[Vision2020] News Article, Mental Illness, Fixation of Belief Discussion
Carl Westberg
carlwestberg846@hotmail.com
Tue, 20 May 2003 09:34:29 -0700
Uh....how about those Mariners?
Carl Westberg Jr.
>From: "Art Deco" <deco@moscow.com>
>To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] News Article, Mental Illness, Fixation of Belief
>Discussion
>Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 09:15:21 -0700
>
>Re: Immutable Laws of Logic?
>
>It may surprise you but some of the those conventions called the laws of
>logic have changed. Parts of Aristotle's class logic was found to be in
>error by George Boole (the assumption that a defined class has a member
>implicit in one of Aristotle's argument testing rules). Other more
>advanced
>concepts in the restricted predicate calculus and unrestricted predicate
>calculus have been advanced and changed in the last 150 years, e.g. Gödel's
>Proof. Like science, logic does advance by rooting out false statements
>and/or discovering new truths. While it is not immutable, it is the best
>we
>have now.
>
>The grammar of a language does change. However, the notion of what
>constitutes a believing in contradiction, e.g., believing in a statement
>and
>its negation at the same time does not appear to have changed since the
>earliest recorded writings as far as I can tell. What also appears not to
>have changed is that the mentally ill and the religious (partial
>redundancy?) sometimes do not recognize a contradiction as a deterrent to
>belief in a creed.
>
>If some fool wants to believe in a creed that contains contradictory
>statements, there is nothing anyone can logically do to stop them.
>
>In the secular world such persons are often referred for treatment if the
>consequences of their contradictory beliefs reach a certain level of danger
>to society. Treatment is many times successful. In the religious world
>less alarm is raised by contradictory creeds unless the consequences are
>like those which came from Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al. Treatment of
>religious delusions have a much lower success rate than treatment of
>secular
>delusions. (Brian Mitchell is one example.) The treatment rate is lower
>because a fantasy is impossible to disprove with finality. Despite there
>being no unequivocal evidence, some still believe that there are real
>unicorns or leprechauns.
>
>There is a newer logic -- fuzzy logic. The same basic logical conventions
>apply to fuzzy that have always applied, except that the properties
>defining
>class membership is allowed to be less precise than that in the stricter
>predicate calculi -- as such properties are in ordinary language with its
>vagueness and ambiguity.
>
>You can call me narrow minded. Possibly true. But I am willing to
>consider
>any set of non-contradictory non-meta-lingual statements as a possible
>belief. (Meta-lingual and mixed sets are more complicated.) Of the
>infinite number of such sets, most are rejected on the basis of evidence.
>Some are left as pending possibilities depending future evidence. Some are
>conditionally accepted given present evidence. I submit that such an
>attitude is much more open minded and mentally healthy than that which you
>appear to espouse. I agree that the universe is very complicated. I
>submit
>that those sharing my view have done infinitely more to forward the
>understanding of those complexities that those who believe that a set of
>statements containing a contradiction is an acceptable belief.
>
>My weakness in your eyes is that I cannot "stretch" myself to believe in
>positions that contain contradictory statements. But to do so would be
>delusional -- one form of mental illness. Apparently you have no such
>reservations. If you did, the belief system you so zealously push and in
>which you seem to have such a powerful, blinding ego involvement would be
>greatly altered.
>
>Many children have imaginary playmates or imaginary friends with various
>desirable attributes, that they sometimes think of as real, and to whom
>they
>"talk" to for various reasons. Most outgrow these delusions. If they
>don't, they are considered mentally ill. The same situation is
>indistinguishable from belief in of Santa Claus, Mother Goose, the Easter
>Bunny, and alleged gods.
>
>Again, let state the obvious in hopefully clear language. I do not believe
>in any set of statements which contain or from which can be internally
>derived a given statement and its negation -- a contradiction.
>
>If you do believe in such sets of statements as possible beliefs, then
>admit
>it. (And please do not rejoin with the view that certain objects are
>beyond
>the pale of language then contradict yourself by talking about them.)
>
>In that case those, if any, who are following this discussion can decide
>for
>themselves which point of view is likely to be true.
>
>
>Did you sleep through the History of Philosophy? I am not a rationalist
>but
>an empiricist. Rationalists were those that believed in immutable truths
>discoverable by logical processes as opposed to observational processes
>(prone, unfortunately to error) alone.
>
>
>Wayne Fox
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>
>To: "'Vision 20/20'" <>
>Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 12:04 PM
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] News Article, Mental Illness, Fixation of Belief
>Discussion
>
>
> > Wayne Fox gets hotter:
> >
> > > The so-called laws of logic which Mr. Jones eschews are properties of
> > > language needed for successful communication. Contradictions, truth,
> > > falsity, etc. do not exist in objects but in the language used to
> > describe
> > > them.
> >
> > Oh great, Wayne, now look what you've done. You've just killed logic. If
> > logic is merely a property of a given historical language, then it is as
> > changeable and flexible as English grammar (something "contradictory"
> > three hundred years ago might not be now; grammar develops). You have
> > made logic utterly relative to a linguistic community. Yikes. No one
> > thinks English grammar should be the ultimate standard of rationality
> > and truth, especially the French. Perhaps you would like to try again. A
> > lot of local heat rides on this.
> >
> > (A good refutation of this sort of logical linguisticism can be found
> > at: Dallas Willard, "The Degradation of Logical Form, *Axiomathes,*
> > 1997:
> > http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artid=24)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Although Mr. Jones attempts to deride the use of logic as Neanderthal,
> > we
> > > notice that he attempts to logic it in his replies to his detractors
> > -- a
> > > hypocrisy not rare among the professionally, zealously religious and
> > other
> > > charlatans.
> >
> > Open your mind, Wayne. The world is a much more complicated place. From
> > a narrow rationalistic perspective, I can see why you think there are
> > only two options: logic or nonlogic. But those aren't the only choices.
> > There are other kinds of rational order, and they've been around in the
> > open for millennia. No need for hypocrisy or horny dilemmas on my part.
> > What might another option be? Stretch yourself. Think outside the huffy
> > slogans.
> >
> > Doug Jones
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____________________________________________________
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net
> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> >
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail