Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mikael

Regulars
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mikael

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Denmark
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Mikael Birket Brilner
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Biography/Intro
    I am a skeptic and cognitive relativist, but I want to learn more about Objectivism than I already know.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Mikael

    The 3 axioms

    *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** *** Hi m082844. Now I have some time so here is something about non-existence does not exist and . For I can fly by flapping my arms, when I try to do that something else happens, namely if on the ground I remain on the ground and in the air I fall to ground. In abstract terms non-P or rather non-true/false is as per existence always something else. Here is another example - we are outside and the sun is shining from a clear sky. Now the claim it is not raining is not literally true, because it would mean that the clear sky had the property of not raining. So back to concepts and the following question - are there concepts for which it is so that we can't "ground" them via the external senses? And the answer appears to be yes, because if we look for the concept of no as per the word no, we can ask this - what does no as no look, sound, smell, taste and touch like? It goes deeper than that and is connected to both the mind and ethics. Here is what I do when I come across a strong materialist/physicalist with the following reductive claim: A physicalist: The mind is epiphenomenal! Me: No, it is not! The problem the physicalist faces is that she/he has violated the second axiom - I am conscious of. In other words to know that - No, it is not! - is wrong she/he uses what she/he denies. The 1st and 2nd axioms make up the core requirements of epistemology; namely - I know something. Now some natural scientists are used to using the following methodology in acquiring knowledge - namely the public, externally observable and tangible (either directly or indirectly via instruments, but it has its limits. It also relates to ethics as self-interest and how to evaluate something for its ethical value. I will give some examples as to the epistemology of ethics and how it relates to metaphysics. So here is the core of epistemology - with reason to check how reality works, check for contradictions in my knowledge and check for how words/concepts connect to the rest of reality. Now for ethics it means that I have chosen to live, but that won't do it in itself. Merely wishing to live won't make it so, rather I must obey reality to command it. So e.g. water or rather fresh water has the relationship to me as I wish to live, that I need it to live, but if we check as per the cat I can't see, hear, smell, taste of feel its value. Of course water can taste good as feeling, but that doesn't cut as such. In itself feel good or bad can mislead, because though I need to eat e.g. overeat though could make me feel good, will kill me. Likewise I hate being injecting with a needle, but it shouldn't stop me if I need the injection to live. The point is this, water in itself has no value to me; rather it gets its value to me, if I have chosen to live. Likewise of the ethical evaluation of other humans; e.g. someone says to me - you are wrong, Mikael. Now as with water I can't see, hear, smell, taste of feel as per touch that someone is wrong. Now I can feel/think someone is wrong, but it doesn't make that someone wrong. For that to be the case then there had to be casual and determined path from me feeling/thinking someone is wrong to the actual case of someone being wrong; i.e. having the property of being wrong. I have yet to hear evidence as for how that takes place and to me it contradicts the primacy of existence. It is so, because if it was the case then I could literally by feeling/thinking you are wrong, make you wrong. Rather just like water someone else has value to me as it relates to my choice to live. Now ethics relates to existence exists and the primacy of existence in that for that which I can't change by simply choosing otherwise it is objective in the sense of having reality independently of my mind. For that which I can choose, i.e. that I want to live, it is objective in the sense that choosing it in itself won't make it so and if I don't rationally and with reason choose life, I will in all likelihood get myself killed and/or have a bad life. It is not subjective in the sense that I can simply choose my life and that is it, as per: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html But ethics in its epistemological sense is subjective as it doesn't not have reality independently of the mind. You as you in yourself have no value to me, whether positive or negatively. In yourself you are devoid of value to me. Of course the same is the case in reverse. I will end it here, for now, with the following consideration about rational versus irrational. Other humans are not bad/evil/wrong as themselves if they are not rational nor use reason. They can only be so for me in the context of me. With regards Mikkel *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***
  2. Mikael

    The 3 axioms

    *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** *** Hi m082844. Yes, they are very good! They cover the basics. Now a fair warning from me, m082844. I am not an objectivist, but it doesn't mean I haven't learned from Objectivism. It means that I subscribe to 3 out of 4 of the main points of Objectivism. 1. Metaphysics Objective Reality - Yes. 2. Epistemology Reason - Yes. 3. Ethics Self-interest - Yes. 4. Politics Capitalism - Ranging from in part a no to a yes with qualification. Now as to my life I am having overtime at work, in my spare time I privately teach students and fix computers from family, relatives and friends. So I have to do this when there is an open slot. Therefore this answer is short and only part of how I understand your points. From the concept of non-existence it is a compound concept and if we check for how it connects to the rest of reality it does so as far as I can tell in following manner - it is an abstract, hence it requires a mind/brain to be connected to the rest of reality and in its literal sense/meaning it is empty of any actual connecting to what it implies! There is no non-existence exists in all of reality, but rather if I get a result in any variant of non-existence exists I have to check my reasoning because there is in it an error, which leads to the following contradiction: For all of reality as all cases of existence exists and A is A, there is an A for which it is so that it - A is non-existence exists. There is more to it than that when it comes to 1. to 4. but it will have to do for now. Until later and with regards Mikael *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***
  3. Mikael

    The 3 axioms

    *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** *** Is this relevant at all? With regards Mikkel *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***
  4. Mikael

    The 3 axioms

    *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** *** Hi m082844 I will start with some metaphysics, epistemology and logic. The 1st axiom as existence exists and its derivative non-existence does not exist I understand in the following way - existence exists covers everything and non-existence is an formal empty set as I can't show you in any sense non-existence exists. Here are some examples of epistemology - if I claim that I can fly by flapping my arms and thus jump out from a sufficiently high place I can fly and will not fall to the ground nor die; then that is not true. I would fall to ground and in all likelihood die. Notice it doesn't involve non-existence, but rather that I would fall to ground and in all likelihood die. Here is another example - imagine you and I looking at a cat, you could explain to me via your senses what the cat looks, sounds, smells, tastes and feels by touch like. Further we could use several instruments, e.g. thermometer, radiation counter and so. Yet another example - imagine you and I standing facing south and you turning west and I east. All of this ties in with epistemology as it can be observed. Now some logic: The law of non-contradiction relates to switches in the following manner: For a single switch it can either be on or off. The double switch can be top-on, off and bottom-on. Now this relates in part to truth in the following manner. The flying by flapping my arms is case for which it can never be shown for any humans; i.e. it will always be off. Where as the example of turning west/east resembles the double switch and further you can turn west and then turn east. The example with the cat sets out a version of the theory of correspondence truth. With all of the above in mind I am going to claim the following - I don't believe this is true: "Since you’re mind no longer has the power to distinguish what is not true about the contradiction (because you accepted it), then "you have casted your mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving yourself with the contradiction (or non-existent)." Thus I have accepted a contradiction and the following is the case - I have casted my mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent). -So who/what has written this? -How has this text gotten back into the realm of reality? -If you accept that a mind or lack of same is connected to a brain, how would "my" brain look like if it was brain scanned or otherwise examined? -How can "I" know as per awareness know and describe what is like to be "leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent)"? -For any answer to what is like to be "leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent)" how would you know that the answer is true? -For the following two examples where do they differ? "I" have written this versus I have written. -If "I" claim I have written this and I haven't done something, which is not a case of non-existent/non-existence, but rather there at least 3 different usages of the word contradiction in play here - A) Either P or non-P can't happen in reality at all. B ) Both P and non-P can happen but not at the same time and in the same sense. C) That I can in my mind/brain add up P and non-P and get the result of it doesn't add up is a case of existence exists; then is this true of the usage of the word contradiction? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axioms.html "I" must ask you this: - How do you know this - "you have casted your mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving yourself with the contradiction (or non-existent).? - What is the non-contradictory identification for the actual case of non-existent happens as claimed by you and as back to existence exists? As "I" have been doing this contradiction for 20 years - namely claiming a contradiction in "my" mind as something "I" can do, is not a case of non-existent, and thus it is a case of non-existent, then so "I" have to ask to this: - When will "I" die? - How will "I" die? With regards "Mikael" *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***
  5. Mikael

    The 3 axioms

    *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** *** Hi m082844 Please clarify how you know that "we check out of existence.." as back to: http://aynrandlexico...icon/logic.html With regards Mikael *** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***
  6. m082844, I have accepted your offer and sent softwareNerd a pm.

    Mikael

  7. I'll debate ya. I'm new here so I want to give it a try...

    Initial response is that Our mind is our only tool to interact with existence, so when we denounce our mind we check out of existence and check into a looney bin...

    if you like my response, select me to debate.

  8. Mikael

    The 3 axioms

    Status: Proposed debate. Hi moderators/administrators Since the forum "tells" me this: This post will need approval from a moderator before this post is shown - the first part of this post is about the format and how to do that! -I can't handle an one to many debate. -If only one steps up as willing to debate the subject within a maximum of one week this individual by default becomes my opponent. -I will propose that if there are more than one willing to debate and states so in this thread, that after a maximum of one week my opponent in the debate could have been found in the following manner: -A moderator/administrator or the moderators/administrators nominate one based on who he/she/they knows will benefit the debate most. -If the moderators/administrators wish not to do so, I am then told to pick one. This is of course depended on the choices of you as moderators/administrators. As to the rule about answering I will make a post every day and night based on my time zone, Central Europe, and the period starts 00:01 AM. As stated above I will not answer anyone else than my opponent, but I do wish that others to post and thus that they debate with the debate. I will start with an example of how I reason about the 3 axioms and this quote: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html This is one way of how I can reason about the words(concepts) in the quote in relation to 3 axioms. How can I be conscious of something as that someone has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality? Where is someone, which has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality? If someone somehow is different from reality is she/he a case of either existence exists, non-existence does not exist or non-existence exists? With best regards Mikael
  9. The operative word is know. If you look at the formal content of the quote and compare it with your answer you will notice this as captured by the formal similarity of Existence exists and "You know that any future will involve existents and their identities" that they both are in the present term. Now so do you know the future by looking outward; i.e. can you see the future from the present? No, the future or rather that the future will come is neither true nor false at the present; it is unknown. So let us look at the law of non-contradiction: “It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.” So is it a logical contradiction that existence exists (at this time) versus there is no existence tomorrow? Notice I am no saying that "there is no existence tomorrow" is true nor false as per: Rather I am pointing out that as per the law of non-contradiction there is no contradiction between existence exists at this time versus there is no existence tomorrow and that "there is no existence tomorrow" is neither true nor false as per ""True” and "false" are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality". So the concept of the future as - anything at all will happen not now, but later - is as far as I can tell an neither true nor false fact, but rather if we divide between metaphysics and epistemology a sort of metaphysical axiom. I think we actually agree as by the bold part in your post: The future is a metaphysical neither true nor false axiom and not an epistemological true fact. The limit on the side of logic is that "the same time" is blind to any other time, but rather only concerns itself within the context of the given time as that same time. BTW it invalidates the tabula rasa as the concept of the future can't be established by looking outward as you can only look outward now. In more general terms I accept the validity of the primacy of existence as such, but I reject the idea that all words/concepts can be established as per looking outward. So "assessments" can be established by looking outward? Rather it seems they are inward facts, you only know them by introspection and not looking outward. The same seems to be the case with human cognition/reason as such and ideas. Indeed what about introspection as a concept? Now should anyone choose to answer I will because I am critical of parts of Objectivism answer in the debate forum. With regard Mikael
  10. Well, it is also fallibilism, namely that I know I have been wrong in the past, so I could be wrong in the future. Not that I Will be wrong nor that I Won't, but rather I could be, but again I could also be wrong about that; i.e. I won't be wrong in the future. Now how you and I look at the induction problem can be viewed through how we understand the correspondence theory of truth. E.g. if we were looking at a cat, you could say - See, there is a cat - and I could answer - Yes, that that is true. So if you say - tomorrow will come - I will answer - yes, I agree, based on the past we have reason to assume tomorrow will come, but it is not true in the sense that you can see tomorrow from today. In general terms from that overall context of all of the past up and until now, the general regularity of reality gives me no reason to suspect that reality overall won't continue in to the future, but I don't know that as true because I don't know the future as I can't literally show it to you. In other words it is an epistemological limit of knowledge, because we as humans take place in an ongoing time with no direct access to future other than it can happen as it comes around as now and then turns into the past. So the sentence - tomorrow will come - is neither true or false right now as per correspondence, but unknown. Yet I accept I have no reason to suspect tomorrow won't come and I will based on the past/present continue as if tomorrow comes. So yes, if you want I am a skeptic about universal generalizations as true in the philosophical sense if they include the future. It would be a contradiction to claim I don't know anything, because right now I know, but that is not at the same time and in same sense as tomorrow so that I don't know everything for all time is not a contradiction, because tomorrow is not at the same time as now. The law of non-contradiction has a limit because every time it applies it only applies to that given time/sense or if you like A=A is only true when it is true that A exists. IFF reality continues as such A=A will remain true. So if you like the universal assessment of that any context at all will happen as such is only true of the future if it happens in the future and neither true nor false by evidence of the past/present. Mikael
  11. Mikael

    Reality as such.

    Hi. Due to RL I can't answer now, but will do so later. Mikael
  12. Mikael

    Reality as such.

    Hi fountainhead777 and hi all. This is not just for you, fountainhead777, but for all who considers this representative of all truth: Well, it is not, which makes me irrational. Thus is True that I am irrational. So here are two propositions; I can fly by flapping my arms-False and I can't fly by flapping my arms-True. So if it is True as I am writing it as this period in time and in the sense of being irrational, namely believing some False to be True, I am stating the Truth, thus I am rational. ;) Welcome to "I am a Cretan, all Cretans lie". Now in general terms there are two kinds of contradictions, True contradictions and False ones. A True contradiction is always the claim of non-existence exists. It is so because True/False is about a proposition about something being there or not(non-existence). Now I can't be irrational as True, because irrational is to be False, i.e. not be(non-existence), but that would be a True contradiction because I would in the same sense and at same time be existing and not existing. False is the non-existence of one or more properties at a given time and sense in an A. False contradictions on the other hand are not about something being both existing and non-existing at same time and in the same sense, but rather always about one A having a property, which another A doesn't have. Let me explain; regardless of whether you understand this or not, both cases are True. So let us say you don't understand this, you have the property of not understanding this text=one A and I have the property of understanding this=another A, then this is not a True contradiction. Indeed to claim it is a True contradiction is a True contradiction, because it would mean that you and I are at same time and in the same sense the same A, while not being the same A. In short you are me and not me and vice versa. In a broader context there are two kinds of reason: One is about Truth, that which is and the other is about what makes sense, i.e. what it means. If this text doesn't make sense to you, it is not because it is False, but rather when you compare it with what you already know it doesn't make sense. That is a cognitive process of makes sense/I like/right/good or doesn't make sense/I don't like/wrong/bad/evil. In other words evil is not False, i.e. non-existing; but rather that something is evil, means that you don't like it. That happens in you and not literally in the something, which "is evil". It has to be so, because being selfish and figuring out what you hold to be right or wrong, is something you do. Being selfish is in fact not really real as can be seen here. But that you are selfish is not something in the world external to you, it is some thing you are. You know this not be sensing the external world, but because it happens to you in your consciousness and no where else. In other word being selfish is not objective as in having reality independently of consciousness. Selfishness is mad-made and could be different in a sense, i.e. both is True, but one of then is apparently also False. So is the highest value any human hold at any given time man-made??? With regard Mikkel
  13. Mikael

    Reality as such.

    Well, not all of Rand's work. I do agree with the core of Rand's works, namely that a part of reality is not me and I can't control that the same way that I can control myself. This matters, because it matters to me as it helps me in living a good life. The correspondence theory of truth, hereafter True/False, the laws of identity and of non-contradiction, the Truth of ethics as egoistic/selfish and further volition I also agree with. So here is something for all of you. I do have a beef with A=A and A≠non-A. Not, that they are not True, but rather what it means to say when they are False. In order for me to prove that as True, I will first establish the difference between True and true. Something is true in the sense that a word/words and their combination can be False, but still works as a reason for further reasons and actions, i.e. f.ex. in this sense God is true, as God is not True, but it is True that God can be used as a reason to act in a manner that is True. So look at A=A. What is True about this claim, well it is True that the 2 As have some similar properties, but as they are 2 As they are not exactly the same. They hold different positions in reality, i.e. time, space and matter/energy. In order words if looked at with time, space and matter/energy in mind the are not exactly the same, but if we abstract away time, space and matter/energy they are the same. For the law of identity it means that for any A, i.e. a given period in time and space and configuration of matter/energy it is so and not in any other way. Any A is only exactly the same in all senses with itself. But and this is one of the biggest buts, if not the biggest, in understanding reality. My mind can "cheat" me, i.e. Truth is not automatic, because there are two distinct ways of thinking about reality - namely with and without omission of time, space and matter/energy. The first is called one dimensional, linear logic (logic) and the other I will call Logic as it is multivariate and includes time, space and matter/energy. You can test it yourself - find 2 matches and light both, e=mc² is the same, yet only similar and different if you switch between logic and Logic. Now this is True - for any human capable of discover these similar, yet different ways of thinking, then same, similar and different changes meaning, i.e. Truth, as opposed to those humans that for the given period time are only capable of thinking with logic and not Logic. Another example is the difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=11. If you look at it through logic, then it is false because all the four 2s are the same, but yet they are not. The first two hold the property of being in base 5 or higher and the second two are in base 3. Now these are "mundane" examples, but here is a difficult one. We know have two humans, you and I, as we are communicating over time, space and matter/energy. So how many As are in play??? Well, it differs how we "cut the cake" in one sense there is only one A, in another there are three, i.e. you, me and that which is in between, which enables us to communicate. Yet in another there are two other one, namely you and the rest including me and vice versa. Any yet there are a hell of a lot of As depending on how we switch in describing reality. So here is a question for you, what do all these different As, yet similar As have to do with rationality??? With regards Mikael
  14. Another way to do away with God is this one. If God is her own creator, she can have created herself outside the law of non-contradiction and thus have created reality without actually haven do so. With regard Mikael
  15. I know this example of proving consciousness has already been brought up, sort of, but there is a test you can do yourself. Is the mind physical? If I answer no, then proof is this - I can't point to or show correspondence of a no to something physical, because there is not no(thing) there, but something. In other words I know of a no in my mind alone and can't point to a no outside my mind. I can even variate this, if I look at a picture of myself, brain scan or some other outside source of my brain, I can't point to my mind. It isn't there in the physical sense, but it is there. Reality is one in one sense, because everything is connected; but the mind doesn't not correspond to the brain as physical - it is connected, yes and it also obeys reality just like the physical part, but it is not physical. Indeed the law of non-contradiction, which is true of all of reality, is not physical, because you can't literally show A=non-A at the same time and in same sense, yet it is true. With regard Mikael
×
×
  • Create New...