Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!ihnp1!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism Message-ID: <939@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 09:52:32 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.939 Posted: Mon Aug 5 09:52:32 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 09:43:10 EDT References: <861@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <1288@pyuxd.UUCP>, <891@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <723@cadovax.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 81 Xref: watmath net.origins:2035 net.religion:7328 net.philosophy:2193 [This line intentionally left blank] From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle), Message-ID: <723@cadovax.UUCP>: >........ >>Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist >>*real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of >>nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us >>to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. What > >Why *must* we? > >>alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which > >Why not? > >>has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will >>nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them >>as "unreal" would be particularly wise. > >Give examples please. OK. Stand in front of 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, and shoot and kill 5 civilians. Chances are, within an hour you'll be physically unable to move more than 3 yards in any direction (cause you'll most likely be in jail). The legal system is real, and I don't think it's wise to truly believe it isn't. Furthermore, of the infinite number of things you could choose to do in front of 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, there are a number of things you could do that would get you thrown in jail, and a lot more that wouldn't. Can you scientifically determine which physical actions will result in incarceration and which things won't? The legal system sure *seems* beyond science. >In addition, how do you differentiate these *real things* from delusions of >*real things*? Do you deny that people have delusions? Do you deny that >people can sincerely believe that the moon is made of green cheese and >also be *wrong*? Of course I don't deny those things. How do I differentiate? I don't know. Do you deny that the legal system is real? If so, on what grounds? If not, how do *you* know it's real? I doubt you've scientifically determined it. But I think we know it anyway, and that's my whole point: science doesn't apply to *everything* that's real. >>noticable physical consequences. But (I think) the real issue is: can it be >>real even if it doesn't have a bearing on something's *physical* existence? > >Even if it can, how can we know it? KNOWing it is different >than WISHing or HOPEing it. Well, how do you KNOW anything? How do you know that gravity exists? Do you know that any differently than you know that you'll get thrown in jail when you break a law (I'm talking UNnatural laws here :-)? Do you know that molecules are composed of atoms any differently than you know that your parents are married? Do you know that the sun is 93 million miles away differently than you know that Reagan is president? Do you really say that you KNOW the formers, but WISH or HOPE the latters? For that matter, knowledge itself is probably one of the (many :-) things that are real, but are beyond scientific inquiry. >Perhaps, but if I create art, it is art because I say it is art. If my >art looks just like a rock, and I don't tell you it's art, you'll think >it's a rock. Maybe it IS a rock. On the other hand, maybe it's art. Exactly. You can't tell objectively, scientifically, whether or not it's art (especially if it looks like a rock! :-). But I guarantee that a large majority of people KNOW at first sight that an original Rembrandt is art. They don't wish it, or hope it. They KNOW it, and not by any even remotely scientific process. And how else could we know it unless we take our subjective minds' word for it? >Keith Doyle [This blank line, however, was an accident] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.