Re: virus: Re:MS Flip Software Price

Marie Foster (
Wed, 22 Oct 1997 08:42:45 -0700

Robin Faichney wrote:
> > From: David McFadzean[]
> >
> > >The only sensible explanation for phototaxic
> > >behaviour is an evolutionary biological one, not a
> > >logical one -- except to the extent that evol bio
> > >is logical, but then we can take that forgranted,
> > >can't we?
> >
> > If evol bio is logical (and I agree it is) then that
> > just means the scientist practicing it will be logical.
> > Why should that automatically extend to the objects
> > of study?
> >
> Sorry, don't understand the question. Logic is
> embedded in evol bio, and therefore has some
> place in explaining phototaxic behaviour. What
> I'm saying is, that's as far as it goes, logic has
> no more direct application than this. Truth,
> falsehood, consistency, etc, are of use only in
> evaluating the behaviour of rational agents, i.e.
> those with the intelligence to abide by the rules
> of logic *at*that*level*.
> Robin

Is this another one of those chicken or egg things again? (I am still
mulling the idea that it is logic at work in phototaxic behaviour.) The
idea that my fig tree "Pete" is obeying logic when he heads for the
light has a certain poetry to it that is very appealing.

I am about half way through Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" and I
would like to thank whoever it was here who suggested it. So far what I
have read fits into my idea that logic is at the heart of all behaviour.

How could the brain organize itself otherwise? Is there an analogy
here? Evolution suggests that change occurs and successful change
within the environment is an engine. I think that the *logic* that
underlies behaviour is not formal Cartesian logic but may be rather
closer to syntactics? (The question mark is deliberate as I am not very
sure about that statement.)

Boy the brain is spinnnnnning! Thanks for the ride ;0)