HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Is There a Set of All Truths?
Date: 20 Aug 92 08:12:49 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug19.203820.20586@tamsun.tamu.edu> cmenzel@tamsun.tamu.edu
(Christopher P Menzel         ) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.094252.7977@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.080257.4921@sics.se> 
>>torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Aug18.214302.1721@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.
>>>FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>>>
>>>   >On a realist reading of mathematical truth, a proposition such as
>>>   >Fermat's Last Theorem is either true or false.  What I suggest is 
>>>   >that even if a proof one way or the other is never found, it still
>>>   >exists (this is what I called a 'noumenal truth' in my note).
>>>
>>TF:
>>>  What exists?
>>
>>The proof of FLT (in the _nous_ of God, see below).
>>
>>>
>>TF:
>>>  As for realism and a "set of all truths", it is quite obscure what
>>>connection you have in mind. Could you set this out more informatively?
>>
>>I quote Michael Dummett in _The Logical Basis of Metaphysics_ (pp.348f):
>>  
>>  Can a theist resist the realist's argument?  When we approach the 
>>  issue from the side of metaphysics, theism seems a natural ally of
>>  realism.  For reality must be as God apprehends it; and his knowledge
>>  of it guarantees that it is as it is, independently of how it appears
>>  to us or of whether we know it or not...
>>
>>  ...God's thoughts are not as our thoughts, but that seems beside the
>>  point; we are concerned not with divine concepts but with God's
>>  knowledge of truths involving human concepts, truths in which there
>>  is no indefiniteness since the concept of a prime number is quite
>>  definite, being fixed by a decision procedure.  Since primality is
>>  decidable, the statement that any particular number is prime must be
>>  determinately either true or false, since the decision procedure, if
>>  applied to that number, would have a determinate outcome...  But if
>>  God knows everything, he must know, of every natural number, whether
>>  or not it is prime:  must he not therefore know whether there is a
>>  largest prime pair?
>>
>>I hope this also answers Chris Menzel's query, but I will be happy to
>>elaborate if something is not clear.
>
>I remain nonplussed.  As far as I can see, the only that follows from
>the view Dummett is suggesting here (only to refute, I suspect)

Yep.

 is
>that all the natural numbers have to exist, all propositions about
>them have to have a definite truth value, etc.  Nothing whatever
>follows about the existence of a *set* of all numbers, or a set of all
>truths.  Dummett doesn't even bring sets into the picture.  What do
>you see that I don't?

Well, certainly all truths about whether a number is a prime or not
would have to exist in the mind of God (this would settle Goldbach's
conjecture).  I'm still awaiting your comments about quantification over
all truths...

Marko Amnell
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Is There a Set of All Truths?
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:00:44 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug19.132250.18826@sics.se> torkel@sics.se 
(Torkel Franzen) writes:

>In article <1992Aug19.115545.17876@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.
>FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>
>   >I take it we agree that the sign of a true statement in mathematics is
>   >the existence of a proof.
>
>  From a realistic point of view there is no apparent reason at all why every
>true mathematical statement must have a proof.

Fair enough.  You'll recall that I don't shy away from unorthodoxy.  To me
a truth without proof is no truth at all (I've always thought that
Brouwer had a point).  Hence my 'noumenal proofs' for 'noumenal truths'.

>
>   >I think Dummett quite explicitly says that metaphysical realism requires
>   >that there be a collection of all true propositions ("[God's] knowledge
>   >[of all truths]...guarantees that [reality] is as it is, independently
>   >of whether we know it or not").
>
>  What God's knowledge guarantees, for those who invoke God's knowledge,
>is one matter. But why should realism imply that there is such a thing
>as "God's knowledge"?

Metaphysical realism certainly doesn't imply theism (although Putnam
does speak --I think allegorically-- about a 'God's-Eye-View'). But the
converse seems to hold for an omniscient deity.  What realism does
require, I think, is an alethic totality of all truths (preferably
propositions, but all possible statements --in every possible language--
might also do the trick).

Marko Amnell
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Is There a Set of All Truths?
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug19.172735.6787@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
	<1992Aug19.194436.4924@sics.se>
	<1992Aug20.075850.20324@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:28:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.075850.20324@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.
FI (Marko Amnell) writes:

   >Finally, there is also Unger's book where he claims that the only way
   >to escape Cartesian skepticism is for there to be a Whole Truth about
   >the world (since if there is no such object, a non-existent object
   >cannot have parts -- which are what everyday limited truths like 
   >'China is bigger than India' are).

  I forgot to comment on this part. Surely nobody is as silly as this,
even in philosophy? You must have missed something.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic,sci.math
From: tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: RE:Objectivism, Aug.4
Keywords: RE:Objectivism, Aug.4
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:29:28 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va



Stephen Grossman says:

You are epistemologically privileged to know our wisdom. Our 1985
essay, "Existence 2," is available thru net.


I (William Tucker) wonder:

Sounds interesting. Is it too long to post? 
If so please mail me a copy too, at the 
following address:

tucker@maestro.mitre.org

Thanks.

Wm T.

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: "Is truth good?" or "Is good truth?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 07:45:00 GMT

In article <8495.2279217165@kcbbs.gen.nz> Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz
 (Hakki Kocabas) writes:

   >Scientific philosophy ?!

  No, no! Not a group for scientific philosophy, but a scientific group for
philosophy.
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Subject: Re: Philosophical Influence
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 08:43:20 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: Hmmm.
Distribution: na

onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:

> Of course, I don't believe in the ideal that 
> honest mathematical rigor will solve the most basic philosophical
> question ever posed -- "what is?"  Math presupposes that fundamental 
> question and as such, fails to answer it.

Excuse me, but, ah, the very question, as Charles puts it, is bogus.

Existence can only be presupposed, and its content, nature, and consonance
must be incrementally discovered. No packaged answers, sorry. Since we are
part of what is (well, maybe Charles isn't, but see Godel anyway), we're
stuck with observation and attempts at homomorphic models whose validity
is implied by our continued functioning, plus or minus a little luck. The
operation of such models is pretty hard without math and its close relations,
consciously applied or not. While philosophy outside this realm can have some
vague qualitative value, it too easily devolves into the "eristic bullshit"
(thank you, Michael Zeleny) that brands the field as the haunt of intellectual
flakes.

> ... there exists a large group of people still
> caught up in this representational crap.  Of course, we found that
> AI, founded on such ideas, (and here I mean the logic-based AI tradition), 
> failed miserably in terms of explaining how humans think.

Well, that representational crap gets pretty good mileage, anyway. That it
doesn't go the whole distance needn't surprise anyone: intelligence is
clearly an epiphenomenon. I believe another major component derives from the
sheer chaos in a poorly-constructed multicomputer with lots of time on its
hands.

It's also interesting that many philosophy departments are being taken over
by the CS people, presumably because a computer scientist's philosophy is
required to *work*. Some people even care about this. The realistic ones
understand that CS->AI->Philosophy is still a work in progress.

> But alas, I don't feel that you understand Heidegger very well and as such
> don't feel compelled to explain him to you.

Charles, if you thought Michael *did* understand Heidegger, would you then
feel compelled to explain him? Fascinating. Do you carry coals to Newcastle,
too? Yes? I thought so. %^)

Happiness and Light,

Steve abell@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: xcpslf@decsrv.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (stephen l favor)
Subject: Re: Freud, sex, Jeez folx: figger it out
Reply-To: xcpslf@oryx.com
Organization: Oryx Energy Co., Dallas, Texas.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 16:02:08 GMT

In article <BsvHpt.4n4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller) writes:
|> 
|> recently, I think it is important to note that FREUDIAN ANALYSIS DOES
|> NOT MEAN "EVERYTHING IS SEX".  Most of what passes for "Freudian"
|> analysis is more like a sort of crude folk explanation in terms of sex.
|> A truly Freudian analysis of myth pays more attention to family
|> dyynamics than it does to sex - witness his work on the primal horde.

Hat's off to you!  There are few people who have thought about it enough
to understand this.  There are many good aspects of Freud's work that
get overlooked by people in search of phallic symbols, but that's
for another board...
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:12:29 EDT
From: <MKK2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?

In article <169vl0INNire@agate.berkeley.edu>, ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu
(;;;;7202) says:

>So what's the explanation for the great :-) variation in breast
>size among women?  Some have next to nothing, others a couple
>of huge mellons, neither makes much sense.  Was this just men

For some reason, I've decided to take this question seriously.

The first thing we need to do is to document that in fact breast size is
unusually variable, compared say to foot size, nose size, tooth size
and so on.  To do that we need to measure the size of a number of body parts
on a sample of women, and then compute some reasonable coefficient of
variation.  Probably should do this for men, as well.

   In short, demonstrate the phenomenon exists before you try to explain it.
From: ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: How 'bout breast size variation?
Date: 13 Aug 1992 07:20:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug12.160935.28935@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>Perhaps your physical anth class was discounting species like dogs, because
>of course, the great physical variation in dogs is caused by human breeding.

Actually, I've heard there's more to it than just human breeding.  Humans
breed cats and cows without that much variation.  There's something
peculiar about dogs.
Xref: sparky sci.anthropology:718 sci.skeptic:14256
From: wismith@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (William R. Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:15:39 GMT
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

Derek Abbott writes:
	I heard a story that there was a tribe discovered (in this
	century) who's girls grew a penis when they reached puberty.
	
	Does anyone know a reference for this?




Jared Diamond in "Discover" magazine had an article about confusing
gender.  The issue was May or June of this year and the entire issue
was devoted to sex.  The condition is genetic and there are two or
three places in the world where because of inbreeding it occurs more
frequently than in the population as a whole.  One of the groups where
this happens is in New Guinea.  Diamond has a lengthy discussion about
the sexual habits and taboos of this group and how devestating this
condition is to the individuals who have it.

Another group where the condition is also common has a different social
structure and the individuals have a much easier time adjusting because
of social acceptance.

He also tells how difficult it is for a physician to not be able to
tell the parents if "It's a boy" or "Its a girl".

Fascinating artile.  Recommended.



William Smith
Intel, SSD
From: loftis@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Kirk Loftis)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Re: How 'bout dog size variation?
Date: 15 Aug 92 02:20:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: hpcc01.72200004
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server

|Well, of course, human breeding of animals is a very valid topic for anthro.

You are correct here.  In my study of dogs and there evolution of dogs
is very dependent upon the evolution of man.  The dog was used to
protect man against the other creatures (guard dogs), then later was
used in hunts.  As man began to domesticate other animals (goats and
cattle) dogs were used in herding.  As man moved to agriculture, dogs
were developed to destroy varmit.  

|The reason that I think dogs vary more than cats has nothing to do with time,
|it has to do with human desires. Macho folks want a big dog, with a deep
|bark, and one who can frighten/harm an intruder. Badger hunters want a long
|narrow dog (ie a dachshund) that can go into badger burrows and run it out.
|Not so macho folks want a little dog, oh so cute, and one that they can keep
|in a small dwelling. Gambling folks want a fast dog.....

How is this different then my statemet?

|>I guess the use of cats as a worker for man is much different than dogs, 
|>therefore the intensive breeding is not there.

|My point is that dogs are used/desired for so many different things, and this
|is why there are so many different kinds of dogs. When someone wants a cat,
|they just want a pet, and maybe a mouser, so the variation is not as great.
|
|Plus, biology could play a part. Cats are so small already, that miniturizing
|them in the way dogs havce been miniturized is not feasible.

I disagree here.  There are many large cats (Lions, Tigers, Jaguars,
Cheetahs, etc).  I do not think man has had enough time to domesticate
these other animals (man doesn't need them now).  I would be more afraid
of a large lion than a Mastiff, Pit Bull, Doberman, German Shephard
combined.  A Cheetah would whip any Greyhound or other SightHound.

|-rob
|----------
|>----------
|>

By the way, I race Whippets, not because I am a gambler (racing
Whippets is amateur - Greyhounds are gambling), but because I was a
runner and I want a dog similiar to me.  I want one that runs quick and
I can use to compete, like I do with other humans.

Kirk
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I HAVE two)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:06:53 GMT

In defense of my posting about the display characteristics of breasts:

Janis points out "let's not forget what the damn things are for".  But
of course this totally begs the question.  The size and shape of a
breast have absolutely nothing to do with the breast's function
function.  That is, with the breast's functin in the feeding of babies.


This then is the question:  why are breasts larger than they need to be
for feeding babies?  Answer:  Display?  Social stuff?  Fat reserves?


-- 
--------------------
=
(former rock star turned grad student)
Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: flor@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Nick Flor)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Chimpanzee anatomy
Keywords: primates, anatomy
Date: 23 Aug 92 00:43:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCSD Department of Cognitive Science

In article <1992Aug21.174039.8324@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> kcohen@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Kevin B Cohen) writes:
>I need some very specific data on the anatomy of the chimpanzee vocal tract. 
>E.g., average vocal tract length-- from glottis to lips? Cross-sectional areas,
>or even cross-sectional distances, at the pharynx, soft palate, hard palate? I 
>would much appreciate references or even data on the chimp of your choice. Data
>from your research will be appropriately acknowledged.

Try Uniquely Human, by Phillip Lieberman.  He has a section in this book that
describes some of the differences between the human vocal apparatus and
that in other primates.  It's a start.

- Nick
-- 
***** The opinions expressed above are my own and not necessarily UCSD's *****
            Nick V. Flor             |       E-MAIL:        |   o----o----o   
 The Department of Cognitive Science | flor@cogsci.ucsd.edu |  /X\__/X\__/X\  
 University of California, San Diego | nick@sdd.hp.com      |  / \  / \  / \
From: iadt1jm@prism.gatech.EDU (Jean McSpadden)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I HAVE two)
Date: 20 Aug 92 18:41:22 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <BtA9rH.3Cy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> stcmille@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller) writes:

>Janis points out "let's not forget what the damn things are for".  But
>of course this totally begs the question.  The size and shape of a
>breast have absolutely nothing to do with the breast's function
>function.  That is, with the breast's functin in the feeding of babies.

>This then is the question:  why are breasts larger than they need to be
>for feeding babies?  Answer:  Display?  Social stuff?  Fat reserves?


Breast are not bigger then are needed for their basic function -
just ask any lactating women.  The purpose of breast is to deliver 
high quality food to the mouth of an infant.  Large pendulous breast
are better for this then small high ones, not because the quality of 
milk is any better, but because the woman is freed from having to hold
the child up to her breast.  Try sitting and holding 20 pounds of weights
up against your chest for a half and hour 6 to 10 times a day and see
why  it would be of great advantage for the nipple to reach down to
a baby laying on his mothers lap instead of the mother having to 
hold him up.  Besides making nursing more comfortable, which would allow 
the mother to nurse longer, it also frees her hands for other work. 
You may have noticed that in the other species of apes the mother is very 
hairy and their babies have strong prehensile fingers and toes and is
able to climb up to it's mothers tit and hold on, thus the mother
has no need for large breast.  This also explains why women's 
breast grow so much during pregnancy, and if you looked at
a few National Geographics you would realize that without the 
support of bras, womans breast become pendulous by the time they
are lactating.

-- 
Jean McSpadden 
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!iadt1jm
ARPA: iadt1jm@prism.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I'll take two)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 04:25:41 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <168416FB4.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>
>Well I can't answer all these questions but I would say that as the
>years go by, this environmental angle you refer to increases.
>I assume by environmental angle you mean the angle between the
>centerline of breast and the horizontal.  So, with age, this angle
>approaches 90 degrees.  This action is of course mediated by the
>actual breast mass, with larger masses having an accelerated
>rate of angular change.  All of which was clarified in the great
>Twiggy-Morganna debates of the 70's.  I hope this helps.

	Quite amusing. And reminds me of one of my bosses commenting
	on the sagging of the blades of vertical wind turbines
	with age :)

Roger Squires
rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson)
Subject: Re: How 'bout breasts (I'll take two)
Followup-To: misc.misc
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:59:55 GMT

In article <169vl0INNire@agate.berkeley.edu> ph111-bx@violet.berkeley.edu (;;;;7202) writes:
>So what's the explanation for the great :-) variation in breast
>size among women?  Some have next to nothing, others a couple
>of huge mellons, neither makes much sense.  Was this just men
>favoring large breasts and so mating with women who had them,
>or is their an environmental angle, where, say, you find breast
>size varying with climate and/or food supply, or what?


So whats the explanation for the great variation in spleen size among
men? Some have next to nothing, some have a huge organ, neither makes
much sense. Were women just mating with more guys with huge spleens?

What is the explanation for the great variation in nose/thigh/shin/eye/ear...
size.....

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
From: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu (Eugene Powell)
Subject: Breast size
Followup-To: wonders of medicine  
Summary: Data inconsistency  
Originator: gpowell@ent1.ent.ncsu.edu
Keywords: implants  
Organization: Dept. of Entomology - NCSU, Raleigh, NC
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:01:04 GMT

Wasn't all the research on associating breast size with anything
discarded when it was discovered males and females with implants
had inadvertantly been included in surveys? Who has the 'raw' data
'bouncing' around in their files? Who has the BRAvura to post it?


Newsgroups: sci.anthropology,sci.skeptic
From: Morgan@icarus.curtin.edu.au (Bruce Morgan)
Subject: Re: Sex Change
Organization: Computing Centre, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 08:41:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug13. dabbott@
augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU 
eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Derek Abbott)
>Subject: Sex Change
>Date: 13 Aug 92 05:51:20 GMT
>I heard a story that there was a tribe discovered (in this century) who's
>girls grew a penis when they reached puberty.
>Does anyone know a reference for this?

This was a shown in a documentary on hermaphrodites and
sex changes, shown several years ago on the ABC (Australian
Broadcasting Corporation.
The reporters were not sure whether this was a biological
phenomenon or cultural. (They weren't permitted to wander
around checking all the pre-pubescent "girls".) 


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 
\  John Newman                Internet: J.Newman@qmcc.curtin.edu.au      /
/  Computing Centre,                                                     \
\  Curtin University,        "There is less to this than meets the eye." /                         
/  Perth,  Western Australia          - Tallulah Bankhead                \
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/