Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: This is Religion
Message-ID: <1469@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 08:32:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1469
Posted: Mon Aug 12 08:32:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 06:49:50 EDT
References: <258@frog.UUCP> <457@spar.UUCP> <458@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 156
Xref: linus net.philosophy:2016 net.religion:6974

|		> >>> Rich    >> Not Rich  [ELLIS]

Given his crediting of someone else's article to me in his last diatribe,
I no longer think Michael can tell the difference.  But then, that's the
immaterial world for ya.

|     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. 

How does that follow?

|     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.

And misuse and misapplication of words to "new" definitions for convenience,
to "get" what they want out of the world.

|     The evidence for spontaneity and causality is very hard in everything,
|     physical or otherwise, and at all levels. 
|     It contaminates everything.

Contaminates?

|     Do you wish that the hard Scientific evidence might go away? 
|     You are not contemplating some revisionist heresy, are you?
    
What for?

| >>     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.

It can't?  We "have to"?  You're offering some pretty wild assertions without
substantiation.  But, then again, I forgot, you don't believe in science and
thus substantiation is not required to have your position accepted.

| >>     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?

Verifiable data about the universe not rooted in the cloud of individual
subjectivity that alters the conclusions based on individual preconceptions
and beliefs.

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

Apparently not.

| >>     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.
    
But anything beyond this, anything beyond what we can observe, the so-called
"supernatural" (what is the limit of this sensing and recording?), MUST
be the same as some subjective wishful thinking thought that you have. Thus,
we have to take the word of our preconceptions for anything we can't see,
right?  That's the line you're offering, and it's garbage.

|     Of course, our machines constantly get better. But the limits have been
|     encountered, at the quantum limit, and they are intrinsic limits.

They "have been encountered"?  Who's dealing in religion now?

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

Speculation and postulation is very different from wishful thinking, simply
asserting that what you want to have in the universe is definitively there
for no good reason.  Your arguments, by the way, are sounding more dogmatic
and religious all the time.

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

Awareness isn't "subjective BS".  We are aware of ourselves for very
physical reasons, no?  Or must you assume something else is involved?
Something with a form and shape to YOUR personal liking?

| >>    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!

Perhaps you should speak about ALL things with more definitiveness and clarity,
but that would be "scientific", wouldn't it?  Being vague makes you able to
speak about anything you like and draw any conclusions you like.  That's
the kind of "universe of mumbojumbo" that you seem to like.  This has been
a load of bogus bullshit, Michael.

| >>     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!

Excuse me, was there something substantive you had to say?

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

I guess not.  You uttered this nonsense already.  The minute your hangover
or trip or manicdepressive outburst or whatever it is ends, when you decide
to engage in conversation with human beings again, let me know.  This has
become ridiculous.

| >> 	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.

I guess it's still going on whatever it is.  Smash THIS, Michael!
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr