Both "is X" and "is not X" are compatible.
2021-10-22
2021-03-031
The difference between vice and evil was a phenomenon that occurred in
What was referred to by the same word X was actually two nested concepts.
Thereby, a person looking at a narrow X thinks "A is not X", while a person looking at a broad X thinks "A is X".
This is related to: Relation Question.
- It's pretty abstract, though.
Are X and Y the same thing? Are they different?
seems to be neutral False dichotomy.
I'm ruling out the possibility of implication or overlap.
- What you thought was one concept is two nested concepts
- This is more specious
- Close, but not equal to this case.
- This is one person's case study
- I think this is essential.
- I think it is wrong to take meaning as a set in the first place.
- People recognize the meaning of a word by the representative case in their brain and the similarity to it.
- If we determine an appropriate threshold for that similarity, we can create a set, but we do not clearly recognize the threshold.
- Therefore, it becomes a "set with blurred boundaries" as shown in the above figure.
- The phenomenon of "the concept of X is a nested set" as in this case is simply a difference in threshold values
- By comparing meanings among the aptitudes, the difference in thresholds can finally be visualized.
- (2023-02-04)
- Meaning is not a set.
- Meaning not a set with definite boundaries, but a blurred circle with Blurred Boundaries
- An extension of this is the "non-numerical character of meaning" as explained in Study Group 2#61fb7718aff09e00004a7667 on "The Experience Process and the Creation of Meaning".
- Meaning is a vector. But it's just a dot.
- The operation "A is X" becomes an exact match only.
- Rather, some representative vectors in the brain and the similarity to them
- Determining a threshold for this similarity results in a set
- (2023-02-04) But humans don't have a clear threshold, and they set boundaries somehow.
- It is like a self-organizing map where representative vectors take up space and create a boundary.
- We haven't even determined the degree of similarity.
- Ha, Wittgenstein's familial resemblance says that meaning is not clearly defined as a set, but as a group connected by similarity!
Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his book "Philosophical Investigations," took the word "game" (German: Spiel) and pointed out that there is no common implication (significance) that characterizes all the extensions (objects) called "games," and that in fact they are only loosely connected as a whole by partially common features such as "winning or losing" and "entertainment value. He pointed out that there is no common inclusion (significance) that characterizes all the extensions (objects), and in fact, the whole is only loosely connected by partially common characteristics such as "winning or losing" and "entertainment," which he named "family resemblance. This idea, together with prototype theory, is the antithesis of the classical view of categories, which attempts to define words in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
- Familial resemblance - Wikipedia
The idea is that the categories people actually have are not classical categories defined by necessary and sufficient conditions, but are characterized by typical cases and their similarity to them.... For example, the word "bird" evokes small flying animals such as crows and sparrows, while ostriches and penguins are out of the typical case.
- Prototype theory - Wikipedia
- I've realized that meaning is not a set, and I'd like to discuss if this has any practical application.
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/「Xである」と「Xでない」が両立する using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.