--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGU00035 Date: 12/24/97 From: LOREN BERNHARDT Time: 12:53am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Deep thoughts No, not the deep thoughts off of Sat. Night Live. Actually, I don't know why chose that title. This board seems pretty dead, but there sure are a hell of a lot of different places to post on here. "Cogito, ergo sum" (For all you non latin speaking philosophers, myself included, that is "I think, therefore I am") Anyone ever read any Descartes? Nietsche? I would really love to meet some intellectuals on this board, anywhere for that matter. If you feel qualified, or even if you don't, please respond. It seems I never get enough stimulation upstairs with interesting conversation. Carpe Diem, Horny Lorny --- GEcho 1.11+ * Origin: Warlock's World *** 1:3401/11 *** 424-9643 (1:3401/11) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGU00036 Date: 12/24/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 11:21pm \/To: FRANK MASINGILL (Read 0 times) Subj: M R L insights On 12-24-97 Frank Masingill wrote to John Boone... Hello Frank and thanks for writing, FM> JB> I am not sure where I saw "having a reality." I did say "Man FM> JB> does have FM> JB> a reality." The words "having a reality" brings to mind that mind FM> JB> set FM> JB> people often operate under, some would call them assumptions, FM> JB> (often FM> JB> wrong ones) about the nature of the world and man. IOW, it is FM> JB> wrong FM> JB> reality (that they assumed was correct) that dictates their FM> JB> actions thus FM> JB> generating their reality. Interestingly, some others operate FM> JB> under a FM> JB> different reality giving rise to -different- actions based upon FM> JB> the FM> JB> different reality. IOW, each assuming a different reality FM> JB> generate FM> JB> different realities. Thomas Sowell provided plenty of examples in FM> JB> "Migration and Culture" in relation to different cultures. FM> John, you and I are discussing along the routes of an asymtotic FM> condition from two entirely different frameworks. FM> You appear to be, in fact, pressing for the acceptance of the FM> ACTUAL FM> existence (because man can imagine them) of a whole slew of what FM> Voegelin, FM> following Robert Musil, and others, has called "second realities" I don't think so, just pointing man's reality which he/she thinks is Reality can be different based upon the individual (this is not to imply that the individual changes the big Reality) which does change a small part of Reality. This express itself very well in typical "unconstrained" or "constrained" thought processes. [snip] FM> the foundation of philosophy. System builders fall in love with some FM> portion FM> of it which they take to be the whole and imagine that it can be FM> brought FM> within the domain of man's mastery and complete knowledge. That is FM> what Hegel assumed and it is also what Marx assumed. As do many liberals in government as do many liberals here. Many, here, -assume- a group of men has mastery with sufficient knowledge to discriminate against women and blacks. FM> If you are trying to convince me that people entertain separate FM> visions of FM> reality and thus generate value-systems around them a la Sowell then I FM> believe FM> you are underestimating Sowell although I don't claim to have read all FM> of his FM> books. It is patent that people DO, indeed, operate under all kinds FM> of FM> "second realities" and THAT IN ITSELF IS A PART OF REALITY. It is a FM> fundamental mistake (which is why I think you may be mis-reading FM> Sowell) to FM> imagine that reality itself is legion. That would simply make FM> nonsense of FM> reality and make man the master of its creation and foundation and I'm FM> pretty FM> sure you wouldn't argue that. When Sowell talks about "restrained" No, but I do believe man can change Reality in small ways with his "vision." FM> and FM> "unrestrained" visions he isn't, I think, saying that these "visions" FM> actually FM> create different realities. St. Paul's visions were history-making He is saying these visions determine -how- we respond to the external world. For example, the "unrestrained" vision generates communism, socialism, etc. Communism and socialism have different -effects- (part of Reality) than do the -effects- of Capitalism (also part of Reality). [snip] Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGU00037 Date: 12/25/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 12:02am \/To: DENNIS MENARD (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: IF YOU SAY SO On 12-23-97 Dennis Menard wrote to John Boone... Hello Dennis, DM> JB> When, you think in terms of words, do you "hear" them in your DM> JB> mind? DM> No. However, when I "recall" actual conversations or music with DM> lyrics, I DM> could "imagine" that I hear them ... but, "do" I? No. Interesting, most do in fact think in terms of words, often "hearing" them. [snip] DM> Does vision not require optical equipment? I suppose I could Tell that to a blind person -who- "sees" the snow. [snip] DM> JB> Before I begin, depending upon -how- one defines "interrupted" DM> JB> or "reduced capactiy," the rest may be mute. DM> Mute? Or moot? Mute. DM> In previous posts where I've defined the terms I've used, up front, DM> you DM> chose not to accept them then; any reason for me to expect you to do DM> so now? But, I will give it another shot. DM> When I turn on a water faucet full blast, there is a strong flow of DM> water; DM> if I reduce that flow by impeding the water, its capacity is DM> diminished, yet DM> I've not interrupted the flow. If I divert the flow of water to fill From Franklin's, "interrupt" means to: intrude so as to hinder OR end continuity Reduction of flow, hinders outflow. Therefore, any impeding the flow of water is "interruption" of it. This is not consistent with the one defintion you are using above. DM> a pail DM> which, I interrupt the flow of water (into the basin) ... although I DM> do not DM> interrupt the flow itself (ie, a "change"). If I turn off the water DM> faucet, I cause cessation of the flow of water, period. DM> JB> As I said before, you haven't defined what you DM> JB> mean "by liver function." So, since you won't tell me, I give DM> JB> you one function, the conjugation of bilirubin, the metabolic DM> JB> degradation of hemoglobin. DM> In a multi-functional organ, choose whatever function is operational. [snip] DM> DM> to our will. The liver does "not" require conscious attention to DM> DM> maintain doing its job (ie, it functions when one's in a coma). DM> JB> Not necessary, if one is in a coma and doesn't eat, the liver DM> JB> dies. Let us say, one is in a coma and is tube feed or perhaps DM> JB> parental feed, the function of liver changes during a coma. DM> Does change necessarily qualify as an interruption? If I change the DM> volume of my CD-player, is the playing of the CD interrupted? Change may be either interruption or not. DM> My question stands: Does the function of a liver (ie, function DM> of the liver, (if you wish), require consciousness? Yes, the metabolism of bilirubin does. DM> DM> to wonder whether brain activity can be categorically DM> DM> described DM> DM> as a discrete function (ie, digital) vs continuous (ie, analog)? DM> JB> The word "all" is quite extensive. I can't answer that question. DM> Nevertheless, that is the answer I'm seeking. If you can't answer it, Ah, you just gave me "any function", is it "all functions" or "any function?" [snip] DM> JB> There are some "autonomus functions" such as respiratory drive DM> JB> and cardiac drive (located in the brain stem) which does -not- DM> JB> require DM> JB> input from higher cortical functions except that required to DM> JB> supply energy. DM> Is that a "Yes," or a "No"? Are these functions (ie, those you've DM> noted) digital or analog, discrete or continuous? Let us look at the respiratory drive. If we were to look at the output in terms of breath or not breath then it is digital, however, if we were at the output in terms of respiratory rate, it would be analog. If we were to look at the brain stem neuron responsible for stimulating the vagus nerve (which has a membrane potential of around -90 millivolts), it operates in terms of digital (fires or not). If one were to look at the "group" of neurons, then I surmize its analog. Please define -what- you are looking at. DM> DM> What mechanism ... for example? DM> JB> In the case of the paremessium, the paramecium has cilia DM> JB> for locomotion. Most cilia use some actin-mysin crosslinks DM> JB> often driven by changes in intracellular calcium concentration DM> JB> often precipted by Na+-K+ gylcoprotein channels which can respond DM> JB> to changes in ph, etc. DM> Ok. These changes in "intracellular calcium concentrations" provide DM> the DM> responsive mechanism to sensory input in paramecia, then? Does the DM> same apply to humans? Yep, for the most part, for example in the respiratory tract whose columnar epithelial cells cilia operate on a very similar idea. Even, the flagella of sperm do. [snip] DM> you mention the body can be tube-fed. My question remains: Does a DM> liver DM> require "consciousness" to do what a liver does ... or merely DM> sustenance? It depends upon what function you talking about. For the sake of discussion, the liver "does" the detoxification for the body. When a human is in a coma, the individual never comes in contact with those substances (which is the function of the liver to take care of) resulting in no detoxification. DM> Does my insistence that I be "convinced" that your explanations are DM> right DM> instead of accepting your arguments unquestioned suggest dishonesty DM> ... in DM> "your" mind? IF so, I respectfully submit that that's not my problem. Nope, I view your responses as ones bent on keeping what you -assume- to be correct as correct. Such a position is not one open to discovery. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGU00038 Date: 12/25/97 From: JOHN BOONE Time: 12:19am \/To: DENNIS MENARD (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Technological Depend On 12-23-97 Dennis Menard wrote to John Boone... Hello Dennis, DM> JB> Yes, in these words you do, however, you -did- go from this DM> JB> point to state in order to understand one must understand DM> JB> -whole- without breaking down the -whole-. DM> No. What I implied was that unless you know how all components of a DM> system DM> function and relate to the entire system, how can one validly DM> determine that DM> any particular component is unnecessary for the entire system to DM> function in a proper manner. Ah, come on Dennis. Are you going to tell me you have to know -how- a fuel injection works to know that a vehicle won't move without fuel? [snip] DM> JB> But, notice, Dennis, one doesn't have to understand -how- DM> JB> the electrical system (just that it does) generates power to DM> JB> understand the FIS. DM> I agree. You expect me to defend an argument I didn't make? DM> Does (ie, "How" does) your FIS without power? I don't ask Nope, it doesn't, but I don't have to know -how- the power is generated to understand the FIS. [snip] DM> DM> I agree. Yet, previous arguments suggest that you think the DM> DM> environment can be isolated from the economy with some manner of DM> DM> impunity until it DM> JB> Ah, you misunderstood, I said, it could be -understood-, DM> JB> big difference. DM> Yes. Big difference, especially when systems are frequently greater DM> than DM> the sum of their parts. you understand a whole, you cannot DM> validly DM> conclude any part OF that whole is unnecessary to the proper function DM> to the DM> whole. Your understanding of a sub-system may be perfect -- but if Do you have to understand the -whole- automobile to know that it won't run without fuel? DM> the sub- DM> system does not act in a vacuum, then your understanding of it IN a DM> vacuum is irrelevant in context OF the whole. DM> JB> Dennis, this comes down -how- does -one- weight the various DM> JB> alternatives and validity of the evidence. DM> Easily. By considering the long-term. Will the Oil & Gas Industry In this approach, you -assume- your way is the -only- way and "reasonable" people don't disagree. DM> exist, DM> in 200 years, as it does today ... if it exists at all? However you Unknown, do you think, I have a crystal ball? DM> answer DM> that question: Why? or, Why Not? All thinking beings recognize that DM> change DM> is inevitable. Why reward deliberate attempts to prolong old, DM> inefficient DM> technologies while penalizing, and delaying the new? Why reward DM> waste, and DM> over-consumption instead of rewarding efficiency and conservation? DM> Why are DM> things that "have" value "NOT" valued instead of being squandered - DM> because they're so cheap? For example. I have no argument with efficiency, however, sorry to tell you but the most efficient use of resources is done by the free market, not ones managed by government. IOW, if you are interested in efficient uses of resources, you would allow the free market to play. However, you want government control which is -not- as efficient in terms of using resources as the free market. DM> JB> Hmm, name me -one- complex system understood -as a whole- DM> JB> without breaking the sytem down into the individual systems. [snip] DM> We understand the various processes that comprise weather. Yet we DM> cannot DM> predict weather accurately, understand it as a "whole" or control it DM> in any DM> meaningful way. The whole is than the sum of its parts. I agree. Take care, John ___ * OFFLINE 1.54 --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Strawberry Fields (1:116/5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGV00000 Date: 12/25/97 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 06:04am \/To: JOHN BOONE (Read 0 times) Subj: M R L insights FM> the foundation of philosophy. System builders fall in love with some FM> portion of it which they take to be the whole and imagine that it can be FM> brought within the domain of man's mastery and complete knowledge. That FM> is what Hegel assumed and it is also what Marx assumed. JB> As do many liberals in government as do many liberals here. Many, here, JB> -assume- a group of men has mastery with sufficient knowledge to JB> discriminate against women and blacks. I think that all we can hope for here is that we understand each other's points of view MORE ADEQUATELY and in my view injecting such labels of "liberal" and "conservative" into the mix muddies rather than clarifies the issue. Goldwater is considered to be a "conservative" and yet he is FAR to the left of even some "liberals." I don't find such language to be all that helpful in identifying and discussing philosophical issues. Such labels are an invitation for every individual to declare what they are and mean. JB> No, but I do believe man can change Reality in small ways with his JB> "vision." That gets close to the old, unprofitable debate between free-will and determinISM. I'm inclined to the view that whatever man can "change" is already within the realm of REALITY. We just don't know ALL of the potential until it develops ("reveals" (that hated word) itself. It seems to me that this is what takes place in history - a "differentiation." JB> the external world. For example, the "unrestrained" vision generates JB> communism, socialism, etc. Communism and socialism have different JB> -effects- (part of Reality) than do the -effects- of Capitalism (also JB> part of Reality). That's far too facile, John, don't you see? Bismarck in the 19th century would certainly not have been viewed as an ideological socialist but he, indeed, founded German socialism by accepting some of the major principles of the socialists, i.e. the wisdom of the government having some care for the citizens. My childhood was filled with Huey Pierce Long and his brothers who grew up in that odd little cradle of populism around Winnfield, Louisiana. Long, who began his career by championing the basic rights of workers who ere injured directly because of policies of industry and through such taking of individual cases he learned that giants like the Standard Oil Company were vulnerable on the point of weighting government AGAINST its citizens rather than on their behalf. I consider Long to have been a fascist and he ertainly was a bully and a dictator BUT he would have gotten nowhere had those who exercised power before his entrance not lacked ALMOST ENTIRELY any fairness r care for those under their thumb and who had NO participation at all due to their circumstances and ignorance of the ordinary American goals. Most other States ALREADY had in place certain progressive reforms. FDR simply followed the policy of Bismarck earlier, convincing business leaders that it was in he interest of stability and preservation of our system that they not simply ake the role of predators when workers and their families might have no other recourse then revolt and following such people as Coughlin, Long, Townsend nd others overthrow the American idea. I don't really want to get into a political argument here because it would be out of place. My aim is only to show how shallow the fixing of labels is in a philosophical debate. Surely we are reaching for something of more intellectual and practical substance. There is a huge difference in the meeting of actual situation with attempts to better it and the TRULY unconstrained vision of an ideologist (a purveyor of ISMS) who APES a theophany in presuming to have a complete system tied up in a neat bundle as an IDEOLOGY that ALONE will solve all problems. This certainly is a subtle and complex difference. Hitler was praised EVEN N THE UNITED STATES IN SOME QUARTERS for bringing about full employment in Germany and Stalin quite obviously provided better housing and paid vacations for the "slaves" of the "vanguard of the proletariat." People in the United States are hardly aware of the extent to which both "conservatives" AND "liberals" (ideologically) are removing many of their basic freedoms. I ould draw up a catalog if this were a political echo but will refrain. Surely you can see all of that around you. Walk by the nearest hospital and see the oor smokers huddled around outside of the building having come down from upper stories in order to smoke. The usual answer to this is that "well, they are pariahs now and against "saving people from the harmful effects of tobacco nd deserve the loss of THEIR freedom." But I could catalog a whole panoply of ways in which our freedoms have been whittled away if necessary. Self-salvation through some "social fabrication under the knowers" is our modern gnosticism. This is what I'm struggling to point out. Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGV00001 Date: 12/25/97 From: FRANK MASINGILL Time: 06:42am \/To: LOREN BERNHARDT (Read 0 times) Subj: Deep thoughts LB> No, not the deep thoughts off of Sat. Night Live. Actually, I don't know LB> why I chose that title. This board seems pretty dead, but there sure are LB> a hell of a lot of different places to post on here. "Cogito, ergo sum" LB> (For all you non latin speaking philosophers, myself included, that is LB> "I think, therefore I am") Anyone ever read any Descartes? Nietsche? No, (grin) we're all "iggernut" here on this echo and never heard of such people. I have this sneaking suspicion (chuckle) that you're here to educate us! Am I correct? Sincerely, Frank --- PPoint 2.05 * Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGV00002 Date: 12/25/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 04:08am \/To: DENNIS MENARD (Read 0 times) Subj: Natural Gas >>> Dennis Menard on Natural Gas when DM> I was somewhat younger, I used to consider Canadian History a real DM> bore. :) I've changed my mind. Political history, as taught in high school is a bore, dates, names etc. That's not what happened. DM> Person of colour? You mean: green with envy, red with anger, pink DM> with em- barassment, white with fury, black with malice, purple with DM> rage, blue with cold ... ? :) I've heard that years ago by a black comedian: What? You white folks call a person green with .... etc. and you still call us black folks colored? WE> Do you have live TV coverage of parliamentary sessions? DM> Yes. It's nearly, but not quite, as entertaining as the Saturday DM> morning cartoons; I cannot believe we actually pay those clowns Naw, we don't pay them. They extort us. I think it's called taxation without representation. -) WE> Oh, Britain includes England, Scotland, Ireland. DM> Right; in other words, the United Kingdom ... only part of Ireland, DM> though. Part of it is in dispute ... kinda like Canada and Quebec. :) Oh, I've heard about heated tempers, but actual violence in Canada? Here we are often asked to push one for English and dos para Espaniol. There's actually a movement to make English the official language. When our school system has to teach classes in a couple dozen of different languages, I can see why. Anti-immigration sentiment is rising also. I hear that Europe and perhaps even Canada are like wise coping with the overpopulation squeeze. WE> Rocket scientist under parliamentary investigation for disclosing WE> process to liquefy political hot air. -) DM> :) :) Indeed, it would result in cold turkey withdrawal of their OPM (Other People's Money) addiction. ... Angels are extraterrestrials 'cause they're out of this world. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGV00003 Date: 12/25/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 04:09am \/To: DENNIS MENARD (Read 0 times) Subj: Speed of Light Stuff >>> Dennis Menard on Speed of Light Stuff WE> What direction was that? Likely not the galactic center. DM> Yes; actually that's a good point. I'll send John an e-mail and see DM> if he's able to provide an answer to that. Good. The galactic center would be my guess except that it was mentioned that nothing of interest was found in the direction. DM> Particle Hunters Bag Two Trophies--and Share a Third (in News) DM> Science Magazine, Volume 270, Number 5235, Issue of 20 October 1995 Sounds like a pertinent reference DM> PHYSICS: Schizophrenic Atom Doubles as Schrodinger's Cat--or Kitten DM> (in Research News) DM> Science Magazine, Volume 272, Number 5265, Issue of 24 May 1996 An interesting topic but a side issue DM> PHYSICS: Particle Physicists Take to Orbit (in Research News) DM> Science Magazine, Volume 271, Number 5246, Issue of 12 January 1996 A more interesting topic as I'm interested in uses of space but my guess is a related side issue DM> As for Guy Ottewell, found him at: DM> Furman University, Greenville, SC 29613 DM> Phone 803-294-2208, Fax 803-294-3523 www.furman.edu, no such faculty member listed. John DM> Walker, the co-founder of AutoCAD ... quite an interesting fellow with DM> encylopaedic interests and a fascinating Web site: www.fourmilab.ch Rather dense with lots of intriguing distractions. WE> He's in Colorado, is he not? I'll take a peek. DM> "CH" is the designation for Switzerland. I believe he lives in DM> Zurich, and has for several years, now. Oh. I suppose that there are some four mile high labs in Switzerland as I also in four mile city Denver. But Swiss lab wouldn't use miles would it? --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGV00004 Date: 12/25/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 05:16am \/To: DENNIS MENARD (Read 0 times) Subj: Technological Depende >>> Dennis Menard on Technological Depende > My impression? :) "We won't jump off the bridge if YOU don't jump off t > bridge" is the dialogue that comes to mind. :( WE> Dares go first. -) DM> Yes. Just like children, no? :) No, like brats. WE> Do they have a web site? DM> They do: http://www.rmi.org Ok, it's in my bookmark file. DM> "Be here now" ... kinda Zen ... if one doesn't differentiate between DM> being warm and being cold. :) Gosh, I never thought that bottom line mentality was so spiritual. -) DM> So, if folks are REALLY concerned about increased costs, will they go DM> for the gas-guzzler sport-utility monsters or the 60+ mi/gal imports? DM> My guess is they'll go for the sport-utility monsters and whine about DM> the outrageous cost of gasoline. No here as yet. The greatest cost of an auto is not gas, it's maintenance. California has a gas guzzler tax. WE> The New Age movement failed in that. They're already mindset. DM> New Agers, so far as I can see, are lazy rather than innovative DM> thinkers. The New Age paradigm is just another creedal compulsion with New Age jargon. ... Surgeon general's warning about fertility drugs: don't litter. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 160 PHILOSOPHY Ref: EGV00005 Date: 12/25/97 From: WILLIAM ELLIOT Time: 05:28am \/To: DENNIS MENARD (Read 0 times) Subj: Brainy >>> Dennis Menard on Brainy WE> In parallel with this you are still walking and WE> talking and looking about. DM> Ok, understood. Ah, ha. -) WE> Neither. Each grain of a holograph takes a different view of the WE> object. That is how it's three dimensional. Remove every other grain WE> and you get the same views but now with much less clarity. DM> Ok, understood. Marvelous, wish I understood. -) WE> Unlike a computer that stores a bit in a location, the brain WE> stores many images upon an area. DM> :) Ok. That's good enough for me. Whew, wish I knew what I was talking about. -) I have been attempting to read a DM> com- prehensive article in Britannica on the Nervous System, and DM> transmission of information ... but it's pages and pages and pages ... DM> and I find that I'm forced to look up most of the terminology. Make sure your encyclopedia is up to date. The article you're reading may be too medical. I learned what I did in a course on neural networks, a budding computer science. Check for neural networks in Scientific America and while you're at it look for recent articles on the brain. ... Earth's cosmic plan, a revolution a year just for seasonal variety. --- * Origin: Sunken R'lyeh - Portland, OR 503-642-3548 (1:105/337)