Re: what is a loglang?

To summarize briefly my (still misty, I agree) opinion
about various mails on this topic:

- a good deal of "semantical" (is this the right word
?) concepts could be encoded as variable rules in a
computerized system, to reflect the way of thinking of
the users of the logical language. The only thing is
to preserve global consistence. For ex, one set of
rules could consider ghosts as a product of the
imagination, while another set might consider them in
the same way as people, animals or trees. The problem
is to establish the meta-semantical rules (a higher
level of abstraction).

- it seems hard to get rid of concepts like "true" or
"false", but nothing prevents you to ponderate a
predicate in various ways (generally true, probably
true, etc)

- to allow the possibility for a language to be
utterly precise doesn't mean that you request the
speaker to be utterly precise at any moment. For ex,
if a language would allow the possibility, when
expressing "Mr Smith is a man", to express in the same
time the fact that Mr Smith's height is between 5 and
6 feet, or between 6 and 7 (like: Mr Smith is a
manfive, a mansix, etc), etc, you should not be
obliged to do so if you don't know the information, or
don't want to express it. After all, when you buy a
video tape recorder, you might use only 10% of its
functions.

- the reality of the universe is in no way relevant
when talking about a language. A language is made to
share information, impressions, orders etc, and if
both interlocutors are totally mad, but share the same
madness, then the language should be adapted to their
common madness. The categories should reflect the
shared concepts, not the (supposed) reality.

- in cases like denying both possibilities between
"the river flows slowly" # "the rivers flows quickly",
there are usually plenty of other possibilities:
- it flows neither slowly, neither quickly
- it flows sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly
- I don't know whether it flows slowly or quickly
- the river doesn't flow, somebody or something makes
it flow
- this is not what I call a river
- I deny you the right to ask such a question (you're
not entitled too)
- I don't care...
So the answer doesn't have to be "it's case A OR case
B". In Oracle, for ex, you could say: the value is
NULL, which is neither yes neither no; but they could
be many more possibilities.

That's why I usually refuse to answer the inquiries
made in the street, be it on political, social or
marketing topics. You're always asked to choose
between two, or at least a few possibilities, when an
intelligent answer would require a whole development,
with many nuances (do you support war in Iraq: Yes /
No). If you don't answer the right way, the best you
can hope is to be considered as a "doesn't knower",
while sometimes you understand the point much better
that the guy who formulated the question.

--- John Cowan <cowan@...> wrote:
> Ray Brown scripsit:
>
> > Yep - I was very skeptical at the statement "Any
> form of intelligence
> > would have exactly the same
> > system of logic we do (Boolean)".
>
> Well, let's see what that might mean.  Obviously it
> doesn't mean that
> every intelligent being will have a formal theory
> corresponding to
> Boolean algebra -- after all, lots of people are
> entirely innocent
> of such a formal theory, but we don't exclude them
> from the category
> of intelligent life forms.
>
> So let's consider something else.  We meet a
> traveler returning from
> the jungles of Southeast America, or some such
> place, who regales
> us with tales of his experiences among the
> Prelogicals.  He has spent
> some fifteen years with this tribe, and has learned
> to speak their
> language perfectly.
>
> "Why do you call them the Prelogicals?", we say.
> "Oh well", says Mr.
> Cod Levi-Strauss, "I find that they are disposed to
> assent to the
> proposition 'This jaguar is hungry and this jaguar
> is not hungry'.
> Furthermore, they are disposed to deny the
> proposition 'The river
> flows quickly or the river flows slowly.'"
>
> Now what are we to do?  Do we accept that there are
> people who
> actually think like that, or do we decide that Mr.
> C. L.-S. doesn't
> know what he's talking about?  Clearly the latter, I
> think.  He
> hasn't grasped the words for "and" and "or", or he
> has somehow
> confused them.
>
> In short, the notion that some people contravene the
> tenets of plain
> reasoning of this sort is untenable: we would far
> rather decide that
> we don't understand someone's (use of) language than
> that they accept
> stark contradictions as true.
>
> > Do we really have such a deep
> > understanding of our universe that we can
> categorically state that? I
> > really wonder if in a few centuries time our
> descendants will look upon
> > the logics of early 21st cent. as we view
> Aristotelian logic today.
>
> Surely we think Aristotelian logic is limited and
> archaically formulated,
> but we don't think it's *wrong*, unlike, say,
> Aristotelian biology or
> physics.

=====
Philippe Caquant

"High thoughts must have high language." (Aristophanes, Frogs)


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover