From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon May 25 14:05:10 EDT 1992
Article 5627 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: AI failures
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <TODD.92May10140613@ai09.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> <1992May12.083743.22151@norton.com>
Message-ID: <1992May13.204439.1020@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 20:44:39 GMT

In article <1992May12.083743.22151@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:

[a long analysis of the problems of societal definition of morality]

>In comp.ai.philosophy article <TODD.92May10140613@ai09.elcom.nitech.ac.jp> you wrote:

>> The determination is completely irrespective of facts or logic 
>> (this is how people come to be pro-abortion vegetarians...)
>
>This seems to be a restatement of Hume's (non-existent) is/ought 
>dichotomy.  Is that the point you are trying to make here?  

What do you mean, "non-existent" dichotomy?  Are you implying that
there is no difference, that "is" does indeed imply "ought" and 
vice-versa?? 

>As for pro-abortion vegetarians, they are simply inconsistent and 
>wrong.  Why is it that you think that the only possible meaning of 
>inconsistency is that reality isn't consistent?  Reason says that 
>such inconsistencies indicate a false premise.

Being a pro-choice vegetarian, I take exception to the above characterization
of my beliefs.  I think that, given the premises from which I am working,
I am *very* consistent in my views.  However, this probably isn't
the appropriate forum for discussing them.                  

[BTW, if Todd Law is reading this, I tried to send you an email 
response to your message, but it bounced (host-name unrecognized).  
Do you have another email address?]

- michael



