Hi Ham, > [Platt, syllogized]: > > 1) humans are aware > > 2) humans are composed of particles > > 3) :. particles are aware. > > [Craig]: > > This reasoning has got to go, else: > > 1´) humans are bipedal > > 2´) humans are composed of particles > > 3´) :. particles are bipedal. > > [Platt]: > Does this reasoning have to go, too? > > "If chemistry professors exercise choice, and chemistry professors are > composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise > choice too." (Lila, 12) > > 'Fraid so, Platt. A common flaw of categorical syllogisms is the > assumption > that if you have one characteristic of a group, you have all of the > characteristics. This is also referred to as the fallacy of the > undistributed middle. A syllogism with an undistributed middle term is > one > that attempts to equate two subjects by appealing to a shared > characteristic. > > Thus, for example: > 1) students carry backpacks > 2) my wife carries a backpack > 3) :. my wife is a student. > > Or -- following Pirsig's construction: > 1) birds can fly > 2) birds are composed of cells > 4) :.cells can fly.
In the first example, the premise is questionable. In the second example, if you add the word "exclusively" as Pirsig does in his syllogism, then the conclusion would be logically correct Right? (See Craig's explanation.) > But I also have a problem with Pirsig's premise that "chemistry professors > are composed exclusively of atoms". This would imply that if nuclear > scientists were able to configure atoms in precisely the arrangement that > constitutes the anatomy of a chemistry professor, they would create a > chemistry professor ...complete with the ability to "exercise choice", of > course. > > Surely you don't believe this. Surely I would never say never. The premise is accepted by many physicists who believe all is simply different forms of energy. That's at the root of Pirsig's criticism of SOM. How does "everything is different forms of energy" explain quality? In fact, how does it explain "different forms?" (That's when "oops" comes in.) As for configuring atoms of a person, I'm sure you're familiar with, "Beam me up, Scotty." Fiction now, but who knows? Regards, Platt Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
