Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #162111

Re: Qbasic

Show all headers | View raw

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <ndv4s0$uku$4@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <ndudvs$h9g$2@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>> >>
>> >> JimP. <blue@cwahi.net> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 22:53:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> >> > <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>In article <ndsdl7$odj$1@dont-email.me>, despen@verizon.net says...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 03:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
>> >> >>> > Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> There exists an absolute morality, a definition of right and
>> >> >>> >> wrong, which is intrinsic to the very structure of the
>> >> >>> >> Universe, and which existed prior to the Big Bang.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >     At this point right here you and I are going to have to
>> >> >>> > agree to differ. I do not believe there is any such thing,
>> >> >>> > AFAICS morality is a purely human invention that has no
>> >> >>> > existence outside of human interaction.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Experiments with monkeys show that they recognize right and
>> >> >>> wrong.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Which experiments would those be?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Not sure what kind of argument you are trying to make, but the
>> >> >>> scientific one is settled fact.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I seriously doubt that.  When someone says "the science is settled"
>> >> >>he's generally trying to stifle debate.
>> >> >
>> >> > One high school science teacher I didn't get along well very much
>> >> > did have one thing to say I found useful.
>> >> >
>> >> > He said that anytime someone makes a speech or presentation about
>> >> > how everything about a particular field is found out, they should
>> >> > end it with the phrase 'as far as we know'.
>> >>
>> >> True.
>> >>
>> >> However, there are things we call "settled science".  Wherever I got
>> >> this info from it was a source that would have mentioned any
>> >> unresolved or questionable aspects.
>> >>
>> >> There weren't any mentioned.
>> >
>> > Which in itself is suspicious.
>>
>> Not really.  I'm saying that I read the article or saw the show.  It was
>> a normal scientific discussion and they probably did delve into any
>> weaknesses in their story, as they usually do.
>>
>> When I mentally store something like that, if there were any
>> _significant_ issues, I would store them too.  I don't remember any
>> weaknesses in the conclusion.  So, I adjusted my world view to:
>>
>>   humans aren't unique in recognizing right and wrong.
>>
>> > But you still haven't told us where to find the information.  Are you
>> > just trusting some guy you met in a bar or some such?
>>
>> Sorry, the mind is imperfect.  Plus I sometimes see articles that are
>> from behind pay walls.
>>
>> Here's something older that goes with the video link I posted:
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chimps-sense-of-justice-f/
>
> And if you don't see the projection in that there's no hope for you.

SciAm has gone the way that Byte did.

/BAH

Back to alt.folklore.computers | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-05 12:53 +0000
  Re: Qbasic Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-04-05 17:55 +0000
    Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-06 13:08 +0000
      Re: Qbasic Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-12 17:39 -0400
        Re: Qbasic jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-13 13:02 +0000
  Re: Qbasic mausg@mail.com - 2016-04-05 19:15 +0000

csiph-web