> On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Nathaniel Hall wrote:
>
> > > > Why must it be so? Do you keep the axiom regardless of the
> evidence
> > > to
> > > > the contrary?
> > >
> > > You do if you're an Objectivist! :-)
> >
> > With what non-sense do propose to counter the evidence of the
> senses?
>
> What experiment would satisfy you, Nateman? What is we did an
> experiment
> and got different results based not on the phenomena being observed,
> but
> on the nature of the observer? Would that show that results are
> dependent
> on the observer *and* the observed?
>
I suppose at this point your going to throw some quantum mechanics my
way. Is that your plan here?
> > To say the earth is round is to imply that 1) something exists out
> > there in which to know2) We found some way to learn about it. What
>
> > Realm do you find yourself in?
>
> The one that finds tautologies useless.
>
> > > The universe doesn't give #@%$ about axioms, Nateman, it has much
> > > better
> > > things to do with its time. Axioms are human creations, nothing
> more.
> > >
> > > And they retain many of the same failing of all human creations.
> >
> > So we are in agreement then! The universe must out there (I.E.
> > Objective) in order for it not to give a #@%$ about us or to do
> better
> > things with its time!
>
> "Existence exists" proves nothing else in Objectivism. "Existence
> exists"
> is also central to Shamanism. Do you believe that as well?
I've only glanced at it in the posts here. I don't know enough about to
give it any justice.
>
>
> > > > You have two choices :do contradictions exist or do
> > > > contradictions not exist.
> > >
> > > There are always more than two choices. You may be denied access
> to
> > > some
> > > of them by your own choice of words, however.
> >
> > So then Professor enlighten me: what is a third choice?
>
> Contradictions exist in some settings and not others. Dualism is
> seldom
> an accurate depiction of the real world.
That just a restatement of the first one. You only need one or more
contradictions to make contradictions exist. If A does not equal A even
once then what is the limit on what A is? How can it happen just once
but never again?
>
Are you saying objectivism splits up mind from reality?
> > > > If one assumes contradictions do exist as in
> > > > the thought experiment one needs go no further. Reason , logic
> > > argument
> > > > is all pointless. One doesn't have to make sense. Anything goes.
>
> > >
> > > This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT! And you have failed to make it
> > > convincingly, Nateman!!!
> >
> > Since we cannot even agree on existence existing that does not
> surprise
> > me.
> >
> > > If one assumes contradictions can exist, why is reason
> pointless?
> >
> > 2+2=5 that sounds reasonable now doesn't it? After all it's only a
> > contradiction!
>
> I included all this to show you that you failed to answer the
> question.
> Obviously just an over site. I'm sure you're not side-stepping the
> issue.
>
I'm not. It was a humorous example of reason being thrown out because
contradictions were accepted. I like to use a joke sometimes because in
order to get the joke you have to come to the conclusion yourself, the
most effective way of getting a point across if you can make it work. I
could have used any ridiculous expression in the first part of the joke
and and claim it as reasonable because accepting contradictions means
you can't throw something out just because it is a contradiction.
> > > (Ever heard of fuzzy logic?) Why doesn't one have to make sense?
> Why
> > > does anything go?
> >
> > If I said the moon was made out of green cheese and inhabited by
> angry
> > packs of red pokka-dotted lawyers , that may contradict with what
> you
> > think the moon really is, but since contradictions are valid and
> good,
> > who are you to say any different?
>
> See above. For having found "the Absolute Truth" you seem awfully
> afraid
> to address a few simple questions, my good Nateman
It is addressed. I proposed a patently silly idea as an example of
something in which "Anything goes" Even if the idea is patently silly
like the one I used. If one accepts contradictions as valid what means
can you use to dismiss it ? You can claim that it contradicts common
sense to accept such gibberish but if one accepts the rule "contradicts
are valid" then since this gibberish contradicts common sense it's
valid. I don't have a "not equal" sign on my keyboard. Allow me to use
"#" as the symbol for "not equal" : Contradictions exist implies A#A
and A=A.ThereforeGibberish # common sense and Gibberish = common sense.
Notice the right side if the equation here.
> .
>
> > > These are non-sequiturs and they employ the same thinking that
> > > Christians
> > > use when they say, "If there's no God, one needs go no further.
> > > Reason,
> > > logic, hope, it's all pointless! One doesn't need to have
> ethics. If
> > > there is no God anything goes!"
> >
> > What are non-sequiturs your talking about? You lost me here.
>
> This:
>
> Objectivism:
> 1) if the universe is not objective
> 2) than everything is meaningless, pointless and up for grabs
>
> Christianity:
> 1) if there is no God
> 2) than everything is meaningless, pointless and up for grabs
>
> Show me how 1) follows from 2) in your example, but not in the
> Christians,
> if you could. I'm very interested.
I never use the phrase meaningless. My claim is that reason is
invalidated if contradictions exist and that I can claim anything I want
to in a universe in which contradictions exist. However as to the
Christians the universe is a reflection of the mind of God. He can
change his mind at anytime so the Christian universe is a subjective one
not an objective one. It is one in which contradictions can exist. God
in this case can do anything he desires or make any reasonable
explanation of something invalid by a simple mysterious flick of his
whim. You get line 2) if god exists, not if he doesn't. (For meaningless
and pointless substitute the phrase "reason is invalid")Tread lightly
here fellow. Your ideas are much closer to the Christian Side than are
mine!
>
> > > Why does the objectivity or non-objectivity of the universe imply
> > > these
> > > conclusions any more than the presence (or not) of a "God"?
> >
> > Again you lost me. what conclusions are you writing about here?
>
> For being grounded in the senses you get lost a lot, Nateman. Maybe
> your
> *map* is at fault, and not the terrain.
>
Well you didn't get my jokes. I strive to understand reality as it
really is, not as I feel it should be. That means asking dumb questions
until I'm satisfied I got it right. Looking like a fool is sometimes the
price you pay not being a fool.
> As for conclusions, see above (meaningless, pointless, et al)
>
> > > Indeed, especially since the real world is full of contradictions
> (at
> > > least the world I live in, I can't speak for yours).
> >
> > So in your world ice freezes at 100 C and water boils at absolute
> zero?(
> > Only on odd days when the moon lawyers are cutting the cheese. Am I
> > right?)
>
> Just because contradictions exist does not mean *everything* is
> contradictory. A very limited approach from one as wise as you. Just
>
> because green cheese exists, does that mean *everything* must be made
> of
> green cheese.
>
In short contradictions exists means both A=A and A#A. See equations
above
> > > Again, that is not a proof. I say "A=A is contradictory by its
> very
> > > nature". Does that make it so? Why do you get to pull axioms out
> of
> > > your
> > > ass and I can't mine? ;-)
> >
> > Because I'm right and your wrong ! :-)
>
> HA HA Hahahahahahahahahahha!!!!!!!!!
>
> I love you Objectivists! You're such fun!!!
>
> So, despite all your talk of objective reality and proofs and
> what-not, it
> all boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong", huh?
>
> Sorry, Nateman, I got tired of that game around, oh, say... third
> grade?
> How old are you again?
Actually it is a good summation of both our arguments. Besides I
thought it was funny even if you don't catch the humor or the point in
my jokes all the time.
>
>
> > > Whether that internal
> > > consistency
> > > jives with the rest of the universe is always (you guessed it)
> > > subjective.
> >
> > Jiving with the rest of the universe. Hummmm , does that mean
> there's
> > some universe out there in order to jive with?
>
> Whether or not there is, does not imply your impression of it is
> necessarily an accurate one. No, Identity does not follow from
> Existence.
> DHR has tried to make that point, but you don't seem willing to prove
> how
> Identity must follow from Existence for him. Will you for me?
>
> > > Now, just because you have this nifty set of axioms, why should I
> > > think
> > > yours are any more valid than the Christians?
> >
> > . Aristotle figured it out. Did Aristotle
> > or his contemporaries figure out christianity?
>
> No, Zeus and Mount Olympus. So Objectivists believe in the Greek
> Pantheon, huh? Real old-school of you guys! My complements!!!
Sure but that's not what Aristotle believed in. Is there have any
followers of Zeus today? You make my point for me, that is, one can
still figure out my axioms but Zeus is now out of the picture.
>
>
> > > Such is the stuff of dreams--coming up with decent ideas to
> explain
> > > the
> > > results of experiments. So of us call that dream Scientific
> Theories,
> > > however.
> >
> > And what do you call nightmares?
>
> Objectivism.
>
I should have saw that one coming. Zing!
> > > > This is so. But it is true regardless. It's axiomatic. Truly
> > > axiomatic
> > > > and not just something that I claim to be so.
> > >
> > > Hahahahahahhaahahahha!!!!!
> >
> > Hahahahahahhaahahahha!!!!! Yourself! (Insert picture of tongue
> sticking
> > out here)
>
> Ahhh! Now were getting somewhere....
>
> > If something has a definite existence (objectivity) then how can it
> be
> > anything else than what it is?
>
> But "what it is" is the point in question. Or more to the point,
> "what we
> can know about what it is".
>
> > If it was something and something else at
> > the same time doesn't that seem contradictory to you?
>
> Wave or particle, Nateman? Wave or particle?
Depends on the set up of the experiment, not the viewer, as the
subjectivist types would have us believe. When you get particles in an
experiment set up for particles and then without changing anything you
get waves the next time around , then come talk to me.
>
>
> There are just some things in which your experience alone can convince
>
> you. If you really believe that A equals A I'll admit I'm powerless to
>
> convince you otherwise. Only the knife edge experience of many
> realities
> cutting into your false premises is going to convince you otherwise.
> But
> since you don't believe in things beyond your limited senses why don't
> you
> give me all your love, devotion, trust, mystery, hope, etc since they
> are
> just figment of your imagination and not "real". I'm sure I can put
> them
> to REAL use.
>
> -Prof. Tim
I think on this point it would just be best if we agreed to disagree.
The Nateman