SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
> This response seems a little harsh, Seth was clearly talking about
> identification rather than identity (in its strict sense).
Exactly right. And since identification is utterly irrelevant to logic,
if Seth thinks otherwise he is clearly in need of some education. That
might be blunt, perhaps, but it's the simple truth.
> Perhaps FOL
> is nothing but mere mathematical jiggling without some connection
> (presumably epistemic) to the real world?
There is an epistemic connection between our *knowledge* of logic and the
real world, of course. There is no epistemic connection between *logic*
-- its content, that is to say -- and the real world. Logic simply tells
us the sober truth about valid patterns of inference.
> John was arguing (more or less)
> that any intelligence that 'worked' on reasoning would converge on FOL, as
> this is fundamental system underlying everything, Seth (more or less) doubts
> the universality of this,
With no sound justification.
> and at present I can't think of a strong counter to the subjectivity argument.
How about the fact that the subjectivity argument (or any such argument)
is going to presuppose the very logic that the subjectivity argument casts
into doubt?
> What's your opinion?
If I'm right, then Seth is wrong. I'm right. Therefore, Seth is wrong.
-chris
--
Christopher Menzel # web: philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel
Philosophy, Texas A&M University # net: chris.menzel@tamu.edu
College Station, TX 77843-4237 # vox: (979) 845-8764