Indian Logic Forum

Applied Logic :: RE: Science of remote sensing

RCS

Author: RCS
Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:22 am (GMT 0)

Recall Indian Luna Mission, Chandrayaan-I. It detected water on moon.

Did it really come in contact with water? NO. But water was INFERED, anumanNED, from spectral analysis. Of course it is a complex process. But it still is anumana.

Buddhist Logic :: RE: The Chariot Analogy Predicament

RCS

Author: RCS
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 11:17 am (GMT 0)

Part-whole relation

What comes first, parts or whole?

One thing is sure. Nagasena cannot be compared with a chariot. Period.

Nagasena was born with ALL the skandas in place. A chariot has to be built part by part. Thus the same part-whole theory cannot be applied to both.

Applied Logic :: Science of remote sensing

RCS

Author: RCS
Subject: Science of remote sensing
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2010 5:06 am (GMT 0)

Remote sensing is the science and process/method of determining the properties of an object without coming in physical contact with it. We do it in our daily life without being conscious of it.

But in modern times it relates to the data remotely sensed by satellites moving at 800 kms or more above the earth's surface. One or a series of such images are analysed by various techniques, but human interaction is very crucial for visual inspection and drawing inferences.

The process is not different from anumana in logic system. An object is identified on the basis of size, shape, context of location, optical signatures, thermal signatures etc. Suppose a clear inference is NOT possible about an object. If we cannot un-ambiguously determine whether the hill has SMOKE or MIST, then there is no alternative but to inspect it personally. In remote sensing terminology it is called ground truth establishment.

Remote sensing also deals with classes of objects in an imagery. You can group various objects into classes, each having class having members with similar dharmas and gunas.

BUT. Computers and image processing hardware and softwares are available, but a human judgment is final and cannot be eliminated.

Queries and comments please!!

Buddhist Logic :: RE: The Chariot Analogy Predicament

RCS

Author: RCS
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:00 pm (GMT 0)

Do the parts have independent existence, rather meaning at all. A wheel not fitted in a chariot has no meaning except that it is A WHEEL.

But Nagasena's body is a different matter. Are hairs Nagasena? NO. But can a Nagasena exist without hairs? yes. So with each skanda. Nagasena can live and exist without hands, feet, nose, ears etc. He still is Nagasena, but the amputated limbs have no meanings,

Chariot is a different object. Is wheelless chariot a chariot? NO. It is anything but a chariot.

Cat can be without a grin. A grin without a cat? A la Alice in Wonderland.

If Nagasena has a meaning without a FEW skandas, dharma too is the same. But not so for chariot.

Dharma can exist without parts.

Summing: Chariot analogy is a bad one, it is alogical and has no reasonable foundation.

Epistemology :: RE: Anumana deductive, inductive, or nonmonotonic?

RCS

Author: RCS
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:33 am (GMT 0)

RCS wrote:

1. All men are mortal
2 Socrates is a man
Therefore
3 Socrates is mortal

There is a MAJOR problem here. How has it been determined that all men are mortals?

Plamen wrote:

In formal logic, this is not a problem. Since no one has proved the opposite, 1 is held to be true. Provided 1 and 2 are true, it follows that 3 is also true.

In Indian logic, 1 is ascertained by means of yogaja-pratyaksa, in European - by means of induction.

Proof of the contrary is not necessary here. Proof of mortality of man is IMPOSSIBLE without induction. Even induction can be fallible. In this case even deduction is doubtful.

How to prove ALL MEN ARE MORTALS? You can : So far it is true. How about future? How can be sure that that none of the billions is an immortal? How will dismiss my claim that I am immortal? You will have to monitor me. And who knows you do will not die before I do? Who will prove it? You can say : Another monitor. How many successive monitors might be needed if live beyond 200 years? 500 years?

Epistemology :: RE: Anumana deductive, inductive, or nonmonotonic?

RCS

Author: RCS
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2010 11:19 am (GMT 0)

Plamen wrote:

In modus tollens, it is the absence of fire that proves the absence of smoke - only the upadhi is a little bit different: provided the locus is not water.

Then modus tollens is not valid here. Absence of smoke does not prove absence of fire. There are fuels which burn without ZERO smoke and even without a visible flame.

I beg to differ, sir.