Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!houdi!marty1
From: marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: What the hell does flawed mean, anyway?
Message-ID: <1373@houdi.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Oct-87 20:19:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: houdi.1373
Posted: Tue Oct 13 20:19:54 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Oct-87 06:36:51 EDT
References: <160@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel
Lines: 22
Summary: flawed = imperfect = not perfectly anything

In article <160@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>, spe@SPICE.CS.CMU.EDU (Sean Engelson) writes:
> 
> Could someone please define flawed, as it applies (or may apply) to
> the mind?  Flawed with respect to the performance of what action?
> Formal logic?  Aristotelian logic?  Type theory?  NP-complete
> computations?  Getting emotional? ....

All of the above.

> ... You need referents!  I think that
> most people are just talking past each other, as they are using
> different referents.  I am not getting involved yet, as I don't think
> that I know what referents are appropriate---if anyone thinks they
> know: What are they???

I claim that with respect to any referent the mind is flawed. 
If any reader can define any referent with respect to which the
mind is perfect, I will admit my argument is flawed.

M. B. Brilliant					Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520	(201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733	ihnp4!houdi!marty1