tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post6395463200072991566..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 來龍去脈之重要Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-35911374676756033532012-03-02T01:10:25.622-08:002012-03-02T01:10:25.622-08:00Oh, then I agree with Quine. It's not because ...Oh, then I agree with Quine. It's not because I know modal logic but because I don't like to use my brain. :) I remember that I read a bit about it before but I lost my interest very quickly. --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-20301276006957568472012-02-26T10:47:00.427-08:002012-02-26T10:47:00.427-08:00"模態邏輯" is the translation of "modal..."模態邏輯" is the translation of "modal logic".W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-84144683135497058522012-02-26T01:17:30.624-08:002012-02-26T01:17:30.624-08:00// Quine 為何反對模態邏輯//
模態邏輯=fuzzy logic? I assume it ...// Quine 為何反對模態邏輯//<br />模態邏輯=fuzzy logic? I assume it is.<br />I am not a philosophy major. But how can a person 反對模態邏輯?<br />If what he meant was 反對模態邏輯 as used in philosophy, that's no problem with me. I am not qualified to evaluate such a claim anyway. <br />The problem I have is this. A far as I know, fuzzy logic was invented by a prof of EE. (Never remember his name.) If you're an engineer, you can pretty much forget about most, if not all, the theory behind it (written by that prof and others) and just use the methodology in application. Most of those "highbrow" theory have nothing to do with application. As an engineer, you just need to know the steps or procedures to crank out numbers, of course with understanding. I remember Wong has posted a link to something about unmanned driven car. One way to do such a feat is to apply fuzzy logic s/w in controlling the car. Of course one needs other h/w like sensors etc. Let's say such an application (fuzzy logic s/w) works. How can one 反對模態邏輯? It's like 反對 the methodology in building a fridge, a microwave, or whatever. <br />Application of fuzzy logic is mostly in control process in engineering. It is just not a "traditional" control process.<br />I am not an engineer. I don't follow how well they do in fuzzy logic control. But around 15 years ago I saw some video about their having success (an early stage) in an unmanned driven car, which was put in a road test in a parking log (not really a road, haha). It drove itself slowly and avoided cars parking there. I also knew about a lab in an engineering dept in which students did fuzzy logic control to balance a broom on a moving cart. I also heard of other applications in appliances.<br /> --zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-78443031910749782992012-02-25T13:24:54.204-08:002012-02-25T13:24:54.204-08:00對,但人事實上已有道德,不能再回到從前動物的狀態了。對,但人事實上已有道德,不能再回到從前動物的狀態了。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-4028762391200774142012-02-25T13:22:15.343-08:002012-02-25T13:22:15.343-08:00所謂壞心腸,不過是自從有了道德之後,才有的說法。
在原始狀態中,野蠻、自私、兇狠、好色,是個體存續...所謂壞心腸,不過是自從有了道德之後,才有的說法。<br /><br />在原始狀態中,野蠻、自私、兇狠、好色,是個體存續及物種存續的必需呀。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-57477453059535783202012-02-25T13:18:38.385-08:002012-02-25T13:18:38.385-08:00我講得不清楚,我的意思是:就算天生的傾向是基因決定的,也不表示某一天生的傾向便有一特定的基因,因為同...我講得不清楚,我的意思是:就算天生的傾向是基因決定的,也不表示某一天生的傾向便有一特定的基因,因為同一的傾向可以由不同的基因關係引致(例如:即使犯罪傾向是一個人的整體基因決定的,亦未必有所謂的犯罪基因)。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-11437199047159564362012-02-25T13:11:35.301-08:002012-02-25T13:11:35.301-08:00謝謝補充。謝謝補充。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-60720590089966038252012-02-25T00:02:51.684-08:002012-02-25T00:02:51.684-08:00如果不是基因遺傳的話,說嬰兒一出生就有壞心腸又似乎是很難理解?如果不是基因遺傳的話,說嬰兒一出生就有壞心腸又似乎是很難理解?神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-55688285069466294152012-02-24T23:56:02.994-08:002012-02-24T23:56:02.994-08:00謝謝王Sir解釋。如果以維基的解釋來看,natural kind應該像是“化學元素”那樣的天然物,而...謝謝王Sir解釋。如果以維基的解釋來看,natural kind應該像是“化學元素”那樣的天然物,而「腦退化症」不知道是屬於對某種疾病的描述,抑或也可以作為是一個專用名詞?或者是兩者都可以而令到「腦退化症」成為semi-rigid designator(亂造詞)...haha..神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-65344805356308834852012-02-24T23:47:44.543-08:002012-02-24T23:47:44.543-08:00不好意思,以前凖備過這方面材料(由於覺得這是個有意思題材),想插兩句。
比如,目前常用作判定men...不好意思,以前凖備過這方面材料(由於覺得這是個有意思題材),想插兩句。<br /><br />比如,目前常用作判定mental disorder的The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM)體系中,是傾向於不支持將mental disorder看成是natural kind那個approach的。通常在某個mental disorder下會列舉出一些症狀,然後醫師按照患者多大程度上符合那些描述,再作判定。裡面是沒有一個(或一組)的標準可以看作是某症狀的必要和充分條件的(為避免模糊,會提供有一些臨床診斷上的建議為補充)。<br /><br />可參:http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/dsm4TRclassification.htm<br /><br />至於醫師在使用mental disorder術語時,是不是會接近於descriptive theory所講的?我真的沒有想過。這應該是很有意思的問題吧!<br /><br />cycAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-90596735527129125372012-02-24T22:45:23.565-08:002012-02-24T22:45:23.565-08:00應該不會一舊舊、一塌糊塗,但會似是而非,看似清楚,其實混淆。應該不會一舊舊、一塌糊塗,但會似是而非,看似清楚,其實混淆。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-34033859920073623012012-02-24T22:40:34.192-08:002012-02-24T22:40:34.192-08:00如果「腦退化症」只是一組描述的縮寫,那便不是一個 rigid designator;如果「腦退化症」...如果「腦退化症」只是一組描述的縮寫,那便不是一個 rigid designator;如果「腦退化症」是一個 natural kind term,那麼根據 Kripke,那便是一個 rigid designator。(你可能不明白 "natural kind term",但我沒時間詳細解釋了,見諒。)W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-81834342195198737162012-02-24T22:33:35.529-08:002012-02-24T22:33:35.529-08:00冇辦法,哲學術語有時就係咁咖啦!冇辦法,哲學術語有時就係咁咖啦!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-31657314858016998582012-02-24T22:27:15.426-08:002012-02-24T22:27:15.426-08:00我那個只是很籠統的說法,能否用基因來解釋是另一回事。我那個只是很籠統的說法,能否用基因來解釋是另一回事。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-57046196090541587992012-02-24T22:25:27.426-08:002012-02-24T22:25:27.426-08:00我也聽過不少類似的故事,有些是在 Princeton 讀書的朋友親眼見的。
天才也有正常的。我也聽過不少類似的故事,有些是在 Princeton 讀書的朋友親眼見的。<br /><br />天才也有正常的。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-19880886437066427412012-02-24T21:49:43.455-08:002012-02-24T21:49:43.455-08:00那麼「腦退化症」能否算是rigid designator呢?那麼「腦退化症」能否算是rigid designator呢?神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-2739915392627688972012-02-24T19:02:39.870-08:002012-02-24T19:02:39.870-08:00查實英美哲學書如果係寫得差的話, 可以點差法? 講野會一舊舊, 一塌糊塗,不知所云? 但好難想像,英...查實英美哲學書如果係寫得差的話, 可以點差法? 講野會一舊舊, 一塌糊塗,不知所云? 但好難想像,英美哲學作品可以寫成咁。Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-64097907650053135932012-02-24T17:58:52.030-08:002012-02-24T17:58:52.030-08:00我連rigid同designator兩個字點解都未知係乜
所以根本無可能知你講乜我連rigid同designator兩個字點解都未知係乜<br />所以根本無可能知你講乜文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-81607504022801375082012-02-24T12:52:42.173-08:002012-02-24T12:52:42.173-08:00聽聞 Kripke 在一個 public lecture 上 (如果沒記錯,好似就是 John Lo...聽聞 Kripke 在一個 public lecture 上 (如果沒記錯,好似就是 John Locke Lecture),雖然悠然自得地講他的 rigid designator,卻因為開不到一樽水而當場 panic 起來... Kripke 是神人,但如果這是天才的代價,真也不知值不值得羡慕...Derek Lamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07873539530484853426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-12414449074500095992012-02-24T12:20:33.160-08:002012-02-24T12:20:33.160-08:00「天生就有壞心腸」是不是就是曾經有報導說過人有所謂的「犯罪基因」?「天生就有壞心腸」是不是就是曾經有報導說過人有所謂的「犯罪基因」?神洲http://gmue2008.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-21501200181557929792012-02-24T08:15:30.011-08:002012-02-24T08:15:30.011-08:00係呀。係呀。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-58412842541925418962012-02-24T08:14:44.839-08:002012-02-24T08:14:44.839-08:00我是談做學問,而做學問往往不會簡單輕鬆、但求自己過癮便算。如果不是研究 Kripke 或研究他說的 ...我是談做學問,而做學問往往不會簡單輕鬆、但求自己過癮便算。如果不是研究 Kripke 或研究他說的 rigid designator,就要點明,以免誤會。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-85516332011938776292012-02-24T08:10:37.106-08:002012-02-24T08:10:37.106-08:00這個問題我沒深思過,只能說我不相信人性本善,相信有些人天生就有壞心腸。這個問題我沒深思過,只能說我不相信人性本善,相信有些人天生就有壞心腸。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-23549400919982564892012-02-24T07:47:44.854-08:002012-02-24T07:47:44.854-08:00Kluwer 都有出唔少英美哲學書?Kluwer 都有出唔少英美哲學書?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-90969210455411108822012-02-24T07:45:45.194-08:002012-02-24T07:45:45.194-08:00"做學問要見樹亦見林,論點或概念的樹很多時不但要放在理論整體的林來看,也要連同理論放在歷史..."做學問要見樹亦見林,論點或概念的樹很多時不但要放在理論整體的林來看,也要連同理論放在歷史發展的林來了解,才可以了解得準確和深入,分析哲學也不例外。"<br /><br />如果說,自己只係受某幾個概念啟發,只關心論證本身,只求表達自己的理解,不需要理會是否符合其他學究學者所建構出來的理論整體及歷史發展的林,至於理解得是否準確深入,是否胡亂運用 “rigid designator” 這一概念,就如曾特首說,對得住自己就得,反正由不是要做個Kripke學者.... 如此一來,生活不是會簡單輕鬆得多?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com