d-m-c at worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Carrol I said: HE (Doyle) seems to think
> that people equate LOGICAL THOUGHT with the Brain. I
> DID NOT say that Doyle equates logic w/ brain
> structure. Gad.
>
[snip]
> The point, of course, still remains: Doyle
> needs to address this issue though, how can
> conversation and argument take place w/o logic.
I think not. It seems obvious to me that formal logic (and I at least always use logic as a near synonym with "formal logic") is quite unnecessary even for fairly sophisticated conversation and argument. As Aristotle pointed out, anyhow, in rhetoric we use enthymes (sp?), not syllogisms. And, of course, *after the fact* one can analyze a conversation or a specific text or speech and (perhaps) derive a formal schema from it. And it is sometimes useful to determine whether that schema corresponds to the tautologies (e.g., "A+B = B + A") of formal logic. But on the whole there are other kinds of formal and informal reasoning that are much more fruitful than logic. Leave logic to the computers. (My *guess* is that both this paragraph and your last post could be restated in terms of formal propositions and their formal relations -- I'm I'm not at all sure what good that would do.)
Carrol