From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!ogicse!das.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Jan 28 12:17:12 EST 1992
Article 3108 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3108 sci.philosophy.tech:1966
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!ogicse!das.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Table-lookup Chinese speaker
Message-ID: <1992Jan24.030419.7990@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Jan 92 08:04:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jan24.030419.7990
References: <1992Jan22.045102.20148@milton.u.washington.edu> <1992Jan22.103309.7900@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan23.092920.146@lrc.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 60
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Jan23.092920.146@lrc.edu> lehman_ds@lrc.edu writes:

>In article <1992Jan22.103309.7900@husc3.harvard.edu>, 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>> In article <1992Jan22.045102.20148@milton.u.washington.edu> 
>> forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:

>>>In article <1992Jan21.182524.7880@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>>>zeleny@widder.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>>   [.....]

GF:
>>>    [.....]

MZ:
>>     [.....]

GF:
>      [.....]

(97 lines of quoted material omitted)

DF:
>    The problem with saying it should be obvious to anyone who reflects upon
>the notion only tells me you are pulling out of the air.  I have not seen an
>argument yet from the rationalist view point that has not been refuted by
>empirists.  We no longer are talking about the same subject.  We now start
>arguing about a priori and a postori(sp) knowledge.  If you can prove we
>have a priori knowledge I might consider your argument.

If I felt less charitable, I might have noted that your not seeing "an
argument yet from the rationalist view point that has not been refuted by
empirists" (are those latter the empire-builders? how good to meet another
Boris Vian fan!) constitutes rather negligible evidence that no such
arguments exist; I might even have given full rein to my evil impulses,
gleefully returning tit for tat your arrogant presumption that I would be
compelled to jump through philosophical hoops just so that you "might
consider" my argument.  Since I feel benevolent, I'll limit myself to an
observation that logic and mathematics are a priori, while computer text
editing is a posteriori.  Even if you can't appreciate the former, you
might benefit from learning the latter.  Do it.

>    Drew Lehman
>    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


