OK, enough. Time for me to leave the, um, "ontolog" forum and restrict myself
to people who want to discuss ontologies. (01)
Good luck with the amateur philosophizing, guys. (02)
Pat (03)
On Jun 16, 2012, at 4:44 PM, Rich Cooper wrote: (04)
> Dear Chris,
>
> While I see your point when viewed solely from the perspective of logic, I
>find much more subtlety in the statement than you did, apparently.
>
> From Google: define can
> 1.Be able to: "they can run fast"; "he can't afford it".
>
> Removing the "can" modal, as you suggested, does indeed ruin the magnificent
>elegance of a plurality of agents who CAN agree, even if they find it less
>than logically consistent, that there are no statements on which they do
>agree.
>
> By sticking forlornly to the purely logical interpretation of the statement
>(S as you called it after removing the significant modal "can") renders an
>otherwise very colorful statement in projected, washed out black and white
>form.
>
> Let me be more specific.
>
> Although language can be translated into logic after removing a lot of
>linguistic functionality, that doesn't mean that the translation is accurate,
>faithful or complete in its translated form to the original statement.
>
> The original statement (T, lets call it), pays attention to the possibility
>of agreement in addition to its logical structure.
>
> T: But we can all agree there are no statements agreed by everyone, right?
>
> The subjectivity of each of the “all” observers comes in when such actions as
>compromises are considered. It is common for groups of observers to reach
>compromise on a law, or on other action, even when they don't agree with the
>logic expressed, or even with the pragmatics of the action, because they feel
>that their own subjective requirements will be met by the action regardless of
>how it is described; the anticipated effect is more significant to each
>observer than the debatable parts. That is why subjectivity is a significant
>factor in laying bare the magnificent elegance of the statement.
>
> But I agree that, seen purely logically, it isn't anywhere near as
>compellingly magnificently elegant. I don't consider that factor (pure logic)
>as important as the mind-to-mind transfer of a complex linguistic statement
>experienced by many observers. That complexity is what I find magnificently
>elegant about it, not the purely logical interpretation per se.
>
> HTH,
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher Menzel
> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 1:45 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Social interaction and teamwork
>
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> >> But we can all agree there are no statements agreed by everyone, right?
> >
> > If we all did agree to a statement, then that
> > agreement would have been agreed by everyone, thus
> > contradicting the many subjective models we each
> > had previously mentally formed in reaching said
> > agreement simultaneously.
>
> Paul's statement has nothing whatever to do with subjective mental models so
>they don't play any role in determining its truth or falsity.
>
> > So then none of us
> > would agree to the first such, statement. The
> > elegance of that thought is magnificent.
>
> Well, there's two thoughts here. There's what Paul wrote. And then there's
>what you wrote. Either way, you seem to have set a very low bar for
>magnificence.
>
> > Great paradox, Paul, and great wit!
>
> Actually, it's not a paradox, it is simply a logical falsehood, a
>contradiction, like "Socrates is a philosopher and there are no philosophers".
>Let's call Paul's statement S and rewrite it without the modal "can":
>
> S: Everyone agrees that there are no statements agreed upon by everyone.
>
> It is clear that S cannot be true. For if it is, then everyone agrees upon
>the statement "There are no statements agreed upon by everyone" and, hence,
>there is a statement that everyone agrees upon, in which case S is false. So S
>implies it's own falsity and, hence, is (logically) false.
>
> However, unlike the case with a genuine paradox (like the Liar, "This
>statement is false"), from the assumption that S is false, it does not follow
>that it is true. For if S is false, then someone (call such a person A)
>doesn't agree that there are no statements agreed upon by everyone. That could
>happen either because A has simply never considered the matter, or because A
>has considered it and believes instead that there are in fact statements that
>everyone agrees upon. But there is nothing logically problematic about either
>of those scenarios.
>
> So again, not a paradox, just a (moderately clever) logical falsehood.
>
> -chris
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (05)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (07)
|