Subject: IFETS-Discuss 2nd summary (a complete learning environment) -Reply
From: Dennis Nelson (NELSOND@ny-smtp.army.mil)
Date: Mon 10 Apr 2000 - 15:35:34 MEST
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 09:35:34 -0400 From: Dennis Nelson <NELSOND@ny-smtp.army.mil> Subject: IFETS-Discuss 2nd summary (a complete learning environment) -Reply
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On two issues related to the 2nd Summary: truth and the role of
technology:
The source of truth either is God, nature or something else. Whatever
the source, by definition truth doesn't change or it isn't truth. Also, a
truth covers all dimensions of existence: physical and spiritual. Truths
that have survived thousands of years of attempts to be disproved
probably have a good bet of being true (how long was the earth flat?).
e.g., We get what we sow. Certainly true for physical seeds. Certainly
true for how we treat others. If anyone can prove it untrue for even one
example, it's no longer a truth.
The role of technology is to enable us to disseminate "truth" to more
people more quickly and subject the "truth" to the experiences and
research of more people than previously possible. In this way, flat
earths can more quickly be discarded and real truths either more readily
accepted or better modeled and repeated. All truths then must fit
together and not violate each other, otherwise conditions would exist to
make at least one case of a truth no longer true, and thus not a truth.
One way to tell truths from other than truths is that consequences won't
go away. Someone can argue we don't get what we sow, but as long
as we do get what we sow, we have a truth. Our framework for truth
is our survival as individuals, as a society, as a world. Otherwise of
what value is the truth? If anything posited as a truth violates our safety,
it's probably an untruth. e.g., murder is okay in some societies because
truth and right and wrong are situationa. That threatens our existence.
If murder is okay somewhere, who gets to decide where, and when?
Who decides when the limits can be expanded: as to whom and
geographically? And how long before only the decider(s) is left?
Most truths withstand or fall to good old common sense and logic. There
seems to be a relatively simple number of truths of which combinations
explain all that is and happens.
Dennis
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Mon 10 Apr 2000 - 23:58:45 MEST