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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to