My question was why Not Necessary (◇~) is not also equivalent to Possible (◇).
In the section quoted above, you start out referring to Not Necessarily (red), which means that "there is at least one non-red marble to be picked". But you then make the subtle switch to talking about Necessarily Not (red), — Luke
If Not Necessarily (red) means "there is at least one non-red marble to be picked", then I still don't see how that differs from Possibly (red), which means that "at least one of the marbles is red" and that not "all the marbles are red" (otherwise red would be necessary). — Luke
I was merely pointing out that declarations do not necessarily set out how things are, — Janus
What? — Banno
Recall that declaratives are curious in having two directions of fit: a declaration sets out how things are, yet how things are changes to match the declaration. — Janus
The alarm screech symbolizes danger.
— creativesoul
I don't think that's right; I think the alarm screech signals danger. Symbolization is more abstract, and this is just where our use of language distinguishes us from the other animals. — Janus
The alarm screech symbolizes danger. The creatures using the screech connect the two and become language users as a result. The screech becomes meaningful with use.
All 'linguistically mediated thought' involves language use. Some non human animals have language. Thought they have that involve language use are 'linguistically mediated thought'. The sounding of the alarm is a 'linguistically mediated thought' because it is a thought consisting of correlations drawn between the vocalization and danger. Becoming aware of danger by virtue of knowing what an alarm sound means is linguistically mediated thought.
We cannot draw and maintain the distinction between the sorts of thoughts that we have and the sorts of thought that other language using animals have with the notion of 'linguistically mediated thought'. — creativesoul
Okay. Replace "symbolizes" with "signals" and the argument that that bit was excised from still stands strong. You need to address it along with all the earlier arguments that have went sorely neglected since being made.
Either it's irony or deliberate deception. Neither is acceptable. — creativesoul
The proof for that is demonstrated by the way you attribute agency to language. Again that's been proven. You've yet to have squared those circles despite repeated attempts at redefinition. — creativesoul
You cannot avoid anthropomorphism because "linguistically mediated thought" is a prima facie example of anthropomorphism. All this and then some has been more than adequately argued for without subsequent due attention. — creativesoul
I have never imputed agency to language. — Janus
Does language mediate human thought? — creativesoul
Keep in mind my two definitions of anthropomorphism, — Janus
You cannot avoid anthropomorphism because "linguistically mediated thought" is a prima facie example of anthropomorphism. All this and then some has been more than adequately argued for without subsequent due attention.
— creativesoul
Is this a joke? Explain how ""linguistically mediated thought" is a prima facie example of anthropomorphism" — Janus
You are making what I would consider a scope error. — Srap Tasmaner
(1) It is necessary that the book falls if and only if it is not possible that the book does not fall.
(2) It is possible that the book falls if and only if it is not necessary that the book does not fall.
"Not" seems to be used in two ways, but it really isn't; under this scheme it is always a proposition-level operator, just like "possibly" and "necessarily". You build necessary this way:
(1) The book is falling.
(2) It is not the case that (1), the book is falling.
(3) It is possible that (2), that it is not the case that (1), the book is falling.
(4) It is not the case that (3), that it is possible that (2), that it is not the case that (1), the book is falling.
(5) It is necessary that (1), the book is falling.
(5) is here just shorthand for (4). There is a single complete proposition (1), and three operators applied to that proposition, which we can abbreviate as a single operator.
This simplified usage of "not" avoids many confusions: you never predicate "not falling" of an object, you deny that it is falling; you never predicate "not possible" of a proposition, you deny that it is possible. By maintaining discipline in the treatment of "not", you avoid any possibility of confusing, say, "I know it's not Tuesday" and "I don't know it's Tuesday". We can be clear about the scope of the operators we apply to sentences, and we can be clear about the order in which we apply them, and we need not abide ambiguity. This is how we win. — Srap Tasmaner
Not Necessarily Red is equivalent to Possibly Not Red. — Srap Tasmaner
What you're missing is that we only have Not Necessarily Red — so we know at least one marble is non-red — but we don't have Not Necessarily Not Red (i.e., Possibly Red), so it is entirely consistent for the set of marbles to be all non-red. — Srap Tasmaner
Does logical negation constitute an opposite? — Luke
Can you give me a simple explanation as to why you switch from talking about whether or not "the book falls" (future, or perhaps tenseless)), to "the book is falling" (present)? — Metaphysician Undercover
I wasn't aware of the distinction between Possible Not and Possible when I asked my question earlier. It's more logically pedantic than what I had in mind. — Luke
Possible Not and Possible both denote possibility, referring to "some" as opposed to "all" or "none". However, while I accept that Possible Not and Possible are technically different to each other, I think they can still be viewed as "opposed to" or distinct from Necessary and Impossible, respectively, each in the same (but inverse) way. — Luke
That's quite reasonable, but relying on "opposite" to mean different things will just lead to trouble. — Srap Tasmaner
One point I think I clarified somewhere else is that in something like "The book is not red," we place the "not" before "red" purely as a matter of English convention, and because, with no other scope in play, there's no ambiguity. But that's still a proposition-level "not" and a more verbose way to say the same thing is "It is not the case that ball is red." It's sometimes convenient to pretend that "not red" is something we might predicate of an object, but it isn't really. — Srap Tasmaner
You say a lot of things I agree with, but apparently thinking that I don't, because there's still some confusion about the handling of "not." One point I think I clarified somewhere else is that in something like "The book is not red," we place the "not" before "red" purely as a matter of English convention, and because, with no other scope in play, there's no ambiguity. But that's still a proposition-level "not" and a more verbose way to say the same thing is "It is not the case that ball is red." It's sometimes convenient to pretend that "not red" is something we might predicate of an object, but it isn't really. "Not red" is not a syntactical element of the proposition at all, and therefore not a semantic unit either. "Red" is, as a predicate, and "not" is, as an operator on the entire proposition. "Not" doesn't apply to predicates or objects. As long as we keep in mind the logical form of what we're saying, I see no harm in using ordinary English, but I'll switch to "philosophical English" when there's ambiguity to be avoided. — Srap Tasmaner
How have I used "opposite" to mean different things? — Luke
I'm not sure we have an everyday word for only being disjoint, that is, being a subset of the complement. — Srap Tasmaner
antonym — bongo fury
Antonym — bongo fury
antonym — bongo fury
antonym — bongo fury
antonym — bongo fury
1. Necessary (▢): Necessarily Red = All are red
2. Possible Not (~▢): Not Necessarily Red = At least one is not red (not all are red)
3. Possible (~▢~): Not Necessarily Not Red = At least one is red (not none are red)
4. Impossible (▢~): Necessarily Not Red = None are red — Luke
It's because the domain of the quantifier is explicitly restricted to the marbles in this set. — Srap Tasmaner
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.