Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 72638 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #50 – 2014-07-15, 04:16:18

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 03:45:39

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 18:46:03
trying to get rid of vagueness without taking the time to understand how semantics works

If one doesn't understand..., semantics doesn't work!

Is it semantics or communication? A relevant distinction...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 03:45:39

Because one can analyze a language into syntax and semantics (some add pragmatics -- for no good reason, I think...) doesn't mean that that language consists of such separate entities (or call them, if you wish, categories).

Whatever you call them, the problem that you see here is specifically yours. You are an atomist. You (tend to) see separate entities everywhere. For me, everything is a uniform continuum, wherein we inevitably make distinctions for our own purposes, knowingly or unknowingly, trying to make sense of things, to grasp, to communicate. I never forget the continuum, but the only way to communicate is by means of relevant distinctions.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 03:45:39

The difficulty I often see is that we come to prefer our theories over our experience before too long.

Or reject all theories vehemently, thus ending up with no sensible experience - and complaining about it to boot.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 03:45:39

Idiomatic speech as a lone example should suffice to convince anyone that language is not entirely law-bound; at least as far as it is creative, its uses and rules of usage are free of any static system.

Of course it's a dynamic system. Why would you want it to be static?

Language is entirely law-bound as soon as you have the right definition of law. There are no real exceptions in language, because the rule that "every rule has its exceptions" is also a law. Language is made of distinct units. They are not real in the immutable sense the way you'd like, but they are distinguishable and relevant, thus real enough for practical purposes. I am perfectly okay with the definition of reality deflated this way. Not my problem if reality refuses to play your game.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #51 – 2014-07-15, 04:38:59

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 20:16:18

Is it semantics or communication? A relevant distinction...

I stopped right there, ersi… If semantics is not crucial to (but after!) communication, it is a sham!

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #52 – 2014-07-15, 04:46:59

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 04:38:59

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 20:16:18
Is it semantics or communication? A relevant distinction...

I stopped right there, ersi… If semantics is not crucial to (but after!) communication, it is a sham!

Semantics is crucial to communication. I was not saying anything about it either way.

What I was saying was the answer to the claim that semantics doesn't work. It's really communication which is not working. For example right now you read your own interpretations into my words and stopped for no good reason. It's not a problem of semantics, but of communication. Semantics is crucial to communication, but there's no problem with my semantics, and not even with yours. The problem is with (mis)interpretation, (mis)communication, (mis)representation. The mind may be clear enough, but attitude presents issues.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #53 – 2014-07-15, 04:55:30

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 04:46:59

stopped for no good reason.

he have

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #54 – 2014-07-15, 05:05:39

ersi , pardon my porn language .

i dont give a shit .

but ..

from this thread about Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

what do you want exactly ?

please explain , and describe it ..

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #55 – 2014-07-15, 05:12:27

Not up to me to pardon your porn language, Sparta.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #56 – 2014-07-15, 05:39:44

Re: Language, separable into syntax and semantics — as theoretical entities or categorial constructs…

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-14, 20:16:18

Whatever you call them, the problem that you see here is specifically yours. You are an atomist. You (tend to) see separate entities everywhere.

You (tend to) create entities to facilitate the maintenance of your pet theories…

What, pray tell, is this "uniform continuum" you speak of? Yet another realm of existence, inhabited by "creatures" more removed from everyday experience than Plato's ideas?
Which is my crude way of asking, Why don't you just accept the evidence as constituting your field of study…? And, pointedly, why must you require an all-but political hegemony among other theorists?

I am, in fact, not happy with most theories — of anything!
When I tell a child not to attempt to cross the street unless he's holding my hand, I don't expect he understands why: If he did, he would soon be allowed to cross the street by himself…
(Sorry, if the example offends you; that wasn't my intent: I deal regularly nowadays with a 4- and 6-year old, and I'm old and tired!

You already know my mind is a severely limited organ! And I do it no favors, drinking beer whenever I can… I'm about to open my second 40 tonight -a rare occurrence!- so, you are fore-warned… Hm. Is there any other way to be warned? What would be the point?

)

Another example: The scientist's Cosmological Argument for the Non-Existence of God… James pointed me to it in a related thread, and it invokes the "very best" science, from a partisan view!
He won't recognize the partisan -what's the word I want? It means "rooted in partisan rhetoric" or something like that…
He's (the author, and his ilk; because they're a clan or cabal or would-be oligarchy) seeking something… But he doesn't say what!

[I've just been informed: 4 posts have intervened, since I began "typing" — as the bot so delicately put it! (I might have been doing any number of other things; including thinking, but let's not go there!

)]

Let me post this, before the world ends! "Guys! We're trying to understand something that may be important? Or perhaps just each other? Each other's views…? (Isn't that enough?)"
Probably not. The motives of others are as mysterious as are our own.
———————————
OK. Read those 4 posts: Nothing said, that matters.

p.s.,
Sparta, are you an ineptly programmed bot or an aptly educated moron?

(I'll cite sources, if I must…)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #57 – 2014-07-15, 05:53:59

well ,

we live in the Era where people used to answer , not to understand.

btw, Oak ..

i have a very Fabulous Question .

is in this World there are rules n/or law

that not allow anyone to not Stupid , retarded , n/or have mental illness ?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #58 – 2014-07-15, 06:19:56

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 02:46:03

Question to the mod: Does an unclosed tag like this have an effect only to the end of the post or would it ruin the whole forum page? In the latter case some tweaking of the forum engine may be necessary...

Just the post. The engine automatically closes all unclosed elements at the end of the post, I believe.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #59 – 2014-07-15, 06:49:03

…I won't bother to quote bits and pieces of Sparta's post: There's nothing there.

Please, whoever you are, continue taking your meds: Your ties to reality and others seem, to me, tenuous at best…
You can take me at my word, and pm or email me. I will respond. (But I've not a good "track record" — which is to say, don't bet the farm on me!) Do you suspect I can be of help?

I'm mostly an idiot when it comes to why people "lose touch" with reality. I don't "get it" and I don't know how to… But whenever I've confronted an individual — a-hem!! A person! — who asked me what I thought, I answered truthfully.
My Bad!

I don''t know enough about psychology to answer many specific questions. I do know enough to answer most general questions… (Think about that, for a while…) Why, I'd ask, do you ask me?

[I pause, because I must sleep: I'm too drunk to continue and I have things to do, but a few hours hence…]

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #60 – 2014-07-15, 07:41:38

Just a thought: The Turing Test (etc.) is supposed to determine if an AI "simulates" human intelligence, no?
Wouldn't it be more than difficult to program a machine to become -at some point- exasperated?

In short: If a simulacrum says "Fuck off!" it is -likely- human… Unless it was programmed to say that…at some point…
As Sparta will likely say, "Wow!" Thumbs sideways… Can we amend the forum software?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #61 – 2014-07-15, 08:23:14

take your time m8 .
i am not in a hurry to get the answer .
my question is not a slippery slope , n/or another logical fallacies shitty .
and ofc , i understand if we live in different times .

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well,
it's must be annoying to answer a Question .
since in my science , afaik..
mind that full of answer , will make the feel unhappy
trying to answer will bring sensation of unhappiness , in some case exasperated
-------------------------------------------

btw how if we skip the Psyche part , and back to Logic , and philosophs ?
as we know , there are no rules n/or laws that not allow anyone to not Stupid , retard n/or have mental illness .

the vice versa should be , also there are no rules n/or law that not allow to not Smart , genius, n/or Mentally healthy .

in the other Word , it's a Choice .

isn't that Humanright's part to choose be anything ?
why we dont respect the Choice of another people ?

unless their Stupidity , Retard-factor , and Psychopathy causing them broke the Laws of some Country , then they have to deal with the law .

sometimes consequences , is the only way to Stop the Manipulators .

--------------------------------------------
on the other hand ,
i also do not believe if there is Human that have no ignorance .
as Human have emotion , like Fear of something .
Human will always have ignorance .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #62 – 2014-07-15, 13:27:12

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 05:39:44

You (tend to) create entities to facilitate the maintenance of your pet theories…

And you don't? Everybody does it necessarily. Take it as the price of doing philosophy and science. It's better to be aware that you are doing it and do it considerately rather than to do it and at the same time imagine having nothing to do with it.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 05:39:44

What, pray tell, is this "uniform continuum" you speak of? Yet another realm of existence, inhabited by "creatures" more removed from everyday experience than Plato's ideas?

What, pray tell, is the field in the field theory? evolution in the evolution theory? strings in the string theory? atoms in atomism? matter in materialism? When you find the appropriate Hilarious Word to denote those, then that's what continuum is to the continuum theory too.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 05:39:44

Which is my crude way of asking, Why don't you just accept the evidence as constituting your field of study…?

Surely I accept speech and writing as the data (if that's what you mean by evidence) for linguistics. Whatever gave you a different impression? But from there, assuming that the data is supposed to mean anything, a theory of semantics is the next necessary step. And when semantics is acknowledged as a necessary part of the field of study this way, it cannot be assumed that it (=semantics or the semantic field) is unreal. If it's unreal then how can it be an object of study?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 05:39:44

I am, in fact, not happy with most theories — of anything!

Yeah, yeah. Move on to the next relevant questions: Why not happy? Because they are theories? What would you be happy with? What is happiness? Does it exist? If yes, maybe go buy more of it downtown.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 05:39:44

I'm about to open my second 40 tonight -a rare occurrence!- so, you are fore-warned…

I see, that's the happiness you were talking about. Indeed, hard to find it in any theory.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #63 – 2014-07-15, 16:25:32

@Sparta: Since you refused my request that you post (sometimes...) in your native language, will you at least offer some definition of the term "n/or" as you mean it?
It seems, to me, most like "like" in the, like, you know?, like the lingo of contemporary teenagers: Valley Girl-speak... But I'd rather be wrong!
Still, I'm dying to know if you prefer ketchup and onions or mustard and relish on your hot dog! (We can leave for later the merits of sauerkraut...)
_______________________________________________

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 05:27:12

Surely I accept speech and writing as the data (if that's what you mean by evidence) for linguistics. Whatever gave you a different impression? But from there, assuming that the data is supposed to mean anything, a theory of semantics is the next necessary step. And when semantics is acknowledged as a necessary part of the field of study this way, it cannot be assumed that it (=semantics or the semantic field) is unreal. If it's unreal then how can it be an object of study?

I would have thought syntax preceded semantics... But, seriously, the data is more real than the theory, isn't it?
Perhaps, not for you...

I've browsed various sources (on the net) to glean the meaning (the import) of infomatics. And, as near as I can tell, it's most like womens studies, African American studies, sociology and other disciplines that essentially involve navel-gazing and basket-weaving: Bureaucratic busy-work for the semi-literate would-be functionary...

Would someone please explain how any employed adult needs a handbook to determine what, exactly, is meant in a given context by the term "concept"?

Now: What gave me the impression that the data worthy of study (on this we agree?) is less important to you than theories? Your usage of, e.g., labels like semantics!

How, you ask, do some (most!) theories lead to absurdities? And you'd like me to list some such... Fair enough.
Let's start with the meaning of, say, red. Call it a property of physical objects... Define it scientifically or socially. I'm okay with that. But to create a mysterious realm of eternal, perfect things -- so that their instantiations, then, make sense?
Instantiations? Isn't the word a little silly? Is anyone really confused by color terms? And, if so, how are they the wiser for "knowing" that the "red" of an apple and the "red" of yon lassie's lips and the "red" of a fire engine are all but imperfect instantiations of the eternal Red?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #64 – 2014-07-15, 18:25:10

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 16:25:32

I would have thought syntax preceded semantics... But, seriously, the data is more real than the theory, isn't it?
Perhaps, not for you...

It's precisely the other way round for me. How could it escape you for so long?

But it's a bit subtler. It's not data versus theory. It's data versus its meaning. The theory is the method to analyse both the data and the meaning. The theory is the method to attribute the appropriate meaning to the data. Without the method of analysis, the data is senseless, purposeless, meaningless. There may be 2+2=4 or 2+2=5 written somewhere, but when you cannot read, this data makes absolutely no difference.

I've described how concepts acquire meaning. The description of how concepts acquire meaning is the theory. A well-rehearsed theory is the same thing as practice. A well-trained semanticist can identify the relative meaning of a concept or the nature/structure of a concept system swiftly and solidly, while an untrained reader/thinker struggles painfully with meanings and purposes. It's the lack of practice which is painful. It's also intellectually painful to perceive some meaning, but not to be able to grasp or formulate it properly. These processes are psychologically real, not unreal.

Attributing some meaning or other to things is not just a useful fiction, but a practical inevitability. You may ignore the meaning side of some event, and lucky you if the event really is meaningless enough, but this is not always the case. Reality makes itself painfully felt on occasion. Therefore meaning or purpose is an undeniable aspect of reality. It's a practical survival skill to attribute the appropriate meaning to things and events.

When a tiger is approaching, you'd better escape, if you don't want to get eaten. It's not the data that matters, but its meaning, the end, purpose or goal. To put it another way, what you see doesn't matter that much, but it matters what you should do about it. Much stuff is pointless enough so as to require no action, but some other stuff calls for resolute intervention for a certain purpose.

Reality as a whole is a dynamic system, not static as plain data would imply on the face of it, uninterpreted. This fact (that reality is dynamic, not static) hugely diminishes the value of plain data in my eyes and makes me ask: Why does reality/universe appear animate rather than inanimate? Animation appears even in matter and atoms that are supposed to be inert and mechanistic as per materialism and atomism. Consequently, it doesn't make sense for me to accept materialist and atomist tendency to worship inanimate matter as the ontological basis of everything. I'd rather investigate that which animates matter and atoms. The materialist and atomist account of reality is self-evidently counterfactual to me.

From this there's still some leap to the continuum theory, but I never made the leap, so it would be a bit insincere of me to describe it. Instead, I have been through an excruciating mental journey trying to comprehend atomism and materialism - because the thing called dialectical materialism was the official religion in the country where I grew up and atomism is the central theory of every respected scientist of our age - only to discover their utter futility.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 16:25:32

Would someone please explain how any employed adult needs a handbook to determine what, exactly, is meant in a given context by the term "concept"?

Concept means the same as word - but with meaning -, as distinguished from the word's orthography or the word as a sound sequence. This is the standard definition of concept in linguistics and that's the way I use it.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #65 – 2014-07-15, 19:17:16

So, the paper you linked to was one that you haven't read?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 10:25:10

Without the method of analysis, the data is senseless, purposeless, meaningless.

There's the nub of our misunderstanding: Were what you say of data true, no theory could add sense, purpose or meaning to them!

But appreciate (as well as I can...) your experiences with dialectical materialism, and applaud your rejection of it!
________________________________________
Materialism (and what you call atomism) are -sometimes- very useful theories. Taken beyond their obvious usefulness, they rather quickly become pernicious. No?

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #66 – 2014-07-15, 21:14:36

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 19:17:16

So, the paper you linked to was one that you haven't read?

You mean what it says about "concept" compared to what I say about it?

If you note the authors, one is a medical terminologist, and the other a methodical philosopher linked to information science, and they tell about their practical task, namely standardisation of medical terminology, which prompted the paper. Therefore the paper is not committed to the specifically linguistic definition of "concept". Instead, they introduce the topic by reviewing the various definitions of "concept" that have emerged in the discussions. And then they present their understanding of how concepts relate to meanings and referents ("ontologies"). They don't tell anything different than I do. They are just more thorough.

Anyway, you dismissed the paper as "word salad". Why pretend now that you were able to make any sense of it?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-15, 19:17:16

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 10:25:10
Without the method of analysis, the data is senseless, purposeless, meaningless.

There's the nub of our misunderstanding: Were what you say of data true, no theory could add sense, purpose or meaning to them!

There's the nub of your misunderstanding all right. As I said already in the first post in this thread, we discover meanings rather than add. On my semantic theory (which is the only theory as long as you come up with one - which you won't) it's also possible to speak of extracting and attributing the meaning, but the point of the theory is to do so with maximum relevance, to minimise misattribution and misinterpretation. To think of meaning as something added is precisely wrong way to go about it. You may hate the fact that semantics pervades the data, but it will remain fact - just to annoy you, if for no other reason.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #67 – 2014-07-16, 00:38:08

A long time ago, some philosophers mis-understood gravity… One (me, at any rate!) doubts that many people were unsure, how to respond to situations where gravity might matter.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 13:14:36

On my semantic theory […] it's also possible to speak of extracting and attributing the meaning, but the point of the theory is to do so with maximum relevance, to minimise misattribution and misinterpretation.

Do you issue Certificates?

Congratulations: You've invented the wheel, and Mankind will forever be in your debt!
(Bet the Maya would have appreciated your input!)

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 13:14:36

To think of meaning as something added is precisely wrong way to go about it. You may hate the fact that semantics pervades the data, but it will remain fact - just to annoy you, if for no other reason.

I think you're arguing with someone else, usually… (Perhaps, yourself?) Semantics is a discipline separated from syntax, for the purpose of "creating" an adequate theory of meaning… That that purpose wasn't achieved is no criticism: That some think the purpose was achieved, is.

It's not a situation analogous to Craig's Theorem. Or is it?

———————————————————
BTW: I really do want to know if that paper was only 12 pages long… (If it was actually 128 or 512 or 1024… Well, I'd reserve (withhold) my judgement!)

In the meantime, watch this: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=13455

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #68 – 2014-07-16, 03:21:55

@Oak , my native language is Java .

in Java there are different language for different People , Situation , condition , and environment .

i/e Speak With Friends , and Speak With older People is using different Type Of java Language .

basically there 3 type .

for daily ---> Normal Java Language

For Older People ---> Mild Java language

for " Sir " / Nobles / Government Officers / etc ---> Super Mild Java language

i dont think , translator engine can translate accurately .

btw ,

i tried to translate this phrase --> Empan papan .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #69 – 2014-07-16, 03:47:58

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-16, 00:38:08

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 13:14:36
To think of meaning as something added is precisely wrong way to go about it. [...]

I think you're arguing with someone else, usually… (Perhaps, yourself?)

I was arguing with this statement: Were what you say of data true, no theory could add sense, purpose or meaning to them!

Now, who was the author of this statement? Hmm?

You said one other interesting thing meanwhile, but I got your point: You don't mean anything what you say.

Happens every time when you are drunk. My bad when I assume you are not.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #70 – 2014-07-16, 04:24:48

moderate consumption of alcohol is associated with better cognitive (thinking and reasoning)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #71 – 2014-07-16, 04:28:44

but in your case , ersi .

not recommended .

just one thing , please reduce the Manipulative behaviour .

it's related with M-factor ( if you know what i mean )

in the other word , you aint stop until people follow your way and point of view .

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #72 – 2014-07-16, 07:17:24

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-15, 19:21:55

i dont think , translator engine can translate accurately .

I did a simple Google search, which led me, after a bit, to here… Not too terribly bad a job of translation, for a machine/algorithm, eh?

I liked the essay "Dendam positif"…

(Forgive me: When I first saw "Java" I immediately thought of Sun/Oracle's programming language and its virtual machine… Would that your language were as easy!)

It does help (me…) to know that Javanese is your native language; and I can -eventually- come to know more of the culture that so permeates the language. Of course, I'll still make the occasional joke at your expense! That's part of my way of speaking/writing. But I hope you don't take offense…
—————————————————————

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-15, 19:47:58

You don't mean anything what you say.

I doubt, ersi, that there's really a communication problem between us… Perhaps when you reach my age you'll understand more easily. But maybe not.
And you are mistaken: I mean most of what I say.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #73 – 2014-07-16, 08:09:07

in my ancestor point of view , and Java culture / tradition

language and behavior is essence .

Manners and attitude is expressed with language .

it's ok to cursing with friends / close friends , but always humble with older people ,elder , strangers , or probably with government officers, etc.

using bad words and inappropiate language in the Wrong place , situation and condition in their perspective can causing conflicts .

if in this modern World probably something like , can causing triggers for some people with mental health issues .
or can make another people have mental health issues

-------------------------------------------------
it's kinda complicated ..

Java is ethnic , language , also a verb ( Java ethnic , Java language , and Java )

the definition of Java = Sane , understand , understanding , have manners

in Java ethnic , kids /children that have no manners and have bad attitudes the People will say something like " you're not Java "

Also People that insane , cant understanding another , do whatever they want , have no tolerance , impulsive , Manipulative , etc

the People will express something like " that's The Java people that have lost their Java "

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #74 – 2014-07-16, 11:25:36

@Sparta
Rigidity with manners is a very tough stress factor. Don't lose your Java.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-16, 07:17:24

And you are mistaken: I mean most of what I say.

By now there's just one way to interpret this: You really mean to undermine your own integrity by the growing list of misrepresentations, inconsistencies and absurdities that I have been pointing out, and you really mean to keep adding to it and never rectify anything.

Prove me wrong by making amends point by point. Be methodical and specific. Until then I am right.