HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Counterpart Theory (was re: The word "homophobic")
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:16:35 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Dec18.115809.18669@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
|> In article <1grsg8INN563@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
|> jcollier@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:

|> JDC:
|> >And a good antidote to _that_ bullshit (VI doesn't even understand
|> >why David Lewis uses counterparts rather than trans-world identity), 
|> >can be found in the writings of John Bishop, od Auckland.

I haven't really been following this thread, but this claim strikes me
as a bit strong based primarily on my knowledge of both Lewis and Van
Inwagen and on conversations with them both independently and together.
Peter and I were both at Rochester in the early days of Counterpart
Theory, and David came to give a symposium (I think in '69/'70).  Peter
then went on to Syracuse the next year I believe, and I subsequently
gave a paper on essentialism in modal logic and CT at a meeting of the
Creighton Club which (as I recall) he was administering at the time.

So through a number of conversations and debates I certainly acquired
the impression that Peter grasped quite clearly the use of counterparts
in favor of trans-world identity.  Of course, you might argue that my
understanding was deficient as well, but at least this was never pointed
out to me by Lewis.

Consider this simply as a testimonial for a old friend I haven't seen
in years, but terms such as "bullshit" and "doesn't even understand"
just don't square with my experience.
-- 
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
From: PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu (Jamie)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Truth again
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:37:53 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

>Posted on 14 Dec 1992 at 15:14:53 by Randall Holmes

>>>No, Randall showed that a conviction\belief can be true even if
>>>non-checkable. (It does make asignment of truth value in those
>>>cases rather arbitrary, though.)
>>
>>Huh?
>>I have no idea why you think he showed that.
>
>Neither do I.

Oh, good.

> I'm on Jamie's side of this argument; truth (of
>sentences in a certain language) is not defined in terms of observers
>or interpreters.  Take my argument and apply it, further, to the truth
>or falsehood of a sentence which has never in fact been uttered by
>anyone (it would be self-defeating for me to give a counterexample,
>but counting arguments show that there are such).

Of course, we can DESCRIBE a sentence which has never been uttered, and
it STILL will never have been uttered. So you CAN give a counterexample.

I'll take a shot!

Consider the sentence which would come first on an alphabetized
list of 100-word sentences of English.

(A small prize to whoever can utter it first.)

It is either a true sentence of English or a false one. No one has
ever interpreted it (I'll wager). With the possible exception of
one of us, no one ever will.

> I don't agree with
>Jamie on "types and tokens" (sentences are not equivalence classes of
>tokens), precisely because the canons which determine truth or
>falsehood of a sentence could in fact be applied to the so far
>unuttered sentence which has no "tokens" at all; I think of sentences
>as abstract objects of the same order as numbers.

I'm not sure what the disagreement is supposed to be. I think I agree
with the above.
I allowed that Jimbo could think of *propositions* as equivalence
classes of sentences, for most purposes. I was then thinking of
sentences as abstract objects. I usually think of types as
abstract objects.

Jamie
From: mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com (Edward McGraw)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Science of Ethics
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:15:32 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company

I think Gary Merrill asked me to explain the phrase 'Science of
Ethics' that I used in my last posting. I only meant that science
is an ordered body of knowledge; knowledge attained through study.
From the philosophical point of view, science is an intellectual
virtue which consists in the knowledge of a limited bit of reality
from a limited point of view. For example, Anatomy is the Science
of the human body from the point of view of its component parts.
Ethics is the science which studies the moral order, the order 
which reason establishes in the free acts of the will; in 
voluntary acts.

The use of the word 'virtue' above is not from theology but from
philosophy, where I believe virtue is defined as a good habit.
Therefore, a good habit, or permanent disposition, of the intellect
in this context, is to acquire knowledge.

Back in my time, philosophy depts. taught courses in ethics. I don't
know if they still do, or if they do, what they contain. Perhaps
someone could comment.  mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com
From: mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com (Edward McGraw)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Ref: truth & reality article
Date: 16 Dec 92 12:56:10 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak Company

I just discovered this newsgroup yesterday with its one article.
No, no tomatoes! And I haven't read the book either, but I just
couldn't resist a couple of stodgy old comments about truth and
reality being conventional and arbitrary.

I suppose truth (logical truth) could be considered conventional
in that it is the agreement between things and thoughts. A 
judgement is true when it agrees with reality. However truth is
certainly not arbitrary, especially in a metephysical sense. I do
agree that it is convienent and popular today for a person to 
select what is true, at random, and without reason. It also 
eliminates the need to study the science of ethics, which deals 
with the moral order. 

As for reality being arbitrary, isn't that a contradiction? 
Being is reality; whatever is, exists! mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: dtg001@dunix.drake.edu (Soli Deo Gloria)
Subject: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa, USA
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:57:15 GMT

Well, everyone...

I've never posted to this newsgroup before but have been reading 
it for some time now.  Let me tell you all...

If you really enjoy thinking...
If you really love metaphysics...

ah heck... if you're a satient entity!...

YOU MUST, SIMPLY MUST SEE THE FILM, "MINDWALK!!!"

I would like to start a discussion thread about it.  I have never
been made to think by a film quite the way I was by this one.

What it basically boils down to is the search for ultimate truth
and how the sciences, at one time so distant from a conception that
could be called metaphysical, are now coming so close to one!

I find it fascinating that physics, a purely scientific and
'reason-based' discipline is now beginning to ask and, more importantly,
put forth plausible answers to metaphysical questions.

The movie is based on the book "The Turning Point" by Fritjof Capra.
Let me tell you all... I will be RUSHING to the bookstore to buy
it first thing in the morning!

I would request that the discussion be limited to those who
have seen the film and/or read the book.  (Perhaps even just those
who have read the book... I'll have to read it and see!  :)
I'm not trying to be exclusivist...  it's just a matter of
practicality... there's simply too much to explain! 

Please direct any questions/comments/discussion/anything to me
or the newsgroup, whichever you see to be the best suited medium.

Thanks, folx!

Damien Guay
Amateur Thinker    *smile*

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Existence (or Grossmans back)
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:06:50 GMT

In article <memo.820156@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
>Well hellO sweetie. I too have been busy. I see they are all still
>confusing the map with the territory, the mind with the world and
>language with experience.
>
>What rhymes with Shnorkel? and should we all dive so deep?
>What rhymes with Peril, and are our minds asleep?
>What rhymes with Hash, and is of mathematical bent?
>What rhymes with Sucker, and is it astral sent?
>
>Merry Christmas to you all.

    Sweetie?! 


================================================================================
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
From: hunter@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Steve Hunter)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Date: 19 Dec 92 07:04:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzHvny.B19
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu

I see in this thread a lot of flaming of Capra, mostly general or vague 
attacks doused in emotion.  Very little in the way of concrete examples in
his book that are taken to task in an analytical, cohesive fashion. Come on,
you so-called scientists!!!  With these emotional diatribes against someone
you consider irrational, you're falling on your own sword.

I've not read "The Turning Point" but I have read a couple of other Capra
books, including "The Tao of Physics", which I found provocative.  It made
me look at the limitations of the scientific method and how its axioms really
make it another form of religion.  

Yet I realize the intent of the book and how it slants the stories that came
out of subatomic particle physics during that period.  I am a meteorologist
and, as such, am out of touch with current trends in that field.  Yet I try
to read the "popular" literature (e.g. Scientific American) to keep up.  
And it seems to me that there is nothing emerging that is sufficient to 
throw out things like a unified field, the lack of an elemental particle,
or the uncertainty principle.  Indeed, from what I can glean from nonlinear
dynamics ("chaos"), an idea that was first posited in my field, those
things seem to be reinforced.

Flame away, but please, 1)Keep the mind OPEN; 2) If you use scientific
principles as the standard of reason, use them yourselves - don't be
hypocritical.

Steve Hunter            'To conclude means to shut down, to stop thinking' -
NOAA/National Severe                              Krishnamurti
Storms Laboratory
Norman, OK
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Monkeys (was Folk theories)
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:41:00 +0000

zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes..

>>In fact self evident truths are derived from the believer's
>>assumptions, biases, emotions etc. This at least means they have a
>>relationship to human psychology and/or physiology.

>You should look into the difference between truth and opinion.

Those of you who have read Kiplings 'Just So' stories will be
reminded of the troop of monkeys, jumping up and down and screaming
'we all say so, so it must be true'.

I think Michael, that it behooves you to also examine the difference
between truth and opinion. There is the truth of our experience, and
there is the abstraction that we used to remember and to describe it.
This abstraction - which is what _most_ of this newsgroup tend to
refer to as 'reality' - is not, and never will be, more than a
description. Written in meta-language possibly, but still a
description.

The only self evident truth is the reality of our personal
experience: The raw data from which we construct our _ideas_ about
the world.

..and we can't talk about it or be reasonable about or use logic on
it before we have passed it through our axiomatic filters.

So nothing you can tell me is a self evident truth. If it was self
evident you wouldn't be able to tell me about it. It will always be
colored by, amongst other things, 'human psychology and/or
physiology' (if your idea of the world contains those constructs as
meaningful)

Leo
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Science of Ethics
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:23:19 EST
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <BzEpH8.8uK@unx.sas.com> 
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>In article <4180@eastman.UUCP>, 
>mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com (Edward McGraw) writes:

EMG:
>>I think Gary Merrill asked me to explain the phrase 'Science of
>>Ethics' that I used in my last posting. I only meant that science
>>is an ordered body of knowledge; knowledge attained through study.
>>From the philosophical point of view, science is an intellectual
>>virtue which consists in the knowledge of a limited bit of reality
>>from a limited point of view. For example, Anatomy is the Science
>>of the human body from the point of view of its component parts.
>>Ethics is the science which studies the moral order, the order 
>>which reason establishes in the free acts of the will; in 
>>voluntary acts.

GM:
>Well, basically I ain't gonna touch this with a fork for reasons
>obvious to most readers of this group.

By contrast, I find it unexceptionable.  Humor me, Gary.

[...]

>-- 
>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

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Ref: truth & reality article
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:23:19 GMT

In article <BzCxto.3C8@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) 
writes:
>
>In article <4175@eastman.UUCP>, mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com (Edward McGraw) 
writes:
>
>|> I suppose truth (logical truth) could be considered conventional
>|> in that it is the agreement between things and thoughts. A 
>|> judgement is true when it agrees with reality. However truth is
>|> certainly not arbitrary, especially in a metephysical sense. I do
>|> agree that it is convienent and popular today for a person to 
>|> select what is true, at random, and without reason. It also 
>|> eliminates the need to study the science of ethics, which deals 
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> with the moral order. 
>
>I had a few lab courses in college, but I don't recall ethics being
>one of them.  Are we talking Bentham here?
>-- 
>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

    Do you recall learning that observation is theory-laden? Your lab 
experiences alone provide no rational or scientific knowledge. They must be un-
derstood via a theory. 
    The term "science of ethics" comes from Rand.
================================================================================
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
================================================================================
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASS.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Ref: truth & reality article
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:15:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Dec17.021524.12974
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>> The term "science of ethics" comes from Rand.

Presumably then she was the founder of the Cambridge Moral Science Club,
eh? Yeah, right.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:27:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.055715.16775@dunix.drake.edu> dtg001@dunix.drake.edu (Soli Deo Gloria) writes:

>If you really enjoy thinking...
>If you really love metaphysics...

A great many people use the term "metaphysics" as a synonym for "magical" or
"anti-rational" metaphysics.  Capra certainly seems to be one of these.  I'm
plenty interested in metaphysics, but I think Capra's book/movie (I 
(unfortunately) saw the movie but didn't read his book).

>ah heck... if you're a satient entity!...

Satient?  Is that someone who thinks about satisfaction? ;-)

>YOU MUST, SIMPLY MUST SEE THE FILM, "MINDWALK!!!"

It is no exaggeration to say that every single one of his major ideas are
wrong.  Of course, people who have never heard the other sides of the arguments
he tries to make might not realize this, but that's why you need to at least
know what those arguments are before you reject them.

>I would like to start a discussion thread about it.  I have never
>been made to think by a film quite the way I was by this one.

And I have never been so angry about such blatant irrationality being palmed
off as science and truth before.

>What it basically boils down to is the search for ultimate truth
>and how the sciences, at one time so distant from a conception that
>could be called metaphysical, are now coming so close to one!

The "sciences" most emphatically do NOT support the absurdities Capra
promotes.  He is quite selective about his choice of "scientists" ("crackpots"
would be a better word).  In fact, is what he is saying is true, science 
isn't really valid so why should scientific proof be seen as any great
shakes for his theories?

>I find it fascinating that physics, a purely scientific and
>'reason-based' discipline is now beginning to ask and, more importantly,
>put forth plausible answers to metaphysical questions.

Conventional physics already exists atop a certain set of metaphysical 
premises (ones with none of Capra's mystical irrational nonsense).
His movie leads you to believe that modern physics supports his eastern
religious ideas, his socialist political ideas, his irrationalist 
epistemological ideas, his environmentalist political ideas, his
sexist social philosophy, and his anti-business anti-science prejudices.
It is pretty obvious that these prejudices came BEFORE his supposed proofs
that they are right.

>The movie is based on the book "The Turning Point" by Fritjof Capra.
>Let me tell you all... I will be RUSHING to the bookstore to buy
>it first thing in the morning!

Why not pick up something rational instead?  Perhaps Atlas Shrugged by
Ayn Rand or a REAL physics book.

Capra's ideas about physics have about as much to do with science as
the National Enquirer has to do with news.

--Brian
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Ref: truth & reality article
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:03:24 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <4175@eastman.UUCP>, mcgraw@titan.ppd.kodak.com (Edward McGraw) writes:

|> I suppose truth (logical truth) could be considered conventional
|> in that it is the agreement between things and thoughts. A 
|> judgement is true when it agrees with reality. However truth is
|> certainly not arbitrary, especially in a metephysical sense. I do
|> agree that it is convienent and popular today for a person to 
|> select what is true, at random, and without reason. It also 
|> eliminates the need to study the science of ethics, which deals 
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> with the moral order. 

I had a few lab courses in college, but I don't recall ethics being
one of them.  Are we talking Bentham here?
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.space
From: joechip@hardy.u.washington.edu (Erich Vandenloos)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 07:48:39 GMT


Steve Hunter says:
>I see in this thread a lot of flaming of Capra, mostly general or vague 
>attacks doused in emotion.  Very little in the way of concrete examples in
>his book that are taken to task in an analytical, cohesive fashion. Come on,
>you so-called scientists!!!  With these emotional diatribes against someone
>you consider irrational, you're falling on your own sword.

I am well aware that my dislike for Capra is irrational, as are all moral
judgements. It would be foolish for me to apply the same sorts of 
arguments against Capra as I would against someone like Searle or Dennett,
because these gentlemen are theorizing about something in the world, and
are thus subject to logical analysis and real critique.

Capra, on the other hand, is pushing an ideology. Since he rejects reason
outright as being too limited, one cannot apply reason to him. So I must
appeal to my moral outrage, the outrage I feel toward all my ideological
enemies. I cannot fault Capra's logic because he isn't using any. This is
not my problem with him, however, for I am not misled about the extent of
the usefulness of pure reason. I find him morally reprehensible, and so
yes, my rejection of him is emotional, the same way my response to a Fascist
would be.

I will reiterate my problems with his ideology of (or against) science:
He hates science and the scientific world view. He rejects reason. I feel
it is important to stress his rejection of logic. It is not that I am 
making some kind of idiotic claim to perfect rationality; I'm not Ayn Rand
after all. Howvever, Capra wants people to neglect reason in favor of
emotionalism and some vague 'intuition'. This is not only ultimately
impossible, it allows for plenty of ugly self-delusion along the way. He has
said, both in his books and in that film of his, that it is imperative
that we reform society on some sort of green lines. I'm as big a conserv-
ationist as anyone, but green politics is evil, if anything in the world
deserves that over-used adjective. His stressing of the need for a more
'feminine' way of viewing the world is just insulting, particularly to
women, whom Capra holds up as the models of perfect illogic.

Well, anyway, I've said what I have to say about Capra. It's find to have
an open mind, but it shouldn't be so open that your brain falls out the
back of your head.

Still putting the screws to Ma Earth,
Erich Vandenloos
joechip@u.washington.edu

P.S:
S.H. continues: 
>It made me look at the limitations of the scientific method and how its 
>axioms really make it another form of religion.  

Do you want to say that the axioms of Euclid make geometry a religion? 
This kind of talk is extremely careless. Religions don't derive stuff from
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: nick@nomad23.demon.co.uk (Nick Wood)