People have ideas en behaviour that sometimes may seem illogical and contradictory. Logical models can’t successfully explain these. Could a system, existing only of a stack of statements, explain illogical inconsistent behaviour?
Let’s look at the nature of statements. What are statements? How do they work? How do they interact?
If you try to convince somebody, you use arguments. Arguments are statements. The more statements you use, the bigger chance you have on successfully convincing the other to your point of view. Convincing someone is harder if someone previously had some counter arguments. You'll notice that existing statements won't get away. Sometimes you can confront someone with an inconsistency in his statements. Apparently statements can be contradictory, inconsistent. This is not what you'd expect in a logical model. People are not always aware of their inconsistencies. If you confront them, then a new truth arises caused by a new statement doing something with the old statements. Old statements do not disappear, but there impact can be diminished by new added statements.
You notice a new argument has much more impact than repeating old ones. This raises the question whether a statement can exist multiple times. Repeating statements has some effect. Does this mean the statements exist multiple times? Or do we have a number of arguments not exactly equal? A child may remember he has to watch out when crossing a street and he also remembers his mother told him ten times. Does the statement exists ten times? Or are there only two statements? 1. Watch out when crossing. 2. My mother told me this ten times.
Summing up statements (or arguments) have the following properties:
1. They stick. Once in the head they can not be deleted.
2. Within a system (or model) statements can be inconsistent.
3. To resolve an inconsistency one or more new arguments are necessary.
4. A new statement generally has more impact then the repeat of an existing statement.
5. It's still an open question, whether a statement can exist multiple times.
Dutch version / Nederlandse versie
Let’s look at the nature of statements. What are statements? How do they work? How do they interact?
If you try to convince somebody, you use arguments. Arguments are statements. The more statements you use, the bigger chance you have on successfully convincing the other to your point of view. Convincing someone is harder if someone previously had some counter arguments. You'll notice that existing statements won't get away. Sometimes you can confront someone with an inconsistency in his statements. Apparently statements can be contradictory, inconsistent. This is not what you'd expect in a logical model. People are not always aware of their inconsistencies. If you confront them, then a new truth arises caused by a new statement doing something with the old statements. Old statements do not disappear, but there impact can be diminished by new added statements.
You notice a new argument has much more impact than repeating old ones. This raises the question whether a statement can exist multiple times. Repeating statements has some effect. Does this mean the statements exist multiple times? Or do we have a number of arguments not exactly equal? A child may remember he has to watch out when crossing a street and he also remembers his mother told him ten times. Does the statement exists ten times? Or are there only two statements? 1. Watch out when crossing. 2. My mother told me this ten times.
Summing up statements (or arguments) have the following properties:
1. They stick. Once in the head they can not be deleted.
2. Within a system (or model) statements can be inconsistent.
3. To resolve an inconsistency one or more new arguments are necessary.
4. A new statement generally has more impact then the repeat of an existing statement.
5. It's still an open question, whether a statement can exist multiple times.
Dutch version / Nederlandse versie
No comments:
Post a Comment