On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 1:49:30 PM UTC+1, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 7:22:46 AM UTC-5, Tomas Pales wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 at 12:58:27 PM UTC+1, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >>> >>> But if the running code of a robot (say installed in Sophia [ >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot) ] ) is compiled from some >>> paraconsistent logic program, I think it's perfectly fine to say *"Sophia >>> is a paraconsistent object."* >>> >>> >> The robot would be a paraconsistent object if some of its components were >> not what they are. >> > > > > I don't think that's a good definition of "paraconsistent", at least as it > would be taught to both philosophy and programming (computer science) > students. > > The SEP article is as good of an up-to-date (May 18, 2018) "textbook" as > any on the subject as any on the subject: > > https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/ > > by Graham Priest, et al. > > - pt >
Paraconsistent logicians don't have to believe that inconsistent sentences are true or that inconsistently defined objects exist. That would be dialetheism. Paraconsistent logic can be useful but dialetheism is bonkers imo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
