Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

fast
 
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 10:14 am
The word "or" is ambiguous. The word, "or" can be used to indicate an alternative. For example, "hot or cold." The word, "or" can also be used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression. For example, "acrophobia or fear of great heights."

So, "or" in X or Y may mean either one. If X and Y are synonymous or equivalent expressions, we can deduce how "or" is being used, but here's my problem:

X is also ambiguous, and it just so happens that X is synonymous or equivalent with Y in one use of the word X and not synonymous or equivalent with Y in the other use of the word X.

Here's an example:

An atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. The "or" between God or gods is being used to indicate an alternative, but it's not so clear how "or" is being used between X and Y where X is disbelieves and Y is denies.

There is a difference between not believe and believe not. "Denies" is equivalent with believe not," but "disbelieves" is ambiguous between not believe and believe not, so if "disbelieve" is used to mean not believe, then the word "or" is being used to indicate an alternative, but if "disbelieve" is used to mean believe not, then "or" is being used to indicate a synonymous or equivalent expression.

How am I supposed to know how "or" is being used?
 
xris
 
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 02:53 pm
@fast,
The two expressions are the same and the, or ,is only indicating the two diferent ways of expressing the same expression. If you think they are determining two different views then the, or ,is insufficient.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2009 03:49 pm
@xris,
xris;108418 wrote:
The two expressions are the same and the, or ,is only indicating the two diferent ways of expressing the same expression. If you think they are determining two different views then the, or ,is insufficient.


There are two meanings of "or": the inclusive sense, and the exclusive sense.

An example of the inclusive sense of "or" is, "the author of Tom Sawyer was called, "Mark Twain" or, "Samuel L. Clemens". (Sometimes we express this inclusive sense of "or" as, "and/or".

And example of the exclusive sense of "or" is: "You can marry Mabel, or Sally" The laws of bigamy prohibit marrying both. This sense of "or" is sometimes expressed as, X or Y, but not both X and Y.
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:03 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108434 wrote:
There are two meanings of "or": the inclusive sense, and the exclusive sense.

An example of the inclusive sense of "or" is, "the author of Tom Sawyer was called, "Mark Twain" or, "Samuel L. Clemens". (Sometimes we express this inclusive sense of "or" as, "and/or".

And example of the exclusive sense of "or" is: "You can marry Mabel, or Sally" The laws of bigamy prohibit marrying both. This sense of "or" is sometimes expressed as, X or Y, but not both X and Y.


Wiki about the exclusive "or". It is also called xor. It even has its own logical symbol. Swartz and Bradley spend some time discussing the interpretation of different uses of "or", "and", etc. in english in their 1979 book.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:17 am
@Emil,
Emil;108513 wrote:
Wiki about the exclusive "or". It is also called xor. It even has its own logical symbol. Swartz and Bradley spend some time discussing the interpretation of different uses of "or", "and", etc. in english in their 1979 book.


Since you can interpret the exclusive "or" in terms of the inclusive, there is no necessity for distinguishing two senses*. I think Quine points this out somewhere. Since the standard symbol for the inclusive "or" is "v". An upside down "v", with the apex at the top is the conventional symbol of the exclusive "or". The truth table for the exclusive "or" is, FTTF.

* Of course, you can interpret all the rest of the connectors in terms of just one of them (anyone) and negation. And you can interpret all of them in terms of just one connector, the Sheffer stroke, which is really, just conjunction and negation combined (if I remember correctly).
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:22 am
@Emil,
Emil;108513 wrote:
Wiki about the exclusive "or". It is also called xor. It even has its own logical symbol. Swartz and Bradley spend some time discussing the interpretation of different uses of "or", "and", etc. in english in their 1979 book.
Yea, I was going to say that or has meaning opposed to and. Being versed in "logic gates" used in electronics... an or gate lets either stimulus through. The and gate can only open if both stimuli are true.

This may be slightly off topic, but I was pondering the meaning of "+" (plus). It seems to imply a change in perspective. On one side we see different things, and only other side, those differences disappear.

Male + Female = the whole species

The differences disappear.

The whole species = male + female

Out of wholeness, differences appear. I wonder if this is a general rule... these signs we use... signify changes in perspective.

By this rule, the word "or" is a sign that gives equal potency to the objects. "And" means the potency is dependent on both objects appearing simultaneously... like with a co-signer on an account. This is change in perspective from the object itself to the greater pattern its a part of.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:29 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;108516 wrote:
Yea, I was going to say that or has meaning opposed to and. Being versed in "logic gates" used in electronics... an or gate lets either stimulus through. The and gate can only open if both stimuli are true.

This may be slightly off topic, but I was pondering the meaning of "+" (plus). It seems to imply a change in perspective. On one side we see different things, and only other side, those differences disappear.

Male + Female = the whole species

The differences disappear.

The whole species = male + female

Out of wholeness, differences appear. I wonder if this is a general rule... these signs we use... signify changes in perspective.

By this rule, the word "or" is a sign that gives equal potency to the objects. "And" means the potency is dependent on both objects appearing simultaneously... like with a co-signer on an account. This is change in perspective from the object itself to the greater pattern its a part of.


Sorry, I lost you somewhere between the "logic gates", and "the change in perspective", and, by the time we got to "potency" I was completely in the dark.
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108434 wrote:
There are two meanings of "or": the inclusive sense, and the exclusive sense.

An example of the inclusive sense of "or" is, "the author of Tom Sawyer was called, "Mark Twain" or, "Samuel L. Clemens". (Sometimes we express this inclusive sense of "or" as, "and/or".

And example of the exclusive sense of "or" is: "You can marry Mabel, or Sally" The laws of bigamy prohibit marrying both. This sense of "or" is sometimes expressed as, X or Y, but not both X and Y.
Sorry but these laws of philosophy appear crazy to me, they both give the same intentions of alternatives so or is or. How does your explaination give reason to his question.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:49 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108520 wrote:
Sorry, I lost you somewhere between the "logic gates", and "the change in perspective", and, by the time we got to "potency" I was completely in the dark.
Ummm.. sorry. A "logic gate" is an electronic apparatus that works like a gate. The gate requires certain conditions to be met in order for it to open. A gate has some number of pathways into it, usually two. What shows up on the pathways can be a 1 or a 0 (in the old days, 5 volts, or less than 1 volt) There's one pathway out of the gate.

An or-gate's output will be "1" if either or both of the inputs are "1"
An and-gate's output will be "1" only if both inputs are "1"

The part about perspectives is obscure. I like talking to you because you always make me think about explaining ideas I've never tried to explain before. Thanks!
 
Emil
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 08:55 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108514 wrote:
Since you can interpret the exclusive "or" in terms of the inclusive, there is no necessity for distinguishing two senses*. I think Quine points this out somewhere. Since the standard symbol for the inclusive "or" is "v". An upside down "v", with the apex at the top is the conventional symbol of the exclusive "or". The truth table for the exclusive "or" is, FTTF.

* Of course, you can interpret all the rest of the connectors in terms of just one of them (anyone) and negation. And you can interpret all of them in terms of just one connector, the Sheffer stroke, which is really, just conjunction and negation combined (if I remember correctly).


Yes, but then you argue against yourself. There is about as much need for xor as there is for any non-sheffer stroke "|".

And yes, you are correct about that. E.g. negation is p|p; neither p or p.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:04 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;108522 wrote:
Ummm.. sorry. A "logic gate" is an electronic apparatus that works like a gate. The gate requires certain conditions to be met in order for it to open. A gate has some number of pathways into it, usually two. What shows up on the pathways can be a 1 or a 0 (in the old days, 5 volts, or less than 1 volt) There's one pathway out of the gate.

An or-gate's output will be "1" if either or both of the inputs are "1"
An and-gate's output will be "1" only if both inputs are "1"

The part about perspectives is obscure. I like talking to you because you always make me think about explaining ideas I've never tried to explain before. Thanks!


I knew about the gates, but not about the perspective and the rest.

---------- Post added 12-06-2009 at 10:09 AM ----------

xris;108521 wrote:
Sorry but these laws of philosophy appear crazy to me, they both give the same intentions of alternatives so or is or. How does your explaination give reason to his question.



These are not "laws of philosophy". I am talking about how the word "or" is used in English, and in the propositional logic.

Sometimes I mean by "or" one or the other, or possibly both. And sometimes, one or the other, but not both. The first is the inclusive "or". The second is the exclusive, "or".

---------- Post added 12-06-2009 at 10:25 AM ----------

Emil;108523 wrote:
Yes, but then you argue against yourself. There is about as much need for xor as there is for any non-sheffer stroke "|".

And yes, you are correct about that. E.g. negation is p|p; neither p or p.



Yes, the only need for any other logical connector than the Sheffer stroke is to preserve one's sanity. Putting a long logical expression in terms of the Sheffer stroke is a chore, and takes patience. At least it did for me when I had to do it for class. But, of course, this is not a theoretical requirement.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 09:48 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108526 wrote:
I knew about the gates, but not about the perspective and the rest.


I see. You can make the exclusive or-gate (like you can have an apple or an orange, but not both) with one or-gate, two and-gates and an inverter (turns the 1 to 0, and vice versa).

I think that shows that the exclusive or is a complex of simple "or", "and," and negation. If I had schematic drawing software, I could show you.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 10:09 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;108534 wrote:
I see. You can make the exclusive or-gate (like you can have an apple or an orange, but not both) with one or-gate, two and-gates and an inverter (turns the 1 to 0, and vice versa).

I think that shows that the exclusive or is a complex of simple "or", "and," and negation. If I had schematic drawing software, I could show you.


Yes, in logical lingo, (p ^ q) = (if and only if) [(p v q) & ~(p & q)].
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 10:22 am
@kennethamy,
Very good but have you answered his question.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 10:28 am
@xris,
xris;108540 wrote:
Very good but have you answered his question.


What question is that?
 
fast
 
Reply Sun 6 Dec, 2009 11:02 pm
@fast,
Lexical Definition wrote:
An atheist is one who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Is the "or" in bold the inclusive "or" or the exclusive "or"?

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 12:06 AM ----------

I suspect that it's inclusive, but I suspect that Emil thinks that it's exclusive. How do we tell who is right?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:08 am
@Emil,
or is not a content bearing word/morpheme it is a grammatical morpheme with the function of differentiation X in some way differs from Y. Black or white, This or that, acrophobia or fear of great heights, even contextual/pragmatic differentiation of the same word are you in love or are you 'in love'?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:34 am
@fast,
fast;108678 wrote:
Is the "or" in bold the inclusive "or" or the exclusive "or"?

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 12:06 AM ----------

I suspect that it's inclusive, but I suspect that Emil thinks that it's exclusive. How do we tell who is right?


Why would you think that anyone thinks it exclusive? It would not be like, a bank is a place on the side of a river, or a financial institution. That would be an exclusive "or". X disbelieves in God implies that X does not believe in God (although not conversely). That is why disbelieving in God is strong atheism, and not believing is weak atheism. So, you may both disbelieve in God, and not believe in God.
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:25 am
@fast,
fast;108678 wrote:
Is the "or" in bold the inclusive "or" or the exclusive "or"?

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 12:06 AM ----------

I suspect that it's inclusive, but I suspect that Emil thinks that it's exclusive. How do we tell who is right?


I don't have an opinion. In my view lexical definitions like the above are simply not clear enough. Not surprising since it is a common english dictionary and not a philosophical dictionary.

---------- Post added 12-07-2009 at 09:28 AM ----------

kennethamy;108691 wrote:
Why would you think that anyone thinks it exclusive? It would not be like, a bank is a place on the side of a river, or a financial institution. That would be an exclusive "or". X disbelieves in God implies that X does not believe in God (although not conversely). That is why disbelieving in God is strong atheism, and not believing is weak atheism. So, you may both disbelieve in God, and not believe in God.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:37 am
@Emil,
Emil;108733 wrote:



If we assume that people can hold inconsistent beliefs, then why not? I think there is a confusion here between the beliefs and what it is that is believed.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 05:07:26