HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Prof. Christopher Cherniak at UPENN(?)
From: skumar@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:47:14 EDT
Organization: Wesleyan University

Friends, Romans, countrymen; lend me your ears!
I am making this post for someone else:

###########################################################################
I am looking for Prof. Christopher Cherniak who was with the dept. of
Philosophy at Univ. of Pennsylvania. If anybody knows his present e-mail
address please contact :

Prof. Amitabh Gupta
Dept. of Humanities and Soc. Sciences
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
Powai, Bombay-400 076.
INDIA

email: ag@cc.iitb.ernet.in

##############################################################################

Thank you for your attention.

Wonko, the sane.
From: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Keywords: Re: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:16:38 GMT



You (dab@ism.isc.com (Dave Butterfield)) wrote:

 diener@namu01.gwdg.de (Immo Diener) writes:
 >THINKING is a process you do not know. You just do it, but you
 >do not observe what you do when you think.

 I don't know about you, but I've done quite a bit of observation
 of my thought processes.

 Dave
 -- 
	I output a string of symbols and I observe the response.


I (William Tucker) wonder: 

What do you mean? Do you know any cognitive psychology, patteren recognition.
Are you talking about the process you go through? Or, are you talking about 
what you think about? Can you see thoughts? Can you feel others? Have
you conciously tried thinking different ways? Meditation, mind control, 
increasing your perceptual abilities. Are your ways of thinking you, or are
they patterns that you use, could you change them permanently if you wished.
Precisely what is the depth and breadth of this self observation? Are you 
objective?

just curious.

Wm T.

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:19:19 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep29.095827.11433@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

|> We analyze evolution of a morality over time, determine the
|> consequences of that morality for its own propagation, and estimates 
|> the future propagation.  Ideally this is done by using the scientific 
|> method to find trends linked to causes, but more practically by using the 
|> scholarly methods of humanities to track the trends of moral ideas.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

?????
-- 
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: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: observation of thought processes
Keywords: Re: observation of thought processes
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:25:49 GMT

This bounced so I thought I'd post it. 

  Hi -

  Quite well answered I thought. I am interested in cognitive psych., pattern
  recognition and such. I've also done meditation, martial arts, yoga; which
  require control of your thought processes somewhat. I cruise metaphyics once
  in awhile but, tend to steer clear of discussion, because I feel that a lot
  of those involved tend to want to reach "singular resolution" about things best
  described in groups/sets. It's been my observation that reality is a bit like
  this: there are abstractions of tools/paradigms/worldviews floating around in 
  space, and in the same spaces too, dependent upon the given situation a 
  particular one, or group of ones will do the best job of describing what is going 
  on. According to the needs certain things coalesce, it is the dynamics of the
  situation that determine which ones "work," the closeness of the fit I would term
  resonance. There's nothing unique in the perspective that I just outlined except
  that I think that just as there is no such thing as a straight line or a pi in 
  the real world, they do however exist, that they (views) are also truly a part of 
  the underlying structure of reality. Sometimes you use a Fourier Transform 
  sometimes you use a (I can't remember), similarly you might use a Hegel view
  here, a Wittgenstein view (Torkel sp?) there or some hybrid thereof. The point is 
  that very few discuss these things in a multilevular/open ended sort of a way or 
  think of theories as possibly being coincident, which is in my opinion 
  closer to the truth. It's also been my experience that there is such a thing 
  as a "thought" or a "feeling" that exists outside of the skull of the individual 
  experiencing it. Can't talk to people about it if they're not already aware of it
  though as it tends to be somewhat elusive proof wise. There are awareness exercises
  though to those interested, but alas I've had no takers from the mighty 'ntelects
  'round here so far, enough rambling. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Just
  my opinion. Hi to Torkel, Hakki, Andrew, Leo and my favorite Gary M.

  Wm T.

.standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Obj/Exist
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:49:15 GMT

In article <Bv29M7.n1B@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU writes:
>In article <exukjb.229.717269191@exu.ericsson.se>, exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
>>In article <Bv0J3q.KI9@umassd.edu> pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>>No, I meant, What are we saying of x when we say of x that "it exists" or
>>"has being"?

>    The answer is: everything.
>    But Bell has been so influenced by Kant's nihilist subjectivism that I pre-
>dicted that my original answer may have no meaning for him, as for all who take
>modern thought seriously. You can present an apple to the moderns and they will
>refuse to take it seriously. They will consider it a mere phenomenon, a crea-
>tion of language, or some such foolishness. They will consider that existence
>is somehow not the apple because Kant has taught them, directly or indirectly,
>through contemporary philosophy, to reject perception and reason as methods of
>knowing existence. For moderns, as Kant so dangerously taught, "I have limited
>knowledge therefore, to make room for faith." 

Come on Stephen, there's no need to get nasty.  All Ken did was ask a question
and you misunderstood what he was asking about.  Later on you got around to 
explaining that the existence of a thing is a primary which cannot be further 
analyzed, but you would do much better to just answer the questions rather than
insult Ken for asking a question.

>    Of course, you can continue to tell yourself that everything you know is
>unreal and does not exist. That essence of contemporary culture is why Mari-
>anne Faithfull sings, "We've been trying to get high without having to pay."

I didn't see Ken say any of that.  He just asked a question.  Give him a break.

--Brian
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:47:07 GMT
Distribution: sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: Security APL, Inc.

In article <TORSTEIN.92Sep29123959@itekiris.pvv.unit.no> torstein@itekiris.pvv.unit.no (torstein hansen) writes:
>1) Human brain activity (human thinking) is a result of
>  (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain. As far as I know, that is
>   where science is today.
>
>2) Every chemical reaction is predictable.
>   By this I don't mean that we at present are able to predict the
>   outcome of every chemical reaction, but that it is *theoretically* 
>   possible. Of course we have to know every detail of information
>   about every atom involved, but that isn't important. The point is
>   that the result of a reaction is determined given the starting 
>   position.

According to current theories, this is not true.  Quantum mechanics involves
real randomness, not just lack of knowledge.

>Putting these two statements together I find that all human activity
>is determined beforehand. That is, if I burn my morning newspaper
>instead of reading it, it isn't just plain madness, but it is a
>consequence of how the atoms in my brain is located, their energy,
>etc.

Why do you regard these two descriptions as contradictory?  Why can't "just
plain madness" be the physical state of one's brain?

>If we don't accept that our life is already determined, there has to
>be an element of our brain activity that isn't bounded by physical
>laws. [...]

>OK, I know there might be some big holes in my logic, but could anyone
>point them out?

The sentence above is the only real hole in your logic.  Just because you
don't accept that your brain activity is bounded by physical laws doesn't
mean that it isn't.  The world is as it is, not as we would have it be.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Phil.of Language (Ok Here or Not?)
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:58:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.013135.43433@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> jamiller@kuhub.cc.
ukans.edu writes:

   >responses to Krikinstien -) (Kripke or Wittgenstien's) sceptical

  By the way, it's Wittgenstein. It's one of the recurring sources of wonder
on the net that Americans have this difficulty with Wittgenstein and
Wittgenstien, Tolkien and Tolkein. Of course, soberly regarded, it is clear
enough how this happens, what with Americans variously pronouncing their
names stine or steen, but still...

  ("Dr Frankenstein!" - "No, it's Frankonsteen!")

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:33:36 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: sci.philosophy.meta
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <TORSTEIN.92Sep29123959@itekiris.pvv.unit.no>,
torstein@itekiris.pvv.unit.no (torstein hansen) writes:
|> I'm not sure if this is the right group, but my question seems
|> like philosophy to me. (and quite meta too ;-))
|> 
|> Before I ask my question I'd like to put forward a few statements:
|> 
|> 1) Human brain activity (human thinking) is a result of
|>   (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain. As far as I know, that is
|>    where science is today.

It would surprise me if it was.  As far as I know "thought" cannot be 
measured, quantified, or shown to exist.  I understand that we all think,
(I think), but where is a thought.?  What color is it?  Does it have position
and momentum?  Do you see?  Science can't deal directly with thought 
because Science can't measure thought, so it chooses other measurable things
which it equates to thought.  There is no guarantee that this is accurate.
The measure of alleged thought-related activity may not be related to 
thought at all.

I believe the proper statement is "certain chemical reactions in the
brain" are believed to indicate "thought activity."

|> 
|> 2) Every chemical reaction is predictable.
|>    By this I don't mean that we at present are able to predict the
|>    outcome of every chemical reaction, but that it is *theoretically* 
|>    possible. Of course we have to know every detail of information
|>    about every atom involved, but that isn't important. The point is
|>    that the result of a reaction is determined given the starting 
|>    position.
|>

In another vane, this turns out to be false because in quantum mechanics
"position" turns out to be a concept that doesn't correlate real well
with what is supposed to be reality.  In other words, things don't have
precise position.  This is the uncertainty principal.  The uncertainty
principal doesn't say simply that we can't know precise position, it
asserts also a meta-principal that the word/concept "position" does not
have precise meaning.  We cannot therefore predict it with precision.

Paul Collacchi 

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:09:06 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep29.003704.1246@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

|> How are you parsing the logic?  This sounds suspiciously like 
|> objections to natural selection as being "tautological".  I don't

As indeed it should.  As you may see from my previous posting, I
feel that your position is is cut from the same cloth of that
formulation of natural selection that *is* tautological.

|> see any circularity. I'm holding as axiomatic that a morality
|> which does not exist is and was not moral.  The rest of moral
|> propagationism is derived from that base case.   Have you found
|> an error in the proof of moral propagationism?  

If you like to call what you have a "proof" I won't quibble about
the use of the word.   My argument is that, proof or not, the position
you offer is an empty one.
-- 
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
Subject: Free will or Can Life After Death be Pro
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:39:57 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> like philosophy to me. (and quite meta too ;-))  
  
like baby gooing to me ;->  
   
> Before I ask my question I'd like to put forward a few statements:  
   
> 1) Human brain activity (human thinking) is a result of  
>   (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain. As far as I know, that is  
>    where science is today.  
  
won't go any further than this :-> but How on earth can you jump from  
this:   
  
> 1) Human brain activity is a result of  
>   (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain.   
   
to this:  
  
> 1) Human human thinking is a result of  (electro-)chemical reactions   
>    in the brain.   
  
without backing off :->:->  
  
> torstein  
> torstein@itekiris.kjemi.unit.no  
> ---------  
> I think, therefore I am  - I think.   
you think that you think :->  
philosophy is nothing but :-> on the net.   
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: gpivar@maestro.mitre.org (Greg Pivarnik)
Subject: Re: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Reply-To: gpivar@mitre.org
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Distribution: sci.philosophy.meta
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:48:22 GMT

In article <TORSTEIN.92Sep29123959@itekiris.pvv.unit.no>, torstein@itekiris.pvv.unit.no (torstein hansen) writes:
|> I'm not sure if this is the right group, but my question seems
|> like philosophy to me. (and quite meta too ;-))
|> 
|> Before I ask my question I'd like to put forward a few statements:
|> 
|> 1) Human brain activity (human thinking) is a result of
|>   (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain. As far as I know, that is
|>    where science is today.
|>

Be careful not to use the words "Human Thinking" in relation to the 
definition you have provided above. Your definition or sumation
is the mechanics of the process but not the process.


|> 2) Every chemical reaction is predictable.
|>    By this I don't mean that we at present are able to predict the
|>    outcome of every chemical reaction, but that it is *theoretically* 
|>    possible. Of course we have to know every detail of information
|>    about every atom involved, but that isn't important. The point is
|>    that the result of a reaction is determined given the starting 
|>    position.
|> 
|> Putting these two statements together I find that all human activity
|> is determined beforehand. That is, if I burn my morning newspaper
|> instead of reading it, it isn't just plain madness, but it is a
|> consequence of how the atoms in my brain is located, their energy,
|> etc.
|> 
|> If we don't accept that our life is already determined, there has to
|> be an element of our brain activity that isn't bounded by physical
|> laws. If our thoughts (soul) are not bounded by physical laws, there
|> are no reason for it to be bounded by our physical body. Which in turn
|> means that when we stop living, and our body decomposes, our soul should
|> keep going strong.
|> 

BINGO!

|> OK, I know there might be some big holes in my logic, but could anyone
|> point them out? And PLEASE, don't use any special terminology, as I am
|> just a humble guy without any special knowledge in philosophy.
|> 

As far as the "holes" in your logic...well some would argue that they are
more like canyons.  In any case, I think there are some short comings in 
your initial premise. You don't account for personality/conditioning/upbringing.
This on a purely physical level makes us all extremely individual without even 
bringing into play the consciousness/soul/whatever.
On the other hand, I think, if given very specific control specimens, you could 
predict the outcome or reaction to a series of stimuli.
|> torstein
|> torstein@itekiris.kjemi.unit.no
|> 
|> ---------
|> I think, therefore I am  - I think. 

-- 
Greg 

--  Be still, be silent...the rest is easy.  --
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Moral propagationism
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:31:43 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


I think it is pretty clear at this point that the position of "moral
propagationism" is simply a restatement of the most thoroughgoing
moral relativism -- and offers us nothing more than the original
position.  It is strikingly similar to a simple-minded statement
of what many people think is Darwinian evolutionary theory:  The
fit surive.  How do you know which ones the fit are?  They're the
ones that survive of course!  What is the measure of a moral system?
Its success at propagation?  That moral system is best which is
capable of the most propagation.  And by the way, this implies
moral relativism.

But it implies nothing else!  So why not eschew the empty circular
jargon of propagationism and just stick with the original statement
of moral relativism?  Adding the extra vocabulary as window dressing
in fact adds nothing to the position.  (Though it may well provide
a fertile pseudo-field for publication.)

Contrast this with the attempt to base an analysis of the acceptability
of moral systems (at least in part) on the limiting factors imposed
ala sociobiology.  This approach *may* be incorrect, but at least it
is not empty.


-- 
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: torstein@itekiris.pvv.unit.no (torstein hansen)
Subject: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Organization: ProgramVareVerksedet, Trondheim, Norway
Distribution: sci.philosophy.meta
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:39:59

I'm not sure if this is the right group, but my question seems
like philosophy to me. (and quite meta too ;-))

Before I ask my question I'd like to put forward a few statements:

1) Human brain activity (human thinking) is a result of
  (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain. As far as I know, that is
   where science is today.

2) Every chemical reaction is predictable.
   By this I don't mean that we at present are able to predict the
   outcome of every chemical reaction, but that it is *theoretically* 
   possible. Of course we have to know every detail of information
   about every atom involved, but that isn't important. The point is
   that the result of a reaction is determined given the starting 
   position.

Putting these two statements together I find that all human activity
is determined beforehand. That is, if I burn my morning newspaper
instead of reading it, it isn't just plain madness, but it is a
consequence of how the atoms in my brain is located, their energy,
etc.

If we don't accept that our life is already determined, there has to
be an element of our brain activity that isn't bounded by physical
laws. If our thoughts (soul) are not bounded by physical laws, there
are no reason for it to be bounded by our physical body. Which in turn
means that when we stop living, and our body decomposes, our soul should
keep going strong.

OK, I know there might be some big holes in my logic, but could anyone
point them out? And PLEASE, don't use any special terminology, as I am
just a humble guy without any special knowledge in philosophy.

torstein
torstein@itekiris.kjemi.unit.no

---------
I think, therefore I am  - I think. 
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: diener@namu01.gwdg.de (Immo Diener)
Subject: Re: Free will or Can Life After Death be Proven
Organization: Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Germany
Distribution: sci.philosophy.meta
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:09:52

In article <TORSTEIN.92Sep29123959@itekiris.pvv.unit.no> 
torstein@itekiris.pvv.unit.no (torstein hansen) writes:
>    ...
>   1) Human brain activity (human thinking) is a result of
>     (electro-)chemical reactions in the brain. As far as I know, that is
>      where science is today.
>    ...

  Nobody can proof that thinking "takes place" in the brain. Thinking is
accompanied by brain activity. The orchestra is not in the radio, etc...
When you are trying to answer your questions, you THINK. But THINKING
is a process you do not know. You just do it, but you do not observe
what you do when you think. As long as you know nothing about the
process of thinking, you apply a process (thinking) about which you
know nothing. So you know nothing about the relations between your
observations and the results you get by thinking about them.

  All human knowledge is obtained via obvservation and thinking.
So, if you want to know about thinking you must apply these to
processes to the process of thinking. This seems to be recursive
whitout end, but is is not.

  All science is illusion as long as the process of thinking has not
been clarified - simply because an unknown process is applied and thus
leads to results which have no known relation to the starting points.

  Whom do you call I, what is life, free will, intelligence, etc, etc.
None of these questions can seriously be attacked before clarified the
above point - because we apply an unknown process...

--
Immo Diener, +49 551 394518                                     __o   
Institut fuer Numerische und Angewandte Mathematik,           _`\<,_  
Lotzestrasse 16-18, Georg-August-Universitaet, 	             (_)/ (_) 
D-3400 Goettingen, Germany
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Phil.of Language (Ok Here or Not?)  
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:48:10 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
>    >responses to Krikinstien -) (Kripke or Wittgenstien's) sceptical  
>   
>   By the way, it's Wittgenstein. It's one of the recurring sources of wonder
> on the net that Americans have this difficulty with Wittgenstein and  
> Wittgenstien, Tolkien and Tolkein. Of course, soberly regarded, it is clear 
> enough how this happens, what with Americans variously pronouncing their  
> names stine or steen, but still...  
>   
>   ("Dr Frankenstein!" - "No, it's Frankonsteen!")  
  
Hey Torkel Man !  
your sense of humour is really improving, what is happening to you ?  
mark my word  ^^^^^^ not humor :->  
  
I always say philosophy is :-> on the net...   
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta