Human thought is paraconsistent - relevance/relevant logic best models how implication works in natural language, and that is paraconsistent; I think the intell

Human thought is paraconsistent - relevance/relevant logic best models how implication works in natural language, and that is paraconsistent; I think the intelligibility of inconsistent fiction such as Graham Priest’s Sylvan’s Box [0] is also evidence of that. If one believes mathematics is ultimately grounded in human thought, and if human thought is ultimately paraconsistent, that suggests paraconsistent logic may be a better foundation for mathematics than classical logic. It also suggests that maybe we should seriously consider taking the inconsistency horn of Godel’s trilemma (incomplete or inconsistent or weak), given the paraconsistent rejection of the principle of explosion means that doing so is non-trivial. Inconsistent theories can be strong, complete and non-trivial. [0] https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-38/issue-4/Sylvans-Box-A-Short-Story-and-Ten-Morals/10.1305/ndjfl/1039540770.full https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-for...