ROBOTIC UNIVERSALS: AN APPRAISAL OF CATEGORICAL DEDUCTION DRAFT ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the subject of whether Nathan Coppedge’s categorical deduction is in fact subject to critique, opening the nuances of argument which defend this highly conclusive method. Attention is paid to which ways the method and its variations are emotional, how it could be valid in that context, and which things remain robotic about the analytic context of the deductions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been examining dualistic (comparative) conceptions of truth vis a vis my system of categorical opposites. In some ways these are not the most advanced implication of the system, (e.g. they are not usually coherent without a further context of comparison which may then be treated as qua exclusive) but they are intrinsic to the method. The primary interpolation is between one opposite and another, either one being the exclusive or standard measurement of the potentially wider context of comparison. Thus, for example, good-evil generally represents the context of morals (applying pragmatics usually), and sanity-insanity represents the general context of mental function. These may be seen as kinds of ‘bargains’ or relativistic measurements. Without the negative (or sometimes neutral) opposite there is no way of increasing the standard of analysis, to reach for something more functional or representative. In other words, standards of the good are even more functional concepts of evil. If this were not the case, the function would lose coherence, with little exception. So, the question is whether a four-square (quadra) method based on this is in fact a robotic, arbitrary manifestation of a simple principle of opposites, or if in fact it can produce original analysis. I have generally fallen in favor of the latter. The use of dualities seems to represent an exponential skeleton for analyzing the logical relationship between fields of potentum which may not be typically compared, or which leverage reasonable concepts of correspondence. The sheer potential is also to apply neutral concepts of opposition, with the result that general distinctions such as good and evil, function and displacement, or many other even quasi- realizable relationships, are quickly available without extensive premising or deliberation. Indeed, the promise is to hold out the same exact assumptions independent of the context that is being used. Now I will address potential criticisms to the idea that my categorical deduction and related methods have a robotic function. Later I will address general problems with the theory that knowledge could be robotic. First, there is the question of whether the system is qua exclusive. Qua is understood to mean that understanding can be understood (as functional), whether or not it actually has function. On this account, there is really no disputing that opposites are exclusive of the measurement of the axis of judgment. It can be understood that I have an assumption that neutrals are meaningless, but this does not prevent anyone from using neutrals if in fact they function in the same manner as opposites. If they do not function in the manner of opposites, it may be reasonable to conclude that they are incoherent, because they do not refer to the definition of the limits of definitions, defined by the opposite comparisons---That is, it is unmoored. The argument that exclusivity is inhibited because not all opposites can be used in a comparison does nothing to eliminate the potential to compare any two given opposite pairs. If those opposite pairs can be used in this way, then it is factual that coherent knowledge could be constructed piecemeal. In other methods, the coherency is retained in comparisons between multiple quadra. It would be hasty to conclude that these are dysfunctional logical machines without first analyzing what I believe to be a flawless context simpliciter, namely the relatively contingent nature of separate opposite pairs. Even if the comparison is not purely contingent, it is true that some may disagree with the level of coherence, even if the content is indisputable. References to the anomaly of the results can be dissuaded with reference to how a typical intellectual comparison lacks coherence entirely. In other words, the use of categorical deduction and related methods is the only available standard. In that context, some level of arbitrariness may be excusable, because it is held to a more perfect level of rubric. It does refer, although some of the structure is arbitrary without considerable formalism. In my book I describe methods for adducing further than four opposites, bringing into consideration that to some extent the acceptability of the system is analogous to the valence of formalism----if the method can become more complex, it seems less reasonable to conclude that the simple methods are wrong, if it is obvious that they are not one hundred percent wrong. The simple choice between one opposite and another may seem ad hoc, but the argument from ad hoc conditions does not dismantle the view that by the terms of opposites---once accepted as alternate definitions with variable content---that the primary choice is one of duality. Indeed, the system accepts that alternate definitions of opposites could be proposed, if it was premised that they did in fact constitute opposition. But without a qua exclusive definition of opposites used, the value of the categories in defining exclusivity is lost. With those arguments in place, there is no longer a criterion of critique. Within the context of its limited assumptions (oppositeness, separate exclusions for context categories, binary choices), categorical deduction tends to serve as a functional application of reason. Not, perhaps a universal application (although there is a case for that view, if opposites are deemed eternal or else descriptive), but in fact, a level of describability which provides some standard of judgment. The determination that judgment is arbitrary may be ignoring the view that the descriptions are fundamentally independent of empirical or subjective considerations. However, if there were no standard for its coherence, it could then be raised that there are equal systems with equivalent functions. That, however, is not the case. The system as it has been defined cannot be improved without considerable innovation, It provides a standard of standardization (categories in the truest sense). And, indeed, the statement that the right system would not use categories seems to deny that categories are the only form of qualia-field, and hence to lean too heavily on variative formulas of intelligence. Although the formula for this logic is strictly defined, similarly to the parameters imbedded in a robot, this is not to say that it says nothing about emotional reality. Perhaps there is a tendency that the system involves accepting a schizophrenic medium between opposites---often called ‘schism’---however, there are two arguments which refute this. First, it makes the reasonable deduction that in practical terms madness is as important in the sense of being analyzable, as reasoning. This is necessary because exclusivity must take account of all---or some definition of all---exceptions to rules. If opposites are not embraced, there would be outliers which are neither neutral nor encompassed by the system. In other words, there is a priority for coherency. Secondly, the comparison of context-to-subject (described in a sparse few prior papers) is actually an ‘ameliorative capacity’. In other words, the concepts become collectively more neutral and more definitive, when categorical deduction is used. This is because of the coherence, but it is also because the sum of two separate axes of comparison tends to be neutral in two dimensions. There is an outlier argument that the comparison is instead positivistic, but this does not detract from the value of the method. Now I will address the question of whether knowledge in general is robotic. Initially, it seems that that is what categorical deduction is determining. But, however, this does not address the idea that opposites are qualities. The qualific aspect of comparisons has potential to render qualia-based results, which have an advantage over mathematics. They can describe qualities, and, if every opposite is interpreted as a measurement of multiple potential qualities, then the potential is actually even more productive. The schism that is present in categorical deduction is actually the schism in interpreting the relationship between qualities. Considering the coherence of this type of system, the measurement of qualities is certainly advantageous. Where an analogy compares opposite concepts, a categorical deduction compares opposites with contexts. The adoption of qualifier methods, e.g. interpreting half of the diagram as qualities instead of objects----provides an additional advantage. And it seems to follow from an additional duality, the duality between qualities and objects. What is robotic about a diagram which measures qualities? Perhaps it is its physical structure or dominance of information. We should not take anthropological or subjective experiences as evidence that a system or method is faulty. It would be better to arbitrarily emotionalize the contexts represented, with the view of understanding psychological as well as interpretive methods of understanding. What I have not considered is other methods of reasoning. And my conclusion is that many are unmoored, with the potential to alienate the reader’s critical knowledge from any island of reference, or definite corollary. Ultimately, the failure of categorical deduction is simply how logical it is, not any way in which it is a failure. The appeal of irrationlist arguments is an extension of the dysjunctive or dialectic method, a method which in my view has no major tradition of coherence. Readers of books on phenomenology, for instance, are often expected to assume that the context has correspondence with perceptions or nature, without any way of comparing or separating object from quality. In other words, traditional dysjunction tends to be transparent or one-dimensional. Even statements that Mary had lambs because she is a herder and herders have lambs produce a level of transparency and contingency which is not equivalent to the categorical deduction. With a supercomputer, it is possible to reach many comparisons, maybe even organized sentences (I have evidence of this), using categories. The limit of such a method is not its logical aspect, or its unemotionalism (some contexts are emotional, others are not), but instead the simple degree of interpretation, the willingness of the witness, to find correspondences so expressed and declare them to be significant. Nathan Coppedge, SCSU 10/13/2013