Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.logic,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!utcsri!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <DKzB1v.D3t@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4bncj5$a94@panix3.panix.com> <4cpfsp$1cne@news.missouri.edu> <Ken.Crossman-0701962009180001@async15-6.remote.ualberta.ca> <4cuh8c$57b@dogbert.ipa.net>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 18:51:31 GMT
Lines: 45
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:164318 sci.logic:16481 comp.ai:35783 comp.ai.philosophy:36449 sci.philosophy.meta:22885

In article <4cuh8c$57b@dogbert.ipa.net>, Lee Kent <ntc@ipa.net> wrote:
.............
>Actually the sun doesn't rise at all. We only 'see' it that way. Does
>that make my observation of the reality of the rotation of the planet
>any more difficult to grasp than those who called for the same
>hundreds of years ago and were subjected to cruelty for their belief
>in facts instead of meer observational illusion? If Pindor's quotation
>was correct the sun would rise and the person who thought otherwise
>would be foolish. But since facts stand in the face of observation who

You again demonstrate that you do not understand the quote (or rather that
you insist on interpreting it in a twisted way so as to suit you), even 
though I have tried to point out the simplest interpretation, i.e. that if
what we 'see' and what we 'think' conflict, it is a wise thing to go with
what we 'see'. Naturally, there are exceptions to everything, like optical
illusions. However, the quote is not meant to be a 'law of nature' (and even
laws of nature may be subject to exceptions).

>is to tell that 'seeing' is believing? Or is it the thinker who is at
>fault????? Am I an unreasonable person? Most who have read my research
>would think so. But that is because they 'see' what they have seen and
>not what they can. Free will is simply put: The ability of a creature
>to make a decision in opposite to the observation purely on the
>internal consumation of intellect. To refute free will is to admit the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unless you provide definitions of the terms above, so that we could
have criteria to decide whether 'an intellect was consumed internally' or
not, your 'simple' definition of free will is gibberish.

>inability to do so. See below:
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>          Whom ever said 
>        "IT CAN'T BE DONE" 
>     was convinced of his own
>      shortcomings. NOT MINE!     
>      Lee Kent    ntc@ipa.net
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
Andrzej

-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Information Commons                   what they think and not what they see.
pindor@breeze.hprc.utoronto.ca                      Huang Po
