Re: [hackers-il] Re: Objectivity
- On 5/13/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > Again you take something subjective like ethics and judge itSo I reject their "very basic assumptions". I don't know what they
> > pseudo-objectively (rejected as false)
> I do not. I have proven that they are incorrect based on more basic
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'llThat's no proof, and you have take what they said to be true for a
> 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.
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. PeopleAnd as I see it, objective reality, if it exists (and I believe it
> 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.
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.You say you have the book, and I believe that you believe you have the
> 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.
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 muchBut he "knows" he'll go to heaven and that "god" is a muslim. You
> less that God is muslim. It is hard to believe the soul can persist without
can't beat that. Unless you use a heavy stick.
> the body, because whatever affects the body is registered in the mind. And itI'll leave figuring out why this past paragraph is talking about
> 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).
subjective reality as absolute reality as an exercise to the reader.
> You cannot rely on anything that happens to you after death. Death is mostHow can you tell? You don't know that and can't know that or even know
> probably final.
whether it's probable or not.
> > > Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is onIt was an example of subjective thinking. I'm asserting that
> > > 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.
everything I say is right and using that as my axiom in proving pretty
much anything. It's as good as other axioms.