (1:02:22) Mentalese* (1:03:32) “Does knowledge imply belief?” — when a question does not have good standing* (1:06:17) Sense, Reference, and Substitution* (1:07:07) Fregeans and the principle of Substitution* (1:12:12) Follow-up work to this paper* (1:13:39) Do Language Models Produce Reference Like Libraries or Like Librarians?* (1:15:02) Bibliotechnism* (1:19:08) Inscriptions and reference, what it takes for something to refer* (1:22:37) Derivative and basic reference* (1:24:47) Intuition: n-gram models and reference* (1:28:22) Meaningfulness in sentences produced by n-gram models* (1:30:40) Bibliotechnism and LLMs, disanalogies to n-grams* (1:33:17) On other recent work (vector grounding, do LMs refer?, etc.)* (1:40:12) Causal connections and reference, how bibliotechnism makes good on the meanings of sentences* (1:45:46) RLHF, sensitivity to truth and meaningfulness* (1:48:47) Intelligibility* (1:50:52) When LLMs produce novel reference* (1:53:37) Novel reference vs. find-replace* (1:56:00) Directionality example* (1:58:22) Human intentions and derivative reference* (2:00:47) Between bibliotechnism and agency* (2:05:32) Where do invented names / novel reference come from?* (2:07:17) Further questions* (2:10:04) OutroLinks:* Harvey's homepage and Twitter* Papers discussed* Higher-order metaphysics and propositional attitudes* Perspectivism* Sense, Reference, and Substitution* Are Language Models More Like Libraries or Like Librarians? Bibliotechnism, the Novel Reference Problem, and the Attitudes of LLMs Get full access to The Gradient at thegradientpub.substack.com/subscribe

Dr. John Vervaeke engages in an in-depth conversation with Sam Tideman, delving into the four kinds of knowing – procedural, propositional, perspectival, and participatory – and how they relate to personality and understanding of religion. They explore the concept of purpose from both philosophical and psychological perspectives, touching upon the historical and cosmic scale of purpose, human uniqueness in understanding purpose, and the functional purpose in nature. The episode also includes a discussion on Spinoza's philosophy and the importance of mindset and awareness, leading to reflections on the implications of purpose for humanity.   Glossary of Terms   Propositional knowledge: Knowledge of facts. Procedural knowing: Knowing how to do something. Perspectival knowing: Knowing by noticing aspects of things within how you are sizing up a situation. Knowing what it is like to be noticing from the state of mind you are in of the situation you are in. Knowing what is like being in a particular perspective.  Participatory knowing: Knowing by being. It refers to knowing how to act in the “agent-arena” environment—how the world and you are shaped by the same principles and processes to fit together, whether those processes are natural or cultural. Gravity shapes you, and the ground and culture shape you and the environment into a floor for walking. It is knowing by participating in affordances co-created by you and the world.   Resources and References:   Dr. John Vervaeke: Website | YouTube | Patreon | X | Facebook Sam Tideman: YouTube   The Vervaeke Foundation John Vervaeke YouTube Awakening from the Meaning Crisis Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Naturalism w/ Sam Adams   Books, Articles, Publications, and Videos Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics - Clare Carlisle Philosopher of the Heart: The Restless Life of Søren Kierkegaard - Clare Carlisle  John Vervaeke on the relevance of Neoplatonism today | Transfigured    Quotes   "It's knowing this with your states of consciousness, states of consciousness always have co-defining situational awareness." - John Vervaeke, on perspectival knowing "The way your agency and your character are shaped and your biology is shaped to fit the environment... that's participatory knowing." - John Vervaeke   Chapters with Timestamps   [00:00:00] Introduction of Dr. John Vervaeke [00:03:07] The Four Kinds of Knowing [00:04:20] Christian Doctrinal Differences and Kinds of Knowing [00:08:07] Deeper Definitions and Taxonomy of the Four Ps [00:17:23] Discussion on Personality and Kinds of Knowing [00:32:16] Exploring Human Consciousness and Purpose [00:41:33] The Universe, Life, and the Concept of Purpose [00:48:22] Human Uniqueness in Understanding Purpose   Timestamped Highlights   [00:00:00] Introduction of Dr.John Vervaeke [00:03:07] Explanation of the four kinds of knowing [00:04:20] Discussion on Christian doctrinal differences [00:08:07] In-depth definitions of the four Ps [00:17:23] Connecting personality types with kinds of knowing [00:22:35] Integrating various kinds of knowing for holistic spiritual and personal development [00:32:16] Exploration of human consciousness and purpose [00:39:40] Debate on redemptive narrative in history [00:41:33] The challenge of fitting the Christian mythological arc to the modern understanding of the universe [00:44:11] Discussing the concept of incarnation [00:48:22] Human uniqueness in understanding purpose [00:50:30] The functional purpose in nature [00:52:28] Mount Everest as an example of purpose without consciousness [00:53:14] Introduction to Spinoza's concept of conatas [00:58:00] Reflecting on the quality of life in the universe [01:05:00] The significance of life beyond quantity [01:10:30] Philosophical implications of understanding purpose [01:20:20] Discussing the impact of human mortality awareness on purpose and understanding   [01:30:00] Understanding purpose in existence and its implications in Christianity and pragmatism  

Episode 2375: Our featured article of the day is Logic.Welcome to featured Wiki of the Day where we read the summary of the featured Wikipedia article every day.The featured article for Sunday, 5 November 2023 is Logic.Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the science of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It studies how conclusions follow from premises due to the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content. Informal logic is associated with informal fallacies, critical thinking, and argumentation theory. It examines arguments expressed in natural language while formal logic uses formal language. When used as a countable noun, the term "a logic" refers to a logical formal system that articulates a proof system. Logic plays a central role in many fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, and linguistics.Logic studies arguments, which consist of a set of premises together with a conclusion. An example is the argument from the premises "it's Sunday" and "if it's Sunday then I don't have to work" to the conclusion "I don't have to work". Premises and conclusions express propositions or claims that can be true or false. An important feature of propositions is their internal structure. For example, complex propositions are made up of simpler propositions linked by logical vocabulary like ∧ {displaystyle land } (and) or → {displaystyle to } (if...then). Simple propositions also have parts, like "Sunday" or "work" in the example. The truth of a proposition usually depends on the meanings of all of its parts. However, this is not the case for logically true propositions. They are true only because of their logical structure independent of the specific meanings of the individual parts.Arguments can be either correct or incorrect. An argument is correct if its premises support its conclusion. Deductive arguments have the strongest form of support: if their premises are true then their conclusion must also be true. This is not the case for ampliative arguments, which arrive at genuinely new information not found in the premises. Many arguments in everyday discourse and the sciences are ampliative arguments. They are divided into inductive and abductive arguments. Inductive arguments are statistical generalizations, like inferring that all ravens are black based on many individual observations of black ravens. Abductive arguments are inferences to the best explanation, for example, when a doctor concludes that a patient has a certain disease which explains the symptoms they suffer. Arguments that fall short of the standards of correct reasoning often embody fallacies. Systems of logic are theoretical frameworks for assessing the correctness of arguments.Logic has been studied since antiquity. Early approaches include Aristotelian logic, Stoic logic, Nyaya, and Mohism. Aristotelian logic focuses on reasoning in the form of syllogisms. It was considered the main system of logic in the Western world until it was replaced by modern formal logic, which has its roots in the work of late 19th-century mathematicians such as Gottlob Frege. Today, the most used system is classical logic. It consists of propositional logic and first-order logic. Propositional logic only considers logical relations between full propositions. First-order logic also takes the internal parts of propositions into account, like predicates and quantifiers. Extended logics accept the basic intuitions behind classical logic and extend it to other fields, such as metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Deviant logics, on the other hand, reject certain classical intuitions and provide alternative explanations of the basic laws of logic.This recording reflects the Wikipedia text as of 05:13 UTC on Sunday, 5 November 2023.For the full current version of the article, see Logic on Wikipedia.This podcast uses content from Wikipedia under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.Visit our archives at wikioftheday.com and subscribe to stay updated on new episodes.Follow us on Mastodon at @wikioftheday@masto.ai.Also check out Curmudgeon's Corner, a current events podcast.Until next time, I'm Joanna Neural.

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A brief history of computers, published by Adam Zerner on July 19, 2023 on LessWrong. Recently I've been learning about the history of computers. I find it to be incredibly interesting. I'd like to write a post about it to summarize and comment on what I've learned. I'm a little hesitant though. I'm no expert on this stuff. I'm largely learning about it all for the first time. So then, take all of this with a grain of salt. It's more of a conversation starter than a finished product. If you want something authoritative, I'd recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Logic Let's start with logic. Computers are largely based on boolean logic. Y'know, 1s and 0s. AND, OR, NOT. George Boole did a bunch of important work here in the mid 1800s, but let's try backing up even further. Was there anything important that came before Boolean logic? Yeah, there was. It goes all the way back to Aristotle in ~350 BCE. Aristotle did a bunch of groundbreaking work in the field of logic. Furthermore, after "breaking the ground", there weren't any significant developments until the mid 1800s. Wow! That's a long time. An unusually long time. In other fields like mathematics, natural sciences, literature and engineering, there were significant advances. I wonder why things in the field of logic were so quiet. Anyway, let's talk about what exactly Aristotle did. In short, he looked at arguments in the abstract. It's one thing to say that: Filo is a dog Therefore, Filo has feet It's another thing to say that: R is a P Therefore, R has Q The former is concrete. It's talking about dogs, feet and Filo. The latter is abstract. It's talking about P's, Q's and R's. Do you see the difference? Before Aristotle, people never thought about this stuff in terms of P's and Q's. They just thought about dogs and feet. Thinking about P's and Q's totally opened things up. Pretty cool. Abstraction is powerful. I think this is very much worth noting as an important milestone in the history of computers. Ok. So once Aristotle opened the flood gates with categorical logic, over time, people kinda piggybacked off of it and extended his work. For example, the Stoics did a bunch of work with propositional logic. Propositional logic is different from categorical logic. Categorical logic is about what categories things belong to. For example, earlier we basically said that dogs belong to the category of "things with feet" and that Filo belongs to the category of "dogs". With those two statements, we deduced that Filo must also belong to the category of "things with feet". It makes a lot of sense when you think about it visually: On the other hand, propositional logic is about things being true or false. For example, with this: I don't have an umbrella we can deduce things like: "It is raining or I have an umbrella" is true Propositional logic is about truth and uses operators like AND, OR, NOT, IF-THEN, and IF-AND-ONLY-IF. Categorical logic is about categories and uses operators like ALL, NO and SOME. After propositional logic, subsequent work was done. For example, predicate logic kinda piggybacked off of propositional logic. But in general, nothing too crazy was going on. Let's jump ahead to the mid 1800s and George Boole. Boole introduced stuff like this: (p and q) is false (p or q) is true (not (p and q)) is true But wait a minute. I'm confused. Didn't we get that sort of thing from propositional logic all the way back in 300 BCE from the Stoics? In researching this question I'm seeing things saying that it did in fact already exist, it's just that Boole made it more "systematic and formalized". I don't understand though. In what way did he made it more systematic and formalized? Oh well. Suffice it to say that boolean logic was a thing that we knew about. Let's move on. Jacquard loom I was going to star...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: A brief history of computers, published by Adam Zerner on July 19, 2023 on LessWrong. Recently I've been learning about the history of computers. I find it to be incredibly interesting. I'd like to write a post about it to summarize and comment on what I've learned. I'm a little hesitant though. I'm no expert on this stuff. I'm largely learning about it all for the first time. So then, take all of this with a grain of salt. It's more of a conversation starter than a finished product. If you want something authoritative, I'd recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Logic Let's start with logic. Computers are largely based on boolean logic. Y'know, 1s and 0s. AND, OR, NOT. George Boole did a bunch of important work here in the mid 1800s, but let's try backing up even further. Was there anything important that came before Boolean logic? Yeah, there was. It goes all the way back to Aristotle in ~350 BCE. Aristotle did a bunch of groundbreaking work in the field of logic. Furthermore, after "breaking the ground", there weren't any significant developments until the mid 1800s. Wow! That's a long time. An unusually long time. In other fields like mathematics, natural sciences, literature and engineering, there were significant advances. I wonder why things in the field of logic were so quiet. Anyway, let's talk about what exactly Aristotle did. In short, he looked at arguments in the abstract. It's one thing to say that: Filo is a dog Therefore, Filo has feet It's another thing to say that: R is a P Therefore, R has Q The former is concrete. It's talking about dogs, feet and Filo. The latter is abstract. It's talking about P's, Q's and R's. Do you see the difference? Before Aristotle, people never thought about this stuff in terms of P's and Q's. They just thought about dogs and feet. Thinking about P's and Q's totally opened things up. Pretty cool. Abstraction is powerful. I think this is very much worth noting as an important milestone in the history of computers. Ok. So once Aristotle opened the flood gates with categorical logic, over time, people kinda piggybacked off of it and extended his work. For example, the Stoics did a bunch of work with propositional logic. Propositional logic is different from categorical logic. Categorical logic is about what categories things belong to. For example, earlier we basically said that dogs belong to the category of "things with feet" and that Filo belongs to the category of "dogs". With those two statements, we deduced that Filo must also belong to the category of "things with feet". It makes a lot of sense when you think about it visually: On the other hand, propositional logic is about things being true or false. For example, with this: I don't have an umbrella we can deduce things like: "It is raining or I have an umbrella" is true Propositional logic is about truth and uses operators like AND, OR, NOT, IF-THEN, and IF-AND-ONLY-IF. Categorical logic is about categories and uses operators like ALL, NO and SOME. After propositional logic, subsequent work was done. For example, predicate logic kinda piggybacked off of propositional logic. But in general, nothing too crazy was going on. Let's jump ahead to the mid 1800s and George Boole. Boole introduced stuff like this: (p and q) is false (p or q) is true (not (p and q)) is true But wait a minute. I'm confused. Didn't we get that sort of thing from propositional logic all the way back in 300 BCE from the Stoics? In researching this question I'm seeing things saying that it did in fact already exist, it's just that Boole made it more "systematic and formalized". I don't understand though. In what way did he made it more systematic and formalized? Oh well. Suffice it to say that boolean logic was a thing that we knew about. Let's move on. Jacquard loom I was going to star...

In this stream I am joined by Bishop Maximus to discuss the unique dimensions of Orthodox theology, its participatory relationship to God, and how this differs so much from Western Christendom's focus on rational propositions . Make sure to check it out and let me know what you think. God bless Contact Bishop Maximus Here: romiosini@aol.com Intro Music Follow Keynan Here! https://linktr.ee/keynanrwils b-dibe's Bandcamp: https://b-dibe.bandcamp.com/ b-dibe's Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/b-dibe Superchat Here https://streamlabs.com/churchoftheeternallogos Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharry Website: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com GAB: https://gab.com/dpharry Support COTEL with Crypto! Bitcoin: 3QNWpM2qLGfaZ2nUXNDRnwV21UUiaBKVsy Ethereum: 0x0b87E0494117C0adbC45F9F2c099489079d6F7Da Litecoin: MKATh5kwTdiZnPE5Ehr88Yg4KW99Zf7k8d If you enjoy this production, feel compelled, or appreciate my other videos, please support me through my website memberships (www.davidpatrickharry.com) or donate directly by PayPal or crypto! Any contribution would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Logos Subscription Membership: http://davidpatrickharry.com/register/ Venmo: @cotel - https://account.venmo.com/u/cotel PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Donations: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com/donate/ PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Website: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharry Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/COTEL Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ChurchoftheEternalLogos:d GAB: https://gab.com/dpharry Telegram: https://t.me/eternallogos Minds: https://www.minds.com/Dpharry Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/W10R... DLive: https://dlive.tv/The_Eternal_Logos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dpharry/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/eternal_logos

You can ask a question on the Bridges of Meaning Discord Server https://discord.gg/4m7PrKNT    The Quest for a Spiritual Home Conference with PVK, Jonathan Pageau and John Vervaeke by Estuary Chino May 18 to 21 2023 Link for tickets https://events.eventzilla.net/e/estuary-chino-2023-2138601197  If you want to coordinate logistics: airport rides, airBNB shares, camping, use this form to connect with others. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScai2tVzk6pGx5o0NPmWhXyRXFBJK5hKLNqTtfg9q0cE0xqHw/viewform For further info and/or assistance, please, contact Karl Linder at  karljlinder@gmail.com July Washington DC Event with Michael Martin and Spencer Klavan https://www.eventbrite.com/e/christ-and-community-in-the-modern-age-tickets-608591853617 Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg Bridges of Meaning Discord https://discord.gg/5AXMtxAR https://www.meetup.com/sacramento-estuary/ My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640

Welcome back to episode 3 of After Socrates! Please join our patreon to support our work! https://www.patreon.com/johnvervaeke -- You are invited to join me live, online, at the next Circling & Dialogos Workshop where we discuss & practice the tools involved in both Philosophical Fellowship & Dialectic into Dialogos. You can find more information, and register, here:   https://circlinginstitute.com/circling-dialogos/ -- Books Referenced: Dialectic and Dialogue: Plato's Practice of Philosophical Inquiry - https://amzn.to/3QzeW7i New Perspectives on Platonic Dialectic A Philosophy of Inquiry - https://amzn.to/3ird3wJ   Thinkers Referenced: Pierre Hadot Plotinus Francisco J. Gonzalez Aristotle Ludwig Wittgenstein Gilbert Ryle James J. Gibson Stanley Rosen Wallace Matson Vasilis Politis Augustine of Hippo Graham Priest Werner Stegmaier Eric Sanday James H. Austin   Show Notes: [0:00] Intro [9:24] Pierre Hadot was a French philosopher and historian of philosophy specializing in ancient philosophy, particularly Neoplatonism. [14:56] Plotinus c. 204/5 – 270 CE. A philosopher of the Hellenistic tradition, born and raised in Roman Egypt. Plotinus is regarded by modern scholarship as the founder of Neoplatonism. [16:25] "In the end, I'm not concerned ultimately about historical accuracy. I'm concerned about affording people the ability to practice a way of life." [23:25] Semantic Memory - General knowledge about the world: e.g., facts, ideas, and other concept-based knowledge unrelated to specific experiences. [24:41] Procedural memory - a type of implicit memory involved in the performance of different actions and skills: the memory of how to do certain things. [26:07] Perspectival Knowing - Refers to knowing via embodied perception. It consists of seeing and experiencing the world from within a certain state or place of consciousness. [28:29] Episodic memory - The memory of everyday events that can be explicitly stated. It is the collection of past personal experiences that occurred at particular times and places. [30:28] ver·i·si·mil·i·tude - the appearance or semblance of truth; genuineness; authenticity. [31:02] Propositional knowing has to do with our reasoning capacity (language and inference). Procedural knowing relates to our basic skills and cognition (sensory-motor interaction). Perspectival knowing is about embodied consciousness (salience landscaping). [32:45] The Fourth Kind of Knowing: Participatory Knowing. Finding agency within an agent-arena relationship; by being fitted to the arena, the agent is able to determine the consequences of behavior and alter that behavior to bring about the desired consequences. [38:39] James Jerome Gibson (1904 – 1979). An American psychologist considered to be one of the most important contributors to the field of visual perception. [45:04] Stanley Rosen (1929-2014). One of the central themes of his work is the claim that the extraordinary discourses of philosophy have no other basis than the intelligent understanding of the features of ordinary life or human existence. [49.37] Wallace Matson (1921-2012). An American professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. He is known for his works on the existence of God. [52:17] Ep. 17 - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis - Gnosis and Existential Inertia:   [1:06:46] Vasilis Politis (1963-) is a Greek philosopher and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Trinity College Dublin. He is known for his expertise on Plato and Aristotle. (Dialectic and the Ability to Orientate Ourselves) [1:12:55] Graham Priest (born 1948) Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the CUNY Graduate Center. He is known for his defense of dialetheism, his in-depth analyses of the logical paradoxes and his many writings related to paraconsistent and other non-classical logics. [1:27:13] The Forms: The forms are something like fundamental principles of intelligibility and of being. The forms are the principles by which things "Are" and by which they are known or knowable by us. [1:32:33] Beginning of the practice. --- After Socrates is a series about how to create the theory, the practice, and the ecology of practices such that we can live and grow and develop through a Socratic way of life. The core argument is; the combination of the theoretical framework and the pedagogical program of practices can properly conduct us into the Socratic way of life. We believe that the Socratic way of life is what is most needed today because it is the one that can most help us cultivate wisdom in a way that is simultaneously respectful to spiritual tradition and to current scientific work.

Kanye's continued his Holy Fool tour this time on friend Lex's channel. Lex challenges him strongly on his anti-semitism. What is Kanye doing? Is it intentional? Is it a way of doing business? Two takes from Scott Adams here. Is it really just about raw intelligence or do people follow their knights, creating NPC collective bodies of belief that they defend?   @Lex Fridman  with Kanye https://youtu.be/4AWLcxTGZPA  @Real Coffee with Scott Adams  Kanye get cancelled? https://youtu.be/xeagOuwqkH8  @Real Coffee with Scott Adams  Is Kanye manic? https://youtu.be/HMqOliebuX0  @Lex Fridman  Deisweroth https://youtu.be/OaeYUm06in0  @Rafe Kelley  on  @John Vervaeke  https://youtu.be/xDgWOSQdR_8  @faturechi  Just Chatting with  @Grizwald Grim   @Navigating Patterns  https://youtu.be/2jGhBF3eXTw Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ Estuary Hub Link https://www.estuaryhub.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin (BTC): 37TSN79RXewX8Js7CDMDRzvgMrFftutbPo  To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) qr3amdmj3n2u83eqefsdft9vatnj9na0dqlzhnx80h  To support this channel/podcast with Ethereum (ETH): 0xd3F649C3403a4789466c246F32430036DADf6c62 Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640

In this episode of the Logos Institute Podcast, we (Jason Stigall & Dani Ross) continue our interview with Teresa Morgan on her recently released book, The New Testament and The Theology of Trust: 'This Rich Trust' (Oxford University Press - https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-testament-and-the-theology-of-trust-9780192859587?cc=gb&lang=en&). Last episode we concluded our discussion on Professor Morgan's account of God's therapeutic trust in humanity. In today's episode, we pick up our discussion on the book's model of trust and the role of action in faith. If you're interested in looking ahead, here are a few time stamps to help: 0:48 - The book's model of trust and the role of action in faith 3:20 - God's trust and interpersonal knowledge 7:28 - What is the relationship between trust, care, & power 11:20 - The order and relationship trust and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit (faith as a gift of the Spirit?) 13:47 - Revelation, Faith, & Propositional trust 22:33 - The pistis (trust) model of the atonement 35:08 - What are some practical implications of your model of trust and what are some applications of it in our daily lives? To learn more about the Logos Institute, visit our webpage at logos.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk. And don't forget to follow us on our blog where we post content from friends of the Institute at blogos.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk. You can also find us on Twitter (@TheologyStAs) and Facebook: www.facebook.com/TheologyStAs/?fb…Oc4Pz4P0qkCrfO_w Music: '10 Days (Instrumental)' by Forget the Whale From Free Music Archive CC BY NC SA

Two approaches to scripture and to Christian Universalism. Miscellaneous reflections thereafter.

Chris Burnett • Selected Scriptures • Sojourners

Chris Burnett • Selected Scriptures

Let's have a quick look at arguments with an "if... then" structure.

0:00:00  Intro / announcements 0:03:45  Would PVK teach monkeys missionary skills? 0:07:50  Would PVK start a bible study with John Vervaeke? 0:12:10  Was early Christianity tilted to Vervaeke's Propositional in order to endure persecution? 0:33:35  Does PVK distinguish between true and false churches? 0:44:50  Will Hitler's dogs go to hell? 0:45:45  How should theology be informing economic policy? Maximizing social welfare 0:54:00  Was the hole in culture left by the church dug by denominations placing psychological above spiritual well-being? 0:59:50  What is the stumbling block in Corinthians 1:23? 1:06:15  How does the Trinity manifests itself practically? 1:10:40  Does God express himself in many persons?  1:13:35  Is naming a podcast video an attempt to name the spirit of the conversation? 1:17:25  Should we consider psychedelics as replacement of the trauma needed for transformation? 1:44:30  How can one that never has been in church get a foot in a Church community? 1:48:05  Who's doing the deconstructing and reconstructing: God, society or the individual? 1:50:50  Is part of the meaning crisis a lack of adversity in our modern lives?  1:57:35  Is PVK wrong about the colors of the Commodore 64? PVK's repentance  1:59:00  Would PVK consider a converzation with Tim Adalin - Voicecraft podcast? 2:01:20  When will PVK do a video on neoplatonism? 2:02:35  Would PVK be more successful performing a colonoscopy than psychedelic rites? 2:03:05  Closing remarks / End of transmission

Continue on with the  @Jordan B Peterson   @John Vervaeke  commentary on Propositional knowledge. https://youtu.be/DLg2Q0daphE  But this intersected with the Bridges of meaning Q/A  https://youtu.be/xSSiBR5N49E   and also the Laurence Krauss conversation https://youtu.be/SF_SwujfiYk   And Abram Kuyper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_sovereignty    Discord link. Good for just a few days. Check with more recent videos for a fresh link. https://discord.gg/ztb3Wffk Paul Vander Klay clips channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX0jIcadtoxELSwehCh5QTg My Substack https://paulvanderklay.substack.com/ If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333  If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/  All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos.  https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin (BTC): 37TSN79RXewX8Js7CDMDRzvgMrFftutbPo  To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) qr3amdmj3n2u83eqefsdft9vatnj9na0dqlzhnx80h  To support this channel/podcast with Ethereum (ETH): 0xd3F649C3403a4789466c246F32430036DADf6c62 Blockchain backup on Lbry https://odysee.com/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. https://tithe.ly/give?c=2160640  

Regular Ask-Me-Anything Session on the Bridges of Meaning Discord server. Here is the question queue https://discord.gg/CHT74N56 Time stamps: 0:00:10  Intro 0:01:30  Can I voice discomfort about spiritual, orange colors in church? 0:09:45  What's the significance of death on the cross instead of another way of dying? 0:23:05  Can PVK elaborate on modern biblical scholarship (historical positivism, modernism, grammatical historical exegesis)? 1:07:30  When and how can we apply the spirit of geomystery? 1:09:00  How should I interpret God's love for us and our love for God? 1:19:15  Can one argue for a Deeper Magic that allows mythicist Christianity? 1:27:20  What do PVK, JBP & JV mean by Logos? 1:32:50  PVK riffs on JPa's symbolic mapping / Can PVK reflect on what was brewing before the return of JBP? 1:51:50  Jesus paintball as church promotion 1:52:15  Should I be attending the over the top evangelical mega churches? 2:00:15  What's the right Christian mind (symbolic vs modernist lens) 2:11:40  Did PVK watched Bo Burnham: Inside? 2:12:30  End

أى نظرية عامة للمنطق الأستنتاجي لابد وأن تحقق هدفين: الأول، تفسير العلاقات بين المقدمات والنتيجة داخل الحُجة. والثاني تقديم طرق وأدوات للتفريق ما بين الاستنتاج الصالح و الغير صالح. وفي الواقع هناك منظومتين فقط في تاريخ علم المنطق حاولتا التعامل مع هذين الهدفين، وهما منظومة المنطق الكلاسيكية أو الأرسطوطالية، والثانية عادة ما يطلق عليها منظومة المنطق الرمزية او الرياضية، والبعض قد يطلق عليها المنطق الحديث . Continue reading →

In this episode, I introduce a concept known as "propositional space," a mental warehouse of sorts where we can gather and sort through beliefs and behaviors that are different from the ones we currently hold. This is essential to proper growth, and helps us avoid too-quick acceptance or instant rejection of ideas that are foreign, frightening, or repelling to our current beliefs. I hope this episode will be of good use to you! Music credit: "Cute Avalanche" by RKVC - No Copyright (Thanks, RKVC!)

In this episode, I introduce a concept known as "propositional space," a mental warehouse of sorts where we can gather and sort through beliefs and behaviors that are different from the ones we currently hold. This is essential to proper growth, and helps us avoid too-quick acceptance or instant rejection of ideas that are foreign, frightening, or repelling to our current beliefs. I hope this episode will be of good use to you! Music credit: "Cute Avalanche" by RKVC - No Copyright (Thanks, RKVC!)

Luke is a friend that I met through the online community associated with Paul Vanderklay. We have had a couple discussions at this point. In this talk we cover Trinitarianism, Biblical Unitarianism, creeds, western civilization, different types of belief, the connection between propositions and faith, the definition of a Christian, and other related topics. People mentioned are Paul Vanderklay, Mary Kochan, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Pageau, Beau Branson, John Vervaeke, David Bentley Hart, Guy Sengstock, and others.

Propositional Logic and Beliefs Season 3 is all about trying something new. As you might have seen we have been running the SciPhi show on YouTube but in the background we have been planning and producing a bigger and better season 3 for you. Our last episode was on scepticism, and ties in nicely with... Read More

Propositional Logic and Beliefs Season 3 is all about trying something new. As you might have seen we have been running the SciPhi show on YouTube but in the background we have been planning and producing a bigger and better season 3 for you. Our last episode was on scepticism, and ties in nicely with... Read More

On today's episode of Urban Puritano, we begin the first of many explorations in expository preaching. In Español. My homiletical approach is eclectic. Broadus-Robinson. Greidanus-Chappell. Beeke-Bunyun. Subject-Complement, Big Idea, Fallen Condition Focus, Propositional, Experiential, Reformed, and hopefully, I privilege the text. What text you may ask? Hebrews 3:12-19.Stay tuned for a message called, "Great Danger of Unbelief."I. Introduction    A. Secular Point   B. Personal Point   C. Biblical Point w/brief background of passage   D. Subject Stated w/ Hebrews 3:12-19 Read   E. PrayerII. Body of Sermon   A. First Danger of Unbelief Stated: The Danger of Walking Away From the Living God       1. Your Heart is the Heart of the Matter       2. Unbelief is a Sin That Foments Other Sins   B. Transition Question: How Can We Combat Unbelief?       1. Harden Not Your Hearts       2. Hear the Voice of Jesus in His Word       3. Faith Comes By Hearing and Hearing By the Word of God   C. Uses/Application       1. A Word of Comfort- The Qualities of Saving Faith       2.A Word of Comfort Cont'd - Personal AppealIII. Conclusion-Summary and Final Statement

Big, wide ranging conversation with Randos leaders Luke and Jeff. Jordan Peterson, John Vervaeke, Ian McGilchrist, CS Lewis, Church Fathers and more. Propositional truth, Vervaeke’s 4 P-s John Vervaeke Ian McGilchrist Rebel Wisdom Talk https://youtu.be/JdB-BMdgFbk Randos United Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEzWTLDYmL8soRdQec9Fsjw Propositional knowledge is potential knowledge, JP Marceau with Pageau, the violence and the grace of eating food Eucharistic knowledge: Propositional is meaningless until you do it Owen Barfield John Vervaeke and Tyler from the Discords https://youtu.be/GmGOqkHQCIk Socratic type dia-logos, not trying to win the conversation but rather the thing you want is that both people come away with more, get to a place you could not come to on your own. We don’t know what’s real until trials test and reveal Building relationships between participants. All models are false and some are useful Subconsciously in a mode of always winning Act-as-if conversational trinitarianism Stop at the propositional level (but you can’t, this itself is a proposition) Don’t Cathy Newman me… Trump is not the anti-christ. Sam is a unitarian We go into quarantine mode, it’s the disgust impulse, Jonathan Haidt The map is not the territory Egoic intellect and principalities The Propositional is Potential Pageau conversation with Fr. Stephen Freeman Nobody never knows anything in general but only in particular Luke sees trinity stuff everywhere… Monism, Dualism and Trinitarianism Ikon is an image and a portal Father John Behr “is God a person” “Person” developed in trinitarian theology in the 4th century, Barfieldian evolution of consciousness They carried their ancestors around with them. It was part of their identity It was the broader, bigger thing. We’re almost divorced from it. Spiral dynamics way Perelandra. Silmarillian, original participation Modernity, protestantism, a bag of propositional confessions A reunion of the whole in an inter-personal way. Difference and yet unity Family is a microcosm of everything. Abortion and viability Tribal mentality, way of seeing the world where everything outside is bad and will cause harm Hyper individuality person leaves and comes back, hero’s journey How to get both and rather than either or Maximus the confessor, the gnomic will The mind that analyses and chooses between options. How you can understand libertarian freedom Maximus was saying was that Jesus was such a kind that he didn’t have a gnomic will. Doublemindedness. We are of two minds. An error to impose upon Jesus. Jesus was tempted and tested. Jesus was not tempted in the way that I was tempted. “Ultimately all my theology comes from God and the Trinity” Luke Thompson Did Jesus inherit any of the fallen nature. Identity Is that experience required to add value to a conversation about that experience. Do we need a savior who has experienced the particulars in order to save humanity. CEO doesn’t need to do an entry level position in order to fully (sufficiently) understand that position. Would Jesus need to be a disabled gay woman of color. CS Lewis essay on Equality CS Lewis membership essay, Equality is good medicine but not good food. Stations which receive honor and stations that supplicate. Father David’s church. Even in showing that honor we become more truly human. Proposition as potential rather than reality Feel free to send content. Click here to meetup with other channel viewers for conversation https://discord.gg/jdVk8XU If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. https://paulvanderklay.me/2019/08/06/converzations-with-pvk/ There is a video version of this podcast on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/paulvanderklay To listen to this on ITunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/paul-vanderklays-podcast/id1394314333 If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player https://paulvanderklay.podbean.com/feed/ All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays me a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here. This is is one (free to you) way to support my videos. To support this channel/podcast on Paypal: https://paypal.me/paulvanderklay To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin (BTC): 37TSN79RXewX8Js7CDMDRzvgMrFftutbPo To support this channel/podcast with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) qr3amdmj3n2u83eqefsdft9vatnj9na0dqlzhnx80h To support this channel/podcast with Ethereum (ETH): 0xd3F649C3403a4789466c246F32430036DADf6c62 Blockchain backup on Lbry https://lbry.tv/@paulvanderklay https://www.patreon.com/paulvanderklay Join the Sacramento JBP Meetup https://www.meetup.com/Sacramento-Jordan-Peterson-Meetup/ Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7bdktIALZ9Nq41oVCvW-A  

One technique writers must master is conciseness. What does conciseness mean for the business writer? First, it is important to understand that conciseness does not mean sacrificing content and meaning for the sake of a short message. Conciseness means including the needed information—explanations, details, and examples-- without including unnecessary word. Conciseness means writing in the active voice instead of the passive voice. The result of the active voice is it eliminates unnecessary words. For example: The article was written by Jamie Swartz. Jamie Swartz wrote the article. When the subject of the sentence performs the action, the result is an active and concise sentence. Conciseness means eliminating redundant pairing. For example, first and foremost; each and every; Conciseness means eliminating unnecessary phrases For example: “We here at”; “due to the fact that”. Conciseness means reducing propositional phrases. Propositional phrases can lead to wordy constructed sentences. Refrain from writing sentences with multiple appearances or uses of “at,” “for,” in,” and “on”. To increase the effectiveness of your writing, incorporative a concise writing style.

Discussion of the Curry-Howard isomorphism for the connectives of propositional logic (AND, OR, NOT, FALSE, IMPLIES). Initial consideration of Curry-Howard for first-order and higher-order logic. Dependent types.

Ingolf Max (Leipzig) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium titled "Applications of multi-dimensional propositional logics". Abstract: Multi-dimensional propositional logics are formal systems which we get if we extend the language of classical propositional logic by ordered n-tuples of classical formulas and suitable operators having multi-dimensional expressions as their arguments. There are several kinds of motivation to deal with multi-dimensional logics in general and with multi-dimensional propositional logics in particular. One of them is connected with the program to reconstruct systems of non-classical logics within such a syntactically extended classical framework. Another kind of motivation is the possibility to show new basic aspects of formal systems which are of some important philosophical interest. Furthermore, it is possible to use the expressive power of such systems to translate expressions of natural languages (and, e.g., structured elements of music) into more complex formal ones. The familiar one-dimensional classical language plays then the role of a theoretical language. I will sketch the general form of multi-dimensional propositional systems with a fixed dimension n. It is possible to define several notions of validity (inconsistency) for ordered n-tuples of classical formulas using only the classical vocabulary. With respect to a more formal application of our logics it will be shown how finite many-valued logics can be equivalently reconstructed. But it is also interesting to see under which restrictions on our languages we get these formal results. With respect to a more philosophical application it will be demonstrated that the distinctions atomic–molecular, atomic–complex depend on the underlying logic, the choice of the logical complexity of basic expressions. With respect to empirical applications and leaving the strong analogy to finite many-valued logics we can include other well-defined parts of the whole language.

Grigory K. Olkhovikov (Ural Federal University Yekaterinburg) gives a talk at the MCMP Colloquium (25 April, 2013) titled "On flattening rules in natural deduction calculus for intuitionistic propositional logic". Abstract: Standard versions of natural deduction calculi consist of so called ‘flat’ rules that either discharge some formulas as their assumptions or discharge no assumptions at all. However, non-flat, or ‘higher-order’ rules discharging inferences rather than single formulas arise naturally within the realization of Lorenzen’s inversion principle in the framework of natural deduction. For the connectives which are taken as basic in the standard systems of propositional logic, these higher-order rules can be equivalently replaced with flat ones. Building on our joint work with Prof. P. Schroeder-Heister, we show that this is not the case with every connective of intuitionistic logic, the connective $c(A,B,C) = (A to B)vee C$ being our main counterexample. We also show that the dual question must be answered in the negative, too, that is to say, that existence of a system of flat elimination rules for a connective of intuitionistic logic does not guarantee existence of a system of flat introduction rules.

Dave Brisbin | 3.18.18 The central question for any who calls themselves Christian or a follower of Jesus has to be the one Jesus asks his followers--and by extension all of us--in Mark 8, “Who do you say that I am?” The question has as many answers as there are followers most likely, but how do we come to the best answer that we can muster as a group? Leonard Sweet comes to our rescue with the term EPIC, which for him is an acronym standing for Experiential, Participatory, Image-based, and Communal. He has said that this is the way the youngest generations among us process information as opposed the older generations of the Modern world who are Propositional, Representational, Word-based, and Individualistic. The differences are profound in terms of worldview and attitude toward life, but the immense relevance really hits home, when we realize that the ancient peoples who wrote our scriptures were EPIC too. Our interpretation of ancient, EPIC scripture has been arrived at through anti-EPIC glasses and has been colored by attitudes and beliefs alien to the writing. If we are going to answer the central question of Jesus' identity, we first have to tackle how it is we are asking and the means by which we ask.

Dave Brisbin | 3.18.18 The central question for any who calls themselves Christian or a follower of Jesus has to be the one Jesus asks his followers--and by extension all of us--in Mark 8, “Who do you say that I am?” The question has as many answers as there are followers most likely, but how do we come to the best answer that we can muster as a group? Leonard Sweet comes to our rescue with the term EPIC, which for him is an acronym standing for Experiential, Participatory, Image-based, and Communal. He has said that this is the way the youngest generations among us process information as opposed the older generations of the Modern world who are Propositional, Representational, Word-based, and Individualistic. The differences are profound in terms of worldview and attitude toward life, but the immense relevance really hits home, when we realize that the ancient peoples who wrote our scriptures were EPIC too. Our interpretation of ancient, EPIC scripture has been arrived at through anti-EPIC glasses and has been colored by attitudes and beliefs alien to the writing. If we are going to answer the central question of Jesus’ identity, we first have to tackle how it is we are asking and the means by which we ask.

The concept of artistic research has sparked a lot of controversy over the last two decades, and it still is a matter of some dispute. Although the term ‘research’ pertaining to art does not provoke anymore, it seems to be still unclear how this term should be understood in relation to science. If we, however, look at the epistemological impact of art, it seems strange that artistic research should be controversial at all: the affiliation between art and sensual knowledge is as old as the very concept of "aesthetics", coined by Alexander Baumgarten in the 18th century. Georg Friedrich Hegel, Theodor W. Adorno, or Martin Heidegger, to name but a few, all assumed a strong interconnection between Art and Truth. Maurice Merleau-Ponty considered Paul Cézanne's painting to be a kind of “research”, and thought that painters were engaged in a kind of “mute ‘thinking’”. The question of the precise relationship between art, knowledge, and truth, however, has not yet been exhaustively explored. Neither has the question of what artistic thinking really is: sometimes the artistic concept of truth remains vague - and sometimes we do not understand how notions such as truth or thinking might be at all applicable to art practices. The lecture tries to answer these questions in a new way, by investigating how and in which sense art in itself carries epistemological meaning, or can serve as a medium for a type of cognition that cannot be expressed otherwise.

In this important chapter of Abram's life, God is going to establish His covenant with Abram. In the first 6 verses we see God commend Abram's faith and we learn that faith is believing the Propositional truth given to us by a Personal God.

In this important chapter of Abram's life, God is going to establish His covenant with Abram. In the first 6 verses we see God commend Abram's faith and we learn that faith is believing the Propositional truth given to us by a Personal God.

In this episode, we sit down with Alana Barfield two-time contestant on Naked and Afraid. She's going to defend against internet trolls, tell us the reality of reality tv, bullies us, and organizes our sock draw to get us ready for the zombie apocalypse or whatever comes next... What to do if you find a ravine full of M&Ms Dealing with people in a survival situation How a lack of food shuts down your brain in a survival scenario Surviving exaggerated emotions and conflicts The time she almost tapped out The time her fishing pole got stolen How the experience of 40 days naked and afraid impacted her preps Why she may never eat mangos again The importance of spices in your preps you're overlooking There is no TGIF in the sticks The negative publicity of being edited to a bitch on TV The reality of reality tv Crazy people stalking and calling her mom Propositional letters from prison Propositional letters from Russian admirers Butt-hurt Americans Lessons on dealing with the "I'm coming to your house crowd effectively Turning your passions, and quirks, it into a business ~ Become a supporting member here: ITRH.net ~ Resources from this episode are found at: http://www.intherabbithole.com/e192  

Read John 13-17. 14:8-11, 14:16-18, 14:20-23, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-11, 16:12-15, 1:20-23.   One modern Western way of reading the Bible is to find “propositions” (declarative statements of truth about any state of affairs). Then, from the discovered propositions, inferences are made, conclusions are drawn, formal organized statements of beliefs are created (doctrines). It is inevitable for the human mind to do this. Another way to interact with the Scriptures is to allow them to become a means by which the reader has an encounter with The Person(s) of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Person centered approach does not deny the Propositional way, rather, it allows the propositions made in Scriptures to become the supernatural ladder by which we climb and interact with God, Person(s) to person. The writings of John will serve as the introduction to the Person(s) centered approach to the words of God as the means by which we get to know personally (not just about) the Persons of God, and especially Jesus as The Word.

One modern Western way of reading the Bible is to find “propositions” (declarative statements of truth about any state of affairs). Then, from the discovered propositions, inferences are made, conclusions are drawn, formal organized statements of beliefs are created (doctrines). It is inevitable for the human mind to do this. Another way to interact with the Scriptures is to allow them to become a means by which the reader has an encounter with The Person(s) of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Person centered approach does not deny the Propositional way, rather, it allows the propositions made in Scriptures to become the supernatural ladder by which we climb and interact with God, Person(s) to person. The writings of John will serve as the introduction to the Person(s) centered approach to the words of God as the means by which we get to know personally (not just about) the Persons of God, and especially Jesus as The Word.

One modern Western way of reading the Bible is to find “propositions” (declarative statements of truth about any state of affairs). Then, from the discovered propositions, inferences are made, conclusions are drawn, formal organized statements of beliefs are created (doctrines). It is inevitable for the human mind to do this. Another way to interact with the Scriptures is to allow them to become a means by which the reader has an encounter with The Person(s) of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Person centered approach does not deny the Propositional way, rather, it allows the propositions made in Scriptures to become the supernatural ladder by which we climb and interact with God, Person(s) to person. The writings of John will serve as the introduction to the Person(s) centered approach to the words of God as the means by which we get to know personally (not just about) the Persons of God, and especially Jesus as The Word.

One modern Western way of reading the Bible is to find “propositions” (declarative statements of truth about any state of affairs). Then, from the discovered propositions, inferences are made, conclusions are drawn, formal organized statements of beliefs are created (doctrines). It is inevitable for the human mind to do this. Another way to interact with the Scriptures is to allow them to become a means by which the reader has an encounter with The Person(s) of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Person centered approach does not deny the Propositional way, rather, it allows the propositions made in Scriptures to become the supernatural ladder by which we climb and interact with God, Person(s) to person. The writings of John will serve as the introduction to the Person(s) centered approach to the words of God as the means by which we get to know personally (not just about) the Persons of God, and especially Jesus as The Word.   NOTE FROM DR. GEIB: Dear Westminster Class: I made an inadvertent mistake today. I meant to say that certain followers of Islam associate the coming of the Messiah with the coming of Jesus as well, and it will be Jesus that destroys the forces of evil. I appear to have said that certain followers of Islam think that Jesus is the coming Messiah, which I did not mean to say or imply. Thanks for your patience, Agape John

Glauber de Bona (Sao Paulo) gives a talk at "Progic 2013", the Sixth Workshop on Combining Probability and Logic (17-18 Sept, 2013), titled "Towards Classifying Propositional Probabilistic Logics".

Representation of visual information. Functional Equivalency hypothesis. Dual code theory. Propositional code theory.

We discuss the propositions on the upcoming California ballot. Also, we learn that when Jacob loses a bet, everybody loses.