Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals. We can only define a "mammal" either by prototypes of a typical mammal; or by exemplars of the abstracted characteristics of all mammals. If there are multiple tenets to being something then it does not follow that we can define what a mammal means. Here I can do it: 1. Is it warm-blooded? 2. What are its birthing actions?
Anarcho-Mercantilist:This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals. We can only define a "mammal" either by prototypes of a typical mammal; or by exemplars of the abstracted characteristics of all mammals.
If there are multiple tenets to being something then it does not follow that we can define what a mammal means.
Here I can do it:
1. Is it warm-blooded?
2. What are its birthing actions?
The naked mole rat "is" cold-blooded.
The platypus lays eggs.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Anarcho-Mercantilist: The naked mole rat "is" cold-blooded. The platypus lays eggs.
The two questions should be applied to a singular creature.
The naked mole rat is cold-blooded but does it birth its young or does it lay eggs?
The platypus lays eggs but is it warm blooded?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Juan:This means that we cannot identify an "essence" for all mammals. No. That means that mammals is just an arbitrary category. You miss the point. I hope you are not doing it on purpose.
The prototype theory does not recognize "essences" but still not arbitrary in the identification of entities.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist: The naked mole rat "is" cold-blooded. The platypus lays eggs. The two questions should be applied to a singular creature. The naked mole rat is cold-blooded but does it birth its young or does it lay eggs? The platypus lays eggs but is it warm blooded?
A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change. Why do we still identify it as a mammal? Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme. See prototype theory.
All mammals are warm-blooded. The naked mole rat is cold-blooded. Therefore, the naked mole rat is not a mammal.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change. Why do we still identify it as a mammal? Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme.
And what if we all become overmen tomorrow!? Honestly, we are now leaving the world of logic and reason and taking a trip into Nieztche wonderworld.
Juan: Please DO show an exception to the law of the excluded middle
An animal "is" either a mammal or not a mammal. The mutant platypus who lacks an endothermic mechanism does not fall within Anarchist Cain's definition of a "mammal," but we still identify it as a "mammal" because of its similarity to the prototypical monotreme (which "is", in turn, a mammal).
Anarcho-Mercantilist:The mutant platypus who lacks an endothermic mechanism does not fall within Anarchist Cain's definition of a "mammal," but we still identify it as a "mammal" because of its similarity to the prototypical monotreme (which "is", in turn, a mammal).
There is no such platypus.
An animal "is" either a mammal or not a mammal.
Anarcho-Mercantilist:A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change. Why do we still identify it as a mammal? Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme. See prototype theory.
Why do we need to still identify it as a mammel? A "mammel" is nothing more than a made up class. This isn't an example of an exception to the excluded middle.
Anarchist Cain: Anarcho-Mercantilist:A mutant platypus who has evolved cold-bloodedness to adapt to climate change. Why do we still identify it as a mammal? Because of its similarity of the prototypical monotreme. And what if we all become overmen tomorrow!? Honestly, we are now leaving the world of logic and reason and taking a trip into Nieztche wonderworld.
That has nothing to do with your definition of "nihilism." The prototype theory merely corrects some flaws of the Aristotelian system such as over-generalization of entities. It does not "reject" Aristotelian logic. It merely refines it with more precision.
Do you accept prototype theory?
Angurse:Why do we need to still identify it as a mammel? A "mammel" is nothing more than a made up class. This isn't an example of an exception to the excluded middle.
Anarchist Cain:Honestly, we are now leaving the world of logic and reason and taking a trip into Nieztche wonderworld.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
How to Reject Rothbardian Natural Law.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: How to Reject Rothbardian Natural Law.
Pretty funny.. I must agree with Juan that instead of exposing issues regarding the law of excluded middle, you seem to be critiquing the uncritical application of the law, resulting in categorization error.
edit: just read the wiki regarding prototype theory and found it interesting. It doesn't seem to contradict Aristotlean logic as I understand it.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Juan:One of my favorites (fallacies) is : All cats are four legged animals. Therefore, all four legged animals are cats.
My cat was born with three legs. What is it?
Juan:Poor thing. Well, the universe must implode now. It's like a general protection fault of sorts.
Even if we assume that the laws of logic are a "necessary given," it does not suggest that the laws of logic are flawless.
Juan:Well, show a flaw in the laws of logic then.
I will show the flaws of the Aristotelian laws of logic below.
In categorizing entities, the law of the excluded middle does not have as much precision as prototype theory.
The law of the excluded middle says: a thing is either completely A or not-completely-A.
Prototype theory says: a thing can have many degrees of similarity towards the category A.
The law of the excluded middle is two-valued logic, while prototype theory is infinite-valued logic.
The mutant monotreme and the three-legged cat does not quite fit into two-valued logic. Infinite-valued logic deals with them better.
Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities? Prototype theory just seems to be an approach to linguistics that differs from the conditions used in Aristotelian logic, not necessarily a rebuke of Aristotelian logic itself.
Angurse: Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities? Prototype theory just seems to be an approach to linguistics that differs from the conditions used in Aristotelian logic, not necessarily a rebuke of Aristotelian logic itself.
I never had 'rejected' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rejecting the use of its respective laws of logic.
I also have 'rejected' its the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense that humans normatively invent the laws of logic. I previously had conflated my 'metaphysical' rejection of the laws of logic with my 'practical' criticism of Aristotelian logic. Humans normatively invent the non-Aristotelian laws of logic too. (zefreak and Lilburne also had 'rejected' the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense.)
But that does not mean that I reject the application of the Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian laws of logic as methods for reasoning. I had mentioned in the past that non-Aristotelian logic has more generality than Aristotelian logic. I 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of the application of Aristotelian logic without any non-Aristotelian refinements.
Seems like some had rejected 'prototype theory' because they merely did not understand know what 'prototype theory' means. Neither prototype theory nor general semantics 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rebuking them.
Then you really haven't shown any flaws in the Aristotelian laws of logic.
Anarcho-Mercantilist: Angurse: Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities? Prototype theory just seems to be an approach to linguistics that differs from the conditions used in Aristotelian logic, not necessarily a rebuke of Aristotelian logic itself. I never had 'rejected' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rejecting the use of its respective laws of logic. I also have 'rejected' its the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense that humans normatively invent the laws of logic. I previously had conflated my 'metaphysical' rejection of the laws of logic with my 'practical' criticism of Aristotelian logic. Humans normatively invent the non-Aristotelian laws of logic too. (zefreak and Lilburne also had 'rejected' the laws of logic in the 'metaphysical' sense.) But that does not mean that I reject the application of the Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian laws of logic as methods for reasoning. I had mentioned in the past that non-Aristotelian logic has more generality than Aristotelian logic. I 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of the application of Aristotelian logic without any non-Aristotelian refinements. Seems like some had rejected 'prototype theory' because they merely did not understand know what 'prototype theory' means. Neither prototype theory nor general semantics 'reject' Aristotelian logic in the sense of completely rebuking them.
I see your position more clearly now. I always applied the law of identity and excluded middle in a more general way, IE assume A, it is A. Of course there are entities that are much more difficult to classify, but they are still "themselves". I think this is Juan's point of view.
And I reiterate my agreement that the laws of logic are merely the method we use to percieve and understand reality, and are not metaphysical entities "out there". Some people do not understand that without logic, entities would not cease to be themselves. There would simply be no way to observe, understand, and make predictions regarding phenomena.
Sounds to me as if prototype theory is merely an extension of classical logic. One thing I do hate about discussions of alternative logics is the tendency to conflate epistemic issues with metaphysical ones.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
AM:In categorizing entities, the law of the excluded middle does not have as much precision as prototype theory.
The mutant monotreme and the three-legged cat does not quite fit into two-valued logic.
Angurse:Do the laws logic even apply to categorizing entities?
good posts juan
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
zefreak:And I reiterate my agreement that the laws of logic are merely the method we use to percieve and understand reality, and are not metaphysical entities "out there".
Some people do not understand that without logic, entities would not cease to be themselves.
There would simply be no way to observe, understand, and make predictions regarding phenomena.
Juan:good posts juan Maybe we could be preachers in the Church of Logic (tm) ? =P
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
zefreak:I always applied the law of identity and excluded middle in a more general way, IE assume A, it is A. Of course there are entities that are much more difficult to classify, but they are still "themselves".
What did you mean by "but they are still 'themselves'"?
they are who they are, and its not the case that they arent who they are.
nirgrahamUK: they are who they are, and its not the case that they arent who they are.
Imagine an animal that looks like a cat, but has three legs. You would assume it "is" still a cat.
Imagine an animal that looks like a cat, but has a head shaped like a dog. "Is" it still a cat?
Imagine an animal that looks like a cat, except it has a head shaped like a dog, barks, and behaves like a dog. "Is" it still a cat?
Two-valued logic would fail at the last two cases. We cannot determine if it "is" either a cat or not a cat.
it either is a cat or it isnt, if it means something to 'be a cat'.
if being a cat has no meaning, then it is not a question to be decided by any logic. one would be mad to ask question of truth about it.
you are merely denying that to 'be a cat' is anything knowable, not that things can contradict.
your asking me whether an animal that has some features similar to and some features different than, what is often associated with 'cat', is a cat or not... this puts one into an analytic inquiry as to what is it to be a 'cat', but regardless of whether that particular animal is a cat or not, it certainly could not both be a cat and not be a cat. to admit that it could be a cat, and not a cat, is to be mad. I suppose you might be mad.