1.)All ideas can either be true, or false, or mystery (both true and false at once), and quantified perceptionally as 0 (m), 1(t), or 2(f). Our metalogic is ternary in nature.
Wow, well, I wasn't interested in getting involved in this aspect of the conversation, but since I've been quoted. . .
Consider this: The idea of a giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird. This idea is neither true nor false, nor is it mystery by your definition (which is both true and false, and since the idea is neither true nor false, it cannot be both true
and false).
For an idea to be
true or false, it must be applied to something for which true and false have some meaning. For instance, if I were to have the idea that I
saw a giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird, and if I had not, in fact, seen such a bird, then my idea that I
had seen such a bird would then be false. If I had seen such a bird, then the idea that I had seen the bird would be true. However, in neither case is the
idea of the bird itself true or false.
Another example, if I were to have the idea that "the number 1 implies a giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird", then I could say that this idea is logically false. However, that still does not imply that the idea of the bird itself is either true or false.
In fact, the idea of the bird, which has no context in which to judge the idea, can be neither true nor false. You missed this very important category, the one of ideas that are neither true nor false.
Your third category, mystery, or something that is both true and false, seems to imply that you define mystery as a logical contradiction. Since the definition of
mystery is most certainly
not logical contradiction , I'll simply ignore your definition of mystery. If you have a beef with me not using your definitions for terms, just let me know, and I'll let you know just exactly why redefinition of terms is such a bad idea, why people shouldn't use nonstandard definitions for words, why people don't use them, and why people will not appreciate you trying to get them to use your redefined terms.
As far as whether there are ideas which are both true and false, this is probably possible. If I were to think of myself holding a crumpled piece of paper, then I may be able to think to myself that I am both holding and not holding a sheet of paper, since straightening the paper will turn it back into a sheet of paper, but leaving it crumpled makes it something less like a sheet of paper (i.e. trash). However, these sorts of ideas, while interesting, have little bearing on the reality of the situation. What I'm holding is independent of the words that I'm using to describe it (crumpled, sheet, paper).
2.)Ideas trigger human behavior, and human behavior influence ideas.
Unfortunately, this statement is too vague to be useful. In order to make it useful, you would have to expand it to say something like this:
Ideas can act as a trigger for human behavior. Human behavior may also influence ideas. However, ideas may not always influence human behavior, and neither does human behavior always influence ideas. Ideas may arise independent of human behavior, and human behavior may arise from many causes that are not related to ideas.
Now, my first two sentences merely rephrase your original statement, but add a few words recognizing that the ideas and behavior do not necessarily and exclusively give rise to each other. The third statement is merely a matter of fact. People often have ideas that they do not act upon, or even consider when they do act. I've had many ideas about writing this response that I've left out and not even considered while writing this message, and I'm sure that
everybody experiences the same thing (otherwise posts would be totally unintelligible). Also, human behavior does not always influence ideas. No matter how many times I get spam e-mail, I'm not going change my mind about spam e-mail. If the spam e-mail didn't come at all, I
still would have the same opinion about spam e-mail. No change in outcome, so ideas not influenced by the spammers sending me the e-mail. Next, I say that ideas may arise independent of human behavior. For instance, if my cat does something funny, then I'll have an idea about it being funny, and a cat is definitely not a human. I can also think of the scene outside my house, which is an idea, and which is independent of human behavior. Finally, human behavior arises from a number of stimuli that have nothing to do with ideas. For instance, if you touch something that is burning hot, unless you are actively trying to burn yourself or have a neurological disorder, you're going to pull your hand back
immediately, before you have a chance to form an idea about that behavior. This is reflex, but there are a number of other possible stimuli that can give rise to human behavior that have nothing to do with ideas.
3.)All ideas spread, multiply in a way that can be likened to cell division. Ideas ‘copy’or dupiclate themselves exponentially and through time.
First, not all ideas spread. I just had an idea, and I'm not going to tell you what it is. In fact, I'm going to keep it to myself until I die (or, perhaps forget it before I die), therefore that idea is not going to spread.
For ideas that
do spread, they do not spread in a manner that is similar to cell division. Cell division is a very specific sort of process, and communication is a very different specific process. However, I would guess that you are talking about population growth for cells and ideas given the different processes of cell division and idea dissemination, and I will grant you that the naive mathematical models are similar (if I'm remembering correctly). However, they are not both exponential. The mathematical model that best fits both situations, at least in terms of population growth, is the
logistic equation. There are even better models that describe cell division and idea spread, but these more detailed models should be very different since the processes themselves are so different.
4.)All ideas are in conflict, or have the potential for conflict.
This is not true. I have an idea that I am sitting in a chair in my house on Earth. I also have an idea that I'm not in a rocket in space going to the moon. These ideas are not in conflict. In fact, they both describe a real situation, and so can both be considered to be true. They also have no potential to be in conflict, since the fact that I'm sitting in a chair in my house on Earth implies that I cannot be in a rocket in space going to the moon. However, they are also not the same idea, since not flying to the moon says nothing about what I'm doing that isn't flying to the moon, and sitting in a chair in my house on the Earth says nothing about what I'm not doing that isn't sitting in a chair in my house on the Earth.
5.)Human beings are not ideas, and are not in conflict.
Actually, human beings
are ideas. In fact, you, me, and just about everybody else has an idea about every other person they've ever met. So, a human being is both a real object, and a set of ideas that exists in other people that know of that human being. I couldn't interact with people if I didn't have an idea of what those people were and what they were like, and neither could anybody else.
As far as humans not being in conflict, that's not true. Assuming that land is valuable and humans want to possess it, if I have a plot of ground, and another person moves in next door and claims part of my plot of ground for himself, then suddenly my neighbor and I are in conflict. It necessarily follows from the fact that we both have claimed the same plot of land, and we are both motivated to possess that land.
6.)All human dilemma and problem can be said to be resolved when all sides or points of view ‘win’. Non zero sum strategies and games exalt human interactions to their fullest potential naturally. Discussion is a rational win win game in the metalogical strategy for 'truth'.
While it is certainly possible to have a non-zero-sum game, it is also possible to have a zero-sum game. In the example above where my neighbor and I both claim land, the conflict is zero-sum, since there are limited resources available. Either he gets the entirety of the claimed land and I lose it (summing to zero), or I get the land and he doesn't (zero sum), or we share it, in which case he gains land and I lose land (zero sum again).
If the resources are limited, as is the case in my example, and there are no other options, then a zero-sum game will occur as a necessary consequence of conflict. Fortunately, the real world is normally not so black and white, and many conflicts will have a non-zero-sum solution. However, not
all conflicts can have a solution that benefits every party in conflict because in some cases there are limited resources. So, the supposition that "All human dilemma and problem can be said to be resolved when all sides or points of view win" simply isn't true.
Oh, and, incidentally, you'll notice that I removed the quotes around the word "win." I did this because either you were using the standard definition of the word, in which case the statement has a meaning that everybody can understand and therefore doesn't need the quotes, or it has a nonstandard (and unspecified) definition, and I've already mentioned that I won't be using nonstandard definitions.
Your last statement, "Discussion is a rational win win game in the metalogical strategy for 'truth'" can be paraphrased as: Discussion is a part of a win-win strategy for determining truth that is beyond the province of logic. Well, discussion can also be easily used as part of a methodology for determining truth and falsehood logically, and I prefer logic, since talking about the illogical seems to me a rather pointless waste of time.
Wayne
).
