--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00010 Date: 01/14/98 From: MARK BLOSS Time: 07:55pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Random values 19:55:0701/14/98 > >Frank Masingill wrote to Mark Bloss about Random values [1] FM> I am especially concerned with your curious statement that some FM> "philosophical SYSTEMS have proven to be right!" What does this have FM> to do with the advent of the automobile? Could you elaborate on the FM> analogy a bit more but more to the point WHAT philosophical systems FM> have proven to be "right?" Quite simple. Very very simple. _You_ said that all philosophical _systems_ proved to be "wrong". If so, then is impossible that any should not have been proved to be right. Because you cannot have one without the other. For example, in order for your statement to be true - then the philosophical SYSTEM whereby you derived this truth must be "right". And therefore you demand a contradiction - which is impermissible. Actually, _you_ were mistaken to use the term "wrong". It would have made more sense to use the word "unworkable" or "useless". And I then would have used the term "workable" or "useful" instead, and we wouldn't have this minor flap. And it doesn't have anything to do with automobiles. That's why it is an analogy... BECAUSE it is not related in any other way other than to demonstrate how one CANNOT say truthfully, that "philosophical SYSTEMS have proved to be wrong." No. Some "systems" don't work. Some DO. Those that do not reveal truth do not work, and are thus "wrong" in that sense. Those that reveal truth _do_ work, and are thus "right". Now back to this: FM> having trouble understanding your meaning and distinctions between the FM> "intellectual" and the "intuitive" in consciousness as it respects the FM> human experience and the symbolization of experience so will make no FM> overall response here. The intuition is the mind's nous. The intellect is the mind's logos. One philosophic system which has "worked" and is "useful", and many have said to be "right" - is "truth is self-evident". 'What is it that appears there? It is a man.' This is the perfect adequatio rei et intellectus. This influence of Kant has been what demonstrated the usefulness of the philosophical _system_ which is the "definition of truth" - the agreement of knowledge with its object. Yet simultaneously Kant was aware that for this truth "no general criterion can be demanded. [It] would... be self-contradictory". Arendt's contribution to the obvious is "Truth as self-evidence does not need any criterion; it _is_ criterion, the final arbiter, of everything that then may follow." Since the middle ages there has been a distinction made between the active life of man in the world, and the solitary +vita contemplativa+. But really there can be demonstrated three: the thinking man, the willing man, and the judging man. That the intellectual should be concerned with the metaphysical, or the emotional, or the abstractions of the vita contemplativa, or whether it should be concerned with the physical, the pragmatic or that it should be involutional in the everyday mundane, is an intuitive exercise - NOT an intellectual one. Perhaps the metaphysical "science" which has produced such tensions can be summed up as a natural extension between the theoria and logos, between seeing and reasoning with words - whether in the form of dia-legesthai or, on the contrary, of syl-logizesthai (dialectics or syllogism), whether it takes things, especially opinions, apart by means of words, or brings them together in a discourse depending for its truth content on a primary premise perceived by intuition, by the nous, which is not subject to error because it is not meta logou, sequential to words. If philosophy is the mother of the sciences, it is itself the science of the beginnings and principles of science, of the archai. These become the topic of Aristotelian metaphysics, and can no longer be derived; they are given to the mind in self-evident intuition. But do I put so much trust in intuition? See here, it is as Bergson said "like children trying to catch smoke by closing their hands"; because nothing expressed in words can ever attain to the immobility of an object of mere contemplation. Since there has been a shift in philosophical thinking here since Bergson, from the nous to the logos: thus, the criterion for truth has shifted from the agreement of knowledge with its object - the adequatio rei et intellectus, to the mere _form_ of thinking whose basic rule is the axiom of non-contradiction, of consistency _by itself_. ... Total Spiritual Enlightenment helps me score with the babes. --- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c * Origin: Mind Over Byte Software, Nashville 615-831-9284 (1:116/180) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00011 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 12:11pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Ideology vs. philosophy On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, [snip] FM> FM> Victims of the holocaust or of the Gulag (described by FM> FM> Solzhenitzen) FM> FM> would certainly be wide-eyed at such a benign definition. See my FM> FM> response in a longer message. FM> JB> Your logic seems to me to be similar to those who object to hand FM> JB> guns. FM> JB> They associate the use of hand guns with murder responding by FM> JB> outlawing FM> JB> hand guns. However, they forget "guns" can be used for "good" as FM> JB> in FM> JB> defeat of Germany, Iraq, self defense, etc. Perhaps, ideology, FM> JB> much like FM> JB> hand guns, isn't necessarily "bad", unless used inappropiately, FM> JB> Holocaust, or in the case of hand guns, murder. I am not sure, I FM> JB> like FM> JB> this analogy, but I hope it expresses the central point. FM> I honestly don't know how to respond to this. A "gun" is NOT an FM> ideology. I agree and I didn't mean to imply it was. My words started with "Your logic seems to me to be similar to those..." This in no way implies one, guns are an ideology and two, I assumed you were in favour of gun control which I didn't. FM> Nor am I suggesting laws to ban either. [snip] FM> understand the full nature of ideology. Guns can be neutral. Yes, they can, can't ideologies be neutral as well? FM> Ideologies FM> CANNOT!!! The very NATURE of an Ideology is to drive toward an Why not? FM> Orwellian FM> political structure. One firm definition of an ideology is that it FM> DOES NOT FM> DESIRE OR BEAR QUESTIONING. It is the TOTAL answer to any question FM> that might arise. Do you not see, the fact you aren't "open to being questioned" about the nature of ideology is in fact an ideology, an unquestioning definition of ideology? Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00012 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 01:09pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Ideology vs. philosophy On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, FM> JB> Just in case you missed -some- of what Frank advocates falls into FM> Jb> dogma. FM> JB> In particular, his dogma, assumption, that man doesn't have the FM> JB> ABILITIY to preceive REALITY. FM> John, I very much dislike being starkly and deliberately FM> misrepresented. I Perhaps, better diction, would have been in order. I do believe it is -your intent- NOT to be dogmatic. However, I remain convinced, you are unaware of the apparent dogma. FM> can GUARANTEE YOU that I have NEVER, EVER said any such thing - FM> NEVER!!! FM> I HAVE said (and it makes all the difference in the world, so FM> listen VERY FM> carefully: Man, as a PART of the reality in which he exists cannot FM> KNOW THE FM> FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY. Why is that so difficult to understand. Ah, you don't understand. I am not questioning, yet, the validity of that statement. However, do you not see the words: Man, as a PART of the reality in which he exists cannot KNOW THE FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY as words about REALITY, man's nature, as he is part of REALITY. In addition, do you not see, the words "cannot KNOW THE FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY" indicate FINALITY thus indicating that man at least is able to know a PART (yes not FULL) of the full structure of Reality. At best in keeping with man's inabilitity to KNOW THE FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY", the best you could say would be: Man, as a PART of the reality in which he exists [*******will most likely not*****] KNOW THE FULL STRUCTURE OF REALITY. FM> Our FM> ineluctable position within reality is as a part of it. Our FM> perceptions can FM> only BE within that limited range. This doesn't mean we can know FM> NOTHING of FM> reality because we experience it of necessity. We cannot, however, FM> give an FM> account of reality as though we were an observer standing or sitting FM> somewhere FM> ABOVE OR BEYOND OR OUTSIDE of reality with that reality as an OBJECT. Why do you -assume- the above? What proof do you have? Isn't this an assumption on your part? It does appear to be an extension or another way to state man is unable to know the Full nature of REALITY, presumably, if man was able to stand outside of man's reality, he would be able to grasp the FULL NATURE of REALITY. But, this leaves us with "begging the question" (assuming that which you wish to prove) which is not accepted debate technique. You state above, man is unable to know the FULL NATURE of REALITY, but wouldn't this presume, by this statement, man was able to "sit" somewhere ABOVE OR BEYOND OR OUTSIDE our reality. But perhaps, I misunderstood -what- you said. [snip] FM> them into MY PERCEPTION of what I THINK you said. Debate loses all FM> sense when FM> one cannot be assured that his thoughts will not be changed into FM> something FM> entirely the opposite from what he expressed, do you not agree? Debate can happen for many reasons; one being disagreement with complete understanding of the respective points, and another, misunderstanding of what is said; so, it is wrong to assume "thoughts are changed into something entirely ...opposite." In general, I agree debate loses -some- sense when one isn't understood correctly. However, as you probably know, it is accepted DEBATE technique to use "reductio ab absurdum" which some would call "thoughts being changed into something entirely the opposite." To wit, leaving with me the impression are such charges: one, "thoughts being changed into something entirely the opposite", two, "accepted DEBATE technique", three, other. FM> Voegelin FM> phrases it, man is NOT a "self-contained spectator" he is an actor FM> "playing a FM> role in the drama of being and, through the brute fact of his FM> existence, FM> committed to playing it without knowing knowing what it is.... The FM> role of FM> existence must be played in uncertainty of its meaning as an adventure FM> of FM> decision on the edge of necessity and freedom." (_Order and History_, This is an re-iteration of the point above, it is impossible for man to give an account of his reality as he is part of that reality. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00013 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 01:42pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Ideology vs. philosophy On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, FM> FM> I'm more than grateful DID guide me in rejecting the notion of FM> FM> looking FM> FM> among the "systems" for some "piece of information" that would FM> FM> reveal a FM> FM> body of truth lying around for somebody to stumble upon it. Even FM> JB> Your conclusion seems to be about something which is not true, FM> JB> man's FM> JB> inability to possess a truth. Couldn't one make truth statements FM> JB> about FM> JB> about things not true subject to continued evidence of man's FM> JB> inability? FM> JB> This leaves one in difficult logical ground as I understand it FM> JB> impossible to disprove a negative. This would appear to be FM> JB> different FM> JB> than making truth statements about things true which is what you FM> JB> are saying Lenin, Marx, Fourier, etc expressed, what is truth. FM> FM> Once a subject has been examined from all sides, "definitions" FM> FM> become FM> FM> superfluous and may even be misleading. They never have been FM> FM> anything FM> FM> else (certainly not philosophical anchors) than valid attempts to FM> FM> examine terminologies so that discussants might try to utilize FM> FM> terms agreed upon. Such an effort is HARDEST in the area of FM> FM> philosophical FM> FM> discussion itself. That is why the DISCUSSION is more important FM> FM> BY FAR than DEFINITIONS. FM> JB> Without some common accepted definitions, discussion is FM> JB> impossible. FM> With some qualifications to eliminate "one-sided, dictated FM> definitions" I Hmmm, most mathematical, scientific, etc article -define- (subject to change) the parameters before hand. For example, Calculus, is such an example with the -defintion- of a limit, "Given any function F(X), the limit of F(X) at c is equal to L if and only if for any x in an interval [a,b], inclusive of c,...." For example, let us take, waste water management, water quality is often based upon an accepted definition of BOD, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, particulate matter, perculation rate as in overland flow, etc. Did or is BOD an "common sense" definition or -some- standard set for exploration? The medical literature is replete of such definitional endpoints, e.g. hypertension, hypercholestemia, etc. FM> might agree although I really prefer the term "commonly accepted FM> ASSUMPTIONS" FM> which Mortimer Adler terms "common sense." If, e.g., you get to read This evades the point. Who or what then determines the "common sense" meaning of words? FM> a FM> dictionary definition and simply ignore what is clearly said in some FM> part of FM> it where it would weaken your case as you did in the definition you FM> read of FM> "ideology" from Websters then I could not accept a discussion on that FM> basis FM> and you SHOULD not either. I gave the reference to Feuer's _Ideology What definitional point did I leave out that would have weakened my case? FM> and the FM> Ideologists_ which is at least proof that what YOU define as ideology FM> is NOT FM> so benignly defined by some scholars - Feuer in particular. You ought I don't see, the definition, I used implied it is "benign." FM> at FM> least to look at the first pages of a few books I've mentioned before FM> assuming FM> that what I say about ideology is some personal ideocyncratic musing. Ah, I don't think what you have been saying is "some personal ideo[s]yncratic musing." I have, however, questioned the assumptions you are working on. FM> I FM> didn't just "dream it up," John. Ideology as destructive to FM> philosophy is not FM> MY original idea. I learned it from other scholars. I happen to FM> agree and see no logical reason not to. Ah, Frank, as, I have pointed before in other posts, I do believe "ideology -CAN- be destructive"; however, where you and I part is "all IDEOLOGY is destructive." You seem to argue, by defintion (key words), ideology (because it accepts things as true and therefore not open to debate) by its very nature it is dangerous. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00014 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 02:02pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Ideology vs. philosophy On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, FM> FM> thought on which the "fathers" of the American revolt against FM> FM> England FM> FM> drew upon and still considered only the best they could do and FM> FM> capable FM> FM> of being altered even in the deepest aspect of sovereignty later FM> JB> Hence, the brillance of our founding fathers. However, do you FM> JB> not see FM> JB> this was our founding father's dogma, the belief they "considered FM> JB> only FM> JB> the best they could do and capable of being altered even in the FM> JB> deepest FM> JB> aspect of sovereignty later ...."? Our founding fathers did do FM> JB> something FM> JB> new, and did so by -NOT- doing what has gone before. FM> No, John, most definitely NOT. You have only to compare FM> Robespierre's and FM> his contemporaries' slaughter of Frenchmen en masse to insure absolute FM> mental FM> and physical conformity with the slogans of the French Revolution with FM> the FM> peaceful social revolution taking place within American societies as FM> the FM> colonies carried through their rebellion against the British Crown and FM> Parliament (first as Englishmen themselves) toward independence. Did you see my words of "Hence, the brill[i]ance of the founding fathers...."? IOW, I agree there IS A DIFFERENCE, but rather I see it a difference in -ASSUMPTIONS- about human nature. Even, Sowell, indicates, the big difference in the -assumptions- of the founding fathers between USA and France. FM> Constitution was the furtherst thing from a political "dogma." It is FM> commonly FM> characterized as a "bundle of compromises" and those who cobbled Yep, I agree. But, do you not see, this "bundle of compromises" is based upon an assumption, man's inability to know the full nature of man's existence (BTW, this is consistent with what you have been saying). Because, when one assumes man isn't capable of "solving such problems" (man's inability to the full truth),the best one is left with is "compromise." FM> The brilliance of our "founding fathers" lay in their wisdom in FM> drawing FM> upon many sources, ancient and modern for political canons and in the FM> Bill of FM> Rights upon the centuries of English traditions of slow curtailment of FM> monarchical power. Ideologues they most definitely were NOT. Many FM> kept up FM> with and embraced the scientific efforts of the civilized western FM> world of the day. The ideology, assumed to be true and unquestioned, used by our founding fathers is man's inability to know to full extend of REALITY. You and I both agree Ideology -can- be destructive, however, where you and I disagree is -all- ideology is destructive. FM> JB> Yes, they did, however, haven't -you- defined ideology as FM> JB> "discovered FM> JB> final and unalterable truth...." You have set ideology to be FM> JB> "discovered final and unalterable truth...." FM> Yes, that is what the ideologues think it is. And this is what you think of ideology, you have set the definition of ideology as "discoverd final and unalterable truth." Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00015 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 02:37pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: Ideology vs. philosophy On 01-12-98 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, FM> JB> Yes, ideology as in socialism, facism, communism, etc -CAN- and FM> JB> -HAS- FM> JB> been destructive; however, does this -inductive- argument then FM> JB> mean -all- ideology is destructive (conclusive)? Nope. FM> Yes, John, ALL ideology is destructive both to philosophy AND to FM> science. Methinks, you and I are arguing over the definition of ideology. For I include, the scientific method in ideology, assumptions, which yet open to debate, continue to be believed as they work. The dogma, doctrine, of science is all things are open to debate except the assumption which if questioned, puts us in the position of possbility saying "all things are not open to debate." To put another way, the one dogma of science is "all things are open to debate except the assumption all things are open to debate." I don't think I can put it any plainer than that. I'll stress again, I do believe ideology can and has been dangerous. All the examples, you provide are good examples of -why- a dogman (a man who is dogmatic) -CAN- be dangerous. [snip] FM> JB> Ideology -can- and -has been- dangerous, but your conclusion that FM> JB> -all- ideology -IS- dangerous is illogical. FM> Potentially it always is but even if not administered by the boys FM> with the FM> guns it is ALWAYS destructive of philosophy which is the love of FM> wisdom and FM> NOT the POSSESSION of wisdom which characterizes an ideology. Could one not have an -ideology- that states man is unable to know the truth, therefore, I won't inflict my beliefs on others; as, to do so, means, my ideology means I know. [snip] FM> JB> As I pointed out to your before, your -assumption- about the FM> JB> INABILITY FM> JB> of man to know REALITY is -assumed- (NOT OPEN TO DEBATE) to be FM> JB> true; FM> JB> thus, your ideology is that of Vogelar's central theme, man's FM> JB> INABILITY. FM> JB> If philosophy is open which presumably includes definitional FM> JB> points, FM> JB> shouldn't the definition of ideology be open to debate such as FM> JB> -what- about ideology is dangerous? FM> I must tell you that when I hear Eric Voegelin referred to as FM> "Vogelar" I FM> cannot help but smile and realize that this colleague of Sowell at the Well, I am glad, I caused a smile. Please excuse my spelling, Voegelin and Vogelar, albeit are spelled differently, look similarly to me. I will attempt if memory serves, probably won't, to spell it. [snip] FM> I don't understand your curious assumption that Voegelin's "central FM> theme" FM> was "man's INABILITY!!!" Getting into his _Order and History_ might You shouldn't. Do you not see, this -one- major assumption, probablity true, is the basis for Voegelin's philosophy? IOW, if this one assumption of Voegelin is -false-, most if not all of his philosophy falls. I ask, is this -one- assumption open to debate? FM> be a bit FM> much to begin but one should have little difficulty finding his _The FM> New FM> Science of Politics_ or his _Autobiographical Reflections_ edited by Unfornately, my time is limited. So, I will have to rely on you. FM> Ellis FM> Sandoz, LSU Press, 1989. If I should be asked to give him a "central FM> theme" FM> it certainly would be his programmatic change in the middle of his FM> scholarly FM> life's work to acknowledge that there really IS NO validity in the FM> concept of FM> one linear history (as the great ideological philosophers such as FM> Hegel had FM> assured us and his strong (and to me understandable) and firm FM> oppostion to ideology and gnosticism, ancient or modern. [snip] Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00016 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 03:29pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: Fuzzy On 01-12-98 William Elliot wrote to John Boone... Hello William and thanks for writing, [snip] WE> JB> Now, in answer to your question, "what level of mathematics can WE> JB> [I] hack?" It depends upon -what level- you define -hack-? WE> Just wanted to know how fuzzy to get. It would be nice to get a text. WE> The WE> mathematical one's I've see did include applications which WE> are the best way to get a philosophical grasp of the WE> subject. I prefer the mathematical text to the engineering WE> text as I lack engineering background, the mathematical WE> text is easier. Ah, I am a "practical" person, so, I like to see how such and such can be used, typical engineer, eh . [snip] WE> JB> When you ask for "the definitions?" I translate this WE> JB> to mean "what are the definitions according to -some- WE> JB> standard reference book?" According to that translated WE> JB> question, I don't have an answer for you. WE> Sigh, I was hoping that the book you're reading was a text WE> book instead of a philosophical description of fuzz. No, it was an introduction into Fuzzy Logic. I do have a textbook, "Fuzzy Logic for the Management of Uncertaintiy;" however, I have not had time to get into it; as, I have been waiting to finish Bart Kosko's book (I have been on page 30 for several years) due to other items that take my effort as in work, time here writing, reading my required study material (I have to read about 20 to 30 biological (mostly medical) magazines per month), etc. WE> JB> Yes we are, but the question is, "Is this the definition WE> JB> of fuzzy sets by standard books on the topic?" WE> It's my recollection of a text book definition. A fuzzy WE> set A is an assignment d, 0<=d<=1, to each element x for WE> the universe of elements. Notation x e A (d), x belongs to WE> A with the degree d. A rock half in a river: rock e WE> River (1/2). In Fuzzy logic, it is my recollection from the book, the "truth values" of -an item- ranges from 0 to 1. WE> WE> e is epsilon, Ascii 238, an open e like looking character. WE> WE> Does it come thru as such? x e A is x is a member of A, WE> JB> Yes it does. WE> It doesn't come back to me that way, it comes as an 'e'. Ah, my ability to add Ascii characters, into the editor I use, "EDIT", for Offline is limited; so, it would have come back at you as "e." Or, perhaps, I should rephrase that, I lack the knowledge to add characters that require more than -simple-, depending how one defines "simple," typing. WE> Not A is the fuzzy set assigning to x the degree 1-d where x e A (d). I don't remember the book mentioning this. The reason for my uncertainity in making this definitional point, the set not A is quite broad and would include classes (items not part A) that would be also part of A, due to their fuzzy nature. WE> JB> The defintion would only fit assuming the limit is one, WE> JB> 1, and I am not sure x epsilon not A is 1-d, assuming x epsilon WE> JB> A is d. WE> Indeed, refer to the original definition of a fuzzy set WE> where d is in the closed interval [0,1]. I don't remember the book mentioning this. The reason for my uncertainity in making this definitional point, the set not A is quite broad and would include sets (items not part of A) but yet be part of A, due to their fuzzy nature. Assuming the set not A would include sets B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, ....., translating the set Not A, then becomes the set {B, C, D, E. AND ....} Using the defintion of x e A and B (min(a,b)) iff x e A(a) and x e B(b) (where the little letters stand for x elements degree of inclusion into each set), and extending it to the total set {B, C, D, E, F,....}, we are to assume -all- these elements degrees taken together -somehow- become 1-a. At the present, I am unsure how this is done. WE> WE> x e A or B (max(a,b)) iff x e A (a) or x e B (b) WE> JB> Seems reasonable to assume. IOW, to put another WE> JB> way, the truth value of x epsilon belonging to the sets WE> JB> A or B is the maximam value of the individual truth WE> JB> values of such sets. WE> A or B is the fuzzy set assigning to x the degree max(a,b) WE> where x e A (a) and x e B (b). Seems reasonable. WE> WE> x e A & B (min(a,b)) iff x e A (a) and x e B (b) WE> JB> Seems reasonable to assume, IOW, to put another way, WE> JB> the truth value of x epsilon belonging to the sets A and WE> JB> B is the minimum value of x epsilon beling to the individual WE> JB> truth values of such sets. WE> A and B is the fuzzy set assigning to x the degree min(a,b) WE> where x e A (a) and x e B (b). Seems reasonable. WE> JB> I am sorry, I can't offer any -reference- material definitions. WE> I would be nice to have a text to study. My definitions Yes, it would. I do have at least one mentioned above. I do, however, consider, "Fuzzy Logic" by Bart Kosko, a "textbook" to begin with. WE> could be checked. Fuzziness was a subject that I wanted to WE> cover but just didn't. It took a second to topology. Ah, topology would have been fun to take. WE> Anyway, were you to pick up a mathematical text, perhaps by WE> the same author as I seem to recollect his name, we could WE> dig into it. It would be ok, but my time is limited; so, it would have to be in piece meal. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00017 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 03:36pm \/To: WILLIAM ELLIOT (Read 0 times) Subj: Fuzzy Logic On 01-13-98 William Elliot wrote to John Boone... Hello William and thanks for writing, WE> The notions of fuzzy set A and B, A or B can be used for WE> multi valued propositional calculus. To wit: p,q the true WE> values of P,Q, 0<=p,q<=1. Truth value of not P is 1-p, of WE> P & Q is min(p,q), of P or Q is max(p,q). Note that P or Q WE> equivalent not(notP & notQ) and P & Q equivalent not(notP WE> or notQ). So does it fly? Where to? Can we take P WE> implies Q, P -> Q, to be not(P & notQ) or equivalently notP WE> or Q? WE> First off lets look to the finite case. The truth values T = WE> {0.1/n,2/n,...,(n-1)/n,1}. Well this is just too much for WE> my mind so I will chose n = 3 and denote three values WE> false, maybe, true, f,m,t for 0,1/2,1. Does it fly? Where WE> do we want to fly with it? > WE> P Q notP P&Q PorQ P->Q Q->P P=Q WE> f f t f f t t t WE> f m f m t m m WE> f t f t t f f WE> m f m f m m t m WE> m m m m m m m WE> m t m t t m m WE> t f f f t f t f WE> t m m t m t m WE> t t t t t t t WE> Most of this seems to hang except for the last column P->Q WE> & Q->P, P equivalent Q. There's a problem here that P and WE> Q can have the same truth value, 'maybe', without P=Q being WE> 'true'. The problem is that two statements aren't WE> equivalent just because they always have the same truth WE> values, they're 'maybe' equivalent. Guess I've WE> demonstrated my earlier claim that no workable multi value WE> propositional calculus can been devised. I don't have time to respond (as I need to finish a book I have been reading by Schering, for work which is more pressing at the present time), but I am not ignoring this; so, I printed it out to ponder when I have time. I did have a chance of "look at" your other response I printed, and yes it is interesting. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00018 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 03:54pm \/To: DAVID MARTORANA (Read 0 times) Subj: Ideology vs. Philosophy On 01-13-98 David Martorana wrote to John Boone... Hello David, [snip] DM> DM> <"Daniel" Masingill> Ideology = Closed dogma, system DM> Now that I know Frank's definition of ideology, I would DM> understand his views much better. I sometimes have some DM> quibble with your definitions also . Problem is: I DM> came from a rather simple world where the dictionary was DM> king- but I'm fast learning that philosophy, politics and Understood, as Frank and I agree there most be some -common- understanding of the words, the words as Frank says, using the words of another, must share some "common sense." The dictionary does give a place to start to but say, the definitions are limited to the dictionary, doesn't do the words or the concepts justice. Frank does object to the twisting the words of another (as in a definitional point) to make a point as he says it destroys the debate (a point I agreed with); however, as I pointed out to him a valid accepted technique to argue is "reductio ad absurdum" which some would say "he/she is twisting my words." DM> religion do not feel so constrained ......and I accept- DM> that mutual understanding of language can be negotiated. Science (not to imply science is -it-) is for me negotiated over time. DM> And yes! I do monitor your postings to Frank (as well as his DM> to you). Actually, Frank and I probably agree more than we disagree. I, however, have been arguing a fine logical point. DM> I have been reading on philosophy, but for this week I'm DM> slipping in a book by Saddam Hussein's son's double, Latif DM> Yahia (an outsider that lived within a closed system). Enjoy! Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: F1J00019 Date: 01/14/98 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 04:02pm \/To: RICHARD MEIC (Read 0 times) Subj: Ethics On 01-13-98 Richard Meic wrote to John Boone... Hello Richard and thanks for writing, RM> AC>> I seriously have a hard time believing that people as stupid as RM> JB> An interesting bit of information according to Sowell. Such RM> JB> -assumptions- by liberals allows them to blame -others- (external RM> JB> factors) for -their or others- plights as to believe otherwise RM> JB> leaves them with great "pyschic pain" (see "A Conflict of RM> JB> Visions" Chapter One); as, -an- alternative explaination is a RM> JB> -process-one, e.g, the free market. RM> You don't honestly expect him to look it up do you? Unknown. However, if his motivation was sufficient, it might cause him to read Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions." He does seem "passionate" about his points which might cause him to read a free market individual as is Sowell. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5)