Search
1000 results for “Logical_Error”
-
@youranoncentral.bsky.social The next logical step will be extermination. Will they replicate #NaziGermany strategy and use gas? Will they shave the heads and sell the hair, stockpile the shoes and socks and underwear? The #USIsATerroristState. Avoid at all costs. Enter at your own risk #CanadianBeware. @markjcarney #PMMC when will Canada update its travel advisory to realistically reflect what is happening in the US?
-
@youranoncentral.bsky.social The next logical step will be extermination. Will they replicate #NaziGermany strategy and use gas? Will they shave the heads and sell the hair, stockpile the shoes and socks and underwear? The #USIsATerroristState. Avoid at all costs. Enter at your own risk #CanadianBeware. @markjcarney #PMMC when will Canada update its travel advisory to realistically reflect what is happening in the US?
-
A quotation from Arthur Conan Doyle
No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, — destructive to the logical faculty.
Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) British writer and physician
Story (1890-02), “The Sign of the Four,” ch. 1 [Holmes], Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 45 (US) / 1 (UK)More about this quote: wist.info/doyle-arthur-conan/8…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #arthurconandoyle #sherlock #holmes #sherlockholmes #deduction #discipline #guess #guesswork #inference #logic
-
A quotation from Arthur Conan Doyle
No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, — destructive to the logical faculty.
Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) British writer and physician
Story (1890-02), “The Sign of the Four,” ch. 1 [Holmes], Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 45 (US) / 1 (UK)More about this quote: wist.info/doyle-arthur-conan/8…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #arthurconandoyle #sherlock #holmes #sherlockholmes #deduction #discipline #guess #guesswork #inference #logic
-
A quotation from Arthur Conan Doyle
No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, — destructive to the logical faculty.
Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) British writer and physician
Story (1890-02), “The Sign of the Four,” ch. 1 [Holmes], Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 45 (US) / 1 (UK)More about this quote: wist.info/doyle-arthur-conan/8…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #arthurconandoyle #sherlock #holmes #sherlockholmes #deduction #discipline #guess #guesswork #inference #logic
-
A quotation from Arthur Conan Doyle
No, no: I never guess. It is a shocking habit, — destructive to the logical faculty.
Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930) British writer and physician
Story (1890-02), “The Sign of the Four,” ch. 1 [Holmes], Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, Vol. 45 (US) / 1 (UK)More about this quote: wist.info/doyle-arthur-conan/8…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #arthurconandoyle #sherlock #holmes #sherlockholmes #deduction #discipline #guess #guesswork #inference #logic
-
Since I ribbed the drama for this during an earlier episode; this _is_ the most logical solution to the Only One Bed problem here. When Ah Shu moves in she and Yuan Mo have known each other for about three days and were on distant friend level - not ready to be physically close even in a modest and innocent way.
-
Since I ribbed the drama for this during an earlier episode; this _is_ the most logical solution to the Only One Bed problem here. When Ah Shu moves in she and Yuan Mo have known each other for about three days and were on distant friend level - not ready to be physically close even in a modest and innocent way.
-
Since I ribbed the drama for this during an earlier episode; this _is_ the most logical solution to the Only One Bed problem here. When Ah Shu moves in she and Yuan Mo have known each other for about three days and were on distant friend level - not ready to be physically close even in a modest and innocent way.
-
Since I ribbed the drama for this during an earlier episode; this _is_ the most logical solution to the Only One Bed problem here. When Ah Shu moves in she and Yuan Mo have known each other for about three days and were on distant friend level - not ready to be physically close even in a modest and innocent way.
-
Since I ribbed the drama for this during an earlier episode; this _is_ the most logical solution to the Only One Bed problem here. When Ah Shu moves in she and Yuan Mo have known each other for about three days and were on distant friend level - not ready to be physically close even in a modest and innocent way.
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Gödel’s logic and Buddhism
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems demonstrate that any sufficiently powerful formal system contains truths that cannot be proven from within the system, implying that complete understanding requires a perspective outside the system.
In philosophical and theological interpretations, this limitation is often mapped to the distinction between immanent knowledge (within the system) and transcendent awareness (outside the system).
1. The Structural Limitation
- Internal Incompleteness: Gödel proved that a system cannot prove its own consistency or grasp all its own truths; there are always statements that are true but unprovable within the system’s axioms.
- The “Outside” Perspective: To comprehend the complete picture or verify the system’s consistency, one must step outside the logical framework, accessing a higher order of intelligibility or a “super axiom.”
2. Application to Buddhist Epistemology
- Samsara vs. Nibbāna: In this analogy, the “system” represents Samsara (the cycle of existence and conventional logic), while the “outside” represents Nibbāna (the unconditioned state).
- Transcendent Awareness: A being within the system (a sentient being) cannot cognize the ultimate truth of the system from within. Only by transcending the system—achieving Arahanthood or Buddhahood—can one “see things as they are” from the outside.
- Greater vs. Lesser: Consequently, the “lesser” cognition (bound by internal logical limits and dualistic perception) cannot fully comprehend the “greater” transcendent awareness (which encompasses the total system from a non-dual, external vantage point).
3. Philosophical Implications
- Limits of Human Reason: This aligns with the view that human reason and formal logic are inherently limited and cannot grasp ultimate reality without intuitive or transcendent insight.
- God and the Super Axiom: Similarly, in theological interpretations, Gödel’s work suggests the existence of a higher intelligence (God) or “super axiom” that exists outside the created system, sustaining it from a position of complete knowledge that finite beings cannot access internally.
Thus, Gödel’s logic provides a formal mathematical basis for the idea that ultimate truth is inaccessible to the system itself, requiring a transcendent standpoint for full comprehension.
__________
I would add that FIML practice allows us to step outside of the psycholinguistic system we use to communicate with our partner, and others. There is some chance FIML partners could become lost in a folie à deux, or shared psychosis, but odds of this are very low, imo, especially if partners frequently refer to philosophies, thoughts, ideas, and evidence outside of their world as a couple. FIML provides a kind of parallax for both partners psycholinguistic systems as well as the two systems working together as one. FIML cannot completely solve the inherent ambiguousness of interpersonal communication but it can improve our understanding (or resolution1) of our communications by at least one order of magnitude, or more. ABN
- the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object ↩︎
-
Corporate IQ Testing: How Companies Can Use IQ Scores for Hiring and Talent Development
Corporate IQ or cognitive ability tests are designed to estimate a person’s capacity to reason, identify patterns, process information, and learn new material efficiently. These assessments often include tasks involving numerical reasoning, verbal reasoning, abstract pattern recognition, and logical problem‑solving...
#iq #iqtest #iqcertificate #corporate #business #company #problemsolving #talent #people
-
LLMs and Specs
I was trying to get a specification for a program at one point, to see if it was doing what I wanted. My LLM, Lyin’ Brian, created one for me.
The background was that I had asked an LLM for a link to math book with the algorithm of, for example, a lower hull. I asked it to write it out in English, used that for the prompt.
It found me https://cp-algorithms.com/geometry/convex-hull.html, and once I had it and checked it, I had Claude convert it to Go, and then I debugged it.
Once I had that, I asked Claude for the specification, and got:
Logical Specification for Lower Hull
Here's a formal specification of what the lower hull algorithm should accomplish:
Given: A finite set of points P = {p₁, p₂, ..., pₙ} in 2D space
Output: An ordered sequence of points L = [l₁, l₂, ..., lₖ] representing the lower hull
Postconditions (what must be true after execution):
Subset property: L ⊆ P (all points in the lower hull are from the original set)
Ordering property: l₁ has the minimum x-coordinate (leftmost), and lₖ has the maximum x-coordinate (rightmost). For all i < j, x(lᵢ) ≤ x(lⱼ) (x-coordinates are monotonically non-decreasing)
Convexity property: For all consecutive triples (lᵢ, lᵢ₊₁, lᵢ₊₂) in L, the orientation must be counterclockwise (left turn). Formally: (lᵢ₊₁ - lᵢ) × (lᵢ₊₂ - lᵢ₊₁) > 0
Minimality property: L is minimal — no point from P can be removed from L while still maintaining properties 2 and 3. (This ensures you have the actual hull, not just some counterclockwise path)
Completeness property: All points on the lower convex hull boundary are included. Formally: for any point p ∈ P that lies on the lower boundary of the convex hull, p ∈ L
Preconditions (assumptions):
P contains at least 2 points
Points are distinct (no duplicates)
The meaning of Lower Hull is understood by allThis successfully translated the program into a spec I could read. Not easily, though! It’s been a while since I did symbolic logic, back at Sun.
So I worked it through with a pencil, paper and a trivial set of data, and that was really what I was asking for. It also told me that I needed to add code to check that the points really were distinct (no duplicates).
Necessary and sufficient? I’m going to think more about that.
#ai #artificialIntelligence #mathematics #programming #specifications -
LMs and Specs
I was trying to get a specification for a program at one point, to see if it was doing what I wanted. My LLM, Lyin’ Brian, created one for me.
The background was that I had asked an LLM for a link to math book with the algorithm of, for example, a lower hull. I asked it to write it out in English, used that for the prompt.
It found me https://cp-algorithms.com/geometry/convex-hull.html, and once I had it and checked it, I had Claude convert it to Go, and then I debugged it.
Once I had that, I asked Claude for the specification, and got:
Logical Specification for Lower Hull
Here's a formal specification of what the lower hull algorithm should accomplish:
Given: A finite set of points P = {p₁, p₂, ..., pₙ} in 2D space
Output: An ordered sequence of points L = [l₁, l₂, ..., lₖ] representing the lower hull
Postconditions (what must be true after execution):
Subset property: L ⊆ P (all points in the lower hull are from the original set)
Ordering property: l₁ has the minimum x-coordinate (leftmost), and lₖ has the maximum x-coordinate (rightmost). For all i < j, x(lᵢ) ≤ x(lⱼ) (x-coordinates are monotonically non-decreasing)
Convexity property: For all consecutive triples (lᵢ, lᵢ₊₁, lᵢ₊₂) in L, the orientation must be counterclockwise (left turn). Formally: (lᵢ₊₁ - lᵢ) × (lᵢ₊₂ - lᵢ₊₁) > 0
Minimality property: L is minimal — no point from P can be removed from L while still maintaining properties 2 and 3. (This ensures you have the actual hull, not just some counterclockwise path)
Completeness property: All points on the lower convex hull boundary are included. Formally: for any point p ∈ P that lies on the lower boundary of the convex hull, p ∈ L
Preconditions (assumptions):
P contains at least 2 points
Points are distinct (no duplicates)
The meaning of Lower Hull is understood by allThis successfully translated the program into a spec I could read. Not easily, though! It’s been a while since I did symbolic logic, back at Sun.
So I worked it through with a pencil, paper and a trivial set of data, and that was really what I was asking for. It also told me that I needed to add code to check that the points really were distinct (no duplicates).
Necessary and sufficient? I’m going to think more about that.
#ai #artificialIntelligence #mathematics #programming #specifications -
#WritersCoffeeClub #WCC 2026.04.24 —Share a silly mistake you've made while writing.
I think of it as silly, but I am prone to understatement. One of the important factors in how the social structure in the reluctance series works depends on the genetic relatedness between siblings and the relatedness between parent and child.
I got the ratio wrong.
I'm now recasting the logical argument I was using into a common sense argument for how the society works. Doing so makes an important premise open to attack by technological reasoning, but I think it may also create an allegory for how science and tradition clash in our world.
Still silly. I ought have known those ratios, or looked them up much earlier.
[Author retains copyright (c)2026 R.S.]
#BoostingIsSharing
#gender #fiction #writer #author
#cozy #mystery #sf #sff #sciencefiction
#writing #writingcommunity #writersOfMastodon #writers
#RSdiscussion
#RSstory #RSReluctanceStory -
This was the glare I got from Goobie when she noticed my lap wasn't completely free. So she did the only logical thing.
#CatsOfMastodon #WhiskersWednesday #WednesdayVibes #Wednesday
-
4/
• #Tinbergen’s Four Questions: An analysis of the logical framework used to interrogate behavior through the lenses of function, development, mechanism, and evolution.• The Selfish Gene Paradigm: A breakdown of how George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins shattered the "good of the species" illusion, proving that evolution operates at the level of the gene.
-
4/
• #Tinbergen’s Four Questions: An analysis of the logical framework used to interrogate behavior through the lenses of function, development, mechanism, and evolution.• The Selfish Gene Paradigm: A breakdown of how George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins shattered the "good of the species" illusion, proving that evolution operates at the level of the gene.
-
4/
• #Tinbergen’s Four Questions: An analysis of the logical framework used to interrogate behavior through the lenses of function, development, mechanism, and evolution.• The Selfish Gene Paradigm: A breakdown of how George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins shattered the "good of the species" illusion, proving that evolution operates at the level of the gene.
-
4/
• #Tinbergen’s Four Questions: An analysis of the logical framework used to interrogate behavior through the lenses of function, development, mechanism, and evolution.• The Selfish Gene Paradigm: A breakdown of how George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins shattered the "good of the species" illusion, proving that evolution operates at the level of the gene.
-
4/
• #Tinbergen’s Four Questions: An analysis of the logical framework used to interrogate behavior through the lenses of function, development, mechanism, and evolution.• The Selfish Gene Paradigm: A breakdown of how George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins shattered the "good of the species" illusion, proving that evolution operates at the level of the gene.
-
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 10.2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/02/11/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-10-a/
• https://bsky.app/profile/inquiryintoinquiry.bsky.social/post/3lhyet3gfzk2cIn logical terms, the analogy of experience proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then by deducing a Fact, the applicability of that knowledge base to a current experience.
Step 1 is Inductive, abstracting a Rule from a Case and a Fact.
• Case : E_past ⇒ E_poss, Chosen events fairly sample Collective events.
• Fact : E_past ⇒ K_pres, Chosen events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.Step 2 is Deductive, admitting a Case to a Rule and arriving at a Fact.
• Case : E_pres ⇒ E_poss, Current events fairly sample Collective events.
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Fact : E_pres ⇒ K_pres, Current events support the Knowledge regime.References —
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_InquiryDewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htmResources —
Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/27/survey-of-abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-4/Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-5/#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry -
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 10.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/02/11/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-10-a/
• https://bsky.app/profile/inquiryintoinquiry.bsky.social/post/3lhyet3gfzk2cTransfer —
Returning to the scene of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example, let's continue examining how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works in that case.
By way of a recap, we began by considering a fragment K_pres of the reasoner's knowledge base which is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two rules.
• K_pres ⇔ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (B ⇒ D).
K_pres may be thought of as a piece of knowledge or item of information allowing for the possibility of certain conditions, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse.
Next we found it convenient to express all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or elements of experience over which they hold true.
• Let E_past be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances in mind under “past experience”.
• Let E_poss be the collective set of experiences, or the prospective total of possible circumstances.
• Let E_pres be the current experience, or the circumstances immediately present to the reasoner.
If we think of the knowledge base K_pres as referring to the “regime of experience” over which it is valid, then the sets of models involved in the analogy may be ordered according to the relationships of set inclusion or logical implication existing among them.
Figure 4 shows the subsumption relations involved in the analogy of experience.
Figure 4. Analogy of Experience
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2025/02/analogy-of-experience.png#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry -
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 9.2
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-9-a/Transfer —
In logical terms, the analogy of experience proceeds by inducing a Rule about the validity of a current knowledge base and then by deducing a Fact, the applicability of that knowledge base to a current experience.
Step 1 is Inductive, abstracting a Rule from a Case and a Fact.
• Case : E_past ⇒ E_poss, Chosen events fairly sample Collective events.
• Fact : E_past ⇒ K_pres, Chosen events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.Step 2 is Deductive, admitting a Case to a Rule and arriving at a Fact.
• Case : E_pres ⇒ E_poss, Current events fairly sample Collective events.
• Rule : E_poss ⇒ K_pres, Collective events support the Knowledge regime.
────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Fact : E_pres ⇒ K_pres, Current events support the Knowledge regime.References —
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (1995), “Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”, Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), 40–52.
• https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052
• https://www.academia.edu/57812482/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_InquiryDewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston, MA. Reprinted (1991), Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37423/37423-h/37423-h.htmResources —
Survey of Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02/27/survey-of-abduction-deduction-induction-analogy-inquiry-4/Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/01/26/survey-of-semiotics-semiosis-sign-relations-5/#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry -
Interpreter and Interpretant • Selection 9.1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2025/01/27/interpreter-and-interpretant-selection-9-a/Transfer —
Let's examine how the transfer of knowledge through the analogy of experience works in the case of Dewey's “Sign of Rain” example.
For concreteness, consider a fragment K_pres of the reasoner's knowledge base which is logically equivalent to a conjunction of two rules.
• K_pres ⇔ (B ⇒ A) ∧ (B ⇒ D).
K_pres may be thought of as a piece of knowledge or item of information allowing for the possibility of certain conditions, expressed in the form of a logical constraint on the present universe of discourse.
It is convenient to have the option of expressing all logical statements in terms of their models, that is, in terms of the primitive circumstances or elements of experience over which they hold true.
• Let E_past be the chosen set of experiences, or the circumstances in mind under “past experience”.
• Let E_poss be the collective set of experiences, or the prospective total of possible circumstances.
• Let E_pres be the current experience, or the circumstances immediately present to the reasoner.
If we think of the knowledge base K_pres as referring to the “regime of experience” over which it is valid, then the sets of models involved in the analogy may be ordered according to the relationships of set inclusion or logical implication existing among them.
#Peirce #Logic #Semiotics #Semiosis #SignRelations
#JohnDewey #Interpreter #Interpretant #Pragmatism
#Abduction #Deduction #Induction #Analogy #Inquiry -
CW: Sexual, hypnosis
Commission for The-Luna-fan, with OCs Logical Leap and Cosmia Nebula!
Thank you for commissioning! 😁
OCs drawn with permission of course
#mlpNSFW #hypnosis #maidoutfit #originalcharacter #originalcharacters #OC #mlpOC #commissionedwork
As a background struggler am pretty proud how the background came out, but I think I won't be taking detailed indoor designs again. 😅😅😅