When you make an argument, there are only two alternatives: true or false.
Why? Why there's not a range of possibilities? Something like this:

True----------------------|-----------------------False

The broader the argument is, the greater the range between true and false. Take for instance any ethical question. Ethical questions are very broad. It's not as simple as "good" or "bad". Or "right" or "wrong". Abortion, for instance, is none of these things. Whether abortion is "good" or not depends on the particular circumstances of each situation. Therefore, logically, any argument involving abortion would require a scale of truth, instead of a bipolar system.


Here's an excerpt for you to consider:

"Bivalence and the law of the excluded middle
Main article: Classical logic

The logics discussed above are all "bivalent" or "two-valued"; that is, they are most naturally understood as dividing propositions into the true and the false propositions. Systems which reject bivalence are known as non-classical logics.

In 1910 Nicolai A. Vasiliev rejected the law of excluded middle and the law of contradiction and proposed the law of excluded fourth and logic tolerant to contradiction. In the early 20th century Jan Łukasiewicz investigated the extension of the traditional true/false values to include a third value, "possible", so inventing ternary logic, the first multi-valued logic."

@en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

thats primitive 'fuzzy logic'. two value logic is the correct form.

in fuzzy logic intermidiate values should not be considered to be intermediate truth values but as the degree of belief one has in the truth of a statement.

some questions appear to be simple yes or no questions but turn out to be more complex than they appear on the surface. they have no yes or no answer.

For single specific assertions logic produces binary results (i.e. true or false). For complex assertions that contain multiple parts (ex. a scientific theory), logic produces complex results (e.x. part A is true, part B is true, part C is false). With complex results we can view view the results on a gradient (ex. 66% true). When we introduce humans into the picture we get a 3rd state of 'unknown' available to the mix. If we introduce subjective notions to the mix such as 'Good' and 'Bad' then logic cannot be applied as there is no objective true / false result. Morals / ethics are weighed against subjective values and the only place for logic is to possibly measure how much a behavior is aligned to presend-day values or possibly what present-day values should be to accomplish some objective result.

If we introduce subjective notions to the mix such as 'Good' and 'Bad' then logic cannot be applied as there is no objective true / false result. Morals / ethics are weighed against subjective values and the only place for logic is to possibly measure how much a behavior is aligned to presend-day values or possibly what present-day values should be to accomplish some objective result.

fuzzy logic does have its place. i prefer the example of hot/cold. some things are hot and somethings are cold. yet there is no clear boundary between them. whether morality is subjective is arguable but that belongs in another thread.

fuzzy logic does have its place. i prefer the example of hot/cold. some things are hot and somethings are cold. yet there is no clear boundary between them. whether morality is subjective is arguable but that belongs in another thread.

Well sorta. All people will proclaim a high or low temperature that can damage them to be hot or cold... and damage becomes an objective reason for this. Without damage we're dealing with subjective tolerances to objective sensory input. Various levels of pain and temperature receptor activity will result in differences in where people delineate hot and cold.

Ethics / morility seem very relevant as the thread starter's 2nd paragraph touched the subject.

When you make an argument, there are only two alternatives: true or false.
Why? Why there's not a range of possibilities?

Of course, there is... but it depends on the specific "logic" that you mean when you say it. "Logic" is "the ramifications of true and false". It is also quite logical to acknowledge that there is more to what is logical than what is true and false - shades of grey and all.

Practically, the most pertinent aspect of the system chosen for a particular application is "how easy it is to work with". Binary logic is quite straighforward and as it turns out can be easily modelled electronically. Fuzzy logic is not so straightforward. "maybe" adds a HUGE cost to computational efficiency.

So it seems to me that you're thinking of binary logic as prevalent because it's "where it's at" in terms of "let's use this to do something" which makes it quite popular amongst those who are trying to do things. Maybe you've never heard of fuzzy logic before because well to be simple: it's not as popular.

I remember something about "discrete systems" and "analog systems". In discrete systems, I'm pretty sure it turns out that there are often definitive solutions to problems, whereas in continous systems I think it's generally the opposite. At least I remember thinking something like that at the time I would have known something about it. The more I think about it NOW though the more full of shit I feel. Someone straighten me out there if needed.

*shrug*

"true" and "false" are the simplest form in which one can represent (model) the potentially changing state of something. Hence it's the defacto tool (component) of analysis? Further, I think any more complicated system can be modelled from this basic relationship, like in CC's example "TTF", yeilding "probably at 66%". (further further note that the computational cost of reaching "66%" is at least 150% of that of reaching "1 or 0", as you have to take 3 items into consideration instead of 2)

oh and btw, I can see no means by which morality could be other than subjective, as for it to be in the first place it does so within the confines of a particular perspective - no matter how ubiquitous it may otherwise seem.

trying to use fuzzy logic in placed where it is inappropriate is exactly what leads to immoral behavior. morality is simply about being rational.

trying to use fuzzy logic in placed where it is inappropriate is exactly what leads to immoral behavior.

inappropriate from what perpective, eh? do you claim that "appropriateness" can be objectively established? if so, how?

morality is simply about being rational.

hmm. i don't think so really, i think being rational is about being rational. morality is about adhering to a purported standard of behavior, idnit?

oh, and like it or not - fuzzy logic is all people have to go on whether they can admit it or not. brains operate via hueristics and such, as they are never privy to the universal scope of their circumstance by which to reach a definative, objective solution - not that there's anything wrong with that.

it's intersting to me though that to uphold or promote concepts like morality (which could be said to have a stabalizing effect on the species overall), I think it's objectively imperative that the reality of its subjectivity be ignored, or the wind is pretty much out of the sail.

logically, i think the morality argument is "argument from authority" and as such - not logically sound. however, it's practicality outweighs its need for logical justification. Otherwise the razor would have sliced it right off.

hmmm, arguments from authority: the real world liars paradox, or maybe the cretin thingy. nah it's something like that though...

you have to believe your answer is correct or it isn't.

so much of human thought it really this way. fascinating stuff really.

*gasp*

I think I'm soaking in it, maybe.

DAMN YOU AGNOSTIC SOB!

morality is simply about being rational.

Not when it's based on religion, which it mostly is.

inappropriate from what perpective, eh? do you claim that "appropriateness" can be objectively established? if so, how?



hmm. i don't think so really, i think being rational is about being rational. morality is about adhering to a purported standard of behavior, idnit?

oh, and like it or not - fuzzy logic is all people have to go on whether they can admit it or not. brains operate via hueristics and such, as they are never privy to the universal scope of their circumstance by which to reach a definative, objective solution - not that there's anything wrong with that.

it's intersting to me though that to uphold or promote concepts like morality (which could be said to have a stabalizing effect on the species overall), I think it's objectively imperative that the reality of its subjectivity be ignored, or the wind is pretty much out of the sail.

logically, i think the morality argument is "argument from authority" and as such - not logically sound. however, it's practicality outweighs its need for logical justification. Otherwise the razor would have sliced it right off.




fuzzy logic is indeed the basis for thought and as a result our thinking tends to be biased by our subjective wants and desires. that is why it is necessary to develop objectivity. being objective is being willing to accept the truth regardless of whether it is what we want it to be or not. by so eliminating subjective bias it is possible to eliminate the 'fuzziness' of our logic. many people are not willing to do this though.

even if we do so some things are inherently fuzzy. like hot and cold for instance. it is appropriate to use fuzzy logic for such things.

morality is about adhering to a purported standard of behavior, idnit?

its about adhering to objective moral laws which are no different from objective physical laws or objective laws of reason and logic.

Not when it's based on religion, which it mostly is.

morality based on religion? i always thought religion was based on morality.

oh and btw, I can see no means by which morality could be other than subjective, as for it to be in the first place it does so within the confines of a particular perspective - no matter how ubiquitous it may otherwise seem.
Yes. However, we still argue about morality. So how can we argue about something subjective while using objective methods? ;)

precisely.

fuzzy logic is indeed the basis for thought and as a result our thinking tends to be biased by our subjective wants and desires. that is why it is necessary to develop objectivity. being objective is being willing to accept the truth regardless of whether it is what we want it to be or not.

but you, as you, cannot have a "not you" that is you to objectively verify your objectivity. :P so that's a nice thought and all but when it comes right down to it, it's yet another farce we use to validate our egos. it's all subjective, even if we agree that it isn't. that's not to say that there isn't an "objective reality", just that we can only relate to it through our subjective perspectives, which pretty much kaiboshificates your claim of personal objectivity. for instance, I even feel that there is some objective truth to what I'm saying, but I know this very feeling indicates only that truly: I'm full of shit.

by so eliminating subjective bias it is possible to eliminate the 'fuzziness' of our logic. many people are not willing to do this though.

no, you can't eliminate it. you can try, and you may do well. however, the only means by which you may validate your efforts is what? practicality I'd say. if you formulate a model that yeilds predictable results that work for you, and you see it over and over... certainly you may speak as to the utility of your model. this however, has no necessary bearing on its objectivity, as what you percieve as utilitarian is again... subjective - any way you frame it, it came from your mind.

even if we do so some things are inherently fuzzy. like hot and cold for instance. it is appropriate to use fuzzy logic for such things.

it is appropriate to "use fuzzy logic" when it provides utility to an end. regardless, the mind uses fuzzy logic in complex problem solving without our consent. it's part of its function.

morality is about adhering to a purported standard of behavior, idnit?

its about adhering to objective moral laws which are no different from objective physical laws or objective laws of reason and logic.

*coughbullshitcough*

I propose to you the following fundamental difference between "physical laws" and "the laws morality": physical laws appear to be static. the "laws of morality" are NOT. they change with the incredibly telling condition of "context".

oh and btw, I can see no means by which morality could be other than subjective, as for it to be in the first place it does so within the confines of a particular perspective - no matter how ubiquitous it may otherwise seem.

Hi wes. Quit advoiding me at MSN....

There's a book entitled "beyond subjective morality"... Which talks about subjectivity and 'objectivity'.... Subjectivity being the most important, and objectivity being discussed. Objective remarks about morality are indeed made, and it is a discussion of all of Kants ethics as well as others. I personally believe, this question can be discerned... take?

Objective remarks about morality are indeed made

So you're subjectively verifying that objective remarks were made. How does that work exactly?

and it is a discussion of all of Kants ethics as well as others.

Is the invocation of the name "Kant" supposed to have some impact? Objectively?

I personally believe, this question can be discerned... take?

What do you mean "take?"?

I assert that one who claims to be objective and without doubt is in a condition I term "unbound ego", where their perspecitive of the universe is perceived to them as usurping those of others they encouter, regardless of the arguments put forth by those others.

So you're subjectively verifying that objective remarks were made. How does that work exactly?

My subjective verification needs no thought.

Is the invocation of the name "Kant" supposed to have some impact? Objectively?

Sure. His morality has objective implications.

What do you mean "take?"?

I assert that one who claims to be objective and without doubt is in a condition I term "unbound ego", where their perspecitive of the universe is perceived to them as usurping those of others they encouter, regardless of the arguments put forth by those others.

Take, a.k.a. , take it away sallie! Of course this has no impact upon any of the objective thoughts which must be under consideration as to some idealism?

Am I mistaken.

Wes it trying to figure out his own machine. Wondering how exactly this "objectivity" applies to himself... *can't... work... right damn.. what the.. fuck.. is this... dude... thinking!*

no, you can't eliminate it. you can try, and you may do well. however, the only means by which you may validate your efforts is what?


I propose to you the following fundamental difference between "physical laws" and "the laws morality": physical laws appear to be static. the "laws of morality" are NOT. they change with the incredibly telling condition of "context".

to eliminate subjective bias from ones feelings one has only to be perfectly willing to accept the outcome of rational thought whether it is what you want it to be or not.

validation is by error correction. look up multi-dimensional parity.

moral laws do not change. dogma changes.

to eliminate subjective bias from ones feelings one has only to be perfectly willing to accept the outcome of rational thought whether it is what you want it to be or not.

this might be valid if you didn't realize that what's deemed rational is also subjective and variable. It varies with context that is created subjectively. what is rational is not necessarily rational to everyone, as they are not privy to the perspective of the subject in question.

validation is by error correction. look up multi-dimensional parity.

that only speaks to utility, not objectivity. can you see the difference, and why?

moral laws do not change. dogma changes.

you can't be serious. i can't see how you could arrive here. moral laws change from brain to brain, culture to culture, blah blah blah. it's not okay to kill sometimes, but other times, sure it's not great but acceptable. Other times you get a medal or fame or who knows what, depending on the culture and circumstance. in some societies there's no such thing as rape. in some it's okay as long as you're married (the state condones your rape). on and on. you're saying that of the myriad of possible "moral laws" you've found "THE ONE" that stand out above all others and you've objectively validated it? please, do tell.

I previously discussed.

Excess of everything is bad [whether good or bad].

In this sense, moving towards balance [homeostasis] from deviated good or bad is good otherwise bad.

Good<<<Balance>>>Bad = Wrong

Good>>>Balance<<<Bad = Right.

this might be valid if you didn't realize that what's deemed rational is also subjective and variable. It varies with context that is created subjectively. what is rational is not necessarily rational to everyone, as they are not privy to the perspective of the subject in question.



that only speaks to utility, not objectivity. can you see the difference, and why?



you can't be serious. i can't see how you could arrive here. moral laws change from brain to brain, culture to culture, blah blah blah. it's not okay to kill sometimes, but other times, sure it's not great but acceptable. Other times you get a medal or fame or who knows what, depending on the culture and circumstance. in some societies there's no such thing as rape. in some it's okay as long as you're married (the state condones your rape). on and on. you're saying that of the myriad of possible "moral laws" you've found "THE ONE" that stand out above all others and you've objectively validated it? please, do tell.



what can i say. you simply ignore everything i say and go on repeating the same thing over and over.

what can i say. you simply ignore everything i say and go on repeating the same thing over and over.

from what I've written, you think I'm "ignoring you"?

riiiiiiiiiiight.

done then.