Re: syllogism
From: patty (pattyNO_at_SPAMicyberspace.net)
Date: 10/02/04
- Next message: Sergio Navega: "Re: syllogism"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Reply: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:14:29 GMT
David Longley wrote:
> In article <zRw7d.292481$mD.268830@attbi_s02>, patty
> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>
>> David Longley wrote:
>>
>>> In article <Quv7d.399761$8_6.328956@attbi_s04>, patty
>>> <pattyNO@SPAMicyberspace.net> writes
>>>
>>>> David Longley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <%z17d.20748$MD5.1110057@news20.bellglobal.com>, Wolf
>>>>> Kirchmeir <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>> patty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well i see where we are stumbling over the rather ambiguous (A--
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> B). I was interpreting it as a first order term with *one*
>>>>>>>> property
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and no quantification (Fa => Fb); but now i see you meant it as
>>>>>>> (for *all* properties F, Fa <=> Fb) which *is* a coding of the
>>>>>>> definition of the identity of a and b:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I thought A-->B was a commonly understood representation
>>>>>> of "If A, then B", or "A implies B." I also think that since I
>>>>>> used this
>>>>>> symbolism in the context of implication, it should've been clear to
>>>>>> you that's what I intended. I use => only as "equal to or greater
>>>>>> than", never as a logic operator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus A-->B is false if "A true", and "B false", and true
>>>>>> otherwise. If
>>>>>> A, B are truthfunctions, then sometimes (A-->B ANDF B-->A), and
>>>>>> sometimes not - depends on A, B. IOW, [(A==B) iff (A-->B AND B--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A] When it comes to truthfunctions, that does not mean A, B are
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> indistinguishable. It means that either can be transformed into the
>>>>>> other, but that operation is meaningless unless A, B were
>>>>>> distinguishable to start with. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether it makes sense to say that A, B have the same properties
>>>>>> in this case I'll leave to other thinkers. I'm getting leery of term
>>>>>> "property."
>>>>>>
>>>>> The law of extensionality is what's missing in this discussion, and
>>>>> suspect Patty of a little obfuscation or at least a little foggy
>>>>> writing
>>>>> here as I suspect she does know the intensional nature of properties.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well one thing i know for sure is that if i use the word "property"
>>>> will get a lecture from Longley. Thing is that if an investigator
>>>> takes some measurements on individuals and records them in a
>>>> database, the records in the database will be the same whether she
>>>> thinks of them as properties or classes. The triple "X memberOf
>>>> ClassP" codes the same information as the triple "X hasProperty P".
>>>> I think this is a tempest in a tea pot.
>>>>
>>>> patty
>>>
>>> It's precisely because you (and others) think it's "a tempest in a
>>> tea pot" that I started and ended the post as I did. Despite what
>>> you tell yourself, you still don't appreciate where the above slip
>>> takes you, even though "the lecture" provides a very clear warning,
>>> and despite me having written thousands of posts which highlight
>>> consequences of the failure to see it for what it is. Elevating it
>>> from a storm in a teacup to a tempest in a teapot really just shows
>>> the extent to which you have not grasped the scope of the problem.
>>> Read Hahn again, look at the date, and think about what you're
>>> reading it on.
>>>
>>
>> What difference does it make? Tell me that ! Give me an example of
>> where calling something a property or calling it a class will make any
>> difference whatsoever - all other things equal !
>
>
> What was I telling Navega to do, and why was I telling him he was making
> an idiot of himself? Look down a few lines to find yourself how you are
> doing precisely the same thing.
>
We can easily distinguish between "X hasProperty P" and "X isMemberOf
ClassP", but when it comes to recording data and drawing inferences from
that data, it does not make any difference. That is the fact of the
matter. You cannot show me a case where it makes a difference, because
there is no case. However, you can change the subject, and that is what
you do.
> Cognitive "science" traffics in intensions, often without realising how.
> We have highlighted many of the consequences for you, and no doubt at
> the time you could see the flaws in talking about "memories" etc. No
> doubt you can, when pressed, say what's wrong with talk of people
> *having* "intelligence"? What you can't do is put it together to see how
> and why you just leave all that behind and carry on as usual!
>
Yeah, sure, change the subject, go back to generalities.
> PS. Look up intensional opacity again...... say to youself "Patty, you
> don't understand what's he's telling you...Patty, you really don't
> understand the scope of what he's telling you.....Patty, he's telling
> you something which is more than just a bit scary..... perhaps that's
> why you don't understand it....you don't want to believe it."
>
Nope, you are giving me a sleeve job.
patty
- Next message: Sergio Navega: "Re: syllogism"
- Previous message: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- In reply to: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Reply: David Longley: "Re: syllogism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
