HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca (Richard Reiner)
Subject: Raving about Rand's ravings
Organization: York University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:43:33 GMT

Let's take one of Ayn Rand's central philosophical views, as presented
by her main advocate in this newsgroup, Stephen Grossman, seriously for
a moment.  I believe Rand is deeply confused; moreover, the confusion is
an elementary one -- which explains, I suggest, why she is almost never
taken seriously by well-informed philosophers.

pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:

>Objectivism is not a deduction from an idea. Objectivism is basically
>inductive, an induction from the concretes of reality to secondary
>issues to philosophy to the recognition that reality is real, that
>existence exists.

This is confused.  Induction, like any operation of reasoning, must
begin with states of mind of some kind (beliefs, perceptions, or
something similar), not with "the concretes of reality", i.e. states of
the universe.  States of the universe, facts, "the concretes of reality"
are simply not the sorts of things upon which reason operates: reason
operates on representations of these.

Not only is this Randian view confused, it appears to be basic to the
claim to objectivity made by Rand and the Randites.  Only by denying
that the process of forming representations is fallible can Rand claim
objective knowledge.  Her epistemology is Baconian; and thus she runs
smack into the problem of induction.  If she has solved it, the world
would like to hear of the solution.  If she has not, her views are no
more objective than anyone else's.

>Objectivism is objective, the volitional and logical
>connection of mind to reality. It does not start in consciousness but,
>instead, in reality.

This seems to suggest that the problem of forming accurate
representations can be solved by exerting the will.  While this is a
novel view (Bacon and his followers advocated purity of character and
the shunning of prejudices, instead), it is again confused.  The
problems of induction (both the pre-Goodman and the post-Goodman ones)
are *logical* problems, and acts of will are not relevant to them (even
if the idea of "will" makes sense, which is dubious).

-- 
Richard Reiner..............rreiner@nexus.yorku.ca..............416-538-3947

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Still reconciling science and mysticism
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:27:41 GMT

In article <kumara.727891507@well.sf.ca.us> kumara@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Kovsky) writes:
>
>	On January 20, I posted a long article titled "Science and
>Mysticism: a reconciliation."  Mr. Onstott, Mr. Farris and Mr. Holmes posted
>comments and questions.
>
>	Let me respond by addressing some of the major issues in a less
>formal discussion.

[much deleted.]

>	I mean by "mysticism" the assertion that there exist real "things",
>in the world, with real and important roles in our lives, that are beyond
>the reach of experience.  Or, at least, the kind of experience that is
>constructed by "fiddling around."  I assert that freedom is such a "thing."
>( A stronger form of "mysticism" would assert that these "things" are
>reachable by a kind of experience different from "fiddling around," but I do
>not address that stronger form here.)

My question at this point is:  Why have you chosen mysticism
for this description when religion would be a much more applicable
one?  (exluding the institutional meaning).

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
        "[T]he problem of history cannot be solved by avoiding it." (B. McGinn)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:30:34 GMT

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.

>				Lorenzo

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-- 
Charles O. Onstott, III                         (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and the Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School
        "[T]he problem of history cannot be solved by avoiding it." (B. McGinn)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Relative clauses (was: Re
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 14:48:00 -0600


 KMC> From: kate@cactus.org (Katherine M. Catmull)
 KMC> Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx


 KMC> A recently-overheard spoken nonrestrictive clause (whew!):

 KMC> ". . . and he brought me a Baby Ruth, which is my FAVORITE candy bar!"

 KMC> And here's one I just used myself:

 KMC> "Even George Bush, whom I loathe, deserves better than that."   

 KMC> Do these sound funny to anyone? They sound fairly normal/common
 KMC> to me.

 KMC> Had to jump in--
 KMC> Kate

GLOM!
Heh.  Check:

1) EVEN [!] George Bush--whomIloathe--deserves better than THAT!
2) Even George BUSH! (whom I _loathe_), deserves _better_ than _that_.
3) Even George Bush [BIG pregnant pause]...Whom, I, Loathe...[another
   pause; let it sink in] ...deserves better than that.

(There are more ways.)  Perhaps it would be valuable to see that
_every_ speaker has subtly different ways to express the meaning
in what can _also_ be a written sentence, so that any "rule" has
to be a generality.  Written sentences may only be capable of
avoiding obvious interruption in the reading-flow, using the rules
of writing, but not capable of providing the essentially subtle
sonic qualities of real speech.  You probably hear more meaning
conveyed by the _lack_ of words in speech [the silences between
words] than you do in the words themselves, like the 'feelings'
and the 'impressions' you get when looking at a painting.  The
_words_ are there, and convey word-coded meanings, but the sounds
(and the silences) of the meaner are what carry all the rest of the 
important stuff.  Listen to radio, tv, film, or stage, to see what
I mean.  Listen _carefully_.  Subtle tricks are involved.

Jno B.

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
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:17:31 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1993Jan19.170940.29357@guinness.idbsu.edu>,
holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
|> I suggest to Mr. Collachi that he read Spinoza, a rationalist who
|> seems to handle these sorts of things fairly well (and perhaps could
|> be construed as a mystic (in the sense that he recognizes the
|> possibility (inevitability) of direct experience of the divine nature
|> without admitting any domain outside the purview of reason).
|> 
|> 

It has not been my intention to limit what a "rationalist" can be or become
aware of.  I am simply trying to get at the notion of non-linguistic,
non-cognitive intelligence.  I'm sure Spinoza has tons of it.  I'm sure
you do, too.  The job is not to hold 'mysticism' aloof from "rationalism'
but to show that it is a quite intelligent extension of rationalism,
but that rationalism must transcend language and thought to get there.  
This does not mean that it must abandon intelligence, awareness, or 
discrimination.

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

Paul Collacchi
From: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mysticism and Provability (Was: Re: MINDWALK)
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:14:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

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

As a matter of fact, I think I *am* surrounded for the most part by
mindless automatons of great complexity. (That means it sometimes
takes a few minutes to figure out what programs they are running. ;-)
)

			cheers,
				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.meta:3173 sci.philosophy.tech:5002 alt.philosophy.objectivism:1031
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:10:48 GMT

We _can_ each look inside a mind without be psychic; our own.  We can
probably also do repeatable experiments on said available mind.



-- 
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: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Neo-Tech Ravings
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:41:36 GMT

In article <C13IzL.ErD@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>[p. 3] "Exactly 12:25 p.m., November 3rd, the watershed event of history began.
>At that moment, civilization began it's irreversible shift...November 3rd is 
>the introduction to the transmission waves that are integrated with all 
>acts inflicted upon the producers of values..."
>I have read page after page of ranting against something called the November 3rd
>Organization, the November 3rd Commissioner, and the like, but there is no explan
>ation
>of exactly what this is all about.  The closest I can piece together is that the
>IRS came after the NeoTech folks for not paying taxes and took away their stuff. 
> The
>accounts of this "Earth-shattering event" are do incoherent that it isn't 
>possible to determine just what they are ranting about.  Isn't it odd they go 
>on and on about the exact time of day this thing happened, but don't bother to  
>mention the year.  These guys are even more strange than the Scientologists.
>
SG	Just exactly where you YOU at 12:25? Hmmmm....dir

________________________________________________________________________________
	"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: farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Lorenzo Farris)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:10:52 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1993Jan26.161457.5881@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Charlie.Creegan@launchpad.unc.edu (Charlie Creegan) writes:
: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.

I expect he refers to personal experimentation, without regard for
independent verification. This was the procedure of at least one
famous european occultist, who went to great lengths to apply
scientific procedures as far as possible to his experimentation. 

IMHO, this is possible, for the extremely strong-willed mind. However,
for the average seeker, the aid of a teacher is invaluable, as it
allows one to draw on many years of exploration and observation, much
of which is handed down teacher to student, and not committed to
texts. 

			cheers,
				Lorenzo
-- 
Happiness is just a                     ******************************
remembrance away.                       *  Lorenzo Farris            *
                                        *  farris@ruhets.rutgers.edu *
                                        ******************************
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Rand on Godel, QM
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:00:41 GMT
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway

In article <1993Jan20.182313.27516@ils.nwu.edu>,
hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) writes:
|> In article <C12L1s.99t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
|> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales) writes:
|> > 
|> > BOB HOOKER writes:
|> > >I have noticed the text produced by these strange things but I
myself have
|> > >never seen one of these objectivists either.  I am convinced that
they are
|> > >a truely ugly alien race that has come to earth to breed with our
females. 
|> > 
|> > If this is considered appropriate behavior by members of your species
|> > in an newsgroup ostensibly devoted to philosophical conversation, then
|> > I find myself forced to wonder if perhaps you aren't right... perhaps
|> > we are an alien race.  However, given the fact that we know how to live
|> > here, on this Earth, while you seem unable to even master the English
|> > language, perhaps it is you who is the alien.
|> > 
|> > I would love to hear commentary about the overall sexist
|> > tone of this post.  We have on this list a number of female participants.
|> > Ruth Ginzberg comes immediately to mind.  Betsy Speicher, an Objectivist,
|> > comes to mind.  I wonder at the mentality that equates a particular
|> > philosophical position with a desire to breed with 'our females'.
|> > Whose females?  Yours?  
|> > 
|> > > This
|> > >race seems to be testing the idea that physics and computer
science classes
|> > >are the best place to meet earth females.  Though strange signs of
movement
|> > >into philosophy are starting to develope.
|> > 
|> > Indeed, I suppose that many Objectivist men DO think that physics,
|> > computer science, and philosophy classes are among the best places
|> > to meet women.  We seek women who are intelligent, strong, career
|> > minded, rational, honest, proud, etc. 
|> > 
|> > What sort do you seek?
|> > 
|> > --Jimbo
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> Lighten up big guy,  it was just alittle piece of philosophy humor.  

That's just what the bullies in the school-yard used to say, too;
"Can't you take a joke, asshole?!".

Now, begone, before I get to flaming.

Sincerely,
	Solan
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 11:35:28 EST
From: John A. Johnson <J5J@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Are facts truths?

This is a crosspost from alt.atheism.moderated, where nobody responded.
I thought maybe someone who reads this group might like to respond.
----------------------------original post follows----------------------

In article <1992Dec22.135737.13846@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Jeffrey D
Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> says:
>
>I don't want to be overly critical about philosophical points made by those
>with a limited background in philosophy, but there is little doubt that
>science
>is a fact stating discourse (i.e., its declarative sentences purport to be
>true).

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have always considered facts to be
quite different from truths.  Scientific facts have changed over time
(because, according to people like Hanson and Kuhn, our theoretical
spectacles colour our perceptions of facts), while truths are timeless.
Furthermore, truths (and proofs) exist only within a defined conceptual
domain.  Science is not in the business of providing definitive proofs
or true statements about the empirical world.  Science, rather, proposes
simplified models of the world; these models are admittedly false but may
still be useful.  Also, contrary to the musings of falsificationist
philosophers, scientists do not spend all of their time trying to falsify
others' models.  Rather, they attempt to persuade the scientific community
that they have a better model (where "better" does not necessarily mean
"more truth content").

>Barring some kind of irrealism about theoretical science, which is an
>option but one that non-philosophers seldom stuble upon, the hard sciences are
>usually held up as the exemplar of a fact stating discourse.

Mathematically perfect circles, squares, triangles, etc. do not exist in
our physical, empirical world.  They are fictions, "irrealities," if you
will.  Because theoretical science deals with abstract entities found
nowhere in our sensory experience, perhaps "irrealism" is not a bad label
for it.

>If science could only operate "via negativa" as you propose, you will be hard
>pressed to explain engineering applications of theory.  One cannot build a
>rocket knowing only what we cannot truthfully say about the world.

Indeed.  That is why falsifying is not a primary scientific activity.  Yet
I would challenge the assertion that one must have (timeless) truth in order
to conduct technological activities.  In fact, one can be technologically
succesful while following a poor theory.  One might assume that certain herbs
have curative powers because of their spiritual vibrations and still be able
to help sick people.
----------------------------
John A. Johnson
Soft scientist and certainly no philosopher.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Mystical Cannons
Keywords: Mystical Cannons
Organization: Boise State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:12:54 GMT

In article <C1GyxL.4uz@ccu.umanitoba.ca> feld@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>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

Do _you_ have introspective capabilities?  _I_ certainly do.  There
are methodological reasons for avoiding them, perhaps, but they
certainly exist.  I think that Quine's behaviourism is methodological.

Moreover, our various introspective capabilities are similar enough
that we can actually compare notes on them to a limited extent (at
least some introspective experiences are "reproducible" in some
sense).  I would certainly not admit that scientific investigation of
introspection is impossible; it is simply difficult!

Give me an S-R account of the semantics of the English phrase "the
first measurable cardinal" (even if you don't admit that it has a
referent, the S-R approach is not very helpful).

-- 
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: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Gil and being bored.
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:09:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.C1FK8L.Lzv
Organization: Purdue University



Poor Gil, the most bored human on earth.

Or do I misunderstand?

Perhaps it is my European Royal Hegemonist bias which makes me unable to
realize that what Gil means when the term "boring" comes so repeatedly out
is not necessarily connected to ennui but is actually a superior way of saying
"I don't want to bother with actually answering you, so I'll simply downgrade
what you have to say with cheap rhetorical tricks."


Ah, but Gil, wise Gil, temperate Gil, Gil who holds the Key to Knowledge would
never, ever stoop that low.


At least I'm entertained.
From: gil@tillage.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Jared Diamond's _The Third Chimpanzee_
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 02:34:01 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <schumach.727671240@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com writes:

 > It's worse than you think. Gil is not arguing about jargon here:
 > he actually does not believe that humans and chimps share a
 > common ancestor. Thus he has removed himself from a serious
 > discussion of the matter. Next question, please.

"Worse than you think!?" Oh, what dreadful, dreadful heresy the ideas
of this unreasonably contrary antipodean represent! What a dire threat
to "the world as we know it"! Alack and Alas, woe upon us all!

Can I actually hear wailing, and the shredding of garments there in
the background? Or is it my two boys fighting again? Hey! You kids!
What have I been tell you about fighting?

Now you can't watch Darkwing Duck or Super Ted for the next week!

Hm! Sigh . . .

Perhaps stronger evidence than has yet been presented will finally
persuade me to change my tune a little? Until such evidence appears
here this discussion cannot in any way be regarded as serious, but as
the fine example of contemporary English surrealism it reveals itself
so plainly to be.

I have no intention of putting a stop to it; I mean, Art is Art for
its own sake, and I expect that we would be much worse off without it,
yes?

Gil