John M wrote:
> --- 1Z <peterdjones.domain.name.hidden> wrote:>
> >
> > Brent Meeker wrote:
> >
> (Skip to 1Z's reply)
> >
> > If you want to judge what is better in terms of
> > survival,
> > you need to use logic.
> And then you may be still wrong, things sometimes
> occur (in our terms - see below) as "illogical" or
> even: "counterproductive".
So much for the claim:
"If you use logic, you will never
go wrong". I never made that claim.
The claim I made was "Whatever else you
do, you'll be using logic. There is no
standpoint outside of logic. No, not
even evolutionary theory".
> Human logic is based on the
> 'part' of nature (in broadest terms) we so far
> discovered. Even only the reductionist representation
> of such.
> Further epistemic enrichment may change our views (our
> logic included).
Nothing can chnage one part of our logic without using another.
"X contradicts our logic" depends on the idea that contradictions
are wrong....which is logical.
> Withuin (BY?) our human logic we define 'correctness'
> as consistent within (by?) itself. Closing our minds
> to anything different.
Relax the rules too far, and you don't just get "something different",
you get "quodlibet" -- everything.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mon Jul 10 2006 - 17:36:31 PDT