Sunday, March 24, 2013

conventional logic always ignore the existence of weak logical states

Question:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130321225341AALwjcV

Why conventional logic always ignore the existence of weak logical states?

This question extends:
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

For example, consider the existence of a 'thought-object'

Thought object is a piece of knowledge constructed by mind, with or without the aid of sensory organs.

Let Like = True, Dislike = False.

Possible strong logical states are:
1. (Like and Not-Dislike = Like) or 2. (Dislike and Not-Like = Dislike)

Possible weak logical states are:
3. (Like and Dislike) or 4. (Not-Like and Not-Dislike)

Conventional world is clear with 'strong states' and accept them.
But, 'weak states' are confusing/fuzzy to western thinking and rejects them.

Sometimes, weak states are condemned/ misinterpreted as 'signaling to left and turning to right like women drivers'.

Unfortunately, ignorance of 'weak states' in conventional logic misses important information in decisions making.

'Uncertainty principle' also has suggested the same.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovat…

Additional Details

This question extends to inter-dependency of two 'thought-objects'
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind…

@MTR 2.0,
weak states 3 and 4 are not equal and are in different directions as thought (intention).
Like half full is positive thinking and half empty is negative thinking, though the glass has same water level.

@Robert J,
This question points at a fundamental issue of complete vs incomplete thinking, than a simple argument of definitions. Your comment demonstrates subjective-objective concern in western thinking, with ad-hog collection of knowledge, failing to integrate and loose information. Such a non-stable education breads partial and greedy and self-centered products. See the non-violence fundamental Buddhist thinking in contrast to U.S. foreign policy value system and the destruction to the nature.

I think human with advanced minds should try to think beyond the low standards and correct their fundamental errors in thinking by studying the sources.

@Robert J,
This question points at a fundamental issue of complete vs incomplete thinking, than a simple argument of definitions. Your comment demonstrates subjective-objective concern in western thinking, with ad-hog collection of knowledge, failing to integrate and loose information. Such a non-stable education breads partial and greedy and self-centered products. See the non-violence fundamental Buddhist thinking in contrast to U.S. foreign policy value system and the destruction to the nature.

I think human with advanced minds should try to think beyond the low standards and correct their fundamental errors in thinking by studying the sources.

Thanks guys, I'm getting beautiful comments here.

@mitten,
I agree that "western thought" should not be narrowed to geography.
I refer it's sources to the holistic creator God concept as objectivity. From that objective creator, man got restricted as a subject. Irrespective of religious believes, western thinker is sourced to be dependent. It is a strong self-centered belief, full of greed, hatred and ignorance.

In contrast Buddhist thinking is open, independent and creative and does not attach to it, because the creation is non-existing/fictional. Non-hatred, non-greed and non-ignorance are the reasons behind Buddhist thinking to be non-violent and non-destructive to nature. Asian culture is built on Buddhism for thousands of years, and western invasions with missionary education may have destroyed the good cultural thinking.

@mitten,
I too like Graham Priest's work.


Answer:

No comments:

Post a Comment