esk@wucs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (04/10/85)
One > = rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (you-know-who), Two >'s = me >> No it isn't rational, that's the whole point. Only a Humpty-Dumpty would >> describe the processes in rivers and rocks as "rational". [TOREK] > Didn't the water make a rational decision to go flow in the direction of the > rest of the river? [...] What's that you say? They're NOT deciding? [...] > In what way[s!] are the rock's processes of decision different from ours? Many. But you're missing the point here, which is about the term "rational", not (or not primarily) "decision". In order for some process to be rational, it has to involve the manipulation of cognitive representations of reality (beliefs, concepts, etc.). Rocks and rivers, lacking beliefs or anything of the sort, lack rationality. > If you use the method to "prove" the truth-preservingness of the method, > you have proven NOTHING. This is a verbal disagreement about the meaning of the word "proof". OK, I admit that there is a commonly accepted sense of the word that agrees with your usage. >> . Logical laws are rules of inference however, not >> statements, and neither true nor false. > Why? Because you say so? Because you take them as givens! You say that > they are neither true nor false simply because you cannot prove that > either way. I say they're neither true nor false because they're not the kind of thing that can be true or false. Rules of inference, like any rules, can not be true or false (they can be "valid" or "invalid", though). >> That's what Carroll proved, that reason's function is not performed by >> treating it as a premise. > What Carroll showed was the paradox of trying to prove logic with logic. NOT > that you have no reason to do so. He's probably spinning in his grave after > hearing your contention that he was trying to show that reason shouldn't be > treated as a premise! It's funny that you interpret it that way---it seems > to highlight your assumptions about logic. My interpretation of Carroll is not original. (I forget where I first got it -- Hofstadter?) It seems to be a consensus that Carroll's exercise was intended to show the normative, rule-of-inference nature of logic. Whether he intended to show that there is no need to justify logic, I have not said. I doubt it. You are probably right about his views there. -- Dick Naugle Says "o PREPARE FOOD FRESH o SERVE CUSTOMERS FAST o KEEP PLACE CLEAN" --Paul V. Torek