HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mind/Not Mind
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:13:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Dave Pipes x4552 (dpipes@spica.srg) wrote:
: [...]
: Some people, notably early-20th century behaviorists, have argued that they
: do not have minds, merely the illusion thereof.  Just as an example.

i think that most of the behaviorists (at least the ones i studied)
took more of a black-box approach to questions of mind. they didn't
argue for or against the concept; they merely described the results of
various stimuli. why those results happened wasn't a huge concern of
theirs, at least not experimentally. my animal learning prof explained
the black-box attitude at basically researchers feeding in a stimulus 
and noting what the response was. 

: I assumed a viewpoint FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT!  I do *not* hold this 
: viewpoint!  I merely pointed out that it could be argued, and that makes
: any study based on assumptions about the nature of the mind suspect, to one
: degree or another.  You will admit that a behaviorist interpretation of
: erratic behavior could be radically different from a Freudian one, right?
: That was the point, that it is hard to base an entire science on unproven
: assumptions.  Even if the results are reasonable.

i've not seen the beginning of this discussion, so i'm not certain,
but the above statement sounds as if the original argument was that
psychology is invalid because based on unproven assumptions, such as
the existence of mind.

first, a great deal of the work being done in experiemental psychology
makes no claims as to the nature of consciousness or the mind, simply
contenting itself with formulating theories about human behavior and
devising and testing hypotheses based on these theories. the lab in
which i worked did experiments in small-group and dyadic interactions.
no claims were made about the existence or nonexistence of mind in the
participants; hypotheses tested had to do with self-reported thoughts
and feelings and noted behaviors in covertly videotaped interactions.
the theoretical basis for this work wasn't behaviorist, either.
perception theory, a lot of the cognitive work being done, most of
social psych (things like bandera's modeling theory and even the less
experimentally-supported stuff like maslow's humanistic psych)-- none
of these assume or deny the existence of "mind" in the sense you seem
to be using it.

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
"consciousness is far more terrifying than any unconscious complexes."
					-- mikhail bakhtin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: kalter@unh.edu
Subject: Brain necessary but not sufficient (Tobis)
Organization: University of New Hampshire  -  Durham, NH
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 08:34:18 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Deja vu all over again...
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:35:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.002556.29590@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
}In article <1992Sep9.202437.23671@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
}>In article <1992Sep9.180800.23864@bcrka451.bnr.ca> seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:
}>}Excuse me, but Vern (aka Gerald Vernon Nelson) appears to be an atheist,
}>}not a creationist:
}>
}>That you should draw such a direct conclusion should itself be informative.
}Informative of what?  I didn't "draw a conclusion"; he stated his position
}plainly enough.  I said that he was not a creationist because someone
}had just said that he was.

That was not the point.  That you equated "Atheist" with "not creationist"
was.

}>Notice that "atheist" != "creationist".  Ever think why?
}It is trivially obvious that atheists are by definition not creationists
}--you can't have creationism (or even creation) without a creator.

So much for "scientific creationism".

}The point that is being argued (I think) is whether evolution proves
}atheism.

That's nice.  And _I_ was not arguing that point.  I was finding it interesting
that you could conclude that being a creationist disallowed atheism.
Would seem to be a rather biased system then, wouldn't it?

}Most creationists (or as I prefer to call them Theistic 
}Anti-Evolutionists) agree with this; this is why they object to 
}evolution.

I am not accountable for their misconceptions.

}I have myself argued with TAEs against evolution=atheism.
}Every time a TAE comes on to t.o and says "evolution means atheism",
}most of the t.o regulars jump on him/her and say, "no, evolution has
}nothing to do with God".  An atheist comes on t.o, and says "evolution
}means atheism" and gets almost the same reception.  I think this is
}a good thing.  So, what's the problem? 

No problem with that at all to me.

Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16430 talk.origins:11292
From: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: J. Witnesses
Reply-To: grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 03:36:41 GMT

wsadjw@rw7.urc.tue.nl (Jan Willem Nienhuys) writes:

: You seem to have a particular virulent type of JW around. 
                                ^^^^^^^^
I _like_ the word choice!

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  On SECOND thought,
Rosemount Inc.                                |maybe I'll heat up some BAKED
                                              |BEANS and watch REGIS
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |PHILBIN..  It's GREAT to be
                                              |ALIVE!!
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: arsmith@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Let's test the sevens-in-Bible phenomenon!
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:36:55 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <+prnd+_.raicu@netcom.com> raicu@netcom.com (Eugen Raicu) writes:
>Kalter@unh.edu writes:
>: Let's have a little intellectual honesty here.  The skeptics are in
>: business to investicate and test any testable claims of the extraordinary.
>: The prospect that off-the-shelf original-language books of the Bible
>: produce sevens when run through an objective formula has got to be
>: THE MOST TESTABLE CLAIM ever to come down the pike.  It do, or it don't.
>: Cynicism aside, anyone who knows that there is hard evidence on an issue,
>: has not examined it, knows that another has made an observation, yet
>: says "I don't need to see for myself; they're just WRONG!" does not
>: truly adhere to the skeptic's philosophy.  A skeptic would insist on a
>: second opinion.  BRING IN THE EVIDENCE. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
>
>As I have said in a previous article, if this constitutes hard evidence,
>there is even more such "hard" evidence for the fact that the Earth has
>been visited by extraterestrials.

He's not sayin the bible proves anything.  (Disclaimer: Neither am I)  He just
says that if you take the dead sea scrolls and run them through a computer, you
get a bunch of sevens.  Not owning a bible and not giving enough of a shit to
buy one, I never tested this.

Big Al.  Did you know that there's a topic on alt.sex called "Legislating
Freedom?"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard)
Subject: Re: Voyager(TM) light and sound device
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:14:42 GMT

Why pay $600 when you can hook up 20 cents worth of LEDS to your computer
:-)
-- 
------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
 \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .
    
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Soul
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:53:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.013605.8876@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>>Marc> Finally if there is no soul, why do we need anything else including... 
>>Marc> .... GOD? Is this line of reasoning faulty, if so please respond. 

Yes, this reasoning is faulty. The hebrews prior to about the 1st century
AD didn't have this conception of soul. For them, the soul was simply
your life, inseparable from your body. If there was life after death,
it would be a resurrection of the whole person, toenails, earlobes and
all.

There isn't really any reason to believe that JC taught it either.
The idea of the transcendent soul entered Judeo-Christian thought
by way of the platonists, and first appears in christian apologetics
about 100-200 AD.

References supplied upon request (ie. my reference files are at home.)

Personally, I think it is _ALL_ a bunch of hooey.

Regards,
	Max G. Webb
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Maps of the Charioteers of the Gods
Organization: RL
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 16:14:02 GMT

In article   writes:
>u.au!kappa
>From: kappa@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Glenn Capuano)
>Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
>Subject: Re: Maps of the Charioteers of the Gods
>Message-ID: <1992Sep10.014002.25125@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>Date: 10 Sep 92 01:40:02 GMT
>References: <92Sep08.155232.32789@acs.ucalgary.ca>
>Sender: news@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Usenet system)
>Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
>Lines: 21
>X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
>
>John Edstrom (edstrom@Elmer.hsc.ucalgary.ca) wrote:
>: 
>: 
>: This one is news to me.  It sounds odd to me that they could have a
>: map of the south pole when they didn't know about north&south America,
>: Australia, southern Africa and most of Asia and the Pacific ocean.
>
>	He's probably referring to the Piri Reis (sp?) map, which was
>supposedly found in 1927, and thought to have been used in the 1600's
>(sorry I'm unsure of the details here). The mystery was that it showed
>many areas which were unknown in 1600 and also supposedly the mountains
>under the antarctic ice which weren't even known in 1927. I am unaware of
>any recent developments here, maybe someone else can help?
>
>						Regards,
>						     Glenn

Skeptical Inquirer, Fall '86 "Was Antarctica Mapped by the Ancients", 
David C. Jolly.

The Piri Re`is map and others showing Antarctica are explained 
quite nicely by Jolly, and there is an extensive list of 
references. From the conclusion: 

"Our knowledge of early cartography is limited, since
much material from the sixteenth century is now lost.  While this affords
ample opportunity for speculation, there have been many scholarly 
studies of the period.  The studies were not done by dunces...Professor
Hapgood, to his credit, spent almost ten years studying the evidence
...His ideas were rejected in scholarly circles not because of animus
but because he had failed to prove his case...I fear it is impossible
to be equally charitable toward some later advocates of the Hapgood
thesis, whose methods do little credit to his memory."


-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16431 talk.origins:11295
From: Rick.Moen@f207.n914.z8.rbbs-net.ORG (Rick Moen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: July 4, 1992 - global
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:40:33 GMT

Reply-To: Rick_Moen@blyth.com

In article <87806@65699@cup.portal.com>, John_-_Window@cup.portal.com
wrote as follows:

> Oh yes, I didn't mention that sometimes you meet you dead relatives
> during astral travel, but then there is no death.
 
Then ELVIS LIVES!  (But we all knew that....)
 
Cheers,
Rick Moen

 * Origin: The Skeptic's Board in San Mateo - Bay Area Skeptics (8:914/207)
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Fluoride:  Threat or Menace?
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:35:33 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK


In article <1992Sep1.225209.26988@csl.sri.com>
boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) writes:

>I was recently told several interesting things about flouride:

I have no specialist knowledge, but a few minutes thought and some
general knowledge suggests that this is bogus.

>1) Naturally occurring calcium fluoride _may_ be beneficial, but
>   sodium fluoride is pure poison (used as rat poison).

If you put a salt (e.g. sodium fluoride) in solution it dissociates
into ions of sodium and ions of flourine.  We get sodium ions from
salt solution, and fluorine ions from sodium fluoride are the same as
fluorine ions from calcium fluoride.  So the notion that there is a
significant difference between them sounds a trifle unlikely.

It is possible that in high concentrations sodium fluoride is a
poison.  But the chlorine which is routinely added to our drinking
water was used a poison gas in world war 1.  The point is that they
are both added to water in very low concentrations (a few ppm), far
too low to be poisonous.

>2) The source of sodium fluoride is a toxic waste product of refining
>   aluminum (tailings?).

So what?  The point is whether the stuff itself is poisonous in the
concentrations used.  Almost anything is toxic in sufficient
concentration.  If you don't believe me, try eating a pound of salt.

>3) The aluminum industry was having great difficulties disposing of
>   this toxic waste legally.

If they are producing this stuff in significant amounts then putting
it in the water supply will have negligable effects on the amount to
be disposed of.

>4) Every study that's shown benefits of fluoride was either
>      a) about _calcium_ fluoride, or
>      b) bought and paid for by the aluminum industry.

This one I cannot refute off-hand, but given the sloppy logic above, I
rather doubt it.

Are the originators of this material afraid for our Purity of Essence?

Paul.
-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: "Live Dinosaurs"
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:38:25 GMT

In article <13732.2aae8b9e@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
hjort@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> I just saw a little blurb on the news just now. I didn't give
> any details, but the story was apparently there was this museum
> display featuring "live" dinosaurs that were mechanically animated
> displays. Apparently some people thought they were going to see
> living dinosaurs, and are demanding thier money back.
> 
> I thought it was worth a chuckle, but it also reflects sadly on
> America's education system.

   Or comments on the active sabotage by the ICR and their 
running dog lackeys.

> 
> I just thought you might want to know.

   Thanks.  Additional details: it was the "Dinosaurs Live" exhibit and it
happened in Louisiana, according to the Des Mones Register.

> 
> 					-Hans H Hjort

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: al@crucible.UUCP (Al Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Implementing a brain machine? (was Re: Voyager(TM) light... )
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:03:42 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: PowerTools, Austin, Texas

In article <1992Sep11.153057.26556@m.cs.uiuc.edu> mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu writes:

>What I'd really like to know is whether these cheap things actually do
>affect EEG's, and if so, in what ways.  So far, I have received little
>besides gee-whiz personal endorsements and pointers to commercial claims.
>Does ANYBODY have any scientific, medical, or ANY reasonable evidence
>that these things do anything at all.  (Besides make people happy, and
>make money for the vendors.)

Theta Technologies, 35928 SE 49th St., Fall City, WA 98024, 206-222-6962,
manufacturer of the Voyager, publishes a booklet titled _The Science
of Light and Sound_ containing descriptions and explanations of the
effect, several citations, and a long list of references. Personally,
I have no idea as to the quality or applicability of these references,
but a number of them point to a journal called _Electroencephalography
and Clinical Neurophysiology_, which certainly *sounds* like a good
source:-)
					--Al Evans--
-- 

Al Evans						 Tu causes, tu causes
al@crucible.uucp		 	      C'est tout ce que tu sais faire
cs.utexas.edu!balkan!crucible!al				 -- LaVerdure
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175)
Subject: Re: SCI.SKEPTIC.BIBLICAL  I vote [X]Yes!
Organization: Calgary UNIX Users' Group
Distribution:  world
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:31:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.225336.8998@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.125142.4019@cuug.ab.ca> rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (Robert P.J. Day 277-3175) writes:
>>  If Mr. Lawson, or whoever, insists on this type of behaviour, is it
>>really that difficult to track down his/her site, locate the sys admin
>>and make it clear that this person's actions are unwanted and contravene
>>the mandate of that particular group?  This is not censorship, it is
>>simply insisting that posters behave appropriately and restrict their
>>postings to the appropriate groups.
>
>To be fair, I don't think Drew Lawson's postings take up very much
>bandwidth.  It's actually the rebuttals that take up much more.  I don't
>believe that you can blame him for that.
>-- 
>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729

  It wasn't just the bandwidth I was concerned about.  I was addressing
the annoyance of cross-postings, where the same posting shows up in a
number of different newsgroups, all of which I would like to subscribe to.
Most of my time is then wasted reading duplicate entries.
  Even if the original cross-posted message isn't that long, anyone
responding to it feels the need to also cross-post, just to show that
they're not going to be one-upped, and they can cover the net just as
well as the original poster.  From there, it's a quick descent into
absurdity.  Any solutions?  Maybe just an application of common courtesy
and consideration?  Sigh.

R. Day
Member, Alberta Skeptics
... the pit bull of skepticism ...
From: jmv@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Jean-Marc Vezien)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Proof: God wrote the Bible
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:12:04 GMT
Organization: GRASP Lab

PROOF IRRATIONNAL NUMBERS ARE EVIL:

Decomposition of 6 in prime: 6 = 2 x 3
and:

2 / 3 = 0.66666666666666666666666

i.e. infinitly evil !!!! 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!


hum...


JM.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:16284 alt.conspiracy:10560 sci.classics:707
From: rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.conspiracy,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Dead Sea Scrolls
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:28:39 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <ARA.92Sep11025538@camelot.ai.mit.edu> ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
>There seems to be a division among archaeologists. There are those who
>use archaeology to try to confirm what is written in the Bible. And there
>are those who simply look at the archeological record without taking the
>Bible into account.

Actually, it would be plain stupid for an archaeologist working in the area
discussed in the Bible to not take it into account.  It's a tremendous
resource, both for suggesting places to look and for help in interpreting
what's been found.  Ignoring the Bible would be like ignoring Greek mythology
and Homer's writings when doing archaeology in Greece.  The Bible provides
a separate source of information to compare with and complement the
archaeological record.

This doesn't mean assuming everything in the Bible is literally true; just
that it includes one (imperfect) record of the region's history.

   Robert
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata FSO)
Subject: Re: Belief without Evidence  (was: Young earth NOT!)
Reply-To: ata@hfsi.UUCP (John Ata FSO)
Organization: HFSI, McLean VA.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:45:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.154801.13309@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.190449.13220@acuson.com> lawson@aldia.UUCP (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>No, I don't have any scientific evidence for [a young earth].  There are many
>>other things for which I have no evidence:
>>  - that my life has meaning or purpose
>>  - that some actions are better than others (i.e. helping someone. . .)
>>  - that I love my wife
>>  - that a stary summer night is beautiful
>>
>>[. . .]  I don't feel it [a theory of creation] is a scientific matter.
>
>I wonder not so much how one believes something for which no evidence exists,
>but how he can believe something for which evidence exists AGAINST.
>
>Now, THAT is what I consider odd!
>
>

Ever hear of the phrase "belief against all odds"?  A mother is given evidence
that her son is dying.  Yet she persists on believing that her son will live.
In certain areas, I don't consider it odd at all that someone could believe
something for which evidence exists AGAINST.

-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:     ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:     uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic