>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.)
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?
>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?
It is just a word that means "logical (no thinking required)".
>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.?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/