Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!utcsri!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <DnJurE.DIq@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <4el6ee$4t6@brtph500.bnr.ca> <4gussj$nt9@hahn.informatik.hu-berlin.de> <DnG6xD.DH0@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4h34rk$aqr@ns2.zNET.net>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:16:25 GMT
Lines: 52
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:173887 comp.ai:37423 comp.ai.philosophy:38352 sci.philosophy.meta:25227

In article <4h34rk$aqr@ns2.zNET.net>, Russell Ward <russward@znet.com> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) wrote:
>
>>Please note that we discuss science here. The above might as well be true but
>>the "truth" of it is not a matter of science, but faith. Once you make these 
>>assumptions, many other of your conclusions follow. However, if one does not
>>make these assumptions, they do not.
>>A discussion is only possible if there are common premises. In case of
>>science these premises are: logic and empirical evidence, as determined by
>>consent what is an empirical fact and what is not. "Facts" about which  
>>there is no consent are not _scientific facts_ and they cannot be  basis 
>>for a scientific discussion.
>>What you say above is not universally accepted and so this is not a proper
>>newsgroup to discuss their consequences.
>
>Could you clarify something for me? Just what 'facts' are there that
>are universally accepted? 

If you do not know it by know you are beyond hope :-(. Nevertheless, I'll
throw few examples your way: 'sky is blue', 'sun rises to the east and goes
down to the west', 'in general, what goes up must come down', 'there are
two type of electric charges, same charges repel, different charges attract',
etc., etc. In general, sensory experiences (and their logical consequences)
shared by the majority of humankind.

>..........................If I do not consent to your 'facts' are they
>then no longer 'scientific facts'?

Why would you say "your 'facts'" in the above is not clear to me. Could you
explain your motives, please?
Now, 'universally' in the above did not mean 'by everyone without exception',
I am sorry if this was not clear to you. What is 'a scientific fact' cannot
depend on a good will of few obstinate morons, can it?

>
>Just a question,
>
Somehow I doubt if my clarifications will be satisfactory to you but I am
ready to be proven wrong.

>Russell Ward
>
>
>"Dyslexics of the world, untie!"
>
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
