Comments for A weedy florilegium http://blog.nerdfiles.net philosophy Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:00:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 Comment on Of the Importance of Rationality and Insanity by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/12/23/of-the-importance-of-rationality-and-insanity/#comment-201 nerdfiles Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:01:36 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=537#comment-201 Failed return. Failed return.

]]> Comment on Human puzzles by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/12/17/human-puzzles/#comment-200 nerdfiles Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:48:42 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=523#comment-200 Forced. Forced.

]]> Comment on Shoutout to highschool agnosticism (postmodernism) by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/12/04/shoutout-to-highschool-agnosticism-postmodernism/#comment-199 nerdfiles Sat, 06 Dec 2008 07:29:51 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=469#comment-199 Premises: 1 If it is indeed a thing, then it is actual. 2 If it is not actual, then it is not a thing. (Contraposition 1) 3 It is a thing. 4 If it is not actual, then it is possible. 5 If it is possible, then it is not actual. Conclusions: 6 It is actual. (Modus Ponens 3, 1) 7 It is not the case that it is not actual. (Double Negation 6) 8 It is not possible. (Modus Tollens 5, 7) Secondary premises & Conclusions (Premises of the Sorites): 9 If one thing is not possible, then two things are not possible. 10 If two things are not possible, then an arbitrary range of things are not possible. 10 If an arbitrary range of things are not possible, then we cannot determinately know what is possible. 11 We cannot determinately know what is possible. 12 If we cannot determinately know what is possible, then we do not know what is possible. 13 We do not know what is possible. 14 If we do not know what is possible, then we cannot say what is possible. 15 We cannot say what is possible. Final interpretation: As far as we know, nothing is possible. 1 P>Q 2 -Q>-P 3 P 4 -Q>R 5 R>-Q Q [Modus Ponens] --Q [Double Negation] -R [Modus Tollens] Premises:
1 If it is indeed a thing, then it is actual.
2 If it is not actual, then it is not a thing. (Contraposition 1)
3 It is a thing.
4 If it is not actual, then it is possible.
5 If it is possible, then it is not actual.

Conclusions:
6 It is actual. (Modus Ponens 3, 1)
7 It is not the case that it is not actual. (Double Negation 6)
8 It is not possible. (Modus Tollens 5, 7)

Secondary premises & Conclusions (Premises of the Sorites):
9 If one thing is not possible, then two things are not possible.
10 If two things are not possible, then an arbitrary range of things are not possible.
10 If an arbitrary range of things are not possible, then we cannot determinately know what is possible.
11 We cannot determinately know what is possible.
12 If we cannot determinately know what is possible, then we do not know what is possible.
13 We do not know what is possible.
14 If we do not know what is possible, then we cannot say what is possible.
15 We cannot say what is possible.

Final interpretation:
As far as we know, nothing is possible.

1 P>Q
2 -Q>-P
3 P
4 -Q>R
5 R>-Q

Q [Modus Ponens]
–Q [Double Negation]
-R [Modus Tollens]

]]> Comment on An oversimplification of free action by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/29/an-oversimplification-of-free-action/#comment-198 nerdfiles Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:30:57 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=446#comment-198 We cannot choose our motives. But we can alter our motive once we have a clear one in view. Would this mean that our original motive was not a motive at all, but simply an antecedent to its final removal? I am motivated to X. I see that I am motivated to X. I wish not to obtain X. I am no longer motivated to X. There must be some contrasting set of objects that can be the candidates for motivation. Is motive always unintelligible, outside of awareness? We cannot choose our motives.

But we can alter our motive once we have a clear one in view. Would this mean that our original motive was not a motive at all, but simply an antecedent to its final removal?

I am motivated to X.
I see that I am motivated to X.
I wish not to obtain X.
I am no longer motivated to X.
There must be some contrasting set of objects that can be the candidates for motivation.

Is motive always unintelligible, outside of awareness?

]]> Comment on An oversimplification of free action by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/29/an-oversimplification-of-free-action/#comment-197 nerdfiles Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:27:52 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=446#comment-197 Choices must be caused. What is the likely candidate of the cause of a choice? Is it motive? Can "motive" be the object to which one has a desire? This would mean that "motive" is defined in terms of the object chosen as one's desired object. "He is motivated to obtain X." Choice is involved with the set of steps required to obtain X. At each "decision-step" the agent must decide one path as opposed to another. Choices must be caused.

What is the likely candidate of the cause of a choice? Is it motive? Can “motive” be the object to which one has a desire? This would mean that “motive” is defined in terms of the object chosen as one’s desired object. “He is motivated to obtain X.” Choice is involved with the set of steps required to obtain X. At each “decision-step” the agent must decide one path as opposed to another.

]]> Comment on Counterexample to the Fregean solution by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/23/counterexample-to-the-fregean-solution/#comment-196 nerdfiles Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:50:23 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=407#comment-196 Fregean solution gives more than the referent to the name. Meaning and Truth-conditions, for a name, hinge on what is given by the Fregean. Fregean solution gives more than the referent to the name.

Meaning and Truth-conditions, for a name, hinge on what is given by the Fregean.

]]> Comment on Counterexample to the Fregean solution by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/23/counterexample-to-the-fregean-solution/#comment-195 nerdfiles Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:24:05 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=407#comment-195 The Fregean mode view leads us to believe there is some mode of presentation under which S believes S believes Diddy is not Diddy. The Fregean mode view leads us to believe there is some mode of presentation under which S believes S believes Diddy is not Diddy.

]]> Comment on Counterexample to the Fregean solution by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/23/counterexample-to-the-fregean-solution/#comment-194 nerdfiles Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:22:58 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=407#comment-194 That last one changes the example. Scratch it. That last one changes the example. Scratch it.

]]> Comment on Counterexample to the Fregean solution by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/23/counterexample-to-the-fregean-solution/#comment-193 nerdfiles Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:22:36 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=407#comment-193 S believes P is a spy. S believes P is not a spy. S believes Puffy is not called "Diddy." ??? S believes P is a spy.
S believes P is not a spy.

S believes Puffy is not called “Diddy.” ???

]]> Comment on Counterexample to the Fregean solution by nerdfiles http://blog.nerdfiles.net/2008/11/23/counterexample-to-the-fregean-solution/#comment-192 nerdfiles Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:20:50 +0000 http://blog.nerdfiles.net/?p=407#comment-192 Puffy = Diddy Diddy = Diddy S believes Puffy is not Diddy. However, Puffy is in fact Diddy. We ascribe the belief to S, S believes Diddy is not Diddy. This is pragmatically misleading. There is some mode of presentation under which S believes Diddy is not Diddy. Puffy might not be Diddy. | Puffy is in fact Diddy. So, Diddy might not be Diddy. Puffy = Diddy
Diddy = Diddy

S believes Puffy is not Diddy.

However, Puffy is in fact Diddy. We ascribe the belief to S, S believes Diddy is not Diddy. This is pragmatically misleading.

There is some mode of presentation under which S believes Diddy is not Diddy.

Puffy might not be Diddy. | Puffy is in fact Diddy. So,
Diddy might not be Diddy.

]]>