Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!portc02.blue.aol.com!howland.erols.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Sorities, Properties and The Extensional Stance
Message-ID: <jqbE2xLFI.D5K@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <850583038snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <851163841snz@longley.demon.co.uk> <59h58o$4c3@ux.cs.niu.edu> <851380414snz@longley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 18:45:18 GMT
Lines: 26
Sender: jqb@netcom.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:50333 comp.ai:42979

In article <851380414snz@longley.demon.co.uk>,
David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <59h58o$4c3@ux.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu "Neil Rickert" writes:
>> Balter has simply adopted some of your terminology.  You should not
>> conclude that he has accepted any of your ideas.  I suspect his
>> analysis of the sorites paradox is about the same today as it would
>> have been 10 years ago.  The only change is in the specific
>> terminology he has used.
>
>If  I thought it worthwhile, I'd quote Balter from several  weeks 
>back where he asserted he basically agreed with much that I  say. 
>I just don't think it's worthwhile (except to refute the above).

But that does not refute Neil.  "Much" is not synonymous with "all" or even
"most", oh illogical one.  I agree with much of what David Chalmers writes in
_The Conscious Mind_, yet I am in fundamental disagreement with him.  The
points where I agree, for the most part I agreed before I read his book; it
would not be proper to say that I have "accepted" his ideas.  Your theme here
has been people coming to agree, in a fragmented way, with your views.  This
appears to be based on the same sort of erroneous Manichean logic that you use
to "refute" Neil here.  

[insert nefarious response from Longley here]
-- 
<J Q B>

