Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: what is this thing called `free will' Message-ID: <1193@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Date: 19 May 88 09:14:59 GMT References: <38@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland Lines: 20 In article <38@aipna.ed.ac.uk> sean@uk.ac.ed.aipna.UUCP (Sean Matthews) writes: >2. perfect introspection is a logical impossibility[2] That doesn't make it impossible, just beyond comprehension through logic. Now, if you dive into Philosophy of Logic, you'll find that many other far more mundane phenomena aren't capturable within FOPC, hence all this work on non-standard logics. Slow progress here though. Does anyone seriously hold with certainty that logical impossibility is equivalent to commonsense notions of falsehood and impossibility? Don't waste time with similarities, such as Kantian analytic statements such as all "Bachelors are unmarried", as these rest completely on language and can thus often be translated into FOPC to show that bachelor(X) AND married(X) is logically impossible, untrue, really impossible, ... Any physicists around here use logic? -- Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science, The University, Glasgow gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs !ukc!glasgow!gilbert The proper object of the study of Mankind is Man, not machines