The Core Hard Problem
in [Logic]
|
Prev: "The Universe"
Next: ANUSHKA HOT PICTURES
From: Patricia Aldoraz on 31 Jul 2010 20:49 On Aug 1, 7:40 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Suppose that you are confronted with a barrel full of apples some of > which are rotten and others of which are not. Usually there will be > some sign or mark by which you can tell the rotten apples from the > good ones. The rotten apples will be brown of soft, or they will have > some other visible defect by which you can detect their condition. On > the other hand, the good apples will be firm,red, and otherwise appear > desirable. We suppose we can tell the difference between a good apple > and a rotten one because we have signs to guide us. > > However, suppose we are confronted with a barrel of apples that are > quite indistinguishable in appearance, though some of the apples are > rotten at the core. We are now presented with an apple from this > barrel and prohibited from cutting it open. In this predicament, if > someone should ask us whether the apple is rotten or good, the only > thing to reply is, "I don't know" We might add, "There is no way to > tell." > > ...when a belief [about the core issue] is true, this is more a matter > of good luck than good sense. Of course, no belief that turns out to > be true as a matter of luck can reasonably be counted as knowledge. > What is your point?
From: bigfletch8 on 31 Jul 2010 22:55 On Aug 1, 5:49 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:44 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > > Suppose that you are confronted with a barrel full of apples some of > > > which are rotten and others of which are not. > > > Suppose not. But what does any of this have to do with mathematical > > logic? > > Logical possibility, impossibility, necessity and the justification > for deductive logic generally. It has much to do with mathematical > logic. Do you miss John Jones or something? Me to. > > > > > -- > > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - One similarity being, you can have fun with both, while getting nowhere. BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 31 Jul 2010 22:57 On Aug 1, 7:15 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 2:50 pm, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi> wrote: > > > Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> writes: > > >Do you miss John Jones or something? Me to. > > > Well, no, I don't. I was, in effect, just noting that your tedious > > little essays have at best a very tenuous connection to logic as a > > technical field. > > I am doing much reading on "research methodology" which is based > mainly upon inductive logic, is that a subject for sci.logic. If you > have read Copi's Introduction to Logic as many years as I have in its > various editions, when the symbolic logic comes to an end, the final > third of the book is about inductive logic, analogy, probability and > theoretical aspects of the scientific method. I just figured that > anything in that book is acceptable especially in sci.logic. From you > now I get the impression that when in here we should focus upon > symbolic logic. > > > > > -- > > Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensi...(a)uta.fi) > > > "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen" > > - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks for confirming my last point. BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 31 Jul 2010 23:00 On Aug 1, 9:27 am, Sir Frederick Martin <mmcne...(a)fuzzysys.com> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT), sarge <greasethew...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >On 31 Juli, 23:40, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Suppose that you are confronted with a barrel full of apples some of > >> which are rotten and others of which are not. Usually there will be > >> some sign or mark by which you can tell the rotten apples from the > >> good ones. The rotten apples will be brown of soft, or they will have > >> some other visible defect by which you can detect their condition. On > >> the other hand, the good apples will be firm,red, and otherwise appear > >> desirable. We suppose we can tell the difference between a good apple > >> and a rotten one because we have signs to guide us. > > >> However, suppose we are confronted with a barrel of apples that are > >> quite indistinguishable in appearance, though some of the apples are > >> rotten at the core. We are now presented with an apple from this > >> barrel and prohibited from cutting it open. In this predicament, if > >> someone should ask us whether the apple is rotten or good, the only > >> thing to reply is, "I don't know" We might add, "There is no way to > >> tell." > > >> ...when a belief [about the core issue] is true, this is more a matter > >> of good luck than good sense. Of course, no belief that turns out to > >> be true as a matter of luck can reasonably be counted as knowledge. > > >> Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction > >> by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappashttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/http://tinyu... > > >Dolphins would be able to tell the difference between the apples, I > >would guess by the different ways they 'sound'.. > > How about dogs with fantastic olfactory instrumentation. > The apples obviously 'smell' different. Sit for 'bad' apples. > Canines have no 'color' vision. They evolved olfaction > for food testing, among other things. The 'higher' apes > evolved the 'color' vision thing, for similar purposes. > Which is better?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When you have no taste, it wouldnt matter. Some of the best nutritional substances dont look or smell too good. BOfL
From: Sir Frederick Martin on 31 Jul 2010 23:17
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:00:49 -0700 (PDT), "bigfletch8(a)gmail.com" <bigfletch8(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >When you have no taste, it wouldnt matter. Some of the best >nutritional substances dont look or smell too good. > To what? (and whom?) |