Timothy.Freeman@proof.ergo.cs.cmu.edu (07/22/89)
Well, I want to discuss sci.skeptic, but the sci.nanotech group is entirely inappropriate place to do it. I looked for this call for discussion in the news.groups group, and I did not find it. The moderator of sci.nanotech allowed a call for discussion to be posted, so it seems that the moderator will either allow the discussion to happen or appear hopelessly biased, right? So much for sci.nanotech being a newsgroup that is so well moderated that it is reliably only about nanotechnology. I think a discussion about skepticism cannot be scientific, so it should not be in the sci hierarchy. The fundamental difference between mystics and materialists is that mystics value subjective experiences much more than materialists do. It is impossible to scientifically decide how important subjective experience is, for the same reason that is it impossible to scientifically decide whether brussels sprouts taste good. Thus the assumption that the outside world exists and is more important than one's fantasies is a matter of faith. Before responding to this assertion with a "rational" refutation, look at the axioms assumed by your refutation, and ask yourself why you believe them. Eventually faith will rear its ugly head. Incidentally, I am a materialist, so I have that particular faith. Since I know it is a faith, I don't claim that mystics "are" "wrong" for the same reason I don't say that people who dislike brussels sprouts "are" "wrong". Talk.philosopy.misc already exists, it should probably be used if anyone wants to discuss this further. In fact, it should probably be used instead of sci.skeptic. By the way, the article by Drexler at the end of the call for discussion was truncated at this site, as were all of the various attempts to repost the article about megascale engineering. [We are now running under new software, and the article has been reposted, hopefully in its entirety. As for what is appropriate for discussion on sci.nanotech, let me repeat what I stated at its inception: That by and large, we take Engines of Creation as definition-by-example, except for subjects (like hypertext) that have explicit alternative groups. It's a really dismal sight when a philosopher starts taking himself seriously. Generally he begins to think of the truth as those things which he can construct a chain of verbal arguments leading to, call everything else "faith", and believes it all equally valid. You may ignore what the rest of us choose to call "literal, objective truth" if you wish. If you do so thoroughgoingly and consistently, you will soon starve to death or step in front of an automobile and the rest of us will be rid of you. *You may even be "right"* but you will still be dead. I have yet to see a "proof" that the physical world exists that a mathemetician wouldn't die laughing over. Still I believe in it and act as if there is a real, objective truth. The bottom line is simple: *Philosophical argument is a lousy way to pick a world view.* You can show this very quickly by using it to "prove" that subjective falsehood is equally valid to objective truth. --JoSH]