ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/27/85)
>> I think Bob's notion of God as representing a higher level of truth than >> can be verified within the system is very close to what mystics have >> been saying for a long time. Mike, your objection is totally losing. A >> `higher truth' that includes all truths perceivable from within a system >> as well as those only perceivable from without IS TOTALLY logical. > >I have posted, separately, a proof that there is at least one true statement >that God doesn't know. Hmmm. I did not see that proof, but I have no reason to doubt your confidence in it validity. I might as well give up. You win. Hey God! Stop existing!! God does not exist, as you have so cleverly demonstrated. >> Revelation is the only way to percieve a `higher truth' -- one that is >> not observable from the axioms yet established. Normative assertions >> (eg- It is wrong to gain enjoyment from the suffering of others), which >> are required to establish ethics, are mundane examples of such `higher >> truths'. They cannot be established from a logical empirical basis. > >"Ethics" is a word we use to describe a process in which humans >evaluate the actions of themselves and others. Given that the human >being performing these evaluations is a physical system, ethical >evaluation is a physical activity. Rather than something "revealed", >I think ethics is a matter of neural "wiring" and past experience. >(Hardware & software, if you prefer.) -- David Canzi I agree Dave. YOU are simply a physical being mechanically behaving according to neural "wiring" and past experience. You and Rich Rosen would make swell robot buddies. Beep beep! -michael I feel an air from other planets streaming Through darkness, faces which now turned towards me As if friendly, ghostly white and glazed Lush groves and paths pale in color So that I scarcely know them or you.. -"Enginerds", Dick Urine and the Scumfucs