Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alan
From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: responses to beliefs, reality, etc.
Message-ID: <2582@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jul-84 10:48:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2582
Posted: Thu Jul  5 10:48:03 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jul-84 00:39:26 EDT
References: <870@shark.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 44

> ] From: alan@allegra.UUCP (Alan S. Driscoll)
> ] Subject: Uncertainty
> ] [ This is an open letter to Rich Rosen....
> ] ...remember YOU CAN'T PROVE I EXIST, so why are you...
>
> cogito, ergo sum.  And, I talk about you, therefore you exist.  That
> says nothing about whether you are any more than a figment of my mind.
> Does ANYthing exist?  (other than MY mind.  Yours is but a figment... :-) )
> We trust our senses to describe a 'real world' which we 'exist in'.

We trust our senses to describe a 'real world' which we 'exist in'.
That was my whole point, that nothing can be proved by reason alone.
We start with some assumptions.  Very reasonable people start using
words like "intuition," "faith," and "trust."

I'm not knocking this.  It's unavoidable.  If we are to come to any
conclusions at all, we must start with assumptions.  Just don't tell
me that you know anything by reason alone.

> ] (2) You're one of the people who's overly sure of his world view,
> ] and needs to loosen up!
> ] But you can't prove anything by logic alone.  You have to start with axioms
> ] and inference rules, and how do you justify them?  You can't
> ] use logic!  Historically, they have been justified by APPEALS
> ] TO INTUITION.
>
> So let's use our senses (what we sense, rather. it even seems to be common)
> as axioms.  What is intuition?  Subconcious thoughts?  Either they are
> ABOUT something (other thoughts, or eventually, sensations) or they are
> totally new things made up from thin air.  If they are random, why use
> as axioms?  If they are "put" there (into your 'mind'), then how did
> they get put there?  Show me something that put them there, so I can
> tell that there indeed is a puter and a putting, rather than a random
> creation, or some interpretations of the world you have experienced.

I'm perfectly happy to use our senses as axioms, as long as you admit
this is an arbitrary decision which can't be justified rationally.  I
posted my article because I thought Rich was sweeping this little fact
under the rug, in order to play more-rational-than-thou.

-- 

	Alan S. Driscoll
	AT&T Bell Laboratories