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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Free will - some new reading.. (digression) Message-ID: <1510@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Aug-85 19:05:30 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1510 Posted: Thu Aug 15 19:05:30 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 05:08:15 EDT References: <1495@pyuxd.UUCP> <2197@pucc-h> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 31 >>.... I wanted to hear precisely what the recommender learned >>from the book, in his own words, NOT the final conclusion as quoted from >>the book, but the reasoning (as understood [??] by the reader) that got us >>there. If that is not present, or available, I fear the judgment would be >>against such a recommendation. And I certainly don't expect you, Jeff >>Sargent, to understand, based on what I have seen of how you choose beliefs, >>apparently seeing no need for substantiation of the reasoning leading to a >>conclusion. Given the large number of available books in the world, one must >>use such substantiation as a valid means of filtering out (at least as a >>start) the worthwhile from the worthless. > Rich, it's odd to see you descending to ad hominem attacks when you have so > often flamed against them. And haven't you ever noticed that there are two > ways of acquiring knowledge or ideas? One of them is the one you like, i.e. > either empirically verifying something or starting from known facts and > reasoning to a conclusion. But it is also possible for something to *occur* > to someone without going through all this process without what that which > occurs to the person being incompatible with reason -- just not reached by > reason. Yes, a religious experience. There was no ad hominem attack, merely a statement of fact about what you've been saying about rigorous analysis (remember "rigor mortis"?) for years. And relevant to your statements, too. If Carnes had a religious experience reading Daniel Dennett, fine. I doubt that such enlightenment came in that manner. Why do you so vigorously deny my analysis above? I've seen it happen all too many times, where people readily quote some author whom they agree with without having actually understood what was said, merely because they liked the conclusion. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr