dmb, Talking of "straw men" - I don't say anywhere "I reject it" Jeez. Ian
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 10:17 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > Ian said to dmb: > Logic is itself a set of constraints, but we should not be constrained to > arguments where logical relations between objects (spv's) are our ONLY > tools. I'm rejecting a narrow definition of intellect defined only by > logic. ...We are expanding intellect by adding "quality" considerations > to it. BUT, those "quality" considerations do not all lend themselves to > objective logic - algebraic language about "objects". Logical rationality > and definitions are indeed the "foundation" for the expanded intellect - > but not the whole of it - we need to build the extensions above it. > > > > dmb says: > Logical relations between objects? Intellect defined only by logic? > Algebraic language about "objects"? > > Who ever said any such thing such that you should feel the need to reject > it. Looks like a silly straw man to me. > > Thanks for nothing and congrats on the dazzling bullshit. You successfully > evaded the criticism without letting me see that. Nope, I didn't notice any > weasel-like moves at all. > > > > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
