Hi Karl,
I think I must have missed grade 2 emoticons ?
I'm guessing :-p is tongue in cheek ?
I knew I'd lost you, that's why I admitted I'd tried to explain and failed.
The clue is in the sentence, I used though.
Try Hofstadter's "Godel, Esher, Bach"
Or Hofstadter and Dennett's "Mind's I" collection.
If you haven't already.
Just to get a flavour of the creativity of recursive logic ... Quines et al.
You'll find it's a subject that's hard to approach directly.
You need to sneak up on it ;-)
Regards
Ian
PS Robot Wars ... I agree, but it's all about the appearance from the
"robot's" eye view.
On 10/3/06, Karl Rogers <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Ian,
>
> "People who see absolute definitions see conflict. Things that either fit
> the
> terms of a defintion or do not."
>
> Absolutely.
>
> "Clearly to say, in an axiomatic sounding way, 'It is a pre-requisite of
> wisdom-enquiry that nothing can be defined in axiomatic terms' would be an
> exception to its own rule ... if viewed as a logical assertion."
>
> Clearly.
>
> "It may not be a logical thing to say, but I do actually believe it is the
> wise thing to say."
>
> Perhaps. Depends on the way the world is.
>
> "And not, I repeat not, because I'm "inspired" by Alan saying it."
>
> Okay. Okay. I'll take your word for it.
>
> "(In fact the "Hofstadterian" recursion in the statement, when viewed as
> logical assertion, is for me a hint of its inherent wisdom, in a way that is
> nigh impossible to describe in any conventional way - believe me I've tried
> :-) )"
>
> Now you've lost me. ;-p
>
> "Let's leave it there for now. Whether we are talking the rules of discourse
> or the 'definitions" of wisdom-enquiry ... this issue will remain pretty
> central I'll wager."
>
> Perhaps many of our problems result when we do not take the trouble to agree
> "rules of discourse" before we start with "definitions" of wisdom-enquiry.
> But, I guess that we'll work them out as we go along....
>
> Just for the record, when I say that we need defintions, I usually mean as
> heuristics -- as something that is open for refinement, re-evaluation,
> development, and criticism -- in order to clarify and work towards solving
> real problems.
>
> For me, "absolute" means "not open for discussion" or "not open for
> negotiation", and, while there are some issues which I do take an absolutist
> position, they are actually few and far between.
>
> For example, I get outraged at the TV show "Robot Wars" -- have you seen it?
> "They are not robots! Robots are autonomous machines that are capable of
> adjusting to their environment in order to resolve their internal
> programming." I cry out.
> "They are remote controlled cars!!!!!"
> I shout to anyone who'll listen.
>
> cheers,
> Karl.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
> your Internet provider.
>
>
|