Subj : Re: Extent of the Argume
To   : John Wilson
From : Chuck Pierson
Date : Thu Oct 26 2000 09:31 pm

-=> On 10-26-00 12:53, John Wilson wrote to Chuch Pierson <=-
                                            ^^^^^
I durn near missed this one.

 -=> TODD HENSON wrote to CHUCK PIERSON <=-

 JW> Todd is such a marvel. I'm glad he's here in PHIL. Don't think I'd
 JW> enjoy this echo nearly as much if he wern't here to supply
 JW> `logical analysis' to the ignorant, purile posts the rest of us make.

I enjoy seeing diverse ideas expressed myself.

 >  TH> Oh well.
 >
 JW>  There's some now!

Struck me as odd.

 TH> Change your attitude and perhaps I might feel the motivation to
 TH> offer something better.

 JW>   Yeah Chuck. Make Todd your exemplar and mend your ways!

I like my ways the way they are, thankyouverymuch! :)

 TH> sllly
 TH> statements like that aren't necessary.

 JW>  Yes. Accurate statements and feelings on your part should be subsumed.

Repression of emotions makes the world go 'round.

 >  >  TH> If the universe increases the knowledge of itself
 >  >  TH> over time, and if it
 >  >  TH> has had an INFINITE amount of time to accomplish this task,
 >  >  TH> then the conclusion I made is pretty clear.

 JW>   Clear as in weird. Two if's; neither pertains to what *I* posted...

I dunno.


 > How is it different?  You're projecting the way humans perceive time in you
 > assumption that the universe has had an INFINITE amount of time to increase
 > it's self-knowledge.

 JW>  Sorry I miised that. Where did you assume this, Chuck. C'mon 'fess up!

Probably in my comments about time being relative. However, I believe that
comment was actually mine refering to something Todd said.  I really need to
hold on to my mail packets longer so I can go back and look at these things.

 >  >
 >  > Using the premise we've been going by here,  that
 >  > would be analogous to the
 >  > question of where did God come from.
 >
 >
 >  TH> Hmmmm....Yes, it WOULD at least be related, wouldn't it?
 >
 > What just happened?  You actually agree with a comment I've made based on
 > these theorectical discussions.


 TH> Try to relax.

 JW>  Yes, Chuck --- relax---enjoy...accept....

It was a bit of a shock compared to the rest of the message.  I'm really a
pretty laid back guy.


 >  > It's quite obvious that you don't agree with the
 >  > premise.  Yet as you did
 >  > state your objections using the same anthropomorphic
 >  > assumptions,  I'd at
 >  > least have hoped that you would at least listen to
 >  > another possible proposal
 >  > still using the same assumptions instead of dismissing
 >  > the entire premisse
 >  > out of hand once you thought you had made your point.
 >                                              >
 >  TH> I'm all ears.
 >
 > Then why was my earlier comment summarily dismissed?


 TH> For reasons that just explained in this very reply. And, they
 TH> weren't mere "summary" dismissals.

 JW>  That's right, Chuck. `Logical analysis' is what was offered.

 JW>  If you'd just change your attitude (completely) you'd see that.

Let me get this straight.  "The whole premise is silly" (to paraphrase) is
logical analysis?  I need to go back to my old high school and track down
both the science department and social science department and give them all
a collective slap in the head for leading me astray.



 >  TH> And as you can see, this line of thought is getting somewhat silly,
 >  TH> fast. I'd say it's related to the original premise.
 >
 > And I see your instincts are working well.


 TH> As are yours, unfortunately. Man, you really can't take criticism
 TH> of ideas without getting hostile,
 TH> can you?

 JW>  Chuck, you've just got to learn how to behave! Take lessons from
 JW>  The Serene One, who takes critisism cheerfully, answers all questions
 JW>  and is a paragon of friendly `logical analysis'

Perhaps if it weren't hypothetical situations we were dealing with.


 >  > The terms consciousness and intelligence do have a difference in my
 >  > thinking, although trying to define them is a bit complicated for me, at
 >  > least so far as explaining it to someone else.  To use another imprecise
 >  > analogy it's like the difference between action and reaction.
 >
 >  TH> Alrighty.
 >
 >
 > Is that another dismissal or a semi-acceptance of my description?


 TH> Given your overly-reactive attitude that you've hit me with, I
 TH> will leave you to interpret it as you wish.

 JW>  Yeah, don't try to pin him down. That would be totally unfair.
 JW>  So watch your `overly reactive attitude' and pay attention! Follow
 JW>  Todd's example!

But things are so much less fun that way! :)


.... Would impalement help get the point across?
___ MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.37

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: The Underground (1:106/1234)

.