>Two questions: can we understand "parational" as simply
>"apparently logical"? And, what's the difference (if any)
I'd like to be able to say "objectively logical". Can there
be such a thing?
>between things that survive by being parational, and those
>that survive because their doing so does not conflict
>with any law of nature? (The implication of the second
>question being, of course, that parationality, if it reduces
>to "in accordance with the laws of nature", doesn't add
>anything to our understanding.)
I think it is a difference of levels of description. All of
biology is "in accordance with the laws of nature" yet it
adds to our understanding above and beyond physics. (Right?)
At the logical level I'm thinking of things that somehow
embody information about the external word (internal patterns
that represent external patterns), and use that information
to make choices to further their endogenously defined goals.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/