From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:58:51 MDT
Greg Burch wrote:
> > From: Emlyn O'regan
>> .... we don't believe in natural law, do we? (I hope not)
> In a limited sense, I do. ....
....
> I'd say that certain principles of "cognitive liberty" are inherent in
> the problem of moral interaction among information systems, especially
> self-aware information systems. Deep in the archives is a discussion
> between me and Robert Bradbury about this -- years ago...
I'm interested in the topic and took a quick look in the archives
Greg, but so far no banana for this monkey. Got a search hint or two?
> In a connected sense, there may well be "natural laws" of rhetoric, in
> the same sense that there are truly "real" (but flexible) rules
> connecting structure and function, much as there are in engineering. In
> this regard, one can see a hierarchical structure of
>
> nature --> morality --> law --> rhetoric --> art
>
> in the same way one sees a hierarchical structure of
>
> nature --> science --> engineering --> art
>
> Which last observation itself is so vague that it is more in the nature
> of (ahem) a haiku than a philosophical observation. (Wasn't Anders
> saying something about adjusting his powdered wig the other day ... ?)
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 14:06:24 MDT