HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:24:00 +0000


>The bootstrap hypothesis is dead; there are elementary particles.

And the Earth Goes Round the Sun. (or is it that they all go round 
the centre of gravity of the Universe, or is it that they follow a 
straight line in a curved space time continuum - ah I just 
remembered, due to a unified field renormalisation theory in fact 
nothing goes round anything, as we have performed a Fourier transform 
on the whole lot and everything is merely vibrating at its natural 
frequency. Silly me!)

Randall, How can you assert that a model is reality?

There are not elementary particles. There IS a model which accords 
well with observation of some obscure and arcane aspects of atomic 
physics that features concepts that are given the name 'elementary 
particles'. But their existence is not of the same order as you or I 
or the world we live in.

And I alwways took you for an educated man. Tsk Tsk.

>Chaos has little to do with the other topics.

Possibly not. No need to be so shirty about it. I know how family 
christmasses can get you down though :-)


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 22:11:10 GMT

In article <memo.838100@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk 
(Leo Smith) writes:

   >Thank you Torkel. Where would we be without your priceless 
   >contributions.

  Much where you are now, I suspect. Your kind of babbling - I'm assuming
this is the royal 'we' - tends to feed on itself.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Date: 3 Jan 93 15:05:54 GMT
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <memo.837515@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk 
(Leo Smith) writes:

   >What is the relevance of this to Science and Logic. Immense. Logic is 
   >the glue that binds the conceptual objects of our worldview together. 
   >Science is the process of adding to this logical structure. 

  I'm afraid you've been sniffing the wrong glue - some kind of WWI model
airplane stuff. Science is not really the process of adding to these
gluey structures.
From: Tagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 13:03:07 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <724909503snz@nomad23.demon.co.uk>
  <1992Dec21.073704.26803@u.washington.edu>

I look forward to some serious philosophical arguments regarding Capra
and his writings.  Until then it is only so much spouting and gnashing
of teeth.  Entertaining for the first few screens, but largely childish
when continued longer than this.  Substance!  Substance!


Thyagi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Yahoo!
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:31:39 GMT

In article <C05ntt.1sB@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>	I have been officially permitted by the SPIRIT OF RAND to wish all 
>serious philosophers a Happy New Year. Be sure to drink only an objectively 
>proper amount, commit only an objective amount of foolish behavior in front of 
>people you must face tomorrow, and make only objective promises about your 
>reformed character in the new year. Think sober thoughts. Of course, 
>subjectivists can never be certain that the new year will really arrive. "It's 
>unnerved me dreadfully," says Barbara Stanwyck." On the other hand, only 
>Objectivists recognize their right to be happy in the new year.
>
>				YAHOO!
>	
>================================================================================
>	"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>
>================================================================================

In the name of Aristotle and Spinoza, Our Teachers Cantor and Frege
and their good disciples Russell, Zermelo, and Quine (and other
objective thinkers), I reciprocate your greeting, concur in your
counsel of sobriety, and offer prayers (in the direction of the
non-existent top of the iterative hierarchy) for the salvation of your
benighted soul and the enlightenment of your confused mind (two
different ways of saying the same thing!).  Oh yes, and some of the
rest of us do recognize our right to (try to) be happy.


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 10:24:00 +0000




>I've read many a bunch of jibberish on this topic, and as a 
>Buddhist, I think too many people are stretching things to make
>a connection between Buddhiism & science, esp. physics.

>The only connection I can see is that in research you are at
>the boundaries of knowledge.  Buddhism deals with mind and /its/
>boundaries.  At those points, descriptions use similar langauge.


Precisely. IMHO Buddhists have a FAR clearer picture of what is mind, 
and what is not. Although I believe that modern philosophers are 
getting close when they start talking about the all embracing role of 
language.

>That's it folks.....a similarity in phrasiology...only.

What a wonderful little word. Only. Only 6 Million Jews etc etc. :-)
Only 32 Million years to go etc etc.

>Capra, etc, stretch definitions for their own motives.

Agreed, but there IS more to it than 'only phrasiology' Buddhism is 
perhaps the greatest 'thought experiment' that has ever been done. 
Budhhism is the logical extrapolation of the greek idea that the 
world could be understood by pure logic. Buddhism tried, and reports 
back that all is mind :-)

It should act as a salutary lesson to all scientists who espouse 
logic over and above experience and experimental data.

It is not Tagi who is contemplating his navel Mister Cash....


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 20:53:00 +0000


>In article <memo.834818@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk >writes:
>>In-Reply-To: <1992Dec21.172430.14371@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Ran
dall Holmes)
>>
>>The bootstrap hypothesis is dead; there are elementary particles.
>>
>>And the Earth Goes Round the Sun. (or is it that they all go round 
>>the centre of gravity of the Universe, or is it that they follow a 
>>straight line in a curved space time continuum - ah I just 
>>remembered, due to a unified field renormalisation theory in fact 
>>nothing goes round anything, as we have performed a Fourier transform 
>>on the whole lot and everything is merely vibrating at its natural 
>>frequency. Silly me!)
>>
>>Randall, How can you assert that a model is reality?

>How do you think science works if it does not refer to things as they
>are?  (perhaps with some inaccuracies at any given time...)

Good God! You are actually serious aren't you? You actually believe 
that science deals with realities rather than with observations and 
models! all that has puzzled me in your postings now becomes clear.

>
>>There are not elementary particles. There IS a model which accords 
>>well with observation of some obscure and arcane aspects of atomic 
>>physics that features concepts that are given the name 'elementary 
>>particles'. But their existence is not of the same order as you or I 
>>or the world we live in.

>Go look in a bubble chamber some time.  Electrons are real.  They can
>be counted and weighed.  They seem to be elementary.

Electrons are not real. Bubbles are somewhat real - but even they are 
conceptual groupings in the scientists experience. Electrons are 
neither as real as bubbles, nor (even if you accept the lepton MODEL 
as REAL) are they even fundamental !

And if you must stick to determinism, and come up with some Bohm-like 
implicate structure, all of these phenomena are but ripples on the 
face of something more complex!

Is a clous real. If so exactly where does it start, what is the set 
of particels that is 'that cloud' and what is the set that is 'not 
that cloud'

come on. These are useful conceptual tools, thats all. Meanwhile life 
goes on, in ignorance, as usual :-)


>>
>>And I alwways took you for an educated man. Tsk Tsk.

>I am.

That is waht frightens me ....

>
><>>Chaos has little to do with the other topics.
>>
>>Possibly not. No need to be so shirty about it. I know how family 
>>christmasses can get you down though :-)

>Happy Hanukah.

And you.
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:29:20 GMT

In article <memo.834818@cix.compulink.co.uk>, 
shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:

|> Randall, How can you assert that a model is reality?
|> 
|> There are not elementary particles. There IS a model which accords 
|> well with observation of some obscure and arcane aspects of atomic 
|> physics that features concepts that are given the name 'elementary 
|> particles'. But their existence is not of the same order as you or I 
|> or the world we live in.

I don't normally hang out in this news group, but I've stumbled across 
this discussion while waiting for a program to write itself (this is part 
of my attempt to transcend masculine, linear-thought approaches to 
science: rather than type the program in one line at a time, I intuit 
the whole, and the program, with which I am one, writes itself).  
It seems to me that you make one true and one false statement above.  It 
is of course true that models are not reality, being at best but 
imperfect descriptions of what is (or may be) there.  The falsehood 
is that in talking about people, or "the world we live in" you're
not using models; "person" or "human being" is just as much a 
construct as "elementary particle" or "electron".  There are 
differences between these concepts, to be sure.  You can't see 
individual electrons with your unaided senses, and they behave rather
differently than macroscopic objects, but so what?  They're both 
attempts to describe what really is, they both simplify that reality 
so we can grasp it, and they are both subject to modification as we 
learn more.  

	Anyway, it's time to see how my program (whose purpose, 
incidentally, is reconstructing tracks of particles, some elementary 
and some not so elementary) is coming along.  

Happy (possibly nonreligious) holiday of your choice.

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:34:00 +0000


>In article <memo.837515@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk 
>(Leo Smith) writes:

>   >What is the relevance of this to Science and Logic. Immense. Logic is 
>   >the glue that binds the conceptual objects of our worldview together. 
>   >Science is the process of adding to this logical structure. 

>  I'm afraid you've been sniffing the wrong glue - some kind of WWI model
>airplane stuff. Science is not really the process of adding to these
>gluey structures.

Those afficionados of the 'Peter Principle' will hereby recognise a 
classic symptom of a poster operating well into his level of 
incompetence - the *Utter Irrelevancy Syndrome*.

Thank you Torkel. Where would we be without your priceless 
contributions.





Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:24:30 GMT

In article <BzHvny.B19@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> hunter@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Steve Hunter) writes:
>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.

Unified field theories (or at least the attempt to construct such) and
the uncertainty principle are alive, well, and frequently
misinterpreted (they lend no support to Capra, properly understood).
The bootstrap hypothesis is dead; there are elementary particles.
Chaos has little to do with the other topics.

>
>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


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: steve@fulcrum.oz.au (Steve Taylor)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Keywords: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: The Fulcrum Consulting Group
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:36:05 GMT

tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:

>>>>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.

>>Oh dear. I was completely on your side until you mentioned Rand.

>Choosing 'sides' is the mark of the mark.  Open wide.
Oh spare me. The mark of the mark is to believe whatever you're told
by the carnival barker. Capra, for instance, though there seem to be a lot
of other snake oil salesman selling taoist physics and the like. No that I
necessarily dislike all of the things they talk about - just their attempts
to "prove" them with distorted physics.

>That single sentence is probably the most astute, telling statement 
>of this whole "debate." In the true spirit of "us against them,"
>we all end up wrestling with phantasmal pigs and complaining about
>"their" grunts. 

I love that phrase. "Wrestling with phantasmal pigs" perfectly describes
the experience of trying to interpret new age science. I wish I could remember
which physicist to attribute this to (Fermi?), but "That`s not right. That's
not even wrong" also describes the confusion of trying to decode new age
thinking.



								Steve

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson)
Subject: Re: Buddhism & Science
Organization: GRAMMA
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:00:42 GMT

In article <C06oCA.GJu.1@cs.cmu.edu> tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:



   There *is* a connection between modern physics and Buddhism: both teach that
   "there are no objects, only events".

Why can't there be objects if there are to be events?


MTV-regards Anders







         Tom Price   |    tp0x@cs.cmu.edu   |   Free will? What free will? 
    *****************************************************************************
     plutoniumsurveillanceterroristCIAassassinationIranContrawirefraudcryptology
--


If you see Saint Annie, please tell her - Thanks a lot.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Keywords: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:12:07 GMT


It was written unto the net:

>>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.

   Oh dear. I was completely on your side until you mentioned Rand.



Your illuminating Response WAS:

Choosing 'sides' is the mark of the mark.  Open wide.


Thyagi




I (William Tucker) have to admit:

That single sentence is probably the most astute, telling statement 
of this whole "debate." In the true spirit of "us against them,"
we all end up wrestling with phantasmal pigs and complaining about
"their" grunts. 


Wm T. 

ps. I'm doin' me 'omewerk on Physics, as it twere.
    Apparently quarks do settle something in the 
    Zoo of physics. However is an electon a cloud,
    a wave, or a particle? ;-) (to be continued.)

.standard disclaimer
From: gaboy@well.sf.ca.us (Gerald Boyack)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Th
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:17:37 GMT


In article brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Bryan K. Yoder) writes:

> Ayn Rand called it "Hatred of the good for being the good"...
> something more evil than envy.

I do recall her making quite a point of this.  I also speculate
that such hatred is an integral part of the perceived distortions
of political news by the press.  CW says that the press is
prejudiced toward liberalism, probably true.  But I wonder if a
bigger factor is that press people perceive that they are not
genuine actors on our worldly stage, and they hate those who are
capable of actually accomplishing something of substance.  We
will soon see the press persecute Clinton, especially if he is
successful at anything.
From: gaboy@well.sf.ca.us (Gerald Boyack)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 16:57:03 GMT


The argument between the Heisenberg-uncertainty/Godel-one-
assumption/chaos=anarchy crowd and rational people has been done
here so much as to become boring.  There is no chance of
resolving it any more than there is the bickering between two
religious sects.

The only interesting aspect is to try to figure out why so many
people clutch at any pseudo-science mysticism concocted by
Capra/Penrose ilk.

One explanation is simply that mysticisms have always been
manufactured and embraced, starting with the sun, wind and sea
gods and surviving into the great religions-- and will always be
with us -- and let it go at that.

Another way is say that people naturally grasp at mysticisms,
which are always assigned powers of some sort, in their struggle
to survive and to avoid death.  If you can believe in a
mysticism, you can also dream that it will help you.

To say that the pseudo-science mysticism writers are snake oil
salesmen does not answer the question of why so many people, in
this day and age of education and information availability, buy
the stuff.

As is the case for many questions, there is probably a
combination of answers.  There is probably is an element of the
need for the mother's breast, and for dreams of power to survive,
but I feel that there is also a strong element of anti-science
obsession.  Those who do not think deeply believe that the
development of the atomic bomb caused the worrisome and expensive
cold war, and that the development of pesticides caused all the
ills of the body extant, and that the engineers who developed
motors caused the oil spills.  Anything that suggests that
scientists and engineers are both demonic and stupid has appeal
to the unthinking, of whom there are seemingly more than there
are homeless people on the news.

I wonder why the modern mysticism muddlers have not organized
into some sort of formal religion.  Perhaps they have and I do
not know about it.   Anyone know of such a religion?
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought 
Keywords: Re: MINDWALK - An exercise in Passionate Thought 
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 23:12:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.201121.5987@linus.mitre.org> tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:
>
>
>You've holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) said:
>
>there are elementary particles.
>
>
>
>I (William Tucker) say:
>
>Oh, I must've missed it. What are they? There are primary 
>components to matter, non divisable entities?

Sure, under current physical theory.  Leptons (electrons, neutrinos,
and variants) and quarks (ingredients of protons and neutrons) (and
a few others).


>
>
>
>ps. As an aside to the others who responded with emotional 
>    diatribes. It's often a lot easier to make fun of something
>    that makes us uncomfortable, or provokes us to examine what 
>    we believe than it is to understand it. Understanding takes 
>    thought, an expending of energy. Most of what I've seen here
>    is a kicking about of others thoughts, not much orginal stuff.
>    Surprise me! ;-)

There's another reason for this kind of response.  There are positions
which are nonsensical but emotionally or otherwise irrationally
appealing.  After being presented with this kind of position and asked
to spend intellectual effort refuting it on enough occasions, one can
get a little testy, since refutation of such positions is never
accepted by their proponents (who have an intuitive wisdom which
transcends mere reason).  I'm infinitely patient myself, of course.

>
>
>Wm T.
>
>.standard disclaimer


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta