HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Algorithmic Thought? (was re: QM and Free Will)
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:10:57 GMT

zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
[about Penrose' argument from Godel's Theorem]

>The correct question is whether we could be working algorithmically
>without being ever being able (in principle) to attain comprehensive
>awareness of the algorithm.  For that is exactly what you would need
>in order to avoid the Lucas-Putnam-Penrose conclusion.

No, that's not correct. Even if there were some way to prove that our
reasoning was not describable by an algorithm, the conclusion that our
reasoning is more *powerful* than an algorithm simply doesn't follow.
Just because a theory is non-algorithmic doesn't mean that it is more
powerful than any algorithmic theory.

Penrose' arguments simply show that our reasoning is more powerful
than the sequence of theories T1 = PA, T2 = T1 + con(T1), T3 = T2 +
con(T2), etc. However, there are r.e. theories (for example, NF or
ZFC) that are more powerful than all of these theories.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: ogil@quads.uchicago.edu (Brian W. Ogilvie)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Reply-To: ogil@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Morris Fishbein Center for the History of Science and Medicine
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:37:14 GMT

Responding to Valerie Maslak, Gary Merrill
(sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com) wrote:

>You mean that you *allowed* yourself to be shut out, and this is
>somehow the fault of someone or something *else*?  You *could*
>have done something (and almost certainly it would have been
>effective), but you *chose* not to?  We've all done things like
>this that we regret in retrospect.  But most of us (even women
>in my experience) are reluctant to blame society or culture for
>such an error.

I have read Ms. Maslak's post carefully and nowhere does she blame
anyone else for her decision. Rather, she attributed it to an aspect
of institutional culture and noted that it was a factor in her
decision to leave the institution. I would not be surprised if
complaining had *not* been effective, given the tendency among
academics to close ranks against students and outsiders, especially
women (even today, let alone three decades ago). Certainly one's
judgment of the potential efficacy of resistance will influence one's
decisions in such cases, and that is a result of one's perception of
institutional culture (among other things).

Follow-ups to sci.philosophy.meta, please, as the most appropriate of
the three newsgroups. I don't read it, so if you want my attention,
please use mail.


-- 
Brian W. Ogilvie           DISCLAIMER: You think I have time to
b-ogilvie@uchicago.edu       think about everything I post?
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 14 Nov 92 15:52:09 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> In article <1dck8fINNgie@agate.berkeley.edu> lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma S
> >In article <1992Nov2.043143.24298@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> dabbott@a
  
> >>(like the stone age man example did) today when we grapple with such  
> >>philosophical mysteries as quantum mechanics, mind-body problem,  
> >>determinism v. free will etc.  
>   
> There maybe a concept lacking in our vision that that has yet to be found.  
  
or rather there maybe concepts lacking in our language that that have yet  
to be invented.  
  
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:3935 talk.philosophy.misc:2290 talk.religion.misc:20540
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: QM and Free Will
Date: 6 Nov 92 13:20:49 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

Contrary to the presumption of many posters, there is no necessary
connection between lack of free and determinism, or free will and lack
of determinism. It would help if posters who wish to presume one or
both of these would spend a little time elaborating some decent
supporting arguments.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.misc,talk.religion.misc
From: ian@nasser.eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: QM and Free Will
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:45:47 GMT

In article <nyikos.720912251@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <1corvaINNfi3@agate.berkeley.edu> lizi@soda.berkeley.edu (Cosma Shalizi) writes:
>>The obvious rejoinder, taken by many, is that Derek's (and our) feeling of
>>free will is, in fact, an illusion, and that his last minute changes of
>>mind were as pre-determined as his first post to the net, or anything else
>>for that matter. If this makes us ethically bankrupt, so be it. 
>
>It also flies in the face of common sense.

Is this anything more than saying "I can't imagine how what you're
saying could be true, therefore it's not true"?  I wish I had a nickel
for every true statement that was at some point in history widely held
to "fly in the face of common sense".

>What you and I have been 
>typing *makes sense*, and yet it is all supposed to be explained by the
>coursing of electrical impulses through neural synapses, and the 
>permeation of sodium and potassium ions through neural membranes.  If 
>that is all that is ultimately at work, why does the finished product
>make so much sense to us on the conscious level, and why do we feel we
>are in control over it?

You apparently feel that you're "in control".  Can you tell us what it
means to be "in control" and why you feel that you're "in control"?
Can you also tell us what is meant by something "making sense"?  Is it
any different from from the property "being something which, when I see
it, causes me to say `That makes sense'"?  You may think these
questions disingenuous, but I assure you they're not.  It seems to me
that there are a number of phenomena here that you're not examining
very closely, and dismissing by saying "It's common sense!"
-- 
Ian Sutherland
ian@eecs.nwu.edu

Sans Peur
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: cpshelle@logos.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.philosophy.language
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 15:02:19 GMT

Rick.Horowitz@launchpad.unc.edu (Rick Horowitz) writes:
[...]
> The proposal is to create a group with the following parameters:
>  
> Name of group:           sci.philosophy.language
> Mode:                    unmoderated
>  
> Charter:
>  
> Inasmuch as there exist groups like sci.philosophy.tech,
> talk.philosophy.misc, and comp.ai.philosophy which discuss various
> issues not directly relating to philosophy of language, and inasmuch
> as philosophy of language is an important and viable specialization
> within philosophy, I propose the creation of a group for facilitating
> discussion in this area.  Topics for discussion will include
> (minimally) discussions of interest for philosophy of language,
> philosophy of linguistics, theories of meaning and truth, reference,
> pragmatics, speech act theory, intensional semantics, (to some extent)
> language of thought, theories of names, demonstratives, works (past
> and current) in such topics, etc.---all the issues that could be part
> of a serious study of philosophy of language.

I'd be very interested in such a group, having just completed a thesis
in speech act theory.  It would be nice to have a forum for discussion
of the philosphy of language in general.

</dev/cam
--
      Cameron Shelley        |"In the beginning, there was nothing.  Then
cpshelle@logos.uwaterloo.ca  | God said `Let there be light', and there
    Davis Centre Rm 3147     | was still nothing, but youse could see it."
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3499  | --Dave Thomas, SCTV:_Sunrise Semester_
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Keywords: politics, women, feminism
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:20:56 GMT

In article <BxK1zu.93q@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov11.010102.14565@cheshire.oxy.edu>, rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>|> [1] Not to give Ludwig too much credit: these ideas are inherited
>|> from his hidden inspiration, Schopenhauer.
>
>Oh goody!  Footnotes in a usenet posting!  Schopenhauers hidden
>influence on Wittgenstein.  Intriguing.
>

I've never read Schopenhauer, but this claim about influence on
Wittgenstein is not original. It's supposed to be especially evident in
the Tractatus discussion on solipsism. See A. J. Ayer's book
_Wittgenstein_ for a brief discussion of this influence.

                                       Robert Vienneau

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.philospohy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,sci.skeptic
From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Measurement & Precision
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:08:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.180042.18845@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott) writes:
>
>: Imagine you are a stone age philosopher. All you have are your big
>: chunky stone tools to work with to engineer with for everyday life.
>
>First, Philosopher's should abstain from making engineering decisions
>without any experience or education upon which to base such decisions.
>
Second, engineers should learn the difference between plurals and possessives.
:-)

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: The "validity" of feminist philosophy (Was Re: Plato's Views on Women)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:10:28 GMT

>Well, there are a lot of people working in feminist epistemology and
>feminist ethics, so I think the onus is on you (at the beginning) to offer
>some reason for thinking that what they're doing isn't worthwhile.

This is my first contribution to this particular thread, and I begin
with a confession of ignorance.  I have no idea at all what 'feminist
epistemology' would consist of.

Now, I _do_ happen to think that 'women's studies' or even 'feminist
ethics' could be a fruitful field of study.  I am thinking, in particular,
of an examination of the historical causes for the subjugation of women
in (nearly) every culture of the world except for the modern capitalist
west, and for the pervasive and lingering biases that still exist today
in even those society that have established (in law, at least) equality.
This endeavor would, among other things, look for the invalid assumptions
and flawed arguments used as justification for these practices.

But feminist _epistemology_?  I honestly confess that I have no idea what
such a field would study, or why.

So, in this case, I think that the onus is on those _doing_ this kind of
work to explain to us what it is and why they think it is worthwhile.
In other words, I disagree with the presumption of validity expressed
in the quote above.

>BTW, should we stop sending this thread to so many newsgroups? (I'm
>reading it in sci.philosophy.*).

This response is only going to sci.philosophy.tech

--Jimbo


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:51:44 GMT

In article <BxIK7y.FsB@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov10.165026.2036@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>|> 
>|> Marko, I suggest that you fall back from "proposition" to "sentence"
>|> in a suitable language.  I think that "sentence of first-order logic
>|> in a language which has constants for every object" is a good
>|> approximation to "proposition".  It can be established that this is a
>|> consistent totality (it exists in NFU), while the set of "truths"
>|> (true sentences in a language of this kind) is an inconsistent
>|> totality under any reasonable assumptions.
>
>The problem with Randall's suggestion is that this concept of
>proposition is quite inadequate as even an "approximation" if
>a proposition is taken to be something like the "meaning" of
>a sentence, or the "intension", or some other Platonistic thingamabob
>that a sentence "expresses".

Of course, _I_ admit the existence of no such thing!

  However, given this (common)
>meaning of 'proposition', Marko will have some problems.  However,
>never mind whether Randall is correct in his "approximation" claim
>since that's really immaterial.  I believe he certainly is correct
>in the suggestion that appealing to propositions will just cause
>Marko *more* trouble.
>
>For example, it is fairly common to construe a proposition as a
>*function* from a set K onto the truth values.  K may be the set of
>possible worlds, the set of models of the language, or some similar
>set.  If S is a sentence, then the-proposition-expressed-by S is
>that function which for every element k of its domain assigns the
>value T (true) just in case S is true at k.  The problem is that
>there are *more* propositions than sentences since the cardinality
>of the set of propositions (so construed) is that of the power set
>of the set of the set of possible worlds, models, or whatever.
>You have countably many sentences, but uncountably many propositions
>to express.
>
>This exposes a problem with the argument Marko posted earlier when
>he urged that the set of propositions expressed in Russell is smaller
>than the set of sentences in Russell.  While this is true when the
>domain is restricted to "in Russell", it is not true in general (under
>common representations of propositions).
>-- 
>Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
>SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
>sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1992 22:07:47 GMT
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

In article <1992Nov8.204839.415@news.wesleyan.edu> RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
>Now, as a professional philosopher whose specialty is feminist philosophy, let
>me give the following advice:  To those who *think* they disagree with feminist
>philosophy a priori:  why don't you follow your own philosophical method and
>actually let us know what particular argument(s) you disagree with, and on what
>basis (invalid inferences? false premises?).  BTW, it is only fair that you
>take on arguments which actually have been put forth -- no straw or imaginary
>arguments, please.  I *THINK* this means that you might actually have to read
>some of the literature;  come back & we'll talk after you have...

Let me make a counter-proposal: present to us *one* argument which
specifically pertains to feminist philosophy.  Preferably one you agree
with.  It is legitimate on the net to say "at this point this gets too
complicated for net discussion; go to the literature"; but this is *not*
legitimate as an opening salvo.

>The original question was (I thought) a very intelligent question, WELL within
>"mainstream" anglo-american philosophy (what similarities and/or differences
>between Plato's views re. women in the Laws & the Republic?).

Agreed.  It kind of floored me when the poster followed it up by talking
about "feminist philosophy".
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Question for Ruth
Keywords: Zeleny, unity, anthropoi
Date: 12 Nov 92 04:19:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov11.231951.17364
Organization: The Phallogocentroc Cabal

In article <1992Nov11.214010.16486@cheshire.oxy.edu> 
rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney) writes:

>In article <1992Nov11.150554.17351@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>>[...]

MZ:
>>By contrast, my own attitude of similar content is certainly intended
>>as an insult to the careerist trash who would divide mankind (that's
>>`man' as in `anthropos' for you, Dr Ruth) into mutually hostile,
>>incomprehending factions.

MSR:
>	Little did I guess that beneath the viciously pedantic,
>macho-philosopher facade called "Mikhail Zeleny" there lurked a 
>blushing heart yearning to bring all _anthropoi_ together in a
>mutually loving, caring, comprehending whole.  The posts all make
>sense now--the obsession with public confessions of sexual 
>escapades, the frenzied polemics against professional philosophers,
>the unitary nature of the self, and, of course, all that French--! 
>Abandon thy nom du guerre, Jean-Jacques!  We know it is you!

Really, Rooney, this incessant flattery will get you nowhere, -- aww,
what the hell, you just earned yourself a free beer on the occasion of
my next visit to God's own Southern California.

>Cordially,
>
>Michael S. Roone
>
>"I tried in vain to find some favorable interpretation of his conduct;
> I could find none."

no less cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Un de mes plus grands plaisirs est de jurer Dieu quand je bande."
(Call me Donatien Alphonse Francois)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:26:14 EDT
 <7894@skye.ed.ac.uk> <BxIKsp.Gt3@unx.sas.com> <1992Nov11.074321.421@news.wesleyan.edu> <BxK3DF.AHy@unx.sas.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com's message of Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:39:14 GMTLines: 38

In <BxK3DF.AHy@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com writes:

> I also know at least three women who quite clearly had trouble getting
> positions for which they were eminently qualified because it was
> felt that their political views were not amenable to what was
> desired for the courses they would teach in "women's studies".

Hmmm.  I'm sorry to hear it.  I'm the last one to want to defend reprehensible
hiring practices, from which philosophy departments and women's studies
departments are no more immune than any other segment of academia.

Are you quite sure that it was, as you say, because it was felt that their
*political views* were of the "wrong" sort, or was it perhaps because they
lacked the *academic credentials* to teach & conduct research in women's
studies, which was, perhaps, part of the position description?

I know of very few professional philosophers who disagree that women's studies
ought to qualify as an academic field at all *AND* have the credentials to
teach women's studies courses from an "opposing viewpoint" (Christina Hoff
Sommers is one, but I know of few others).  CHS actually has spent a
considerable amount of time READING the feminist phil literature, & thus
(though I disagree with her) I acknowledge her ability to offer *informed*
opposing viewpoints.

BTW, one of my (un)favorite hiring horror stories is the one I've heard many
times, in which interviewers assume that any female job candidate *necessarily*
is, or ought to be, qualified to teach feminist philosophy, and (conversely)
that any male job candidate *necessarily* is not, or could not be, similarly
qualified.  I am as opposed to this (stupid) kind of hiring prejudice as the
next person, & believe that the only remedy is to get philosophers to come to
take feminist philosophy **seriously** as a philosophical endeavor, so as to
recognize that it, too, (like any other sort of philosophy) requires years of
academic study to develop competence in the field, & *NOT* just some particular
set of chromosomes or some particular set of political beliefs.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Question for Ruth
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:50:32 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <1992Nov11.150554.17351@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

...
>come up with a charitable description of the putative subject.  Your
>local academic bookstore is likely to have a sheaf of remaindered
>copies of a "feminist logic" tract by Andrea Nye.  Read it, and draw
>your own conclusions.

Ah yes, Andrea Nye. My claim to fame is that I was a graduate student at
the University of Oregon philosophy department at the same time that she
was. In fact, I took the required logic class with her. (That's right--the
U of O required just _one_ logic class for the Ph.D., and the logic
disabled (among whom both I and Andrea counted ourselves) had the option
of taking History of Logic instead of Logic for Real Men.) 

As I recollect, Andrea had some trouble in that class. In retrospect, I
realize that this was due to oppression by white men (both alive and dead).
I don't know why _I_ had a hard time understanding logic; unlike Andrea,
I'm not allowed any excuses. (Actually, I did finally get an A in the
course--but I had to work like a slave.)






 
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~