Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5554 sci.philosophy.tech:1925
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!samsung!usc!apple!amdahl!kp
From: kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Thought and Utility
Summary: Arguments are are apecial kind of input
Message-ID: <27JG029O7f2q01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Date: 15 Jan 90 20:56:30 GMT
References: <0cTG02uf793w01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <7462@cs.utexas.edu> <5cK702mf795h01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1213@oravax.UUCP> <1551@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting)
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 16

In article <1213@oravax.UUCP> ian@oravax.odyssey.UUCP (Ian Sutherland) writes:
>Doesn't the thermostat change its decision procedure when I turn the
>dial?
> .....                            Both you and the thermostat change
>within certain limits defined by your construction.  The difference
>seems to me to be one of degree rather than kind.

There is an important difference in kind if you focus on the "public
language".
The subset of language used with the thermostat does not include sequences
of sentences, so there is no possibility of the the thermostat engaging in
an argument.

It's not an argument, it's just contradiction.
  No, it's not.
Yes it is!        (apologies to Monty Python :-)