Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!muttiah From: muttiah@cs.purdue.EDU (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Recursive Searles, or what? Keywords: understanding Message-ID: <9173@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 6 Jan 90 03:17:51 GMT References: <12679@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <12702@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <7661@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <9170@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <9172@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Reply-To: muttiah@cs.purdue.edu (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah) Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 113 In article <9172@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> muttiah@cs.purdue.edu (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah) writes: > >A. These views are not mine, but belong to quite an ingenious writer. > >B. Can anyone depart so far from good sense as to convince himself > that truth is arbitrary and depends on names, when it is agreed > that the Greeks, the Latins, and the Germans all have the same > geometry ? > >------------ > >To be continued ... -- A. What you say is right. Nevertheless, there is difficulty that must be resolved/ B. one thing troubles me, the fact that notice that I never know, discover, or prove any truth without using words or other signs in my mind. A. Indeed, if characters were lacking, we would never distinctly know or reason about anything. B. But when we examine figures in geometry, we often bring truths to light through careful contemplation of them. A. Indeed so. But we must also realize that these figures must be regarded as characters, for a circle drawn on a paper is not a circle, nor is it necessary that it be, but it is sufficient that it be taken by us for a circle. B. But it does have a certain similarity with a circle, and that certainly isn't arbitrary. A. I admit that, and as a consequence, figures are the most of characters. But what similarity do you think there is between ten and the character '10' ? B. There is some relation or order among the characters which is also found among things, especially if the characters are well designed. A. Indeed, but what similarity do the primary elemetns themselves have with things, for example, '0' with nothing, or 'a' with a line ? You are forced to admit, at very least, that no similarity is necessary in these elements. This for example, is the case with respect to the words 'light' and 'bearing' even though the composite word 'lightbearer' is related to the words 'light' and 'bearing', in a way that corresponds to the relation between the thing signified by 'lightbearer' and the things signified by 'light' and 'bearing'. B. But the Greek word phosphoros has the same relation to phos and phero. A. The Greeks could have used another word instead. B. True. But yet I notice that if characters can be applied to reasoning, there must be some copmlex arrangement, some order which agrees with things, an order, if not in individual words (though that would be better), then at least in their conjecture and inflection. And a corresponding variegated order is found in all languages in one way or another. [My comment: very true of chinese]. This gives me the hope that we can avoid the difficulty. For though the characters are arbitrary, their use and connection have something that is not arbitrary, namely, a certain correspondence between characters and things, and certain relations among different characters expressing the same things. And this correspondence or this relation is the ground of truth. For it brings it about that whether we use these characters or others, the same thing always results, or at least something equivalent, that is, something corresponding in proportion always results. This is true even if, as it happens, it is always necessary to use some characters. for thinking. A. Well done! You have completely untangled yourself in an execllent way. And the analytic or arithmatic calculus confirms this. For, with numbers, things will always come out the same way, whether one uses the decimal system or, as some have done, the duodecimal system. And if, after that, you use seeds or other countable things to show what you explained in a different way using the calculi, it will always come out the same. This is also true in analysis, even though using different characters, different properties of things appear more easily. But the basis of TRUTH IS ALWAYS IN THE VERY ARRANGEMENT OF CHARACTERS. For example, if you call 'a ** 2' the square of 'a', then by taking 'b + c' for 'a', you will have as the square '+ b ** 2 + c ** 2 +2bc.' Or, by taking 'd - e' for 'a', you will have the square '+ d ** 2 + e ** 2 - 2de.' In the prior case we express the relation of the whole 'a' to it's parts 'b' and 'c', and in the latter case we express the relation of the part 'a' to the whole 'd' and to 'e', that which is in 'd' over and above 'a'. However, by substituting, it is obvious that it always comes to the same thing. You see that, by whatever decision the characters are chosen, as long as a certain order and measure is observed in their use, everything will always agree. Therefore, although truths necessarily presuppose some characters, indeed, sometimes they deal with characters themselves, truths don't consist in what is arbitrary in the characters, but in what is invariant in them, namely, in the realtion they have to things. And it is always true, independent of any decision of ours, that if, given such and such characters, such and such reasoning will succeed, then it will likewise succeed given others whose relation to former ones is known; however, the reasoning preserves a relation to the former ones that results from the relation among the characters. This is something obvious from substituting and comparing. -- End. -- Will gladly discuss via email.