Re: Fwd: SUO Quo Vadis
Guys,
It is quite amusing that none of us really seem to understand one another.
Something of a case in point, don't you think?
I was just attempting to interpret Mark M-S's thesis.
Only Mark can say if I was right or wrong. When we understand what he is
trying to say then we can comment whether he is right or wrong.
Personally I think we need to see ontology as a process. John thinks ontology
is subjective. Implicitly that it is the product of a process of perception,
and thus human, too.
Indeed, John says as much: "Logic is uniquely human."
Just where is the disagreement here?
Pevnev, a proviso. I'm not entirely in agreement with my synopsis of Mark's
position. I think in some sense reality is inconsistent too. That is to say,
I think possible orderings of reality are inconsistent, and that is what is
responsible for our inconsistent perception, because I think perception is
basically ordering.
I think we can reduce the inconsistencies of perception, and thus ontology,
down to that. Selection, yes, but more fundamentally inconsistencies in all
the various ways the world can be ordered.
So in the end it is not just human. Humans are not obtuse, present company
possibly excepted. Given the chance we would describe the world objectively.
The world exists objectively, as far as I know, but various orderings of it,
and thus our perception, are not.
That's my view. I'd be interested to hear how well it fits with Mark's.
-Rob
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 22:37, pevnev@juno.com wrote:
> I guess that Rob was trying to say that correct logic, (though "invented"
> by humans <for the human "consumption" only ?> ) is reflecting what really
> happens in the world of "substance" - the world, which exists in its "as
> is" entirety irregardles whether humans evolved or not, while some other
> human concepts may be contradictory to that reality (or "softly" saying, -
> inconsistent with the reality).
>
>
> -- "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
> Rob,
>
> That is either meaningless or silly:
> > To resolve the inconsistencies in our logic by acknowledging
> > the priority of the human over the logical?
>
> Logic is uniquely human. It is the product of language.
> Every natural language embodies first-order logic, modal
> logic, higher-order logic, and every other logic ever
> invented by any logician. No logician has ever been
> able to invent a logic that can express anything that
> is not expressible in any natural language.
>
> But as I have said repeatedly, our linguistic and logical
> abilities are built on top of an ape-like brain, which is
> far more powerful than any computer anyone has yet been
> able to devise.
>
> Our human nature is both ape-like and logical. Both are
> essential to what we are. It is just plain silly to try
> to create conflicts between them. Let's do our best to
> understand them.
>
> John