Yes.So Bob claims permission (by this principle) to mis-quote, as well as to mis-disquote? Is that the case? — bongo fury
Alice: “Oh dear! He hasn’t done so yet, but he most certainly will do so now that you have challenged him.”If so, does he carry out the threat? — bongo fury
Alice: “What else, then, should I have done? In what way was I beguiled? Do you not agree with me that I disagree with Bob, whereas he says that I agree with him?”If so (if he says this kind of thing, and by the way whether or not he also constantly contradicts himself), then I'm surprised that either you or Alice were beguiled into conceding,
Heck, we don’t even agree whether we agree or disagree, — Alice — bongo fury
I should clarify: Bob hadn’t mis-quoted Alice before this post, and I’m not changing my stance on that. However, he has no reservations whatsoever about mis-quoting her, which he has shown in this post.If not - if his avowed principle is mere bluff, as I hope you are assuring us here,
Yes, he mis-disquotes her, but he doesn’t mis-quote her. I’m not changing my stance on that, — Tristan L — bongo fury
Bob never waived his principle anywhere. He merely didn’t make use of it when quoting before this post. As we know from many terms of service, not excercising a right doesn’t mean waiving it.Without him consistently waiving the nonsense principle when it comes to quotation — bongo fury
Charlie: “Bob might be an aspiring sophist, but I’m more and more inclined to think that he is more interested in radical monism than sophism (remember what I said a while ago).”[...] Bob in his efforts as an aspiring sophist. — bongo fury
Charlie: “I would say that it’s exactly the other way round. Only by applying PSAN with radical thoroughness could he hope to be taken seriously. For example, you would have found a weak spotWithout him consistently waiving the nonsense principle when it comes to quotation, I doubt that Bob could (as he seems to) hope to get his principle taken seriously. — bongo fury
... if Bob didn’t dare use PSAN to mis-quote. But he has proven in this post that he really does mean business. If he had shrunk away from your challenge, th.i. not dared to mis-quote his sister, I would have stopped taking him seriously and labelled him off as a mere sophist. But since he applies PSAN thoroughly, he gives me more and more reason to regard monism seriously. So I, for one, am taking PSAN seriously precisely because it is universal and thorough and notIf not - if his avowed principle is mere bluff, [...] then, as I say, this is the basis on which we might persuade Bob that he has no reason to think his proposed principle to be a plausible fit with his way of talking. — bongo fury
”mere bluff — bongo fury
If I understand you rightly, that means that if PSAN only operates on the object level, then it won’t be of much use to Bob. I agree with you. But Bob is radically thorough in applying PSAN, and that includes all meta-levels.If not - if his avowed principle is mere bluff, [...] then, as I say, this is the basis on which we might persuade Bob that he has no reason to think his proposed principle to be a plausible fit with his way of talking. — bongo fury
Bob: “Here’s a proof:
1. (Yes = no) or not(yes = no) (by the Law of the Excluded Middle)
2. (Yes = no) or (yes = no) (by PSAN)
3. Yes = no (by the Rule of the Idempotence of Disjunction)” — Tristan L
What else, then, should I have done? — Alice
show him that [you] won't be fooled into admitting some continuity, between his standard and meaningful contributions to the discourse, and the nonsense. — bongo fury
In what way was I beguiled? — Alice
As though the nonsense might have been there all along and be seeping all through: in the prior discussions and in the game of syntactic replication and recognition still in play. On which spurious basis (that of such a continuity) Bob and [@Tristan L] both might hope to worry [you] and other sensible people with "yes I agree and therefore the opposite". — bongo fury
Do you not agree with me that I disagree with Bob, whereas he says that I agree with him?” — Alice
As we know from many terms of service, not exercising a right doesn’t mean waiving it. — Tristan L
Bob might be an aspiring sophist, but I’m more and more inclined to think that he is more interested in radical monism — Tristan L
Only by applying PSAN with radical thoroughness could he hope to be taken seriously. — Tristan L
trying to define negation — Tristan L
1) As a word's (or other symbol's) happening not to point at an object
2) As some corresponding negative's (or antonym's) happening to point at the object
Each of which probably implies the other, in some way that would help explain global patterns of word-pointing. Such as, the tendency of a scheme of words towards "sorting" of a domain of objects, through pointing out of (more or less) mutually exclusive but jointly exhaustive sub-domains. — bongo fury
Bob: “Alice has already said that, and I have already told her that she – like you – is fully right in saying that my argument is not circular.”your argument is circular. — TheMadFool
Yes, and that it is so is thanks to the Law of the Idempotence of Disjunction.3 is just a reassertion of 2. — TheMadFool
The proof uses PSAN on the meta-level (in 2) to show PSAN on the object level (inference of 3 ultimately from 1).You're right, your argument is circular. Statement 1 is redundant and 3 is just a reassertion of 2. — TheMadFool
No. From the start, I meant Bob to use PSAN thoroughly on all meta-levels. The proof is that in my starter post, Bob already said that negation is the same as affirmation. What he meant was general, absolute negation and affirmation, which naturally includes negation and affirmation on all meta-levels. This is shown by him applying PSAN to not(yes=no) itself. As I’ve said, I had already come up with universal PSAN years ago. So, my apology for Bob is in fact much older than this thread (and my tale of Alice and Bob), and it is full-hearted.This claim by his apologists is of course belated and half-hearted — bongo fury
No, neither Charlie nor I did. From the start, my purpose has been to show that if someone chooses to be a radical PSAN-kind monist, no-one can philosophically force him to abandon it. Also, I wanted to show that everyone, including you and me, is free to choose PSAN-kind monism if they like. I never meant Bob to be a sophist. I only invented the introductory tale to liven things up. I could just as well have started showing that radical monism cannot be defeated since it is compatible with its opposite, but that would likely have been drier.they [Bob's apologists] wanted to insinuate a continuity between sense and nonsense. — bongo fury
Charlie: “Now you’re beginning to sound like Bob :wink:.”[sophism and monism] Arguably the same thing. — bongo fury
Charlie: “If all is one, then all words are one word pointing at everything, and that is one thing – the one thing there is. I’m ernestly thinking about becoming a PSAN-monist. As an experiment, I’ll go into PSAN-mode under the name ‘Charlenides’. Unlike Bob, I’m not mischievous, and I’m always going to say when I’m speaking (such as now) and when Charlenides is speaking.”Point words indiscriminately and they point at everything (and nothing). — bongo fury
As soon as he compromises, he can be attacked, and you have shown that. It is obvious that if you have normal meta-negation, you can easily meta-negate the sameness of object-affirmation and object-negation. What intrigued be from the beginning, and is the reason for which I started this thread, is that applying PSAN radically on all meta-levels leads to something remarkable – not a paradox, but even weirder than a paradox in my opinion.No, in applying the rule he needs to compromise, and suggest coherent reference to utterances, otherwise he can't introduce contradictions in any hope of impressing as a sophist, i.e. as feigning inference and not mere nonsense. — bongo fury
Theoretically speaking, incomplete induction is not a valid form of inference, and no mathematician would accept an argument based on incomplete induction.I disagree. Rights (like reference) are inferred from practice. — bongo fury
There, you’re using negation to define negation.trying to define negation — Tristan L
1) As a word's (or other symbol's) happening not [Tristan’s italics] to point at an object
2) As some corresponding negative's (or antonym's) [Tristan’s italics] happening to point at the object — bongo fury
Alice: “Yes, I think that you’re right. Moreover, it’s likely not possible to philosophically or intellectually force Bob to abandon his PSAN. The same applies to Charlenides. However, I got the idea of solving this gordian knot by using Bob’s PSAN to allow me to punish him for manipulating my phone. You see, in our family, my brother or I can only be punished after we’ve been forced to finally admit that we’re in the wrong. Bob, however, always used PSAN to say ‘I’m in the wrong. Therefore, I’m in the right.’ So now I’m using PSAN to get Bob to allow me to slap him (not necessarily as punishment). This practical, not-philosophical method will likely make Bob willingly abandon PSAN.”I think you [Alice] are unwise to suggest you are having a meaningful agreement or disagreement with Bob about anything. You may as well just treat him as a non-speaker of the language, who fails to observe basic distinctions of meaning. — bongo fury
The major goal I had forgotten was to show that if someone doesn’t have intuitive, not-verbal knowledge of what negation is, including that it’s not the same as affirmation, then it’s hopeless to teach them what negation is. So, that intuitive knowledge is crucial. It is also something very interesting.“Let me think,” said Charlie and thought for a while. Then he said, “I think that everything boils down to the problem of the definition of negation. It seems that such a definition is not possible; I’m afraid that if someone doesn’t have intuitive, not-verbal knowledge of what negation is, including that it’s not the same as affirmation, then you can’t tell them what it is. Alice, since your brother is so clever as to claim not to have such intuitive knowledge, it’s likely best for you to just let him go.” — Tristan L
Let’s call this “Alice’s world”.one [world] that follows the rules of logic as it's been for thousands of years — TheMadFool
Let’s call this “Bob’s world”.one [world] that is your own — TheMadFool
I feel exactly the same; I’m fascinated and confused by the whole matter, which is why I came hither.Your argument isn't circular and also circular in the world that you've created which is both something that fascinates me and also confuses me. — TheMadFool
is itself a description which is true only in Alice’s world. In Alice’s world, it it true that Alice’s world and Bob’s world are two different and incompatible worlds, that there is no resolution, and that neither twin can force the other into his/her world, a.s.o. In Bob’s world, however, it is true that Alice’s world and Bob’s world are one and the same (and then obviously self-compatible) world, that there is a resolution, and that both twins already are in that one world, a.s.o. Even the description expressed in these last sentences is only a description from Alice’s point of view, a.s.o. to infinity, as is what is expressed by this very sentence.This situation, I realize, has no resolution since the two systems you and I are operating in are mutually incompatible — TheMadFool
Yes, that’s true. For example, when we say that 2+3 is the same as 5, we don’t mean that 2+3 affirms 5. That wouldn’t even make sense. But what does this have to do with Alice and Bob’s thing?in other words, when we say something is the same as something else, we do not necessarily also mean that the thing "affirms" something else. — PuerAzaelis
Yes, affirmation itself doesn’t negate negation itself anymore than 2+7 negates 5. How does this resolve the issue?Since this is so it is not necessarily true to say that affirmation "negates" negation. it doesn't affirm or negate anything, it is just not the same as it. — PuerAzaelis
using relatives (twins) — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.