>Sorry, don't understand the question. Logic is
>embedded in evol bio, and therefore has some
>place in explaining phototaxic behaviour. What
>I'm saying is, that's as far as it goes, logic has
>no more direct application than this. Truth,
>falsehood, consistency, etc, are of use only in
>evaluating the behaviour of rational agents, i.e.
>those with the intelligence to abide by the rules
>of logic *at*that*level*.
Animals have evolved traits and behaviors to
deceive their competitors, which have in turn
evolved methods to see past the deceits.
If this is true, then I think it refutes your
claim.
>I have an analogy for you: at low levels, all
>computer programs have to be perfectly
>logical, they depend on logic in absolute
>terms. But at higher levels, program design
>can be quite illogical, especially, eg, the
>user-interface.
Yes, it *can* but it there is a selective
advantage if it does not (even for computer
programs).
>> >That's like saying a genius behaves like an extraordinarily
>> >intelligent idiot.
>>
>> You lost me. How is it an oxymoron?
>>
>Because a rational designer without forethought
>is not a designer, and even less a rational one.
>"Designed" normally means, did not come about
>through sheer chance, unless you want to redefine
>*that* word too! :-)
I realize it is hard to imagine, but that is because
it is relatively rare for humans. Are you familiar with
Dawkin's Blind Watchmaker software? The user of the
program assumes the role of evolution, a designer without
forethought. The program was written to be an aid
in the understanding of evolution but others have
found the same process useful, e.g. genetic art.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/