To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:13:02 GMT, Lester Zick wrote:

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

Therefore Q = P, which contradicts the premise that "Q is different from P."

This argument is a variation on the one that starts with positing a "set of
all sets," let's call it S. Is S a member of S or is it not?

Interesting. Sure as far as the "all" is concerned it would be true of

The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED

------------------------

The primary consequence of this conclusion is that everything subject
to knowledge in terms of differences is universal in implication. In
other words since differences are applicable to everything knowable
that knowledge is of itself universal in nature. It is certainly true
that knowledge may be of particular things but the knowledge itself is
universal because it derives from the only possible form of difference
applicable to all things known, knowable, or knowing.

This is the only way in which knowledge can be universal in form. It
must apply perforce to everything knowable. There can be classes of
particular and universal knowledge within the general class of
universal knowledge. But the primary requirement for anything
knowable is that as a circumstance of knowledge and the result of
differences and the manipulation of differences it is universal in
nature because and to the extent that it can be known at all.

Regards - Lester

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<400d6181.57025420@netnews.att.net>...
The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.


If I make my argument Q as "I am human", it is certainly not P
and it is certainly different from P. Since I can make such a claim
Q, you're logic falls apart. How can you say that any Q that is not P
must be P. This is ridiculous. It's a bit like saying "if you say X,
then I'll just redefine it to be Y because I believe Y". It's a very
evangelical Christian logic.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED


My claim of "I am human" is different from P and it most
certainly does not contradict itself in any way. I would think, then,
that your conclusion might be a bit off.

It's not that I don't believe that differences are important. I
just don't think they are the whole story. I think that it might be
the Yang-side of cognition, i.e., the most active cognitve process;
but I do think there are more passive Yin-like processes as well, like
flashes of insight or thoughts that seem to appear in one's mind for
no obvious reason. Also, I know you regard memory as part of the
structure of the brain and there is little doubt that there are memory
structures present; however, I still feel that there must exist a
"software" set of read and write processes to access the memory kept
in the structure. I believe that these processes can be activated
through volition and they can happen automatically (I have
"remembered" and "memorised" things in dreams that I feel were beyond
my control). Perhaps then, these read and write processes are the
"little bit of Yang" in the Yin and vice-versa.

On 20 Jan 2004 15:26:10 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<400d6181.57025420@netnews.att.net>...
The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.


If I make my argument Q as "I am human", it is certainly not P
and it is certainly different from P. Since I can make such a claim
Q, you're logic falls apart. How can you say that any Q that is not P
must be P. This is ridiculous. It's a bit like saying "if you say X,
then I'll just redefine it to be Y because I believe Y". It's a very
evangelical Christian logic.

Hi Pat - What we appear to have here is a crisis of faith.

But Q as "I am human" is not necessarily different from P. If it were
of course it could not be P but if it is P it just shows the range and
implications of P. The Q argument is just designed to concentrate on
alternatives to differences but it can represent any claim that does
not preclude differences. The logic appears universal to me and in
fact represents the only way I know of to demonstrate the possibility
of universal knowledge in mechanical terms.

And any Q that is not P but is different from P must be P because it
is different and P subsumes differences. Think it over.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED


My claim of "I am human" is different from P and it most
certainly does not contradict itself in any way. I would think, then,
that your conclusion might be a bit off.

Your Q is different from P and contradicts itself in being different
from differences.

It's not that I don't believe that differences are important. I
just don't think they are the whole story. I think that it might be
the Yang-side of cognition, i.e., the most active cognitve process;
but I do think there are more passive Yin-like processes as well, like
flashes of insight or thoughts that seem to appear in one's mind for
no obvious reason. Also, I know you regard memory as part of the
structure of the brain and there is little doubt that there are memory
structures present; however, I still feel that there must exist a
"software" set of read and write processes to access the memory kept
in the structure. I believe that these processes can be activated
through volition and they can happen automatically (I have
"remembered" and "memorised" things in dreams that I feel were beyond
my control). Perhaps then, these read and write processes are the
"little bit of Yang" in the Yin and vice-versa.

The preceeding could all be true and not gainsay differences. They
could all just be manifestations of differences and differences among
differences etc. And in fact my Theorem of Everything demonstrates
that everything is a manifestation of differences and shows why this
has to be the case.

Regards - Lester

every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED

------------------------

The primary consequence of this conclusion is that everything subject
to knowledge in terms of differences is universal in implication. In
other words since differences are applicable to everything knowable
that knowledge is of itself universal in nature. It is certainly true
that knowledge may be of particular things but the knowledge itself is
universal because it derives from the only possible form of difference
applicable to all things known, knowable, or knowing.

This is the only way in which knowledge can be universal in form. It
must apply perforce to everything knowable. There can be classes of
particular and universal knowledge within the general class of
universal knowledge. But the primary requirement for anything
knowable is that as a circumstance of knowledge and the result of
differences and the manipulation of differences it is universal in
nature because and to the extent that it can be known at all.

Regards - Lester

I recognized B. Russell's paradox in your proof. You could define the
"thing" having all qualities. If we agree that "existing" is a
quality then then the "Thing" exists. But non-existence is the
quality of fiction. So, the "Thing" is a fiction. Simply
inconsistent Logic.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I comment on something
similar in my collateral reply to Pat Harrington this morning where P
is taken to be everything is god and Q is taken to be something is not
god. Q denies P but is not self contradictory.

Well I don't see any obvious reason why the language we use is
necessarily inadequate to explaining the problems we phrase in the
language.

Regards - Lester

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<400ea7bb.68981784@netnews.att.net>...
On 20 Jan 2004 15:26:10 -0800, PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com (Pat
Harrington) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<400d6181.57025420@netnews.att.net>...
The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.


If I make my argument Q as "I am human", it is certainly not P
and it is certainly different from P. Since I can make such a claim
Q, you're logic falls apart. How can you say that any Q that is not P
must be P. This is ridiculous. It's a bit like saying "if you say X,
then I'll just redefine it to be Y because I believe Y". It's a very
evangelical Christian logic.

Hi Pat - What we appear to have here is a crisis of faith.

But Q as "I am human" is not necessarily different from P. If it were
of course it could not be P but if it is P it just shows the range and
implications of P. The Q argument is just designed to concentrate on
alternatives to differences but it can represent any claim that does
not preclude differences. The logic appears universal to me and in
fact represents the only way I know of to demonstrate the possibility
of universal knowledge in mechanical terms.


I freely admit that differential cognition led me to formulate my
argument Q but don't confuse the argument-forming process with the
argument itself. It is quite simple to see that:
"I am human"
is different from
"every aspect of sentient behavior and being and
knowledge of every aspect of everything known or capable of being
known is the result of differences and the taking and manipulation of
differences". The fact that I can use differential cognition to
create my Q has nothing to do with finding a Q.

Also, "every aspect
of sentient being" would also include quantum mechanics and string
theory. If you are stating that strings or superstrings are
manipulated differences then you imply that there is a "great
manipulator" that, shall we say, pulls all of our strings. This is an
interesting way to prove a deity and would almost assuredly imply that
our sentience is only a subset of the "great manipulator's" sentience.

And any Q that is not P but is different from P must be P because it
is different and P subsumes differences. Think it over.


I've thought it over. What you are saying, really, is that one can
only derive a Q by using P; but, that does not mean that the Q, so
derived, is P.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED


My claim of "I am human" is different from P and it most
certainly does not contradict itself in any way. I would think, then,
that your conclusion might be a bit off.

Your Q is different from P and contradicts itself in being different
from differences.

My Q does not refute P; it is just different from P and, because
of that, spoils your conclusion.

It's not that I don't believe that differences are important. I
just don't think they are the whole story. I think that it might be
the Yang-side of cognition, i.e., the most active cognitve process;
but I do think there are more passive Yin-like processes as well, like
flashes of insight or thoughts that seem to appear in one's mind for
no obvious reason. Also, I know you regard memory as part of the
structure of the brain and there is little doubt that there are memory
structures present; however, I still feel that there must exist a
"software" set of read and write processes to access the memory kept
in the structure. I believe that these processes can be activated
through volition and they can happen automatically (I have
"remembered" and "memorised" things in dreams that I feel were beyond
my control). Perhaps then, these read and write processes are the
"little bit of Yang" in the Yin and vice-versa.

The preceeding could all be true and not gainsay differences. They
could all just be manifestations of differences and differences among
differences etc. And in fact my Theorem of Everything demonstrates
that everything is a manifestation of differences and shows why this
has to be the case.

Then could you explain intuition, volition and memory access
processes only in terms of taking differences or comparing
differences. You need the memory access processes to "take", i.e.,
store differences, not the other way around.

The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED

------------------------

The primary consequence of this conclusion is that everything subject
to knowledge in terms of differences is universal in implication. In
other words since differences are applicable to everything knowable
that knowledge is of itself universal in nature. It is certainly true
that knowledge may be of particular things but the knowledge itself is
universal because it derives from the only possible form of difference
applicable to all things known, knowable, or knowing.

This is the only way in which knowledge can be universal in form. It
must apply perforce to everything knowable. There can be classes of
particular and universal knowledge within the general class of
universal knowledge. But the primary requirement for anything
knowable is that as a circumstance of knowledge and the result of
differences and the manipulation of differences it is universal in
nature because and to the extent that it can be known at all.

Regards - Lester

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<400d6181.57025420@netnews.att.net>...
The P's and Q's of Knowledge and Sentient Behavior
------------------------

Let's cut right to the chase and spell out what all possible knowledge
and sentient behavior is and proof of the claim.

I claim that every aspect of sentient behavior and being and knowledge
of every aspect of everything known or capable of being known is the
result of differences and the taking and manipulation of differences.
This claim I will call P.

To prove P I ask whether there is anything Q such that Q is different
from P and yet is not P. And any Q different from P must also be P
because P defines every aspect and manifestation of differences.

Ergo there can be nothing different from P that does not contradict
itself and I conclude that everything and every aspect of everything
is the result of differences and is known and knowable only in terms
of differences. QED

------------------------

The primary consequence of this conclusion is that everything subject
to knowledge in terms of differences is universal in implication. In
other words since differences are applicable to everything knowable
that knowledge is of itself universal in nature. It is certainly true
that knowledge may be of particular things but the knowledge itself is
universal because it derives from the only possible form of difference
applicable to all things known, knowable, or knowing.

This is the only way in which knowledge can be universal in form. It
must apply perforce to everything knowable. There can be classes of
particular and universal knowledge within the general class of
universal knowledge. But the primary requirement for anything
knowable is that as a circumstance of knowledge and the result of
differences and the manipulation of differences it is universal in
nature because and to the extent that it can be known at all.

Regards - Lester

Sorry for coming in as a naive citizen, just a few words. I
understand that information is "difference", but the step to
extrapolate information (flux) to "reality" seems to me not small.

I recognized B. Russell's paradox in your proof. You could define the
"thing" having all qualities. If we agree that "existing" is a
quality then then the "Thing" exists. But non-existence is the
quality of fiction. So, the "Thing" is a fiction. Simply
inconsistent Logic.

If one speaks of a difference, a difference of what? more, what is a
difference?

I mean by that a system based on "difference" might simulate a lot but
migt also never be identical to what it simulates. In other words,
what is in my head is not the reality.

Matter of belief? Who knows. Perhaps we should scrutinize the
language much more because we still use natural languages to
communicate. In the thread "evolution" I received "ad hominem"
arguments for presenting (old) questions about Darwin's theory, the
priority might the development of some agreed universal language (not
speeking of maths, of course)

Well I don't see any obvious reason why the language we use is

On 22 Jan 2004 10:21:14 -0800, y.pierre@skynet.be (yvan pierre) in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Matter of belief? Who knows. Perhaps we should scrutinize the
language much more because we still use natural languages to
communicate. In the thread "evolution" I received "ad hominem"
arguments for presenting (old) questions about Darwin's theory, the
priority might the development of some agreed universal language (not
speeking of maths, of course)

Well I don't see any obvious reason why the language we use is
necessarily inadequate to explaining the problems we phrase in the
language.

Regards - Lester

Let me see if I can recast the problem simply. Is the Q predicate
"different from differences" self contradictory or not?

Regards - Lester

So the language is adequate to describe problems but not sufficiently
adequate to describe solutions?

Regards - Lester