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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
