Article View: comp.ai
Article #1169Re: Thought and Utility
From: Ken Presting
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1990 20:56
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1990 20:56
16 lines
1322 bytes
1322 bytes
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 :-)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<27JG029O7f2q01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!samsung!usc!apple!amdahl!kpReferences:
<0cTG02uf793w01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <7462@cs.utexas.edu> <5cK702mf795h01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1213@oravax.UUCP> <1551@skye.ed.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!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