home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: aus.general
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!geac!uunet.ca!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!math.fu-berlin.de!fauern!LRZnews!regent!monu1.cc.monash.edu.au!monu6!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!metro!socs.uts.edu.au!dragon!osborn
- From: osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn)
- Subject: Re: I think therfore I am...
- Message-ID: <osborn.721968541@dragon>
- Sender: news@socs.uts.edu.au
- Organization: Computing Sciences, Uni of Technology, Sydney.
- References: <1dvh92INNoeg@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> <9232000.12614@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <9232116.17872@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Distribution: aus
- Date: 17 Nov 92 02:49:01 GMT
- Lines: 13
-
- ggr@nareen.acci.com.au (Greg Rose) writes:
-
- >However, it does imply the contrapositive:
-
- > "I am not, I don't think"
-
- There is a confusion in the logic. The existential assertion (_X exists, or
- _X exists NOT), when instantiated by "I" (self-reference if over I saw one)
- is denied (paradoxically) by the consequence of a vacuous entity - "when I
- am not, there is no me, so I can't satisfy any predicate". Therefore "I don't
- think" is false, although the contrapositive is OK (if read quickly enough).
-
- Tomasso.
-