> 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
> any laws KNOWN TO US.
>>Cooper shows that logical laws are dependent on which population model they
> 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
biological sense. So the majority can be wrong.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at