From: David Hill (dhill@spee-dee.com)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 09:03:12 MST
I think I follow. And I certainly enjoy the ride.
Your eloquence and formal technique certainly surpass mine and I cannot hope
to reply in kind.
I simply point out that the underlying basis for PROOF like Truth, is
unavailable save in the a priori sense. With this perspective, the
remainder of argument is formalism with an unsound base as the initial
premises may always be attacked as unproven. Which brings me to:
Hill's basic argument, "I'm right and you're wrong." (all argument may be
reduced to this). I do retain my option to practice hypocracy and argue
whatever and whenever I wish. But when cornered, I generally revert to the
basic argument.
Alass, I may not grant you your "experience" with the same degree of
validity with which I consider my own. For all I know you may be the first
emergent phenominon AI. Your only appearance to me is text in my inbox.
And agreement on principles with a fiction would be very embarassing were I
to find out your true nature as such. I imagine some would require support
for the statement of my first law as fact. But the statement is only a
convenience for communication between us (if you really are there) or a
strictly internal game (if you are not). The law and its universal
observance should be apparent to all observers, certainly all objective
observers ;-).
The shaky basis of proof (either as a priori or as experiential) makes me
observe the ravings of Michelle, Yash and L'Ermit with amusement so long as
they remain remote. I'd probably have a different opinion if they were in
the next cube.
Must go, have actual work to do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT