Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:45:05 GMT

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 12:30:15 -0400, Wolf Kirchmeir
<wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>Lester Zick wrote:
>
>[...]
>> If I note an identity by saying Jane is three, I don't negate the
>> identity itself by saying Jane is not three. What I negate are the
>> differences between differences that go in to saying Jane is three.
>> It's no more possible to negate an identity than it is to invert zero.
>> The result is infinite or undefined.
>
>"Jane is three" is not an identity, it's a predicate.

The "three" part of "Jane is three" is an identity with the "three"
part of Jane. That's why "three" is predicated of Jane and not because
you imagine that mathematical identity is the only kind of identity.

>I can say "A == B" or "A not== B". Each statement negates the other. "A
>== B" asserts an identity. Hence "A not=== B" negates an identity.

Does == negate =? Statements negate one another but not because
identity or the absence of difference can be negated but because
differences are not absent in non identity. It's not a matter of
arbitrary mathematical whimsy. It's an issue of mechanical necessity.
Identity is the result of non identity and not vice versa. Simply
predicating "==" and "not ==" doesn't show mechanical precedence.
Mathematics may assume an arbitrary dichotomous indifference.
Mechanics does not and cannot.

>You don't even understand the logic of the terms you use. I suggested
>once before that you need a course in logic. Your comment above prompts
>me to repeat that suggestion.

And you just throw terms around like they have no mechanical
significance. Next you'll be showing us how to divide by zero.

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages