From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian Tue Mar 24 09:55:40 EST 1992
Article 4451 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!psinntp!norton!brian
>From: brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: mean,meaner,MEANING-est/ intention-and-self the buddhist way
Message-ID: <1992Mar14.001730.550@norton.com>
Date: 14 Mar 92 00:17:30 GMT
References: <6382@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Symantec / Peter Norton
Lines: 28

jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> In article <1992Mar10.002256.8754@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
 
> Re: Buddhism
 
> >I had not intended to get into a theological argument here, but it looks
> >like there actually ARE some people here who feel inclined to take this
> >seriously.  Before we start, would you agree that something being mystically
> >founded means that it is in fact unfounded?  Or would you say that potentially
> >you could say about some idea "Sure it's mysticism, but I think it's a good 
> >basis for building my AI machine."?
 
> You are in the grip of the fallacy that the origin of an idea
> determines its truth.

Nonsense!  My objection to mystical ideas is not that they "come from mystics",
but that epistemologically they are built on a false foundation.  My objection
to mysticism is not that I don't like mystics.  It is that I object to the 
mystic's use of emotion/revelation/whims as the basis of any knowledge of
any kind.

--Brian
  
-- 
-- Brian K. Yoder (brian@norton.com) - Maier's Law:                          --
-- Peter Norton Computing Group      - If the facts do not fit the theory,   --
-- Symantec Corporation              - they must be disposed of.             --
--                                   -                                       --


