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