NameYourAxioms
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by NameYourAxioms
-
-
Yes, it's arbitrary. There is no evidence for it so it's a waste of time to even discuss it.
When your brain dies so does your consciousness.
-
If anyone needs proof that modern theoretical science has been completely corrupted by bad philosophy, I encourage you to watch, at least, the first 15 minutes of this show. This show is a good example of how bad philosophy can lead to complete skepticism regarding the validity of all scientific knowledge.Hawking starts with his assertion that "a black hole contains a lot of information" then makes an embarrassing chain of deductions that he should be ashamed of. Notice how rationalists are more concerned with connecting ideas to other ideas rather than connecting their ideas to reality.Check out this chain of deductions: a black hole contains a lot of information - it appears that information about what fell in a black is lost - the particles that come out of black holes seems to be completely random & bear no relation to what fell in - it can spit out anything: a piano, a trombone - that means that the basic nature of the universe is random - THERE AREN'T REALLY PHYSICAL LAWS WHICH GOVERN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE - if the predictability of the universe breaks up with black holes it can break down in other situations - if information is lost, we can't be sure of our past history either - the history books & our memories could just be illusions.Just because we have no way of knowing the exact quantity of stars, planets, asteroids, gases, etc. that have been consumed by a particular black hole he jumps to the preposterous conclusion that the laws of physics are invalid in every context & that our own childhood memories might even be illusions. You don't need to be scientist to know that just because we have no record of prehistoric times doesn't mean that there's no way for us to know whether F=MA or the inverse square law is valid in the context of space flight to the moon or Mars.People actually listen to this nonsense and take him seriously because he's a celebrity scientist. A black hole pulverizes anything that enters it yet matter is indestructible. Matter changes forms, but it cannot cease to exist. The idea that a black hole might randomly reconfigure that matter into a piano or trombone is beyond stupid.
-
The "pluriverse" is an arbitrarily-constructed invalid concept.
The rational response to an arbitrary assertion is to dismiss it, recognize it as fantasy, and turn one's attention to reality. The arbitrary is not logically entitled to a refutation.
-
The original post in this thread made the following point in the conclusion:
One must choose a side. Either there are universals which actually hold in reality, or else there is no such thing.
As an intrinsicist, he holds that essences are what we currently happen to consider the fundamental essential characteristics of a concrete actually exist in concretes themselves independent of the human mind. That is Intrincism (Aristotle himself made this mistake) which was refuted by Ayn Rand, and replaced by Objectivism.
What we observe in concretes is real (metaphysical) but the characteristics that we choose to designate as essential or fundamental is a judgment call based our knowledge at any particular time. Since man is not omniscient, our knowledge about metaphysical concretes can be wrong or lacking context. We rely on logic to keep our mental concepts (universals) about metaphysical concretes aligned with reality as best we can.
Rand held that our mental concepts of concretes have essences but the metaphysical concretes that the concepts refer to do not. As I stated earlier, the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. If essences existed in concretes they would be set in stone forever and unchangeable.
At one point it was observed that water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. Later on, it was discovered that water boils at a higher temperature at higher altitudes. Water didn't change. Our knowledge about water changed. Essences are epistemological. They pertain to our knowledge about metaphysical concretes.
Our concepts are mental file folders & definitions are the labels we put on those mental file folders. Our concepts (universals) can change & our definitions of concepts can change while the metaphysical concretes they refer to remain changeless..
-
On 12/14/2020 at 10:53 AM, Eiuol said:
"Metaphysically speaking obviously all concretes intrinsically are units of a kind. Concept formation is just the inductive process of recognizing them as such and identifying the kind that they belong to."
Okay, I figured out how I want to respond to this part. You can skip the part before where I ask you specifically what you disagree with, because what I'm saying here has to do with what you disagree with.
I think that Rand emphatically disagrees (as do I) that concretes intrinsically are units of a kind.
Phrased differently: for a set of concretes to be united (i.e. to be made into a unit), mental work must be done. Before the mental work is done, the unit does not exist in any sense. 3 particular apples are not naturally united so that they operate as a whole thing. To be sure, there is some kind of relationship, but I don't it makes sense to say that they are united in any manner before that mental work.
3 particular apples are not united in the way that 3 oxygen atoms are united as a molecule of ozone.
One’s mental file folders (concepts) are not for storing a concept’s units. Concepts are folders for storing KNOWLEDGE about the units.
Intrinsicists believed that essences are metaphysical, meaning that they believed that metaphysical entities themselves have essences (they don’t).
Intrinsicism concludes that all cognition is like sense perception (where everything is metaphysically given). It means automatic illumination on conceptual issues. It relies on intuition and revelation.
Famous intrinsicist expression: “To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don’t, none is possible”. In either case, they don’t explain. All mystics are implicit intrinsicists.
if everything were self-evident, we wouldn’t need logic.
-
What does it mean to regard concepts as epistemological? That means that the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge.
All definitions are contextual and a primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one. The latter merely expands the former. When new evidence confronts him metaphysically (a black swan), he has to expand his definitions.
Realist theories take the generality that exists only in man's mind and make it a universal existing in the external world.
As a legal preamble, every definition begins with the implicit proposition: On the basis of the available knowledge, i.e., within the context of the factors so far discovered, the following is the proper conclusion to draw.
Since man is not omniscient, a definition cannot be a changelessly absolute and a definition is worthless if it is not contextually absolute. All definitions are contextual and a primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one. The latter merely expands the former. When new evidence confronts him (black swan), he has to expand his definitions.
Knowledge at one stage is not contradicted by later discoveries. Discoveries expand his understanding; he learns more about the conditions in which his conclusions depend.
Newton’s laws are not contradicted by Einstein’s discovery of relativity theory. On the contrary, Newton’s discovery remains absolute within Newton’s context (just as Euclid’s discoveries remain absolute within the context of 2-dimensional planes).
Kepler correctly identified the sun as the cause of the planetary orbits. Later, Newton discovered that mass gives rise to gravitational attraction. These causal identifications do not contradict one another. Kepler’s statement is correct but it says less than Newton’s. And Newton’s statement is correct but Einstein discovered more about gravitation. Newton’s law of gravity was never extended to super-huge masses or submicroscopic distances of separation that Einstein’s theory embraces.
-
Wealth is stuff: homes, cars, food, fuel.
Money is nothing but a claim on wealth.
Gold makes good money because it is scarce; i.e., it limits how much a government can inflate the money supply or multiply claims on existing wealth.
Waiter: Would you like your pizza cut into 6 slices or 8?
Fed chairman: Make it 8. I’m extra hungry today.
The pizza represents wealth. Subdividing it into a million slices won’t make the pizza grow.
People used to be able to redeem dollars for gold. The threat of redemption kept the Fed honest. Domestic convertibility ended in the 30s and international convertibility ended in the 70s. Now a dollar is worth 4 cents and shrinking.
If your house appreciated 100% your wealth didn’t increase. You still own the same house (wealth is stuff, not money). That just means it takes twice as much money to buy the same thing.
-
What else are you going to follow? Is there a better, more reliable, alternative to thinking?
Obeying authority?
Instinct? If it feels good, do it?
Psychics, horoscopes, Ouija boards, Magic 8-balls, fortune cookies, numerology.
Wish-fulfillment fantasy?
-
Quoted from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:
"Since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity. Since EVERYTHING is FINITE, the UNIVERSE is FINITE.
[drops mic, leaves room]
-
5 hours ago, DonAthos said:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html
Every unit of length, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has some specific extension; every unit if time, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has some specific duration. The idea of some INFINITELY SMALL amount of length or temporal duration has validity ONLY as a MATHEMATICAL DEVICE. By analogy: the average family has 2.2 children, but no actual family has 2.2 children; the "average family" exists only as a mathematical device.
-
On August 15, 2016 at 8:49 PM, New Buddha said:
The term "Metaphysics" in Objectivism is rarely used, and it is use in an entirely different way than traditional philosophy. And, in fact, traditional philosophy doesn't even use the term in a consistent way. The Metaphysics of Plato are not those of Aristotle.
There are 5 branches of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ethics is the study of action. Politics is the study of force. Esthetics is the study of art. Of the 5 branches of philosophy, metaphysics is the trunk of the tree.
The whole purpose of Ayn Rand's West Point speech was to drive home the utter importance of metaphysics. Her spacecraft metaphor laid it out: Where am I? (metaphysics) How do I know it? (epistemology) What should I do? (ethics). You cannot answer the last 2 questions unless you know where you are (metaphysics).
-
14 hours ago, New Buddha said:
Aristotle's use of the term Metaphysics was entirely different from Rand's. And even Rand used the term in conflicting ways.
Aristotle believed in a type of dualism, as did Plato. To Aristotle, there exists both the Physical Realm and - parallel to that - a Metaphysical realm. He ascribed Causation and Essence to the realm of Metaphysics.
Wrong. Aristotle rejected Plato's metaphysics and completely denied Plato's World of Forms. Aristotle maintained that there is only 1 reality, the world of concrete entities that we perceive.
-
On August 15, 2016 at 8:49 PM, New Buddha said:
The term "Metaphysics" in Objectivism is rarely used, and it is use in an entirely different way than traditional philosophy. And, in fact, traditional philosophy doesn't even use the term in a consistent way. The Metaphysics of Plato are not those of Aristotle.
There are 5 branches of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ethics is the study of action. Politics is the study of force. Esthetics is the study of art. Of the 5 branches of philosophy, metaphysics is the trunk of the tree.
The whole purpose of Ayn Rand's West Point speech was to drive home the utter importance of metaphysics. Her spacecraft metaphor laid it out: Where am I? (metaphysics) How do I know it? (epistemology) What should I do? (ethics). You cannot answer the last 2 questions unless you know where you are (metaphysics).
-
20 minutes ago, New Buddha said:
As I stated in a previous post, the term Metaphysics has been used, and abused, by many different philosophers in many different ways.
Aristotle's use of the term Metaphysics was entirely different from Rand's. And even Rand used the term in conflicting ways.
Aristotle believed in a type of dualism, as did Plato. To Aristotle, there exists both the Physical Realm and - parallel to that - a Metaphysical realm. He ascribed Causation and Essence to the realm of Metaphysics. But, unlike Plato, he did not believe our knowledge of Causation and Essence to be innate (a given, prior to birth). Aristotle posited that our apprehension of this other "realm" came directly through the senses.
Objectivism rejects Dualism of any sort. Objectivism gives an entirely naturalistic and/or psychological/physiological account of how we acquire knowledge. This post has just been abusing the hell out of the term "metaphysics". It's setting back Science by 700 years. Even Aquinas would be embarrassed.
How do you account for "Objectivists regard essences as epistemological" in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
-
How do you account for this quote from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
Aristotle regarded essences as metaphysical; Objectivists regard essences as epistemological.
-
2 hours ago, DonAthos said:
All true.
I believe that you've mistaken what "identity" means and entails. Allow me to elaborate.
Regarding identity (from "Galt's Speech," FTNI):
This is identity -- a thing is itself (and it is not what it is not). Our recognition of this fact does not speak to the content of what exists, what it is capable of doing, or what we choose to call it. Is a tadpole a baby frog, or a frog an overgrown tadpole? Those considerations are fundamentally epistemological, not metaphysical. A tadpole is what it is (and can do what it can do, per its nature), a frog is what it is, and each specific instance of either is what it is. Yet, metaphysically speaking ("the study of existence as such"), a tadpole is not a frog (or an adult frog, at least, which is the implied meaning when one speaks of a tadpole "turning into a frog") and a frog is not a tadpole: a tadpole is something which may one day be a frog, and a frog is something which was, once, a tadpole.
So, of course tadpoles become frogs and caterpillars become butterflies -- this is neither "miracle" nor "contradiction." It is the nature of a caterpillar to become a butterfly, just as (depending on context) a grape may become a raisin. It was also the nature of life on Earth to evolve (changes which operated just as your "adolescent into adult" example: minute and possibly unobservable in a typical human timeframe), yet we would not say that Homo sapiens is really just a ape (or however we would refer to our common ancestor), or that an ape is a man. A man is a man, an ape is an ape, a raisin is a raisin, a grape is a grape.
To take this out to the furthest extent I can imagine, Carl Sagan wrote, "The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff." This is true (and poetic), yet we are not stars, and neither were stars proto-humans. Everything acted according to its nature; everything had identity; there were no miracles involved; and yet one thing does become another, in reality.
Of course, tadpoles become frogs? How do you explain the tadpoles that become toads?
Of course, caterpillars become butterflies? How do you explain the caterpillars that become moths?
-
4 hours ago, dream_weaver said:
The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. II, No. 12 March 12, 1973
The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made[M]an exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity.
Your mind is part of your identity. Your consciousness is part of your identity. Is it reification to apply the process of identification to these inseparable attributes?
Consciousness is not an attribute any more than identity is an attribute. Consciousness is one of the 3 axioms: Existence, consciousness, and identity.
-
According to the Law of Causality, the actions of an entity are an expression of its identity. What an entity can do is determined by what it is.
Tadpoles do not "turn into" frogs and caterpillars do not "turn into" butterflies. The Law of Causality permits no miracles. A thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.
The larval stage of a frog is known as a tadpole. The larval stage of a toad is also known as a tadpole.
A frog tadpole cannot "turn into" a toad and a toad tadpole cannot "turn into" frog. It was either a frog all along or a toad all along.
A butterfly caterpillar cannot "turn into" a moth and a moth caterpillar cannot "turn into" a butterfly. It was either a butterfly all along or a moth all along.
Acting according to its identity, a frog will progress from its egg stage to its larval stage (tadpole) to its adult stage. It was ALWAYS a frog.
We refer to humans at various ages as infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, and seniors because it serves an epistemological need. Metaphysically, an infant is a man and so are toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, and seniors. The identity of man doesn't change. The infant was a man all along.
Don't believe me? Exactly when does an adolescent "turn into" an adult?
-
3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
False.
Perception is valid. We perceive reality not mere appearances.
You have changed. Existence is identity therefore your identity has changed, in many respects. That does not imply you are not you, it only means you are continuously changing.
False.
It would be absurd to say that distance exists apart from the existence of your eyes, but distance is a fact of reality, that it is part of your identity does not negate that it has identity - it is what it is. To say A has identity does not mean that it has separate identity... like a second coat of paint on a subpart of a house...
True.
Reification means the error of holding the unreal as real. Attributes of entities ARE real NOT epistemological. They are characteristics which we perceive and perception is valid. Moreover attributes and properties are causative in reality.
To claim attributes and properties are unreal is tantamount to claiming nothing is real. In a sense entities ARE their attributes and properties. Something has mass, shape, size, charge, momentum, etc. not as a possession but as what they are. Entities are not naked "identities" to which attach unreal attributes and properties, for the sake of "appearance". If you abstract away all the attributes and properties of an entity you have nothing. As such attributes are a real part of existence - of identity.
As I stated previously, reification is the fallacy of taking a (real) aspect of a (real) thing, grasped by mental analysis, as if were an entity capable of a separate existence.
Your definition of reification as the error of "holding up the unreal as real" is a straw man where you misstate what was said then waste everyone's time refuting your own mis-statement.
What do you allege was said to be "unreal"?
-
According to the Law of Causality, a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. Since man is not born full grown, it is in his nature to grow. The distance between my eyes has grown as expected since growth is part of man's identity. My appearance has changed since infancy yet my identity has NOT changed.
The distance between my eyes is part of MY identity. It is absurd to say that the distance between my eyes has its OWN identity. Attributes are inseparable from entities.
Your statement "The distance between your eyes has metaphysical identity" is invalid because it reifies an attribute of MY identity.
-
Spoiler
Yes, the distance between my eyes is part of my identity.
The measurement of the distance between them is what's infinitely divisible. Division is a mental action.
-
You don't "identify" A and B as 5 feet apart. Being 5 feet apart is not part of either object's identity any more than you standing next to a fire hydrant is part of your identity. Your identity doesn't change when you walk away from the fire hydrant.
Distance is a measurable relationship between metaphysical entities.
The measurement is infinitely divisible. Measurement must be performed by man. Measurement is an epistemological tool we use to understand metaphysical reality. Division is a mental action.
-
Both are equally invalid since both refer to a nameless system with multiple identities.
Distance is a relationship between objects.
Your so-called metaphysical entity that you call a system is an arbitrary construct.
The only entities is your scenario are the 2 objects. There is no third object known as a system with multiple identities.
-
Motion is an action (verb) of an entity relative to other entities. Motions are not attributes (adjective) of entities. This is like not understanding the difference between a verb and adjective.
An object's identity doesn't change as it moves. According to the Law of Causality, which is a corollary of the Law of Identity, a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. A man cannot fly to the moon by flapping his arms like a bird but he can walk, run, swim, dance, etc. His identity doesn't change with every step he takes.
A particular object in motion at a particular time relative to another object is not a separate distinct entity with its own unique identity from that exact same object a millisecond or nanosecond later.
On one hand you talk about this as a singular system with changing identities which is invalid since to be something is to have a specific identity.
On the other hand you describe your system as an infinite number of separate systems with their own identities which is also invalid.
Time is a measurement and measurements are infinitely divisible. We can choose to divide time into microseconds or nanoseconds, etc. You are projecting a quality of something epistemological (the infinite divisibility capabilities of math) onto reality itself.
There Is No "Thing-In-Itself"
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted · Edited by NameYourAxioms
Elaboration
Things-in-themselves exist in the phenomenal world. The real world is the phenomenal world that we know through our senses & it's the only world that actually exists. Kant was a mystic who recycled Plato's 2 world theory. In order to save religion from philosophy, Plato & Kant posit that we live in a mere world of appearances (Kant's phenomenal world or Plato's cave shadows) and are therefore unable to experience the real world (noumenal world where things-in-themselves exist) without the help of mystics to guide us and tell us what they believe our duties should be.