1Z wrote:
>
> Lennart Nilsson wrote:
>
>>No, you have the burden of showing what possible worlds could possibly mean
>>outside a real biological setting.
>
>
> I have shown that; HYPOTHETICAL states-of-affairs which do not
> contradict
> any laws KNOWN TO US.
>
>
>>Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
>>refer to.
>
>
> I have no doubt that whatver rules can be reverse-engineered from
> practical problem-solving tend to vary.
>
> I doubt that de facto problem-solving defines or constitutes logic.
>
> There are psychological tests which show that most people,
> 80%-90% , get certain logical problems worng. Of course
> the notion of "right" and "wrong" logic that is being appealed
> to here comes from the textbook, not from the study
> of populations. If populations defined logic, the majority couldn't be
> wrong (by textbook logic, anyway).
You misunderstand "population models". It's not a question of what members of a species think or
vote for; it's a matter of whether their logic will lead to their survival in the evolutionary
biological sense. So the majority can be wrong.
Brent Meeker
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Jul 09 2006 - 13:30:40 PDT