Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
V 33
Perception/Similarity/Quine: transition from perception to perception similarity (perc.sim.) makes perception itself disappear - ontological clarity.
Similarity: three digit: Episode a resembles b more than c - perception similarity: in contrast, bundle of dispositions of 2nd order (to respond).
>Perception, >Dispositions, >Ontology.
V 35
Similarity/Quine: bundle of behavioral dispositions of 2nd order - relative: e.g. red ball, yellow rose - red rose, red scarf: depends on reward whether ball and rose are similar - perception similarity: if four-digit relation, then "viewpoint" superfluous - learning: here, there must be different degrees of similarity! - Otherwise any enhanced relation would equally be conditioned on every future episode, because they would all be equally similar - from that follows that perception similarity standards are innate.
V 37
Classes: do not explain similarity: an object does not have any more class memberships in common with another one than with any third one.
V 39
Similarity/Quine: Episodes: three types of similarity:
1) reception similarity: has to do only with input variables
2) behavioral similarity: ultimately definable by total quantity of fibers.
3) perception similarity: somehow in the middle between 1st and 2nd inner state: may be determined by previous stimuli, but not by the present ones! - Reason: perceptual similarity standards are subject to change (through more reward).
- - -
VII (a) 12ff
Meaning/Quine: problems: a) "having a meaning", b) equality of meaning: we can explore the latter via behavior, without having to adopt meaning as an entity.
>Meaning.
---
Lauener XI 108f
Similarity/Logic/Set Theory/Classes/Quine/Lauener: similarity has a dubious logic status: sets do not help in explaining:
Lauener XI 109
Things can be freely combined to sets - any two things are common elements of the same number of classes as any other two things - therefore it is not possible to reflect "a is more similar to b than to c" by "a and b together belong to more sets than a and c".

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.