Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: This is Religion
Message-ID: <458@spar.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 13:00:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.458
Posted: Fri Aug  9 13:00:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 07:27:06 EDT
References: <258@frog.UUCP> <457@spar.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@max.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 133
Keywords: Sc--nce
Xref: linus net.philosophy:1978 net.religion:6949

> >>> Rich    >> Not Rich

>>     BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for?    

>A non-causal world in which you can have your free will and eat it too.
>You've said this more than once.

    Today, using my Free Will, I've decided to be a Materialist again.

    As a Materialist I do not exist and consequently have little need for
    Free Will. 
    
    However, the definitions and arguments by Torek and Dennett are clever.
    I'm surprised a fellow Materialist would have problem with them -- they
    utilize nothing but genuine real physical concepts, no souls or other
    such rot.

    The evidence for spontaneity and causality is very hard in everything,
    physical or otherwise, and at all levels. 
    
    It contaminates everything.
    
    Do you wish that the hard Scientific evidence might go away? 
    
    You are not contemplating some revisionist heresy, are you?

>>     Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence
>>     that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a
>>     hallucination. 
>
>If you really believe it's all an illusion, then stab yourself in the arm 
>with a fork.
>If not, don't bother positing such a position for argument's sake. [??]
>Objectivity in science is designed to try to ensure within this system an
>avoidance of such subjectivity.
>I agree.  You don't exist.

    Awareness cannot be imbedded into the Materialist model universe.

    We have to kluge the system, by adding it as an extra, like God,
    if we need it, and we don't.

>>     By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, 
>>     free will, or even God..
>
>As I said in the last article, Occam says to reduce assumptions to a minimum,
>not to ignore evidence.

    And what is the definition of evidence?

    Well, I like to think of it as a bunch of machines -- measuring
    instruments, if you prefer, like recording devices and sensing
    equipment.

    After all, we cannot take the word of human observers -- that is
    not verifiable -- thousands of witnesses have been known to 
    simultaneously testify all kinds of preposterous things.

    Repeatable, verifiable, hard Scientific evidence. That's all that's
    good enough me.

>>     You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like
>>     science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study,
>>     although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many
>>     misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a
>>     language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat.
>
>If you don't hate science, then explain what the term "universe of science"
>means, if not some debasing term that names a specific subset of the universe
>as being in the realm of science.  Please.

    There is no other universe but what our machines can sense and record.
    
    Of course, our machines constantly get better. But the limits have been
    encountered, at the quantum limit, and they are intrinsic limits.

    Whatever is beyond the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is beyond
    Science. Speculation about what Science will never sense is heresy,
    to us Materialists.

    And then there's also subjective BS like awareness -- all idle 
    metaphysics -- nonexistent.

    The other part of Science is also machines, too -- the theory -- Except
    these are mental mathematical machines, like equations and such, which
    describe the evidence and help us make new machines.

    They've already converted a large part of the theory to real physical
    machines, though. Then Science will all machines, except for the
    theoreticians and practitioners, who are humans.

>>    I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or  "No, they
>>    are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology.
>
>Because you made remarks about a "universe of science".

    Sorry, I wasn't a Materialist that day. People should speak about Sc--nce
    with more respect. Praise Nihil!

>>     So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something
>>     exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon
>>     that could be verified by the scientific method?    
>
>Ass backwards.  The scientific method, by its nature, with viable tools, can
>determine whether or not an object or phenomenon exists in a physical sense.
>Other things that "exist", like "love", "music", etc.  are human labels that
>are placed upon certain collections and ordering of physical phenomena with
>certain causes.

    Praise Nihil!

    There IS nothing beyond what our machines can sense and predict, 
    in principle by DEFINITION.

    I am a Materialist. 
    
    Nobody out there disagree!

    And keep those damn Christianoids out of here!!!

>> 	But with so many different viewpoints
>>      and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing
>>      with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me
>>      will likewise be true to others.
>
>"Seems true"!  Now you've got it.  Seeming true doesn't make something true.

    Our machines are reality.

-michael