At 11:59 AM 3/9/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>>consistency checking. Are you sure faith creates models the same
I don't know what you mean by "fundamental".
>>way? I don't see how offhand.
>
>Faith checks to see if an arguement is consistent with the
>fundamentals. What does reason check against...the premises?
>What is the difference between a premise and a fundamental?
>>To decide if we want to continue playing.
>
>Who is "we"? You and I, this group, all humanity, the multiverse?
>My answer depends on that. It matters that "we" understand "us",
>to be sure.
The participants in this conversation.
>>Rule #6 (proposed): If a player does not agree to a rule, he or
>>she must withdraw from the game.
>
>Rule #6b (proposed): Each player interprets the rules for themselves.
>Thus, a player may choose to leave the game at any time, or remain
>in it, with complete freedom of expression.
Are you giving players the freedom to break the rules?
>>Rule #7 (proposed): The game ends if only one player remains.
>
>Disagree. Real games have no beginning and no end, no winners
>and losers, and no points-keepers. What you are thinkink of is
>an illusion, like chess. Computers are sufficient to play such
>"games". It's the real games, which require the human touch,
>which I'm interested in.
This game is this conversation. If you want to remain in the game when you are the only one talking, I guess that is your prerogative.
>>I'm not sure I want to play a game where fallacies are valid moves.
>
>[shrug] We each define our own fallacies. Dennett made up "the
>argument from incredulity" in _Darwin's Dangerous Idea_. He
>said it was a fallacy to say "X is false becuase I can't believe that
>X might be true". The failure is one of imagination, not reality.
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/