http://www.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher.com/#/graham-priest/
Bio on my new favorite living philosopher. Take that Aristotle! ... and Parmenides before him.
The World War Era made for great philosophers.
Quote from: Absurd Atheist on June 10, 2017, 04:10:46 PM
The World War Era made for great philosophers.
Nothing concentrates the mind like ... "you are going to die now!"
Yes, I realized that you're on a paraconsistent logic bend a while ago, Baruch. Thing is, paraconsistency can't save you from the implications of the principle of explosion. It's just a matter of truth tables. A truth table analysis reveals that if p and p⊃q are both true, then the only truth value of q that makes sense is "true." Similarly, if p is false, then a truth table analysis reveals that p⊃q is true no matter what q is, therefore p⊃q is true for any q in the case that p is false. The trouble comes in when you consider p to be both true and false. It doesn't matter if paraconsistent logic says that there's no problem and the explosion doesn't occur, the problem is staring you straight in the face. There is a reason why the rules of valid logical argument have the form they do in classical logic.
Yes, the motivation behind paraconsistency is to resolve inconsistencies in a controlled way. I don't think that it does adequately because it still kind of leaves you in the lurch. Not only does it not really resolve the principle of explosion in a satisfying way, if you have to base an action on whether a particular implication is true or false, and those two choices are exclusive (if you try to, for instance, go to Panama and Canada at the same time, you're going to fail at least one of them), then you're sunk â€" you consider the critical statement both true and false, which leaves you no closer to resolving which action to take. It's much better to instead try to solve the inconsistency (resolve which of the cases actually matches reality), or work within a more powerful system that captures the uncertainty or vagueness presented in the inconsistencies, than to go to paraconsistent logics.
Oh, and another thing, the statements used in Godel's incompleteness theorem are NOT the same sort used in the liar paradox â€" they're very similar, but not the same. All such statements are of the form, "This statement is not provable in system S." It has a clear meaning independent of its truth, is therefore well-grounded (unlike the liar paradox, where the meaning of the liar statement, "This statement is false," is dependent on its truth value). That is the power of the theorem, that these statements, though self-referential, are nonetheless well-grounded in meaning â€" you know exactly what scenario is needed for the statements to be true or false, unlike with the liar paradox. Godel's theorems are not grounds for dialetheism, nor have I encountered any statement that would give it grounds. Every paradoxical statement used in support of dialetheism turns out to be a mere problem in semantics. This makes sense, because ultimately, what we operate on in logic is statements, not actual states of affairs.
This is why in general, I have no use for philosophy.
Yes, there is such a thing as a contradiction. I just contradicted you, so there is such a thing as a contradiction, QED.
Quote from: trdsf on June 11, 2017, 12:51:38 AM
This is why in general, I have no use for philosophy.
Yes, there is such a thing as a contradiction. I just contradicted you, so there is such a thing as a contradiction, QED.
You get it ... and one doesn't have to be technical about it to get it. Hakurei is a shill for Aristotle (how Scholastic/Medieval is that). Maybe the Deep Logic (like Deep State) folks have offered him free baklava for life? QM itself doesn't support Aristotle (who's version of even regular logic has been obsolete for a century or more), but then Galileo proved long ago, that Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things.
Just putting up interesting stuff by actual professors ... not trying to make an argument from authority like some people we know.
......Indeed?
"There is no such thing as a contradiction ..."
Philosophy recognizes the human as an animal, and strives to give them the goals of a god, but always understanding that the gods are animals as well. Simply...try to be better than your self through a series of entertaining but usually extremely verbose and mind numbing rambling which make little sense except for the few who understand the prattle.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2017, 07:42:26 AM
You get it ... and one doesn't have to be technical about it to get it. Hakurei is a shill for Aristotle (how Scholastic/Medieval is that). Maybe the Deep Logic (like Deep State) folks have offered him free baklava for life? QM itself doesn't support Aristotle (who's version of even regular logic has been obsolete for a century or more), but then Galileo proved long ago, that Aristotle was wrong about a lot of things.
I guess
someone doesn't realize that "contradiction" has two meanings.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2017, 07:42:26 AM
Just putting up interesting stuff by actual professors ... not trying to make an argument from authority like some people we know.
A controversial professor, who doesn't necessarily speak for the mainstream. That actually is an argument from authority. And no, I gave my
reasons for thinking that paraconsistency is simply making giving up sound respectable. That is the very opposite of an argument from authority.
"I guess someone doesn't realize that "contradiction" has two meanings." ... sounds like an inconsistency ;-)
Mainstream is White, Male, Anglophone, Straight etc ... you support that?
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2017, 10:52:45 PM
"I guess someone doesn't realize that "contradiction" has two meanings." ... sounds like an inconsistency ;-)
No, just an equivocation.
Quote from: Baruch on June 11, 2017, 10:52:45 PM
Mainstream is White, Male, Anglophone, Straight etc ... you support that?
What, you mean like Graham Priest? White, male, anglophone... maybe straight? He's certainly the other three, so you're at least three fourths the way there.
Anyway, you would have a lot more convincing case for paraconsistency if you can find a genuine case of dialetheism, that does not invoke a fallacy or a mistaken premise. I still wait for the time when it is presented. I also wait for an explanation of why paraconsistent logic is better than classical logic. In particular, why my explanation of why paraconsistent logic doesn't really avoid the principle of explosion in a satisfactory way is mistaken. C'mon. Lay it on me.
Classical logic is fine, if you are living before George Boole. I am surprised you don't believe in phlogiston ;-))
Trivially true, because classical logic is also fine after George Boole.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 12, 2017, 08:04:38 PM
Trivially true, because classical logic is also fine after George Boole.
What a maroon ... Bugs Bunny
I bet you are a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars ...
Quote from: Baruch on June 12, 2017, 11:26:02 PM
What a maroon ... Bugs Bunny
I bet you are a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars ...
Baruch---are you going through an especially rough time for you in the last couple of months? I have seen a change in your responses; you seem to come to a point when your frustration with the posters on this site leads you to basically insult all who respond to you. What your frustration is, I have not a clue. I really hope whatever it is that seems to be bothering you clears up soon. You are a person who I have greatly admired for your vast knowledge and your humor and ability to write. Now you seem to just resort to insults--especially with obscure (at least to most of us) references to different types of thinking or philosophies. .........you are a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars............????? I don't get it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 13, 2017, 12:24:59 AM
Baruch---are you going through an especially rough time for you in the last couple of months? I have seen a change in your responses; you seem to come to a point when your frustration with the posters on this site leads you to basically insult all who respond to you. What your frustration is, I have not a clue. I really hope whatever it is that seems to be bothering you clears up soon. You are a person who I have greatly admired for your vast knowledge and your humor and ability to write. Now you seem to just resort to insults--especially with obscure (at least to most of us) references to different types of thinking or philosophies. .........you are a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars............????? I don't get it.
Correct ... about recent diatribes with you and Reasonist. I am recently lacking in self-observation when posting, aka less self conscious. Possibly lacking in sleep (but not as bad as SZ). I am working on that, and apologizing when I cross my own line. You have a line? Tough, this is fight club. But now that I have finished a 2 year voyage into this unknown cyber space (aka psychotherapy) I am better now. Since sanity is circular (like politics) if one goes sufficiently crazy, one reaches sanity again. Do you remember how I over-worked Joe? That was awhile ago. I have promised to not shitpost someone who failed to appreciate Feynman.
Well a few people here are bullshit artists ... I won't bother to beat them up (argue) when I encounter their bullshit, but simply step around and let you or someone else do the pooper scooper. Hence my most recent post to HR here. Don't take it personally. Etienne wasn't the only doofus ... and I wasn't polite to him. If you want politeness, then go to a little girl's tea party. And I realize you aren't kibitzing on HR's posts in support of anyone (see I am better). I am a little less spontaneous (my therapy).
The Cretan thing isn't cretin, it is an inside joke to anyone like HR who would know one of the most ancient paradoxes. Talk to HR won't you .. he seems to fall into long screeds .. sometimes. I consider it typing abuse even in regards to Drew. But then he has his own issues, his own demons to deal with. And thanks for caring ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:07:18 AM
Correct ... about recent diatribes with you and Reasonist. I am recently lacking in self-observation when posting, aka less self conscious. Possibly lacking in sleep (but not as bad as SZ). I am working on that, and apologizing when I cross my own line. You have a line? Tough, this is fight club. But now that I have finished a 2 year voyage into this unknown cyber space (aka psychotherapy) I am better now. Since sanity is circular (like politics) if one goes sufficiently crazy, one reaches sanity again. Do you remember how I over-worked Joe? That was awhile ago. I have promised to not shitpost someone who failed to appreciate Feynman.
Well a few people here are bullshit artists ... I won't bother to beat them up (argue) when I encounter their bullshit, but simply step around and let you or someone else do the pooper scooper. Hence my most recent post to HR here. Don't take it personally. Etienne wasn't the only doofus ... and I wasn't polite to him. If you want politeness, then go to a little girl's tea party. And I realize you aren't kibitzing on HR's posts in support of anyone (see I am better). I am a little less spontaneous (my therapy).
The Cretan thing isn't cretin, it is an inside joke to anyone like HR who would know one of the most ancient paradoxes. Talk to HR won't you .. he seems to fall into long screeds .. sometimes. I consider it typing abuse even in regards to Drew. But then he has his own issues, his own demons to deal with. And thanks for caring ;-)
Baruch, you can post as you like, that goes without question. Everyone can. But over the years I've grown to appreciate what you post about and how you post; intelligence and whit are great to read. It just seems that lately both areas have slipped a bid. Don't care about politeness, but I do care about rational postings. As for 'little girl's tea party' time, I learned while raising my daughter that those can become a bit non-polite, should I say.
In any case, carry on, Baruch, carry on. And of course I care.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 13, 2017, 09:28:56 AM
Baruch, you can post as you like, that goes without question. Everyone can. But over the years I've grown to appreciate what you post about and how you post; intelligence and whit are great to read. It just seems that lately both areas have slipped a bid. Don't care about politeness, but I do care about rational postings. As for 'little girl's tea party' time, I learned while raising my daughter that those can become a bit non-polite, should I say.
In any case, carry on, Baruch, carry on. And of course I care.
The actual issue in this string is rationalism vs empiricism. I think empiricism wins every time. Don't see how we can resolve this, any more than greater minds have been able to ;-) Also I am thicker skinned against personal insult directed against me, than you might think.
Quote from: Baruch on June 12, 2017, 11:26:02 PM
What a maroon ... Bugs Bunny
Again, you would be far more convincing if you would explain yourself instead of insulting me. I challenge you to come up with an explanation of why classical logic was
not fine after George Boole invented boolean logic, especially since boolean logic is employed as a way to implement logical operations for computers.
Quote from: Baruch on June 12, 2017, 11:26:02 PM
I bet you are a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars ...
Is that your dialetheic challenge? C'mon, even you know how to avoid the paradox there. Or you
should.------
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 13, 2017, 12:24:59 AM
Baruch---are you going through an especially rough time for you in the last couple of months? I have seen a change in your responses; you seem to come to a point when your frustration with the posters on this site leads you to basically insult all who respond to you. What your frustration is, I have not a clue. I really hope whatever it is that seems to be bothering you clears up soon. You are a person who I have greatly admired for your vast knowledge and your humor and ability to write. Now you seem to just resort to insults--especially with obscure (at least to most of us) references to different types of thinking or philosophies. .........you are a Cretan, and all Cretans are liars............????? I don't get it.
He seems to be following the same pattern of deterioration as PR. It's really disappointing.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 13, 2017, 03:24:13 PM
------He seems to be following the same pattern of deterioration as PR. It's really disappointing.
Yes, he does. And I do agree it is disappointing, for he is not an ignorant nor stupid man; and has a huge amount of knowledge at his fingertips.
I really don't have the time or interest to review all pre-19th century logic, and why it is mistaken. It was made more rigorous in the 19th century culminating in the early 20th century Russell-Whitehead tome ... 300+ pages to prove that 1+1=2. Rigorous Boolean algebra ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_(structure) ... first made rigorous by ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Vermilye_Huntington i.e.) Huntington's algebra ... which is related to ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_algebra ... which wasn't proven until 1996, when it took a computer to prove it, after the smartest folks failed ...
And that is just Prepositional Logic (developed by the Stoics) ... not even the Predicate Logic of Aristotle. And there are many other algebras not Boolean .. the whole family of more general algebraic structures ... that could be called "logics" also.
Not to mention that 4-value logic is used in electronics and fuzzy logic is used in engineering ... which are non-Boolean.
Back to Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum with you!
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:05:48 PM
I really don't have the time or interest to review all pre-19th century logic, and why it is mistaken. It was made more rigorous in the 19th century culminating in the early 20th century Russell-Whitehead tome ... 300+ pages to prove that 1+1=2.
The 300+ pages was to build up the foundations of mathematics to the point where it allows you to derive the axioms of the Peano arithmetic for a particular set of entities. Once you have the appropriate background structure in hand, the proof of 1+1=2 comes in a few lines.
By the way, this has nothing to do with logic.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:05:48 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_(structure) ... first made rigorous by ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Vermilye_Huntington i.e.) Huntington's algebra ... which is related to ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_algebra ... which wasn't proven until 1996, when it took a computer to prove it, after the smartest folks failed ...
So? That's just proving that the boolean algebra is consistent, and it turns out that it is. And the computer only did the grunt work that a person with enough patence and time on his hands could prove. Has nothing to do with classical logic.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:05:48 PM
And that is just Prepositional Logic (developed by the Stoics) ... not even the Predicate Logic of Aristotle.
The predicate logic is a subset of the fully axiomatized first-order logic, which was proven consistent by Gödel in 1929.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:05:48 PM
And there are many other algebras not Boolean .. the whole family of more general algebraic structures ... that could be called "logics" also.
None of them are necessary for the propositional logic to be correct.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:05:48 PM
Not to mention that 4-value logic is used in electronics and fuzzy logic is used in engineering ... which are non-Boolean.
These are extensions to classical logic and the Boolean algebra, not replacements.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 07:05:48 PM
Back to Plato's Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum with you!
After you.
Contradiction has nothing to do with logic? What a maroon - Bugs Bunny
I know that if you rub two sticks together fast enough, you can create fire.
Contradiction, logically-wise, seems to be the same case of sticks, IMO. There is some logic based around contradiction, pretty sure falsifiability is one.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 14, 2017, 04:20:26 AM
I know that if you rub two sticks together fast enough, you can create fire.
Contradiction, logically-wise, seems to be the same case of sticks, IMO. There is some logic based around contradiction, pretty sure falsifiability is one.
Empirical results aren't always clear (see QM). Also actual databases with input from actual humans ... isn't a piece of cake. Most examples of falsifiability ... I think means empirical evidence (as I was relating). But it is also tautology if we mean math. Logic allows that there are tautology, contradiction and contingency. Non-Aristotelian logic expands that a bit ... most things become contingent. Contingent on what? Something outside of logic, empirical data.
Making fire with sticks is useful. Dealing with contingency, for most of us, is where it is at. Most of us don't do math proofs. And for 100 years now, there have been problems even in math, regarding what is "rigor". Formalism is the old style ... but now there is Constructivism and Intuitionism. Intuitionism doesn't use Aristotelian logic. In Constructivism, you don't allow proofs that say X must exist. You have to provide an algorithm for generating one or more examples of X. Mathematicians fight over this ... without resolution.
A pure liar states that he always lies... Contradiction.
Quote from: Baruch on June 13, 2017, 11:08:44 PM
Contradiction has nothing to do with logic? What a maroon - Bugs Bunny
Resulting to insults right off the bat? What a moran -Zisteau
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 06:02:17 AM
Empirical results aren't always clear (see QM). Also actual databases with input from actual humans ... isn't a piece of cake. Most examples of falsifiability ... I think means empirical evidence (as I was relating). But it is also tautology if we mean math. Logic allows that there are tautology, contradiction and contingency. Non-Aristotelian logic expands that a bit ... most things become contingent. Contingent on what? Something outside of logic, empirical data.
Classical logic acknowledges that contradiction is a bad thing that should be avoided. I don't know a single database that is served by allowing contradictory data, which is why there are consistency checks in these systems in the first place. And empirical results are always subject to interpretation.
Through all this, classical logic has always served us well.
Thing is,
classical logic is not
Aristotle's logic. It cribs a lot of Aristotle's more useful ideas and makes them its own, but it's a separate thing and despite its name, quite modern. Classical logic cannot tell you which atomic propositions are true. It's simply not its concern. Classical logic is a formal system, and does not judge the contents of the propositions. George Boole may have provided the final push for algebratizing logic, but logic has been shedding Aristotle's chaff for centuries.
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 06:02:17 AM
Making fire with sticks is useful. Dealing with contingency, for most of us, is where it is at. Most of us don't do math proofs. And for 100 years now, there have been problems even in math, regarding what is "rigor". Formalism is the old style ... but now there is Constructivism and Intuitionism. Intuitionism doesn't use Aristotelian logic. In Constructivism, you don't allow proofs that say X must exist. You have to provide an algorithm for generating one or more examples of X. Mathematicians fight over this ... without resolution.
Mathematicians are people too, regardless of what others might say. If people can fight about evolution vs. creationism even though any rational account comes down in favor of evolution, then fights over less clear subjects is not surprising. That said, I do not see how Constructivism and Intuitionism have earned their keep, and the fact that they are not formal is actually a great detriment to them and severely limits their use. The higher maths are so complicated that it takes careful formalization to get anywhere without tying yourself up in knots.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 14, 2017, 07:00:11 AM
A pure liar states that he always lies... Contradiction.
Since a pure liar always lies, such a person claiming that they are a pure liar would be telling the absolute truth â€" therefore, the pure liar cannot say that he is a pure liar, because he only lies. On the other hand, because a pure liar can never claim to be a pure liar, any person claiming to be a pure liar is not; they tell the truth sometimes, just not here.
The key here is just because you're able to articulate a thought, doesn't mean that the thought describes a logically coherent situation. Your brain is not a logical system, but an evolutionary one. While it can emulate a logical system with training, you can entertain thoughts that are contradictory. It is, after all, why we have peer review.
Russell's Paradox is the rigorous version of the Liar's Paradox ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
But then you knew that. Mathematicians are mostly ignoring it ... but it is still an active field of study. The issue of "foundations" in Math isn't as important today as it once was ... mathematicians had to get going with what they could in the meantime ... rigor will never be perfect.
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 12:44:08 PM
Russell's Paradox is the rigorous version of the Liar's Paradox ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox
But then you knew that. Mathematicians are mostly ignoring it ... but it is still an active field of study.
Really? How can mathematicians being ignoring it,
and it being an active field of study at the same time â€" given that it takes mathematicians
not ignoring it for it to be "actively studied"? Even a paraconsistant logician would find that hard to swallow.
Mathematicians are catagorically
not ignoring Russel's paradox â€" it's been
resolved, many times over. There are various approaches to the paradox, but every approach eventually targets the same source: there's something not kosher with unrestricted comprehention â€" that is, using a predicate to define a set without restrictions on the predicate. In ZFC, you can't even form the predicate, much less use it to make a set (the formula x∉x breaks the required stratification, so you can't form ɸ(x) = x∉x in ZFC). In von Neumanâ€"Bernaysâ€"Gödel set theory, you can form the predicate, but predicates form classes in NBG, not sets, and while some classes can be represented by sets, not all of them can. Thus, Russel's predicate forms a proper class, a class without a representation as a set to be included in other classes. Each way of handling Russel's paradox generates a new set theory, but mathematicians will generally insist that the paradox is avoided in some way, and the relevant set cannot be generated according to that theory's rules.
Because Russel's predicate doesn't generate a set in ZFC, NBG, or Kripkeâ€"Platek set theory (or indeed any set theory with properly restricted comprehention), Russel's paradox is avoided. I don't see how this can be called mathematicians "ignoring" the paradox; it does take being mindful of Russel's paradox to construct rules that avoid it. Furthermore, each axiomitization produces much the same theory; there are huge overlaps in what you will get out of these disparate theories, and you have an embarassment of riches which one you use to found your mathematics.
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 12:44:08 PM
The issue of "foundations" in Math isn't as important today as it once was ... mathematicians had to get going with what they could in the meantime ... rigor will never be perfect.
Rigor may never be perfect, but it will be constantly refined. The perfect is the enemy of the good, and the Nirvana fallacy remains a fallacy.
You already ignored posts on QM logic by actual PhD folks ... but you know better than them ... sure you do ;-)
"There is no such thing as a contradiction ... " is a contradiction.
Quote from: Baruch on June 14, 2017, 09:30:53 PM
You already ignored posts on QM logic by actual PhD folks ... but you know better than them ... sure you do ;-)
You disingenuously ignore most of the text of the very wiki pages you cite and you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring your nonsense posts. Just like Casperov, you quote Ph.D.s without even the slightest inkling of understanding of what they're actually talking about, and I won't even dignify them with a response. You are in no mood to learn, and I can't make someone learn who doesn't want to learn.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2017, 02:18:22 PM
You disingenuously ignore most of the text of the very wiki pages you cite and you have the nerve to accuse me of ignoring your nonsense posts. Just like Casperov, you quote Ph.D.s without even the slightest inkling of understanding of what they're actually talking about, and I won't even dignify them with a response. You are in no mood to learn, and I can't make someone learn who doesn't want to learn.
So you are a god and I am only a mere demigod? Is that it? Ego much ;-)) Remember the Aesop fable about the big frog?
Better a big frog than a fly. I don't think you understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. I don't actually pretend to know more than my studies justify, though it may seem that way to you. I just know enough to know that you're talking crap here. As always, knowledge is demonstrated, not asserted.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 15, 2017, 09:53:28 PM
Better a big frog than a fly. I don't think you understand the subject matter as well as you think you do. I don't actually pretend to know more than my studies justify, though it may seem that way to you. I just know enough to know that you're talking crap here. As always, knowledge is demonstrated, not asserted.
You claim to know ... while trying to claim that you don't. I make no claim to knowledge on these more technical subjects ... that I bring up. I simply bring them up and make small comments. Then you put on your Spanish Inquisition hat and start the auto-da-fe. There are selected technical areas that I have decades of experience in ... but I am not going to elucidate for your benefit. I am not here to show off, or bore people with technical minutae. I implicitly poke holes in bullshit by showing that there is an alternative to your authoritarianism. You simply want me to give you more evidence to excuse a tightening of your rack ... as a target of your torture for the last 2 years. Fortunately as Rubber Man ... I am immune to your Procrustean tendencies. A lame superpower, but not useless.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 14, 2017, 12:13:54 PM
Since a pure liar always lies, such a person claiming that they are a pure liar would be telling the absolute truth â€" therefore, the pure liar cannot say that he is a pure liar, because he only lies. On the other hand, because a pure liar can never claim to be a pure liar, any person claiming to be a pure liar is not; they tell the truth sometimes, just not here.
The key here is just because you're able to articulate a thought, doesn't mean that the thought describes a logically coherent situation. Your brain is not a logical system, but an evolutionary one. While it can emulate a logical system with training, you can entertain thoughts that are contradictory. It is, after all, why we have peer review.
That's why I said "pure".
Quote from: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 04:06:28 AM
That's why I said "pure".
HR thinks he exists in pure thought (like the rationalizer he is). Nothing that involves humans is pure, we are shit.