"Indeed."

In that last bit of improvised whiteboard, Keltham extends his last equation, and then writes down one more on the edge of the wall below:

\h. blue(h) \/ red(h)   =   ???   =   \h. ~red(h) -> blue(h)   =    \h. ~(~blue(h) /\ ~red(h))
\h. blue(h) /\ red(h)   =   \h. ~(~red(h) \/ ~blue(h))   =   ~(red(h) -> ~blue(h))

"Now, given that - if you have 'not' - you can make 'and' out of 'or', or make 'or' out of 'and', or make either one out of 'materially implies' - why not just design an entity that thinks in terms of implication?  Why bother making an entity that tends to think in terms of 'P is true or R is true', instead of 'if P is false then R is true'?  This is not a theoretical question: if your mind works anything like mine does, your mind sometimes thinks in terms of 'or' and not just 'implies'.  You've probably thought using 'and' too.  Why is a human mind - which includes your mind - designed so inelegantly?"

"Indeed."

In that last bit of improvised whiteboard, Keltham extends his last equation, and then writes down one more on the edge of the wall below:

\h. blue(h) \/ red(h)   =   ???   =   \h. ~red(h) -> blue(h)   =    \h. ~(~blue(h) /\ ~red(h))
\h. blue(h) /\ red(h)   =   \h. ~(~red(h) \/ ~blue(h))   =   ~(red(h) -> ~blue(h))

"Now, given that - if you have 'not' - you can make 'and' out of 'or', or make 'or' out of 'and', or make either one out of 'materially implies' - why not just design an entity that thinks in terms of implication?  Why bother making an entity that tends to think in terms of 'P is true or R is true', instead of 'if P is false then R is true'?  This is not a theoretical question: if your mind works anything like mine does, your mind sometimes thinks in terms of 'or' and not just 'implies'.  You've probably thought using 'and' too.  Why is a human mind - which includes your mind - designed so... inelegantly?"

"Indeed, or rather, we just need the second part - a red object counts as 'red or not-blue', we don't demand that only one side be true."

In that last bit of improvised whiteboard, Keltham extends his last equation, and then writes down one more on the edge of the wall below:

\h. blue(h) \/ red(h)   =   ???   =   \h. ~red(h) -> blue(h)   =    \h. ~(~blue(h) /\ ~red(h))
\h. blue(h) /\ red(h)   =   \h. ~(~red(h) \/ ~blue(h))   =   ~(red(h) -> ~blue(h))

"Now, given that - if you have 'not' - you can make 'and' out of 'or', or make 'or' out of 'and', or make either one out of 'materially implies' - why not just design an entity that thinks in terms of implication?  Why bother making an entity that tends to think in terms of 'P is true or R is true', instead of 'if P is false then R is true'?  This is not a theoretical question: if your mind works anything like mine does, your mind sometimes thinks in terms of 'or' and not just 'implies'.  You've probably thought using 'and' too.  Why is a human mind - which includes your mind - designed so... inelegantly?"