Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Frank Wimberly" <wimber...@gmail.com> Date: Sep 22, 2017 8:55 AM Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia To: "Thompson, Nicholas" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> Cc:
OK, more seriously. If "is" means "=" then it's symmetric and you are correct. But if it means subset of then not. For example a man is a human but a human isn't necessarily a man. Beyond that, there are problems with statements that are apparently analytic. Every black dog is a dog but is every iron horse a horse? Even "black dog" may mean something other than a dog in some context. Human language is very ambiguous. That's why mathematicians use formal logic, sometimes. In one of his books, John Baez says a 1x1 matrix is a number I pointed out that it wasn't and he said that all mathematicians would say it is except logicians. He said he would lash himself with a wet noodle. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Sep 22, 2017 8:25 AM, "Frank Wimberly" <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. > > Seriously, I'll attempt a better answer soon. > > Frank > > Frank Wimberly > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Sep 22, 2017 8:20 AM, "Nick Thompson" <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> All right. I admit it. I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about logic. >> >> Frank, can you help me out here? My concession here was that in Peirce's >> world, the relation of belief to action is analytical .... i.e. arises >> directly from the definitions of terms. I thought this was a big >> concession, because propositions that arise analystically aren't very >> interesting, and I was confessing to having said something not very >> interesting. Unfortunately, this crowd does not want me to get a way EVEN >> with that concession. >> >> I was TRYING to write a tautology. So I guess I should have written, "X >> is Y; therefore, X is Y. Is THAT a tautology. I know you have tried to >> explain this to me before. >> >> I have CLEARLY gotten myself WAY in over my head, here. >> >> Thanks, >> >> 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 ?glen? >> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 6:17 AM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia >> >> >> On 09/21/2017 08:27 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: >> > */[NST==> Is there any logic in which, “Let X be Y; therefore X is Y” >> > is not entailed. If a belief is defined as that upon which one is >> > prepared to act, is there any logic in which acting does not imply >> > belief? <==nst] /* >> >> Of course. E.g. modal logics allow different types of "therefore", say >> ⊨_a and ⊨_b. Then it might be true that "Let X be Y ⊨_a X is Y" but >> false that "Let X be Y ⊨_b X is Y". Similarly, I can imagine a logic >> where "be" and "is" mean different things. >> >> > On 09/21/2017 05:00 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ wrote: >> > Yes, of course. E.g. Since most of my actions involve very tight >> feedback loops, something like tossing a ball to a friend can be launched >> and then I can make attempts to abort it if, say, I notice the friend has >> looked away. >> > >> > */[NST==>Wouldn’t the best way to analyze this be as a series of >> > “micro” beliefs? <==nst] /* >> >> What is a "micro" belief? The whole point of my response was that you >> are over-simplifying both belief and action in order to tell a "just so >> story" and force the story to fit your philosophy. It seems reasonable to >> me that if actions are decomposable, then so would be beliefs because >> there's no difference between beliefs and actions. >> >> But you are saying something different. Somehow, to you, beliefs are >> different from actions. >> >> >> > */[NST==>I think a body can enact conflicting beliefs at the same >> > time, but that is because I am comfortable with the idea that that the >> > same body can simultaneously act on two different belief systems. CF >> > Freud, slips of the tongue, hysteria, etc. Frank will correct me. /* >> >> You're implying that, although bodies are composite, belief systems are >> unitary. If the same body can do 2 conflicting things, why can't the same >> belief system be composed of 2 conflicting things? This is why I raised >> the idea of paraconsistent, defeasible, and higher order logics. >> Specifically _those_ types. >> >> Why do you treat belief systems as fundamentally different from physical >> systems? >> >> -- >> ␦glen? >> >> ============================================================ >> 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
