home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!pacbell.com!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!twilight!sgi!wdl1!bard
- From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
- Subject: Re: the z/e/f's right to life
- Message-ID: <1993Jan28.030532.21627@wdl.loral.com>
- Sender: news@wdl.loral.com
- Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
- Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
- References: <markp.727721748@joplin.wri.com> <1993Jan23.072420.17232@netcom.com> <markp.727976990@joplin.wri.com> <1993Jan26.054635.10983@netcom.com> <markp.728065395@joplin.wri.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:05:32 GMT
- Lines: 32
-
- markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
- # ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
- # >Problem: given that you're only able to determine a response to
- # >external stimuli, how do you then infer reason or free will?
- #
- # 1. I know through introspection that *I* have reason and free will.
- # 2. I know the sorts of external behaviors I exhibit due to my reason
- # and free will.
- # 3. When I see others, who are physiologically equipped for reason and
- # free will, exhibit similar behaviors, I ascribe reason and free will
- # to them.
- #
- # ... or something like that.
-
- Hmmm. Mayhaps I should suggest that you first test each of those
- three statements above for validity, *then* examine them as a set to
- see if they are syllogistic.
-
- My expectation is that you should be disappointed at every step.
-
- However, if we take 1 as axiomatic, we're still up against a wall
- with 2. And 3 is fallacious and a non sequitur. It is well known
- that, for a set of similar events, each event may have a wildly
- different cause.
-
-
- --
- +---------------------------+ I wasn't expecting it. When Danny Elfman
- | J H Woodyatt | sang the words, `goo goo ga choo,' Sunday
- | bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com | night, I cracked. Some horrors are too
- +---------------------------+ large to shade out.
-
-