Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id IAA06730 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 08:53:29 -0500 Message-Id: <199511251353.IAA06730@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id E805D9D5 ; Sat, 25 Nov 1995 9:43:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 1995 08:41:42 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: fuzzylogic #3 heaps X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sat Nov 25 08:53:31 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU >But Peter still fails to set an independent, nonsubjective criteria for >distinguishing hills from mountains or heaps from nonheaps. Peter seems >to be using the same approach Ed Meese used to define pornography, "I >know it when I see it." Surely language, even natlangs, can accomplish >more than that! Why? Language cannot overcome psychology. If we wanted to make some objective criteria to distinguish hills from mountains, we could do so (though I note that Lojban uses the same gismu for both %^). Obviously, at boundary conditions, definitions break down, as you cited with your shovel. The standard of lexicography sees that language use of a content word shows a scattering of meanings over the possible semantic space. Dictionary definitions are words to cover an *arbitrary* "most-of" that range of meanings. And why should language "want to"? So you can turn a hill into a mountain at the boundary conditions, by the use of a shovel. Presumably you would be doing so because some real world action/decision hinges on the whether the object is considered one or the other. What benefit do you gain by defining "mountainhood" as a scale? You would simply require the resulting real world decisions/actions to set some standard for decision based on the fuzzy logic values, and then, for whatever granularity you set, someone can use a shovel to put you across a ordinal boundary and possibly into another decision state. Only an infinitely continuous scale eliminates this argument, and it requires an infinite continuity of decision responses, which is seldom possible. The most important events in our lives are binary - birth, death, marriage. There exists some plausible fuzziness even for these (especially where it concerns medical ethics), but for everyday people who are the ones who make the language work, fuzziness just makes it harder to make decisions, even if it would make the decisions more rational. lojbab