RE: virus: Re:MS Flip Software Price

Robin Faichney (
Thu, 16 Oct 1997 13:40:29 +0100

> From: David McFadzean[]
> At 10:28 AM 10/15/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >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!
> Say there is an organism, and it is a given that a
> goal of this organism is to survive. It is also a
> given that this organism needs light to survive. Is it
> not objectively logical that this organism would show
> phototaxic behaviour?
No. As in so many other things, this only seems
like a logical deduction because you are taking
so much forgranted. In fact, this is a matter of
contingency, not logic. It only works the way it
does because of all the most fundamental facts
of biology. OK, if you say you're not taking them
forgranted, that these are your axioms, then you
can do logical analyses like the one above. But
my contention is that doing so doesn't buy you
anything. This ground is already quite well-
covered using existing concepts. Can I ask just
what you're trying to do, in pushing

> >I guess my conclusion (for now) is that info processing
> >covers the same ground as parationality, and does it
> >better.
> Does info processing have the concept of truth, conditionals,
> negation, conjunction, etc.?
I don't believe these are useful in the study of
unthinking behaviour.

Logic underlies all of science, and its part there
is absolutely essential. In a less strict way, it
guides much of our other thinking. It is already
built-in to all objective methodology, and to add
another layer of it "above" disciplines like
biology, in addition to the layer "below" them,
seems totally redundant to me.