[FRIAM] Fwd: RE: Doxastic logic - Wikipedia

[Frank Wimberly]

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Frank Wimberly" <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
Date: Sep 22, 2017 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Doxastic logic - Wikipedia
To: "Thompson, Nicholas" <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
Cc:

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" <nickthompson at 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-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen?
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 6:17 AM
> To: friam at 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20170922/fcbbdb0d/attachment.html>