Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
Print What is the Opposite of Fish? | |
|
Ratheius Netheros
Assistant Professor  Usergroup: Members Joined: Mar 15, 2005 Total Topics: 49 Total Posts: 309 Last Blog: Helium and My Status as of Late |
 #11
peter rabbit wrote: Thank you for this long and interesting reply. My understanding of this is somewhat stymied by the symbols I'm afraid; I couldn't find the meaning of "^" or "v" on the wikipedia table of logical symbols, and would appreciate, if you have time, clarification of those points you made using them. Although I look forward to understanding what you say about the nature of the existence-non-existence type opposite, I think they take my intention down another path; one that I would like to discuss (I don't think, for example, that we are "talking nonsense when we speak of pure non-existence" - see the very first statement I make here) but which I would like to put aside for now. My problem is that I see there being two kinds of opposite inherent in statements, one the fish / ~fish type and the other the up / down type. Are they not two different kinds of opposite? It is the second type I am interested in here, I think. Or perhaps the first type is just a particularly essential example of the second type? Let me return to the analogy of the computer. A computer can express and display all manner of nuanced images and ideas, but somehow it all comes down to ones and zeros. Is there some way that all thinkable thought comes down to ones and zeros? The word fish for example might be thinkable (note I am making a distinction between "being thinkable" and "being meaningful") from being not a not fish, but it also might be thinkable because it is a composite lattice of relationships between formal opposites (wetness / dryness, curve / line, x-y-z axis feature-set, this-behaviour rather than that-behaviour). Or not? Perhaps this is nonsense, perhaps wetness / dryness can themselves be reduced to a network of opposites, or perhaps the human chip has a series of settings, zeros, ones, twos and xs - relationship being the atomic thinkable-giving property of thought rather than opposite? ^ is and and v is or. I was using the keyboard symbols I figured were closest. Twitter: http://twitter.com/hallwriting Writing: http://www.helium.com/users/566837 |
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere  Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
#12
poiko wrote: In my experience, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of opposites as anything but an arbitrary human measure of classifying the surroundings around him. The relation of "opposite" has no evidence in its favour - there is nothing to suggest that one concept and its opposite are in some way connected by their alternate meanings. Especially not a relation to which Plato takes it (curiously enough, he argues that opposites prove life after death, as all opposites apparently follow the other - death follows life, and thus life follows death). So my position is that the word "opposite" is a classification system, and has little meaning other than that. However, I also believe meaning is use. It's pointless attempting to search for objective definitions - just like objective moral laws; a objective law maker is required - and language is evidently man-made and thus subjective. Hence there can't be a "right" answer, there can only be an answer which is nigh universally "accepted". The only boundary to the meaning of words is that they must denote something empirically observable (as otherwise the thing it denotes is incomprehensible) but otherwise, as long as both people in a conversation knows what the other means in a conversation when they use words, all is well. We codify language for practicality. Consequently, the word "opposite" can mean anything, and depending upon what your subjective definition of the word is, your question will be answered tautologically. As the word doesn't denote anything objective, as long as everyone knows what you mean by opposites, they should not complain when you use it to answer the question - because the word has subjective definition, and they will be aware of yours (leniency is allowed because there is little "accepted" definition of the word opposite). So the answer, to sum up my argument, depends upon how you define opposite. And as the word does not denote some objective concept that can act as a source of knowledge, it does not really matter how you define it. As it is not an objective thing that can be pointed to; the basis of opposites for a theory of knowledge seems flawed to me.In my experience, there is no empirical evidence for the existence of opposites as anything but an arbitrary human measure of classifying the surroundings around him. The relation of "opposite" has no evidence in its favour - there is nothing to suggest that one concept and its opposite are in some way connected by their alternate meanings. Especially not a relation to which Plato takes it (curiously enough, he argues that opposites prove life after death, as all opposites apparently follow the other - death follows life, and thus life follows death). So my position is that the word "opposite" is a classification system, and has little meaning other than that. However, I also believe meaning is use. It's pointless attempting to search for objective definitions - just like objective moral laws; a objective law maker is required - and language is evidently man-made and thus subjective. Hence there can't be a "right" answer, there can only be an answer which is nigh universally "accepted". The only boundary to the meaning of words is that they must denote something empirically observable (as otherwise the thing it denotes is incomprehensible) but otherwise, as long as both people in a conversation knows what the other means in a conversation when they use words, all is well. We codify language for practicality. Consequently, the word "opposite" can mean anything, and depending upon what your subjective definition of the word is, your question will be answered tautologically. As the word doesn't denote anything objective, as long as everyone knows what you mean by opposites, they should not complain when you use it to answer the question - because the word has subjective definition, and they will be aware of yours (leniency is allowed because there is little "accepted" definition of the word opposite). So the answer, to sum up my argument, depends upon how you define opposite. And as the word does not denote some objective concept that can act as a source of knowledge, it does not really matter how you define it. As it is not an objective thing that can be pointed to; the basis of opposites for a theory of knowledge seems flawed to me. Yes, I see what you are saying, but even if words have whatever value you care to assign them, there would seem to be a language faculty by which those words together are made intelligible, and this faculty seems to work relatively, in that I understand the command to "move up" the ladder not as absolute poetry, but as a direction on the up end of an up-down spectrum. When someone says "she is small" I understand this as small in comparison with humans, not as small in comparison with planets and so on. It is the the nature of relationship, and relationship's relationship with binary opposites that I am looking to explore. I am not talking about what "opposite" or anything else means, rather what makes thoughts thinkable. I do not wish to bring meaning and understanding too far into the discussion, if possible, as meaning seems to be partly determined by whatever point in the infinite landscape of experience we both inhabit, if any. odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
|
poiko
Student  Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 19, 2009 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 50 |
#13
peter rabbit wrote: Yes, I see what you are saying, but even if words have whatever value you care to assign them, there would seem to be a language faculty by which those words together are made intelligible, and this faculty seems to work relatively, in that I understand the command to "move up" the ladder not as absolute poetry, but as a direction on the up end of an up-down spectrum. When someone says "she is small" I understand this as small in comparison with humans, not as small in comparison with planets and so on. It is the the nature of relationship, and relationship's relationship with binary opposites that I am looking to explore. I am not talking about what "opposite" or anything else means, rather what makes thoughts thinkable. I do not wish to bring meaning and understanding too far into the discussion, if possible, as meaning seems to be partly determined by whatever point in the infinite landscape of experience we both inhabit, if any. Ah, but the difference between your examples and "opposites" is that your examples are clearly empirically observable. One can see the difference between up and down; or varying amounts of size. The relation of "opposite" is not an empirically observable concept; and that is why it is an arbitrary, man-made classification system. I think the meaning of the word is key to the question of the thread, for the reasons I have stated. And as you base your theory of knowledge upon the word, it seems prudent to me for us to first analyse the word you place so much upon. |
|
peter rabbit
Impossibilihere Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 22, 2009 Location: London Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 133 |
#14
poiko wrote: The relation of "opposite" is not an empirically observable concept; and that is why it is an arbitrary, man-made classification system. I'm afraid I don't understand this. Why is "opposite" arbitrary and "up" not? Do you mean completely arbitrary? poiko wrote: I think the meaning of the word is key to the question of the thread, for the reasons I have stated. And as you base your theory of knowledge upon the word, it seems prudent to me for us to first analyse the word you place so much upon. I applaud your prudence. odyssey to very nearby: http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/ |
|
poiko
Student Usergroup: Members Joined: Apr 19, 2009 Total Topics: 5 Total Posts: 50 |
#15
It's arbitrary in the sense that it doesn't exist as a relation that exists naturally. "Up and down" are empirically observable - the words denote a relation that can be seen. The relation of one opposite to another can't be empirically observed. Instead, mankind has arbitrarily invented the concept, perhaps as an effort to classify the world, perhaps just to formulate dichotomies which make the world more easily understood. I guess this doesn't make it utterly arbitrary (after all I just gave possible reasons for it). Perhaps fallacious would have been a better word. peter rabbit wrote: I applaud your prudence. I detect a subtle level of sarcasm... hehe. |
|
willem
starchild Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 03, 2004 Location: Belgium Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 306 |
#16
ice-cream 
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org |
|
Banno
the One-Line Wonder!  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Aug 15, 2004 Location: Oz Total Topics: 180 Total Posts: 9672
|
#17
willem wrote: ice-cream No: compassion. 
And does not my art show that you have brought forth wind, and that the offspring of your brain are not worth bringing up? |
|
Mako
Assistant Professor Usergroup: Members Joined: Feb 15, 2006 Location: Nanjing Total Topics: 16 Total Posts: 451 |
#18
What is the Opposite of Fish? Perceiver of fish...  Oh well, I tried.
|
|
willem
starchild Usergroup: Members Joined: Jan 03, 2004 Location: Belgium Total Topics: 4 Total Posts: 306 |
#19
Banno wrote: No: compassion. Fair enough. 
www.msf.org www.icrc.org www.greenpeace.org |
|
ecspose
Graduate Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 11, 2005 Total Topics: 12 Total Posts: 222 |
#20
peter rabbit wrote: What is the opposite of fish? I would have to say bird. Ratheius Netheros wrote: What is the opposite of a unicorn? I would say Nightmare, (the mythical horse-like creature with flaming hooves and breath). The opposite of forward is backward, and not ~forward. I would say the state of ~X is a necessary, but not sufficient characteristic of an opposite. Just because sideways is ~forward does not make it opposite. So, in that regard I would say language at least is not binary. In binary there are only two possibilities, but that is only for efficiency. Powers of two are the most compact way of expressing values when a transistor is only capable of two states. There is no special characteristic of binary language which higher function languages are dependent on. If a microchip was capable of operating in tri-nary or quad-nary, it would be better yet. Because there are only two possibilities in binary, complex associations between different combinations must be realized in order to express something meaningful. Even if the brain were to operate with binary switches on the most basic level, the same wouldn't hold true for thought. Thought would have be built on a scaffold of expressions deliberately exceeding 1 and 0. |
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.