Given a 4-tuple of Boolean variables (a, b, c, d), logical proportions are modeled by a pair of equivalences relating similarity indicators ( \({a \wedge b}\) and \({\overline{a} \wedge \overline{b}}\) ), or dissimilarity indicators ( \({a \wedge \overline{b}}\) and \({\overline{a} \wedge b}\) ) pertaining to the pair (a, b), to the ones associated with the pair (c, d). There are 120 semantically distinct logical proportions. One of them models the analogical proportion which corresponds to a statement of the form “a (...) is to b as c is to d”. The paper inventories the whole set of logical proportions by dividing it into five subfamilies according to what they express, and then identifies the proportions that satisfy noticeable properties such as full identity (the pair of equivalences defining the proportion hold as true for the 4-tuple (a, a, a, a)), symmetry (if the proportion holds for (a, b, c, d), it also holds for (c, d, a, b)), or code independency (if the proportion holds for (a, b, c, d), it also holds for their negations \({{(\overline{a},\overline{b}, \overline{c}, \overline{d})}}\) ). It appears that only four proportions (including analogical proportion) are homogeneous in the sense that they use only one type of indicator (either similarity or dissimilarity) in their definition. Due to their specific patterns, they have a particular cognitive appeal, and as such are studied in greater details. Finally, the paper provides a discussion of the other existing works on analogical proportions. (shrink)

According to Tye's PANIC theory of consciousness, perceptual states of creatures which are related to a disjunction of external contents will fail to represent sensorily, and thereby fail to be conscious states. In this paper I argue that heat perception, a form of perception neglected in the recent literature, serves as a counterexample to Tye's radical externalist claim. Having laid out Tye's absent qualia scenario, the PANIC theory from which it derives and the case of heat perception as a counterexample, (...) I defend the putative counterexample against three possible responses: (1) that heat perception represents general (i.e. non-disjunctive) intrinsic properties of objects, (2) that heat perception represents the non-specific heat energy that is transferred between a subject's body and another body and (3) that heat perception exclusively represents heat properties of the subjects own body. (shrink)

Commonsense reasoning often relies on the perception of similarity as well as dissimilarity between objects or situations.

Résumé — En assignant la notion de création ex nihilo à la « représentation » , Hegel affirme son caractère non pleinement rationnel : en user, c’est selon lui voir des substances là où il faut discerner des moments. Figeant et isolant les termes en jeu, la représentation déboucherait sur le dialectique , sans permettre de passer au spéculatif . Ainsi, posant créateur et créature comme des substances distinctes, elle donnerait lieu à une « dialectique du fini et de l’infini (...) », où chaque terme « passerait en son opposé ». Mais Hegel omet de distinguer le couple fini/infini du couple esprit fini / esprit infini, ce qui le conduit à traiter ce dernier comme un couple de contraires ; et c’est ce qui ne semble pas tenable. Autant la stricte séparation des termes du premier couple débouche bien sur une dialectique ruineuse , autant la nette distinction des termes du second couple est la condition d’authentiques relations spirituelles, de personne à personne. En fait, la notion de création est, telle quelle, pleinement adéquate à la désignation d’un originer dont le fruit est un être à part entière,libre – et non un simple moment.— In assigning the notion of creation ex nihilo to « representation » , Hegel asserts its character not fully rational. According to him, in using this notion, one sees substances where one should discern moments. By fixing and isolating the terms at stake, representation leads to a dialectic type of reasoning , without allowing speculative reasoning . Hence, establishing creator and creature as distinct entities, it produces a « dialectic of the finite and the infinite » in which each term « would be interchangeable ». Yet, Hegel fails to distinguish the pair of concepts finite/infinite from the pair finite spirit / infinite spirit, which leads him to consider the two terms of the latter as opposite ; and that is precisely what is questionable. Although the strict separation of the terms of the first pair of notions leads to a self-annihilating dialectic , making a clear-cut distinction between the terms of the second couple is the necessary condition to deal with authentic relations from person to person. Actually, the notion of creation as such perfectly matches the designation of a gesture giving birth to a free and independent being instead of a simple moment. (shrink)