HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:14:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.163049.23614@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
writes:
> 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.

   Then you couldn't prove the automaton wasn't concious, no?  I'm quite
convinced of my own conciousness and parsimony suggests that you are
concious as well.  The automaton theory seems to multiply entities 
needlessly.  In any case each person can verify the effects of his own
conciousness, acting via his body, on the physical world so your example
is weak: it requires a remarkable level of paranoia to become plausible.
 
> 	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

   You seem to be using (mystical==not explained) yet.  A dangerous axiom
if ever there was one.  When a sentient computer is built does sentience 
become nonmystical or does the computer involved become mystical?

   It strikes me that people that deride materialism don't gives 
the material world credit for the unbelievable complexity it posesses.
An friend-of-a-friend I met at a science fiction convention in '84 sticks
in my mind.  She was wildly hostile to the notion that a human being 
could be explained entirely from natural law.  There "just had to be"
and extraphysical component or we would all "just be machines".  Leaving
aside the fact that this is disproof by citation of evil concequences,
I don't see what so bad about being a machine.

   If J. Dillberry Egghead finishes off a conclusive demonstration that 
I am a "machine" it will not diminish my enjoyment of chocolate one bit.
The laws of physics seem to leave room for unbelievably complex and
sophistocated "machines".  Nondeterministic machines seem to be the 
rule rather than the exception.  For that matter if a piece of mysticism
turns out to be grounded in fact then it will eventually become part of
the materialist domain.  Take your example, sentience.  It is the topic
of intensive study by materialists; they aren't denying or ignoring it -
they're attempting to absorb it.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: QM reading list?
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:02:29 GMT

In article <C16F4H.Ft6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales) writes:
|> I'm interested in learning more about QM, and (particularly) about
|> the philosophical debates associated with interpretation of QM
|> results (theory and empirical).
|> 

|> 
|> I'm looking for books to read.  Anything from popular level books
|> that are well done, up to sophisticated books at a level consistent
|> with the level of preparation I have listed above will do.

	Try posting your request on sci.physics.  There's usually at least 
one thread going on over there on the interpretation of QM, and some 
(repeat, some) of the participants know something about the subject; they  
might have good references to offer.  
	As for good introductions to QM for non-physicists, I've just been 
given a second-hand quote from Gell-Mann to the effect that "there are none".   
I have run into one book that might be useful, _Quantum Mechanics in 
Simple Matrix Form_, by Thomas F. Jordan (Wiley, 1986).  It has the 
advantage that it doesn't require much math, and gets to things like Bell's 
inequalities (quite unusual in an intro book) without requiring you to bone 
up on, say, Hermite polynomials, or do lots of grubby, semi-real problems.  
On the other hand, he does not introduce a lot of the standard 
notation that you'd need for reading serious work on the subject.  Of the 
more standard introductory textbooks that happen to be lying about in my 
immediate vicinity, you might try _Introduction to the Quantum Theory_, 
by David Park (McGraw-Hill, 1974), since he treats "general principles" 
before applications.  This would also be a good question for sci.physics, 
by the way.


-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Schools, philosophy of science, epistemology
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:01:30 GMT

In article <6owNXB1w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
(Betsy Speicher) writes:

>Any resemblance between S. Grossman and a real, nice, reasonable
>Objectivist like me is purely coincidental.
> 
>I welcome suggestions as to how Grossman might be persuaded to
>pick on somebody else's philosophy.

SG	Horse Guddshaw looked down the wrong end of a blackened Remington 
shotgun barrel. He gulped and smiled. A bead of sweat rolled down his forehead. 
The fat man spat on Guddshaw's shoes. He waved the bartender over. "One beer," 
Smitty. "Just one beer." A second bead of sweat rolled down Guddshaw's 
forehead. The gunsel at the other end of the shotgun frowned and tensed his 
arm...

	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 don't get tough. My lawyer does." [Faye Dunaway, _Chinatown_]
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: QM
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:26:18 GMT

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.........
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Searle on animal consciousness
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:36:58 GMT
Organization: Northern Illinois University

In article <C1J039.8A9@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.174733.3100@cs.ucf.edu>, clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>
>|> Corollary question.  If you don't remember, in what sense
>|> are you conscious?
>
>At this point in my life there is a *lot* I don't remember any
>longer.  I do not infer from this that I was unconscious for most
>of my life.

Excellent response.  In any case, memory doesn't work that way (i.e. it
is not a videotape machine).

>                                      Suppose someone offered you
>[insert absurd sum of money or some other desideratum] to be
>tortured painfully and at length under the conditions that (a) no
>permanent harm or disfigurement would result, and (b) that you
>would be given a drug so that although the torture would be felt,
>you would have no memory of it after it was over.  Would you take
>the job?

I certainly wouldn't.

>          If not, why not?

I don't like the idea of people monkeying around with my mind, and I
would not trust their assurances anyway.
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 16:56:37 GMT

In article <TORKEL.93Jan21223152@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.202625.27001@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smauguio.no 
>(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>
>   >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:
>
>  You are of course free to try to correct Grossman. But your comments don't
>touch on the matter of his having a "right" to this.
>
>  As for the pragmatic issue, it has long been clear that there is no point
>in trying to argue with Grossman.

SG	Would you argue with the Pope?
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan)
Subject: Re: Logic (WAS Re: War!)
Summary: Jokes are bracketed
Organization: UNC EBBS (NOT)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:40:02 GMT

In article <C1GsqA.KC4@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>
>In article <C1F6En.JKs@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
>|> In article <1993Jan22.160827.15320@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) 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.  

>|> SG	Hold on there, big guy. What's this reason/joke split? You're not 
>|> claiming its metaphysical, are you? 

[GM]
>In additon, all of Rand's writings are best regarded as a joke (not to
>imply any component of reason in them).

Hold on yourself, SG.  All I _meant_ was that if the SG posts are jokes,
as Gary alleges, then there is no "appeal" to reason in them.  There are
"joke-appeals" to something by a "joke persona" but this is at one
remove from reality.

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!

No metaphysics, just linguistic analysis.

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
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: farris@stsci.edu (Allen Farris)
Subject: Re: QM reading list?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:44:18 GMT


In article <C16F4H.Ft6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> you write:
>I'm interested in learning more about QM, and (particularly) about
>the philosophical debates associated with interpretation of QM
>results (theory and empirical).
>
>I have taken 1 semester of graduate level real analysis.  I am in
>the process of taking the second semester of graduate level real
>analysis.  I know lots and lots of probability theory and statistics.
>I've taken a variety of other math courses which are perhaps best
>described as 'the usual mix'.
>
>I know very little about physics proper, but I'm willing to work to
>learn.  
>
>I'm looking for books to read.  Anything from popular level books
>that are well done, up to sophisticated books at a level consistent
>with the level of preparation I have listed above will do.
>
>Thanks for any help you can give me.
>
>--Jimbo
>

I can suggest the following two books.  They are not lightweight, but, then,
the subject isn't lightweight.

     The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
     R.I.G. Hughes
     Harvard University Press, 1989
     ISBN 0-674-84391-6

     Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory
     J.T. Cushing and E. McMullin, eds.
     University of Notre Dame Press, 1989
     ISBN 0-268-01579-1

A book that will introduce the subject in the way that most physicists are
accustomed to and that might be easily overlooked in today's context is
David Bohm's 1951 book on QM:

     Quantum Theory
     David Bohm
     Prentice Hall, 1951
     Dover reprint edition, 1989
     ISBN 0-486-65969-0

This latter book was generally regarded as one of the best introductory
textbooks of its day.  It attempts to give a very clear presentation of
the physical ideas behind the formalism.

A proper understanding of this subject requires adequate skill in physics,
mathematics, and philosophy.  Not very many people have made sufficient
effort to master the necessary requirements in all three areas, but a
growing number of researchers have.  I will add one other advisory note.
This is a subject that is best approached with an open mind.  If you insist
on approaching it with a lot of preconceived ideas about how the world is
supposed to work, you will be in for a rough ride.  The physics community
of the first quarter of this century did not embrace quantum mechanics
willingly and many of them suffered much emotional trauma as they watched
their classical world view being shattered.


Allen Farris
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Date: 22 Jan 93 10:24:26 GMT
	<TORKEL.93Jan21223152@bast.sics.se>
	<1993Jan22.093202.13408@ulrik.uio.no>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

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.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: QM reading list?
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:49:28 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <C16F4H.Ft6@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales) writes:
|> I'm interested in learning more about QM, and (particularly) about
|> the philosophical debates associated with interpretation of QM
|> results (theory and empirical).
|> 
|> I have taken 1 semester of graduate level real analysis.  I am in
|> the process of taking the second semester of graduate level real
|> analysis.  I know lots and lots of probability theory and statistics.
|> I've taken a variety of other math courses which are perhaps best
|> described as 'the usual mix'.
|> 
|> I know very little about physics proper, but I'm willing to work to
|> learn.  
|> 
|> I'm looking for books to read.  Anything from popular level books
|> that are well done, up to sophisticated books at a level consistent
|> with the level of preparation I have listed above will do.
|> 
|> Thanks for any help you can give me.
|> 
|> --Jimbo
|> 

A *long* time ago I had the same ambition.  It has never been realized
since I never had the time to devote to it.  However, I did acquire
what I think is a good introduction to QM, but is not a tome-like
text.  The title is _A Quantum Mechanics Primer_.  I don't recall
the author and the book is at home.  I'ts a paperback.  I believe
it was recommended to me by Arthur Fine or Paul Teller who were/are
pretty heavily into QM.

-- 
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:4977 sci.philosophy.meta:3160 sci.logic:2638
From: walkerj@access.digex.com (John Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.logic
Subject: Primitive terms, anyone?
Date: 26 Jan 1993 00:54:01 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

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.

Take care,

            ---------------------------------------------------
                      John Walker, walkerj@digex.com
                 ---Assembler is a high-level language.--- 
        .GET DSCLAIMR.STD   ; Even though this *is* on *my* nickel!
            ---------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Stephen Grossman
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:00 GMT

Please see my reference to Stephen Grossman as cited in "Stephen Grossman" in 
_The Stephen Grossman Reader, Vol. 23, 67th edition, edited by Stephen 
Grossman.

I, by the way, have never been Stephen Grossman and am not now. I want my 
laywer. 

"Badges? Badges! We don't need no stinkin' badges." [BLAM! ZING! POW!]
________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: QM reading list?
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:15:00 GMT
Reply-To: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk (Andy Liddiard)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

In response to jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales):

J-W/*I'm looking for books to read.  Anything from popular level books
J-W/*that are well done, up to sophisticated books at a level consistent
J-W/*with the level of preparation I have listed above will do.

For a concise synopsis, I'd recommend Ch.7 of Barrow and Tipler's
"The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" (OUP, ISBN 0-19-282147-4,
paperback). There are 85 references to quoted work in the chapter,
which is, like the rest of the book, quite compelling reading
(IMHO). Not that I agree with the book's main thrust, may I add :-).
They stick the maths in too.

 Andy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
                                   notes01%clstr.pnl.ac.uk@ukc.ac.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a #112 . WANTED: Schr.dinger's Cat - Dead or Alive.
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Stephen Grossman
Date: 21 Jan 93 21:31:52 GMT
	<TORKEL.93Jan21205323@bast.sics.se>
	<1993Jan21.202625.27001@ulrik.uio.no>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1993Jan21.202625.27001@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smauguio.no 
(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

   >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:

  You are of course free to try to correct Grossman. But your comments don't
touch on the matter of his having a "right" to this.

  As for the pragmatic issue, it has long been clear that there is no point
in trying to argue with Grossman.
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 16:33:17 GMT

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. 

SG	Obviously Franzen hasn't read the recently discovered Voltaire-Grossman 
Correspondence. He's just not a scholar.

________________________________________________________________________________
	"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>
================================================================================