Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Thu, 16 Jul 1998 04:37:37 +0100
Hi PLatt and Squadders
PLATT:
"Thanks for your post of July l3 in which you expand on the
methodology of fuzzification. I'm still confused, but then I'm
confused about a lot of things said on this site."
Join the club!
PLATT:
"I agree that we can view our experiences in various shades of gray
and can endlessly qualify the statements we make about our
experiences, "extending" ourselves up to ever higher levels of
abstraction until indeed there are no distinctions left, A morphs into
NOT A and all dissolves into one happy cloud of incoherent
mysticism."
Well, I've got nothing against mysticism - in moderation:-).
Fuzzification isn't just about increasing the number of variables that
can be used, it is a means of making a system more coherent in
terms of language and value. It destroys the idea that something is
either one thing or another, it is such and such or not etc. When
you go out in the morning to go to work or whatever, do you think
to yourself ONLY that it is either hot or cold. I wouldn't have
thought so. It may be a warm day or a chilly day or any one of a
number of other words that can express more fully how you feel
about the weather (you can tell I'm English!). I see this as similar to
the way in which I view parts of the MoQ. Any person is made up of
varying degrees of value (4 levels) and it is the variable degree of
these values and DQ and their interaction that produce a human
being. I know this doesn't answer the problem of continuity
between levels but that is another matter
PLATT:
"Which is all well and good. Pirsig's Quality has mysticism written
all over it, reflecting the experience that there are some things we
know that can never be put into words, whether bivalent or
multivalent. Abstract art is built on that premise, attempting to
show that what is irrational, meaningless and/or paradoxical is
nonetheless real and valuable."
Art is a good example of fuzzyness in value. How many times have
you heard the phrase (mainly in the tabloid press) "is it art or not".
It is more appropriate to express the degree to which something is
art. Okay, people will disagree as to the exact degree of artistic
value dependent on a number of factors, but they are not
disagreeing that something is art or not art (well not always). So it
is the development of aesthetic appreciation (also fuzzy), social
value, maybe biological value (pornography/erotica) etc. which
comes into play when discussing something of the nature of
artistic value. At this point there is valid discussion, not just my
opinion versus your opinion as to whether it is or is not art. The
discussion is about the intrinsic value a work of art possesses (or
in MoQish, the extent to which value possesses a work of art). I
think that this also opens up the question of morality in art
(value=morality) and the degree to which morality and art are
linked. All of this would be meaningless in an either/or discussion.
I agree that not everything can be expressed in language but at
least this opening up (fuzzification) provides for greater
possibilities. I also think that it is dynamic quality that is
expressed by abstract art. It may eventually drift towards stability
(static value) and enter mainstream art, as with cubism,
surrealism, etc., or it may be too dynamic and dissipate
completely, an example of inability to latch.
So by fuzzification (or whatever equivalent phrase you wish to use)
there are the two extremes (0 = no value, 1 = maximum value) and
a whole bunch of values in between. But the idea that something
is or is not has disappeared. Of course this doesn't mean that
extremes do not exist, at least in terms of intellectual constructs.
PLATT:
"If I read you right perhaps we agree on that. What boggles me is
that you seem to deny the efficacy of binary logic but then go right
ahead and use it to explain why "fuzzy logic" is better. In fact, I
would be so bold as to say that it's impossible to explain fuzzy
logic without comparing it to classical logic."
Hold on. I''ve programmed in assembler and hex and designed
digital circuitry so I can appreciate the the efficacy of binary logic.
But I wouldn't apply that binary logic to the world in general. As I
said in a post a very short time ago, the extension principle of
fuzzy logic regards binary logic as a special case where
membership grades are restricted to {0, 1}. Binary logic is ok in
some forms of computing, (although there is a move towards fuzzy
processors and logic for some uses) but it fails miserably in the
non-digital world. Binary logic has value for sure, but fuzzy logic
has greater value.
PLATT:
"Intellect depends on contrasts and comparisons, on patterns and
contexts, on hard distinctions between this and that. In other
words, without the hard "cuts" inherent in binary logic, intellect
would be lost, and we would be lost along with it. I know of no such
thing as being fuzzy dead."
Isn't this the patypii that Pirsig mentioned. Something is a mammal
or a reptile or a ....
All of a sudden we have the monotremes, which are apparently a
freak of nature. It's the hard distinctions that lead to these
paradoxes. Classification by intellect creates boxes into which
reality must fit. If it doesn't fit then apparently there is something
wrong with reality and not the other way around. Huh!!!
As for being fuzzy dead, there are plenty of examples of this. (Me
in the morning). Death is certifiable when the brain has ceased to
function, but a body can be kept alive long after the brain is dead.
So is the PERSON dead or not? There is a continuity of degree to
which something is alive. Intellectual and social patterns may die
before biological patterns die. Biological patterns decay into
inorganic patterns which then rise again as part of another
biological pattern. So at which point can you say that something is
completely and utterly dead in every sense of the word. To be
utterly dead something must possess no valu - in other words it no
longer exists. Your body consists of dead cells and live cells so
are you completely alive or do you consist of dead and alive
portions and to what degree.
PLATT:
"Again, I'm sure I've misinterpreted your viewpoint. But let me add
that even though I can find little common ground between us, I
thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. There's always hope that
someday I may "get it." "
Actually I think you've already "got it" but just not realised it.
In the meantime, be assured that I also think the MOQ "has made
our view of reality more coherent," not because it reflects fuzzy
logic, but because it describes and explains what I experience
better than SOM."
Fuzzification is a process that can be applied to a number of
areas, fuzzy logic is one area of fuzzification, not the whole of it.
What Pirsig did was to fuzzyfy SOM, because SOM can still be
recovered from MoQ. He extended the principles of SOM. What I'm
trying to do is apply some fuzzification to Value so that the
classification of value is extended. I don't like MoQ platypii any
more than I like SOM platypii.
I hope this makes my ideas a little clearer and you can get some
idea as to why I regard DQ/SQ and the 4 levels in the way that I do.
Horse.
"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST