Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
From: ch@chch.demon.co.uk (Charles Bryant)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!demon!betanews.demon.co.uk!chch.demon.co.uk!ch
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
References: <JMC.94Oct23231211@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <39drsi$7nl@crl10.crl.com> <39m0di$b69@onramp.arc.nasa.gov> <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
Reply-To: ch@chch.demon.co.uk
Lines: 16
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:47:22 +0000
Message-ID: <785119642snz@chch.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:100648 sci.skeptic:95550 sci.psychology:29944 comp.ai.philosophy:22211 sci.bio:23178 sci.philosophy.meta:14836

In article <Cz2F9G.IHA@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com>
           pnorton@beaux.atwc.teradyne.com "Peter Norton" writes:

> Haven't we learned yet that not all of Nature's phenomena don't fit the
> neat little prescription of being 'quantifiable, repeatable, and independent
> of observer'?

It is futile to even attempt to discuss phenomena which are not
'independent of the observer'. If a phenomenon is dependent on the
observer then each person must investigate it for themselves and
discussion of it is pointless. Discussion of phenomena, unless for
aesthetic reasons or to satisfy curiosity, is only useful to the
extent that there is common ground.

-- 
Charles Bryant (ch@chch.demon.co.uk)
