Some Principled Answers
Magnus Kempe
rationalisations of anti-capitalist slogans. I shall not reply to
each one. I shall only answer to "principled" arguments [if you think
I am "unjustly" ignoring your argument, re-read it, and see if it
is principled.]
-----
Irek Defee writes that "many rights have to be considered only with
accompanying obligations and consequences": where do rights come from?
are man's rights natural rights, or are they obtained by favor [from
God, society, next-door people, the president, the king, the tribe] ?
If man's rights are natural, i.e. inherent in man's nature, then there
are no obligations, there is only the requirement of his own nature to
respect each other man's rights, there is the unavoidable fact that
reality can not be faked -- there is no obligation towards anyone,
save himself.
-----
Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes that "society" is an entity, much in
the same way as individuals are entities: but "society" as such is made
up of individuals. If you recognize man's free-will, you cannot
ascribe any "interest", "benefit", or "will" to "society". That is what
I mean when I write that "society" is not an entity, but is only a
group of individuals.
Further, in answer to my asking him to prove his assertion that
"a consequence of Laissez-Faire Capitalism economy is that those
that have will have more. That is in the very nature of capitalism.",
Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes
"I can't, and you can't prove the contrary"
You mean you *feel* like saying it, even though you can't show it
is true? You can't prove what you said, because it is not true. In
Laissez-Faire Capitalism, those who *work* will have more than those
who *don't*. _That_ is the nature of capitalism. Now, if you object to
that, give me proofs, not assertions. And if you object to the principle
that man has to work in order to sustain his life, please explain
what shortcuts are available.
-----
Several people have a problem differentiating guns from voluntary trade.
A slave is forced to act, not according to his reason, but according
to the whims of some gunner. Man is a being of volitional consciousness,
and his means of survival is his faculty of reason, which allows him
to understand reality, and to act in accordance to reality. A slave is
prevented from using his faculty of reason in order to discover what
course of action is appropriate for his life. That is what the
initiation of force does, that is what a gun is used for by a statist,
by a criminal, by an irrational man: preventing man to lead a rational
life.
Voluntary trade is possible only to rational men, because the only
reason they would engage in trade is that it is to their mutual
advantage. Again, the difference between a gun and $1, is that the
former prevents man from using reason, and the latter demands that
he use reason. The latter conforms exactly to man's nature: a being
of volitional consciousness, whose chief virtue is his rationality.
-----
Richard Caley wonders whether punishment *is* self-defense: of course,
it is self-defense according to objective laws.
Further, he writes that
"The right to life is not about action, it is about existance."
Nope. Life is not static. It is a matter of process, more precisely
of self-generated and self-sustaining actions. That is why man needs
his senses and his faculty of reason, because he needs to know in
what kind of world he lives, and what kind of actions are good for
his life. If you integrate this, you will understand that this is
where ethics starts, that this is man's standard of values: his own
life.
-----
Christian Murphy writes that "a free market implies perfect information":
not at all. A free market *allows* each single man to act upon the
wealth of information he acquires and understands. It is rationality
that demands of each man to act in perfect accordance with his
reason's judgment.
Further, he asserts that "there is always interference". That is
definitely not a necessity. The fact that there is interference
everywhere you're looking, does not imply that a different kind
of economy is not possible: the metaphysical is given, but *not*
the man-made.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
(please use the above address, as my mailer is often unreliable)
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes that "society" is an entity, much in
>the same way as individuals are entities: but "society" as such is made
>up of individuals. If you recognize man's free-will, you cannot
>ascribe any "interest", "benefit", or "will" to "society". That is what
>I mean when I write that "society" is not an entity, but is only a
>group of individuals.
I maintain that you can! One example is burocracy (or whetever the
spelling is..). Burocracies have a tendency to expand no matter what
the individuals working in it personally think is reasonable. If you
fail to realise this, there will be many problems of society you can
never address since you cannot accept that they exist.
>Further, in answer to my asking him to prove his assertion that
> "a consequence of Laissez-Faire Capitalism economy is that those
> that have will have more. That is in the very nature of capitalism.",
>Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes
> "I can't, and you can't prove the contrary"
>
>You mean you *feel* like saying it, even though you can't show it
>is true? You can't prove what you said, because it is not true. In
>Laissez-Faire Capitalism, those who *work* will have more than those
>who *don't*. _That_ is the nature of capitalism. Now, if you object to
>that, give me proofs, not assertions.
In contrast to you, I am aware of, and I do not try to hide, that my
opinions are just that - opinions based on my observation of
contemporary society and of history - not laws of nature.
> ...And if you object to the principle
>that man has to work in order to sustain his life, please explain
>what shortcuts are available.
Here we go again. Of course I don't. Obviously you have to eat. That
is a truism. Some individuals can just as obviously get along without
working if others feed them. That is also a truism.
This is the last posting I am going to make in reply to you in this
discussion. As long as you believe that your views are absolute truth
and can't accept that other peoples views are as valid as yours, we
have nothing more to say to each other.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, as my mailer is often unreliable)
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Magnus Kempe
: In contrast to you, I am aware of, and I do not try to hide, that my
: opinions are just that - opinions based on my observation of
: contemporary society and of history - not laws of nature.
An opinion has no value. A judgment has, because of the power of
man's faculty of reason. Use it, and drop your unsubstantiated
opinions.
: [...] As long as you believe that your views are absolute truth
: and can't accept that other peoples views are as valid as yours, we
: have nothing more to say to each other.
Is reality an absolute? Is man's mind capable of grasping reality?
You are right, there are some people's views which I do not accept.
For instance, I do not accept the wishes of an ambitious thug, I do
not accept the "epistemological view" that you can't be sure of
anything.
Check your premises.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
(please use the above address: my mailer gives unreliable information)
Irek Defee
>Irek Defee writes that "many rights have to be considered only with
>accompanying obligations and consequences": where do rights come from?
>God, society, next-door people, the president, the king, the tribe] ?
One can equally well say that man's rights are obtained from
God or even granted by society. I see this more as an ideological
base for theorizing about rights. General concept of rights is rather
new and, e.g., religious, economic, human etc. rights or freedoms were
enacted by societies quite recently. In fact they were enacted after
perception of the violation of some rights became evident. Before
this, nobody was even realizing that the rights were violated.
>If man's rights are natural, i.e. inherent in man's nature,
Continuing above, what is natural and inherent to man's nature?
Things which presently are natural were not looking so in the past.
Slavery and women rights are good examples. Racial theories are
another example - it is natural for their proponents that various
races are not at the same level of development.
>then there
>are no obligations, there is only the requirement of his own nature to
>respect each other man's rights.
Respecting each other man's rights leads to the necessity of thinking
about consequences and obligations of individual rights.
>The principle is: I am not by brother's keeper; if he wants to smoke a
>cigaret, to drink whisky, to smoke crack, to jump from the Eiffel
>tower, I am not going to forbid him to do it.
Certainly. And basing on your unlimited production right you can make good
bussiness by selling crack to teenagers, weapons, mass poisons, atomic bombs,
offer suicide kits, because you don't mind what other will do using them.
>Egoism. You're right. I live for my own sake. And contempt, that is
>what irrational men deserve. Fortunately, there are some rational,
>egoist men.
So all your relations to other individuals of the same species
(society does not exist according to you) are exclusively of
buying-selling and bussiness type... I understand that you pay and
must be charged too - is this a nonprofit, balanced or highly
profitable operation?. For example, how much you will charge your
progenity, if any, for producing it? Or you prefer better not to go
into such a risky long-term investment where it is hard even to make
legal agreement because the product is produced before is able
to sign for repaying?.
>reality can not be faked -- there is no obligation towards anyone,
>save himself
Provided that you are productive you can always buy everything.
Only material things thus exist or you can buy also some nonmaterial
stuff too?
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
These premises can be derived from sociobiology. Individuals are only
hardware envelope for genes. Genes are the ulitmate source
of egoism since their chemistry forces them to maximize their
proliferation rate. What to do with the genetic material which is losing
the "productivity" competition? To develop further your philosophy,
notice that there are some methods to speed up its elimination ...
Irek Defee de...@tut.fi
Tapani Tarvainen
>I do
>not accept the "epistemological view" that you can't be sure of
>anything.
Why don't you accept it? You have asked for proofs several times,
could you prove that you *can* be sure of something?
>Check your premises.
I would like to know yours. The most fundamental ones, like:
>Is reality an absolute? Is man's mind capable of grasping reality?
The way you pose these questions suggests you find the answers
obvious. I do not: I think your reality resides in your mind.
If you disagree, what proof do you have?
I think it should be obvious that if we dig deep enough we'll always
encounter beliefs - premises if you prefer - that are arbitrary, based
on emotions, feelings or something equally unprovable, "irrational".
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarv...@jyu.fi, tarv...@finjyu.bitnet)
Magnus Kempe
attempted insults. Try to control your emotions, and to understand
the implications of what you write] writes:
: One can equally well say that man's rights are obtained from
: God or even granted by society. I see this more as an ideological
: base for theorizing about rights. General concept of rights is rather
: new and, e.g., religious, economic, human etc. rights or freedoms were
: enacted by societies quite recently.
Have you ever read Aristotle? The American Declaration of Independence
and the American Constitution? You are right in equating God and society:
if man's rights are his by some entity's favor, then there is nothing
to talk about, man is just a puppet, at the mercy of that entity.
What was revolutionnary about the American Revolution was the Founding
Father's view of man as a being of volitional consciousness, i.e.
the view than man's ideas are chosen, not deterministically imposed
by God, society, the King, or the tribe.
The Founding Fathers chose to create a society where the government
held a power limited by the constitution, not by the ruler's whims.
That was the closest we ever came to a capitalist society. That was
what lead to the creation of the American Wealth: the recognition
of man's nature, which lead to the recognition of his rights.
: Continuing above, what is natural and inherent to man's nature?
: Things which presently are natural were not looking so in the past.
Has man's nature changed during the last thousand of years? No.
He is, was, and will continue to be a being of volitional consciousness.
Because *that* is his nature. Man's nature is an absolute.
: So all your relations to other individuals of the same species
: (society does not exist according to you) are exclusively of
: buying-selling and bussiness type...
You almost got it. I trade values with individuals. There are many
kinds of values to be traded, because each individual chooses his
own values...
: These premises can be derived from sociobiology.
False. [if you disagree, don't just say "yes, they can". Show
how you derive them. The onus of proof is on you.]
: Individuals are only
: hardware envelope for genes. Genes are the ulitmate source
: of egoism since their chemistry forces them to maximize their
: proliferation rate. What to do with the genetic material which is losing
: the "productivity" competition? To develop further your philosophy,
: notice that there are some methods to speed up its elimination ...
Keep this kind of ad hominem arguments where it belongs. Your
development is *not* *mine*. The source of egoism is man's
nature (see above). If you still don't understand, I'll put it
in plain words: genes do not have a volitional consciousness,
man has.
Your implied accusation of my propagating ideas leading to the
concept of "a superior race" is insulting. I have never held nor
voiced any such ideas. Do you know that insults are not arguments?
Again, control your emotions -- because emotions are not primaries,
they are consequences of your premises. When emotionally overwhelmed,
check your premises.
Kimmo Saarinen
>Lars-Henrik Eriksson writes:
>: In contrast to you, I am aware of, and I do not try to hide, that my
>: opinions are just that - opinions based on my observation of
>: contemporary society and of history - not laws of nature.
>
>An opinion has no value. A judgment has, because of the power of
>man's faculty of reason. Use it, and drop your unsubstantiated
>opinions.
Have I got you right : you judge and the other ones have only opinions ?
You have used you ability and skill to reason and you got a judgement ?
As I have followed this discussion you have expressed only opinions and
asked proofs while you haven't given any. And now you can ask how did
I get this judgment.
>
>
>: [...] As long as you believe that your views are absolute truth
>: and can't accept that other peoples views are as valid as yours, we
>: have nothing more to say to each other.
>
>Is reality an absolute? Is man's mind capable of grasping reality?
Is man's mind absolute ? Your reality is absolute to you, but not
necessary to others. (My OPINION :) Every man constructs his/her
view to the world around him/her, s/he judges different kind of
situations, relationships and circumstances according his/her own
values and thus gets his/her reality. Everything is processed in
you brains from the born till today (except the case you are a god :-),
but how you can be sure that your values are right ?
>You are right, there are some people's views which I do not accept.
>For instance, I do not accept the wishes of an ambitious thug, I do
>not accept the "epistemological view" that you can't be sure of
>anything.
The question was if you accept the different opinions as valid as
yours, but forget that ...
>
>Check your premises.
The same with you ...
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address: my mailer gives unreliable information)
- Kimmo
--
Kimmo Saarinen ! e-mail ki...@vtsai2.sai.vtt.FI
Technical Research Centre of Finland ! Tel. +358 31 163 357
Medical Engineering Laboratory ! Fax 174 102
P.O.BOX 316, SF-33101 Tampere, Finland ! ... completely mad ...
Kimmo Saarinen
>
>: One can equally well say that man's rights are obtained from
>
>Have you ever read Aristotle? The American Declaration of Independence
>and the American Constitution? You are right in equating God and society:
>if man's rights are his by some entity's favor, then there is nothing
>to talk about, man is just a puppet, at the mercy of that entity.
You do have your Bible and religion ! You belive to the American
Constitution etc. and you base you arguments on those, do you ?
This can be derived from :
>What was revolutionnary about the American Revolution was the Founding
>Father's view of man as a being of volitional consciousness, i.e.
>the view than man's ideas are chosen, not deterministically imposed
>by God, society, the King, or the tribe.
>
>The Founding Fathers chose to create a society where the government
>held a power limited by the constitution, not by the ruler's whims.
>That was the closest we ever came to a capitalist society. That was
>what lead to the creation of the American Wealth: the recognition
>of man's nature, which lead to the recognition of his rights.
>
>: Continuing above, what is natural and inherent to man's nature?
>: Things which presently are natural were not looking so in the past.
>
>Has man's nature changed during the last thousand of years? No.
>He is, was, and will continue to be a being of volitional consciousness.
>Because *that* is his nature. Man's nature is an absolute.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's it. But where did the man get his volitional consciousness ?
From God ? Can he really controll his consciousness according his
OWN free will ? Can you explain then why the commercials are so effective ?
You statement raises quite many questions, but can you proof you statement.
>: So all your relations to other individuals of the same species
>: (society does not exist according to you) are exclusively of
>: buying-selling and bussiness type...
>
>You almost got it. I trade values with individuals. There are many
>kinds of values to be traded, because each individual chooses his
>own values...
So he chooses his own values, can you then explain how he get them ?
I think (it is obvious) that the values in his mind don't
pop out from nowhere, empty space or something like that but they
develop during upbringing and thus they depends on the environment
where he lives, its values and so on. I don't say that the values of
the individual are equal to the ones of the environment, they can differ
quite radically, but still the basis is the same. How can you otherwise
explain why we people think so differently in different cultures ?
>The source of egoism is man's
>nature (see above). If you still don't understand, I'll put it
>in plain words: genes do not have a volitional consciousness,
>man has.
But we still grow guided by the genes, we are what our genes are
plus our consciousness. Can you then tell us where the consciousness
comes from ? This is a hard question and I don't even expect that
you can answer to that, but as I have understand you base your
argumentation on the 'volitional consciousness', which is still an open
question. Who has power on the 'volitional consciousness' has power
on the man, if the 'volitional consciousness' can't be manipulated
then the man's nature is absolute. Man = genotype + environment.
BTW. You can't consider man only as a being with reason, it also is
a being with emotions. Think that.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
The line is as weak as the weakest link, also with the reasoning.
Kimmo Saarinen
>
>: One can equally well say that man's rights are obtained from
>
>and the American Constitution? You are right in equating God and society:
>if man's rights are his by some entity's favor, then there is nothing
>to talk about, man is just a puppet, at the mercy of that entity.
You do have your Bible and religion ! You belive to the American
Constitution etc. and you base you arguments on those, do you ?
This can be derived from :
>What was revolutionnary about the American Revolution was the Founding
>Father's view of man as a being of volitional consciousness, i.e.
>the view than man's ideas are chosen, not deterministically imposed
>by God, society, the King, or the tribe.
>
>The Founding Fathers chose to create a society where the government
>held a power limited by the constitution, not by the ruler's whims.
>That was the closest we ever came to a capitalist society. That was
>what lead to the creation of the American Wealth: the recognition
>of man's nature, which lead to the recognition of his rights.
>
>: Continuing above, what is natural and inherent to man's nature?
>: Things which presently are natural were not looking so in the past.
>
>Has man's nature changed during the last thousand of years? No.
>He is, was, and will continue to be a being of volitional consciousness.
>Because *that* is his nature. Man's nature is an absolute.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's it. But where did the man get his volitional consciousness ?
From God ? Can he really controll his consciousness according his
OWN free will ? Can you explain then why the commercials are so effective ?
You statement raises quite many questions, but can you proof you statement.
>: So all your relations to other individuals of the same species
>: (society does not exist according to you) are exclusively of
>: buying-selling and bussiness type...
>
>You almost got it. I trade values with individuals. There are many
>kinds of values to be traded, because each individual chooses his
>own values...
So he chooses his own values, can you then explain how he get them ?
I think (it is obvious) that the values in his mind don't
pop out from nowhere, empty space or something like that but they
develop during upbringing and thus they depends on the environment
where he lives, its values and so on. I don't say that the values of
the individual are equal to the ones of the environment, they can differ
quite radically, but still the basis is the same. How can you otherwise
explain why we people think so differently in different cultures ?
>The source of egoism is man's
>nature (see above). If you still don't understand, I'll put it
>in plain words: genes do not have a volitional consciousness,
>man has.
But we still grow guided by the genes, we are what our genes are
plus our consciousness. Can you then tell us where the consciousness
comes from ? This is a hard question and I don't even expect that
you can answer to that, but as I have understand you base your
argumentation on the 'volitional consciousness', which is still an open
question. Who has power on the 'volitional consciousness' has power
on the man, if the 'volitional consciousness' can't be manipulated
then the man's nature is absolute. Man = genotype + environment.
BTW. You can't consider man only as a being with reason, it also is
a being with emotions. Think that.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
The line is as weak as the weakest link, also with the reasoning.
ks5...@rapola.tut.fi
>
>Check your premises.
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address: my mailer gives unreliable information)
- Kimmo
Magnus Kempe
I'll try to give some fundamental explanations.
Tapani Tarvainen writes:
: could you prove that you *can* be sure of something?
Yes. I am sure of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness.
Existence: existence exists.
Identity: a thing is what it is.
Consciousness: existence exists and has an identity that I am conscious of.
These are axiomatic concepts. You can not claim anything without using them.
That is the basis for all our knowledge, with certainty. [And the negation
of one or the other of these axiomatic concepts is at the root of all
irrational philosophies.]
: [asks me to state my most fundamental premises, like]
: >Is reality an absolute? Is man's mind capable of grasping reality?
:
: I think your reality resides in your mind.
: If you disagree, what proof do you have?
The evidence of the senses. All knowledge is ultimately based on
perceptions. Reality exists independently of man -- claiming the
opposite would negate the identity of existence; try it.
: I think it should be obvious that if we dig deep enough we'll always
: encounter beliefs - premises if you prefer - that are arbitrary, based
: on emotions, feelings or something equally unprovable, "irrational".
Nope. Emotions are not primaries. They are integrated indicators of
your consciousness, i.e. they are consequences of your premises. If
you choose good premises, and integrate non-contradictory knowledge,
you know you may trust your emotions [but you should always be able
to reduce them to your fundamental premises.] The primaries of your
knowledge are the three axiomatic concepts and the evidence of your
senses.
Magnus Kempe
: You do have your Bible and religion ! You belive to the American
I don't have faith in it. I have read it, and judged it according to
my premises. I don't believe, ever. Besides, you quoted me out of
context. Irek wrote that the concept of man's rights was recent,
and a product of society. That was why I asked him whether he had
read Aristotle and the American Constitution.
: >Because *that* is his nature. Man's nature is an absolute.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: That's it. But where did the man get his volitional consciousness ?
That is not relevant. The *fact* that man is a being of volitional
consciousness is an epistemological axiom. What free will is based
upon is a scientifical question that does not invalidate the existence
of free will. Each man can verify that he has free will, by intro-
spection [and then infers that other men also have it, because they
are of the same nature.]
: [man's values] develop during upbringing and thus they depends on
: the environment where he lives, its values and so on.
Of course. But each man is free to choose his own values, be it from
values his friends have or from values he discovers himself.
: But we still grow guided by the genes, we are what our genes are
: plus our consciousness. Can you then tell us where the consciousness
: comes from ?
No, but I can tell you that you are able to choose your premises,
values and actions, because of the identity of your consciousness.
Similarly, atoms exist, they have an identity that we are conscious
of, and we don't have to know where atoms come from for that kind
of knowledge. We might be interested in knowing where they come
from, but that ignorance doesn't invalidate their existence.
Kimmo Saarinen
>I'll try to give some fundamental explanations.
>
>Identity: a thing is what it is.
>Consciousness: existence exists and has an identity that I am conscious of.
>
>These are axiomatic concepts. You can not claim anything without using them.
>That is the basis for all our knowledge, with certainty. [And the negation
>of one or the other of these axiomatic concepts is at the root of all
>irrational philosophies.]
Yes, these are the axioms that you use. I can agree with them. But the
question is how to use them. You can't derive from those axioms nothing
without adding some axioms and theorems too. How to call that partial
consciousness : existence exists and has an identity that I am partly
conscious of ? Is this situation valid ? Can I act based on this partial
consciousness ? Yes I can while there is no contradiction with other
things in that context.
>: (Tapani Tarvainen)
>: [asks me to state my most fundamental premises, like]
>: >Is reality an absolute? Is man's mind capable of grasping reality?
>:
>: I think your reality resides in your mind.
>: If you disagree, what proof do you have?
>
>The evidence of the senses. All knowledge is ultimately based on
>perceptions. Reality exists independently of man -- claiming the
>opposite would negate the identity of existence; try it.
The reality, the *absolute* reality exists but we humans are not
completed enough to realize it a whole, we only have our own views to it.
We have constructed a incomplete view from the absolute reality using
incomplete ability to process the information filtered by our incomplete
senses. Can you explain how we can get the completeness from incompletenesses
using incomplete means and methods ? You are working on computers and you
understand the sentence 'carbage in garbage out', do you ? We are getting on
and we know more and more in a whole but still we don't know everything.
>: I think it should be obvious that if we dig deep enough we'll always
>: encounter beliefs - premises if you prefer - that are arbitrary, based
>: on emotions, feelings or something equally unprovable, "irrational".
>
>Nope. Emotions are not primaries. They are integrated indicators of
>your consciousness, i.e. they are consequences of your premises. If
>you choose good premises, and integrate non-contradictory knowledge,
>you know you may trust your emotions [but you should always be able
>to reduce them to your fundamental premises.] The primaries of your
>knowledge are the three axiomatic concepts and the evidence of your
>senses.
Senses can fail, there can be things behind our senses and the fundamental
premises about man can deal with our existence, the continuum of our
existence and the requirements for that continuum. All the other
premises are additional.
Kimmo's first law :
You know more when you know that the possibility of the
incompleteness of your knowledge is bigger than you may know. :-)
But in many cases it doesn't matter.
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
We live in a incomplete world with an incomplete mind, we are humans.
Kimmo Saarinen
>It may happen when you are informed with carefully selected pieces of
>information or using your unconsciousness.
I correct that unconsciousness to subconscious, I couldn't cancel the previous
article so forgive me.
Irek Defee
>>context. Irek wrote that the concept of man's rights was recent,
>>and a product of society. That was why I asked him whether he had
>>read Aristotle and the American Constitution.
>
>in many way depended on the context, it may be days, years or thousands
>of years. But I'm sorry about the quotation.
I was misunderstood. I said (or tried) that origin of man's rights is
fuzzy concept: one can say that they are given by God are the product
of society or are inherent to man's nature. By some clever
manipulation of words one can arrive at the same conclusion that man
is volitional consciousness or absolute. The concept of man's right
was evolving in the past. Perhaps even in Stone Age somebody was
already theorizing about rights (imagine people sitting around big
fire and talking about the voiltional consciousness which they noticed day
before while hunting for a mammooth since they could chose between
killing it or not :-). But perception of rights was not the same then
- enough to mention women and slaves. Modern concept in
American Constitution is recent for me. Before it got prevailing
acceptance (on the status of an 'obvious thing') about 200 years passed.
Still, the concept of rights is culture-dependent also. Look
for some rights in teocratic islamic countries. Thus, something which
is obvious for us is not obvious for other people and clearly, to a
much greater extent, was not so in the past. (Was not it so that the
right to vote and be elected in FFathers American Constitution was property
dependent?, How about various Amendments?). Taking another example,
the animal rights can be extended so in the future, (especially when
artificial meat will be produced :-) that in the perception of future
generations we shall be looking like barbarians. In the same vein,
transforming of human beings by genetic engineering looks terrible
at present and there is attitude to prohibit it. In the future, if
this will look like having natural conveniences (like brain-in email
box with eunet.politics going directly to consciousness :-),
it may get a status of a basic personal right.
Irek Defee de...@tut.fi
PS. I added some :-) since this discussion is getting too-dead-serious :-)
Kimmo Saarinen
>: You do have your Bible and religion ! You belive to the American
>: Constitution etc. and you base you arguments on those, do you ?
>
>I don't have faith in it. I have read it, and judged it according to
>my premises. I don't believe, ever.
I doubt it (that you don't believe anything), because you trust you
premises and believe that they are the *truth*. I will explain this
later.
> Besides, you quoted me out of
>context. Irek wrote that the concept of man's rights was recent,
>and a product of society. That was why I asked him whether he had
>read Aristotle and the American Constitution.
Sorry, I noticed that too, but still : the term 'recent' can be interpreted
in many way depended on the context, it may be days, years or thousands
of years. But I'm sorry about the quotation.
>
>: >Because *that* is his nature. Man's nature is an absolute.
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: That's it. But where did the man get his volitional consciousness ?
>
>That is not relevant. The *fact* that man is a being of volitional
>consciousness is an epistemological axiom. What free will is based
>upon is a scientifical question that does not invalidate the existence
>of free will.
Yes, I can agree with that. But it doesn't define or explain the nature
of the free will and that's why, as I am concerned, you can't derive the
statement '' man's nature is an absolute '' from that axiom.
>Each man can verify that he has free will, by intro-
>spection [and then infers that other men also have it, because they
>are of the same nature.]
Yes, I agree. But using analogy from my standpoint : I have noticed
while observing me myself and other people around me that the 'free
will' depents on the context. That is : you use of 'free will' is
limited by the context to the possible alternatives that you can choose
from. The context can be wide or narrow depending on the upper contexts.
The context can be influenced also by the other people and their contexts.
You can have the unlimited 'free will' only if you are totally independed
from everything (which is impossible : you have to have food for existence
for example).
>: [man's values] develop during upbringing and thus they depends on
>: the environment where he lives, its values and so on.
>
>Of course. But each man is free to choose his own values, be it from
>values his friends have or from values he discovers himself.
But do you really know, when you discover you own values yourself, that
they are not influenced by the values of someone else ? Roughly saying
you can be fooled to 'discover you own values' without knowing it yourself.
It may happen when you are informed with carefully selected pieces of
information or using your unconsciousness.
>: But we still grow guided by the genes, we are what our genes are
>: plus our consciousness. Can you then tell us where the consciousness
>: comes from ?
>No, but I can tell you that you are able to choose your premises,
>values and actions, because of the identity of your consciousness.
Yes, I am able to choose them but in what extend. You premises can
work out in ideal world but not in the reality because the reality is
far more complex than your premises enables. If the man's nature is
an absolute then we can work on it. It can be an absolute, but
*we don't know* man's nature well enough. Knowing without
knowing is a paradox, nothing more. This is your weak point.
>Similarly, atoms exist, they have an identity that we are conscious
>of, and we don't have to know where atoms come from for that kind
>of knowledge. We might be interested in knowing where they come
>from, but that ignorance doesn't invalidate their existence.
Yes, but without knowing their nature we can be misguided when we use
them if you understand what I mean. We can build up fine systems based
on the axioms but only when we *know* they are valid. Do we know ? Or
do we believe that we know ? Or do we only belive ? Can you see my point ?
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
A man alone is nothing, with another man he can realize what he can be.
Irek Defee
>Your implied accusation of my propagating ideas leading to the
>concept of "a superior race" is insulting.
I have not in any way been implying that you propagate such ideas.
But I implied that your ideas may have a direct consequence in someone
arriving at such ideas. Since you don't associate rights with their
consequences as I am, you propagate ideas freely and I turn attention
to their possible consequences. Let me repeat the whole argument: You put
all people into a total, no mercy, 'productivity' competition and I am
worried (although this emotional word does not exist for you) about
perspectives of drop-outs of the competition, because by your axiom
they don't have any right to consume anything. On a deeper level,
I treat your theory as yet-another-simple solution to all economic and
social problems. At present, I think, is better to assume that there
are no simple solutions to complex things and what looks simple is
only by illusion of simplicity with underlying structure almost
infinitely complex.
>What was revolutionnary about the American Revolution was the Founding
>Father's view of man as a being of volitional consciousness, i.e.
>the view than man's ideas are chosen, not deterministically imposed
>by God, society, the King, or the tribe.
>
This is another theorizing since the founders were using religious
motivation too. One can say equally well that man got soul and free
will from God and is free because of this. One can say also that man
is God's subordinate and should listen his orders. Making a game
of words can justify almost everything. The only revelation about man
is its ability to generate and acquire ideas and be changed by them
forever. The ideas for which people were dying in the past
were good, bad, tragic and funny. But mostly people accepted ideas
which were convenient for them at the moment. So you are right that
>The Founding Fathers chose to create a society where the government
>held a power limited by the constitution, not by the ruler's whims.
And next they generated some justification for this. At the same time they
have not recognized women rights since that was not looking natural
for them. Slavery still exsted etc.
>That was the closest we ever came to a capitalist society. That was
>what lead to the creation of the American Wealth: the recognition
>of man's nature, which lead to the recognition of his rights.
That is partially true with many other additional things to add.
There were constitutions similar to American adopted in many other
countries and wealth was not created. I don't see however why
pure capitalism is a doctrine to be valid forever.
>Has man's nature changed during the last thousand of years? No.
>He is, was, and will continue to be a being of volitional consciousness.
>Because *that* is his nature. Man's nature is an absolute.
But the perception of rights was progressing gradually. American
Constitution is ~200 years, but in Deep South desegregation was
introduced in 50's, since this right was looking abnormal and was
incoonvenient for majority of non-black people living there. If man's
nature is absolute then it is a complex absolute - able for good and bad.
>If you still don't understand, I'll put it
>in plain words: genes do not have a volitional consciousness,
>man has.
We are getting into more and more clumsy things here. Man does not exist
without genes so consciousness is somehow related to them and possibly
many other things. Strict separation of these notions leads to nowhere.
Maybe we better look onto such issues as complex dualities with many
faces and outlook depending on observational conditions, including the
state of observer. What we presently know from hard sciences is that
physical dualities really exist. Its time to accept that dualities exist on
philosophical and social level, and that we can't imagine them completely and
simple solutions for them do not exist. Your views are then only one-point-
of-view, rough approximation in the spirit of XIX century mechanics.
But their apparent simplicity could have misleading attractiveness for
many which are not enough doubting...
Irek Defee de...@tut.fi
Lehrstuhl fuer Mathematik D
> : I think your reality resides in your mind.
> : If you disagree, what proof do you have?
>
> The evidence of the senses. All knowledge is ultimately based on
> perceptions. Reality exists independently of man -- claiming the
> opposite would negate the identity of existence; try it.
And perceptions are absolute? Independent of perception organs? Independent
of brain structure? -- No!
Experiments show that cats grown in an environment witch is only
vertically structured are unable to recognize horizontal structures
later. Apply this to human perception. This applies to the perception
organs as well as to the parts of the brain doing the primary interpretation
of perceptions. And dont't tell me it's impossible to apply this to
the 'advanced' perceptions of abstracts like ideas and theories.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
What the hell are those premises?
Oliver Bonten
Please don't reply to the above adress. Use F...@DACTH51.BITNET instead.
Richard Caley
>rationalisations of anti-capitalist slogans.
No there are quite a number of conrete bound rationalisations of
capitalist slogans too. Mentioning no names, of course :-)
>Voluntary trade is possible only to rational men, because the only
>reason they would engage in trade is that it is to their mutual
>advantage.
Yet another patent absurdity. People can be quite irratrional and still
recognise when something is to their advantage. In fact, were this not
the case there would be much less problem with irratioanl people, since
being incapable of trade they would rapidly starve to death. . .
>Richard Caley wonders whether punishment *is* self-defense: of course,
>it is self-defense according to objective laws.
Objective law????
Name one. Just one. Any would do. Give me one law which we can be sure
is without any subjective element. Now there are some platonists about
who would be prepared to back some parts of mathematics as objective,
but we are talking politics and sociology here . . .
>Further, he [me- rjc] writes that
> "The right to life is not about action, it is about existance."
>Nope. Life is not static. It is a matter of process, more precisely
>of self-generated and self-sustaining actions.
A person who cannot act is still aliove and still has a right to his
life.
>That is why man needs
>his senses and his faculty of reason, because he needs to know in
>what kind of world he lives, and what kind of actions are good for
>his life. If you integrate this, you will understand that this is
>where ethics starts, that this is man's standard of values: his own
>life.
It may be a hole in my education, but my mathematics classes never
included any method of integration which would take new-age liberatarian
waffle and turn it into a definite result.
>Christian Murphy writes that "a free market implies perfect information":
>not at all. A free market *allows* each single man to act upon the
>wealth of information he acquires and understands. It is rationality
>that demands of each man to act in perfect accordance with his
>reason's judgment.
Which is beside the point. A free market still demands perfect
information ( in the game theory sense ) since without this it is
possible to enforce monopoly constraints.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, as my mailer is often unreliable)
A suggestion. If you wish anyone to take you seriously you really should
elucidate these premises. So long as you chatter away hiding the
assumptions you are making you will sound like an idiot, since most of
your statments are totally baseless as far as the rest of us are
concerned.
To introduce an americanism, "Put up or shut up". State your premises or
stop waisting everyone's time and money. Once you have done this we can
either argue within your assumptions ( which I am quite prepared to do
since one set is as good as another ) or we can argue against them. As
it is all we can do is pick out inconsistancys in your conclusions
without knowing if these are the results of simple errors while writing
the article or if they reflect a deeper problem with what you are
saying.
Copy them out of Atlas Shrugged if you have to . . .
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.edai " It's a terrible habbit, quotes "
- Mayland Long
Richard Caley
In article <21...@erix.ericsson.se> eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
>Is reality an absolute?
Arguable.
>Is man's mind capable of grasping reality?
No, hands grasp. Minds, might, form images.
If we assume for the moment that your mind is tied in some way to your
brain then its only access to reality as a stream of neural signals.
Consider, how do you know I exist? Maybe I am the person at the next
terminal pretending to be someone in Edinburgh. Maybe I am just noise on
someone's disk . . .
>I do
>not accept the "epistemological view" that you can't be sure of
>anything.
Then you are at odds with just about all of science and mathematics for
a start. Do you feel comfortable with that?
>Check your premises.
I do, all the time. I get the strong impression that you never do.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address: my mailer gives unreliable information)
--
r...@uk.ac.ed.edai "There is no such thing as society"
- Our Lady of the Icecream
Tim Hopkins
>understand the sentence 'carbage in garbage out', do you ?
Surely there's a typo here? I think you mean "cabbage in garbage out",
which anyone with a kitchen disposal unit can verify :-).
Tim Hopkins, Department of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh, JCMB,
King's Buildings, Mayfield Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland.
t...@ecsvax.ed.ac.uk ...!mcvax!ukc!ed.ecsvax!tmh +44 31 667 1081 Ext 2748
Magnus Kempe
it is relevant, as the concept of man's nature has to be defined
and agreed upon before engaging in any political discussion.
Kimmo Saarinen writes:
: The reality, the *absolute* reality exists but we humans are not
: completed enough to realize it a whole, we only have our own views to it.
Knowledge with certainty does not entail omniscience. Man is able to
have knowledge, about reality. There is only one reality, by definition.
To deny this, you would have to deny axiomatic concepts (see below.)
: We have constructed a incomplete view from the absolute reality using
: incomplete ability to process the information filtered by our incomplete
: senses. Can you explain how we can get the completeness from incompletenesses
: using incomplete means and methods ?
What are "incomplete senses"? What kind of completeness are you looking
for? Knowledge with certainty is possible, because the three axiomatic
concepts Existence, Identity, and Consciousness *are* knowledge with
certainty, and form the basis for all other knowledge (as I already
said, all irrational philosophies were based on the attempt to
reject these axiomatic concepts: but they nevertheless used them,
although they didn't acknowledge it -- you may try it for yourself.)
: Senses can fail, there can be things behind our senses and the fundamental
: premises about man can deal with our existence, the continuum of our
: existence and the requirements for that continuum. All the other
: premises are additional.
If you are talking about things that are "beyond" existence, I am not
interested: they can not have any effect on any existent, thus they
can not have any effect on me and my life.
If you claim that there are things that exist but that we cannot perceive,
I will have to ask you how you know that (if we can not perceive some
entity, then that entity has no effect on any existent, thus that
entity does not exist. And I said "perceive", not "sense" -- perception
applies to effects, not causes.)
Existence exists. You cannot reject that -- you would need existence for that.
A is A. You cannot reject the law of identity -- without ascribing an
identity to any existent.
Consciousness is conscious. Another axiomatic concept that you
cannot reject, because your attempted rejection would imply your
being conscious.
This is the basis for our knowledge, with certainty.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar
to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
-- Hugh Akston, in _Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand
Magnus Kempe
: [...] At present, I think, is better to assume that there
: are no simple solutions to complex things and what looks simple is
: only by illusion of simplicity with underlying structure almost
: infinitely complex.
Man's condition is not to be helplessly facing complex "things".
Man has a wonderful tool that allows him to think: his conceptual
faculty. I'll give you an example: a human being is extraordinarily
complex, however we have a word, man, that allows us to talk about
human beings -- whether they have existed, exist, or will exist. Is this
concept simplistic?
: [...] Slavery still exsted etc.
*If* you had read the American Constitution, you would have known
that the Founding Fathers did set a date to end slavery. But you
wouldn't bother to seek for any information, would you? Life is
too complex (especially when one refuses to gain knowledge.)
: There were constitutions similar to American adopted in many other
: countries and wealth was not created.
Well, these constitutions were *similar*, but there was something
lacking. I'll leave it for you to figure out *what*.
: [...] What we presently know from hard sciences is that
: physical dualities really exist. Its time to accept that dualities exist on
: philosophical and social level [...]
Nope. Physical dualities do not exist -- there is no proof of that. Some
irrational physicists have come up with irrational explanations of
their observations, but that is because they reject the laws of identity
and causality. Not all physicists subscribe to this kind of mysticism,
fortunately.
Kimmo Saarinen
>Kimmo Saarinen writes:
>: >That is not relevant. The *fact* that man is a being of volitional
>: >consciousness is an epistemological axiom. What free will is based
>: >upon is a scientifical question that does not invalidate the existence
>: >of free will.
>:
>: Yes, I can agree with that. But it doesn't define or explain the nature
>: of the free will and that's why, as I am concerned, you can't derive the
>: statement '' man's nature is an absolute '' from that axiom.
>Your notion of free will -- or volition -- is not correct. Man has
>free will in that he may choose to focus his mind or not.
Okey, let's agree with the latter.
>His free will is not to choose among many various alternatives: it is
>to choose to think, or not ...
(still two possible alternatives, once again, in *that* context)
>... ; once he has chosen to think, he may evaluate
>his surrounding and his knowledge ...
(surrounding which is not necessarily at all constructed by himself)
>... -- if he doesn't choose to think, he
>merely reacts, based on his emotions/his friend's slogans/etc, i.e.
>based on unknown premises (consequences of earlier evasions of his
>choice.)
>The identity of free will is: man's available choice to focus his
>mind or not.
This raises a question at once : what is the mechanisms that quides his
choice ? They availability of choice doesn't quarantee the use an the way
of using it.
>: [...] You premises can
>: work out in ideal world but not in the reality because the reality is
>: far more complex than your premises enables. If the man's nature is
>: an absolute then we can work on it. It can be an absolute, but
>: *we don't know* man's nature well enough. Knowing without
>: knowing is a paradox, nothing more. This is your weak point.
>
>Do you claim that man's nature can not be known, or that you don't
>know it? If the latter, that doesn't prevent other men from knowing
>it. If the former, how do you know that?
I don't claim that man's nature can not be known, I don't claim either
that man can't know it, but I claim that we don't know it yet. It seems
to me that you claim that you know the man's nature. Do you know or
do you know without knowing ?
As I have learned by my observations and thinking that if you want
to know with certainty you have to have exact view to the
*relationships* between the observed things to explain their nature
and inter-affections, you can't be on the same level with the observed
things or otherwise you get interferences to you observations. And
I am aware of that that I might be wrong.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
- Kimmo
Magnus Kempe
: [I wrote]
: >consciousness is an epistemological axiom. What free will is based
: >upon is a scientifical question that does not invalidate the existence
: >of free will.
:
: Yes, I can agree with that. But it doesn't define or explain the nature
: of the free will and that's why, as I am concerned, you can't derive the
: statement '' man's nature is an absolute '' from that axiom.
Your notion of free will -- or volition -- is not correct. Man has
free will in that he may choose to focus his mind or not. His free
will is not to choose among many various alternatives: it is to choose
to think, or not; once he has chosen to think, he may evaluate his
surrounding and his knowledge -- if he doesn't choose to think, he
merely reacts, based on his emotions/his friend's slogans/etc, i.e.
based on unknown premises (consequences of earlier evasions of his
choice.)
The identity of free will is: man's available choice to focus his
mind or not.
The physical process behind free will is not known, but that does
not invalidate our introspective knowledge of our having free will.
: [...] You premises can
: work out in ideal world but not in the reality because the reality is
: far more complex than your premises enables. If the man's nature is
: an absolute then we can work on it. It can be an absolute, but
: *we don't know* man's nature well enough. Knowing without
: knowing is a paradox, nothing more. This is your weak point.
Do you claim that man's nature can not be known, or that you don't
know it? If the latter, that doesn't prevent other men from knowing
it. If the former, how do you know that?
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Richard Tobin
>irrational physicists have come up with irrational explanations of
>their observations, but that is because they reject the laws of identity
>and causality. Not all physicists subscribe to this kind of mysticism,
>fortunately.
I've had the impression for some time that Randroids reject parts of
modern physics - for example, they find the Uncertainty Principle a
little worrying.
Since we seem to have a real live Randroid on eunet at the moment,
perhaps he would care to explain the objectivist view on this.
>"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar
> to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*."
Just what I was hoping to hear. I'm just waiting for someone who doesn't
believe in the Uncertainty Principle to prove it by building a better
electron microscope. It should be very profitable...
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, JANET: R.T...@uk.ac.ed
AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.a...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
Morna J. Findlay
...The usual stuff, followed by:
>
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Advice sought from the net: How can I put "anything sent by
Magnus kempe" in my Kill file? Doesn't this man ever do any work?
M
Morna J. Findlay JANET: mo...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!morna
Edinburgh University ARPA: morna%lfcs.e...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: 031-667-1081 Ext 2807
Jeff Dalton
Prove it. Axioms are supposed to be self-evidently true. These
so-called axioms aren't.
>That is the basis for all our knowledge, with certainty. [And the negation
>of one or the other of these axiomatic concepts is at the root of all
>irrational philosophies.]
Well, that's interesting, because acceptance of all of them also
seems to be the basis of an irrational (though reason worshiping)
philosophy, namely Ayn Rand's Objectivism, which is what Magnus
seems to be preaching
Jeff Dalton
Maybe it only looks like one has free will.
Jeff Dalton
Prove it. Axioms are supposed to be self-evidently true. These
so-called axioms aren't.
>That is the basis for all our knowledge, with certainty. [And the negation
>of one or the other of these axiomatic concepts is at the root of all
>irrational philosophies.]
Well, that's interesting, because acceptance of all of them also
Mikko Katajam{ki
> Existence: existence exists.
> Identity: a thing is what it is.
> Consciousness: existence exists and has an identity that I am conscious of.
Poor Magnus. This debate seems to be of no use, but still I can't help
myself:
If you state that: "a thing is what it is" as a fact then you forget
totally the most important question: WHAT is a thing. Thus you fail.
Sorry.
I'll explain: If there is a thing A and you are consciuos that it has a
property B. But still, you can't deny that the same thing A might have
property C that YOU are not AWARE of but I am and so Your conscious of
thing A is different from my conscious of it. So we disagree but we
still could both be right. (in the area of our awareness).
Then, what shapes up individuals awareness is very complicated and
not at all measurable thing. But this you cannot admit.
--
Mikko Katajam{ki # e-mail: m...@steks.oulu.fi
Dept. of elec. eng. #
University of Oulu #
SF-90570 Oulu, Finland # "Few of my opinions are my own"
Richard Myers
> necessary to others. (My OPINION :) Every man constructs his/her
> view to the world around him/her, s/he judges different kind of
> situations, relationships and circumstances according his/her own
> values and thus gets his/her reality. Everything is processed in
> you brains from the born till today (except the case you are a god :-),
> but how you can be sure that your values are right ?
1) Depending on what you mean by absolute, no, man's mind is not absolute.
That is, our mind changes. This change can be called learning if it is
based on experience.
2) However, reality is absolute. I will not try to support this rigoursly
except to point out some observations. If reality where not absolute then
learning would be nearly impossible. As we grow and learn we build a model
of the world that (while not perfect) is a good approximation to reality.
If reality where not fixed then our approximations would be hopelessly
futile. When was the last time you observed an inconsistency in reality?
Those that exist can be explained by a lack of understanding not a lack of
consistency. Scepticism of reality is a very slippery slope. If you reject
an absolute reality then you reject certainty of anything connected to it.
3) That leads to the last question: "How can you be sure your values are
right?" I would answer this by saying that one must learn values through an
observation of reality. This does not exclude learning from interpretations
of reality (for example, a book on philosophy), but in the end reason must
be tied to observation. We do not live in our head (or in shadows on a cave
wall).
I can tell you my interpretation of reality, you can tell me yours, but at
the end of the day reality will be the judge of who is right. If I say that
in "Richard's Reality (tm)" humans can fly, then my life will probably end
quite violently. This fact is independant of my beliefs.
> The question was if you accept the different opinions as valid as
> yours, but forget that ...
I do not see any reason to accept different opinions as valid unless I am
shown through reason and observation that those opinions represent a better
model of reality than mine. I also freely admit that I do not have (at
present) a perfect model of the world.
I believe the purpose of this board is to try and figure out (through
rational discussion) whose interpretation of reality is best. A dogmatic view
of the world does not contribute much but either does skepticism.
> - Kimmo
-- Richard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Never trust a person who can not | Richard E. Myers | My views are my own.
spell a word more than one way." | rmy...@stl.stc.co.uk | flames > dev/null
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Tobin
> I also freely admit that I do not have (at present) a perfect
> model of the world.
Ah, well that's where you differ from the Randians...
Keith Dancey
>Nope. Physical dualities do not exist -- there is no proof of that. Some
>irrational physicists have come up with irrational explanations of
>their observations, but that is because they reject the laws of identity
>and causality. Not all physicists subscribe to this kind of mysticism,
>fortunately.
Ha! Ha! You blithering ignoramus.