carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/29/85)
ng of this line was eaten by a bug.] In article <27500106@ISM780B.UUCP> jim@ISM780B.UUCP writes: >I suggest that you read Richard Smullyan's "What is the Name of This Book?". That's *Raymond* Smullyan, Jim. You're getting him confused with me, which is easy to do since we're both Taoists, solipsists (but isn't everyone), classical pianists, and masters of fallacious logic. On the other hand, it's easy to prove that we are the same person, and I have done so in one of my books (what *is* its name, anyway?). This sentence should be disregarded, since it was inserted merely to fill out the article. And *this* sentence isn't even in English, although it may well seem so at first glance. On to the heavy-duty philosophy: A PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF DOG Consider the following statement, which we will call Sentence A: If this sentence is true, then Dog exists. Suppose Sentence A is true. Since this fulfills the condition in Sentence A, the consequent follows, i.e., that Dog exists. So we have shown that *if* Sentence A is true, then Dog exists. But that is just what Sentence A asserts; hence we have proven that Sentence A is true. It follows (by Sentence A) that Dog exists. Q.E.D. Arf, arf. By similar reasoning, one can show that humans have free will. Refute *that*, Rich Rosen. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes The rest of this article is in Bolivia, written on a