Re: In the begining

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Jeff Bone (
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 15:33:42 PDT

Tom wrote:

> --]One is based on empirical evidence and the scientific method while the other comes from random
> --]and mysterious feelings generated by a vestigial portion of the human brain? [1]

Oops, I forgot my [1]. This has been talked to death all over the place, but here's at least one
discussion of this.

> These differ how? Is not the one observed by the other?

They're both observed; the difference is in the process by which "meaning" is attached to
"phenomenon." Very, very different.

> I dont think its nonesense that I include incompletness in my belife
> system

I would actually say that including incompleteness in a belief system is actually a pretty canny thing
to do. It sort of suggests --- and I would intuitively agree with this --- that there's something akin
to the Entscheidungsproblem lurking at the heart of any rational system of ethics. Could very well be
that any rational ethical system that is consistent cannot be complete.

The problem may very well be that, in codifying ethics in the form of law, we inevitably introduce
inconsistencies in our attempt at completion. Like many other examples from reality (Heisenberg, Godel,
Turing, etc.) we may simply *not* be able to have it both ways.

This isn't really argument, more like musing... but I think your own defense of incompleteness
underscores the point I was trying to make, namely: if you want consistent and rational law, there are
going to be things (like the definition of a human life) that are either arbitrarily defined or have to
be left out. Either choice has consequences; IMO, less law is better, so whichever one generates the
least legal verbage is preference. ("Bone's Legal Corollary to Occam's Razor?" ;-)

> I have a foundation but I am smart/dumb enough to know all things
> are mutable with time/experience.

All I know is I don't know much, and I'm spending a lot of time tearing down stuff that I "know" that's
just plain wrong. But I'm optimistic that, given enough time and effort, I might actually know
*something.* :-)


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 17 2001 - 14:07:12 PDT