Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <D01KB7.8yw@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3b87dp$g0c@cascade.pnw.net> <CzzwG9.Iny@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3bdrtt$4dh@unix1.cc.ysu.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 1994 18:21:06 GMT
Lines: 39

In article <3bdrtt$4dh@unix1.cc.ysu.edu>,
Andrew L Garman <s0174026@unix1.cc.ysu.edu> wrote:
>How is it speculative that the table of chemicals would pretty much be 
>decipherable?  What is said about basing the table on the nucleas is no
>disproof to the point that was being forwarded.  Basing the table of 
>molecules on nucleas or the electrons or the protons or if the beings
>making the table know something we don't, basing the table on the sub-
>atomic particle structure of hydrogen and each substance thereafter, they
>would be basing the chart on something that was there in the universe long
>prior to theireselves.
>
You have concentrated on details of my example and not on the spirit. What
I was trying to say was that classifications we make are not unique, they
are human concepts and there is no reason to think that they have a general
applicability. The only reason is human arrogance, like we used to think
that Earth is a center of the Universe. Please read Lakoff's "Women, Fire
and Dangerous Things" (don't be mislead by a catchy title, btw; no feminist or
anty-feminist propaganda there :-)).

>This is the difference between concepts that are human and concepts that 
>are not.  The first is something that we brought to our universe through
>our own perspective.  The latter is what is here when we get here.
>
How do you know? Can you step outside your human nature?

>Why don't people read Hume anymore?  If everyone did there wouldn't be 
>such new age gibber where science and philosophy should be.
>
I take exception at suggestion that I have anything to do with "new age gibber"
<:-| . You are barking up a wrong tree.

>AndruG?

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
