Stathis, thanks for your reply, but my two points in return are:
1. to the list-appearance remark: I did not miss the 'responses', I missed
the list-mail CONTAINIG my post. Whether there is a response is of course up
to the (non?)respondents. I don't "require" such.
2. in the thread: I wonder if your logic is straightforward, if you don't
have an understanding about a "very complicated" system, a fault in it will
NOT clear up your underestanding. I agree that in medical 'sciences' there
is a widely used practice of studying the sick and drawing conclusions on
the healthy, but that does not mean that I should accept it as the right
method. You can draw true conclusions from the 'faults' if you know the
unfaulted system. Otherwise you just guess. Maybe guess right
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 1:42 AM
Subject: Re: John Conway, "Free Will Theorem"
> John Mikes wrote:
> >it is always dangerous (wrong!) to mix deviated cases (sick patients)
> >the general (non sick) human (behavioral etc.) concepts.
> >One thing is even worse: to draw conclusions of such.
> I disagree with this, in general. In medical science, in particular, one
> the most common means of progress in understanding normal physiology has
> been the study of pathological cases. If you have a very complex system,
> a fault develops, if you can trace and understand the fault, then you
> understand at least one small part of the system.
> >I wrote some comments in this thread lately and did not see them being
> >included in the list-posts. Am I banned from writing to the list?
> John, of course your comments are welcome on the list. It is easy to think
> that you are being ignored when nobody replies to your post, but that is
> necessarily the case. The posts that get most replies seem to be the ones
> that say something provocative, controversial, or just plain wrong:
> loves a good argument! It could simply be that everyone agrees with you if
> you have no replies. For example, I don't think anyone specifically
> to George Levy's post on this thread, which I thought was very well
> and I completely agreed with.
> --Stathis Papaioannou