Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism
Message-ID: <723@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 22:09:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.723
Posted: Mon Jul 29 22:09:53 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 02:15:20 EDT
References: <861@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <1288@pyuxd.UUCP>, <891@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Contel Cado, Torrance, CA
Lines: 48
Xref: watmath net.origins:1990 net.religion:7310 net.philosophy:2156

........
>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.

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*?

>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 now you're just being silly.  Saying "some things exist beyond the
>scientific, physical world" is just eons away from saying "everything that
>anyone thinks is real is, in fact, real".  Politics, art, music, all those
>"human-defined systems where people make the rules" are real.  There's no
>*hard, scientific* proof that Reagan is president, nor is there *hard,
>scientific* proof that an original Rembrandt is worth millions of dollars.
>But there's plenty more evidence that those two facts are true than there is
>evidence that the ghosts of all our ancestors live in the coffee cups sold
>by a little store in Maine.

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.


Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
"One man's music is another mans noise"