The Rise of Gobbledygook.

About: intensional logic (stanford encyclopedia of philosophy)

Also -→    (*) Would a petrified turd in a bag of marbles be a marble? Only in the context of marbles. In the same sense there is a context we might call chair in which a log in the forrest becomes a chair. 

Tags

  1. logic
  2. extensional
  3. intensional
  4. hashtag

Comments


Seth says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-29 13:22:43 [item 20870#51691]
Musical insparation → herelaughing 
It goes along with the definition & etymology of abstract ==> ********
 good find thumbs up … your comic twist notwistanding grin.   the funny thing is that i did mentograph it … see “Extensional VS Intensional Logiclaughing

Seth says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 09:55:09 [item 20870#51725]
It would have been interesting if you had done your standard mentograph of the topic instead of a block diagram
Seth 2016-04-30 10:05:24 [item 20870#51728]
well first i would need to know what your “topic” was.  

incidentally mentographs are a lot of work … the one i quoted which showse some relationships between intensional and extensional was drawn maybe 16 years agoa and probably took me most of a day. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 10:11:33 [item 20870#51729]
Just as an aside I tried several times to read the about link & make sense of it.  The first time I read something and it smells like bullshit I have the overwhelming desire to stop trying. Word salad is not my thingy.  I have however an example of one of GW’s diagrams which is pecular to the cube & yet I have yet to figure out how it is constructed – specifically the direction of the arrows; some kind of an astralit. The point of some of what we have been discussing is also in P.2624 ok hex #52 of the commentary in the text. 
pondering (The part of unification)
Seth 2016-04-30 10:21:05 [item 20870#51731]
you could  take my paragraph about the about link to tell you the essence of what it is talking about.  
 
It’s the difference between bottom up rather than top down … inductive rather than deductive. It is reasoning from example to thought, rather than from thought to example. Instead of presuming that the language of our thoughts holds the truth of the matter, we look at what actually is, external from our selves, and work backwards to how to think about it.
… but then you almost certainly will not trust my mind.  ← oh well
 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 10:28:04 [item 20870#51733]
Inductive & deductive not same as bottom-up & top-down . They may be tzu, by dropping & adding properties to the scenario within which they appear. 
  Maybe if Alzheimer’s sets in I may need to trust another mind – I’m not there yet nor do I expect to be there ever! laughing
bottom up is going from specifics to generalities … top down is the opposite direction.   inductive and deductive is talking about those same approaches to apprehension.    try examples of both and see. ← er, that is the extensional method. 

or from the top down, you could just presume that i am full of shit ← that is the intensional method. 

laughinglaughing

Seth says
indidentally i think Zen … and the whole direct experience … and being … can be the pinnacle of the extensional approach … wallow in the specific … be there … rather than in a subjective mind ...which is the opposite direction. 

← strange how that works out between us, eh?

Seth says
Seth 2016-04-30 08:03:12 [item 20870#51702]
Incidentally to your question: “Would a petrified turd in a bag of marbles be a marble”? … the answer would depend on whether it was polished enough and would collided appropriately and not  break apart if a kid threw it in a marble game.   laughing
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 08:35:47 [item 20870#51703]
That is only if you define a marble as round & polished etc. Marble is also a stone with liquid-like coloring often used in old bathroom partitions & today in fancy countertops in kitchens. 
Seth 2016-04-30 08:39:22 [item 20870#51704]
true thumbs up.   so apparently whether it is a marble or not is entirely subjective … er, open to the interpretation of some mind.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 08:49:16 [item 20870#51706]
I wouldn’t go that far. It depends upon the context-distinction you use to interpret the percept.
Seth 2016-04-30 09:25:02 [item 20870#51712]
depends on the context of the mind one uses to interpert – yes exactly – in other words it is subjective to that mind.    seems to me we are in agreement there …. but i suppose that necessarily must not be ← laughinglaughing
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 09:27:01 [item 20870#51713]
Nope – we disagree on any possible meaning of the phrase context of the mindsad
Seth 2016-04-30 09:42:04 [item 20870#51719]
… apparently we disagree in advance laughinglaughing
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 09:45:49 [item 20870#51721]
Nope! I don’t have a clue as to the phrase “context of the mind” labels. A mind may hold a context to interpret something like the objective context. It is that tiny little prepsition of which makes it mungeable.
Seth 2016-04-30 09:51:10 [item 20870#51723]
hmmm … i would say, “a mind holds a context to interpert something”  … er, anything.  

and yes,  there in lies the rubb,  that is why a mind … any mind … is subjective … it is subjective to the things already in it that come to bear on any interpertation. 

as far as i can tell we are still in agreement. 

except, of course, for your mandatory saying of “Nope!”. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 09:53:52 [item 20870#51724]
Nope! A mind being subjective makes us always disagree – be different – claims to the opposite notwithstanding. cool
Seth 2016-04-30 09:59:46 [item 20870#51727]
not necessarilay “always” disagree.  after all there is the coveted synchronicity.   it does happen.  but even if it does not, the transaction between two minds does not need to be, and frequently is not, zero sum.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 10:14:43 [item 20870#51730]
How can 2 separate minds be the same? If they can’t then they disagree, eh?
well two minds are frequently not all that very different that they cannot agree on anything.

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-04-30 10:25:40 [item 20870#51732]
i have no idea what GW’s diagram is saying … or it it is at all related to this topic.   i might think about it and if anything pops up, let you know.
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-04-30 10:31:00 [item 20870#51734]
It is related by being an example of obscure diagrammingcool
Seth 2016-04-30 10:49:57 [item 20870#51738]
ok, thaks for letting me know … i will take it as such.   the very nature of the occult implies such obsurity … so does wallowing in subjectivity … the deeper … the deeper … the more it appears obscure from the outside … and (strangely enough surprise) the clearer it appears from the inside. ← that last one was a Bozo discovery.  trust me or not, but you won’t find that in a book as such … hmmm … well Steiner talked about it but he didnt call it the same as i do.
The whole intentional – extentional stuff is obscurity. Ask someone on the street what it is just using the words & savor the blank stare.   Steiner, AC & GW were more about saying anyone could obtain just follow the instruction. If you don’t know how to play a violin or fix a car engine it looks like magic or occult. ← mostly your bugaboo. Wallowing in subjectivity not my thing ← mostly your (maybe N’s) bugaboo buggering your boos. 
smug

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-04-30 12:09:27 [item 20870#51740]
← bit of a scramble of ideas there.    but i agree, most people in the street do not know the difference between bottom up thinking focusing on tangable examples, rather than thinking from the signs and theories … or how to do one or the other.   but i don’t know,  people learn a lot of that just by experience. 

i hate to say this again and again … but your sentences about you ring quit a bit truer to me than the ones you write about me.   hmmmm …. now what is that an example of?  my rwg, or the nature of thought and the qualia of truth. 
Well you are the one with the subjective truth! Enjoy!

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-04-30 12:15:36 [item 20870#51742]
everybody’s feelings of what is true are theirs and theirs alone … remember what you said above … “How can 2 separate minds be the same? If they can’t then they disagree, eh?”.   Me, i have just noticed it … er along with most of the scientific community.
Including this/that one which I don’t have thumbs up

Mark de LA says
G+ on subject: https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/intensional%20logic/top
https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/extensional%20logic/top 
 

Mark de LA says
Seth 2016-05-01 13:20:27 [item 20870#51751]
yep it is a big topic smug

re https://plus.google.com/u/0/s/extensional%20logic/top which is a tag room corresponding to ours here extensional.   it is hard to talk about extensional without also talking about intensional.  … but sorry the spelling and translations on that one are not accurate at the moment.

pondering now here is something of which you may not understand the significance.   a tag room is extensional.  but tagging is subjective … i am not even sure that i understand it  …. but think about it ….
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-01 14:25:13 [item 20870#51753]
Nothing special just an index or collection of links by various people, but mostly the author. 
Seth 2016-05-01 14:35:09 [item 20870#51756]
Well a tag room is an extensional collection. It is not defined by the top down … It is not intensional. 
Yep – the title of this item is vindicated! laughing

Seth says
Seth 2016-05-02 06:46:41 [item 20870#51768]
there is no flim flam in distinguishing between thinking with examples, rather than thinking abstractly in  artificial categories. 
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 06:54:58 [item 20870#51771]
Abstract examples lead to foggy results.  Anything can map to anything →  seems useless. Tags here are indexes or search results. You can blow them up to fit an abstract wallaby or not → your thingy.pondering
Seth 2016-05-02 07:27:44 [item 20870#51774]
ok it should have been clear that my observation about tagging is my wallaby ← no apolgies.  

tag rooms are collections defined bottom up by examples, not by top down definitions.  ← that is a fact. 

doing it is a case of thinking extensionally.  ← also a fact (thought debatable).

Do you see any value in thinking extensionally rather than intensionally ?  Thinking with examples, rather than thinking in abstract definitions?  ← a real question, i am truly curious.  
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 07:33:27 [item 20870#51775]
Nope! I just tag something with a word or words so I can find it again. I think twitter uses a #hashtag. Not “thinking” extensionally or anyway just about context & how I can remember the word again.  Your extra jargon does not help.
ok that brings up the distinction between what you call “thinking” and what i call “thinking”.   obviously that word does not have a 1-1 correspondence to what is, if you consider your mind and my mind together as a unified whole. 

… going out on a limb here … so what is vindicated,  GW’s document,  or your aug of a intensional/extensional spectrum? ← just a provocation, not necessarily a valid question.

Seth says
Mark de Los Angeles 2016-05-02 07:58:45 [item 20870#51779]
I guess you deleted the thingy where I don’t care . I groked GW. If you want to argue about it yourself go ahead. I’m out of here.
? … ahhh … isn’t awareness grand! … you can see it right there in the babies eyes thumbs up

See Also

  1. Thought Glossary with 116 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  2. Thought Conversation on hash tags? with 111 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  3. Thought I banished evil! with 110 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  4. Thought Wow! Words have meanings to others too! with 105 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  5. Thought 3 state logic with 83 viewings related by tag "logic".
  6. Thought BARBARA CUBED - The Manual of Pure Logic with 45 viewings related by tag "logic".
  7. Thought Conversation Rooms and Tag Clouds with 44 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  8. Thought Clarifying how hashtag’s are defined with 41 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  9. Thought The binary logic of two distinctions with 34 viewings related by tag "logic".
  10. Thought the only thingeys that actually exist are unique occurrence’s connected within their context. with 28 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  11. Thought Identity Entails Logic with 20 viewings related by tag "logic".
  12. Thought #HRCAlinsky with 16 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  13. Thought A Comment and Hashtag Dreampt ? with 12 viewings related by tag "hashtag".
  14. Thought Context is King with 10 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  15. Thought Action and Story with 5 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  16. Thought about: GW Document: Spring - #57 with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  17. Thought Illative force with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  18. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 2 viewings related by tag "logic".
  19. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 2 viewings related by tag "logic".
  20. Thought Worth Repeating with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  21. Thought The Exstensional Approach with 1 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  22. Thought phrases are more specific than single words with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  23. Thought Conventional Logic vs Faith with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  24. Thought not (not X) is not necessarily X with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  25. Thought BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  26. Thought Logic is great, Survival is better! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  27. Thought Identity Entails the Laws of Logic with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  28. Thought An interesting dialogue about Truth with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  29. Thought about: hmmm .... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  30. Thought about: Sorites with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  31. Thought Some math musing re philosophy of mind with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  32. Thought about: Burningbird ? I love you 25% of the time with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  33. Thought The Ten Commandments of Logic with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  34. Thought Way to Go Coach! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  35. Thought A swing to the objective ... with 0 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  36. Thought Paradox and Otherness with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  37. Thought Pride an Glory in Your Code with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  38. Thought If we replace the distinction ... with 0 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  39. Thought Extensional VS Intensional Logic with 0 viewings related by tag "extensional".
  40. Thought about: Not (not A) is still not A. with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  41. Thought about: logically speaking with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  42. Thought Better *Is* Better Than Is Or Is Not with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  43. Thought Barbara Cubed - Page 2 Illative Force with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  44. Thought dmiles with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  45. Thought The Excluded Middle with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  46. Thought logic is great, survival is better with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  47. Thought A == A aka Indetity with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  48. Thought Liberal Wet Dream with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  49. Thought How my thinking has changed with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  50. Thought If pigs could fly ... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".