HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Scientist skeptical about their own 
From: Hakki_Kocabas@kcbbs.gen.nz (Hakki Kocabas)
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:04:49 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

  
> All of which is not to say that theories may not _sometimes_ blind us to  
> facts.  For evidence of this sort of blindness, see the Air Force's  
> "Condon Report" on UFOs, and in particular their attempts to "copy" the  
  
A theory _can not_ blind us to facts. But a theory may not be useful enough,  
or well developed enough for us to use to communicate with others when we   
report what we observe.  
Also a 'fact' is a 'fact' only according to a theory.  
These are all grammatical remarks about 'theory', 'fact', 'observe' as  
they are used in relation to our scientific activities.  
  
> Charles Creegan    NC Wesleyan College  
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Stephen Grossman
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:30:10 GMT

In article <C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
Grossman) writes:
|> 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.
|>
|> 	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.

Though I agree with Betsy's sentiments regarding Grossman, I think
the best way to act is not to "slander Grossman's reputation" or
anything like that, but simply to point out what mistakes he actually
makes.

MY misgivings about Grossman's postings are that he makes grandiose
claims, or very hard attacks on other philosophies, without being
able to back them up. It appears that his knowledge is at best
second-hand, and that he has more copied other people's thinking
than performed it himself.

This goes in particular for one attack on this person on one list
dedicated to discussion of Objectivism, where Grossman's "information"
about the subject at hand (Stirner) was via statements by alleged
Nietzscheans/Stirnerites as rendered and evaluated by Nathaniel
Branden. That is: Third hand rumors counted for him as evidense.

But I still respect Grossman's right to live, breathe and speak,
and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
argument, and not simply abusive language.


Solan
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4928 sci.philosophy.meta:3140 talk.philosophy.misc:3417
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:29:59 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In reference to my comments on sollipsism, and noting senses, nerves
and brains that I refer to

In article <1993Jan21.004124.2719@equalizer.cray.com>, hardy@cray.com (Jeff Hardy) writes:
:Keep in mind that these 3 items are also part of the 'objective physical
:reality' you are willing to doubt the actual existance of and see what
:thoughts come to you. The only evidence you have of their supposed existance
:is their being in this 'reality'. The only thing you can be reasonably
:sure of is the existance of your mind. :-)
:
Bingo, give that mental projection a cigar! ;-)

Remove the possessive from that final statement and you have Buddhism.

				cheers,
					Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mysticism (was Re: MINDWALK etc.)
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:06:08 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <C13Jq8.F00@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us
(Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|> w>
|> Organization: Quake Public Access
|> 
|> ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
|> >Don't get me wrong, COO3, I think the mystical canon is quite relevant
|> >and important. But the experience itself cannot be verbalized, and any
|> >verbal description of it is doomed to be diluted and corrupted.
|> 
|> My, how *convenient*...it's something which can't be described, explained, 
|> or proven.  Therefore it can't be discussed, tested or used for any purpose.
|> Given this special status, what good are these 'mystical experiences"? 
|> How do you know they are not just hallucinations? 
|> 
|> --Brian

As I mentioned in another post, Brian, there is no difference between
this and "thought" proper, which itself cannot be described, explained,
or proved any more than 'no-mind', yet you are probably well versed in
thinking and so don't question the existence of thought nor doubt that
others do it, too.

The terminology "mystical" experience is unfortunate  -- what we're
attempting to describe is experience which is relatively unimpeded by
cognition, i.e. "no-mind" or "quiet mind."  It's quite easy to tell 
the difference between mind which has greater periods of spaciousness
and mind which is filled with content.  No rocket science even  for
a mystical gamer such as yourself.  In my opinion, you are perfectly 
right to question those who claim that some kind of content, *any* kind
of content is, in fact, "mystical".  It is, as they say, simply mind
arising which is categorically different than mind not-arising. The game, as I
know it, is to let the mud settle, not to be wowed by it. 

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Still reconciling science and mysticism
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:32:01 GMT

I'll summarize my comments briefly:

	a.  I see no reason why "freedom" is needed to support
"fiddling around", which I do recognize as an important process.

	b.  Using the word "mysticism" to denote what everyone else
calls "realism" is very odd; you cannot claim the excuse that you are
free to use "mysticism" to mean what you like as a technical term,
because you announce your result as a "reconciliation of science and
mysticism", and so you are obliged to mean by "mysticism" something
vaguely resembling what the rest of us mean.  Science does not need to
be reconciled with realism; it presupposes it (QM notwithstanding).


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld)
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:24:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.171048.22637@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>We _can_ each look inside a mind without be psychic; our own.  We can
>probably also do repeatable experiments on said available mind.

Maybe not: contemporary American philosophy began with Peirce's denial
that we have introspective capacities, and one implication of Quine's
_Word and Object_ is that all listeners,including the introspect, must
observe stimulus-to-response to know what a speaker means by language.
-- 
Michael Feld                  | E-mail: <feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy           | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba        | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Date: 24 Jan 93 21:13:20 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan23.023034.8480@midway.uchicago.edu>, coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott) writes:
:In article <Jan.22.18.05.54.1993.8415@ruhets.rutgers.edu:farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris) writes:
:>
:>So, in this context, I hope I have made it clear how I can
:>simultaneously hold that the mystical cannon, and relevant rational
:>inquiry, is indeed relevant and has a place, but cannot touch the
:>experience that it dances around.
:
:This does not, however, remove it from the realm of science.
:That has been my only argument.
:

I don't believe there has been anything in what I have said that has
excluded the study of mysticism from science. I have only tried to
indicate its limitations in such a pursuit.
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: tucker@maestro.mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Keywords: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 01:25:05 GMT



You pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) wrote:

  [ good stuff deleted for brevity ]

  The yogic word for "rational" mysticism is "gnana" yoga.  It's as old
  as the hills.

  Paul Collacchi



I'd (William Tucker) like to add:

Gnana comes from the sanskrit root word "gna" that means "to know" sounds
sort of like gnosos doesn't it? Gnana yoga is the yoga for intellectuals,
the same people that are attracted to science, metaphysics, philosophy
usually opt for gnana yoga. I enjoyed reading about it because it contains
some of the "cleanest" dissertations on metaphysics/reality that I've found.
Exercises consist of considering, not believing, certain "truths."
 

Another class of yogic practice is raja yoga, which is the practice of
learning to use the senses. An exercise might consist of walking 
into a room and then out and writing down everything that you noticed in
the room. Many of the practices deal with developing the powers of 
discrimination to extraordinary levels. Sounds pretty mystical doesn't
it? Actually the Sherlock Holmes novels use a great deal of raja yoga
like perceptive abilities, though not to the same degree. Houdini 
practiced a form of raja yoga in some of his training practices. Why
if it hadn't been for raja yoga, Babe Ruth.......sorry, ;-) getting
carried away. Ciao.



Wm T.

.standard disclaimer

From: John.Brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (John Brawley)
Sender: fredgate@cheswicks.toadnet.org
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Relative clauses (was: Re
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:17:00 -0600

 MG> From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
 MG> Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation

 MG> In article <1993Jan20.092219.46543@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
 MG> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
 
(examples given and explored):

 MG> The speech, which Clinton wrote himself in longhand, was shorter
 MG> than expected.

 MG> The speech that Clinton wrote himself in longhand was shorter than
 MG> expected.

 MG> Each of these sentences is entirely speakable, yet the distinction
 MG> between restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses (and meaning) still
 MG> exists. In the first sentence, the important notion is that the speech
 MG> was short (how it was written is ancillary). In the second sentence,
 MG> the important notion is not only that the speech was shorter than
 MG> expected, but also which speech it was (how it was written becomes its
 MG> distinguishing feature). 

This is interesting.  You have the emphases exactly reversed, if one
speaks the two.  I have training as an actor, and am familiar with the 
subtlety of spoken meaning.  (One acting exercise is to take a sentence 
and speak it out loud with every imaginable distinction of meaning, thus 
hearing the differences in meaning with the same word structure.) So,
here in

"The speech [,] which Clinton wrote *himself* in longhand [,] was
shorter than expected."

The emphasis of meaning falls not on the shortness of the speech, but
on the fact that he wrote it himself ("in longhand" is a secondary
modifier of the important item, that he wrote it himself).  On the other
hand,

"The speech that Clinton wrote (himself) (in longhand) was longer
than expected."

  places emphasis on its shortness, because without the commas to
set off the distinctive part with "pregnant" or "dramatic" pauses
in the wordstream, the object of speech is to get past the middle
(unimportant) items (wrote himself and longhand) and on to the real
meaning, which is located at the end of the sentence (longer than
expected).  Sentence one is obviously set up for spoken emphasis
on the fact of its being written by Clinton in longhand, while
sentence two is placeable also in the dashed get-it-said rapid-fire
form: "The speech that Clinton-wrote-himself-in-longhand was longer
than expected."

This totally ignores many other meanings that _might_ need to be
differentiated between, such as the fact that the above sentences
_both_ have a textual ambiguity about whether he wrote it [_by_]
himself or [_to_] himself.  <grin>

In almost all cases, textual structure in writing for meaning is
directly related to sonic cues existent only in the spoken form;
letters and words are encoded sounds.

Eh?  You see my point about your interpretation of where the
emphasis is placed being wrong?




... Direct Email:  john.brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mysticism, science, freedonm: still reconciling
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:05:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

A couple of comments on your clarifications.

First of all, you need not make as strong a statement as 'ultimate
reality' in definining mysticism. I think it would make a more
adequate starting point by simply stating that this other aspect of
reality is not within the scope of reason and the physical senses.

Second, I am not satisfied with your definition of freedom. It seems
to me that many people I know (actually most), are extremely
predictable, and are not even aware themselves of the way they are
programmed and condition to respond to their environment, including
novel situations. 

Humans tend to have a large variety of urges and predilections,
accretions from the years with their parents and the good old TV, that
determine their behavior in almost all situations. When an unfamiliar
situation arises, they often just freak out, not knowing how to handle
it. 

You may claim that free will does indeed inhere in the human
potential, however, you will have to do a lot better to show me that
more than a handful of humans ever exercize it. 

However, this is all imho, as I have a pretty strict definition of
what freedom and free will are.

			cheers,
				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan)
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Summary: subjective experiments repeatable??
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Organization: UNC EBBS (NOT)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:14:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.171048.22637@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>We _can_ each look inside a mind without be psychic; our own.  We can
>probably also do repeatable experiments on said available mind.
>
Repeatable? How would anyone know they were repeated? How would you have
any independent check on the technique?

Even the tradition of mystical (perhaps "contemplative" is a better
word) spiritual direction includes _external_ checks on the novice's
state of mind.  That is what spiritual directors are for.  To this extent
mysticism parallels science.

Charles Creegan  NC Wesleyan College
NO Private Language!  -Wittgenstein [attributed]
--
   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.meta
From: tucker@mitre.org (William Tucker)
Subject: Rand raving arguments
Keywords: Rand raving arguments
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA, USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:30:35 GMT

 I must say that I found aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) comments
 amusing, which is what I think he had intended. Somewhat serious and
 somewhat tongue in cheek. I may be mistaken, but I think he is 
 presenting a view as if it were reality rather than saying the view
 is reality. I concur with his viewpoint that removing oneself from the
 equation tends to remove the accountability, emotion and connectedness
 to the situation at hand (life), and that some are most comfortable 
 dealing with life from that position. I must say that his rhetoric seems
 to have been chosen to inflame those who label themselves objectivists,
 but by naming yourselves you give power over to those who would use 
 your name in invocation. Objectivisim is a view, one of many and quite
 useful in it's place, but the view from the kitchen window of the back
 yard is not the back yard.


 Wm T.


.standard disclaimer
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: flaming RAND ( Re: Rand on Godel, QM))
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:20:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.C1G45G.4w
Organization: Indiana University


BOB HOOKER writes:

> [long diatribe against the motives of Objectivists deleted]

I find it difficult at times to know when to respond to such a long
and confused post.  I am a well-informed Objectivist, and a very
passionate and patient seeker after truth.  I endeavor to conduct 
myself in a polite and professional manner in every place where I
write.  Some of the readers of this group know me from other
contexts, and know that I speak the truth when I say that my
overriding passion is: to know.

I am thus shocked and saddened when I see myself (and the people
I value) attacked in such a vicious and false manner in a public forum.

What alternatives are available to the serious student of philosophy
in the face of such an attack? One is counter attack -- a route which
is obviously counterproductive.  Another alternative is to ignore
the personal barbs and attempt to correct the errors in reportage
about Rand's ideas -- a route which will most likely only reach
those who stand on the sidelines, who would be better reached 
through direct conversation.  Yet another alternative, and the one
I have chosen, is to simply respond with a simple statement, as
follows:

Bob Hooker is wrong about my character and motivations, and is
wrong about the character and motivations of the typical Objectivist.
He is further wrong on several technical points about what Rand 
advocated.  However, a certain minimum standard of behavior is
a prerequisite for real conversation to take place, and Bob has 
shown that he is not willing to meet that standard.  

Those of you who know me know that I'm ready and willing to seriously
discuss any philosophical question about which I know enough to
discuss.  And those questions I don't know enough to discuss, I
am passionately interested in learning about from others.  So
rather than respond directly to Hooker, I'll just re-issue what
is a standard invitation: shall we discuss ideas?

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk (Andy Liddiard)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Episte. of Chicken Sexing
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:13:00 GMT
Reply-To: andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk (Andy Liddiard)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371


On JANET, the UK Joint Academic Network, the subject of the
epistemology of chicken sexing has arisen. Has it been discussed in
this newsgroup? It certainly is an interesting inquiry, and worthy
of further discussion. I'd appreciate any info.

 Andy ~ london ~ uk                        andy.liddiard@almac.co.uk
                                           notes01@clstr.pnl.ac.uk
---
 . SLMR 2.1a #112 . Alors! C'est l'heure!
                                                                                     
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: steven@dcl-nxt01 (Steven D Nichols)
Subject: TRUTH OR REFUTATIONS
Summary: want to locate and read the work
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 03:36:57 GMT
Keywords: Protagoras

Can someone give me the name of a source (if, indeed, one exists)
containing an English translation of _Truth_or_Refutations_ by
Protagoras (of Abderra [sp?]) or some other title containing the
word 'truth' ("On Truth" maybe???).  From all I can gather, this
text is extant, but its translation (if there is one) probably
can only be found in some collection of writings.  Anyway, if
you can help me out, please send email to:

nichols@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu


THANKS!
From: John.Brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org (John Brawley)
Sender: fredgate@cheswicks.toadnet.org
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Relative clauses (was: Re
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:26:00 -0600

 MG> From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
 MG> Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation

 MG> In article <1993Jan20.204701.46577@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
 MG> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
 
 >The point is that the non-restrictive type does not occur in the
 >spoken language.  Simply listen to spoken English (not English being
 >read aloud) and notice that you never hear (and hopefully cannot
 >imagine producing) a sentence like your first example above.

 MG> I hear nonrestrictive clauses all the time. I'm startled to see
 MG> someone claim they don't exist in spoken English. 

 >I suppose a speaker could
 >purposely produce one, but it would sound quite strange.

 MG> Not to me.

Nor to me.  You hear it all the time, but it's usually so well-
integrated into cultural expectations that it zips right on by
without triggering a "What?"  I refer to radio, television, film,
the stage, etc.  These people are _trained_ to use the pauses so
effectively that we don't notice the _pause_, [pregnant pause;
punch-up coming next] ...we notice the clarity of _meaning_.
<grin> See?  This sort of use, which probably occurs first in
scripts and later in the director's (or the trained speakers')
massaging of the meaning-inflections, is not noticeable because
we hear it around us all the time.  Rapidfire straight-through-to-
the-end sentencing we also hear, and in the same places.

Eh?


john.brawley@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
FIDONet John Brawley, 1:100/435
PO Box 224, Eureka, MO, 63025-1134
Data (BBMsgSys) (314) 938 5285

"Sit down before Fact like a little child...."
                        --T.H. Huxley

... First Rule of Debate: "Never let 'em see ya sweat!"
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech