🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Nov19.010823.17595@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.170839.29220@psych.toronto.edu>
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>
>CG:
>>The issue to which I was alluding was not whether natural language could
>>ultimately be reduced to *some* logic. In fact I hope it can because, under
>>at least one interpretation ofthe problem, the question amounts to whether
>>there can be a theory of language at all. The problem is that the question
>>of whether one gets run over if one steps in from of a bus, cannot be
>>answered a priori, and therefore is not a logical truth (at least it can't
>>be derived out of any of our present logics). Tally-ho!
>
>Hmm... I dissent.  The fact that one gets run over if one steps in
>front of a bus is arguably an analytic consequence of our concepts of
>*bus-hood* and *stepping in front of*.  Consequently, it is knowable
>_a priori_.

Nope.  I can step in front of a bus and *not* get
run over (it's a stationary bus :-)
Or does a stationary bus not have "bus-hood"?
Or does the concept of "stepping in front of" exclude stationary vehicles?

Etc, etc, for all other cases of not getting run over ...

So it looks more like:
	IF I step in front of a bus, *and* it is moving sufficiently
	fast, *and* the driver fails to avoid me, *and* I fail to
	jump back (having suddenly perceived the bus), *and* ...
	(insert more conditions as required) ...
	THEN there is a *high probability* that I wil be run over
	(I don't think you can practically specify sufficient
	conditions for this to become a certainty!)

-- 

===============================================================================
Dave | dsg@imp.co.uk | +44 753 516599 | "C^i tio ne estas .subskribo"
===============================================================================