Browse Groups

• ... Prove it! ;-) ... OK. ... I do accept the Peano axioms (which I m well aware of) on faith . However, they seem to make sense , and using them one has
Apr 28, 2007 1 of 9
View Source
On Saturday 21 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> > > Oh. So you totally deny the value of a formed opinion.
> >
> > I do not.
>
> In my opinion you do :-)
>

Prove it! ;-)

> > > I guess you
> > > don't have a favorite color or a favorite dish either, because you're
> > > unable to prove that Sushi is better.
> >
> > I do. But such opinions are ammoral. Whether I prefer blondes or
> > brunettes (or both) or Perl or Python (or both), or prefer chocolate
> > icecream or vanilla icecream etc. is not a matter of Ethics. This is a
> > matter of taste, which varries according to many factors, and is useless
>
> Exactly
>

OK.

> > However, if someone thinks that 2 + 2 = 5 (i.e: [**] + [**] = [*****]),
> > then this opinion is illogical. It can be proven to be incorrect. He is
> > entitled to his opinion, but everyone can tell it's a lie.
>
> Can't argue with you on your math exercise. Just remember that what
> you take for granted (2+2=4) is based on a set of axioms [1], which
> you accept on faith.

I do accept the Peano axioms (which I'm well aware of) on "faith". However,
they seem to "make sense", and using them one has proven the rest of
arithmetics and number theory in a consistent fashion, and with no
contradictions so far. So I can accept them not based on "faith" but based on
intuition, proof-by-induction and practical science.

As you know it's impossible to prove that all objects on planet earth, without
intervention will try to go down. However, this is known to be the case by
induction from many experiments, and from general practice. So we can assume
it is the case.

>
> > Likewise, Randians believe that Ethics is a matter of logic and very
> > basic facts of existence like the biological nature of men and women.
>
> In that case I guess I am not a Randian, because I believe that ethics
> are derived from moral values and these have no logical basis, are not
> uniform across our society, other societies and along time. Actually
> that's not entirely true - there is some logic to moral values -
> having moral values enables our existence as a society.
>

OK.

As you know, one can think of several different systems of ethics. And in a
way, we can expect that they would vary in time as technology, economy and
philosophy progresses. However, as you know, sometimes people can poke large
holes within ethical systems, showing them to violate more basic, commonly
accepted assumptions (as I have shown for some of the Ethics proposed by Kant
and Kierkegaard). As such they can be rejected as false.

While I don't know the precise reasoning, Ayn Rand and later on Neo-Tech have
claimed to derive a set of absolute ethics using logic and very basic
assumptions. And I should note that what Neo-Tech says seems to "make a lot
of sense" to me, and I have concluded that it is a good and fully-integrated
system of ethics and a proper model of existence.

> > > I think that definition sucks. I don't accept it. In my reality
> >
> > In your reality? Arik, in my reality, I didn't receive this message of
> > yours and didn't reply. Sorry, but we share the same reality. Or else
> > interaction between us would be impossible.
>
> It's not either-or. Our realities overlap enough so we can converse in
> the same language. It does not overlap enough to agree on questions of
> the absoluteness of morality, so it seems.

The phyiscal world in which we live in is completely shared between us. (I
hope you agree to that). However, each of us have his own knowledge,
opinions, thoughts, mental baggage, etc. Some people believe Mao was a heroic
figure, but you and I both know he was a mass-murderer. (Which a grown-up
Chinese programmer I talked with, didn't know that is the case, because he
was never told that). While the facts still stand, everyone has a different
conception of reality. However, his conception of reality is not reality
itself, but a mere conception. (All of this avoiding some technicalities as
the fact that our mind is made of atoms, etc.)

>
> > > invalid. You are entitled to your own opinion. Saying that I am not
> > > entitled to one dismisses me in an offensive manner.
> >
> > Where did I say that you're not entitled to your own opinion? You are of
> > course. You are also entitled to think that 2+2=5, or that A = NOT(A) but
> > don't try to base a mathematical proof on it or mathematicians will laugh
>
> When did I ever try to prove it? Perhaps I made arguments but not all
> arguments are based in logics.
>
> > You have made a claim. You didn't prove this claim. Since it is without a
> > proof, and I have some counter-evidence (see my message to Nadav), I can
> > assume that this claim is false until I am given some evidence to prove
> > it. I can say such claims as "Perl does not scale to large codebases",
> > "All Arabs are evil", "Drugs be illegal", etc. but until I prove them,
> > they will remain as unproven. If you think otherwise, then you might as
> > well say that "Foreach A, A is true and NOT(A) is true", and become
> > all-knowing and get done with it.
>
> No. I simply deny your ability to arbitrate moral rules with logic.
>

OK. Well, I don't. If someone tells me "I think it should be OK to kill
people", then I could tell him "Fine, would you like it if I kill you?"
or "If I see you're killing too many people, then I'll kill you so you won't
end up killing me.". Thus, we're eliminating some falsified ethical rules
using logic.

> > Don't take it personally, you are entitled to think what you want, but
> > I'm also entitled to expect you to prove such claims. I won't accept any
> > claim without a good evidence, reasoning or proof. Unless, of course
> > claims like "I like Mint-flavoured Ice Cream the best", which are
> > ammoral, and a matter of taste.
>
> You are not entitled to expect me to prove it. I do not agree with you
> on your premise that it is either provable or disprovable.
>

What isn't provable or disprovable? Trying to guess: if someone makes a claim
that seems objective (rather than "I think..." or "I like...", etc.) then
either it is true, false, or cannot be demonstrated to be either true or
false. And it would be anti-intellectual to think this claim is meaningful
without demonstrating that it is indeed so.

Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on him.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

> -- Arik
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number#Peano_axioms

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
-- An Israeli Linuxer
• ... That make sense thing is where your subjective belief system comes into play. ... Well, one could construct a consistent system with different axioms and
Apr 28, 2007 1 of 9
View Source
On 4/28/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

> I do accept the Peano axioms (which I'm well aware of) on "faith". However,
> they seem to "make sense", and using them one has proven the rest of

That "make sense" thing is where your subjective belief system comes into play.

> arithmetics and number theory in a consistent fashion, and with no
> contradictions so far. So I can accept them not based on "faith" but based on
> intuition, proof-by-induction and practical science.

Well, one could construct a consistent system with different axioms
and still be practical. When you say "based on intuition" you're
actually saying 'based on what I *feel* or *believe* should be true
and correct'.

> As you know it's impossible to prove that all objects on planet earth, without
> intervention will try to go down. However, this is known to be the case by
> induction from many experiments, and from general practice. So we can assume
> it is the case.

This is not math, this is physics. As you well know our physics is
based on empiric study of the world. There is a theory that there
exists a force called gravity, it's pulling objects towards each
other, and the force is equal to G(M1xM2)/r^2. This formula was
derived empirically from (I think) the Kepler observations, and G was
defined to fit the observations.

There is no induction here. Induction is proof. What you have is
inference. You see two apples falling towards the ground and you
DEDUCE that the third apple will too. Contrary to popular belief,
these theories cannot be proven, they can only be very well
experimented with or disproven. You can say that from the many
experiments done in this field you infer that there is a force F=mg
pulling your object towards the ground. You cannot prove it by
induction. Let's try and see where that fails:

n=0 - let's drop apple#0... okay it fell with the predicted speed in vaccum.
n=1 - let's drop apple#1... okay it fell much the same way
but wait these experiments are unrelated, maybe experiment 1234 won't
work the same. Induction requires that you will be able to say
something about i-1 but when each experiment is independent you
cannot.

> As you know, one can think of several different systems of ethics. And in a
> way, we can expect that they would vary in time as technology, economy and
> philosophy progresses. However, as you know, sometimes people can poke large
> holes within ethical systems, showing them to violate more basic, commonly
> accepted assumptions (as I have shown for some of the Ethics proposed by Kant
> and Kierkegaard). As such they can be rejected as false.

Again you take something subjective like ethics and judge it
pseudo-objectively (rejected as false)

> While I don't know the precise reasoning, Ayn Rand and later on Neo-Tech have
> claimed to derive a set of absolute ethics using logic and very basic
> assumptions. And I should note that what Neo-Tech says seems to "make a lot
> of sense" to me, and I have concluded that it is a good and fully-integrated
> system of ethics and a proper model of existence.

Again with that 'make a lot of sense'; you proclaim your subjectivity
and still insist that the definition
is somehow objective. Come on.

> > It's not either-or. Our realities overlap enough so we can converse in
> > the same language. It does not overlap enough to agree on questions of
> > the absoluteness of morality, so it seems.
>
> The phyiscal world in which we live in is completely shared between us. (I
> hope you agree to that). However, each of us have his own knowledge,

Well, you forget that that alleged physical world is percieved by us
using nothing but our senses which are both fallible and go through
subjective filters, so any observation you might make about the
physical world might not be the same as one I make about it. And then
again it might.

I only see the world through my own eyes.

> opinions, thoughts, mental baggage, etc. Some people believe Mao was a heroic
> figure, but you and I both know he was a mass-murderer. (Which a grown-up
> Chinese programmer I talked with, didn't know that is the case, because he
> was never told that). While the facts still stand, everyone has a different
> conception of reality. However, his conception of reality is not reality
> itself, but a mere conception. (All of this avoiding some technicalities as
> the fact that our mind is made of atoms, etc.)

Oh? How do you "KNOW" that his view of reality is the false one and
yours is the true one? Do you have some ability to see reality in a
way that is radically different than his? Are you superman?

Have you ever met Mao? Did you ever chat? Did you form an opinion
through means other than history books and the internet? You make an
assumption about what's true and what's not based on not even your
senses (which as I claim before are fallible etc) but other people's
subjective thoughts and ideas put to print. Who said you're right?

There is more than one reality, Shlomi.

> > No. I simply deny your ability to arbitrate moral rules with logic.
> OK. Well, I don't. If someone tells me "I think it should be OK to kill
> people", then I could tell him "Fine, would you like it if I kill you?"
> or "If I see you're killing too many people, then I'll kill you so you won't
> end up killing me.". Thus, we're eliminating some falsified ethical rules
> using logic.

No you're not using logic. You're using your subjective judgment. That
man might say, yes, you can try to kill me, and if you fail and I kill
you I'll win, and if I fail and you kill me I'll be a Shahid and go to
heaven and have 77 virgins and still win, so live or die I win because
I'm a true believer and will go to heaven. If he says that I recommend
you kill him because his reality is probably dangerous to you. To this
person, killing you is moral because his subjective belief system sees
it as moral.

> What isn't provable or disprovable? Trying to guess: if someone makes a claim
> that seems objective (rather than "I think..." or "I like...", etc.) then
> either it is true, false, or cannot be demonstrated to be either true or
> false. And it would be anti-intellectual to think this claim is meaningful
> without demonstrating that it is indeed so.

It is true UNDER SOME ASSUMPTIONS, like 2+2=4 is true under the
assumption that you accept the axioms as true. This is the only way
you can prove anything.

> Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on him.

Well, I assume whatever I say is true and under this assumption
everything I said is true so there.

-- Arik
• ... Perhaps. But by that I meant that it seems to match my expectations. ... Right. ... Right. ... I m not talking about the so-called mathematical induction,
May 13, 2007 1 of 9
View Source
On Saturday 28 April 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> On 4/28/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > I do accept the Peano axioms (which I'm well aware of) on "faith".
> > However, they seem to "make sense", and using them one has proven the
> > rest of
>
> That "make sense" thing is where your subjective belief system comes into
> play.
>

Perhaps. But by that I meant that it seems to match my expectations.

> > arithmetics and number theory in a consistent fashion, and with no
> > contradictions so far. So I can accept them not based on "faith" but
> > based on intuition, proof-by-induction and practical science.
>
> Well, one could construct a consistent system with different axioms
> and still be practical. When you say "based on intuition" you're
> actually saying 'based on what I *feel* or *believe* should be true
> and correct'.

Right.

>
> > As you know it's impossible to prove that all objects on planet earth,
> > without intervention will try to go down. However, this is known to be
> > the case by induction from many experiments, and from general practice.
> > So we can assume it is the case.
>
> This is not math, this is physics. As you well know our physics is
> based on empiric study of the world. There is a theory that there
> exists a force called gravity, it's pulling objects towards each
> other, and the force is equal to G(M1xM2)/r^2. This formula was
> derived empirically from (I think) the Kepler observations, and G was
> defined to fit the observations.
>

Right.

> There is no induction here. Induction is proof.

logical induction of proving that a rule is correct from various inidividual
instances:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

> What you have is
> inference. You see two apples falling towards the ground and you
> DEDUCE that the third apple will too. Contrary to popular belief,
> these theories cannot be proven, they can only be very well
> experimented with or disproven. You can say that from the many
> experiments done in this field you infer that there is a force F=mg
> pulling your object towards the ground. You cannot prove it by
> induction. Let's try and see where that fails:
>
> n=0 - let's drop apple#0... okay it fell with the predicted speed in
> vaccum. n=1 - let's drop apple#1... okay it fell much the same way
> but wait these experiments are unrelated, maybe experiment 1234 won't
> work the same. Induction requires that you will be able to say
> something about i-1 but when each experiment is independent you
> cannot.

See above.

>
> > As you know, one can think of several different systems of ethics. And in
> > a way, we can expect that they would vary in time as technology, economy
> > and philosophy progresses. However, as you know, sometimes people can
> > poke large holes within ethical systems, showing them to violate more
> > basic, commonly accepted assumptions (as I have shown for some of the
> > Ethics proposed by Kant and Kierkegaard). As such they can be rejected as
> > false.
>
> Again you take something subjective like ethics and judge it
> pseudo-objectively (rejected as false)

I do not. I have proven that they are incorrect based on more basic
assumptions.

>
> > While I don't know the precise reasoning, Ayn Rand and later on Neo-Tech
> > have claimed to derive a set of absolute ethics using logic and very
> > basic assumptions. And I should note that what Neo-Tech says seems to
> > "make a lot of sense" to me, and I have concluded that it is a good and
> > fully-integrated system of ethics and a proper model of existence.
>
> Again with that 'make a lot of sense'; you proclaim your subjectivity
> and still insist that the definition
> is somehow objective. Come on.

I realise that if something "makes a lot of sense" it may not be correct. I'll
give you that. However, after having seen N-T criticised by other people
several times, and after I've understood why these criticisms were false, I
concluded that I still believe Neo-Tech is true.

>
> > > It's not either-or. Our realities overlap enough so we can converse in
> > > the same language. It does not overlap enough to agree on questions of
> > > the absoluteness of morality, so it seems.
> >
> > The phyiscal world in which we live in is completely shared between us.
> > (I hope you agree to that). However, each of us have his own knowledge,
>
> Well, you forget that that alleged physical world is percieved by us
> using nothing but our senses which are both fallible and go through
> subjective filters, so any observation you might make about the
> physical world might not be the same as one I make about it. And then
> again it might.
>
> I only see the world through my own eyes.

Well, as I see it, "The Truth is Out There". Objective reality exists. People
can be misled to believe something about it that is not true. And if they are
hallucinating or under hypnosis, etc. may believe something completely
different. However, the reality is still shared, and one can verify what
indeed happens or happened.

>
> > opinions, thoughts, mental baggage, etc. Some people believe Mao was a
> > heroic figure, but you and I both know he was a mass-murderer. (Which a
> > grown-up Chinese programmer I talked with, didn't know that is the case,
> > because he was never told that). While the facts still stand, everyone
> > has a different conception of reality. However, his conception of reality
> > is not reality itself, but a mere conception. (All of this avoiding some
> > technicalities as the fact that our mind is made of atoms, etc.)
>
> Oh? How do you "KNOW" that his view of reality is the false one and
> yours is the true one? Do you have some ability to see reality in a
> way that is radically different than his? Are you superman?
>
> Have you ever met Mao? Did you ever chat? Did you form an opinion
> through means other than history books and the internet? You make an
> assumption about what's true and what's not based on not even your
> senses (which as I claim before are fallible etc) but other people's
> subjective thoughts and ideas put to print. Who said you're right?
>
> There is more than one reality, Shlomi.
>

No, there is exactly one reality, and we all share it. We can probably never
be certain of what really happened or what are actually the facts, but we can
be sure that they are shared among us all. Either I have a copy of a book
called "How to Cook Everything" on my shelf next to me now, or I don't. You
can come to my house and verify it. Similarly, either Mao is responsible for
killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

> > > No. I simply deny your ability to arbitrate moral rules with logic.
> >
> > OK. Well, I don't. If someone tells me "I think it should be OK to kill
> > people", then I could tell him "Fine, would you like it if I kill you?"
> > or "If I see you're killing too many people, then I'll kill you so you
> > won't end up killing me.". Thus, we're eliminating some falsified ethical
> > rules using logic.
>
> No you're not using logic. You're using your subjective judgment. That
> man might say, yes, you can try to kill me, and if you fail and I kill
> you I'll win, and if I fail and you kill me I'll be a Shahid and go to
> heaven and have 77 virgins and still win, so live or die I win because
> I'm a true believer and will go to heaven. If he says that I recommend
> you kill him because his reality is probably dangerous to you. To this
> person, killing you is moral because his subjective belief system sees
> it as moral.

Well, I can tell him that he cannot be certain he'll go to heaven, and much
less that God is muslim. It is hard to believe the soul can persist without
the body, because whatever affects the body is registered in the mind. And it
is unlikely that God, assuming he indeed exists, favours the crazy and
subjective religious theories as put forth by most religions. (And if he
does - we're in deep trouble).

You cannot rely on anything that happens to you after death. Death is most
probably final.

>
> > What isn't provable or disprovable? Trying to guess: if someone makes a
> > claim that seems objective (rather than "I think..." or "I like...",
> > etc.) then either it is true, false, or cannot be demonstrated to be
> > either true or false. And it would be anti-intellectual to think this
> > claim is meaningful without demonstrating that it is indeed so.
>
> It is true UNDER SOME ASSUMPTIONS, like 2+2=4 is true under the
> assumption that you accept the axioms as true. This is the only way
> you can prove anything.
>

Right.

> > Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on
> > him.
>
> Well, I assume whatever I say is true and under this assumption
> everything I said is true so there.
>

Well, I don't necessarily buy into what you said, because I need something
more substantial than that. Not everything I'm saying is true.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish shlomif@...
Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
-- An Israeli Linuxer
• ... In this discussion, you guys digressed from the philosophical area of Ethics which was previously discussed, into Metaphysics, namely Ontology (what
May 13, 2007 1 of 9
View Source
On Sun, May 13, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Re: Objectivity":
> > Well, you forget that that alleged physical world is percieved by us
> > using nothing but our senses which are both fallible and go through
> > subjective filters, so any observation you might make about the
> > physical world might not be the same as one I make about it. And then
> > again it might.
> >
> > I only see the world through my own eyes.
>
> Well, as I see it, "The Truth is Out There". Objective reality exists. People
> can be misled to believe something about it that is not true. And if they are
> hallucinating or under hypnosis, etc. may believe something completely
> different. However, the reality is still shared, and one can verify what
> indeed happens or happened.

In this discussion, you guys digressed from the philosophical area of Ethics
which was previously discussed, into Metaphysics, namely Ontology (what
entities really exist) and Epistemology (how can we know anything about these
entities). I think that its problematic, even dangerous, to confuse these
subjects. The fact that you believe in "objective reality" doesn't immediately
imply a certain choice of Ethics.

Let me give you a simple example: your choice of Ethics apparently hinges on
the axiom "it is wrong to deny a human's biological needs", expanded into a
full ethical system using some sort of Utilitarian [1] method. But how does
this choice stem from your "objective reality" understanding of metaphysics?
I believe it doesn't. Who says we should use your axiom and not, for example,
one that gives meaning also to the biological needs of other creatures, not
just humans? Who said we should use a Utilitarian ethic, and not something
else (Preference Utilitarianism, Deontological Ethics, or whatever)? And even
if we're to use your axiom (paraphrased by me), perhaps we should take it
literally to imply that a person's biological need is to have his kin
procreate, so Gingis Khan's biological need was to kill his enemies and let
his own people procreate? (to this day, you can see a lot of Mongolian-looking
people in Iran, and other places you wouldn't expect to see them).

[1] If you don't know what this, or other capitalized word in my mail, means,
feel free to look it up in your favorite source of information.

> No, there is exactly one reality, and we all share it. We can probably never
> be certain of what really happened or what are actually the facts, but we can
> be sure that they are shared among us all. Either I have a copy of a book
> called "How to Cook Everything" on my shelf next to me now, or I don't. You
> can come to my house and verify it. Similarly, either Mao is responsible for
> killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

Even if there is one "reality" (in the sense of Ontology), there may be more
than one way to understand it (in the sense of Epistomology), and certainly
more than one way to put a "value judgements" on it (in the sense of Ethics).

For example, in the book of "reality", you can find that Mao, Stalin, Hitler
and Churchill, all caused millions of people to be killed. So are these 4
people all the same? We can't dispute the "reality" that in each of these
people's leadership, millions of people got killed. But we can dispute the
way we look at it - e.g., the obvious objection to what I just said is to
say "yes, but please look at *why* these people did it", and we can fish
up more nuggets of "reality", such as "Hitler killed 6 million innocent Jews"
and "Churchill went to war to stop Hitler". Exactly which of these nuggets
of reality you pick when you describe each of these 4 individuals is what
Arik called the "subjective reality". For one, Stalin might be someone who
"Caused 20 million russians to be killed in WWII, and afterward had 3 million
killed and caused the rest of the russian become misrable". For another
person Stalin might be someone who "Courageously stopped Hitler, and tried
to bring about better equality in the USSR". This is not different reality -
it's different interpretation of the same reality.

And these different intrpretations can bring to different moral judgement -
if you take the first interpretation, Stalin is "guilty", an unethical
mass-murderer. If you use the second, Stalin is ethical, and his actions
the lesser of two evils.

Of course, even if you look at the same reality, and the same interpretation
of reality, even then you can use different systems of ethics to give the
same actions different moral judgements. I think I gave plenty enough examples
of this.

--
Nadav Har'El | Sunday, May 13 2007, 25 Iyyar 5767
nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Topologist, n.: A person who cannot tell
http://nadav.harel.org.il |a doughnut from a coffee mug.
• ... So I reject their very basic assumptions . I don t know what they are, but when I ll see them I ll reject them. The reason for this preposterous claim is
May 13, 2007 1 of 9
View Source
On 5/13/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > Again you take something subjective like ethics and judge it
> > pseudo-objectively (rejected as false)
>
> I do not. I have proven that they are incorrect based on more basic
> assumptions.

So I reject their "very basic assumptions". I don't know what they
are, but when I'll see them I'll reject them. The reason for this
preposterous claim is that I'm sure that there are no assumptions I
would agree with which can derive absolute morality by logical means.

> I realise that if something "makes a lot of sense" it may not be correct. I'll
> give you that. However, after having seen N-T criticised by other people
> several times, and after I've understood why these criticisms were false, I
> concluded that I still believe Neo-Tech is true.

That's no proof, and you have take what they said to be true for a
fact. I don't have a problem with that as long as you admit it's not a
proof and it's a belief that you're holding.

> Well, as I see it, "The Truth is Out There". Objective reality exists. People
> can be misled to believe something about it that is not true. And if they are
> hallucinating or under hypnosis, etc. may believe something completely
> different. However, the reality is still shared, and one can verify what
> indeed happens or happened.

And as I see it, objective reality, if it exists (and I believe it
exists I just can't prove it) is highly overrated. We all live in a
subjective reality and perhaps objective reality is what allows us to
communicate but that's pretty much it.

> > There is more than one reality, Shlomi.
>
> No, there is exactly one reality, and we all share it. We can probably never
> be certain of what really happened or what are actually the facts, but we can
> be sure that they are shared among us all. Either I have a copy of a book
> called "How to Cook Everything" on my shelf next to me now, or I don't. You
> can come to my house and verify it. Similarly, either Mao is responsible for
> killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

You say you have the book, and I believe that you believe you have the
book. Maybe you are hallucinating. Maybe you are hypnotized. Sometimes
I can tell.

Mao may have even pulled the trigger himself. The question is, is he a
bad person. My answer is, according to my moral values he is. There
are moral systems where he's not.

> Well, I can tell him that he cannot be certain he'll go to heaven, and much
> less that God is muslim. It is hard to believe the soul can persist without

But he "knows" he'll go to heaven and that "god" is a muslim. You
can't beat that. Unless you use a heavy stick.

> the body, because whatever affects the body is registered in the mind. And it
> is unlikely that God, assuming he indeed exists, favours the crazy and
> subjective religious theories as put forth by most religions. (And if he
> does - we're in deep trouble).

I'll leave figuring out why this past paragraph is talking about
subjective reality as absolute reality as an exercise to the reader.

> You cannot rely on anything that happens to you after death. Death is most
> probably final.

How can you tell? You don't know that and can't know that or even know
whether it's probable or not.

> > > Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on
> > > him.
> >
> > Well, I assume whatever I say is true and under this assumption
> > everything I said is true so there.
> >
>
> Well, I don't necessarily buy into what you said, because I need something
> more substantial than that. Not everything I'm saying is true.

It was an example of subjective thinking. I'm asserting that
everything I say is right and using that as my axiom in proving pretty
much anything. It's as good as other axioms.

-- Arik
• ... I put that the interpretation is more important than a would-be same reality . -- Arik
May 13, 2007 1 of 9
View Source
On 5/13/07, Nadav Har'El <nyh@...> wrote:
> to bring about better equality in the USSR". This is not different reality -
> it's different interpretation of the same reality.

I put that the interpretation is more important than a would-be 'same reality'.

-- Arik
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.