[1]William Heidbreder Well, that's why I took his stead. My
   thinking process and [2]Millard J Melnyk 's are similar enough
   that I knew I could stand in his place while also arguing from
   my own perspective. I knew I'd be representative enough of his
   position as it is similar to my own position.

   That doesn't make Kenneth / Millard right or William wrong. I
   just knew I fit a similar template as Millard.. Mind-reading is
   impossible.
   Inference is following projected paths that may or may not exist
   in reality.
   It doesn't make it invalid but it needs to be tempered.
   Extremes, my friend, you keep going to them.
   Strip out the If's and the Only's and come back to this planet.
   You have a good system that you use. Don't muck it up by getting
   entirely wrapped up in it. *sigh* Thought processes are what
   CAME UP WITH the concepts of relationships, entailment,
   propositions.

   Again. it's a good system and it works for many things but it
   doesn't work for everything. Your intellectual pursuit is noble
   and an honorable one. I have the highest respect for it, and am
   proud as a fellow human would be of any other successful human,
   that you are involved in publishing and have found great success
   with your methodologies, both intellectually and professionally.

   I'm just asking you to sit down at the bar and grab a beer and
   eat some peanuts for a few minutes. You're a real person. I'm a
   real person, both on the Internet using words to describe our
   thought processes. I'm sure they are shared within your
   community. All the women in the book club agree with your
   assessment and that's marvelous. I'm not denying its a force of
   merit.

   Cognitive processes do *indeed*, however, have merit with
   regards to mathematics and the conceptualizations thereof.

   It doesn't invalidate mathematics but it is an enrichment of the
   understanding *and the inherent flaws* upon a two dimensional
   axiom/proof system.

   Why else do we run into "paradoxes"? They're places where the
   logic is broken. That does not make logic invalid, it just means
   it does not have universal applicability. You can call me
   American. That is true. You can call me anti-intellectual. That
   is false.
   You can call me not buying what you're selling? That is true.

References

   Visible links
   1. https://www.facebook.com/william.heidbreder?hc_location=ufi
   2. https://www.facebook.com/millard.j.melnyk?hc_location=ufi