Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Nice try yourself, Mr. Moffet
Message-ID: <7745@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Jul-84 17:12:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.7745
Posted: Wed Jul  4 17:12:17 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jul-84 05:54:46 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 23

From Gordon A. Moffet (proper!gam)

	Here is a free bonus:  I've said that there is no mind because its
	existence has not be measured ...

And I suppose there are no planets around any stars further than 100
light-years, because *their* existence has not been measured?  Nonexistent
until proven otherwise?  Are concepts guilty until proven innocent?

I don't know anything about the Aristotle-vs-Leucippus debate, but perhaps
the point of the person who brought it up, was that lack of proof is
inadequate grounds to discard a hypothesis entirely.  If that was his point,
he was right.

Two cheers to Kenn Barry for his contribution.  The idea that we do not
observe minds is rubbish.  Each person observes her own.  I think the
misgivings expressed by the behaviorist sympathizers about "mind" come from
overloading the term with connotations that they don't like.  They falsely
assume that "mind" implies "nonphysical", "soul", etc.

When you stack the deck, it is no wonder your opponent loses.
				--The aspiring iconoclast,
				Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink