> So, one deduces there is internal representation of "truth" by
> looking for errors (ie: floating rocks). What if one discovers no
> errors? Either the thing is not using logic, or else is using logic
> with perfect (within perception) truth values. Perhaps the rock
> always accurately knows if it is supported?
How would the rock know anything?
> An extreme conclusion is that by this analysis you would be
> unable to distinguish a rock from God.
If you don't attribute any behavior more complex than a rock's
to God, I suppose you are right.
> I'm not poking fun. I still think you aren't avoiding intentionallity, you
> are just making it implict...which I think is not the direction I was
> pushing.
OK, something has to have intentionality in order to use logic.
> It is inaccurate to claim that all entities that speak
> sentences you perceive as gramatical use your gramatical
> rules. In other words, all entities seeming to behave logically
> do not neccesarily use or obey logic.
Yes, it is within the realm the realm of possibility that they could
be using an entirely different grammar or logic that results in
identical behavior. That doesn't mean that they are not using
grammar or logic.
Are you defining logic in such a way that you think computers
don't use logic and/or don't behave logically?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/