Bo, on 19 April 1999 you dialogued with me about the following propositions of mine:

Jacob, you wrote,

"Now I understand the '5-dollars bet' you mentioned in your original post. Hume was apparently bantering with Kant..."

--Yes, Jacob, but his banter, while perhaps falling into the more practical (Pascal-like) category of argument, still holds water. After all, Kant never took up Hume's wager. --

** Bo, Kant was a square. Hume was making fun of Kant's antiquated ideas. **

"After retiring, I found a new interest, which came to be embodied in what I call D-SP. I've written on 'The Good,' which I 'found' to be explained by evolution."

--Without knowing the details, to suggest here that what we OUGHT to do (the good) can be derived from something with IS so (evolution) seems to fall into this category.--

** What category, what details, who is suggesting that we ought to do the good? I have proposed that the evolutionary good serves to advance the group, and that the human-mind-derived moral precepts are a derivative of the evolutionary good. Therefore, we'll do the good even if we are not forced to. I also clarified that group is a variable concept. There are people who work for the good of groups that other people condemn on moral grounds. In fact, I've written that doing good for given groups is what gives sense to every individual's life. **

"Completely wrong interpretation of my writings. The D-SP doesn't judge nor does it offer counsel or consolation. It detachedly attempts to explain the world, based on scientific advances and their evolutionary aspects. No moralizing at all, but explaining what is 'moralizing.'"

--Ahh.. so you advocate no ethical position in particular? Do you deny the 'oughts' then?--

** Please do not insert my personal moral and ethical positions within the propositions of D-SP. **

--Would you call yourself a fatalist, for instance? Most empirical scientific types I've met thus far certainly lean that way, which is why I ask...--

** Fatalism is a complicated concept. I'm fatalist regarding taxes and death. What is an empirical scientific type? I know either one or the other, but not a mixed-up type. **

--Denying the notion of free will,...--

** Here is a copy-paste paragraph of an Interdialog on free will, posted in my site at geocities:

"The fact that a COMMON SENSE SCIENCE (CSS) has been recently set up by respectable physicists, attests to the reigning confusion. (About nuclear particles.)
Common Sense they define as the respect for Cause-Effect. You know, there was an early Greek who said that everything is predetermined by the previous cause, buuut... an ATOM suddenly takes an 'UNEXPECTED turn' and...lo and behold, undeterminism, FREE WILL! After many centuries, this Greek surfaced in the 'original' lucubrations of UNDETERMINISTS...
BUT IT IS SIMPLY a matter of COMPLEXITY!
No need to fear Pascal's DETERMINISM. An EMERGENT is absolutely UNEXPECTED! RESULTANTS follow on its wake, even surpass it in their physical attributes, an then, another Emergent!
No need for Schroediger's 'cat,' nor for mystical 'mind-reading' particles. The 'tangled' photons will eventually be explained by some hitherto nondescribed physical law."

{ADDEMDUM: "Nonlinear process" is the descriptive name of the "Emergent phenomenon," the core of Complexity. Take the following simple experiment: To a glass of water, add some extract of tea. Taste it, and notice that the taste becomes stronger as you add more extract, while the color deepens. Well, you are observing a linear process. Now add some lemon juice, and notice the change in color and turbidity, up to a given limit, and also the unpredictable change in taste. This time, a nonlinear process has occurred. Lemon's citric acid has chemically changed tea's tannin, with a resultant emergent compound. Three components of the experiment have created a complexity.}

So, you see, Bo, that's some grit for the thinking neurons. Another point: I'ven't had the time to write a mini-essay on free will yet, but I have lectured on it. I can advance some material: there are no free lunches, but you can choose the lunch you pay for. Problem is, may be there are no sharks to prepare your favorite sandwich. It is a question of limits and critical points. But mainly, of COMPLEXITY. **

--...they also then deny the possibility of making right and wrong choices (by denying the notion of "choice"), and thereby rejecting ethics as a meaningful study.--

** Poor fellows! I was very careful, took me a whole year to make a choice (take a decision). Had I been more confident in my judgment, I would have enjoyed the fruits of my entirely correct decision. Problem was, a quite predictable event intervened at an entirely unpredictable moment, and a COMPLEX situation resulted, related to personal evolutionary circumstances upon which I had no control at the time.
But, Bo, I find ethics an interesting subject of study. Please see AXIOLOGY. My 12 year religious granddaughter enjoyed very much a talk with her on the subject. Yet, since I was teaching D-SP to her, I did not delve on the moral aspects of ethics, limiting myself to place it in one of axiology's slots. **

--In the end then, the best they can do is study the delusion of right and wrong choices which the masses suffer under. Would this also summarize your opinion, or is my blunt summary perhaps too disturbing to associate yourself with? :)--

** I've been wrong only once: I thought I had been wrong, but I was wrong, because actually I had not been wrong! ;) No delusion at all: there are right and there are wrong choices. The problem is having the right information to decide upon the choice. Enough time and homework is required, not always possible. The delusion consists in believing in a 'gut feeling' not based on sufficient information...**

--Jacob, you also said, "Finding 'The True' took longer; I'd been looking for it for quite a while, and only lately I realized that I had 'found' it in what I called 'The Three Laws of Being.' But the final clinch came about when just recently I realized that The True has three points of view, namely the scientific, the theological, and most relevantly, the philosophical, or human, one." Well, I had written, "Philosophy fascinates me because as soon as someone opens their mouth to speak, their assumptions and suppositions come rolling out. Philosophy is relevant because we LIVE it every day. Our basic assumptions, our unasked questions, our first truths we cling to, without ever thinking about them: THAT is our philosophy. By definition, of course." And your answer now was,

"D-SP attempts to change that definition. Only then can those who do not cling to them realistically modify "basic assumptions". D-SP can affect only people who are willing to bite the forbidden fruit of Eden, following the Cartesian doubt."

--Attempting to change that definition?" How do you avoid question begging in this manner? For instance: "Plato was not a philosopher. I know this because I define 'philosopher' on non-Platonic terms..."? Obviously you don't agree with that example, which is why I used it to get your thoughts on that question.--

** It is not I, it is D-SP, as stated. Basically, I am rationally lax in my personal use of the term 'philosophy.' Look up the definitions in a dictionary. The term 'philosopher' is more restricted. D-SP is strict in its discipline regarding terms that have been defined for the clarification of the matters to be dealt with. You and I have no quarrel. You have your own 'philosophy,' regarding your life and life in general. D-SP says: "In order to present a new way of understanding the world, it should be understood that the subjects to be dealt with are not theological, nor scientific, but in-between, although supported by scientific advances. Those subjects D-SP characterizes as deserving collectively to be considered as belonging to the area of 'Philosophy." Examples are given in the Introduction. I could have avoided discussion by calling them: "Subjects that are the most appropriate for a way of analyzing which I decided to call D-SP." **

--Also, Descartes was a great doubter, to be sure, but he never bothered to doubt reason, and his attempt to rise above it using (in part) Anselm's argument was troublesome at best. All this to show that even the doubtful Descartes had his little items of faith.--

** Descartes and other's interest in the passe' Saint Anselm, and their own faith or lack of it, are not relevant to our dialogue. Not so what you say regarding Descartes' doubt. His greatness consisted in doubting dogmatic statements, unrelated to religion's dogma or beliefs. He meant FACTS. And he wrote convincingly. I've posted on his contribution to the advancement of knowledge. **

--I say these things to point out again the fuzzy line I see between philosophical and theological assumptions (a distinction you seem to be attempting to draw). Not having seen an argument yet, I can only hope you'll elaborate a bit.--

** Please read the Introduction to D-SP, which does not make assumptions. It restricts its musings on attempts to explain selected scientific findings in terms of their interpretation in an encompassing manner, necessarily base on evolution, as defined in the Introduction. However, not eveything contemplated by D-SP is necessarily connected to science or evolution. Take the essay on AXIOLOGY: I wrote it more than thirty years ago, and only now I incorporated into the realm of D-SP, because I believe that it is a unique essay deserving to be studied and applied to better understand the grounds to critique and criticize human acts. **

--To suggest that somehow science and theology can be separated from philosophy, that science has NO basic assumptions, that theology has no unasked questions, seems to defy the very meaning of the term "philosophy". Perhaps you can explain this better.--

** Incorrect interpretation. Science --that is, the sciences -- step on the back of basic assumptions, called AXIOMS, as I've posted. Also, I have posted that no questions on Dogma are allowed, obviously remaining unasked. What I refer to as THE TRUE PHILOSOPHY, better known as D-SP, is separated from science (the sciences) and from theology (dogmas), because that is the only way I can develop a way to explain the world. **

--As for the rest, i.e., AXIOMS, DOGMAS, philosophical assumptions, bare assertions: "An Axiom, by any other name, would still smell like a bare assertion to the man in doubt". .. and a self-evident truth to the man in the know. Right?--

** Right! D-SP might sharpen the doubter's olfaction, becoming capable of distinguishing between axioms and dogmas. **

"Most problematic was finding 'The Beauty.' I got lost looking for an evolutionary explanation, until --suddenly, not long ago-- I 'discovered its origin. I have not written yet the essay on it.... {Once I write that essay...and is duly understood...Esthetics will not tough to understand...}"

I love you man! I can't wait! I thought I knew everything when I began to study philosophy, only to discover more deeply the pit of ignorance that reason left behind in me. *You* have it all figured out! What a remarkable thing, to live in this age! To have the opportunity to speak with you before you take the place of the ancients in the study of wisdom. God bless the Internet!--

** I wrote it, finally, and it disappeared before saving it, through the Windows. And then I had to compose the present Interdialog... **

--Turning again to alethic propositions: "Nobody is happy all the time, is a true one.--

** Indeed, that proposition is not only alethic, but undeniable true. **

--And so, in the same way that "John is a Rascal" depends upon John's nature, so "Nobody is happy anytime" depends upon the nature of Everyone. I've still lost how this category can be meaningfully defined, except that one is about John, and the other is about everyone. Please help.--

** The proposition "John is a rascal," is alethic, because John may be a rascal. You can understand that proposition, and you might disagree if you knew John.
"Nobody is happy anytime" is nonalethic, because its meaning, "There is not a single person who feels happy sometime," is definitely untrue, as we all know.
Take now the following proposition: "The Sun doesn't exist," which is clearly nonalethic. Yet "The sun will be destroyed next month" is alethic, because it is possible, even though most unlikely. In fact, there is now evidence supporting the feasibility of such eventuality, even though we're used to believe that the Sun will exist for billions of years, because the experts tell us that. (Well, Descartes, again you have been proven right!) **