>>16772754
Picrel is from the Isaac Watts book, which is the first of those links. Old books are the best.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Watts#Logic_and_science

>>16769936
>a way to derive all known and unknown mathematical structure via a single axiom applied to a single symbol.
I don't know very much about mathematical proofs and logic but I think this is impossible by definition. A mathematical proof is a deductive argument. An argument needs at least two propositions as premises, and has one proposition as conclusion. As far as I understand this translates directly to mathematical proofs; axioms are premises; theorems are the conclusions of the arguments/proofs, the things being proven/concluded/deduced. You can't deduce anything from a single proposition. You can illustrate this. Argumentation or proof-giving is a tree structure, where you build complex structures, theorems; from simpler structures, previously proven theorems and axioms; this is synthesis, putting together smaller parts into something larger and more complex; the opposite of synthesis is analysis, taking something large and complex and breaking it up into its smaller constituent parts; the former is argumentation and proof-giving, the latter is the Socratic method: asking "why?" to prompt the premises for a proposition, then taking one of those premises, which also is a proposition, and again asking "why?" to prompt the premises for that proposition, and so on and so forth until you have gone so far back that you're at an axiom, a first principle, from which nothing further can be analyzed.

An image of a tree structure for illustration will be in the post replying to this post.

This is exactly why people ought to read Elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

picrel is from this book: https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

But you can read a more modern textbook in logic too, there are many available for free online, this is just one example.

https://moodle.scnu.edu.cn/pluginfile.php/820759/mod_resource/content/1/Harry%20J.%20Gensler_2017_Introduction%20to%20Logic%20%283rd%20ed.%29-Routledge-reader.pdf

>>512206278
I didn't say that I don't have those things, I said they are bullshit concepts. If I recall correctly that was in a discussion about what an NPC is. What I meant was that whether someone is an NPC or not is not determined by whether they have internal monologue and visualization, but by whether or not they have studied logic (or rather the Trivium). What is even meant by internal monologue? Most people think it's just "thinking to themselves in words". This is what I'm objecting to. As Brave New World says in chapter 2 there is such a thing as thinking in words without using reason (logic), hypnopaedia. We are conditioned with not just emotion but also with propositions. Every time you hear X you think X is Y. Simply thinking in a string of propositions is worthless in terms of breaking out of conditioned responses, which is the difference between being an NPC and not. You need to go from propositions to arguments in your thinking, basically the Socratic method. While we are conditioned with propositions, you cannot condition with actual reason (logic, arguments). Learning logic is how you rise out of being an NPC, suppressing logic is how they turned us into NPCs. As for visualization I don't think it has much relevance to being or not being an NPC. However, even discussing a concept like that is pointless for people who haven't studied the Trivium, which very much deals with these types of things, see this book >>512207213 for example, look at the table of contents I posted there. Page numbers don't fit with the file in this link but anyway this is the book:

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

As for things like >>512206537 which people might reflexively think of when they hear "logic", that actually has next to nothing to do with the logic I'm talking about, the Trivium.

>>24599938
Also there are different kinds of conditioning. One kind is where you're conditioned to have a certain emotional response to stimuli. Another is where you're conditioned with propositions. Every time you hear "X" your mind has the conditioned response "X is Y". This is thinking but thinking without reason, hypnopaedia in Brave New World. You can't condition with reason, but you can break out of conditioning with reason.

https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/huxleya-bravenewworld/huxleya-bravenewworld-00-e.html#chapter02

I don't know a whole lot about conditioning but there seems to me to be two main types of conditioning. One is associating objects/concepts/words/phrases/etc in the mind with emotions, mostly just good/bad. The other type of conditioning has to do with propositions. Something X is something Y. Every time you hear X you instantly think Y. Every time you hear "saturated fat" you think "unhealthy" for example. The conditioned mind doesn't go further than propositions like for example:

>Saturated fat is unhealthy.

See the pic. You need to actually study how to parse texts. Jews know this, that's why they're powerful. You study grammar, logic and rhetoric, then you can take propositions which just pop into your mind and work on them, do you have any argument why saturated fat is unhealthy, anything to back it up, etc.

https://gutenberg.ca/ebooks/huxleya-bravenewworld/huxleya-bravenewworld-00-e.html#chapter02

>Roses and electric shocks, the khaki of Deltas and a whiff of asafoetida--wedded indissolubly before the child can speak. But wordless conditioning is crude and wholesale; cannot bring home the finer distinctions, cannot inculcate the more complex courses of behaviour. For that there must be words, but words without reason. In brief, hypnopædia.
>'The greatest moralizing and socializing force of all time.'

>>508941045
I agree that this discussion is totally fruitless. But the reason is that you know absolutely nothing about logic. First learn what the difference is between a proposition and an argument. Next learn what ad hominem means.

https://youtu.be/U3Jm8zF7bJ8&t=2543

After that I recommend that you begin studying beginner materials on logic, for example one of the materials I linked in this thread:

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/508076799/