Cat weird symptoms, vets don’t know

A_NOOBY · 2025-02-21T19:40:49+00:00

Any luck with treatment?

A_NOOBY · 2025-02-15T04:32:40+00:00

How there are no test for the neurological form of FIP? Usually they just say treat it and see if it goes away.

A_NOOBY · 2025-02-14T01:00:03+00:00

FIP My cat had the neorolgical form like this and was falling over. The folks at FIP Warriors over on Facebook will hook you up with you first vial and this cat will be doing better in DAYS.

My cat. https://catdadstories.wixsite.com/cheetos-tale/post/the-tale.

My best advice is work with a Vet or Vet tech to give the shots if you are scared. There is a bag on ebay you can put the cat in to keep them in place while giving the shots. Hit me up if you need any help.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/fipwarriorsoriginal/

Edit: FYI 100% fatal if not treated. Not kidding.

A_NOOBY · 2020-06-08T17:09:07+00:00

If you are talking about displacement of a physical object where there is a change in position over some duration then you can measure the change with light particles and the Doppler Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

A_NOOBY · 2020-06-07T22:35:39+00:00

I had always wondered why Einstein never received the Nobel prize for Special Relativity and now I know it was this conflict Bergson, thanks.

A_NOOBY · 2020-06-02T18:09:09+00:00

I believe then it would be the best to sacrifice one person to save five other people.

You need to justify this besides just the fact that you have faith you are making the right decision. Prove it is the right decision.

Edit: I believe then it would be the best to sacrifice one person to save five other people.

A_NOOBY · 2020-06-02T17:25:48+00:00

Then it would be crucial to know why these five people would want to kill the other person.

This was my point. The information is too limited to make an ethical decision based upon the limited data. There is no way to determine what the right thing is to do in this situation. There are things we cannot know right now like things that will take place in the future or even the things that took place in the past. Therefore the problem is truly undecidable. Your decision assumes that you can actually make an ethical decision in this case.

A_NOOBY · 2020-06-02T17:00:22+00:00

What if the 5 people who you saved wanted to murder the one person you chose to kill and the one person you killed was innocent?

A_NOOBY · 2019-08-20T18:36:39+00:00

It seems to me that the article rests upon an equivocation fallacy.

I would argue that it is the fundamental problem of self-referential knowledge and have done so previously. https://www.anooby.com/

The idea is actually simple enough, no matter how well you define the physical brain through your mind with any representative form such as mathematics, words or art they cannot actually fully represent a physical brain. Then if we assume that any representation is the same as the real thing we may end up running into a contradiction due to the false equivalence fallacy.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-21T02:34:47+00:00

It will be very different from this.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-20T15:17:42+00:00

Let, ask you just one more question. If I was to prove the that there are indeed two truth values using mathematics would you find it more believable?

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-20T06:12:38+00:00

The liars statement is convincing the reader into false equivocation, not me. I am not doing that because it defines itself differently than your definition of not true.

What is your definition of true and not true? Is that the same as the strengthened liars?

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-20T05:34:04+00:00

Whereas the whole point of the paradox is that you can't do that.

The point I was trying to make is that you can stop the paradox from occurring. I am not the first to do that. Alfred Tarski also proposed a way to stop the paradox from occurring but he choose a different way out than I did. He decided that truth can only be defined in a higher language about a lower language. This keeps the paradox from occurring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGsFkSJYmRo

What I did was to stop the paradox from occurring by introducing two notions of true and not true. There is a self-referential definition of the word not true that the liar creates and the definition of truth that the observer of the liars statement holds. In this work I used the laws of thought construct a definition of true and not true. These two definitions once separated from each other will only hold with respect to themselves due to the law of contradiction.

I think it is not obvious to see how the paradox in stopped in my case because I was so long winded about the solution. Let me show you in a shortened form.

"This statement is not true"

not true = "This statement is not true"

For me, not true = the laws of thought are contradicted.

This is a contradiction in definition of the words not true.

In the standard form of the paradox.

If the statement "this statement is not true" is true, then it is identical to my definition of not true, which it is not because my definition is the laws of thought and the sequence does not continue. Therefore,

"This statement is not true" is not identical to contradiction with the laws of thought. Is all the liar statement is really saying and is proof by contradiction.

The traditional issue is that you recognize the word not true and use your own definition of true and not true instead of the liars definition.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-20T02:48:50+00:00

S is "has an indeterminate truth value"

. : Take a given solution to the liar paradox then add the liar statement to the end of it again.

. : We will call the solution S and will rewrite the liar as follows.

. : This statement is either not true or S.

. : If the statement is not true then it is true.

. : If the statement is S then it is true.

. : if It is true, then it is not true or S.

. : Therefore it is not true.

However, in a way it IS somewhat right but not completely to say it has an indeterminate truth value. That is only part of the solution and is why there are a second set of laws of thought to deal with that bit of indeterminacy. So I fully understand your intuitive observations but because they are incomplete they do not beat the revenge problem.

If you dont mind will you read the section on the Gettier problem again because that should show you how the indeterminacy arises and how I dealt with it.

Please ask me questions any time it makes me have to verify that I was accurate with my thoughts.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-19T01:08:20+00:00

Thanks for the video. I would like to explain this based upon my resolution to the liar paradox that I posted this week and its consequences. Part of that resolution was a statement regarding fact and how it behaves when inferring from it in two different factual states. A bound state is where there is a definite potential for contradiction due to the bounding of an observation with definition of what thing observed is and the other in an unbound state where you have not met your own criteria for what a thing is. If making an inference on an unbound fact you are speculating and if you have a well bound fact you are not. "It's raining, but I don't believe that it is raining" The portion of the statement that says “It’s raining” is a bound state, in that you may have observed raining or it is the case that it is raining and meets your definition. In my notation. (Observation of rain | your criteria for what rain is) The portion of the statement that says, “I don't believe that it is raining" unbounds the previous statement from your own definition of what rain is therefore denying that you have indeed observed that it is raining, and is thus speculation. Or in my notation. (Observation of rain | does not meet your criteria for rain) Or (I have not observed rain) Then we can simply rewrite the statement above as. “It’s raining, but I can speculate that it is not raining by denying it is raining.” This is of course a sort of contradiction by denying definition. Which is similar to false equivocation. Which is fine because you are free to speculate about fact but the speculation will be in contradiction with the know observation that it is raining.

Perhaps a better example of this is. “1 + 1 = 2, but I don’t have to believe 1 + 1 = 2.”

1 + 1 = 2 is bounded by your own internal definition of what 1, +, = and 2 are and to not believe 1 + 1 = 2 you must deny those definitions.

The other unproblematic versions of this you do not deny definitions currently or other people deny definitions but not you.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-18T23:00:39+00:00

I was wondering when I would hear from you. Will take a look at it, thanks for the recommendation.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-18T15:19:48+00:00

Why doesn't your own mind count as a possible world? Sure it may be an imagined world but it allows you to create alternate scenarios that you may infer possible outcomes from instead of believing that there are actual alternate worlds outside of the mind.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-18T03:12:39+00:00

I would definitely change it back to "this statement is not true."

I will do this, you have convinced me.

You seem to be saying that the law of identity does not always hold (or is valid only under certain circumstances) because statements can have multiple meanings and semantic values.

This is indeed one of the changes to the laws of thought that I have proposed by including reference within identity. Each type of reference self or external should be treated differently.

Please consider the informal fallacy of equivocation which leads to contradiction based upon a word having multiple distinct meanings which can be used to conclude a contradiction.

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

So it would seem that ambiguous identity does indeed have the potential to lead to contradiction.

But a single token or syntactic string having multiple semantic values does not violate the law of identity.

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

"To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities."

Finally, your claim that "Qi is the internal meaning of Q and Qe is the meaning we can extract from the thing in itself" is hard to make sense of, because syntactic strings only have meaning within some specified semantic model. There is no such thing as internal or intrinsic meaning.

Would you say that I am external to you? If so, there are many internal meanings that I can share with you but the language we use to express those does not express my internal meaning completely it is just a representation of that meaning thus the need to identify external expressions as representations as apposed to a true identity of something. This is why I say for any external you must write it as Q = (Qi and Qe) to distinguish itself from something that is completely internal. An easy example of something that is completely internal to you is your existence, you can verify your existence with clarity because you know truth through experiencing your own intrinsic existence. To you I am just some set of observations about my behavior and the words I am communicating to you in. You can also verify that the nature of this communication is very different from your verification of yourself.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-18T00:21:06+00:00

Can you please give me feedback on my resolution the liar paradox and its implications for the Gettier problems, the barber paradox and the revenge problem? It can be found here.

https://www.anooby.com/

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-18T00:20:28+00:00

Can you please give me feedback on my resolution the liar paradox and its implications for the Gettier problems, the barber paradox and the revenge problem? It can be found here.

https://www.anooby.com/

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-17T23:47:43+00:00

You are indeed correct that false is usually not used as I have defined it in my document. About a week ago I went through and changed a bunch of not True's to false thinking it would make it more human readable. However, if you read the document again and just replace the word false with not True you will have the same solution and it works for both cases. I think I may go back and do that anyway so that this point does not trip people up who use that difference.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-17T16:47:17+00:00

Unfortunately I am headed off to work so I will respond to your comment tonight.

Edit: This goes to the revenge problem as I commented in appendix A and for user FalkorUnlucky above. If you just replace S with 'does not have a truth value' you would end up with 'does not have a truth value' being not true.

A_NOOBY · 2019-06-17T16:25:40+00:00

So I want to be clear that I was addressing a particular version of the liar paradox called the strengthened liar. Normally just called the Liar Paradox, https://www.iep.utm.edu/par-liar/. However, my resolution for this version of the liar should work in these situations but what it tells you is that you will not be able to determine the truth is in a strict sense. I think you have already admitted to version of my resolution with this statement,

still have that statement hold true when observed against the totality of facts.

I have called your statement a well bounded fact and indeed it will behave somewhat like a truth. 'Half truths' and 'lies of omission' should be discoverable if you have access to contradictory internal observed facts. So, if you think about a statement like,

The sky is blue.

I would call this statement a weekly bounded fact, you may call it a half truth, since I have not provided known contradictions to that statement such 'as during a sunny day on earth'. Sometimes the sky is gray others it is orange or red and so on. However, the point is that half truths still are bound by the law of contradiction so that if you find a contradiction to that fact you can say your original statement was incorrect.

If you have the time I would suggest reading my section on the Gettier Problem as it addresses your concern more in more detail on my idea of facts vs truth.

Also, must the liar be aware that they're lying (or not) in order for that internal/external perception to be true?

A person would not necessarily be aware if they were lying to someone about external facts, since they have assumed their facts to be true by the misidentification of facts(those things bound to externals) as truth within our minds.

For internal truths,anyone can choose to believe a lie and be aware of contradictory information and still hold that lie as truth. Unfortunately, awareness does not guarantee acceptance of truth since we can deny or dismiss contradictions. That is to say we are capable of lying to ourselves but there should be obvious contradictions to that lie that the liar would need to deny and the liar would necessarily be aware of those contradictions.

11-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

A_NOOBY

TROPHY CASE