Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Why do you think ESP is Bull?

From: "John K Clark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:46:52 -0500

"Ben Goertzel" <[email-masked]>

> I assume 

"Assume" is the key. 

> 'John K Clark' is a chat bot 

"Bot" is the key. 

> until I am given convincing evidence otherwise."

Why do you until I am given convincing evidence otherwise? 

  John K Clark 

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---

From: "Mike Dougherty" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:47:49 -0500

On 2/27/07, Robert Bradbury <[email-masked]> wrote:
> For, even when you take all the theories of how physics really works and
> wrap them up in a big ball, you can still not answer the very simple
> question...
>   "Why did the big bang happen?"

I think the answer would be self-evident if you took that big ball and
compressed it tightly enough...
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

---

From: Sondre Bjellås <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:54:41 +0100

Is it not also true, that it's not physics responsibility to answer why. Physics explains how it is, not the why or the reason.

Science will never give us those answer and it's not within it's realm.

And I would like to state that it's the realm of philosophy to give you the "answers", and not theology. The field of theology is given to much power in these questions.

Regards,
Sondre

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
Sent: 28. februar 2007 14:48
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Why do you think ESP is Bull?

**********************************************************************
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses and found clean.
**********************************************************************

---

From: "Jef Allbright" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 09:13:37 -0800

> Is it not also true, that it's not physics responsibility to answer why. Physics explains how it is, not the why or the reason.

Yes indeed, and most of the general population of reasoning entities
on this planet remain unaware, unclear, and uncertain about this
essential distinction between the subjective and the objective.  Not
knowing how to ask a proper question with regard to volition, we are
left with whatever guidance is available by default, be it religion,
superstition, intuition, or cultural inertia.

If we as a people survive to rise to this next level of understanding,
then we can take a further step and see that although our increasingly
objective science can not answer questions of "why", it certainly can
help us understand the "how" of our "whys."

And given that understanding, we would apply increasingly objective
know-how to promote that which we increasingly know why.

- Jef