Nick - all you are doing is shouting "Absurd!" in an ever louder voice. Link me to a methodology for assessing the existence/non-existence of a category error and I'll happily have a go at applying it for you - Robert
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My reference is to that eminent logician, nthompson, who wrote. > > that in logic, > > Once you have said in your definitions, > > "A point has neither extension nor direction" > > you cannot start talking about a point's direction or movement with out > going back to your definitions and starting over. > > consider the following syllogism > > (1) All swans are white > (2) Well, except the odd black one. > (3) This bird is black. > (4) This bird is a swan. > > "Absurd" in this case means what it means in a reductio argument. Violates > the must fundament precepts of logic. > > QED > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];FRIAM <Friam@redfish.com> > *Sent:* 7/15/2008 9:40:34 AM > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Mentalism and Calculus > > Hey Nick, > > I'm not talking about points. I don't care about points. All I'm doing is > using the existence of a disagreement about points (you think one thing, I > think another) and our inability to resolve it to illustrate my claim that one > cannot objectively identify category errors. So identifying supposed > category errors in calculus (or anything else for that matter) is probably a > fruitless endeavour. > Here's what you need to do to show I'm wrong: > > 1. find someone who has a well-accepted methodology for identifying > category errors > 2. apply it to our point argument to show that there is/is not a > category error. > > I confidently predict that you'll not get past item #1. Ryle tried it, but > his argument reduces to the one you are making: saying "It's absurd!" in > ever louder tones. IMHO, that just doesn't cut it. > > So send me a link to the author and his/her methodology for identifying > category errors > > Robert > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, Robert. You have gone a bridge to far, unless you are willing to > > rewrite the role of definitions in axiom systems. > > > > In a system in which a definition is, "a point is a position in space > > lacking dimension" > > > > you cannot have a proposition that contradicts the definition. > > > > You just cant. > > > > You can REWRITE your definitions, add or subtract axioms, etc, but until > you > > do that, you are just stuck with that Euclidean definition of a point. > > > > I assume that some mathematician is going to write me in a milllisecond > and > > say, "Yeah, yeah. In effect, calculus changed the definition of a point. > > That is how progress is made, you rigid boob!" But then I want to > continue > > to wonder (for perhaps a few more days) what implications this might have > > for the concept of mind. My New Realist mentors taught me to think of > > consciousness as a point of view. It is a place from which the world is > > viewed, or at b > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > > Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Holmes > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];FRIAM > > Sent: 7/12/2008 6:47:34 PM > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mentalism and Calculus > > Nick - the snippet below illustrates the key problem with invoking > category > > errors. I think giving the infinitesimal point speed and direction makes > > sense and you do not. You see a category error and I do not. So how do > we> a djudicate? We can't: there's no objective methodology for saying if a > > category error exists. (BTW, appeals to 'common sense' have as much > > objectivity as Ryle's invocation of absurdity: not much). > > > > So if there's no remotely objective way of even saying whether we have a > > category error, then it seems pointless to try and analyse calculus in > terms > > of its category errors. Why use a tool when all the evidence suggests > that > > the tool is broken? > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Nicholas Thompson > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> If one defines a point as having no extension in space and time, one > >> CANNOT in common sense give it speed and direction in the next sentence > >> > >> <snip> > >> > >> Nicholas S. Thompson > >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, > >> Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >> > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
