The Excluded Middle

About: Hex #35 - Page 1622 of the Tai Shu Commentaries - GW

I wonder if anyone figured out this excerpt except me yet:

Tags

  1. implication
  2. item 17076
  3. formal logic
  4. item 12567
  5. excluded middle
  6. logic

Comments


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-08 23:43:13 17076
Well i certainly agree with CFR that to draw a circle containing all of being, and and then to think there is any not-being still there in the circle of being is illogical.  Presumarialy that is what CFR thinks the people who have proposed the fourth law of thought are doing.  Unfortunately i am not familiar with what people have called this "4th law" ... are you?

The second law ~( A and ~A), and the third  law (A or ~A), suck for practical reconing  where the first law (A == A) is not absolutely certain, which it almost never is.  Perhaps that was the fourth law ... i don't know ... it would take some historical research to find out. 

Paradox, imagination, and creation itself militate against using that kind of binary logic in the real world ... that is what the first, unquoted, part of CFR's document means to me. 

What did you grock from the document?
  • Is the phrase bolded not just Bozometry?
  • BØZØ Ø
  • or just  loss of focus?
  • I say all of it.  
  • I am presuming that A==A is the law of identity.
    If that doesn't hold what it means is that Bozo lost his logical object, i./e. focus between observations & use of logic & language
  • Laws of thought are covered in the Wikipedia here.
  • Maybe the first law of Bozometry is
  • M^^4 - whenever possible munge the answer if you don't like the truth using logic
(Seth may have been Tertullian in a previous incarnation)



Seth says
source: mark
  • or just  loss of focus?
  • I say all of it.  
  • I am presuming that A==A is the law of identity.
    If that doesn't hold what it means is that Bozo lost his logical object, i./e. focus between observations & use of logic & language

... well, yes, of course .   That is what "if A == A is not absolutely certain, which it almost never is" implies ... said from your peculiar context.  That is definitely when we loose focus.  The practical problem is that we so very frequently do.  That loss of focus is endemic in thought itself ... who knows, perhaps that is why you feel you have found direct truth when you can shut it up


I have even formulated that precisely and mathematically.  Which, all hail bozo, is the only know formula which shows the relationship between the three laws of binary logic.

Seth says
more meet on the bones of entailing binary thought (or not) here.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-09 08:26:54 17076
source: mark
  • or just  loss of focus?
  • I say all of it.  
  • I am presuming that A==A is the law of identity.
    If that doesn't hold what it means is that Bozo lost his logical object, i./e. focus between observations & use of logic & language

... well, yes, of course .   That is what "if A == A is not absolutely certain, which it almost never is" implies ... said from your peculiar context.  That is definitely when we loose focus.  The practical problem is that we so very frequently do.  That loss of focus is endemic in thought itself ... who knows, perhaps that is why you feel you have found direct truth when you can shut it up


I have even formulated that precisely and mathematically.  Which, all hail bozo, is the only know formula which shows the relationship between the three laws of binary logic.
...
So Bozo can't focus sufficiently well to know what he is talking about he has to revise logic to fix the problem, eh?
(& the rest of us have to suffer BØZØ Ø ?)
I remember as a kid listening to the folks fight & noticed that they often switched subjects in the middle of the argument.  It was funny because I could so easily follow both sides of an argument & wondered why they didn't.  RWG is part of the problem - need to keep it going - & cunt logic where a female was involved in the arguing.



Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-09 09:51:02 17076
source: mark
So Bozo can't focus sufficiently well to know what he is talking about he has to revise logic to fix the problem, eh?
... well i see no revision of logic going on here, sorry ... i just can't see it.  What i do see is a clear way to understand where to use it. 

Look this can be used backwards too.  Let's say you discover in some binary system that apparently some A is not in fact A.  It does happen, you know.   So what is the first thing you should examine ... er, whether the first A is really identical to the second A.  Do that and you will probably find your bug.  Incidentally that is a true story ... i've used that procedure many times ... and knew in fact that i was specifically using that method, and that was the way to find a bug that existed in a binary computer system.

Incidentally it is interesting to notice how you are shifting focus here in this very dialogue.  Me thinks that the topic here is "The Exlcuded Middle", as it is titled,  and as it is described by CFR in the document.  Then why suddently are you writing so very many sentences where the subject is Bozo ??  ... er, are you being logical?

Yep, I don't really live in a Universe where a thing is not itself. When I encounter such contexts provided by others I begin to question how said others are thinking. It seems to follow that if one resides in such a place with externality as the context (the 5-senses reality) & one claims the laws of logic do not apply then one must be irrational to do so. Irrationality is not my cup of tea, though - Your mileage may vary.


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-09 10:13:18 17076
seth 2014-02-09 09:51:02 17076
source: mark
So Bozo can't focus sufficiently well to know what he is talking about he has to revise logic to fix the problem, eh?
... well i see no revision of logic going on here, sorry ... i just can't see it.  What i do see is a clear way to understand where to use it. 

Look this can be used backwards too.  Let's say you discover in some binary system that apparently some A is not in fact A.  It does happen, you know.   So what is the first thing you should examine ... er, whether the first A is really identical to the second A.  Do that and you will probably find your bug.  Incidentally that is a true story ... i've used that procedure many times ... and knew in fact that i was specifically using that method, and that was the way to find a bug that existed in a binary computer system.

Incidentally it is interesting to notice how you are shifting focus here in this very dialogue.  Me thinks that the topic here is "The Exlcuded Middle", as it is titled,  and as it is described by CFR in the document.  Then why suddently are you writing so very many sentences where the subject is Bozo ??  ... er, are you being logical?

Yep, I don't really live in a Universe where a thing is not itself. When I encounter such contexts provided by others I begin to question how said others are thinking. It seems to follow that if one resides in such a place with externality as the context (the 5-senses reality) & one claims the laws of logic do not apply then one must be irrational to do so. Irrationality is not my cup of tea, though - Your mileage may vary.


Wow you then have an infallible mind ... Kudos indeed!  I have never experienced that ... it must really be quite a thing to experience ... perhaps some day you will describe how it feels to the rest of us.

Incidentally i never claimed "the laws of logic do not ever apply" ... rather i claim "the laws of logic can not always be used".  Strangely enough i identified just exactly where they don't apply.   Using them where they do not apply is ... er, irrational ... no? ... or is it just chiggy?

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-09 10:10:22 17076
source: mark
I remember as a kid listening to the folks fight & noticed that they often switched subjects in the middle of the argument.  It was funny because I could so easily follow both sides of an argument & wondered why they didn't.  RWG is part of the problem - need to keep it going - & cunt logic where a female was involved in the arguing.
... ... thanks for sharing.

i remember those arguments too.  they were painful to hear ... almost traumatic for me.   and yes, i am sure that rwg was what kept them going
.

Everybody says, especially of late, that the female mind is quite different than the male one.  Is running on RWG male ... or is it female ... or something totally different ... i don't know.  Is holding to binary logic even where a practical analysis would tell us it does not apply, male or female.  I have no idea.  do i use female logic and you male logic?  i am going to bet that there is not just a little bit of wiggy focus in this paragraph ... don't ya think?


My viewpoint on this all depends upon whether one's  use of language is to arrive at some rational thought or whether one's purpose is to arrive at a some kind of feeling. I hold that the latter case is yin & the former case is yang.  Such cases seem to follow the genetalia of the speaker as well in my experience.  I remember Virgin wandering all around answering a question about something until she found a feeling of acceptance, finished, or something else.


Seth says
source: mark
My viewpoint on this all depends upon whether one's  use of language is to arrive at some rational thought or whether one's purpose is to arrive at a some kind of feeling. I hold that the latter case is yin & the former case is yang.  Such cases seem to follow the genetalia of the speaker as well in my experience.  I remember Virgin wandering all around answering a question about something until she found a feeling of acceptance, finished, or something else.

... ... ... ... something to ponder indeed ... a new thought to me .

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-09 10:30:33 17076
M1g0r 2014-02-09 10:13:18 17076
seth 2014-02-09 09:51:02 17076
source: mark
So Bozo can't focus sufficiently well to know what he is talking about he has to revise logic to fix the problem, eh?
... well i see no revision of logic going on here, sorry ... i just can't see it.  What i do see is a clear way to understand where to use it. 

Look this can be used backwards too.  Let's say you discover in some binary system that apparently some A is not in fact A.  It does happen, you know.   So what is the first thing you should examine ... er, whether the first A is really identical to the second A.  Do that and you will probably find your bug.  Incidentally that is a true story ... i've used that procedure many times ... and knew in fact that i was specifically using that method, and that was the way to find a bug that existed in a binary computer system.

Incidentally it is interesting to notice how you are shifting focus here in this very dialogue.  Me thinks that the topic here is "The Exlcuded Middle", as it is titled,  and as it is described by CFR in the document.  Then why suddently are you writing so very many sentences where the subject is Bozo ??  ... er, are you being logical?

Yep, I don't really live in a Universe where a thing is not itself. When I encounter such contexts provided by others I begin to question how said others are thinking. It seems to follow that if one resides in such a place with externality as the context (the 5-senses reality) & one claims the laws of logic do not apply then one must be irrational to do so. Irrationality is not my cup of tea, though - Your mileage may vary.


Wow you then have an infallible mind ... Kudos indeed!  I have never experienced that ... it must really be quite a thing to experience ... perhaps some day you will describe how it feels to the rest of us.

Incidentally i never claimed "the laws of logic do not ever apply" ... rather i claim "the laws of logic can not always be used".  Strangely enough i identified just exactly where they don't apply.   Using them where they do not apply is ... er, irrational ... no? ... or is it just chiggy?
  • I never claimed such.
  •  Neither is it a logical extension of something I said.
  • Some decent examples where such illogic appears in the sense world, please
  • There are cases where one uses different thingies like feeling instead of language & logic, though
  •  - a shining example would be the sensory feeling of constipation & the subsequent conjuring of the emotion of squeezing harder - no logic between one and the other except perhaps describing it later to oneself.
  • politicians are not themselves but that is an illusion for them. representing one thing about themselves & actually being another (i.e. a liar) is notable

Mark de LA says
A thing still is what it is by definition.  Just because your perception or your mind is faulty does not change the fact that a thing is what it is.  If you doubt reality maybe take your brain in for a check-up, eh? A thing is what it is even if you do not know about it. ISness doesn't change just because you exist or not.  It may change for you, however. Go ponder the question "does a bear shit in the woods?" for a while even though there is no rabbit to wipe it's ass upon.


Mark de LA says
It may assume that a real, sensory world is necessary to have something to play with. If you start your logic with some imaginary shit in your own head - good luck. Presumably, you can  point at a real apple in such a world & would not be talking about GIGO.


Mark de LA says
In rational discourse prepositions are important & can change the whole context & meaning of what one says.

I must confess that I don't follow formal logic when I think or write - such is instinctual or sensual for me. However training one's senses & instincts with such tools undoubtedly can make such more instinctual.  Very complex things like computer programs require more rigorous tools. I employed cause-effect graphing to tease out what to test .


Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-10 07:01:17 17076
M1g0r 2014-02-09 23:04:02 17076
A thing still is what it is by definition.  Just because your perception or your mind is faulty does not change the fact that a thing is what it is.  If you doubt reality maybe take your brain in for a check-up, eh? A thing is what it is even if you do not know about it. ISness doesn't change just because you exist or not.  It may change for you, however. Go ponder the question "does a bear shit in the woods?" for a while even though there is no rabbit to wipe it's ass upon.


i have no troubles there .   I just like to know how fast to hold to consequences from classical logic operations which imply beyond what is directly sensed or given.  It's the old garbage in garbage out phenomena which you yourself are frequently so keen to bring up.  I doubt that GW was dealing with that ... and still don't know why he was railing against the 4th law of logic, whatever that is.
Maybe read the wikipedia reference again to answer your questions.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-10 08:41:08 17076
source: mark
I must confess that I don't follow formal logic when I think or write
... i don't think anybody does.  at best when i arrive at a conclusion i test it against some logical operation ... but i must admit i rarely even do that.  for me, logic is more just an academic exercise.  what i like to do is to read back sentences and see if they still ring true to me.  even bounce them off the world and see if they have a similar ring to others.  to be honest with you i am not sure why the 19th and 20th century seemed to be so preoccupied with logic ... maybe they thought they found some magical lever that could secure certainty ... i dont know ... but in any case i don't think they actually found it.
Well, I have a different point of view on that.  My intuition & sense of logic & rationalism also is a mighty fine bullshit detector.


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-09 10:55:09 17076
seth 2014-02-09 10:30:33 17076
M1g0r 2014-02-09 10:13:18 17076
seth 2014-02-09 09:51:02 17076
source: mark
So Bozo can't focus sufficiently well to know what he is talking about he has to revise logic to fix the problem, eh?
... well i see no revision of logic going on here, sorry ... i just can't see it.  What i do see is a clear way to understand where to use it. 

Look this can be used backwards too.  Let's say you discover in some binary system that apparently some A is not in fact A.  It does happen, you know.   So what is the first thing you should examine ... er, whether the first A is really identical to the second A.  Do that and you will probably find your bug.  Incidentally that is a true story ... i've used that procedure many times ... and knew in fact that i was specifically using that method, and that was the way to find a bug that existed in a binary computer system.

Incidentally it is interesting to notice how you are shifting focus here in this very dialogue.  Me thinks that the topic here is "The Exlcuded Middle", as it is titled,  and as it is described by CFR in the document.  Then why suddently are you writing so very many sentences where the subject is Bozo ??  ... er, are you being logical?

Yep, I don't really live in a Universe where a thing is not itself. When I encounter such contexts provided by others I begin to question how said others are thinking. It seems to follow that if one resides in such a place with externality as the context (the 5-senses reality) & one claims the laws of logic do not apply then one must be irrational to do so. Irrationality is not my cup of tea, though - Your mileage may vary.


Wow you then have an infallible mind ... Kudos indeed!  I have never experienced that ... it must really be quite a thing to experience ... perhaps some day you will describe how it feels to the rest of us.

Incidentally i never claimed "the laws of logic do not ever apply" ... rather i claim "the laws of logic can not always be used".  Strangely enough i identified just exactly where they don't apply.   Using them where they do not apply is ... er, irrational ... no? ... or is it just chiggy?
  • I never claimed such.
  •  Neither is it a logical extension of something I said.
  • Some decent examples where such illogic appears in the sense world, please
  • There are cases where one uses different thingies like feeling instead of language & logic, though
  •  - a shining example would be the sensory feeling of constipation & the subsequent conjuring of the emotion of squeezing harder - no logic between one and the other except perhaps describing it later to oneself.
  • politicians are not themselves but that is an illusion for them. representing one thing about themselves & actually being another (i.e. a liar) is notable

Well were i to actually believe that I "lived in a universe where the thing i was thinking about was quite always exactly itself", then i too,  "when I encounted contradictions to that form others would necessarily question how they were thinking".  Why then would i ever question my own mind  ... you see a thing there would always be just exactly what i thought it was. That was implied in my mind by what you said ... trust me, i tried it out. 

thing is, that does seem to me what you do believe about your mind ... and not because you just told me it was that way in there ... but also because of how you talk to me almost all the time.  You constantly insist on the certainty of binary distinctions ... as if your mind actually operated on them infallibly ... as if the references in your mind were not at all like the approximate ambiguous sings i find in mine.

i really don't think you can have it both ways in your mind ... either A is always A ... or somtimes you too get confused, loose focus, and A is not really quite A after all.  Well, me thinks,  that is the very times it is best not to assume that you can exclude the possiblity that you were mistaken.  That is all my formula says. 

Incidentally logic does not even kick in until we represent sensed signals conceptually.  In a healthy mind,  there are actually few signals that are perceived that do not actually impinge the senses.  but there are errors of perception too ... the most common are optical illusions. 

what i know of politicians comes to me filtered and squed by a mind that i share with our culture at large.  as such they are  an order of magnitude removed from the real people with whom i interact.  i don't know how to write true sentences about what they are to themselves ... but i suspect it varies a whole lot.

Mark de LA says
seth 2014-02-10 09:45:30 17076
M1g0r 2014-02-10 09:20:34 17076
seth 2014-02-10 09:16:47 17076
What logic does is to conger a ideal model of absolute certainty.  Which, of course, is fascinating to play with.  Where things get wiggy is where people point to that and then point to the world we experience as human beings and judge that the latter should be like the former.  Well it is not! ... demonstrably not.

well i peculiarly like that you feel quite differently towards some propositions than do i .   that we have different minds that construct our reactions so very differently from diverse experiences must certainly be the strength of our humanity and contribute to its robustness. 
For Bozo bullshit is the strength of his humanity & contributes to its robustness, eh? While Congress & the liberals are today even claiming that lost jobs are a positive  trying to convice the true believers - others are abandoning logic as a kinda diversity positivity!
(The meter is still pegged!)

Mark de LA says
Why constrain yourselves by having a job or using logic?


Seth says
M1g0r 2014-02-10 09:57:30 17076
seth 2014-02-10 09:45:30 17076
M1g0r 2014-02-10 09:20:34 17076
seth 2014-02-10 09:16:47 17076
What logic does is to conger a ideal model of absolute certainty.  Which, of course, is fascinating to play with.  Where things get wiggy is where people point to that and then point to the world we experience as human beings and judge that the latter should be like the former.  Well it is not! ... demonstrably not.

well i peculiarly like that you feel quite differently towards some propositions than do i .   that we have different minds that construct our reactions so very differently from diverse experiences must certainly be the strength of our humanity and contribute to its robustness. 
For Bozo bullshit is the strength of his humanity & contributes to its robustness, eh? While Congress & the liberals are today even claiming that lost jobs are a positive  trying to convice the true believers - others are abandoning logic as a kinda diversity positivity!
(The meter is still pegged!)

  1. woopse!  your A =/= my A.  
  2. My A was "that we have different minds that construct our reactions so very differently from diverse experiences" -- which i take as self evident
  3. Your A was your feeling of bullshit towards my proposition that #2 => robustness of humanity.

is it not so very strange how a lack of focus can lead to mistake ?


Mark de LA says
Enough - this item goes silent in 6 minutes.

See Also

  1. Thought Conversation on hash tags? with 111 viewings related by tag "logic".
  2. Thought 3 state logic with 86 viewings related by tag "logic".
  3. Thought BARBARA CUBED - The Manual of Pure Logic with 75 viewings related by tag "logic".
  4. Thought The binary logic of two distinctions with 34 viewings related by tag "logic".
  5. Thought Identity Entails Logic with 20 viewings related by tag "item 12567".
  6. Thought List of Logical Fallacies with 19 viewings related by tag "logic".
  7. Thought Identity Entails the Laws of Logic with 8 viewings related by tag "item 12567".
  8. Thought The Rise of Gobbledygook. with 7 viewings related by tag "logic".
  9. Thought The Ten Commandments of Logic with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  10. Thought about: GW Document: Spring - #57 with 4 viewings related by tag "logic".
  11. Thought Illative force with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  12. Thought Word Salad Dressing with 3 viewings related by tag "item 12567".
  13. Thought Illative Force - A Lament with 3 viewings related by tag "logic".
  14. Thought Worth Repeating with 1 viewings related by tag "excluded middle".
  15. Thought BARBARA CUBED - I. DEFINITIONS with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  16. Thought phrases are more specific than single words with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  17. Thought Truth with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  18. Thought Conventional Logic vs Faith with 1 viewings related by tag "logic".
  19. Thought law of non-contradiction (2nd law) with 0 viewings related by tag "excluded middle".
  20. Thought not (not X) is not necessarily X with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  21. Thought Logic is great, Survival is better! with 0 viewings related by tag "item 12567".
  22. Thought An interesting dialogue about Truth with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  23. Thought about: hmmm .... with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  24. Thought about: Sorites with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  25. Thought Some math musing re philosophy of mind with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  26. Thought about: Burningbird ? I love you 25% of the time with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  27. Thought Way to Go Coach! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  28. Thought Paradox and Otherness with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  29. Thought Pride an Glory in Your Code with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  30. Thought Extensional VS Intensional Logic with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  31. Thought about: Not (not A) is still not A. with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  32. Thought about: logically speaking with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  33. Thought Better *Is* Better Than Is Or Is Not with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  34. Thought Barbara Cubed - Page 2 Illative Force with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  35. Thought dmiles with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  36. Thought Please keep item 17076 public with 0 viewings related by tag "item 17076".
  37. Thought logic is great, survival is better with 0 viewings related by tag "item 17076".
  38. Thought A == A aka Indetity with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  39. Thought Liberal Wet Dream with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  40. Thought How my thinking has changed with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  41. Thought If pigs could fly ... with 0 viewings related by tag "implication".
  42. Thought Aristotle on Topics with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  43. Thought Interesting dilog about paradoxes with a logic professor with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  44. Thought Philosophy Group with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  45. Thought That which is, IS! with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".
  46. Thought That which is - may not BE! with 0 viewings related by tag "excluded middle".
  47. Thought about: a thing is identical with itself with 0 viewings related by tag "logic".