Glen, Well, answering in the sophistic manner, because logically speaking, acting tentatively affirms tentativeness.
Let's me think about this for a moment. If acting and believing are inextricable then the following question becomes relevant. Is it possible (can you give me an example) of a contradictory ACTION. EG, can I both stop to pick up the Wheaties that I just dropped on the floor flake (that my wife will kill me for leaving there} and NOT stop to pick it up? Because, if we can have our cake and eat it to in the behavior department AND we are Peirceans, the we probably can have our cake and eat it too in the belief department. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of g??? ? Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 5:29 PM To: FriAM <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia If you, as a non-dualist, allow for tentative action, why not allow for tentative belief? On 09/21/2017 02:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Peirce defined belief as that upon which we act and doubt as the absence of > belief. It follows logically that anything we act on affirms some belief > and, therefore, at the moment of action, extinguishes all contrary beliefs. > If you follow me here, I may appear to win the argument, but only on > sophistic points. -- ☣ gⅼеɳ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
