Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Metaphysics
Message-ID: <436@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 16:06:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.436
Posted: Thu Aug  1 16:06:08 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 08:48:09 EDT
References: <2156@ut-sally.UUCP> <347@scgvaxd.UUCP> <368@spar.UUCP> <1148@pyuxd.UUCP> <405@spar.UUCP> <1248@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 92
Keywords: quid est
Xref: linus net.origins:2001 net.religion:6896 net.philosophy:1904

> >>> [Rich Rosen]	>> >>>> [me]

>>>>   Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential
>>>>   truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only
>>>>   it was dormant -- exactly like a seed....

>You miss the point.  I was saying that the position above only has meaning if
>you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity.

     Then you are saying that the existence of a seed-like proto-universe
     would imply a Creator?

>>     Do you agree that science ought not to be concerned with souls?
    
>No, of course not, though apparently you seem to.

     Whatever gave you that idea? 

>I just love the way some people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into
>these physical and non-physical categories based solely on their limits of
>observation, and then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining
>only the "physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be
>free of the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these
>things rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions
>the way they got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago".
    
    What notions? What pet theories? Who said science should be shackled?

>And then they use deceptive debasing terminology to describe science like
>"it's soulless".  

    Uncle! I take it back! Science has a Soul, as you wish.

    I am sorry to have offended you. I was mistaken.

>What is it that you have against rigorous objectified
>examination using verifiable evidence?  That's all the heinous science is
>after all. 

    I am very fond of `rigorous objectified examination'.

>Why should such examination have "limits"?

    The limits are intrinsic and not externally imposed.

    That means it is unable to do certain things, just as a blind person
    cannot see. For example, I would not judge the merits of a musical
    composition using the scientific method.

>>     In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE
>>     existence. We agree. 
>>     But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful?
>    
>Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception,
>presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't
>worthwhile evidence.

    I do not agree.

    Suppose I wish to determine whether I like a musical composition.
    I listen to it. If it pleases me, I take that as evidence that I
    like it.

    Or suppose I experience the sensation I refer to as `love' whenever a
    certain person enters my dreams, thoughts, or physical presence. I take
    that as evidence that I love them. I also take that as evidence for
    the existence of love, in fact.

    That is perfectly valid evidence, as far as I can tell.

>>     Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective
>>     things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science,
>>     schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe
>>     music, time, space...  Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have
>>     little or no objective existence whatsoever. 
>    
>We're talking about constructs and patterns designed by the mind to REPRESENT
>reality, not reality.

    Do you claim to know what reality IS?

    I do not have the slightest idea. The closest I have are my direct
    sensations -- sometimes they are `rocklike', sometimes they are
    `lovelike', sometimes they are `musiclike', sometimes they are even
    `causalitylike' -- but they are all equally real.

    If you know how to tell which are more real than others, please
    enlighten us, my friend.

-michael

-ps I will remove net.origins from subsequent followups to this topic