Xref: utzoo talk.origins:1222 sci.philosophy.tech:603
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!maui!verma
From: verma@maui.cs.ucla.edu (Rodent of Darkness)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Atoms (was Re: Mercury's day and other mysteries)
Message-ID: <11003@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 7 Apr 88 14:35:46 GMT
References: <26193@cca.CCA.COM> <8087@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1149@3comvax.3Com.Com> <6212@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <772@actnyc.UUCP>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: verma@maui.UUCP (Rodent of Darkness)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 14

In article <6212@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
rmpinchback@dahlia.waterloo.edu (Reid M. Pinchback) writes:
>                                                    ....  Funny thing is
>that the "unexpectedness" of some discoveries is itself is a strong argument
>for the objective stance.  If you create what you see, why would you ever
>see something you didn't expect to see?

	Just because you create something does not mean that you can
	predict it outcome, even if you create the rules that it must
	follow to arrive at that outcome.  Further, just because some part
	of your mind creats an event, there is no reason to believe that
	any other part of your mind can or will access that information
	and expect it to have been created.

							---TS