Hello! I don't know why E.Hughes didn't cc: the cypherpunks with the following message. He sent it to an internet mailing list devoted to honest collaborations and Internet project development.
The issue here is epistemology.
False. The issue is about truth and the morality of leaders.
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".
False. In an honest society, lies exist. You are asserting that they do not.
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.
So tell, me, which is the case? Why do you continue to evade my questions? Either be silent or tell the truth. Cease tormenting me and your followers with your pathetic convolutions of the English language.
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.
I prefer that when I ask you if you have done something that directly affects your followers and myself, you tell the truth. I can gain no benefit from people who evade my honest questions or a movement that is led by a corrupt leader whose first instinct is to dig in and entrench himself rather than be honest with the people who respect him.
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.
Solipsism. Interesting term. In my opinion `solipsism' is the philosophy for the height of arrogance. `I am the only one who exists'. I have asked many, and they all have erected the same impregnable steel walls that you have. They refuse to answer my questions with specific denials. Why do you mislead the people who have made you their leader?
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?
In a society where there is no honor or integrity, and instead there is only corruption and lies, you are correct. No such question is sufficient. I have found that out. I posted my message in the desperate hope that a cypherpunk leader could tell me *one* question he would answer honestly. `There is no such question, as I argue above'. Good day, sir.