rossi@NUSC.NAVY.MIL ("ROSSI JOHN") (12/12/89)
In the unlikely event this thing actually gets to Love-Hounds (I haven't really been sure of the exact mailing address since Doug moveds from Eddie to Gaffa), I would like to know how Doug actually knows that Lionel Ritchie exists. I mean, isn't it just as likely that Ritchie as well as his music is one really bad halucination also. If you look back at the foundations of the philosophy which was called Pragmatism. C. S. Pierce had a lot to say about reality and how it is ]defined. One of the essential characteristics of "truth" is that it be replicable and publicly verifiable. That is, Doug is correct in his assertion that we should consider it a fact that he sits in a red chair if any of us would agree that his chair is, indeed, red after looking at it. It is quite likely that such verification would be likely unless his chair is not saturated to the point where it can would not be called any other color (e.g., orange, brown, etc). Although this is semantically similar to his postulation that agreement on quality of subjective experience also constitutes "truth", it is, indeed, quite different. The meer fact that appreciation of quality remains totally subjective, the experience can not really become a matter of public demonstration (as is the color of his chair). No matter how many people agree on a subjective experience, such data do not constitute "facts". Subjective experience remains that. As for the days of the uncivilized flaming in this group. I think that commentary here was more interesting when it included obnoxious remarks by the likes of Wicinski and Hofmann. HAs it really been almost 4 years? John
hall@buffa.enet.DEC.COM (Dan Hall) (12/12/89)
>Really-From: "ROSSI JOHN" <rossi@nusc.navy.mil> >As for the days of the uncivilized flaming in this group. I think that >commentary here was more interesting when it included obnoxious >remarks by the likes of Wicinski and Hofmann. Holy shit! A couple of months ago, Wicinski crawls out of the woodwork to remind us that he isn't dead, now John Rossi!! Who's next - Larry Palena???? -Dan |From The American Heritage Dictionary: |opinion: A belief held often without positive knowledge or proof |taste: A personal preference or liking /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ | Dan Hall | Email: hall@state.enet.dec.com | | Digital Equipment Corp. | -or- hall%state.dec@decwrl.dec.com | | Merrimack, NH | -or- ...!decwrl!state.dec.com!hall | \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (12/14/89)
> [John Rossi:] Although this is semantically similar to his > postulation that agreement on quality of subjective experience also > constitutes "truth", it is, indeed, quite different. I was not attempting to definie "truth" or "fact" -- I was pointing out the *actual* phenomenon people seem to refer to when they use the words "truth" and "fact". In actuality, there is no truth and there are no facts. > As for the days of the uncivilized flaming in this group. I think that > commentary here was more interesting when it included obnoxious > remarks by the likes of Wicinski and Hofmann. Yeah, it was. Too bad the bozos left. > Has it really been almost 4 years? More than that! Good to have you back, John. |>oug "P is for PRUE trampled flat in a brawl"
stewarte@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself) (12/15/89)
rossi@NUSC.NAVY.MIL ("ROSSI JOHN") will no doubt deny ever having said:
>That is, Doug is correct in his
>assertion that we should consider it a fact that he sits in a red
>chair if any of us would agree that his chair is, indeed, red after
>looking at it.
Okay...
>Although
>this is semantically similar to his postulation that agreement on
>quality of subjective experience also constitutes "truth", it is, indeed,
>quite different. The meer fact that appreciation of quality remains
>totally subjective, the experience can not really become a matter
>of public demonstration (as is the color of his chair). No matter how
>many people agree on a subjective experience, such data do not
>constitute "facts". Subjective experience remains that.
It seems to me you are disclaiming |>oug's assertion without any support
for your position. In what way is it quite different? Quality can
certainly be a matter of public demonstration; if you asked people on
the street whether the Mona Lisa was a good work of art, I'll bet that
you'd get very few who would say no. Probably as few as would declare
that Doug's chair isn't red. Some folks would probably say yes just
because they know that they're supposed to think that the Mona Lisa is
good.
What we call subjective experience is what we perceive through our
senses, filtered through our value systems. What we call objective
is ostensibly unfiltered by those values. However, it is not at all
clear to me that this latter is possible in any real sense. Many types
of insanity or chemical mind alteration cause people to experience
things quite different from "normal" reality -- we often view this
as a distorting layer between them and reality. Perhaps our "normal"
minds also present such a distorting layer. Who can say? Ultimately,
we have no data that is not subjective, at least in the sense of
coming from our own perceptual systems.
-- Stewart
--
"Don't forget this shit."
-- James Blood Ulmer
/* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stewarte@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */