Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!proxftl.UUCP!bill
From: bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: Re: metaepistemology
Message-ID: <19880703045906.3.NICK@HOWARD-JOHNSONS.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Date: 3 Jul 88 04:59:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 28
Approved: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu

To: novavax!uflorida!comp-ai-digest
Path: proxftl!bill
From: T. William Wells <proxftl!bill@bikini.cis.ufl.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: Re: metaepistemology
Summary: rehashed Kant
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 88 15:11 EDT
References: <19880625192541.0.NICK@INTERLAKEN.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Organization: Proximity Technology, Ft. Lauderdale
Lines: 16


In a previous article, YLIKOSKI@FINFUN.BITNET writes:
> In AIList Digest   V7 #41, John McCarthy <JMC@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
> writes:
>
> >I want to defend the extreme point of view that it is both
> >meaningful and possible that the basic structure of the
> >world is unknowable.  It is also possible that it is
> >knowable.

I did not see the origins of this debate but it appears to be
nothing more than an attempt to defend the Kantian noumenal vs.
phenomenal distinction. Instead of wasting time debating this
issue, why don't those of you who are interested go and study
some philosophy? And, for those of you who are going to say "but
I have", carefully compare this view with Kant and you will see
that they are in essence identical.