Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [hackers-il] Re: Objectivity

Expand Messages
  • Arik Baratz
    ... 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
    Message 1 of 9 , May 13, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.