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!ceylon!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!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: <CzH9oE.Bsy@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <1994Nov17.200908.29949@mprgate.mpr.ca> <3agqlp$6ij@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 19:19:26 GMT
Lines: 56

In article <3agqlp$6ij@news.acns.nwu.edu>,
John DeLaughter <jed@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
>amacarth@mprgate.mpr.ca (Angus MacArthur (Contract)) writes:
>>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>: John DeLaughter <jed@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>: .........
>>: >
>>: >Science is not a religion; the goals and methods of science are orthogonal
>>: >to those of religion.  Science is a method of understanding how the
>>: >universe works, and that's all that it is.  But what an all!
>>: >
>>: Let me comment on this difference in methods of science and religion.
>>:Science tries to understand how the universe works by applying reason (logic)
>>: to empirical data, i.e. it is a logical structure built upon such data.
>>: Religion accepts 'illumination' (internally generated truths with no 
>>: empirical support) and does not shy away from inconsistencies, which
>>: believers are asked to live with.
>>: 
>>
>>
>>But wasn't the discovery of logic just such an 'illumination'?
>>
>>Just a thought
>
>I beleive that his point was that logic was tested against itself and other
>systems as a check on its validity, while religious experiences rarely
>undergo even internal consistency checks.  Thus, in science, an internal
>inconsitency is enough to destroy a theorem, while in religion it's
>billed as an extra `design feature'.  (If I may borrow from the oft quoted
>computer refrain... 8-) )
>
>John DeLaughter

You are right. To expand a bit, the following is a private reply I have sent
to Agnus MacArthur:
....
In a way you may be right, if logic is in part due to geneticly (sp?) 
determined (perhaps evolutionally formed) elements of brain architecture.
However, we use it because it gives "good" results, i.e. it helps us to
achieve our goals when interacting with reality. If it hampered us in these
interactions, we would abandon it (alas very reluctantly). In this sense,
logic is empirically based.
A good example of the conflict alluded to above is non-locality suggested
by quantum mechanics. Non-locality seems very illogical, and a lot of people
have great trouble accepting that it may be a feature of the reality. Perhaps
the corresponding genetic structures in their brains are too pronounced to 
ignore even in light of empirical data.
.....

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
