HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Donald Mackie <donald_mackie@med.umich.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.mcdonalds
Subject: McDonalds TV adverts
Date: 28 Jan 1993 10:51:20 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan Anesthesiology
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.214.86.38
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXDate: Thu, 28 Jan 93 11:51:22 GMT

I've noticed a couple of new Mcds adverts on the local TV stations
featuring local performers. One is Peter "Madcat" Ruth, a well-known Ann
Arbor blues harmonica player. The other is a little kid from Detroit who
sings, has a recording contract and a name that I can't remember.

I'd be surprised if these are national. Are other people seeing their
local celebrities appearing on commercials?

Don "watching too much TV" Mackie

"Oh, I don't know, you know, don't you know?"  B W Wooster
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: ethridge@crchh403 (Allen Ethridge)
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:36:33 GMT
Organization: BNR, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote:
: Some people frequenting this group have brought up quantum
: uncertianty and Godels incompleteness theorem as proof positive
: that science and logic cannot know *everything* about the
: universe. Perhaps this is true, or perhaps both limitations
: will be dealt with by some superior mathematics one day. 

If i remember correctly i once read that Kurt Godel admitted to
mystical tendencies.  This of course does not validate mysticism.

: 
: Alas, assuming these limits are insurmountable, they also
: must affect the ultimate resolution of 'mysticism' or any
: other way of knowing the universe. If science cannot know
: it all - then neither can any other approach within the
: sphere of our universe. 

Why must the limits science necessarily apply to all other forms of
knowledge?  You're making an illogical leap here.

: 
: Why then choose scientific methods over mystical revelation ?
: Because the results of proper science are reproductable and
: availible for logical analysis and save a hell of a lot of
: time by eliminating totally unreasonable branches of persuit.
: Mystical revelation is inherently 'soft'. You *think* you
: know something, but never can really test the notions. You
: commonly come to your 'knowledge' without intermediate steps
: which could be of immense value in revealing other knowledge.
: The mystic, being unable to verify their 'knowledge', is 
: doomed to waste years or even centuries investigating absurd
: notions - perhaps even falling into a 'dogma trap' wherein
: investigation is routed around concepts which might invalidate
: all those years of effort. 

I don't think you know what mysticism is.  You also assume that
any system of knowledge must conform to scientific standards.
This is an unwarranted assumption.

: 
: Some claim that science and mysticism are each appropriate for
: investigating very different aspects of reality. Is this really
: true ? Given time, will science eventually cover the same
: territory and questions which the mystics claim as their private
: preserve ? If so, the detailed methodology of science will
: yeild a superior picture of this territory. IMHO, of course.

In answer to your first question - perhaps, to your second question - 
not necessarily.

: 
: -- JM 

It's easy to prove your position if you include it in your assumption.
Over in alt.atheism this type of circular reasoning shows up a lot, when
Christians try to convert us ignorant atheists.  Does this mean then that
what i have heard is true, that science has become a religion?
--
allen@well.sf.ca.us
ethridge@bnr.ca
my opinions are my own
From: cuhes@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: 27 Jan 1993 09:03:24 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1993Jan25.221540.2068@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>	At the very least, since logic and causality are
>	a part of the universe, you should be able to prove,
>	using logic, emperical facts and such, that there is
>	a need for that leap beyond reason - or that there
>	exists anything worthwhile beyond the emperical universe.

To me the experience of consciousness itself (not reason, not
meta-logic but the fact that there is a "me" to experience)
constitutes such proof.

>	For all the 'illumination' that the mystically inclined
>	claim to be generating - why did it take science to
>	invent the light bulb ?

Because that isn't the kind of thing mysticism has tried to achieve.
Mysticism is about controlling your own mind, above all things.
Success in this is only apparent in the reaction of other people to
the enlightened one.

To me science is actually based on the same kind of insight. Science
allows this insight (when it concerns the physical) to be
communicated, focused and tested but the big ideas are all
inspirational.

Malcolm McMahon
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: 20 Jan 93 23:07:40 -0500

Some people frequenting this group have brought up quantum
uncertianty and Godels incompleteness theorem as proof positive
that science and logic cannot know *everything* about the
universe. Perhaps this is true, or perhaps both limitations
will be dealt with by some superior mathematics one day. 

Alas, assuming these limits are insurmountable, they also
must affect the ultimate resolution of 'mysticism' or any
other way of knowing the universe. If science cannot know
it all - then neither can any other approach within the
sphere of our universe. 

Why then choose scientific methods over mystical revelation ?
Because the results of proper science are reproductable and
availible for logical analysis and save a hell of a lot of
time by eliminating totally unreasonable branches of persuit.
Mystical revelation is inherently 'soft'. You *think* you
know something, but never can really test the notions. You
commonly come to your 'knowledge' without intermediate steps
which could be of immense value in revealing other knowledge.
The mystic, being unable to verify their 'knowledge', is 
doomed to waste years or even centuries investigating absurd
notions - perhaps even falling into a 'dogma trap' wherein
investigation is routed around concepts which might invalidate
all those years of effort. 

Some claim that science and mysticism are each appropriate for
investigating very different aspects of reality. Is this really
true ? Given time, will science eventually cover the same
territory and questions which the mystics claim as their private
preserve ? If so, the detailed methodology of science will
yeild a superior picture of this territory. IMHO, of course.

-- JM
From: meagher@skyfox
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: RE: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: 24 JAN 93 17:43:30 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
NNTP-Posting-Host: sask.usask.ca

In a previous article, hughg@brutus.ee.su.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) wrote:
> 
>Science is not a religion. It is a method created by human beings to find
>things out, as best as one can. It can be applied to anything.
> 

	The idea that science can be applied to anything is, I believe, false.  
The idea that science can be applied to anything is precisely what we
use the term "scientism" to denote.  While we might "apply" science to
anything, the real point at issue here is how "successful" such an 
approach is relative to other approaches to the same subject matter.
Success must defined in terms of the degree of understanding we obtain as
a result of using method x relative to method y.  Now I think that there
are a number of domains that use methods other than science successfully:
historical methods in sociology, ethnographic methods in anthropology,
qualitative methods in clinical psychology, etc... 
	In making this comment I don't want to belittle science in 
any way.  "Scientism" on the other hand...  
	
Paul D. Meagher
Dept. of Psychology
Univ. of Saskatchewan
meagher@sask.usask.ca

Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re: The Weak Anthropic Priniciple (was Re: Next?)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 08:26:05 GMT

Ok, screw all this "meaning" stuff.  I can't see it going anywhere,
and I'm not sure it's relevant to consciousness anyway.  But the following
is interesting.

In article <7348@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> mshute@cs.man.ac.uk (Malcolm Shute) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.042623.26364@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>>So, Douglas, if you are at odds with the stance of those with religious
>>>beliefs, *and* those with scientific beliefs, just who *are* you believing?
>>
>>Myself.  There's too much bullshit floating around to trust anybody
>>else.  I see no reason to put blind trust in either theologians
>>*or* scientists.  That doesn't mean that I have all the answers --
>>just that I will never believe something just because a lot of
>>other people do.
>
>Beware, on this one!
>You're treading a very risky path, if you really mean what you say here!

Now this I find interesting, and it may even belong in this newsgroup.
Previously I spoke of zombielike nature of 20th century man, and
I think that one of the prime causes of that is that we are constantly
being bombarded with context-free factoids.  They do not engage our
rational thinking capacity (which I associate with consciousness -- I
haven't yet done much reading on the subject, so I could be dead wrong).
Instead, all we can do is to choose either to believe them or not, and
usually we do that unconsciously based on which authority the pronouncements
supposedly originated from, or on their emotional appeal.  So for example,
if Dupont can pay a bunch of scientists to say that the hole in the
ozone layer is harmless, I might tend to believe that because it's what I
would like to believe, and because everybody knows that scientists
wouldn't lie, or couldn't have ideological blinders on.  I figure that
we all have our heads so full of these factoids, many of them contradictory,
that our capacity for thought (consciousness?) is greatly diminished.
So I try not to let them sneak in without a real close examination,
and it is this process of standing on guard against propaganda that
I associate with consciousness.

Now you're telling me that this is a risky path?  Why?

One of the things that gives me nightmares is the thought of western
civilization humming along for over 1000 years without anybody ever
questioning the veracity of a certain collection of dogma.  Nobody ever
questioned it because everybody else believed it.  I shudder when I think
of all those people going through their entire lives talking absolute
bullshit, and I do everything I can to avoid falling into the same
trap.  One of those things is to take care not to believe things
just because a bunch of other people do.  Maybe I'll still be talking
bullshit, but at least it'll be my own bullshit. :-)

My apologies if this is an irrelevant rant.
--
Doug Graham         dgraham@bnr.ca         My opinions are my own.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Monday, 25 Jan 1993 05:44:41 EST
From: jennifer <IO91784@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: you know you're in trouble when all you see is RE:


precluding sanity, a wish
which is hard, blind,
and also cold.

any solipsistic suckers out there?
drop me a line.

-jen
From: ST201506@brownvm.brown.edu ()
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:07:52 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
X-News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

--"After thousands of years of comtemplating 'mysteries' - all we got were a fe
w hack religions that were the social equivalent to a Ford Pinto ... kick em in
 the rear and the world goes up in flames."

pretty funny, and now that we have science we've finally gotten somewhere?
where?
now all we have to do is kick a few people in the ass and the world goes up
in nuclear flames.
i don't think science is some evil demon
but neither do i think it is a deity to be worshipped
-- "Give *it* 5000 years and see what we get."
I can't reply to that line with a straight face.
Life is full of changes and surprises (profound statement, huh?) and I hope
the way we perceive things changes many times in the next 5000 years.
be mighty boring if it didn't


                fill
From: cuhes@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Malcolm McMahon)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:27:26 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
Reply-To: malcolm@geog.leeds.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In  order to consider the relationship between science and mysticism  it 
is important to understand the nature of science.  Scientific method  is 
not  so  much a source of theories as a way of dealing  with  them  once 
they  are  formed.  It  seems to me that  almost  invariably  where  the 
original  inspiration  (and  the  word is  important)  of  a  successful 
scientific  theory has been described it sounds suspiciously similar  to 
a mystical revelation.

There  are moments in our lives,  it seems to me,  when we  momentarilly 
wake from normal consciousness into a state where we catch a glimpse  of 
the  big picture.  What aspect of the big picture we glimpse depends  on 
what  our  interests are.  A lot of what we see is usually  lost  as  we 
return from the peak.

Now  what  science  does not do is  prove  theories.  Science  can  only 
disprove theories. The scientific method of dealing with a new theory is 
to attack it,  to try to disprove it.  Every serious attack it stands up 
to makes it more respectable.

Take  a theory like "human destiny is being interfered with  by  sublime 
and diabolic inteligences who use their superior faculties to hide their 
activities from us." This may be true or false.  Either way it is not  a 
scientific  theory  because,  if  false,  it still  cannot  possibly  be 
disproved. You cannot attack it in the manner that science requires.

An aspect of the power of scientific technique is the narrowness of it's 
focus.  By  looking  at  a very small piece of the universe  as  far  as 
possible  in isolation it's behaviour can be described in  detail  while 
the  effects  of  the rest of the universe are  approximated  by  a  few 
constants.  Yet  science itself is increasingly aware that the world  is 
not really like that.  It's an extremely valuable approximation but it's 
not guaranteed to work on everything.

It  has been said that mysticism examines the root of the  Tao,  science 
its branches. That sounds about right to me.

Malcolm McMahon


Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: hughg@brutus.ee.su.oz.au (Hugh Garsden)
Subject: RE: Science Superior to Mysticism
Organization: University of Sydney, EE Dept.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:43:36 GMT


In article <26JAN93.03335777@skyfox>, meagher@skyfox writes:
|> I agree, observation can be applied to alot of things, but the
|> particular type of observation called "Science" has a more restricted
|> domain of applicability.

Then I guess it depends on how you define science. These come from my
dictionary -
 
\H observation
\D1 n.  the act of noticing or perceiving.
\D2  the act of regarding attentively or watching.
\D3  the faculty or habit of observing or noticing.

\H science
\D1 n.   the systematic study of man and his environment
based on the deductions and inferences which can be made, and the
general laws which can be formulated, from reproducible observations
and measurements of events and parameters within the universe.

These are fairly wide definitions as they stand. The domain of applicability
of science is given as "man and environment ... the universe", which, I would
suggest, is not less than "everything". It is human beings that place
arbitrary restrictions on science's domain. Also note that the definition of
"observation" has no limits.  

|> Observation is not sufficient to differentiate science from other methods
|> of inquiry.

I have no wish to differentiate. Every method of *inquiry* (note that I stress
that) that I am familiar with (i.e. I have tried) fits the definitions of
observation and science. They are all "systematic", and have "deductions and
inferences", and "general laws", and "reproducible observations". They make
observations by "noticing and perceiving". But perhaps there are methods that
do differ, in which case I'd be glad to find out.


-- 
Hugh Garsden		
University of Sydney 
hughg@ee.su.oz.au
From: jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:15:40 GMT

In article <C18F4y.35C@news.rich.bnr.ca>, ethridge@crchh403 (Allen Ethridge) writes:
> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu wrote:
> : [ Godel, QI, Chaos etc at to science ...]
> : Alas, assuming these limits are insurmountable, they also
> : must affect the ultimate resolution of 'mysticism' or any
> : other way of knowing the universe. If science cannot know
> : it all - then neither can any other approach within the
> : sphere of our universe. 
> 
> Why must the limits science necessarily apply to all other forms of
> knowledge?  You're making an illogical leap here.

	Hmmm ... so you propose a system for the aquisition
	of knowledge which posesses characteristics and
	rules which cannot be resolved by or duplicated
	via logic and/or emperical observation ? Very
	convenient. Congratulations ! You have just invented
	a religion. Please step to the rear of the line as
	there are many ahead of you.

	At the very least, since logic and causality are
	a part of the universe, you should be able to prove,
	using logic, emperical facts and such, that there is
	a need for that leap beyond reason - or that there
	exists anything worthwhile beyond the emperical universe.
	Play with integer math long enough and one can infer
	the necessity of irrational numbers - so where is your
	proof that we have, or should have an 'irrational'
	universe ? Godel isn't it - you can always add another
	meta-level to your math to cope with the irresolvable
	situation on the previous level (OK so it has to go
	on and on forever, big deal). Quantum Indetermency ?
	Sorry - I think that's just an artifact of an 
	incomplete theory (time will tell). 

	For all the 'illumination' that the mystically inclined
	claim to be generating - why did it take science to
	invent the light bulb ? After thousands of years of
	contemplating 'mysteries' - all we got were a few
	hack religions that were the social equivalent to
	a Ford Pinto ... kick em in the rear and the world
	goes up in flames. Mysticism consumes time and material
	resources but yeilds no product - other than more
	mysticism. 5000 years is long enough - try another
	approach to knowledge. There is a neat recent 
	invention called 'science' and the 'scientific
	method' that has been rather utilitarian of late.
	Give *it* 5000 years and see what we get.

	-- Jim Mason
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: mukesh@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mukesh Prasad)
Subject: Re: Science Superior to Mysticism
Reply-To: mukesh@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Mukesh Prasad)
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:41:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.030609.9070@ucc.su.OZ.AU> hughg@brutus.ee.su.oz.au (Hugh Garsden) writes:
> 
> Scientism is a religion. It is a dogma which states that it is the one true
> way (to know the truth). That all other ways are invalid. It has its fanatics,

Scientism?  Is this a new word?  What are its defining characteristics?

> observations, and so on. But I have no concern about materiality.  I have no
> concern for boundaries. If I observe something repeatably, and I talk to
> others who have done the same, then the things that we observe exist.  That is
> how we define existence; there is no other way. And, on the basis of

So your definition involves "others"?  In other words, is "science" as
you see it, primarily a social concern?  In that case, is it
really very different from any other religion?  [the question is
about "science" as you see it, not about your "scientism"]

  /Mukesh
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Particles ?
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:43:05 GMT


   Hey, the electrons I've been looking at are waves! Besides, it
makes more sense to think of an electron as a sequence of events
rather than a thing; we can imagine viewing some finite ramification
of the event, but can we call that observation a particle? I prefer
the notion that no one has any idea what an electron is, only what
"it" does. Some prefer to confuse the description with the thing
described it seems.

Well I must be going now ...


Bill
From: asanders@adobe.com (Alan Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness
Subject: Re: Next?
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:00:39 GMT
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

| Meaning? Humankind imposes that attribute. It doesn't enter
| into the issue of pure consciousness. To the human being, 
| consciousness is just the recognition of a relationship.

					-John

From my perspective, the question of meaning enters into *every* issue.
Why discuss *anything* if nothing means anything anyway? To me, this
is a convenient way of reducing all of life to an absurdity. If we
think about consciousness, or anything else, we want to know what
its place or purpose is in the Scheme of Things. Afterall, the
Universe *may* have no absolute meaning, but it certainly *does*
have structure--which means that there are two things we can
know about anything that exists: THAT it is, and WHAT it does.
I'll grant that this may be a peculiarly human perspective, but
from WHO ELSE'S perspective are we supposed to look at life in
the Universe?

Consciousness isn't "just" anything. Consciousness is the core
reality of human existence. Our understanding of *what* consciousness
is may be pure fantasy, but its existence is self-evident.

| Human mortality is simply not central to the concept of 
| consciousness...

The question of our mortality is essential to our *understanding*
of consciousness. What happens to us when we die? Nobody knows,
but the question means: what happens to our consciousness? We're
certainly not asking what happens to our body. We *know* what
happens to that (food for worms). If everything in the Universe 
is material, what happens to the material of human consciousness 
when we die? Into what is it transformed? Our organic bodies
return to the earth. Where does consciousness return to?

					-Alan
Newsgroups: alt.consciousness