Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!mcsun!unido!pcsbst!cochise!roland
From: roland@cochise
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Discovering What Nature Wants
Keywords: Consciousness and Intentionality.
Message-ID: <1091@pcsbst.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 89 14:24:29 GMT
References: <357@massey.ac.nz> <2376@munnari.oz.au> <2394@uceng.UC.EDU> <74029@linus.UUCP> <2433@munnari.oz.au>
Sender: uusr@pcsbst.UUCP
Lines: 26

ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:

>Let me try to say it very simply.  Kort's argument had the basic form

>	human beings are capable of forming intentions (NOT DISPUTED)
>	human beings are part of ``nature''  (NOT DISPUTED)
>	--------------------------------------------------
>	``nature'' is capable of forming intentions.

>In schematic form, the argument looks like

>	X has property P
>	X is part of Y
>	----------------
>	Y has property P

As You surely realize, this is not a valid syllogism, THEREFOR it is
probably NOT a formalization of the intent of Kort's argument.
Try instead:

 	X has property P
 	X is an element of the set Y
 	--------------------------------
 	some element of Y has property P

Now this is a valid (set-theoretic) syllogism, and IMHO a more correct
formalization