Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!dirish
From: dirish@csc-sun.math.utah.edu (Dudley Irish)
Subject: Re: LOGIC AND RELATED STUFF
In-Reply-To: minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu's message of 27 Jun 91 00:58:50 GMT
Message-ID: <DIRISH.91Jun27122456@csc-sun.math.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Utah
References: <9106190527.AA17403@lilac.berkeley.edu>
	<1991Jun26.152830.12273@cis.ohio-state.edu>
	<1991Jun26.173142.3060@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
	<1991Jun27.005850.1176@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 12:24:56

In article <1991Jun27.005850.1176@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

   From: minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)

     And well they might be, because perhaps what I really meant to say
   was not so much that logic was bad but that the general direction of
   philosophy itself may be too psychologically naive.

I am curious as to what leads you to say that the general direction of
philosophy may be to psychologically naive.  Could you please expand
on this comment?

--
Dudley Irish / dirish@math.utah.edu / Manager Computer Operations
Center for Scientific Computing, Dept of Mathematics, University of Utah

The views expressed in this message do not reflect the views of the
Dept of Mathematics, the University of Utah, or the State of Utah.
