On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:23:25 AM UTC+1, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 at 7:57:48 PM UTC-5, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:49:48 AM UTC+2, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> Which high-lights the category error. Objects can't be inconsistent...so >>> they can't be consistent either. Only their description can be consistent >>> or inconsistent. >>> >> >> Now you're just playing with words. As I said, consistent object = >> consistently defined object; inconsistent object = inconsistently defined >> object. That's all. >> > > > > I don't think there really are any such things as "category errors" in the > first place, since categories are linguistic entities, not fixed platonic > universals. > > But in terms of inconsistency, there are paraconsistent logics > > *Why Paraconsistent Logics?* > > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1215/b3f65dbce2f2d23f18f751c4991e1ee9a614.pdf > > that are used by agent programmers to make AI agents. > > So in that sense *there are inconsistent objects*. >
There sure are inconsistent sentences in the sense that they contain words with contradictory meanings. But these sentences are not inconsistent in the ontological sense. In the ontological sense they are just strings of ink marks or sounds or other marks that exist on paper or in the air or in the brain, like any sentence. Also, these sentences don't refer to any object in reality. Some words in these sentences may refer to objects in reality but the sentences as wholes don't refer to anything. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
