John M wrote: > --- 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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@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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
