From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun Dec  1 13:05:59 EST 1991
Article 1684 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: semiotics and cognitive science
Message-ID: <5723@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Nov 91 19:57:58 GMT
References: <4219@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> <e6JRBB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 13

In article <e6JRBB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
>Here's the sticking point, though: because people in the logical
>analysis tradition are preprogrammed ("set?") to see reciprocal
>processes which move back and forth in small steps as "circular
>reasoning" and believe implicitly that one process has to be the
>"real" process while the other is merely epiphenomenal,

>From the analytic point of view, it would be a defect of the
dialectical approach if it saw some reciprocal processes and
then said "problem solved".  Maybe the reciprocal processes
rely on each other in a way that works, or maybe it's
fatally circular.  The "analytic" approach would be to try
to figure out whether it worked or not.


