|
6862
|
Fuzzy logic uses a continuum of truth, but it implies contradictions [Williamson]
|
|
Full Idea:
Fuzzy logic is based on a continuum of degrees of truth, but it is committed to the idea that it is half-true that one identical twin is tall and the other twin is not, even though they are the same height.
|
|
From:
Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.154)
|
|
A reaction:
Maybe to be shocked by a contradiction is missing the point of fuzzy logic? Half full is the same as half empty. The logic does not say the twins are different, because it is half-true that they are both tall, and half-true that they both aren't.
|
|
6861
|
What sort of logic is needed for vague concepts, and what sort of concept of truth? [Williamson]
|
|
Full Idea:
The problem of vagueness is the problem of what logic is correct for vague concepts, and correspondingly what notions of truth and falsity are applicable to vague statements (does one need a continuum of degrees of truth, for example?).
|
|
From:
Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.153)
|
|
A reaction:
This certainly makes vagueness sound like one of the most interesting problems in all of philosophy, though also one of the most difficult. Williamson's solution is that we may be vague, but the world isn't.
|
|
19743
|
A notebook counts as memory, if is available to consciousness and guides our actions [Clark/Chalmers]
|
|
Full Idea:
Beliefs are partly constituted by features of the environment. ....a notebook plays for one person the same role that memory plays for another. ...The information is reliably there, available to consciousness, and to guide action, just as belief is.
|
|
From:
A Clark / D Chalmers (The Extended Mind [1998], §4)
|
|
A reaction:
This is the modern externalist approach to beliefs (along with broad content and external cognition systems). Not quite what we used to mean by beliefs, but we'll get used to it. I believe Plato wrote what it said in his books. Is memory just a role?
|
|
6860
|
How can one discriminate yellow from red, but not the colours in between? [Williamson]
|
|
Full Idea:
If one takes a spectrum of colours from yellow to red, it might be that given a series of colour samples along that spectrum, each sample is indiscriminable by the naked eye from the next one, though samples at either end are blatantly different.
|
|
From:
Timothy Williamson (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.151)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems like a nice variant of the Sorites paradox (Idea 6008). One could demonstrate it with just three samples, where A and C seemed different from each other, but other comparisons didn't.
|
|
19741
|
If something in the world could equally have been a mental process, it is part of our cognition [Clark/Chalmers]
|
|
Full Idea:
If, as we confront some task, a part of the world functions as a process which, were it done in the head, we would have no hesitation in recognising as part of the cognitive process, then that part of the world is part of the cognitive process.
|
|
From:
A Clark / D Chalmers (The Extended Mind [1998], §2)
|
|
A reaction:
In some sense they are obviously right that our cognitive activities spill out into books, calculators, record-keeping. It seems more like an invitation to shift the meaning of the word 'mind', than a proof that we have got it wrong.
|
|
19742
|
Consciousness may not extend beyond the head, but cognition need not be conscious [Clark/Chalmers]
|
|
Full Idea:
Many identify the cognitive with the conscious, and it seems far from plausible that consciousness extends outside the head in these cases. But not every cognitive process, at least on standard usage, is a conscious process.
|
|
From:
A Clark / D Chalmers (The Extended Mind [1998], §3)
|
|
A reaction:
This gives you two sorts of externalism about mind to consider. No, three, if you say there is extended conceptual content, then extended cognition processes, then extended consciousness. Depends what you mean by 'consciousness'.
|
|
7127
|
If men are good you should keep promises, but they aren't, so you needn't [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
If all men were good, promising-breaking would not be good, but because they are bad and do not keep their promises to you, you likewise do not have to keep yours to them.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince [1513], Ch.18)
|
|
A reaction:
A rather depressing proposal to get your promise-breaking in first, based on the pessimistic view that people cannot be improved. The subsequent history of ethics in Europe showed Machiavelli to be wrong. Gentlemen began to keep their word.
|
|
6308
|
A sensible conqueror does all his harmful deeds immediately, because people soon forget [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
A prudent conqueror makes a list of all the harmful deeds he must do, and does them all at once, so that he need not repeat them every day, which then makes men feel secure, and gains their support by treating them well.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince [1513], Ch.8)
|
|
A reaction:
This might work for a new government in a democracy, or a new boss in a business. It sounds horribly true; dreadful deeds done a long time ago can be completely forgotten, as when reformed criminals become celebrities.
|
|
6307
|
A desire to conquer, and men who do it, are always praised, or not blamed [Machiavelli]
|
|
Full Idea:
It is very natural and normal to wish to conquer, and when men do it who can, they always will be praised, or not blamed.
|
|
From:
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince [1513], Ch.3)
|
|
A reaction:
This view seems shocking to us, but it seems to me that this was a widely held view up until the time of Nietzsche, but came to a swift end with the invention of the machine gun in about 1885, followed by the heavy bomber and atomic bomb.
|