@@ -23,11 +23,33 @@ # Bob infers X from other facts he thinks are true.
# Bob would infer X from other facts he thinks are true.
# Bob could infer X from other facts he thinks are true.
----
-For each statement three factors, all [fuzzy], and thus in the range of -1 (false) through
0 (unassertainable) through 1 (true) need to be addressed, viz The external falsifiable X, the process of arriving at the conclusion (1 rational (supported by evidence), 0 indeterminate and -1 irrational (contradicts evidence))
and the internal model
of X held by Bob.
+''Table
: Semantic Analysis
and Categorization
of Assertions''
-Examining the degenerate cases where the values are known, it is immediately apparent that there are only three "useful" (i.e. non-delusional) states, and that these comprise two positions providing knowledge (high utility) and one which should result in a search for further information). All of the other possible states require the assumption of the unproveable or the rejection of evidence and thus holding such states as true is not helpful. It can also be seen that when the '[fuzzy values]' representing the external environment and Bob's internal representation are out of kilter, that the results will deviate from the useful toward the non-useful. The same naturally happens when confidence levels are low. Also looking at Table 1, it can be seen that where the end result is unknown, the process is non-evaluatable (irrespective of the truth of the source). Where the end internal map matches the external state, there is a high correlation with a rational process having been used to reach the conclusion. Finally, where the conclusion differs from the external, there is a reasonable presumption of irrational processing.
+|Logical expression of existence|1|X.
+|Logical assertion of truth|2|X is true.
+|Sentence predicated on __Think__ [1]|3|Bob thinks that X.
+|Sentence predicated on __Believe__ [2]|4|Bob believes X.
+|Sentence predicated on __Considers__ [3]|5|Bob considers X to be true.
+|Sentence predicated on __Holds__ [4]|6|Bob holds X to be true.
+|Sentence predicated on __Categorizes__ [5]|7|Bob categorizes X as true.
+|Sentence predicated on __Knows__ [6]|8|Bob knows X.
+|Sentence predicated on colloquial expression "Would Bet" (low value)|9|Bob would bet on X.
+|Sentence predicated on colloquial expression with assigned value (intermediate value)|10|Bob would bet $100 on X.
+|Sentence predicated on colloquial expression with assigned value (high value)|11|Bob would bet his house on X.
+|Sentence predicated on colloquial expression with assigned value (highest possible value)|12|Bob would bet his life on X.
+|Sentence predicated on __Claims__ [7]|13|Bob claims that X.
+|Sentence predicated on conditional expression|14|Bob would say X is true if asked.
+|Sentence predicated on conditional compound expression|15|Bob would say X is true if asked and he had no reason to lie.
+|Sentence predicated on __Behave__ [8]|16|Bob behaves as if X is true.
+|Logical assertion, conditional|17|Bob infers X from other facts he thinks are true.
+|Logical assertion, future conditional|18|Bob would infer X from other facts he thinks are true.
+|Logical assertion, hypothetical conditional|19|Bob could infer X from other facts he thinks are true.
+----
+For each statement three factors, all [fuzzy|fuzzylogic], and thus in the range of -1 (false) through 0 (unassertainable) through 1 (true) need to be addressed, viz The external falsifiable X, the process of arriving at the conclusion (1 rational (supported by evidence), 0 indeterminate and -1 irrational (contradicts evidence)) and the internal model of X held by Bob.
+
+Examining the degenerate cases where the values are known, it is immediately apparent that there are only three "useful" (i.e. non-delusional) states, and that these comprise two positions providing knowledge (high utility) and one which should result in a search for further information). All of the other possible states require the assumption of the unproveable or the rejection of evidence and thus holding such states as true is not helpful. It can also be seen that when the '[fuzzy values|fuzzylogic
]' representing the external environment and Bob's internal representation are out of kilter, that the results will deviate from the useful toward the non-useful. The same naturally happens when confidence levels are low. Also looking at Table 1, it can be seen that where the end result is unknown, the process is non-evaluatable (irrespective of the truth of the source). Where the end internal map matches the external state, there is a high correlation with a rational process having been used to reach the conclusion. Finally, where the conclusion differs from the external, there is a reasonable presumption of irrational processing.
''Table 1: Utility Mapping''
|External|Bob's Perspective|Usefulness|Process
@@ -194,4 +217,75 @@
The external truth of X cannot be inferred by any of the other statements, as is easily seen by substituting something blatantly false like "the earth is flat" or "1+1=3" for X. I'm not sure where that leaves VectorHermit's analysis but I'm not hopeful.
I also think Hermit is reading way too much into the statements, inferring process where none is implied. Only statement 17 "Bob infers X from other facts he thinks are true" mentions how he came to categorize, hold, think, or believe X is true (and I see absolutely no difference between those, not even connotative).
+----
+[VectorHermit]
+As I noted on IRC, I wasn't finished. But sufficiently so that it seemed like a good place to take a break.
+Certainly the above establishes that I was out on a tangent.
+I didn't see the statements as being linked as I had understood that DavidLucifer had asked for the relationships between the assertions to be established and or evaluated. I attempted to begin doing so.
+
+However, I probably won't follow this line of reasoning further right now.
+
+The justification is:
+If some assertions are to be linked, then all must be linked.
+If all are linked then in my opinion, the semantic differences (and I think there are significant semantic differences between the multiple articulations - which I thought was sufficiently clear from the fact that even for those statements based on "dictionary words" as opposed to phrasing, were sufficiently clear not to require addressing at this stage) between the statements precludes all of the statements being true.
+DavidLucifer's assertion that he perceives no qualitative or structural differences between the clauses suggests that our positions are an ocean apart at this stage.
+
+As such, perhaps a purely linguistic analysis might be a good first step to achieving resolution. If DavidLucifer considers this worthwhile, perhaps he would indicate why he thinks that dictionaries define these words differently if there is "absolutely no difference, even connotative" between them?
+----
+Appendix A
+
+[1] Think
+
+v. t. imp. & p. p. Thought; p. pr. & vb. n. Thinking. OE. thinken, properly, to seem, from AS. thornyncean (cf. Methinks), but confounded with OE. thenken to think, fr. AS. thornencean (imp. thorn=ohte); akin to D. denken, dunken, OS. thenkian, thunkian, G. denken, d"unken, Icel. thornekkja to perceive, to know, thornykkja to seem, Goth. thornagkjan, thornaggkjan, to think, thornygkjan to think, to seem, OL. tongere to know. To conceive; to imagine.
+
+[2] Believe
+
+v. t. imp. & p. p. Believed; p. pr. & vb. n. Believing. OE. bileven (with pref. be- for AS. ge-), fr. AS. gel?fan, gel?fan; akin to D. gelooven, OHG. gilouban, G. glauben, OS. gil?bian, Goth. galaubjan, and Goth. liubs dear. See Lief, a., Leave, n. To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another.
+
+[3] Considers
+
+v. t. imp. & p. p. Considered; p. pr. & vb. n. Considering. F. consid'erer, L. considerare, -sideratum, to consider, view attentively, prob. fr. con- + sidus, sideris, star, constellation; orig., therefore, to look at the stars. See Sidereal, and cf. Desire. To fix the mind on, with a view to a careful examination; to think on with care; to ponder; to study; to meditate on.
+
+[4] Holds
+
+Hold, v. t. imp. & p. p. Held; p. pr. & vb. n. Holding. Holden, p. p., is obs. in elegant writing, though still used in legal language. OE. haldan, D. houden, OHG. hoten, Icel. halda, Dan. holde, Sw. h*alla, Goth. haldan to feed, tend (the cattle); of unknown origin. Gf. Avast, Halt, Hod. To cause to remain in a given situation, position, or relation, within certain limits, or the like; to prevent from falling or escaping; to sustain; to restrain; to keep in the grasp; to retain.
+
+[5] Categorizes
+
+v. t. To insert in a category or list; to class; to catalogue.
+
+[6] Knows
+
+v. t. imp. Knew; p. p. Known; p. pr. & vb. n. Knowing. OE. knowen, knawen, AS. cn"awan; akin to OHG. chn"aan (in comp.), Icel. kn"a to be able, Russ, znate to know, L. gnoscere, noscere, Gr. ?, Skr. jn?; fr. the root of E. can, v. i., ken. (?). See Ken, Can to be able, and cf. Acquaint, Cognition, Gnome, Ignore, Noble, Note. To perceive or apprehend clearly and certainly; to understand; to have full information of; as, to know one's duty.
+
+[7] Claims
+
+v.?. imp. & p. p. Claimed (kl=amd); p. pr. & vb. n. Claiming. OE. clamen, claimen, OF. clamer, fr. L. clamare to cry out, call; akin to calare to proclaim, Gr. ? to call, Skr. kal to sound, G. holen to fetch, E. hale haul. To ask for, or seek to obtain, by virtue of authority, right, or supposed right; to challenge as a right; to demand as due.
+
+[8] Behave
+
+v. t. imp. & p. p. Behaved; p. pr. & vb. n. Behaving. AS. behabban to surround, restrain, detain (akin to G. gehaben (obs.) to have, sich gehaben to behave or carry one's self); pref. be- + habban to have. See Have, v. t. To manage or govern in point of behavior; to discipline; to handle; to restrain.
+----
+__A useful table in case of need__
+
+|1|X.
+|2|X is true.
+|3|Bob thinks that X.
+|4|Bob believes X.
+|5|Bob considers X to be true.
+|6|Bob holds X to be true.
+|7|Bob categorizes X as true.
+|8|Bob knows X.
+|9|Bob would bet on X.
+|10|Bob would bet $100 on X.
+|11|Bob would bet his house on X.
+|12|Bob would bet his life on X.
+|13|Bob claims that X.
+|14|Bob would say X is true if asked.
+|15|Bob would say X is true if asked and he had no reason to lie.
+|16|Bob behaves as if X is true.
+|17|Bob infers X from other facts he thinks are true.
+|18|Bob would infer X from other facts he thinks are true.
+|19|Bob could infer X from other facts he thinks are true.
+----
