Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ifat Glassman

Regulars
  • Posts

    1113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Ifat Glassman

  1. These two painters have the best technique I have ever seen, they were and are my inspiration for the perfect technique. Their art emphasizes human fitness (strength of body) and is based on imagination. Check it out for yourself: Boris Vallejo & Julie Bell. What, do you think, are the ideas behind this art? And would you give credit to the imagination that was required to create them or would you disqualify it for not being "real life"?
  2. I will have to read everything you wrote again to examin it more carefully, but still, no one answered my point just yet: The fact that a consciousness exists without sense organs means that it wont be able to differentiate itself from the world. It means that it wont be able to grasp it's own nature. Fine, but does this mean that just because it fails in the identification of it's own nature, that it does not exist? I don't see why. An example for this would be something quite terrible (but it has been done, actually): is to operate on an animal (an embrio, that his sense organs did not develope yet), and take it's brain out, put it on a dish, with nutritients to keep it alive. Now, consider that the physical form of your thoughts are changes in electrical field across the cells of your brain (which has been verified, BTW). Now, a brain in a dish produces those spontaneouse electrical changes, and it's cells are "talking" to one another (through electric pulses). This means that there is a consciousness, with no sense organs. Does this mean that it is not really a consciousness? it definitely is: If you give it electric stimuli it will sense it and react to it. if you "plug in" some sense organs, it will be able to code and percieve the information that they deliver. Just because it is currently in an inactive state does not change the nature of the thing that lies on the dish. And the fact that it doesnt have self awareness also doesnt change the fact that it is a consciousness (a device, if you will, with the ability to percieve things). BTW, I agree with what RationalCop said, and thanks for the recommendation of the books. I plan to read them during the summer.
  3. So what you're saying is that unless I see a green object, I will never be able to identify that the red objects I've seen before are red? Also, I don't have that sentence that you quote from Atlas Shrugged. it doesnt appear in my book (it's hebrew translation), but even if it did I wouldnt agree with it. And in any case of disagreement we can always go to the physical world and check who's right. I am talking about the brain. If you put a human being inside the tank you talked about, He wont be able to percieve any sights, forms, movement, sound, words, etc when he grows up (even if you take him out of the tank after a few years), However, his brain is designed by it's nature to be aware of what happens inside his body (The position of his muscles, even if he can't see or feel his body) and to plan his motion, to plan the rate of his breathing, and the brain is also capable of forming new connections randomly, without an outside stimulus. There is no prevention that the person would also develope the understanding that there is an entity called "me" that "does things". And philosophycally speaking, if a single human being is all that exists in the universe, Are you saying that all of a sudden that human being's consciousness doesnt exist, or that existense doesnt exist? Of course not! What you said is that that person would not be able to identify himself as a consciousness, but it doesnt mean that he doesnt have one.
  4. Where did Rand say that a consciousness which is conscious only of itself is a contradiction in terms? you must've misread it. it's "a consciousness without something to be conscious OF is a contradiction in terms" the "something to be conscious of" INCLUDES the person and his consciousness. which means that even if you are the only thing that exists in the universe, then existence still exists, and your consciousness still exists, even if it is only conscious of itself (a very unlikely thing to happen, but still... ) As for proving that god doesn't exist - God isn't such a special thing. There are tons of things that a person can decide to believe in, that have no evidence at all. There are a lot of things that people can believe in, that cant be proven or refuted. for example: I believe that there are flying elephants in the sky. but those elephants cant be detected. but those elephants are shy and they turn into light the minute that someone tries to spot them. There is no way to prove that (of course) but there is also no way to refute it. you can't prove a mystic that they are WRONG, you can only show them that the method they use to gain knowledge is not truth oriented (reason, logic). (Edit: check your spelling! - GC)
×
×
  • Create New...