I sense Popper's "propensities" lurking here somewhere
ppl (absent for a week from now, so ttfn)
----- Original Message -----
From: "PzEph" <etinarcardia@lineone.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: 13 December 2000 19:36
Subject: Re: MD EITHER/OR, BOTH/AND
> ELEPHANT TO HORSE (with a p.s. to CHRIS on references):
>
> This discussion about fuzzy logic is turning out more interesting than it
> ought to be. I think I'll pick out just one or two points to save time
and
> refocus the discussion. I want particulary to think about whether
adhering
> to classical logic means that you have to have what Horse calls a 'black
and
> white' veiw of the world.
>
> I don't think so, because classical logic is perfectly consistent with the
> "I don't know" point of veiw, and I have argued that it is in fact the
only
> logic which can be consistent with the "I don't know" point of veiw, since
> fuzzy logic will take the uncertain either/or question and construe it as
a
> both/and answer: turning an epistemological state into a logical one.
>
> Further, the operation of classical logic can sit perfectly well besides
the
> mystical intuition that the world beyond language cannot be correctly
> described in logical terms. The reason it cannot be perfectly captured is
> that it does not contain objects, and not, as fuzzy-logicians pretend,
that
> it does contain objects, but that those objects are "fuzzy" ones. Oddly,
> this connects with what I say about Wagner in another posting (mysticism).
> Wagner's objects are pretty fuzzy alright - but I don't think that this
> makes them a better decription of the mystical reality beyond words than,
> say, Bach's.
>
>
> HORSE WROTE: If you've read Chris' post on Fuzzyness then you'll see that
> what you've said creates unnecessary complication. Using classical logic a
> statement such as: "I am typing an email at a computer keyboard" is Either
> True OR False and in a particular context this is fine. But the same
> statement considered from a multivalent logic perspective shows that it is
> BOTH True AND False - False in this sense meaning that it is not
exclusively
> True. This does not mean that there is a contradiction involved, only that
> True and False are complementary not contradictory.
>
> ELEPHANT: I'm at a loss to understand what "contradictory" means, if "True
> and False are complementary not contradictory". Perhaps you can explain
> this? Perhaps you can also explain how having two logics in place of one
is
> not an "unnecessary complication"?
>
> HORSE HAD WRITTEN: But as I said above, Bivalent logic is not the whole of
> Logic only a part of it. Logic may pertain to all descriptions but it is
> certainly not the case that description are of necessity binary -
> additionally, it is not the case that logic (any or all) can provide a
> complete description of the world, far from it. You seem to be employing a
> circular logic here. :-)
>
> ELEPHANT: Look, binary classical logic does not imply a binary
description.
> There is "I don't know". There is metaphor (whether we can or cannot have
a
> literal translation of metaphor is an interesting question). There are
all
> kinds of descriptive devices and states of mind. What's at issue here is
> not how many varieties of psychological state there are, or how many ways
> there are of expressing insights, but rather how many of these states and
> expressions we should regard as truth-values in logic. You want to take
the
> "I don't know" or and turn it into a formal state in logic. In this, I
> maintain, you are taking the paradigm case of a question, and turning it
> into a paradigm case of an answer. This has to be wrong, because it takes
> away the whole motivation for inquiry. None of the James/Dewey stuff on
> value and the pattern of enquiry could possibly make sense if the "I don't
> know" of classical logic is turned into one of three "I know"s in fuzzy
> logic (True/ False/ True and False). If "true and false" was any kind of
> answer, what would be the point of, say, discussing which of us is right
> about logic?
>
> HORSE WROTE: If you choose to believe that classifying the world in Black
> and White terms is the best way then you go right ahead and do it. What
you
> say above is fine for something like Logical Positivism - and again
Logical
> Positivism has its uses - but for most people the world consists of a
> multitude of colours in between black and white. Intellectual systems that
> insist that everything can be forced into one of two boxes inevitably
fail.
>
> ELEPHANT: So you think I'm a logical posititivist! (This falling of
chairs
> business is getting tiresome). Accusing someone of that is almost as bad
as
> shouting across a crowded conference room "Cartesian!". I think I seem to
> be a bit of a Platypus for you (my elephantness notwithstanding).
>
> I'll repeat what I said: binary logic does not imply a binary description
of
> the world. What it implies is a binary description of the *logical*
world.
> There's more to life than logic. And isn't that just what we are saying,
> when we say that "the world consists of a multitude of colours in between
> black and white"? Now look, what you're trying to do is to take away
this
> world-outside-of-logic from me and everyone else, and then give it back to
> us nicely formulated in a three value logic (True/False/True and False).
> Well, Hell, I don't want it back that way - it certainly isn't what I
> started with. What I started was was something unformulable, not for the
> lack of a magic third value in logic, but for the lack of object-hood in
> that wonderful rainbow between black and white. In this way, fuzzy logic
> can't possibly be fuzzy enough for what it's claiming to do. The addition
> of the third value replaces a two sided plane with a triangular figure -
but
> the geometric angularity is still there, now with the added insult of
> calling to us proudly, "come, look at my lovely triangle, everything
> important about our lives is here!". I don't find this appraoch very
> appealling.
>
> ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN: ....it is the "I don't know" of classical logic that
> is paradigmatically the "realm of possibilities". The whole point of the
> third value in fuzzy logic is that it is a value, an answer to the
question
> "what is the case", an affirmative cocksure "I know!", which puts it
firmly
> in the realm of actualities, not possibilites. And, as I have already
> pointed out, this kind of answer is of great danger to the continued
> stimulation and development of enquiry: it precisely closes down all the
> really valuable intellectual possibilities.
>
> HORSE: What 3rd value in fuzzy logic??? Do you have any understanding of
> Fuzzy logic at all - I honestly don't mean to be rude of insulting here
but
> it seems that you are disagreeing with a particular position without any
> knowledge of what you are disagreeing with.
>
> ELEPHANT: Well now, you might be right about that - my having no idea what
> it is I'm disagreeing with, I mean. You see, all along you and Chris have
> been talking about 'True' and 'False' not capturing the whole picture for
> logic, and about there being in fuzzy logic this other state or logical
> value: 'True and False'; or the "in-between" as you call it, in the
passage
> below. Well now, if that's not a third truth-value, and if you aren't
> proposing a tri-value logic, then I really have no idea at all what it is
> you are saying. I don't mean to be rude either, but I have to say that I
am
> very puzzled by your remark. It seems to me that as soon as I get you
> pinned down, as to where you are in this argument, you open some hatch in
> the roof and fly off in an escape capsule.
>
> Do you mean that *your* 'fuzzy logic' has nothing at all to do with
logical
> reasoning, syllogisms, truth tables, symbolic formulation etc? Ok. I can
> dig it. Now, could you please tell me what you are talking about?
>
>
>
> ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN: I don't think the fact that the fact that the world
> escapes satisfactory description in classical logic can show that the
world
> is more complex than our description, because complexity is a function of
> discreteness, and the discreteness is a function of the description.
>
> HORSE WROTE: Classical logic assumes that the world is or it is not a
> particular way - there is no in-between. This assumes a certain naivety in
> how the world is constructed and attempts to reduce the beauty and
> complexity of the world to one of two states whilst denying that it is not
> possible for any other state to exist - it has defined away anything other
> than the True or False state of the world and denied that anything more
> complex can exist.
>
> ELEPHANT: I think I've said something about this before. It is not
naivety
> about how the world is constructed to suppose that it conforms to binary
> logic, because it is precisely with language operating according to binary
> logic that the "constructed" world is constructed. If you are talking of
> the world beyond language and logic, then there is no "how the world is
> constructed" for you to be talking about. There is only flux. Do you,
much
> to my astonishment, turn out to be a Kantian noumenalist after all,
> beleiving in a (if fuzzy) 'structure of the world' which fuzzy logic is an
> attempt to pin down? If so, I don't think your ideas sit well with the
> pragmatist outlook of MOQ.
>
>
> ELEPHANT HAD WRITTEN : What lies beyond electrons and quarks and all the
> rest isn't some ever more "complex" world, but Quality. I am very far
from
> holding a simplistic either/or view, because I certainly do not believe
that
> a perfect description of the world in terms of classical logic is or could
> be possible. I simply maintain that this is the only logic we have worthy
> of the name. The failure of language coexists with it's indispensability.
>
> HORSE WROTE: The irony here is that language is a fuzzy system of enormous
> complexity (words have multiple meanings without contextual reference) and
> that classical logic was designed to simplify and particularize language.
It
> works fine with mathematics and some areas of science but elsewhere it
fails
> miserably.
>
> ELEPHANT: Yes. But why is that? Is it because we are all perfect
> reasoners, who happen to reason logically with fuzzy logic, or is it
because
> we are lots of us fuzzy reasoners, who often have fluid, murky kinds of
> 'thought', with no sucessful logic in them at all? (Even though language
> is an attempt in that direction - if it weren't there would be no point in
> it). I know which veiw I prefer. Look, I'm not trying to capture the
whole
> of human experience in logic: it's you who is trying to do that. I'm not
> failing miserably, because I'm not so hasty as to make the attempt.
>
>
> Don't assume a necessary connection between the manifestos of the
logicians
> and the logic they hold. Aristotle had a manifesto and it wasn't Plato's.
> But it would be hard to think of them as holding to different logics. If
> they did, it would seem that any real argument between the two views would
> be impossible. Your conception of classical logic is bound up with
Prisig's
> (justified) criticism of Aristotle. But, I think, what Prisig has to say
> about Aristotle fits very well with the Platonic manifesto: subjects and
> objects have a dependant being, and that being depends on Quality.
>
>
> Finally, a quote from Prisig (lila p113, ch 8):
>
> "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience,
and
> economy of explanation."
>
> If you are allowed your "True and False" answer, it seems to me that the
> first test will be completely done away with. How can a statement or
theory
> ever be logically inconsistent, when inconsistency itself is elevated to
the
> status of a logical value? Any statement whatsoever is "consistent" with
> fuzzy logic. I really think that settles the matter.
>
>
>
> ttfn
>
>
> Pzeph
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> A Special PostScript To Chris On References And Stuff....
>
>
>
> CHRIS WRITES IN TO SAY:
> all I see from this is more smoke, you avoid addressing things -- READ THE
> REFS
>
> AND ALSO SAYS:
> E you chickened out! :-) predictable in the context of my sending you
> reference material IOW somebody elses words not mine but you dont/wont
read
> them ... and you come up with rubbish re neocortical function etc tsk tsk
> what a cop out. you should be ashamed of yourself .. but then I suppose if
> you have spent so much time refining a position to then have it threatened
> ... well .. I suppose you have to back away dont you. Pity. If you dont
like
> my writing or understand it etc well then at LEAST read the references ...
>
>
> ELEPHANT IS PUZZLED:
> I'm puzzled. Do I need to remind you where we came in, and what made me
so
> furious about you in the first place? I asked a question, and you,
> responing as a great King to some impertinent Subject, sent me away to
read
> some references, to wit: your own website. Thinking that, given your
> confident authority, I must have something to learn from you, I went to
the
> exact point you sent me. I spent about an hour puzzling over the most
> irrelevant, bizarre, and plain self-contradictory peice of literature that
> it has ever been my displeasure to have touted at me as the absolute
> indubitable truth. I have concluded, not without reason, that you are a
> self-absorded dogmatist with little capacity for engagement with, or even
> attention to, questions about your position. This has been confirmed by
> every response you have given, and your present playground taunting is par
> for the course. I have not been afraid of reporting things as I find
them,
> because it seems to me that tact, in these matters, has not so far done
you
> any favours. You know that I have had this experience of you, and yet you
> suppose that your programme for my education will have some attraction for
> me. I think you might conclude that the best possible way for you to
> prevent me reading something is for you to recommend it to me, and, in the
> interests of my future enlightenment, adopt a tactful silence. This is
not
> what I expect you to do. Surprise me.
>
>
>
>
> Perhaps we may devise a judgement of Solomon that can give free range to
two
> gigantic egos. (Never let it be said that I was not prepared, even
anxious,
> to lower myself to your level.) You can send me a complete list of all the
> books and papers I will never read, and, in fair exchange, I can send you
a
> list of all the books and papers that you will never read. Would that be
a
> constructive way to proceed?
>
> Let me see now,
> on my top tray of current matter I have (besides Prisig):
>
> Josephine Pasternak: Indefinability (a recent acquisition from Denmark)
> Pragmatism: (the thayer collection)
> A Dictionary of Bible Quotations
> A Dictionary of Philosophy (the AN Flew)
> N.J.H. Dent: The Moral Psychology of the Virtues
> Iris Murdoch: Sartre, Romantic Rationalist
> Iris Murdoch: Existentialist and Mystics
> Iris Murdoch: Metaphysics as a guide to Morals
> Antonaccio (ed.): Iris Murdoch and the search for Human Goodness
> (interesting article about Dante from Nussbaum)
>
> Then, on the top shelf of the near array for easy access:
> Plato: The complete works
> (both as single volume, in translation, and then about a foot's worth of
> favourite dialogues in various translations)
> Aristotle: Rhetoric, Politics, Nicomachean ethics (never felt tempted to
> read these more than once - ought to be got rid of)
> The Kirk and Raven edition of the Fragments of the Presocratic
Philsophers,
> (twice, because the spine on my old copy broke.)
> Various monographs on the classics including:
> Owen, Sedley, Strauss, Prior, Miller, Cornford, Nettleship, McCabe,
Barnes.
> Studies in Presocratic Philsophy (a good collection of the classic
articles)
> Krishna's Dialogue on the Soul, from the Bhagavad Gita (in a small
portable
> volume)
> Ecclesiastes (the same)
> The Philosophy of John Dewey (ed. McDermott)
> The Philosophy of Time (ed Le Poidevin)
> A presocratics reader (small portable volume pub. Hackett)
> Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations
> Wittgenstein: On Certainty
>
> Then Below (and to save time I will only list authors):
>
> Russell, Joad, Blackburn, Martin, Dancy, Descartes, Cottingham, Warnock,
> Kant (quite a bit here), Leibniz, Neitzsche, Korner, Kierkegaard, Spinoza,
> Passmore, Hume, Berkeley, Hodges, Williams, Goldman, Hacking, McNaughton,
> Swift, Empson, Ryle, Rouseau, more Dent, Salisbury, Wollheim, Bradley,
> Ricard (The Monk and the Philosopher - I think it might be just the book
for
> you), Thomas (dylan), Coleridge, Joyce, Stoppard, Eliot, Gandhi, Havel,
AJP
> Taylor, Adenauer, various works of reference, more dictionaries etc....
>
> Then accros the room Novels, beginning with....
>
>
> O.K.
>
> An Eye For An Eye, making the whole world blind.
> A reference for a reference, making the whole world illiterate.
>
> ta ta for now Chris,
>
>
> Pzeph
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST