Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Only if you can find them, and provide the corollary fact that demonstrates they're so.
  3. The question is not whether (1) Hilbert regarded no part of mathematics to be a merely meaningless symbol game. No one denies that (putting it a bit roughly) Hilbert regards evaluation of syntax onto itself as a meaningless symbol game. The point (that I have amply explained and shown by now) is that it is not the case that (2) Hilbert regarded mathematics to be a merely meaningless symbol game. Again, the Hilbert quote itself plainly denies that mathematics is a merely meaningless symbol game: "Contentual axiomatics introduces its basic notions by referring to common experience and presents its first truths either as evident facts or formulates them as extracts from experience-complexes. Thus, contentual mathematics conveys the belief that we have actually discovered laws of nature and intend to support this belief by the success of the theory." Truths, facts, notions, experience, conveys, belief, discovered laws, success of the theory. Yes, the infinitary part is meaningless from a finitary point of view. But the finitary part is not meaningless. Moreover, even though the infinitary part is literally meaningless, it still plays an instrumental role in the mathematics for the sciences. So mathematics is not a just a meaningless symbol game. And from the Zach article you mentioned, we have: "(finitarily) meaningful" . And, yes, the syntax in one regard is treated without semantics. But in other regards of course we may apply semantics. I've quite explained this already. And from the SEP quote you just adduced: "the finitary sector, whose sentences express contentual propositions". express, contentual. ------ The Hilbert volume is edited by Claus-Peter Wirth, et. al - published by College Publications 2011. ISBN 978-1-890-033-2. But I strenuously recommend that it is folly to read a volume such as this without first learning the basics of symbolic logic and then at least introductory mathematical logic. On the other hand, a person can merely skim over the technical terminology and mathematical formulas, ignoring or misconstruing the technical context, thus burdening oneself with half-baked misunderstandings that only engender even more falsehoods and confusions about these mathematicians and their mathematics and philosophies. Most particularly, just for starters, it is only by systematically working through a textbook that one sees how mathematical logic presents syntax as separate but then also links it with semantics.
  4. "It to be itself" is very similar to "A is A". For a thing to be itself does not require any awareness at all. Awareness is secondary to and dependent upon prior existing things.
  5. Thank you. The quote is not clear or extensive enough for me to accept as proof ‘Hilbert regarded no part of mathematics to be merely a meaningless symbol game.’ You even quoted Zach: “The infinitary part, on the other hand, is not meaningful from a finitary point of view." How did you get an English translation of Grundlagen der Mathematik? According to this page, some of Volume 1 has been translated to English. Anyway, it’s difficult for me to cite Hilbert himself about meaningful/meaningless without a full English translation available. Returning to the SEP entry Formalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics again: "The Hilbertian position differs because it depends on a distinction within mathematical language between a finitary sector, whose sentences express contentful propositions, and an ideal, or infinitary sector. Where exactly Hilbert drew the distinction, or where it should be drawn, is a matter of debate. Crucially, though, Hilbert adopted an instrumentalistic attitude towards the ideal sector. The formulae of this language are, or are treated as if they are, uninterpreted, having the syntactic form of sentences to which we can apply formal rules of transformation and inference but no semantics." "No semantics" means no meaning.
  6. Here's a list of virtues, according to Rand. it starts with the shortest summary, from Rand's short essay on Objectivist Ethics, published in "The Virtue of Selfishness": "The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride."
  7. So, thenelli, I'd like to preface this by saying that you seem to have pegged what the real issue is. I don't agree with your take on it, but at least we agree on where our disagreement is. When I was in 2nd grade I got into a fight over a "yo mama" joke. When I told my mom (who I considered the smartest person on Earth) he'd called her dumb, she laughed and asked if I thought that was true: "and if not then why should it upset you"? That stuck with me all throughout High School (when I was also called a faggot - even though I'm not!) and into my adulthood. I remembered it when I first read about Dagny telling Rearden "never get angry at a man for telling the truth". Those are the words I now use for that principle, and it's very applicable here. Yes, and they're also dependents in many other ways (such as food and shelter). We expect adults to stand on their own two feet, both materially and spiritually. Yes, but whether or not it actually does any damage primarily depends on the "victim", themselves. Some people can take a torrent of abuse and just not care; others can be brought to tears over nothing whatsoever. Because some people continue to gauge their value by other peoples' opinions well into adulthood. What if it's really funny? IDK how well you can see it in my profile picture but I'm a redhead. One of my favorite South Park episodes is the one about Gingervitis, because judging another human being by their skin color, hair color or sexual tastes (&etc) is ridiculous! It's not quite as silly as believing in a 2000 year old zombie but it's pretty close! And I'll be the first to admit that such an attitude isn't easy to cultivate. From time to time total strangers will call me a "colonizer" or a "white devil" (because Minnesota is a shit-hole country) and I haven't been able to laugh it off, yet. But I do think it's the right attitude to cultivate. How does that apply to "lispy queers"? The marketplace of ideas is a rough-and-tumble kind of place; it always has been and it always will be, as long as it is FREE. Which isn't to glamorize Crowder's antics: they're immature and shameful hooliganism. But for Maza to call for the silencing of his political opponent, over such playground-tier name-calling, is an outrage. And giving Maza's little pity-party any cognizance (although well within their political rights) was morally the wrong thing for YouTube to do. I would've referred him to a good psychiatrist and invited him to come back once he was ready to play with the big kids.
  8. How much awareness of anything do you have to have for it to be itself? Split second awareness? or some sort of continuous awareness? Doesn't induction requires a series of "hits" to one's perception mechanism.
  9. SL When you do the DA stuff I don't know who is who, I will just put in my two cents and talk about the particular statements: When I am asleep, and others are conscious of my existence, do I exist? Doesn't including a "subjective/objective delineation" necessary to deal with this issue. Subjectively speaking: Every item in existence, exists dependent on my consciousness of it That includes me as one of the items in existence. I do need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". Objectively speaking: Every item in existence, exists independent of any consciousness of it (mine or others). That includes me as one of the items in existence. I do not need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". I need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" to know that I exist to have the full subjective perspective, the subjective perspective of self. But the objective perspective of self comes from the fact of knowing "I was asleep, they know I was here even though I don't" I can't be aware of the fact that I am not aware of myself. Also Philosophically speaking, is there an awareness that is not conscious? (you say "conscious awareness" - seems redundant) Are you saying subconscious awareness of self? (certainly not unconscious awareness) My understanding is that philosophically, consciousness means "conscious of". Not the levels of consciousness in psychology.
  10. Not even a bot, let alone sophisticated :☺️ Actually I had been reading some basic human traits lately and my research also included what main religions have to say about it. So, found this particular post that mentions a number of good character traits that I found useful.
  11. Why are you linking to Islamic Dua page? Are you a sophisticated advertising bot?
  12. Perhaps you will be heard from after you discover how to distinguish between the The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made.
  13. @StrictlyLogical Can you please clarify what you mean by "indefinite life" and why you say it is "possible?" The "slow transformation" would still have to be occurring like you said. "Slow" still implies a definite lifespan. The transformations would have to completely stop for it to be indefinite. Now maybe it can slowed down to the point that you'd still be around when the heat death of the universe comes about, but it still wouldn't be indefinite.
  14. This site is crap ... Is the third time I post and evrytime I got an error. This is no way to have a conversation. Anyway I keep asking what does "contradictions are impossible but contradictions exists" mean with no answer. I think I'm losing my time so unless someone can explain it do not expect to heard for me.
  15. What you are bescriving is basic human life, the one you and I need to navegate everyday, life is full of contradictions ... and we need to live with them.
  16. I will make a decision based on what I know. I could be wrong. When I decide, I will be certain that I am doing the best of all my choices. Otherwise, I would be in paralysis. Now, that is human certainty, that is the certainty that is possible, that is the certainty that is. You are implying that Rand said that you can't be wrong which is not true. The kind of certainty you are talking about is an omniscient type certainty, a supernatural certainty, a certainty that does not exist in this world. Knowing what will happen in 5 minutes, without possibility of error, means I have no free will. I can't do anything else, I can't chose anything else, I already know what I will do.
  17. And yet, you are certain about that. Then you might be dead. This is not an insult, simply playing out the logic you are putting forth. Or, maybe you are not honest. Or maybe you are honest but wrong.
  18. And, believe it and/or not, the reference to "cogito ergo sum" was actually meant as a hint. Among other things. Descartes said he could never doubt the existence of his own mind, no matter what; that at least the existence of his own consciousness was unfalsifiable, irrefutable, solid ground. Do you disagree with him? Will you stop demanding that the Law of Identity somehow be falsifiable or can you conjure up a way to disprove that you are (or think)? If you can prove THAT I will not dispute it! QED
  19. I agree that it's not that simple. Responsibility cannot be confused be with ruthlessness, barbarism and brutality. Jews had been living peacefully and lawfully, and the conduct exhibited by Nazis was far from being responsible, i.e rational. Nazi guard's definition about Jews being subhuman was not based on rationality or rationale. His definition (Jews being subhuman) was based on unrealistic assessment, which was not based on rational thinking or rationale If, in self defence, a woman kills a rapist who is bent on raping her and even killing her in the process, should she be called irrational? I don't think so. She has every right to defend herself. Although she didn't want to kill that person, she was forced to do it. In both cases, one person (Nazi guard) is unrealistic while the other (woman) is realistic, although both of them eliminated a human.
  20. Yesterday
  21. What will disprove me .... About what? That people get wet if they go swimming, that's easy show me an example that just went swimming and is dry. About saying that contradictions are not possible but possible just I want to know what does it mean. Is that the bust insult you could come with? Because your creativity is exceptional.
  22. Not that simple. The common example is "tell that to the Nazi concentration camp guard". He was being responsible and realistic, he knew Jews and others were subhuman and should be treated like that. He probably was compassionate and loving when he went home at night. All he had that may have protected him, or illuminated him, were in fact his emotions, the gnawing feeling that something is wrong. But rationality was to ignore them.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...