HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:05:11 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

I've read through all the follow-ups to this thread several times now.
I was already familiar with Randall Holmes' basic position on Truth and
the "set of all propositions" from our correspondance, but I appreciate
seeing it layed out in some detail.  Thanks.  Gary Merrill's clarification
of the syntactic/semantic distinction is also greatly appreciated.
Torkel Franzen is probably right that my notion of "realism" doesn't
correspond to realism about universals.  Although if one includes
mathematical realism, realism about universals would be included in
`global realism'.  A Fregean notion of truth values also seems to 
involve such realism about Truth as a Platonic universal.  I can't think
of too much to add to any this at the moment.  This is primarily the
result of my own confusion about the possible philosophical relevance
of all this, and the fact I haven't read Hintikka very thoroughly yet.

-- 
Marko Amnell
amnell@klaava.helsinki.fi
Graduate Student in Philosophy
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Summary: no
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:19:40 GMT
Expires: December 31, 1999
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov12.230825.4691@linus.mitre.org> 
tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker) writes:

>ps.
>
>Kudos to mister M. Zeleny and M. Rooney for your brief but hilarious 
>burst of pretentious/outrageous and french innuendo, my apologies to those
>who took it seriously.

Comrade Tucker, in the name of the legality of equality, I solemnly demand
that you distribute your honorifics in a fair and equitable manner.  Be it
`mister' or `arsehole', if you award it to me, you must likewise award it
to my esteemed interlocutor.  I further differ from you in condemning with
the utmost gravity all those tiresomely ubiquitous, sniveling metapedantic
footnote chasers who would take seriously any subject involving a public
display of personal peccadilloes.



I mean it!

>Wm T.
>
>.standard disclaimer

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle
Summary: pilate speaketh
Date: 7 Nov 92 10:21:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov7.052154.17197
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov6.184703.16761@guinness.idbsu.edu> 
holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>I don't think that "Reality is the Truth about the world".  Reality is
>the world itself; Truth is what can be said about the world.  Of
>course, what can be said about the world is part of the world, and
>when we start considering what can be said about that aspect of the
>world, we get into trouble.  Thus Tarski's paradox, etc.

Let me see if I am getting this straight.  You, Randall, are
presumably "part of the world" itself, and _ipso facto_ part of
Reality.  Consequently, what I can say about you is Truth.

So we have that

	Randall Holmes is a wood duck

is part of Truth, insofar as I can, and indeed do say it right now.

Did I get your proposal right, or is there anything more profound to it?

>-- 
>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

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: cash@convex.com (Peter Cash)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:02:10 GMT
Organization: The Instrumentality
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In article <BxK3DF.AHy@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:

...
| Well, no.  But I would *expect* this since she is such a "visible"
| writer, well-known, and a *woman*.  If we are to pay special attention
| to the philosophy of women, shouldn't a consideration of Rand have
| a more central place?  Especially since she represents a perspective
| quite distinct from most (if not all) "feminist philosophers"?
| Is she less a woman than others?  Is her thought somehow less
| "womanish"?  But of course Rand was offered merely as an extreme
| example.  It's been a while since I looked at the corpus of feminist
| philosophy.  However, I bet I could find a significant number of women
| just as goofy as Rand who are given full measure within it but
| whose political perspective is "acceptable".  

Heh heh--that reminds me: does anybody read Shulamith Firestone anymore? 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
             |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.92Nov6160230@isis.sics.se>
	<1992Nov6.171811.3695@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:13:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.171811.3695@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.
FI (Marko Amnell) writes:

   >This is the point where the Law of Excluded Middle comes in.
   >It says that every possible proposition is true or false.

  That is, that it is true or is not true? As in your earlier formula,
"the conditions obtain or do not obtain"? But this is just what I am
asking about. What do you intend to assert here? How is this statement
different from "if the conditions obtain, then they obtain" or any other
statement that is usually regarded as a logical truth? Apparently you
attach some peculiar significance to this particular tautology, at least
when it is uttered in certain contexts, but your present remarks don't
explain what this signficance is.

   >It follows
   >that in every instance, it _does_ make sense to ask whether a certain
   >proposition describes some fact in the real world, or does not.

  How does this follow, and why doesn't it follow from other
tautologies?  Let's take a concrete example. I say, "this painting is
beautiful, or it is not beautiful". How do you deduce from this
statement that the matter of the painting being beautiful is in some
non-trivial sense a matter of fact? Or perhaps you don't actually mean
that anything follows from this statement, but rather that when you
yourself make such statements you intend to express some metaphysical
conviction - as people do when they utter a tautology of the form "if
A then A" in order to express a fatalistic view of events?
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:47:58 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com


In article <1992Nov10.165026.2036@guinness.idbsu.edu>, holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
|> 
|> Marko, I suggest that you fall back from "proposition" to "sentence"
|> in a suitable language.  I think that "sentence of first-order logic
|> in a language which has constants for every object" is a good
|> approximation to "proposition".  It can be established that this is a
|> consistent totality (it exists in NFU), while the set of "truths"
|> (true sentences in a language of this kind) is an inconsistent
|> totality under any reasonable assumptions.

The problem with Randall's suggestion is that this concept of
proposition is quite inadequate as even an "approximation" if
a proposition is taken to be something like the "meaning" of
a sentence, or the "intension", or some other Platonistic thingamabob
that a sentence "expresses".  However, given this (common)
meaning of 'proposition', Marko will have some problems.  However,
never mind whether Randall is correct in his "approximation" claim
since that's really immaterial.  I believe he certainly is correct
in the suggestion that appealing to propositions will just cause
Marko *more* trouble.

For example, it is fairly common to construe a proposition as a
*function* from a set K onto the truth values.  K may be the set of
possible worlds, the set of models of the language, or some similar
set.  If S is a sentence, then the-proposition-expressed-by S is
that function which for every element k of its domain assigns the
value T (true) just in case S is true at k.  The problem is that
there are *more* propositions than sentences since the cardinality
of the set of propositions (so construed) is that of the power set
of the set of the set of possible worlds, models, or whatever.
You have countably many sentences, but uncountably many propositions
to express.

This exposes a problem with the argument Marko posted earlier when
he urged that the set of propositions expressed in Russell is smaller
than the set of sentences in Russell.  While this is true when the
domain is restricted to "in Russell", it is not true in general (under
common representations of propositions).
-- 
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: "ronald davis" <ronald.davis@canrem.com>
Subject: j t fraser
Reply-To: "ronald davis" <ronald.davis@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:54:05 EST

Would anyone know how I might get in contact with J. T. Fraser, the
writer on time, andthe founder of the International Society for the
Study of Time.

If anyone does, I'd appreciate a reply to rdavis@epas.utoronto.ca

Many thanks, Ron Davis
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Date: 7 Nov 92 17:17:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov7.121744.17200
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1992Nov6.183933.16613@guinness.idbsu.edu>
holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:

>I am a realist myself, but I do not think that Truth is required in
>order to search for truths.  This is fortunate, since it seems clear
>that Truth (as an abstract object) does not exist.  Of course, the
>iterative hierarchy of the usual set theory does not exist as an
>abstract object either, and remains useful; I think that the status of
>Truth is similar.

Randall, it never ceases to amaze me just how intent you seem to be on
brashly recapitulating the egregious philosophical errors of yore.
What sort of bullshit neoKantianism have you been reading lately? was
it, by any chance, Vaihinger?  Now, repeat after me: "Nothing can be
said truly about that, which does not exist." (Church) Your homework
assignment is to translate this thesis into a rigorous positive form.
Remember your pal Parmenides?

>-- 
>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

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."
From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:09:38 GMT
Organization: Boise State University

In article <1992Nov8.152455.17228@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.184850.1742@guinness.idbsu.edu>
>holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov7.052154.17197@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>>In article <1992Nov6.184703.16761@guinness.idbsu.edu> 
>>>holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>RH:
>>>>I don't think that "Reality is the Truth about the world".  Reality is
>>>>the world itself; Truth is what can be said about the world.  Of
>>>>course, what can be said about the world is part of the world, and
>>>>when we start considering what can be said about that aspect of the
>>>>world, we get into trouble.  Thus Tarski's paradox, etc.
>
>MZ:
>>>Let me see if I am getting this straight.  You, Randall, are
>>>presumably "part of the world" itself, and _ipso facto_ part of
>>>Reality.  Consequently, what I can say about you is Truth.
>>>
>>>So we have that
>>>
>>>	Randall Holmes is a wood duck
>>>
>>>is part of Truth, insofar as I can, and indeed do say it right now.
>
>RH:
>>It would be an element of the set of true propositions in your
>>language, 
>
>Am I hearing the term `proposition' from a self-professed extensionalist?

"Proposition" means "sentence".

>
>RH:
>>	   i.e., an element (not a part) of what I am terming
>>Truth[MZL] (where MZL is your language); but all of this depends on my
>>being a wood duck, which does not hold.
>
>What do you mean by "does not hold"?
>
>RH:
>>AHHH!  I see that I did goof here!  Of course, Truth is not merely
>>what can be said about the world, but what can be said _correctly_
>>about the world.  Thank you!
>
>Now all that remains is for you to explain the meaning of the adverb...
>

This can be explained in the same sort of way that the iterative
hierarchy can be explained.  "Not subsumed under a universal" does not
mean "incomprehensible".  Truth in particular languages can be
explained, and a hierarchy of languages constructed which evades
Tarski's paradox by not being a completed totality.

>MZ:
>>>Did I get your proposal right, or is there anything more profound to it?
>
>Same question once again.
>
>>-- 
>>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
>
>cordially,
>mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
>" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."


-- 
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
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:12:44 GMT
	<1992Nov5.165309.7636@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista

In article <1992Nov5.165309.7636@klaava.Helsinki.FI> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI
 (Marko Amnell) writes:

   >A bit of elaboration.  The reason why a realist might want to
   >believe that there is a set of all truths is simple.  He believes
   >that there is such a thing as the Whole Truth about the world.

  Associating this particular piece of babbling with "realism" is
quite arbitrary.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:39:14 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Nov11.074321.421@news.wesleyan.edu>, RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:
|> In <BxIKsp.Gt3@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com writes:
|> > philosophy?  If you want to get a job as a "feminist philosopher" you
|> > not only have to teach "feminist issues", but you have to teach them
|> > in a certain *way*, from a certain point of view.  Any feminist
|> > philosophers out there who are Ayn Rand followers?  Any feminist
|> 
|> Oh, puh-leaze, Gary!  Do you know *ANYONE* who has gone on the job market as an
|> Ayn Rand specialist & gotten a job of *any* description in an academic
|> philosophy department?
|> 
|> ------------------------
|> Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
|> Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA

Well, no.  But I would *expect* this since she is such a "visible"
writer, well-known, and a *woman*.  If we are to pay special attention
to the philosophy of women, shouldn't a consideration of Rand have
a more central place?  Especially since she represents a perspective
quite distinct from most (if not all) "feminist philosophers"?
Is she less a woman than others?  Is her thought somehow less
"womanish"?  But of course Rand was offered merely as an extreme
example.  It's been a while since I looked at the corpus of feminist
philosophy.  However, I bet I could find a significant number of women
just as goofy as Rand who are given full measure within it but
whose political perspective is "acceptable".  I do (did) , by the
way, know a woman who got a master's degree in philosophy while
"specializing" in Rand.  Oddly enough, she went on to law school
rather than academia.

I also know at least three women who quite clearly had trouble getting
positions for which they were eminently qualified because it was
felt that their political views were not amenable to what was
desired for the courses they would teach in "women's studies".
I won't mention the names for obvious reasons.  If you choose to
take this as evidence of prevarication, do so.
-- 
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@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Excluded Middle (Long)
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.220209.22072@cltr.uq.OZ.AU> gar@cltr.uq.oz.au (Greg Restall) writes:
>holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>*It is possible to reason quite precisely about the iterative hierarchy
>*(the Absolute Infinite), and, similarly, it is possible to reason
>*about the Truth.  But one can only refer to it indirectly.
>
>Isn't this self-refuting?
>
>The use of proper names such as "the Absolute Infinite",
>"the Truth" and forms such as "it" seem to indicate
>that a rather direct means of reference is in use.
>
>I wonder what this phrase looks like when translated
>into something that doesn't refer to the Truth directly.
>Does anyone wish to make a stab?
>
>The odd nature of this reminds me of the last sentence in 
>a manuscript by Graham Priest that I've just been reading.
>
>	Whereof we cannot speak, thereof 
>	we have just contradicted ourselves.
>
>with due apologies to L.W.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Greg Restall
>
>
>--
>------------------+------------------------------------------------
>Greg Restall      | Philosophy Department, University of Queensland
>gar@cltr.uq.oz.au | Queensland, 4072  Australia.
>------------------+------------------------------------------------
>Redemption rips through the surface of time in the cry of a tiny babe.
>        - Bruce Cockburn, from the album "Nothing but a Burning Light"

No, it is not self-refuting.  Look in any textbook on set theory to
see how the iterative hierarchy, which cannot be discussed as a whole,
is actually discussed.  The direct references to the Absolute Infinite
or Truth could be understood as being made to actual objects standing
in sutiable relations to incomplete models of the whole hierarchy
(initial segments of the iterative hierarchy which look more or less
like the whole thing from the inside).  But it is a dangerous way of
speaking.


-- 
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,sci.logic
From: rooney@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael Sean Rooney)
Subject: Re: Question for Ruth
Summary: The warm, glowing heart of M. Zeleny
Keywords: Zeleny, unity, anthropoi
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:40:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.150554.17351@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
>>[...]
>
>
>By contrast, my own attitude of similar content is certainly intended
>as an insult to the careerist trash who would divide mankind (that's
>`man' as in `anthropos' for you, Dr Ruth) into mutually hostile,
>incomprehending factions.
>

	Little did I guess that beneath the viciously pedantic,
macho-philosopher facade called "Mikhail Zeleny" there lurked a 
blushing heart yearning to bring all _anthropoi_ together in a
mutually loving, caring, comprehending whole.  The posts all make
sense now--the obsession with public confessions of sexual 
escapades, the frenzied polemics against professional philosophers,
the unitary nature of the self, and, of course, all that French--! 
Abandon thy nom du guerre, Jean-Jacques!  We know it is you!

Cordially,

Michael S. Rooney

"I tried in vain to find some favorable interpretation of his conduct;
 I could find none."
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Question about SETI:summary & response
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:25:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.105016.44517@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>NEIL RICKERT:
>
>>    If, after a considerable period of time, say twenty more
>>years, has been devoted to SETI, and still we have no reliable
>>indication that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, do
>>you think this would have any effect on your personal philosophical
>>outlook, and if so, what effect?  
>
>Since that is exactly the result I expect, it will not change my outlook
>at all.
>
>>    And if not, do you therefore consider SETI philosophically
>>irrelevant?
>
>I haven't thought about whether it should or should not be 
>philosophically relevant.  I already consider SETI to be 
>scientifically irrelevant.

MINER:
><Very interesting and unusual perspective--care to elaborate?  My guess
>would be that you're coming from a fairly conservative Judeo-Christian
>worldview.  (Only a guess :-)>

Your guess is about as wrong as it could be.

Evolution has a large element of randomness.  Thus it is quite improbable
that life elsewhere will develop as life on earth.  But, just for a
moment, suppose it does.

There has been some form of life on earth for over 1 billion years.  If
we manage to avoid a nuclear catastrophe, life on this planet may last
one to three billions more years.

During that time, life on earth has been visible to a SETI type search
for approx 50 years (since TV broadcasting).  After another 50 years
our communication will be almost entirely by optic fiber links and low
powered satellite links.  Thus we will be invisible again.

If life on earth is at all typical, then, visibility to SETI searches
has a probability of about 100/2000000000.  These are not very good
odds.  The galaxy might be teeming with life, yet it is highly improbable
we would ever discover it with a SETI type program.

Some of the SETI exploration is based on other assumptions such as
the idea that alien intelligences would have high powered beacons.
These assumptions seem just as improbable.

Add to all of this the improbability of intelligent life on earth.  It
is easy to imagine an evolution with insect, worms, etc, but no
verterbrates.  Even with verterbrates, it is easy to imagine fish and
amphibians, but no birds or mammals.  If you allow mammals, it is easy
to imagine sheep, deer, lions, etc, but no apes.  And even with apes it
is not at all clear why there is any necessity for homo-sapiens (and a
powerful language ability) to evolve.  Human level intelligence most
likely requires large size (to support sufficient processing power),
high mobility (to allow a highly varied environment in which this
intelligence has ecological benefits), a compact brain rather than a
distributed system, to allow the possibility of developing associations
between seemingly unrelated stimuli, and lots of luck to support the
right type of language.

Thus, in summary, we may not be alone.  But we won't find the other guys
with anything as naive as SETI.