RE: virus: Re:MS Flip Software Price

Robin Faichney (
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:28:17 +0100

> From: David McFadzean[]
> At 10:17 AM 10/14/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >Two questions: can we understand "parational" as simply
> >"apparently logical"? And, what's the difference (if any)
> I'd like to be able to say "objectively logical". Can there
> be such a thing?
I doubt it. Though logic obviously works very well
as a method, it remains a human invention, and I
don't think "objectively logical" means anything. If
you disagree, just try to explain exactly what it
does mean! (Your previous explanations made
me think of "apparently logical", which is obviously
not the same thing.)

> >between things that survive by being parational, and those
> >that survive because their doing so does not conflict
> >with any law of nature? (The implication of the second
> >question being, of course, that parationality, if it reduces
> >to "in accordance with the laws of nature", doesn't add
> >anything to our understanding.)
> I think it is a difference of levels of description. All of
> biology is "in accordance with the laws of nature" yet it
> adds to our understanding above and beyond physics. (Right?)
> At the logical level I'm thinking of things that somehow
> embody information about the external word (internal patterns
> that represent external patterns), and use that information
> to make choices to further their endogenously defined goals.
Agreed, biology goes further than physics. And information
processing, as a concept, offers insights too. But what does
parationality offer us that biology, info processing, memetics,
etc, do not?

I guess my conclusion (for now) is that info processing
covers the same ground as parationality, and does it