HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:26:25 GMT
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21205323@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel
Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
|> (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
|> 
|>    >and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
|>    >argument, and not simply abusive language.
|> 
|>   I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman. But you are
|> a bit hasty, surely, in speaking of his "right to be met by proper
|> argument". Why do suppose that we have a right to be met by "proper
|> argument" (whatever this term may mean to you), whatever abusive twaddle
|> we spout on the net ourselves?

I think it is important first to show that the guy is spreading
"abusive twaddle" on the net, however obvious it may seem to one-
self, regardless of person, for two reasons:

1. We're showing the guy exactly what he is doing, which is
   a stronger corrective than mere shouting and swearing. He
   thereby gets a chance to improve himself, instead of perhaps
   being just ignorant about what he's doing.

2. It _might_ have been misunderstood, and gives the guy a chance
   to defend himself. If he cannot defend his actions without
   further abusive twaddle, we have positively shown him what he
   has done.

In any case, the outcome is better than immediate fight.

I do agree, however, that if the person in question ignore the
good attempts and/or go on like before, then he might be told
what your gut feelings towards him are. But first telling a
person what he is actually doing wrong might save the newsgroup
from a lot of flaming, and will therefore be in our own best
interests.


Solan
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic
From: peeters@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (bert peeters)
Subject: Re: Primitive terms, anyone?
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:36:03 GMT

walkerj@access.digex.com (John Walker) writes:

>Could anyone suggest any publications that devote a fair amount of
>space to primitive terms and how to deal with them?  And by 
>"publications", I mean either texts or periodicals.  (No objection
>to thesis works, just not apt to be able to get hold of them.)

>Alternatively or additionally, any references to departments or
>profs who give good coverage to their study would be nice.

Have a look at almost anything written by Anna Wierzbicka. She's very
prolific, so you shouldn't have trouble finding refs to her papers and
books. I can provide more detailed pointers if necessary. By the way,
Wierzbicka, for those who don't know, is a professor in the linguistics
department of the Faculty of Arts of the Australian National University.
She has quite a few followers (including myself) who are attempting to
use the semantic metalanguage of primitives which she has worked on for
more than twenty years in semantic descriptions involving a great many
different languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Bert Peeters                         Tel: +61 02 202344
Department of Modern Languages               002 202344
University of Tasmania at Hobart        Fax: 002 207813
GPO Box 252C                            Bert.Peeters@modlang.utas.edu.au
Hobart TAS 7001
Australia
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:05:52 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan22112426@echnaton.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.093202.13408@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
>(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>
>   >But then it is even less point in wasting your time just stating
>   >in non-nice words that you don't like him
>
> Ah, but those who flame Grossman may well take the contrary view that he has a
>right to be flamed (in your sense of "right"), that is, that it is in their
>own interest, in the long run, to flame him - as a preventive measure, perhaps.
>
>  The remainder of this discussion will take place in alt.grossman.

SG	"Now we're cookin'." [Mel Gibson to Danny Glover, _Lethal Weapon_ 2(?), 
as they drive thru fire.
	I humbly suggest sci.philosophy.grossman.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: tom_schwengler@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (skeptic Frenchman)
Subject: Epistemology
XXXDate: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:23:20 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d8
XXXMessageID: <A78C758883040123@tom_schwengler.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S West M.R.G.
NntpPostingHost: tom_schwengler.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:24:52 GMT

Would anyone know where I could find interesting discussion on
episemology ?
Does anyone have any bibliographie to recomend ?

Tom
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Logic (WAS Re: War!)
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:54:00 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1993Jan27.224002.19154@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:

|> Similarly all elements of St. Ayn's fiction are at one remove; e.g. you
|> wouldn't think of appealing to John Galt as an authority (would you?)
|> Any authority in those speeches is just your interpretation of what you
|> think the author meant by including them.  Maybe the whole corpus is a
|> really truly intentional joke on all Objectivists!

Since one of Rand's favorite techniques is to quote Galt in support
of her views and as an illustration of the choices, values, and
views one has available in life, I certainly hope you are not
suggesting that there is anything methodologically suspect about
this technique simply because Galt is a creature of fiction.  Since
Rand does this, it seems only fair to allow her followers to do so
as well.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4986 sci.philosophy.meta:3166 sci.skeptic:22882
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:30:49 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1993Jan20.050642.4355@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>If you try to tell me that there is something that is real, cannot be
>perceived, _and_ has no physical effects, direct or indirect, then logic would
>indeed tell us to forget it.  But I agree with logic here.

	I know an example of what you want: other people's
consciousness. When you get right down to it, all we have is induction
to verify they exist. Another's consciousness can't be perceived
directly. As for indirect, that calls for drawing conclusions. We may
believe that sentience is a prerequisite for human-type behavior, but
who knows? Maybe a mindless automaton of sufficient complexity could act
the same.

	Even your _own_ consciousness isn't provable by others.
Sentience has all the characteristics of a mystical notion, _is_ a
mystical notion, but pure materialists always seem to overlook it.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Logic (WAS Re: War!)
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:11:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.160827.15320@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
>In article <C183E1.Jnr@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

>Um, not to quibble with such a learned philosopher, but there's a fallacy
>in here.  If SG is a comic, then he is *not* appealing to rationality in
>his posts, since they are jokes.  Better figure out *which* theory you
>hold, before making observations!

SG	Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not 
claiming its metaphysical, are you? Aristotle joked about those who claim 
reality is contradictory in the otherwise ultra-serious and awesome 
_Metaphysics_. And where would Nietzsche be without his _Why I Am So Clever?"
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.lang
From: Rick.Horowitz@launchpad.unc.edu (Rick Horowitz)
Subject: sci.philosophy.language
Followup-To: rhorowit@mondrian.csufresno.edu
Summary: seems to be a lack of interest......
Keywords: sci.philosophy.language
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:55:29 GMT

Just thought I'd tell people that a quick look at the file I'm saving
for creating sci.philosophy.language is showing my original assumption
was correct: there isn't enough interest being generated from what I can
tell.  This was the reason I almost didn't put it to a vote.  I could
see from the original discussions that it looked this way.  However, I
had been urged to submit it for a vote anyway by several people, so I
did.

If you are interested in such a group, you should look for the CFV's
which have been posted.  There isn't much voting time left.

This is just a personal reminder from me, and so I am not trying to 
submit an accurate breakdown here of votes or posting anything
"official" (*still* having trouble figuring what that could mean on
a headless unit like this net; and, yes, I've read the stuff I was
supposed to read).

I will say that less than 100 votes have come in and perhaps 1/7th are
'no' votes.  So if you have an interested, get cracking!

For more details, read the "official" postings on this and other groups.

rhorowit@mondrian.csufresno.edu

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: QM
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:37:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.195455.26027@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>In article <C17sFv.L03@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
>Grossman) writes:
>|> Quantum mechanics-the mechanics of quanta
>|> Quanta-Nietzsche's active centers of energy, randomly combining into
>temporary 
>|> 	entities
>|> mechanics-study of energy and entities
>|> 
>|> QM-the probability of random energy 
>|> 
>|> When QM "scientists" stop sneakin' bits of reality and reason into their 
>|> "science" they will light some incense, mumble the appropriate chant, and 
>|> prostrate themselves before the ineffable. Ommmmmmmm.........
>
>As I wrote to Betsy, it is better to meet you with decent argument.
>I think the above is an example of a nonsensical letter. There is no
>argument, no support of any assertions, and even barely a statement.
>The only thing that is happening is that you are talking unsubstantiated
>nonsense about "scientists". I _might_ even agree to the sentiment
>behind what you have written, but what you have written is worthless.
>Objectively.

SG	What sentiment? I provided definitions and a judgement about philsophy 
of science. My truncated style is no excuse to avoid my ideas. 	
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:55:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smaug.uio.no 
(Svein Olav G. Nberg) writes:
>
>MY misgivings about Grossman's postings are that he makes grandiose
>claims, or very hard attacks on other philosophies, without being
>able to back them up. It appears that his knowledge is at best
>second-hand, and that he has more copied other people's thinking
>than performed it himself.
>
>This goes in particular for one attack on this person on one list
>dedicated to discussion of Objectivism, where Grossman's "information"
>about the subject at hand (Stirner) was via statements by alleged
>Nietzscheans/Stirnerites as rendered and evaluated by Nathaniel
>Branden. That is: Third hand rumors counted for him as evidense.

SG	Instead of claiming THAT I err, you should cite the alleged error and 
discuss it. There is a suggestion (tho not an implication) that grandiose 
(big?)  claims and hard (basic?) attacks are philosophically improper. Assuming 
that I have correctly understood your metaphors, I disagree. Philosophy is the 
study of basics, and while it involves technicalities, it is valuablr because 
it deals w/basics. A debate on basics is the most part of philosaophy. Don't 
get so entranced within a specific view that you are unwilling to consider 
radical alternatives. That way lies political correctness and the death of 
philosophy. 
	Also, evidence is evidence, whether discovered by me or restated or 
quoted by me from someone else. I am not trying to prove how educated i am but, 
instead, am offering ideas. Since you oppose the Obj view of Nietzsche and 
Stirner, give an alternative instead of focusing on my style of presenting 
ideas. Substance si, style no! 
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
From: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk (Andy Liddiard)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: a novice queries
Date: 20 Jan 93 18:40:00 GMT
Reply-To: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk (Andy Liddiard)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371


MS/*Mark Shanks                         | Laugh, and the world laughs with you
MS/*Principal Engineer, 777 Displays    | Cry, and the world laughs at you
MS/*shanks@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com

I thought it was:  "Laugh, and the world laughs with you.
                    Fart, and you're all alone."

 Andy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
                                           notes01@clstr.pnl.ac.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a #112 . Alors! C'est l'heure!
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: War!
Date: 21 Jan 93 20:36:52 GMT
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

In article <C17xzE.BIq@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary
Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> In article <C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
Grossman) writes:
|> |> 
|> |> 	It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others' 
|> |> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most
part, so low 
|> |> that I can let my subconscious do the work.
|> |> 
|> 
|> I swear I've heard this before.  Do we know that Grossman is *not*
|> Rush Limbaugh?  Has anyone every seen both at the same time?

There are basically two ways to interact socially:
War and trade.

When exchanging ideas, we are trying to do trade. It
is a shame that what goes on in netland is still mostly
wars. Wars of the worst kind, often - trenchwars.

So, trying to keep the right spirit: Grossman is true enough
conceited in his response above, but he is also at constant
war with everyone else. This time, he fired BACK.

Give peace a chance, guys. That goes not only for Merrill, but
for Grossman, too.

Solan
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: kilston@rddvax.decnet.lockheed.com
Subject: Consciousness: orthogonal or universal
Organization: Lockheed Palo Alto Research Labs
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 02:05:45 GMT

Dear fellow angels on this pinhead:

How amazing it was to find someone else's excellent idea distorted
by a respondent and then have the distortion embraced by the idea's
own originator!  I thought I really liked Chandrasekaran's original
statement that having goals (or desires) and knowledge (or beliefs)
is orthogonal to being conscious.  My experience tells me that the
most intense consciousness -- a direct connection with the world of
the present sensations and feelings, not the past or future -- must
be wordless, and that prevents inclusion of beliefs and most goals.

Talking to researcher friends who specialize in strokes and other
neurological losses of consciousness, I have concluded that we can
only be conscious OF SOMETHING, not reside in some absolute
isolated mental "state of consciousness".  What's in your
consciousness is simply what you feel is IMPORTANT (worth paying
attention to) at that particular time.

Computers may someday be intelligent, and even conscious, when,
given a complex context, they can answer the question:  WHAT IS
IMPORTANT?  Being able to establish priorities is essential for
survival (a key test of intelligence).  And being able to focus
attention on what's important is essential for consciousness.
There may be be about seven levels of consciousness, each revealed
by the responses of the organisms in question:

1.  Consciousness of spatial gradients (e.g., temperature, acidity,
gravity; bacteria and plants have this, and respond by moving)
2.  Consciousness of things changing through time (e.g., flies can see
a hand coming and avoid it, a crude form of memory and prediction)
3.  Consciousness of "others," of things persisting through time (e.g.,
dogs can remember for a long time who beat them, and maybe attack)
4.  Consciousness of self (some chimpanzees seem to know what
they should look like in a mirror, and show surprise if painted)
5.  Consciousness of being conscious (Descartes thought this was
useful; talking about consciousness is a giveaway here)
6.  Consciousness of being able to change one's consciousness (this
doesn't occur often in most people, but meditation is one way)
7.  Consciousness of the unity of consciousness in our universe (a
real tough one, but great wisdom and peace-of-mind could result)

Yours sincerely,
                Steven Kilston    (semi-learned astronomer)
                Lockheed Research Labs
                Palo Alto
                kilston@rddvax.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: QM reading list?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:24:27 GMT

The book by Albert is quite nice, but I was a touch disappointed by
it, given expectations.  It's very enjoyable, but not as meaty or as
comprehensive as it could be.  Certainly I wouldn't recommend the
Redhead or van Fraassen books as an introduction.  One very readable
book that covers the technical details and the implications in some
depth is Baggott's "The Meaning of Quantum Theory", which is popular
but sophisticated.  A nice philosophical work that also covers the
technical details is Forrest's "Quantum Metaphysics".  Finally,
Hughes' "The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics", is
clear and comprehensive, although he is not as driven by the
baffling problems of measurement as some of the authors above.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu> <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:53:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.183010.22929@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

   >and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
   >argument, and not simply abusive language.

  I haven't noticed Voltaire saying anything about Grossman. But you are
a bit hasty, surely, in speaking of his "right to be met by proper
argument". Why do suppose that we have a right to be met by "proper
argument" (whatever this term may mean to you), whatever abusive twaddle
we spout on the net ourselves?
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: QM
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:01:31 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <spurrett.126.728212383@superbowl.und.ac.za>, spurrett@superbowl.und.ac.za (David Spurrett) writes:

|> Your definitions were inaccurate and your judgement uninformed, malicious
|> and childishly expressed.  Since your style centrally involves radical
|> undersubstantiation of your views it appears that it is you who are avoiding
|> the ideas.

It is possible that Grossman has confused quantum mechanics with
quantum *semantics*.  This is a lesser known field, and the only
paper I have ever seen devoted to it was in the _Journal of Irreproducible
Results_ (an issue in the mid-80's I believe -- I'm not sure I still
have a copy of the paper).  I do not recall the details, but I think
Grossman's remarks may be more accurate when applied to quantum semantics,
although I don't believe the quanta of meaning participated in *random*
combinations either.
-- 
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.tech
From: Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan)
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Organization: UNC EBBS (NOT)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:55:19 GMT

Is discussion of SG really within the charter of sci.philosophy.tech? 
Unless somebody thinks we're participants in a Turing test here, I doubt
it.  Put him in your kill file or respond to his posts, but talk *about* him??

Charles Creegan   NC Wesleyan College

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80