[continued from previous message]   
      
   > that's listening and talking back.  (Pretty strong evidence, I find.)   
   >   
   > If someone /rejects/ an axiom I came up with or a definition I wrote,   
   > then there's likely little friendship there.  Friendship exists when   
   > people go along with you without judgment.  Rejecting /or accepting/   
   > anything is judgment, which is not friendship.  When someone proposes me   
   > anything, I look at it without accepting it or rejecting it.  (Unless   
   > I'm a really bad mood!)   
      
   There is a theory of truth called the consensus theory of truth. Sounds as if   
   that might be what you are thinking about?   
      
   >> Agreed! But boy have I had endless email discussions with people who   
   >> reject the proof of their senses.   
   >   
   > Excessive refinement in thinking?  They want a kind of super assured   
   > certainty?  I think that's a waste of time.  It's not a waste of time to   
      
   So do I. In 2500 years no such thing has been found, so I am quite happy and   
   content to accept what my senses tell me. ;)   
      
   > care for your math proofs, say, or removing bugs from your programs and   
   > so on.  But rejecting the senses as in I don't know if really exist or   
   > I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.   
   > That's when thought escapes from the leash.   
      
   Agreed! That is why I do not care much for interpretations of quantum theory as   
   well. Plenty of thoughts escaping from the leash there, and plenty of useless   
   (in my opinion) speculation.   
      
   >> I did a lot of good, of course, but his theories about dream   
   >> interpretation and the psyche I think are no longer relevant. On the   
   >> other hand, I am not a psychologist, so who am I to say? =)   
   >   
   > Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help   
   > you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really   
   > would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that   
   > nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.   
      
   I find the Dodo effect quite facsinating. It says that it is not the school of   
   psychology that makes a difference in therapy, but only the person.   
      
   >>> A beg your pardon?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.  A   
   >>> counterfactual is something that goes against the facts.  Surely.  I   
   >>> could never deny that 1 + 1 = 2, say.  I can't even ignore evidence.  I   
   >>> don't mind leaving questions open at all.  Every now and then it's a   
   >>> good idea to hang a question mark on all those things we've long taken   
   >>> for granted.  (Is that Bertrand Russell again?)   
   >>   
   >> Not quite. Counterfactuals are questions such as... "imagine you ate an   
   apple   
   >> this morning, would that mean that later in the day you would have a stomach   
   >> ache". So when those types of thought experiments are not made with the   
   >> intention of high lighting something tangible or empirically provable, I   
   find   
   >> them to be useless idle speculation. That's what I was trying to get at.   
   >   
   > Oh, I see.  We're in total agreement.  I think counterfactual   
   > propositions are useless distractions.   
      
   Excellent! There has been a meeting of minds! ;)   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)