Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bmcg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
From: bprice@bmcg.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: No mirror, no dust
Message-ID: <1109@bmcg.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jul-84 14:20:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: bmcg.1109
Posted: Fri Jul 20 14:20:37 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jul-84 06:09:12 EDT
References: <561@flairvax.UUCP>, <1415@proper.UUCP>
Organization: Burroughs Corporation, San Diego
Lines: 50

>It is also a problem that while your mind may be doing things, I can't
>measure your mind's activities or compare them to my own.  "Well, of
>course you can!" you would say, "do I not speak, do I not analyze,
>do I not create ideas?"  Yes, you do all of those things, and all of
>those things are MANIFESTED AS BEHAVIOR and it is by BEHAVIOR that
>we measure these activities.  I assert, again, that the mind itself
>has never been seen.  It is a ghost.
>....
>
>Do you see what I am doing here?  I am applying the scientific method
>to behavior and finding little evidence to support the existence of
>``mind'', other than in a mystical or colloquial context.  And my
>original object to ``mind'' was:  just where is this mind anyway?
>SHOW IT TO ME.  Then we can continue to discuss it's function.
>Otherwise it is a piece of mythology used to support the presumed
>deism of human beings.

It is also a problem that while your electron may be doing things, I can't
measure your electron's activities or compare them to my own.
...all of these things are MANIFESTED AS ELECTRICITY and it is by ELECTRICITY
that we measure these activities.  I assert, again, that the electron itself
has never been seen.  It is a ghost.

Do you see what I am doing here?  I am applying the scientific method to 
electricity and finding little evidence to support the existence of
``electron'', other than in a mystical or colloquial context.  And my
original objection to ``electron'' was:  just where is this electron anyway?
SHOW IT TO ME.  Then we can continue to discuss its function.
Otherwise it is a piece of mythology used to support the presumed
granularity of electricity.

:-)
My paraphrase is exactly as valid as the original:  both of them demonstrate
the bias in the connotations of 'science' and 'myth'.  In fact, except for
these connotations, both words (generically) denote the same notion.  That
notion is "a system for understanding part of the universe."  Both use, at
times, insensible constructs in their explications.  It is not the
insensibility of the electron or of the mind that forms any real issue.  The
only issues are the "scientific" issue of utility--Is this explanation useful
in my understanding of the universe?--and the human issue--Is this explanation
satisfying to my emotional sense of 'rightness'?.

If the explanation is useful and feels right, a scienitifically oriented person
accepts it as "science".  Otherwise, he rejects it.  If the theory is useful
but not emotionally 'right', he rejects it as "myth".  Read and understand
Kuhn before reacting to these simple truths.

-- 
--Bill Price    uucp:   {decvax!ucbvax  philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
                arpa:?  sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc