Yes Randy! I agree but,
I did say Descartes was a dualist.
Descartes had to keep one eye on the Boss and the other on the Job.
Of course being of ex convict stock myself, I should know all about that.
The conditions of the time: Roman Catholic rule, was such, that pursuing any
theories of the mind, could make one really dead or like Peter Abelard; lose
the family jewels.
Now to Copernicus! who was a crafty so n so: he produced his book on his
death bed and left it to poor ole Galilao to carry  the can later: Galileo
nearly lost both: the family jewels and  his life. He should have listened
to Descartes.
Closer to home: when poor old Jobsy rushed back to collect the bits and
pieces: he now admits he "missed", he got fired from his own business.
Life really can be a bitch sometimes: why can't philsophers be allowed to
tell the truth.
Descartes was forced by religious Policy to reduce everything corporeal to
mechanics according to Aristotles Physicus and Metaphysicus: Schollastic
Policy, introduced by Thomas Aquinas was upheld by the sword. The criterian
of truth.
Alan Kay inherited this Cartesian philosophical tradition.
Alan gave to Rank Xerox and now to Apple/Disney what Descartes gave to the
Catholic church: Political loyalty and no trouble.
Put him to the test and you will get mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm silence.
If only we could predict and invent a perfect future, with perfect freedom
of speech.
In the meantime We all have bills to pay.
Ciao
Justin
PS Thanks Randy! As we say downunder "Yer a dinky di sport"

Galileo
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761557587
Copernicus
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761571204
Abelard
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761562792
Descartes
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761555262
Aristotle
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761557129
Thomas Aquinas
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761577720

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Siler" <rsiler at u.washington.edu>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Cc: <g.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency


> Huh????
>
> I think Descartes was trying to find something that could be known with
> absolute certainty from which he could use the method to construct a
larger
> and certain view of the world. This seems to me pretty clear in The
> Meditations. He starts out recognizing how we can be deceived and step by
> step takes it to the logical extreme (where the evil genius is stimulating
> what might be simply a brain in a vat) and in the end realizes that even
> then "when I doubt, I necessarily exist at least as a doubting thing."
>
> I think this can't be reasonably denied. It's pretty tough to see how
anyone
> could not be sure that in questioning whether one exists, one must exist.
> He may not have been as successful extending the groundwork, but the
> foundation is pretty impressive.
>
> > From: "Justin Walsh" <jwalsh at bigpond.net.au>
> > Reply-To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 05:41:37 +1000
> > To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> > Cc: <g.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl>
> > Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency
> >
> > Hi Alan
> > "I think" that the point is grossly being lost here.
> > First; Decartes,  father of the enlightenment, was a "mechanist". His
> > dualist theories, expressed in the "cogito ergo sum": "I think,
therefore I
> > am" is proven incorrect.
> > To replace "think" with "experience" does not change that fact. This
"mode"
> > of argumentation is  called  "word smithing".
> > Please study the whole expression again from the "point of view" of the
"I"
> > that is doing the thinking.
> > The above expression is only half of the syllogism. Look for the Major
which
> > expresses the "unity of the concepts"         ie the Idea itself.
> > Transcend the Minor and the Consequent!
> > Therein lies the clue: Logic of Transcendence.
> > Transcendent logic
> > Analytic logic
> > Synthetic logic
> > none
> > Sorry! I could not let that one pass without comment.
> > Justin
>
>
>