HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Campaign '92 Documents Available--FREE
Date: 30 Sep 1992 14:11:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa001@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Tom Grundner)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu



   The National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN), is pleased to 
announce a new service for the duration of Campaign '92.

   We are teaming-up with the American Cybercasting Corporation to 
provide special Campaign '92 newsgroups to Internet hosts anywhere 
in the world--for FREE.

   These will be special moderated newsgroups containing the full-
text of the position papers, speeches, press releases, fact 
sheets, (and anything else we can obtain) from the campaigns of 
the REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and LIBERTARIAN parties.  Each item will 
be carried complete and un-cut, and each is obtained directly from 
official sources within the respective campaigns.  (These are NOT 
discussion groups--you can get that in alt.politics.<whatever>.  
They are moderated newsgroups containing pure campaign information 
for your study and analysis.  You can argue about it somewhere 
else.)

   These special newsgroups will be delivered directly to your
host system by ACC.  The value is obvious for political science 
classes, students, faculty, staff, and anyone else who wants the
FULL story and not just sound-bites and factoids.

   To obtain the newsgroups, have some decision-maker at your 
computing center send an e.mail message to: usa@americast.com 
and all will be made manifest by return e.mail.  The message
MUST contain the name, title, and institution of the person
making the request somewhere in it.

   To repeat, there is no charge to receive this service from
American Cybercasting (although donations to NPTN will be 
gratefully accepted).

-- 
T.M. Grundner, Ed.D
President, National Public Telecomputing Network
Box 1987
Cleveland, Ohio 44106 - e.mail: tmg@nptn.org
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:10:05 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <BvnHpt.6Ax@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:
|> 
|>
|> >What science says this?  What science is not based on the premise of the
|> >free will of the scientist to choose what evidence to look at, what
|> >experiments to perform, and how to interpret the results?
|> 
|>   Science makes no assumptions about the motivations of the scientist.
|>   The nice thing about science is that it doesn't depend on subjective
|>   experience.  A highly intelligent automaton could do everything a  
|>   human scientist does and reach the same conclusions.
|> 

Oops.  I don't think this is right.  I doubt that the "doing of Science"
is itself a system whose results could be ground out by some kind of
Turing machine.  Science is very subjective and highly intuitive. 
Remember, Peter, it was Einstein who said, "I did not arrive at a
fundamental understanding of the universe through the use of my rational mind."

Certain aspects, observing, recording observations are rote, but
theorizing, determining what experiments to run, creating models to
test, etc.  nothing automata-like about that at all.

Also, you seem to be missing the more profound aspects of Quantum Mechanics.
QM is very specific that we are ONLY dealing with "subjective"
experience, and not with the "thing-in-itself".  A "particle" is an
equation whose output accurately predicts certain observed phenomena. 
That's as rigorous as it gets.  There *aren't* any "particles."

Face it Peter, Science is very limited in the truths that it can get at.

Paul Collacchi
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Fundamental dilemma for welfare
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:18:58 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <BvB6EL.KF4@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
writes:
>
>  While it is certainly the case that we need to reform and improve
>  education, it is not at all obvious to me that issues like "state
>  versus private" or "expenditures per pupil" or "student:teacher
>  ratio" are significantly relevant.    Rather, I would look at
>  issues like class discipline, academic standards, homework, 
>  attention span, days of school per year, and similar issues.

class discipline and attention span are directly related to class size.
perhaps you have a child, or have associated with the child of an
acquaintance?  you would likely have found that, with yourself and
one or two children, you could maintain an appropriate level of order
and garner a reasonable amount of attention.  take these two children
and clone them ten-fold, and try to duplicate this feat of education
with twenty.  you will be disappointed.

children who live in culturally and structurally rich environments
will get all the discipline and a fair bit of the knowledge they
could get from grade school without going to grade school at all.
all children are not so blessed.

and, peter, to forestall any further gratuitous insults, and to
restore your faith in the enlightenment of usenet participants,
i should tell you that i've spent a fair bit of time studying
early-childhood psychology and education, in university, as an
occasional volunteer and observer in classrooms and day-care
centers, and through the daily reports of my lover, who is a
teacher, which you are not.

regards,
dave
From: bb063@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Christopher J. Crobaugh)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: re:what happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 22:03:03 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


There is a 1991 book out that answers many of the questions of
what is probably going to happen in the 1990's. It's titled
"
"The Great Reckoning," and is authored by James Dale Davidson and
Lord William Rees-Mogg. Apparently they've written other books 
on economics that many feel were well done. I read this one, 
and it's both scary and seemingly accurate. I recommend it.
-- 
bb063@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu  Chris Crobaugh - (216) 327-6655 (V)
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little 
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." B. Franklin
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:46:21 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <BvIK0F.AuC@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:
|> 
|>   To all you people who advocate free-will: how do you square this
|>   with a biological brain?   
|> 

I'm not going to take up the case for free will, but here are some
things to consider:

A "living" person is different than a "dead" one.  No rocket science
here.  This rather dumb thought experiment suggests that not all
"wetware" is exactly the same.  Maybe   WETWARE + *being* <> WETWARE. 
This might suggest that "being" is something other than "matter".

Over in sci.philosophy.meta we're considering the proposition that neither
"consciousness", nor "thought" actually "takes place" in the brain.  If
you want to think more about this consider answering the question,
"Where is your experience actually taking place?" and then answer the
question, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"  Has dog
Buddha-nature? (A little grin from the Zendo <<:-) )

Do you think that fully awakened, self-aware, self-referential
consciousness actually  "takes place" in space-time? Notice that
qualities "awake", "aware", and "self-aware" are different than
"thought" and "memory".
If not, then consider the possibility that *being* and *livingness*,
those qualities which we can all distinguish from non-being and
deadness, do not occur in the dimensions of space-time.  Mathematically
we can envision reality as some kind of n-dimensional component
X=(s1,s2,s3,t,b1,b2,.....) of which the components si are for space, t
is for time, and bi are associated with being and consciousness.

It may very well be the case that s1,s2,s3, and t are deterministic,
lawful, but that the other quantities are not.  Being "dead" might be
equivalent to
X1=(0,0,0,0,t,b1,b2,.....) U X2 = (s1,s2,s3,t,0,0,....).  "You" might be
PETER = (x , x, x, t, p1,p2,.....) whereas what you are of aware of is
stuck on PETER = (s1,s2,s3,t), the "projection" of multi-dimensional *living*
Peter projected into the plane of space-time.

Now its my turn.  How do you square determinism with Quantum
Uncertainty? Do you actually think the "photon" has precise position and
momentum and we just can't know what it is, or do you think maybe the
concepts of position and time are constructs arising from consciousness
which break down when used to describe "reality".  Are there any
"things-in-themselves" "out there?"  Is there a "dualistic" separation
between subject and object or perhaps do they both "arise" as waves from
the same implicit source?  Is there any "out there" out there?

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.society.anarchy
From: ag173@yfn.ysu.edu (Jay Hauben)
Subject: Pioneer Union Spirit Lives
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:33:38 GMT


     For many years, Flint was the home of the annual UAW 
Pioneers' picnic. This event was held so surviving veterens of 
the 1936-37 Sit-Down Strike could share their memories and 
commaraderie and receive some of the honor that is due them. 
Sadly, this Pioneers' picnic no longer takes place.
 
     Instead, on Oct. 2 at UAW 659 Hall a "UAW Region 1-C and UAW 
Region 1-C Sitdowner Dinner" was held.
 
     Some of the feisty and courageous Sit-Downers were there 
again. This event seemed however more a retirees' dinner and pep 
rally for the Clinton for President campaign.
 
     None of the Sit-Downers attending the event were invited to 
speak. There was one person present who asked to review some of 
the lessons from the fight to build the UAW and their application 
to today's difficult fights. The chair rearranged the other 
speakers and wanted to end the meeting without this speaker 
having a chance. Finally, he announced that a woman wanted to 
talk about her problem and he abandoned the platform.
 
     The speaker began her summary of the advice and help she got 
from many Sit-Downers and the lessons they shared with her from 
their battles to defeat GM and then to build the UAW. She 
stressed the value they put on an uncensored press. All the time 
she spoke, what appeared to be union officials were very noisily 
closing chairs and tables right out from under those listening to 
the speech. Though the noise all but drowned out the speaker, a 
number of listeners refused to give up their chairs or listened 
to the whole speech standing up.
 
     When the speaker asked for questions or comments, the 
listeners who remained apologized for the rudeness shown in the 
Home of the Sit-Downers and asked for copies of the speech which 
was part of UAW Public Review Board Appeal 1001.
 
     As always, union activity in Flint was a battle. In this 
time of great confusion, it is sad not to have heard from the 
voice of some of those who figured out 55 years ago how to fight 
and win in a similar troubled time. But it was good to see the 
stand-firm spirit of the Sit-Down was still alive in Flint.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:59:06 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

pn> To all you people who advocate free-will: how do you square this with a
|     biological brain?   

gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
|   A seeping-through of nondeterministic mechanics. ...

If you insist on almighty Science and Mathematics, then read
_Chaos_ by James Glieck.  Towards the back of the book there's
a fairly good demonstration that a great many physical
processes -- like the weather outside and the weather in the
brain -- are necessarily nondeterministic.  That is, signi-
ficant changes in final state are dependent on infinitesimally
small differences in starting conditions.  "Infinitesimal" is
not hyperbolic here.

After that you can go on to other kinds of indeterminacy
discovered or elucidated by such as Heisenberg and Wittgen-
stein.  These probably made the perception of chaotic
indeterminacy possible.

Quite outside of this, determinism seems absurd to me.  We
do not experience it within, nor do we observe it in the 
external world.  The fact that Nature has habits does not mean
she is a wind-up machine.  Yes, the universe _could_ be
determined.  It could have been created an instant ago by
some God.  It could be a ludicrous accident.  So what?
Why is your religious belief important to this discussion,
Peter?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:44:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct3.175906.23417@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>pn> To all you people who advocate free-will: how do you square this with a
>|     biological brain?   
>
>gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand) writes:
>|   A seeping-through of nondeterministic mechanics. ...
>
>If you insist on almighty Science and Mathematics, then read
>_Chaos_ by James Glieck.  Towards the back of the book there's
>a fairly good demonstration that a great many physical
>processes -- like the weather outside and the weather in the
>brain -- are necessarily nondeterministic.

  I don't know whether these comments are directed at me or Gary
  but I'd like to remind the readers that *I'M* the one who
  usually invokes chaos theory on Usenet.

  Anyway, I already pointed out that nondeterminism provides
  no more a basis for free will than determinism.   And determin-
  istic and nondeterministic (in the QM sense) are the only kinds
  of phenomena we know about.


>After that you can go on to other kinds of indeterminacy
>discovered or elucidated by such as Heisenberg and Wittgen-
>stein.  These probably made the perception of chaotic
>indeterminacy possible.

  BTW, note that deterministic systems can be chaotic, too.  
  Gordon almost seems to be implying that determinism cannot
  yield chaos.  But I have plenty of computer programs which
  generate chaotic behavior.  (running complex and chaotic
  systems on computers is a hobby of mine)


>Why is your religious belief important to this discussion,
>Peter?

  Again, I've made it very clear that I *don't* think the 
  universe is deterministic.  But this is totally orthogonal 
  to "free will" unless you think that the tendency for an
  unstable isotope to occasionally emit an alpha particle 
  represents "free will" on the part of that element.


---peter






Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: _Communist Ideology_
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:54:34 GMT

    I would appreciate any help in getting a copy of _Communist Ideology_ by
Richard Wraga (Research Institute on the Sino-Soviet Bloc [defunct]), Chestnut
Hill, MA (associated with Boston Univ), 1961 (in preparation). Please
communicate to me, not group. Thanks.
From: dliebman@terapin.com (David Liebman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Fundamental dilemma for welfare
Date: 2 Oct 92 02:12:34 GMT
Organization: BBS

In article <BvE9BH.Cnx@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
writes:
>
>  Anyway, you still haven't made your case that class-size is
>  a major determining factor of academic achievment or discipline.
>  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your thesis:  perhaps you are
>  suggesting that American children are uniquely bad or delinquent
>  and NEED smaller class sizes and more individual attention to
>  compensate for this.  But if this is the case then I would
>  suggest that rather than using the schools to correct the flaws
>  in the culture, US parents should shape up. 

we seem to be having some language problems here.  my thesis is, of
course, as you state it above.  but this _does_ indicate that class-size
is a major determining factor, given the presence of other factors,
such as the cultural ones you allude to.  class-size _is_ a factor;
this is not to say that it will _always_ be a factor.

and i'll be sure to file your abovementioned suggestion in my
collection of most treasured maxims.  but the page seems a bit blank --
perhaps you could tell us exactly how you propose to get US parents
to 'shape up'?  i speculate that your reply will be that they must
gain a decent living environment, and i do not wish to enter into yet
another discussion of whether it is proper to give it to them, help
them acquire it, or force them to deal with it on their own.  i suppose
what i am really wanting to know is, given that any of these solutions
-- assuming we and/or our leaders eventually choose one -- would take
some time to demonstrate their benefits, why do you prefer to allow
so many children to wait for this anticipated golden age?  what is
the benefit of watching thousands of children each year emerge from
the schools uneducated, disempowered and disenfranchised, destined
to join the queue of parents awaiting their 'shaping up'?
i suspect that one rather effective way of 'shaping up' our parents
may begin while these parents are still little kids.

but i notice that you say that 'parents should shape up', as if they
ought to do this without help of any sort from anyone else.  if this
is indeed reflective of your beliefs -- or at least to tune your
rhetorical sensitivity -- i'd recommend that you wander into the
inner city of your choice, knock on some doors, and when a parent
answers simply inform them that they must 'shape up'.

regards,
dave
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libert
Date: 1 Oct 92 06:07:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <BvE76B.AI4@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <qff6e1g@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>>
>>In article <BvCq78.Gzq@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>   The bottom line is this: Mr. Yoder has made a positive assertion
>>>   that free will exists.   In logic the onus is on the one making 
>>>   positive assertion to support it.  I'm under no logical obligation
>>>   to try to "disprove" free will; my role in this is merely to point
>>>   out that there is no apparent mechanism to account for it in the
>>>   universe as I am aware of it, and to demand that Mr. Yoder either
>>>   produce (or at least suggest) one, or stop talking nonsesne.
>>
> 
>>In other words, determinism is logically useless in describing
>>human behavior.  One might not be able to prove the existence of
>>free-will (as if that wasn't itself a contradiction in terms)
> 
>   Why is it a contradiction?
> 
> 
>>  but free-will is unavoidable as an operating premise.
> 
>   Only as a semantic shorthand.  If I say, "I intend to vote
>   Marrou/Lord this November as a protest", the implication
>   is, ". . . as if I have free will".  But Yoder went over 
>   the line of this pragmat to actually claim that he DID have
>   free will.  He made the claim that he was above cultural and
>   genetic conditioning.   And that flies in the face of science.

	Uh-huh. Right. It isn't possible for science to prove or disprove 
free will any more than it's possible to prove or disprove the existence 
of a deity (not even "evident" miracles (for the pro-deity side) count; I
could be imagining all of it). They're in the same realm, that of religion
(or, in some cases, philosophy).
	-Allen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:49:43 GMT

pn> Peter Nelson

pn> To all you people who advocate free-will: how do you square this with a
    biological brain?   

  A seeping-through of nondeterministic mechanics.

  Seriously, would it be possible to create a model (with a computer) of the
  brain of Einstein (pieces of which still exist) and have it generate the
  Theory of Special Relativity? Or, to create a model of Woody Allen's brain,
  and create the a film exactly the same as "Husbands and Wives", given the
  correct initial conditions and external stimulae? After all, if the brain
  merely operates as a biochemical machine, then it should be possible to
  duplicate its function.

  To Peter, the neodeterminist: how do you square a lack of free will with the
  principle of responsibility?

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Sep 92 23:11:16 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <BvCq78.Gzq@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:
|> 
|>   Nope, incorrect.  The determinist would not say that his *belief" is
|>   predetermined, but rather his *epistemology* is.  His "belief" or
|>   more correctly his conclusion, simply follows from his epistemology.
|>   He simply applies the tools, say logical empiricism, that he has been
|>   deterministically programmed with, to the universe around him and
|>   arrives at whatever conclusions those tools produce.  So if you
|>   believe logical empiricism produces correct results then you don't
|>   need free will anywhere in this process. 
|> 
|>   The bottom line is this: Mr. Yoder has made a positive assertion
|>   that free will exists.   In logic the onus is on the one making 
|>   positive assertion to support it.  I'm under no logical obligation
|>   to try to "disprove" free will; my role in this is merely to point
|>   out that there is no apparent mechanism to account for it in the
|>   universe as I am aware of it, and to demand that Mr. Yoder either
|>   produce (or at least suggest) one, or stop talking nonsesne.
|>

From your own argument, Peter, free will is not contradicted by Quantum
Uncertainty, nor any other data provided by you, so he is free to assume
it as a postulate in his system.

Also, from your own argument, he need not prove it to you, but must
merely suggest an epistemology by which you too could arrive at it.  A
Vedic Master might assert that liberation is indeed possible, that he
sees it and knows it as clearly as you see and know you hands, but that
you can not currently see it, because you are unable to replicate the
necessary conditions (purity of perception, mind, whatever) needed to
have the direct perception.  He would then suggest a way that you must
go through to get there.

I suggest that "free will" is not knowable through the epistemology of
"scientific empiricism", i.e. it is not a "theorem" of that formal
system, though possibly still true, and that you must abandon that slant
in order to get there.  Though you are free to deny its existence, I
suggest you stay open to its status as being not proved and not disproved.

Paul Collacchi