HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Evolutionary evolutionary
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:07:43 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Sep2.043052.1814@cis.umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
|> Don't any of you pinheads know that Heraclitus' metaphysics of change is the 
|> limit of evolutionary epistemology. Existence changes. Existence evolves.
|> Same thing. Epistemology exists. Existence exists. Epistemology is existence.
|> sounds pretty heavy duty, some you guys can get into. Of course, there is
|> more, there is always more. Permanence also exists, within some limit, whetheryou like it or not. Talk with Parmenides about his metaphysucs of permanence.
|> And then..........then you are ready to visit the master of they who know. I
|> speak, of course, of none other than, here he is, Aristotle. Or Ari, as a

At this point I do have to point out that I never get any further in
these things than about this far.  It's just impossible to read because
of the (lack of) grammar.  Is it time to entertain the hypothesis that
Grossman is a prototype AI program with a faulty language module?
If our language in any way reflects our thoughts and thought processes,
this stuff is pretty scary.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:36:11 GMT

In article <cburke.715466697@yorku.ca>, cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn Burke) writes:
>Since I may have jumped into a new base without the feel of the
>conversational flow, I'll stop here.
    I appreciate the informational flow of your last sentence. Your relativist
limit of my comments exists. Objectively, however, subjectivism will lead one
to teach transcendental meditation. Relativism is one more thing. It exists
and that's fine. Existence is more than relativism. It is also absolutes. There
is more, always more. Perhaps Objectivists will take their philosophy more 
seriously were they to consider existence. And, for others, there's always
bowling. Or popular culture. Or the religious right. These things, too, also
exist. A metaphysician looks 'em straight in the eye and sez, "Why are you
something when you should be nothing.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:14:38 GMT

> not necessarily metaphysics but seems to look a lot more
> like phenomenology  

[and?]

> don't think that you have some out-of-context absolute, neutral criticism 
> of Objectivism
[do you think phenomenology is neutral criticism?]

>  Please identify the limitations of Objectivism and why you would
>feel that it offers a priority of truth.  The priority is assumed by your
>need to assert that the rest of us must remain within our limits.
>Otherwise, it sounds to me like you are really purporting a philosophy
>of Realitivism under the guise of Objectivism.

[Your comments have been perhaps the best on the nets. Is relativism another
neutral criticism? You would need yet another "neutral" criticism to know the
relative importance of phenomenology and relativism. Everything, literally
everything, exists. Everything considered by everybody exists-in some limit,
maybe a bizarre, non-common sensical, and even politically incorrect limit, but
it still exists. Even objective reality exists. Even objectivity exists, tho
not within the limit of other philosophies. Objectively, humans can, via
choice and logic, connect their minds to objective reality. There is still
subjectivety, faith, nihilism, relativism, and even alcoholism, but objectively
they are false, foolish, and unimportant. Please understand my comments as
concerning the existence of Objectivism rather than its epistemological sta-
tus or how it relates to existence or to reality. The existence of things
has been downgraded since the end of the Presocratics. Metaphysics will return
us to a consistent, non-epistemological understanding (not that understanding
is metaphysically privileged). It may be frustrating to understand this, es-
pecially since contemporary philosophy is so committed to epistemology. Rand
makes a good attempt to reintroduce metaphysics but stresses epistemology al-
most as a substitute. It remains true that she systematically identified the
conceptual view of existence, objectively speaking, of course. I.e., there IS
objectivity. It also may be difficult to understand this with the unprincipled,
conceptually disintegrated Pragmatism which hovers like a foul odor in this,
poor, benighted (the center is spinning around) century. Even the concern with
existence or existence Itself is not privileged, as other things, factories,
theories of concept-formations, rock music, and good German beer also exist
and exist equally. Objectively, however, there is a logical, hierarchical limit
to everything. Objectively, that is valuable and other things are not. I trust
this sufficiently exercises your understanding of philosophy. As for me, I have
spent far too long on the nets today, trying to get experienced using my home
computer. Bugs exist too tho I wish they didn't. 



  
    
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Heidegger, Hitler, Racism and logic.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:59:17 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug26.075508.12595@sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
|> In article <1207@kepler1.rentec.com> andrew@rentec.com (Andrew Mullhaupt) 
|> writes:
|> 
|> 
|>   >Is he actually much heavier duty than I know?
|> 
|>   Yes. The importance of his (highly original and profound) work in
|> logic has been immense.

Agreed -- but probably most non-logicians (even philosophers with
some knowledge of logic and its history) would not be aware of this.
I had the impression that his work laid the foundation for all the
so-called "natural deduction" systems.
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 03:41:01 GMT

From article <dyfl.715236462@munagin>, by dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam):
> Can the philosophers out there enlighten me regarding the current
> status and state of research in evolutionary epistemology, as
> advocated by Popper, Bartley, Campbell, et al?


  I would recommend the writings of Pierre Teillhard DeChardin if
you are interested in "spiritual" evolution, which would, under
DeChardin's system, include epistemology.  In particular, see
_The Divine Millieu_.  Although he is not current, it may add another
aspect to your researches.


> 	Daniel Lam
> 	Melbourne, Australia
> 

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III  Account at Oklahoma State University for summer.
Graduate Student in Religious Studies           onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu
University of Chicago
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher)
Subject: Causality and exceptions
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 12:40:28 GMT

Hello world

Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that 
exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?


Thanks for all kind of ideas.
juerg at ethz switzerland
From: tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Recent Traffic
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:10:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Btnut9.G1K.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

How did this newsgroup suddenly become talk.esoteric.bull-session?
I'm all for esoteric bull sessions, but lately I'm learning a lot less
from this newsgroup than I've become spoiled into expecting to learn.

Perhaps threads such as "what is love" could be shunted 
to talk.philosophy.misc? 

Tom

******************************************************************************
 Tom Price  |  Obscure Dropout  |  tp0x@cs.cmu.edu  |  Simplicity, simplicity
******************************************************************************
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 18:59:07 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird

(Daniel Kranowski) writes:

                       ...people act in ways that are called
 "altruistic," and hence the word has value for its descriptive power,
 but I believe "love" and "selflessness" are fundamentally motivated by
 the needs of the self.
 
      Perhaps the jaws are not agape at this idea.  Perhaps it has been
 heard before and dismissed.  I know I sure did; I'd heard this in crude
 forms many times and said, "What a crock of phony baloney!"  I felt that
 way because I knew its proponents didn't really believe it, and that
 lessened its persuasive weight.  However, as my observations of human
 nature have developed, I'm coming to believe it, although I sort of wish
 I didn't.

I don't see what the problem is. One could say that a mother
who sacrifices her life to save a child, or a firefighter who 
his/her life for another is acting out of selfish interests,
but so what?

      The attractions are our loves.  The love of card games and the love
 of man and wife start in the same place, though one is a stronger magnet
 than the other: if in conflict, the man may be pulled more strongly to
 his wife than to a poker table.  Quite naturally we all are inspired by

I would have to disagree here. I don't think a preference for
card games, and romantic love start in the same place. An intellectual
or cultural preference for card games probably doesn't have much
in the way of a biological urge, as the case might be for sexual
love.

        view the movies and listen to the conversation -- love is sexual
 unless you qualify it!

Perhaps because our sexuality is such a primary urge; in the short
list of needs: food, shelter, etc, would also come the biological
urge to mate.

One could make the point that a love of card games
or other avocations hasn't nearly the implications on survival
of the species as would sexual love, for instance. One could
also make the point, that once a person has their sexual needs
met on a regular and long term basis, then the initial connotations
can give way to other default meanings (from the speaker's
point-of-view).

      Simplistic attitudes help obscure what I believe is the basis of
 love, but unrepressed caring -- though more than commendable in my book 
 -- is still selfish.  The expressions of lovers gives a clue: "I need
 you, I can't live without you."  Love is a _need_, a human desire that
 cannot be ignored. 

Here we move right on in to psychology; to a baby, the caregiver's
love is what the baby perceive's as vital to its survivial. When
that baby grows up and looks for a mate (consciously or unconsciously),
and finds one, the same feelings from infancy again rise up: 
this person gives me "sustenance", "I" need this sustenance to 
survive.

      We can love, but we like to hide its baser root, which is
 ourselves.  

Hmm. I would think the "dark" or "baser root" of love must
also include "hate". I believe there is no love, without
some hate.

Dano

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:27:31 GMT

In article <exukjb.96.714924405@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>In article <memo.595459@cix.compulink.co.uk> shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith) writes:
>>From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
>>Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
>>Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:36:00 +0000
>
>>"The important thing is to choose a path with heart"
>
>>"And how would a man know if he has chosen a path with heart Don
>>Juan?"
>
>>"Don't be silly: Any fool knows that. The problem is that no one
>>stops to ask the question"
>
>>(from memory of something Castanedaish)
>
>>Love is what you think it is. It is the maximisation of your
>>personal value judgement. It's feeling good. If you can't tell the
>>difference between feeling good and bad then the question and answer
>>are both unnecessary and meaningless for you.

I agree absolutely with the following criticism.  If your love is
merely "feeling good" then those who depend on the fact of your love
for them cannot rely on it.  Not even you yourself can make yourself
"feel good" on demand.  Love is a matter of the will, although
feelings certainly can help.

>
>I think it is very dangerous to equate love with feelings, of however a 
>a noble kind. For feelings are evanescent, while love (I'm in one of those 
>moods) is usually thought to be something stable and a stablizing influence 
>on humankind.
>
>           	Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments;
>		Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds,
>		Or bends with the remover to remove; 
>		Oh no, it is an ever fix'd mark, 
>		Which looks on tempests and is never shaken,
>		It is the star to every wandering bark.
>		Love's not Time's fool, though rosey lips and cheeks,
>		Within his bending sickle's compass come.  -- Whose worth's
>		unknown, although his heigth be taken, 
>		Love alters not with his brief hours or weeks, 
>		But bears it out even to the edge of Doom.
>
>		If this be error, and upon me prov'd,
>		I never writ, nor no man ever loved. 
>
>					-Shakespeare  
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kenny Bell                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
>Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
>P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
>Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
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: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:29:29 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


This is outside the subject of this news group, but ...

In article <1992Sep4.041750.18564@a.cs.okstate.edu>, onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
|> was not exactly pleased with his theories and forbid him to speak or
|> teach or publish.  He was denied a proper Jesuit burial when he died.
|> His influence on the Jesuit sect, however, is immeasurable.

You hear about these things from time to time, but I in fact have
never been able to confirm such a blanket prohibition, and one
based solely upon someone's beliefs or writings in so far as these
were not considered to be heretical in the strict sense.

For example, Jean Buridan (14th Cen nominalist) was not allowed to
teach *religion* for various reasons.  And that guy (I forget his
name) a few years ago (was it at Catholic U.?) was not permitted to
become a member of the *religion* department.  But I don't know
of any such general prohibitions concerning speaking, teaching,
or publishing.  Is this in fact true of Chardin?  Do you know the
real details?


-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cburke@nexus.yorku.ca (Carolyn Burke)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Organization: York University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:44:57 GMT

What do you say to this:

Your outline of a choosen philosophical subjectivity within the
broader limits of an objective reality (acknowledged or not) can be
seen as a self-imposed solipsism, at least so far as my limits allow
me to see.

Is this in concert with what you are trying to express?

If so, then I must interject about your "live and let live, even if
they're entirely subjectivist" lack of standards.  If person X
actually tries to engage in a subjectivist life-style (based on a
subjectivist belief system, naturally), then it would seem likely that
X will bump into objective reality situations that cannot be dealt
with from within that schema.  And if this is so, then said
subjectivist life-style will not be maximally able to continue its
existence.  In other words, person X will be likely to bump into
reality often enough to cause psychic dissonance, or death, or some
other nasty thing.  So your "live and let live" view seems to lead to
a "I'll live while you perish" conclusion.  (Of course the Objectivist
replies I've heard to this are ofthe following:  You are not your
brother's keeper.)

Although the latter view seems to make sense, it doesn't prohibit a
more active desire to point out to subjectivists that they will hurt
themselves less often if they acknowledge an objective reality.

Since I may have jumped into a new base without the feel of the
conversational flow, I'll stop here.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: WHAT IS LOVE?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:37:26 GMT
Organization: Hmmm
NNTP-Posting-Host: earlybird


 >(Daniel Kranowski):

 > Consider the words "you...affected" in the first sentence, which more or
 > less answers William Tucker's question.  If I perceive pain or distortion
 > in another person, if I *empathize* with that person, I feel pain because
 > of his anguish.  I want to stop his trauma fundamentally to erase my own
 > pain; if I hadn't felt my own empathic pain, I wouldn't have cared about
 > his.
 
(ONSTOTT CHARLES OR):

   The question becomes:  why did you feel pain in his respect?
 If love, in either respect, be selfish, and if pain be not good,
 and if we really strive towards pleasure, then why would one accept
 a friends pain, in the empathetic mode, at all?  
 
<devil's advocate mode ON>

Because seeing pain in another we care about (a reflection of
ourselves) reminds us of similar pain in ourselves; if we can
help another, we help ourself with our own pain.

 In terms of non-mystical literature, consider Paul's statement "Love
 is patient."  Once hardly needs patience when one is dealing in pleasure.
 
Ah, but the greatest pleasures can come to one who waits.

 >(Daniel Kranowski):
 > This is definitely on the mark.  "I need you," a common expression of
 > lovers, plainly demonstrates the selfishness of love.  The needs of the
 > self explain why we say, "I'm falling in love"; you "fall" in love because
 > you lose control, the one you love has a hold on you and power over you.
 
 (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR):
   I thought you were just saying it was selfish.  Your distinction
 between the feelings and policies of love does not help the matter.
 IF love is a loss of self-control, a loss of power, how can it be
 selfish?    If it were truly selfish, then it would hardly
 be a situation anyone would want to be in.  I like to equate "falling

It is still selfish: by demanding that someone else help 
fill your needs. By communicating one's "falling in love" 
to the beloved, one is trying to set up an obligation on
the behalf of the beloved to help take care of the initiator.


<devil's advocate mode OFF>

Dano

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:1773 sci.philosophy.tech:3109
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Evolutionary Epistemology
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:19:44 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Sep3.160709.1@wizard.colorado.edu>, windsphire@wizard.colorado.edu writes:
|> In article <Bu01JK.C4y@unx.sas.com>, sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
|> 
|> > long in summary form).  If you are tempted to defend a theory of
|> > evolutionary epistemology, keep in mind that you must specify the
|> > *mechanism of inheritance* and draw a detailed analogy to the role
|> > of the gene.  Remember:  genes split and do other odd things.
|> > Genes have *parts* that then become *parts* of the newly formed
|> > gene after reproduction.  Randomness plays quite a role in mutation.
|> 
|> I think you can defend evolutionary epistemology without using
|> genetic models as the sole criteria for what phenomenon is can be 
|> usefully thought of as 'evolutionary'. Genetics can be seen as a specific
|> instance of evolutionary theory, not the de facto criteria for using
|> the term. I wouldn't say the nature of a system had to 
|> conform to the rules of blackjack in order to be probabilistic!

But the reason all these guys want to draw the analogy to *current*
evolutionary theory is not just because this is "suggestive" in some
sense, but because that theory is a really *good* theory.  And the
reason it's a really good theory lies in its relation to molecular
genetics.  Without this relationship, the Darwinian theory would
have withered.  These guys aren't saying "Epistemology is like
some evolutionary theory or other."  They are saying, "It is like
*this* theory."  It is like the difference between saying "An atom
is like some mechanical system as described by some theory
concerning masses and forces." as opposed to "An atom is like the
solar system as described by Newtonian mechanics."  (Not that either
of these is correct, please.)

|> The problem with the analogy to genetics, are merely artifacts of
|> instantiating too closely with a single representation of an underlying

But if you don't do this, you lose all the advantages of your
proposed analogy.  You may end up with a view that no one can
refute, but this is only because the view has become sufficiently
vague as to defy refutation.

|> mechanism. Besides, I've seen memetic arguments that easily draw
|> correspondences to mechanisms of inheritence, mutation, randomness and
|> parts of parts. Look at this thread for example.

Okay, I'll bite.  Trot 'em out in detail.








-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Causality and exceptions
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:15:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.124028.1383@bernina.ethz.ch> stettbac@isibee5 (Juerg Stettbacher) writes:
>Hello world
>
>Does anyone know about a thing, an event or anything else that 
>exists, happens or simply is with no cause.
>In other words: Can you tell me about an effect without cause?
>
>
>Thanks for all kind of ideas.
>juerg at ethz switzerland  

What about the universe (the totality of _everything_ that exists)?

-- 
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: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Objectivism, Aug.4
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:19:11 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta