Plasmatic

Identity=specific God= nothing in particular. "like saying there is a jar of marbles with no particular number of marbles in it."

OPAR

The "liars paradox" is simply a statement that requires more context. "lie about what?". One has to take the above statement as disconnected from a context in order to see it as a paradox. One has to forget that someone is saying this and it pertains to a context[the axiom of consciousness i.e whos saying this and why].

His point is he accepts the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

The "fact of reality" that your emotions are "estimates" of are your evaluations which are based on your "standards". The only way to determine those standards and their validity,is a process of volitional introspection/reason. This "reality" is an epistemic one as opposed to "out there". So the emotion only tells you that you have values. It cannot tell you what they are or if they are rational/justified. They are "caused" by your explicit and implicit value judgements.Simply put emotions are effects of your values. Now consider this quote in relation to the above: Philosophy Who Needs It Ayn Rand Are your emotional responses based on a values you chose by a "conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation"?

Exactly my point here!

[1]. There is nothing in the above quote that explains why one "ought" to care for "all". In fact you said it was "not "based on" observation ". This is what it means to not start with existence. You have accepted a premise and then looked for support/observed. This is why so many have massive abstractions built on no concrete referents.How are these "lofty" oughts "metaphysically implicit in" "the mind"? [2]. "Holistic" nonsense consist of doing exactly what the above implies. Basically dissolving all "boundaries" or "limits" particularity,individuality, and ultimately therefore meaning and identity.This foundational assumption is why context is so evasive for those whom accept it. Context is the conceptual equivalent of the separate otherness of concrete entities. When one takes a concept the referents of which are "every individual existent " [universe] and then imputes it to a single entity one destroys the very function of abstraction making all meaning "condense into fog" Suffice to say "one" is equivalent to zero if there's nothing else. [ "if there was only one color could you see anything?"] George I reccomend you spend time rereading on Rands idea of unit economy.

Careful Jake, concepts are mental existents. But I know what you meant !

The a-s distinction claims aside for now. George what is the method in your epistemology for this "certainty" of "logical implications/"conjectures" ? What in your mind is the essential difference between it and the certainty of "objective fact". Whats the point of talking of objectivity if one can never know this "fact". The "possibility of objectivity alone requires both to be possible. Otherwise "objective" loses its conceptual content [just as your distinction does when made arbitrarily "movable"] When the "boundary" of your concepts are not particularly delineated according to observed essentiality of objective existents this "redefinition" is what one must resort to. We call them invalid concepts and floating abstractions. Its the pretense of Popper everywhere! I find it hilarious that he wrote "Objective Knowledge"

Aside from Jakes points this is also impossible not to mention arbitrary. How could one even derive this ought from observation? What in reality could possibly lead one to this conclusion? How does one induce this from reality?

I was referring to "sense" certainty i.e. the senses. Perception not conception.

But what you are saying at least implicitly is that one can have knowledge without certainty and that the only context for certainty is omniscience.[infinitely deep piles]. This seems unproblematic for you and Popper because you don't think absolute identifications [edit:contextual or otherwise]are required for knowledge .

If one cannot be certain of what an existents identity "really" is [of ones identifications],then one cannot be certain of what one "thinks" the consequences of accepting this identification is.The mechanism/means for evaluation is the same.This is the simple answer to the whole of Poppers skepticism.If one cannot be certain in any form then the whole of knowledge is wiped out in one sweep. This is because consciousness has a definite identity. The above analogy is completely false. Popper does indeed pretend to assert that one doesn't require infinite/omniscient means for "knowledge" [though he does say its like 99% sure to be wrong], but his analogy fails because it implies/concedes that there are levels of "knowledge" without absolute foundations.. The relationship between the piles and the weight they bare is an absolute consequence of physical causation. There is a definite boundary of when the weight will be too much for the foundation. Just as there is a definite boundary that "context" places on certainty and knowledge all of which are consequences of identity. Do you have a specific counter to Oisms contextual nature of certainty?

I have question I think will illuminate the problem here. George is there any reason to be concerned with others, other than a personal value to oneself in said other? The question is why should one be concerned for anothers interest? If the answer is anything other than the "other" is a value to oneself,then it is a sacrifice to be done only as some immoral duty,and your distinction is invalid.

The physical identity/causality is the "gauranteed source" of "sense-certainty". I agree it is a game to seek as though this were not so.

How is "reasonable certainty" not an anti-concept. I'm reminded of the scene in the Princess Bride. "he's only mostly dead", or the Wizard of Oz,"she is not only merely dead but really most sincerely dead" There is a false distinction being made here. There are no levels of identity. Either certain means certain or not. This reminds me of the way Popper puts everything that would be an unambiguous claim to knowledge in quotes as in Stoves "neutralizing success words". Edit; Notice again we have the standard of the "infinite" or commensurate concept of "omniscient" as a false dichotomy in Poppers false analogy.

dclynch, I recommend you begin to analyze your assumptions/premises about feelings/emotions. Here's a good starting point; http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/emotions.html From my own experience with religion I know that the one of the major problems is with discerning the source of emotions.

I think the accurate word would be "pretentious". I usually just say "He has a serious over estimation of his value/virtue"

Are you inclined to elaborate on your "no"? Are you asserting that"proof" is less epistemological than "truth" ?

As far as I can tell Godel with his mathematical "liars paradox" only proved that one can make an equation say "square-circle",and then all those who embrace contradiction say "see I told you reality was dualistic, the big fancy mathematician said so.". Math requires context/referents as well.

From the Ayn Rand Lexicon: How is he an "altruist" and an "egotist"?

Alex Ive just read the first bit of Bunges chapter The Referents of A Physical Theory.Its interesting.

skibum What interpretation of QM are you even referring to? And how does this interpretation lead as the only explanation of the "band gap" you refer to? Id love an elaboration because the idea that QM makes computers possible is a cover all dismissal to critics of certain interpretations of QM. Also perhaps you may consider checking your premises on Relativity. Its not an axiom.

Theres a program called Natural Reader. It has several voices you can purchase. The one Yakitome has to welcome you is the one I use one NR. Its called Mike. The program is only like 50.00. I use it as a study tool all the time.