Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!ucsd!mvb.saic.com!ncr-sd!se-sd!jim
From: jim@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Jim Ruehlin, CFC User)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Refute this, Go"del!
Message-ID: <4341@se-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 91 00:42:06 GMT
References: <12190@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>
Organization: NCR Corp., Systems Engineering - San Diego
Lines: 39

In <12190@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU> ld231782@longs.LANCE.ColoState.EDU (Lawrence Detweiler) writes:

>Let's start a new thread for those who think that humans are inherently
>`inconsistent'.

>To be more specific, in this context let `consistent' mean that humans are so
>in that they function at the physical level in a completely deterministic way.
>We derive this from the axioms of our system that

>i. physics is completely deterministic (`consistent'),
  Not true.  Look at event horizons (if you dare! :))
>ii. physics = reality,
  Now here's a slippery slope.  There's lots of reasons why this might not be
  true.  The results of quantum observations are known to be modified by the
  observation of them.  In addition it hasn't yet been determined what kind of
  impact cultural world view has on seeing the world around us.  It could be
  we could discover much more about the universe, or that the universe is
  much different than what we suppose, if we have a significantly different
  way of looking at the world.
>iii. reality is transitory, and
  Yes??  How so?  We're not even sure what reality is, much less whether it's
  transitory.
>iv. humans are entirely physical.
  I've had enough arguments with theists that I'm not going to touch this with
  a 10 foot pole.


>Already we reach a contradiction.  How then can any human be inconsistent?

I'm not sure your contradictions are significant.  I'd question the found-
ation that you use.

>P.S. If you don't like my axioms, don't knock 'em.  Start your own thread.

Oh.  I guess you just want to have discussions with people who agree with you.
If you want to try some different axioms I'd like to take a look at them
and maybe we'll arrive at an interesting definition to start from.

- Jim Ruehlin