Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AisA

Regulars
  • Content Count

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by AisA

  1. Frankly, what I would find beneficial is a very basic description of the double-delayed-choice experiment, including drawings (or pictures) of the equipment used and the results obtained -- in other words, something I can see and evaluate with my own eyes. For example, there are any number of such pictures and drawings available of the famous "double slit experiment" -- and one look at the results makes it clear what is meant by the statement that light appears to posses the properties of both waves and particles. Are there any comparable visual explanations of the double-delayed-choice expe
  2. In addition to all the other points that have been made, remember that in a free market you must compete with other businesses for the labor available in a given area. You have no power to force any worker to accept any particular wage, set of hours or working conditions. You have only the power to offer a trade -- and if a better trade is available to labor at another business, they will generally take it, leaving you without a workforce.
  3. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    An acorn is an oak tree "at that stage in its development". However, an acorn is not an oak tree. You are conflating the potential and the actual.
  4. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    Untitled, your post number 100 is riddled with context-dropping and conflation. The context-dropping takes the form of isolating my statements while ignoring the complete argument. For instance, you start by isolating my second sentence as follows: Then you react as follows: Thus, by dropping context you leap to a conclusion that is in fact the opposite of the conclusion I reached at the end of the entire post. You then proceed to more context dropping, this time to conflate a reflex with a volitional consciousness. I wrote: You responded: In fact, an
  5. I think you need to re-read my posts. You are dropping context again, which is why it is impossible to settle anything with you. I brought up Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait as evidence that he posed, at a minimum, a threat to our economic interests -- I did not claim that this proved he posed a physical threat to us; in fact, I made it clear that we weren’t certain about the latter. And now that I've listed a portion of his actions that demonstrate his irrationality -- in response to your demand that I prove he posed a threat to our economic interests -- NOW, you wish to switch back
  6. Saddam was willing to gas thousands of his own civilians to teach them a lesson. Saddam was willing to send thousands of his own soldiers to futile deaths in an 8 year war with Iran. Saddam was willing to invade Kuwait, then set his soldiers loose to pillage and plunder at will. Saddam was willing to rain down ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv suburbs in an effort to provoke the Israelis into getting involved in Desert Storm. Saddam was willing to set fire to virtually every oil well in Kuwait just to spite the U.S. After all that, you're still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt,
  7. Gary, you wrote: And: So which argument are you making? That Saddam was never a threat to the United States -- or that he is less of a threat to you, personally, than our statist government? I think Saddam proved with his 1991 invasion of Kuwait that he was a threat to our economic interests, at a minimum. If we hadn't ejected him from Kuwait, he could have easily rolled over Saudi Arabia and found himself in control of a significant portion of the world's oil supplies. That would have put him in a position to do significant economic damage to the world’s economy – of whi
  8. The most damaging aspect of the war in Iraq is that it has served to discredit the notion of using of military force to deal with our enemies. Of course, that is not the proper conclusion one should draw from what's happened in Iraq -- the proper conclusion would be to see it as a grand-scale demonstration of the consequences of both altruism and pragmatism -- but Bush has permitted the left to depict the Iraq fiasco as the logical, necessary outcome of military action. And so now we are in for a period of intense pacifism, probably initiated and led by an Obama administration.
  9. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    Thanks for the compliment, Ramesh. The ideas and the logic, of course, are all Miss Rand's and Dr. Peikoff's.
  10. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    A fetus is not a being; nor is it human. A being is a biologically independent, biologically self-sufficient, separate entity. A human being is a being that possess a rational faculty, that is, the faculty of reason. The moment of birth is the moment when this entity becomes a being -- it is the moment when it ceases to be part of the mother's body -- and it is also the first moment it becomes conscious of reality and can be said to possess the faculty of reason. The faculty of reason requires a volitional consciousness that can process the information provided by the senses; the mom
  11. AisA

    God exists

    No, I didn't contradict myself -- I merely adopted your standard of proof to illustrate why it is invalid. Are you truly incapable of grasping an example? Do you not see that the fact that we cannot "disprove the existence of god" is just like the fact that you cannot "disprove the existence of gremlins" -- and that the lack of such disproof does not prove that either thing exists? I suspect that you can see that fact quite clearly -- you simply don't want to face its implications. Read what I wrote about the nature of proof in post 9. So now you are saying that existence is de
  12. AisA

    God exists

    Do you think some amount or portion of reality goes out of existence each time you lose consciousness by going to sleep? No, the burden of proof is on you to disprove the existence of my gremlins. After all, I want to believe in these gremlins -- it's my desire and you've already said that all desires have fulfillment -- so isn't it logical to conclude that these gremlins are just as real as god?
  13. AisA

    God exists

    And the gremlins on Venus studying Hegel are a consciousness seperate from that as well.
  14. AisA

    God exists

    Are you trying to argue that since both consciousness and existence exist at present, this proves that God exists? If so, that's a whopper of a non sequitur. And I'm still waiting for you to refute my claim that there are gremlins on Venus studying Hegel.
  15. AisA

    God exists

    Yes, exactly. If everyone on the planet died tomorrow, the planet would not cease to exist. Existence does not depend on consciousness -- but consciousness depends on existence. Yes, at the moment, both consciousness and existence exist. I do not accept your premise that everything is "made" for some "reason". I note that you don't fully accept that premise either -- because if you did, you'd be seeking to know who or what made God and for what reason. Can you refute the claim that there are gremlins on Venus studying Hegel?
  16. AisA

    God exists

    Primacy of consciousness is the fallacy of thinking that the function of consciousness it to create reality; it is the belief that reality, in effect, depends on and proceeds from consciousness. That is, in fact, the literal view of religious people who believe that God -- a consciousness -- created existence out of nothing. Objectivism is so named because it rests on the acknowledgment that existence exists independent of the content or processes of any consciousness, that the function of consciousness is the perception of existence, not its creation, that existence is the object of consc
  17. AisA

    God exists

    Let's see. Here is your syllogism: A. Everyone has a desire for god. B. All desires have some form of fulfillment. C. Therefore, god must be real. Well, I really cannot imagine a clearer example of the primacy of consciousness fallacy.
  18. It is self-evident that while individual human beings can think and practice the virtue of justice independent of the other members of any particular group, the individual cells of a human being cannot function as stand-alone, biologically self-sufficient entities that are the equivalent of human beings. So the relationship of the individual human being to the group is not analogous to the relationship between the individual cells of a human being and the human being. In short, his analogy is faulty. Skyscrapers come in different levels of organization. A lone brick can be considered a
  19. I certainly think it is rational to enjoy displays of violence in proper self-defense. Roark's dynamiting of Cortland Homes -- a housing project for the poor!! -- was sweet to contemplate. Danneskjold's blasting of every mill that tried to make Reardan Metal, so as to terrorize the looters into leaving the Metal alone, was equally wonderful. And how about Francisco's destruction of D'Anconia Copper, followed by his message to the world displayed above New York City: "Brothers, you asked for it!" However, the violence of terrorists flying passenger jets into office buildings is completel
  20. Moebius, you have repeatedly misrepresented my statements into a straw man argument. 1) I certainly did not offer my disbelief of the Samurai claim as proof of its falsehood, as you have repeatedly claimed even after KendallJ pointed out your error. Here is what I actually said: In the first place, it doesn't say, "I don't believe it, therefore it is false." In the second place, the emphasis on the word"human", which was in my original post, makes the reason for my disbelief clear: the claim rests on the unsubstantiated assertion that one can learn about human virtues fr
  21. Moebius wrote: I agree that the goal of the dog fight is not simply a dog's death. The goal of the dog fight is to witness the process of death, i.e. to witness killing or, at a minimum, to witness a struggle to kill. That's why I said the participants value the destruction of life. And the fact that they do not want to witness a quick, painless, uncontested death simply means they value a specific mode of destruction: drawn out, painful and vicious. I see nothing in this activity that a rational man should value. I don't believe the Samurai claim that a dog's behavior fighting
  22. Moebius asked: This question is easier to answer if you put it in terms that concretize exactly what we are talking about here: Is it moral to value -- to take pleasure in -- a staged struggle in which two animals try to tear each other to pieces with their teeth and claws until one is either incapacitated or dead, purely as an end in itself, not because it accomplishes anything else, not because it tests human skill or advances human interests in some fashion, but purely for the sake of seing the destruction of life or the attempted destruction of life?
  23. This is the synthetic part of the analytic-synthetic fallacy. It rests on the notion that the arbitrary qualifies as the possible, such that no matter what observations one makes, it can always be speculated that the next observation will contradict -- and therefore refute -- the previous observations. Because a white crow can be asserted as a possibility, no one can be certain that all crows are black. Because a cat giving birth to puppies can be asserted as a possibility, no one can be certain that cats only give birth to kittens. Thus, the arbitrary is used to invalidate one half of
  24. If there is no absoute proof of anything at all, then there is no absoute proof that the Rabbi's statement is true. Why then, dear Rabbi, do you state it with such certainty?
×
×
  • Create New...