Hello,o o o o o o o o o
I have master's level training in logic and meta-logic, high marks, A's, but am not a practicing logician at all, I am a neo-empiricist pluralist (epistemic and ontological) who does not think any single CTM based model of the mind can be reduced to logic exactly because of a categorical ambiguity that gets contingently invoked.
Neurons appear and so must be first modelled as objects with endogenous functions rendered over many internal sub-relations describing their emergent dynamics (behaviour). BUT, when we swtich to building a bit model of human cognition in terms of neural patterns and inter-dynamics, especially when thinking of the brain as composed of neural bit maps made morphic to structures in reality "outside", we then need to categorize neurons on more purely exogenous and relational terms too.
I do not believe this is allowed (does not lead to wff's) in any model built over any singular, i.e. a strictly reduced and monist and singular classical logic based model, but I am not versed enough in these technical terms to be certain here about the argumentative or procedural complexities involved, and would welcome any logician's insights here (I am a "fan" of semi-classical model building, although!).
I am looking for a practiced logician, with expertise in Model Theory (building structures of interpretation) who might have a peripheral interest in philosophy of mind, but who is willing to consider non-classical approaches.
Quid pro quo!
If you want a primer on my overall concern with the limits of finalizing totalized logical models (TOE's), please give this a go:
Preprint Why Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Will Never be Integrated
Thanks, Brian
yes and the answer is the ancient tattva of 3 gunas of yogapsychology as mentioned in my book Book yogapsychologie
Good afternoon. Your question is constructed in such a way that the answer will always be in the affirmative. This is because you are using the possibility operator "Can..." The answer to this type of question will almost always be utvredient and contextual. You did not specify what you mean by "logic model" and "relationship". There is a famous work by Martin Buber "I and You" (German: Ich und Du), 1937. If you carefully study his works (I, You, He, It), you will find quite detailed answers to your question.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
"Before the immediacy of relation, everything mediating loses its significance. It may be that my You has already become an It for other selves (the "object of universal experience") or can only become one - because my essential act has exhausted itself and lost its power - none of this matters either...That the immediate relation involves an effect on the pre-existent is evident in one of the three examples: the essential act of art determines the process by which the image becomes a work. In the relation-relationship, the pre-being is realised through the encounter through which it enters the world of things in order to infinitely act, to infinitely become It, but also to infinitely become You again, inspiring and inflaming. The pre-existent is 'embodied': its flesh comes from the flow of the present, unbounded by space and time, onto the shore of the becoming." (Martin Buber 1937)
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Brian Palmer
I’m not much of a logician either, but it seems to me that given standard first-order logic, one can introduce an operator λx such that, when prefixed to an open sentence (predicate), creates a singular term for a property or relation. So for example given the open sentence Fx one can create λxFx to be a singular term naming the property of being F (or F-ness) and with the open sentence Hxy one can create λxyHxy as a name for the H-relation.
Then it’s business as usual:
Kermit likes the property of being green: LkλxGx
Kermit likes the relation of being to the right of: LkλxyRxy
The property of being tall, blonde, and not overweight is desirable. Dλx(Tx & Bx & ~Ox)
Parenthood is statutory: SλxyPxy
And the λ-terms can be quantified over just like the regular singular terms:
e.g. if SλxyPxy then ∃xSx
And you could quantify into the scope of the λ-operator too.
So basically you'd have a way of using singular terms as either unstructured objects or as displaying some internal relational features.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology