Subject:     	 Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
From:         	[email protected] (JRStern)
Date: 			Thu, 07 Aug 1997 10:41:36 -0400
Message:  	5sbddi$


On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 14:59:19 -0400, "Phil Roberts, Jr."  wrote:
> JRStern wrote:
 >> The alternative theory being that they are caused by just enough
 >> rationality, of a possibly mistaken nature.
 >
 >Just enough to result in suicide being the second leading cause of
 >death among teenagers who have not yet reached their reproductive
 >prime.  What's your idea of "just enough"?
 
 When the universe was designed, nobody asked me how much is enough.
 
 >here's that theory of rationality I was talking about, and
 >which I know you are just dying to see.  (actually not, since it is
 >obvious you have been hoping against hope to lightly dismiss me as
 >a crackpot).
 
 I try to express opinions on people's theories and statements without
 judging them as individuals -- this is a tough game we're in together.

  There's much in what you write about I find interesting, that some
 explanation of rationality might relate to morality.  However, as I
 said before, it's a long throw from any of this to the statement that
 this or that physical theory is necessitated on any kind of moral
 basis.

 >While I have endeavored to
 >employ the model to represent both the valuative and cognitive
 >profiles we might expect to see if evolutionary theory is
 >correct, it should be apparent that there is a considerable
 
 >    Not only are ___we___ more
 >altruistic than our theory predicts ...
 
 Then get another theory, one that at least allows for variation.
 
 > ... (Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, war heroes), ...
 
 Hmm, maybe get another pronoun!

 >  ... but we are also a species racked with
 >emotional instability, most of which I believe can reasonably be
 >construed as resulting from a deficiency in self-worth.
 
 I think I prefer a theory that allows for stable worthlessness.

Joshua Stern
[email protected]