This message went to cypherwonks. Eric ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The issue here is epistemology.
There would be no problem if I asked a tentacle, `are you a pseudonym' and it answered `yes'.
This is exactly like the question "Are you a liar?", to which the answer is always "no".
But the cypherpunks are setting up a network of fake sites and identities and continue to claim, to the very end, `yes, I am real' with their fake identities.
When I am accused of saying "I am real" from the mouth of a fake identity, and I deny this accusation, there are two models of reality which satisfy the words exchanged: -- I am using a fake identity, and I am lying to deny it. -- I am not using a fake identity, and am telling the truth to deny it. When confronted by a barrage of continuing accusations to which no answer is possible, I prefer to remain silent. I can gain no benefit from discourse in this situation and can only waste my time and the time of my correspondent. The usual way to break out of this 'solipsism of the dialogue' is to invoke a social mechanism, that is, ask someone else. Under a belief of widespread impersonation, however, all denials are now presumed to come from the original speaker of the first denial. Thus the solipsism of the dialogue expands to a solipsism of all dialogues.
Cypherpunks, please tell me what question I can ask of a psychopunk tentacle such that it will not lie and say that it is a real person! If you have any honesty or credibility, tell me that question!
There is no such question, as I argue above. Am I dishonest if I cannot exhibit the nonexistent? Eric