Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nxixcxk

Regulars
  • Posts

    219
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Nxixcxk

  1. In fact, I must conclude that, because I was in possession of no knowledge whatsoever that casts doubt on the black crow conclusion

    But couldn't have you said to yourself, "Since many, if not all other animals I have observed come in different colors, and even though all crows I have observed have been black, I cannot conclude that all crows are black." Or would that be an arbitrary claim? (obviously the extent of your knowledge in terms of animals and species and what not is important, but I'm just throwing a possible example to see if it would be arbitrary).

    How many crows must one observe before he can be certain that all crows are black, white, or a mixture of many colors?

  2. Thakns for the story.

    I thought it was pretty interesting that a street bum understood the altruistic morality to such a degree and depth that he was intellectually prepared to use its premises against random strangers to his benefit

    I think most bums understand it.

    My buddy and I will go downtown sometimes and play our instruments on the side of the street. We make some $ and then the bums come up and ask us if we have any spare change. I usually just look at them with a blank face, telling them, "yes, we have spare change."

  3. Are you searching for some sort of reasoning that will make you comfortable with a belief in god, or what?

    Yes! I want to believe! Why can't I just have comfort knowing that someone is watching out for me!?!?

    Just kidding. I'm strictly an atheist but was conversing with a Chrisitian a few days ago about the omnipotence of God and why I thought it was a contradiction. But then after we spoke I thought about it some more and was wondering if I was stealing a concept (power) and applying it arbitrarily when I asked if the OB could create a boulder he couldn't lift.

    Plus it's a good chance for me to practice my rusty logic :D . I know the belief in God is unfounded, I'm just taking a piece of "Him" and putting it under a microscope, irregardless of his non-existence.

    Pe@ce

  4. Thanks for all the replies so far.

    I have read Smith's book, "Atheism: The Case Against God" many times, and I have a section I'd like to quote from the book that I have some questions on relating to omnipotence.

    Pg 69 START

    "What does "omnipotence" mean? Does "all-powerful" mean that God can do literally anything? Can he create a square-circle? A married bachelor? To admit these possibilities leads to insuperable difficulties. Since these things are logically impossible, they cannot exist--and any being with the supposed capacity to create the logically impossible must himself be logically impossible. To say that God can do anything, even the logically impossible, is to push one's God into the realm of that which cannot possibly exist.

    "This problem is an obvoius one, and sophisticated theologians have attempted to deal with it. Their solution has been to deny the capacity of God to accomplish the logically impossible, while claiming that this does not detract from his omnipotence.

    "In short, God's omnipotence is usually interpreted to mean that God can do anything that is conceivable--anything, for instance, that can be drawn or animated in a cartoon. No artist, however skilled, can draw a square-circle; this is a logical impossibility. But an artist can draw the transformation of an acorn into a theologian, or he can illustrate a cat giving birth to elephants--so these are deemed to be "logically possible" and thus w/i the scope of God's power. If we can imagine it, God can do it.

    "Despite the fact that many philosophers wish to label the growth of an acorn into a theologian as a "logical possibility," I consider this notion, or any similar to it, to be a travesty of the word "possibility." The fact that we can imagine the mysterious and causeless transformation of an acorn into a theologian does not change the nature of an acorn, a theologian--or any part of reality.

    "It is important to realize that an entity has a specific nature, specific attributes, that make it the kind of thing it is, and that delimit the actions open to that entity. To suggest that an acorn can possess a certain set of characteristics and yet act in a manner which is totally incompatible with those characteristics is, I submit, a contradiction--and it is a contradiction which is as fully impossible as any so-called "logical contradiction.

    "To accept the idea of an omnipotent God, one must believe that it is in some way "possible" for an entity to act in contradiction to its nature. In a universe containing an omnipotent being, any action would be open to any entity at any time upon the bidding of God. Causality would be a sham, and rational explanation would crumble.

    "It is into this chaotic world that one must plunge if one wishes to speak of God as omnipotent: a universe w/o identity, a universe of the unintelligible and the unknowable--a Walt Disney wonderland whree pumpkins can turn into coaches, oranges into spaceships, and women into pillars of salt."

    END

    My questions:

    In the 2nd paragraph, where Smith says that theologians have claimed that even though God cannot accomplish the logically impossible, his omnipotence isn't hindered---this would be true in the sense that when we talk about "power," we never speak of it as an ability that can create a contradiction, right?--So no "intelligent" Christian would use it that way.

    "Despite the fact that many philosophers wish to label the growth of an acorn into a theologian as a "logical possibility," I consider this notion, or any similar to it, to be a travesty of the word "possibility."

    I agree with this--it seems as though a Christian may use the concept "logical possibility" to denote what an Objectivist would call the arbitrary. (So, inferred from these passages, when a Christian uses the word "possibility," he means that which isn't a contradiction) However, Smith then says,

    The fact that we can imagine the mysterious and causeless transformation of an acorn into a theologian does not change the nature of an acorn, a theologian--or any part of reality.
    This part here I am unsure of. In this case, the transformation of an acorn into a theologian wasn't causeless b/c God caused the transformation, right? Nor would that change the nature of the acorn or a theologian, since it would (or at least could) be in both their nature's to be subject to God's powers? (Although after reading this passage over and over again, I think Smith was merely backing up his claim that that which is imaginable isn't necessarily possible)

    Then Smith goes onto say

    To suggest that an acorn can possess a certain set of characteristics and yet act in a manner which is totally incompatible with those characteristics is, I submit, a contradiction--and it is a contradiction which is as fully impossible as any so-called "logical contradiction.
    Which I agree with, but I don't think Christians are necessarily suggesting that an acorn possesses certain characteristics which then acts incompatibly with those characteristics. They are merely suggesting that at any time, God may come in and change the acorn into a theologian. (Once again, it could be argued that it is in the nature of an acorn to be subjected at any time to God's will, correct?)

    In a universe containing an omnipotent being, any action would be open to any entity at any time upon the bidding of God.  Causality would be a sham, and rational explanation would crumble.

    But couldn't causality exist and simply be interrupted by God's will? Granted, it would be difficult to understand causality if there was a being who could interrupt it, but I don't see how Smith says that it would be a complete sham.

    Knock yourselves' out,

    Nick.

  5. When Christian's mention God's omnipotence, what do they mean? What capabilities fall under the Christian's idea of omnipotence?

    The reason I ask is that I thought an omnipotent being was a contradiction. But then I was wondering if the objections I had were fair to ask (in other words, are the objections applicable to omnipotence, and if so, why?).

    The 2 objections are well known.

    1) Can the OB (omnipotent being) create a sq. circle? (I don't think this would fall under power since it would be asking the OB to do that which is contradictory)

    2) Can the OB create a boulder that is so heavy it could not lift it? (It seems this would be unfair to ask too since an immovable object and an all-powerful being existing w/in the same context is impossible)

  6. What are they conscious of if they are not thinking? I think they would be conscious of nothing. Being conscious of nothing contradicts the primacy of existence.

    What do you mean by thinking?

    Perhaps the relaxed state of the dream and the success I had while dreaming solidified the motions I needed in order to become a better driver.

    Interesting. Fun to read stories like these :lol:. I am learning how to ride a unicycle but fear of falling once I am up may be holding me back. Let's hope I can get over it with a dream of successful riding.

  7. I beleive that thinking is a product of consciousness, and that unconsciousness is the abscense of thought.

    Someone cannot be thinking, and still be conscious, can't they?

    The subconscious is an aspect of the human mind, which is easily observed and proven. Trees are not conscious at all, therefore they can't contain "everything present in a mind which is not being held in immediate awareness," which is how I define "subconscious."

    What do you mean by "immediate awareness?" Do you mean that the subconscious is simply a repository for knowledge that the conscious mind can access at any time--say for instance, an old memory? Or does "immeadiate awareness" mean that the conscious mind cannot access the info? Or possibly something else?

    Also, I'm curious how the subconscious is proven, but I'll wait to see how you respond to the above before asking that question.

    Peace.

  8. I'm curious, how do you meditate? What effects does it have on you?

    I've tried many different "methods" of meditation, and right now I just kind of do my own thing.

    (nor do I really understand what meditation is, since I've never been offered a good definition of it and I didn't create it, so :ninja: )

    Regardless, whatever it is I am doing, it brings me enjoyment. After working out vigorously--so vigorously that when I powerfully inhale I get that sensation of drowning (b/c of so much sweat coming into my nose), I slowly allow my hearbeat to decrease and then find a spot near the stream where the stream is quite audible. I then close my eyes and do a quick check in, where I focus my awareness on many aspects of my body and see how they are feeling (usually everything feels fine since those endorphines or whatever they are called are flowing throughout my body).

    Then, for about 2minutes or so, I inhale for 4-6 secs, hold inhalation for 4-6 secs, then exhale 4-6secs. My mind simply focuses on counting 1..2..3..4..5..6.. etc while I do this. Then after 2 minutes I try to think of nothing. THen after that I go to my "special place" (laugh if you want), which is a huge cave in a jungle, and I meet myselves when I was younger, at ages 4 and 14. We discuss things and go on adventures and talk about life and what have you...it's a lot of fun. (I know it sounds weird as hell, and if I was reading this I would probably think whoever was writing it was a quack--and maybe I am, but oh well). And this probably goes on for 10-15minutes, sometimes longer if it gets interesting.

    P.S. I think the working out prior to the meditation is helpful in terms of letting thoughts go and not monomaniacally focusing on errands or chores one has to do in the coming hours.

  9. In the meantime, perhaps I can address one point above. One cannot choose happiness. One can choose values which, if they are objective, if one picks the right course of action, and if one actually achieves those values, will lead to happiness.

    Agreed. Possibly what I was getting at with happiness being internal is that, if (for lack of a better example) someone calls me a jackass, I can choose to take their comment and internalize it and probably become pissed off, or I can say to myself, "He just called me a jackass. Does he have a right to judge me? And if so, why did he come to the conclusion I am a jackass?"

    In the above sense I am choosing a way to deal with the situation as opposed to simply letting my emotions take over...I guess that wouldn't be choosing happiness; it would just be a better way to go about the situation :ninja:.

    And yes, there were many questions in my original post. I was hoping someone would be able to read all of them and come up with a general answer or at least something that touched on the matter(s). If I could come up with the essential one it would probably answer much of the question itself :P , but I'm not sure I can.

    one can only see one's self as a "complete entity" by seeing the reaction of another person to one's self. He calls the other person your "mirror."

    I thought of something that was like that, but I didn't like the idea of since it relies so heavily on the judgement of someone else. But it is interesting, I will have to read more about it.

    I suggest you read Branden's article for starters
    Where can I find these?

    (Edited to fix quotation tags - softwareNerd)

  10. Many years back, when I came to the conclusion that I was in control of my happiness, I asked myself, with this in mind: "Why do I need human relationships?" If happiness is internal (i.e. one can choose to be happy), then why would I need relationships?

    Realizing that I lacked valuable relationships of any kind, and understanding that I cherished the intimate but rare conversations I've had with others, I couldn't come to understand why I enjoyed having deep, philosophical conversations.

    I still have found no answer (nor do I accept something like "humans are social-animals"). So I pretended as if I had never had a meaningful conversation/relationship with someone else and asked myself what the world would be like.

    I discovered that it would be annoying and at times, possibly unbearable. Then I asked why I would allow myself to be annoyed by the fact that there was no one to connect with--and that's where I really got stumped. Why is it that sharing experiences with someone you value is beneficial, and at times, cumbersomely relieving? Why do you enjoy it? Is it b/c people directly/indirectly effect your life and so if you share the same values then you know they will be effecting you positively?

    I'd like to know.

  11. Why don't I feel anything at all?

    My guess is that you are extremely stressed out and one of your mechanisms for coping with stress is to mentally shut down and feel "numb." I think I have experienced something similar to what you've described, and I believe it occurred b/c I was joggling too many things in my mind at once--instead of writing down important dates/deadlines/times I tried to remember all of them at once...big mistake :confused:; nevertheless, it was mentally and thus physically overwhelming. For the next couple of days I felt "numb" and not embodied--it was the most annoying feeling ever. (heh, I remember thinking to myself, so this is what nihilism is)

    My top de-stressors are: Exercising till heavily fatigued, followed by meditation, then getting a good night's rest.

    Anyhow, it will be interesting to see how long this feeling lasts for...I would guess a couple of days or so, but I don't really know.

    Hope all goes well.

    Nick

  12. If you can introspect with ease, then you can 'extrospect' (lol) with ease, since a prerequisite of competent introspection is competent extrospection.

    I am constantly lost in my thoughts, usually about different ways I can better myself and better my life.
    Me too, isn't it fun?

    Why do you think introspection isn't good all day everyday? To introspect is to simply take the focus that you have and apply it inwardly. (If you're introspecting, you don't lack focus). I'm assuming that you participate in some activity, whether it be school, job, etc. and then introspect after you are done with those activities. (Although you haven't given me much information, so this is a surmisation.)

    I want to break this habit and train myself to be more "out there", more engaged with the world outside of my mind.

    So I guess I am confused. Why would you want to be more "out there" than "in there"? If you are not "in there," how do you expect to be "out there?" (Have you met people that do not introspect? What do you think of them? Have you met others who you think introspect too much? What do you think of them?)

    Introspection is a phenomenal human tool, that, once refined and practiced, leads to happiness (assuming you have taken the requisite action once you've discovered something via introspection). Without introspection, you won't be able to control yourself very well.

    Anyhoo, just my 2cents :) peace.

  13. Argh...one of my friends, who I had somewhat of an intimate relationship with, suggested that I read that book since it had profoundly effected her life. She let me borrow it and I tried to read it, I really did, but only made it to pg 80 or so.

    I thought the author was creative and sometimes logical (excluding many of his foundational premises) and he definitely blows the Western view of God out of the water--so some parts were interesting.

    But personally, I just found it to be too "Celestian Prophecy" like, if you've eve read that book (although when I read C.P. at age 16, prior to studying Oism, I thought it was an amazing book). I don't really like the dialogue format and ambiguous usage of words in order to convey novel ideas, anywho, wish Ic ould give you more but it just isn't in my memory.

  14. Perhaps because you are aware that feelings aren't tools of cognition and you're actually NOT able to do ridiculous acrobatic stunts?

    I agree that feelings are not tools of cognition, but the sensation of doing something (whether it be a backflip or dunking a basketball) in a dream *may* be--in terms of muscle memory and what have you. When I said "feeling," I didn't really mean emotions; I meant the feeling of actually performing acrobatic stunts...it was the feeling of performing proprioceptive movements--which I think may carry over to the waking state.

    Generally, I tend to have these dreams immediately before I wake up or after I wake up and then go to sleep again, which is at least some personal corroboration.
    Yeah this is usually the time when my thoughts turn into dreams.

    I've found that if I decide to face something with confidence and good humor then I CAN

    Exactly. But some people need that extra "boost" in order to decide to act with confidence. If, in a dream, a man is able to control every aspect of his reality and maintain some of that feeling of control when he wakes up, it might just be enough for him to choose to decide to face things with confidence.

    I also do not think that the brain really ever rests.

    And no one dreams about anything they've never seen before.

    Would you mind clarifying? I've never seen many things that appear in my dreams, (even in pictures, motion pictures, etc.) yet I have seen aspects of them.

    I think the main reason for it is that you don't really REMEMBER your dreams all that clearly, so you kind of "write in" details at a later time to make it fit with what's going on now.

    This wasn't my case as my dreams were quite easy to remember after a few weeks of dream journaling, and I wrote them down immediately after waking up, never adding contents later. I'm still skeptical about the whole ordeal, but it definitely gave me the goose bumps when I read it and realized that the dream seemed to have predicted (or shown) the future.

    For example, if you are planning on meeting your Aunt Nadine at Starbucks next week, you might have a dream about the experience-- based on previous experiences with your Aunt Nadine, and Starbucks, and also your imagination about what *might* happen. Then, when it happens-- miracle of miracles!-
    Yeah this seems like the most plausible reason.
  15. Bold thanks for the reply! The dream world fascinates me beyond a lot of other things and by no means do I underestimate any significance hidden behind the events that occur in them.

    Do you have any suggestions for realizing your dreaming when you're dreaming? I've had 1 lucid dream my entire life but haven't been successful at having any others--I journaled for around 4-6 months with hundreds of attempts at lucidity, but none were efficacious (I was able to recall dreams impeccably, but no lucidity!)

    I know it sounds rediculous, but I really do think I benefited tremendously from these dream practice sessions.

    Not at all :) It seems you get the same mental experience as you would in the waking world, minus the coordination required by the body.

    I found that when I awoke, and played G Major on my guitar, it was more vivid to me... I noticed more things about it that I used to ignore or overlook.
    Awesome.

    Oh, and one more thing- predicting the future is impossible, in dreams or reality, I think.

    And I thought so too (I remain on the fulcrum between both sides--wavering neither way). One time I decided to read my journals from a few months back to see how many I had remembered, and after reading this particular one i thought to myself, "Oh my god...this ACTUALLY happened." With mild incredulity, I got extremely excited and read many more, looking for other ones. I ended up finding another one that fit almost entirely and then one that was partially true (although not enough to say that it was a prediction).

    Yet I remain skeptical of it, knowing that it could be mere coincidence. I shall begin to journal again and see what happens. The cool thing about the discovery of the possible premonition was the fact that it was not my intention to look for any old dreams that had relevance to the future or the immediate past--so in no way was I partial to my discovery.

  16. I've been thinking about dreaming lately and the powerful self-improving hidden aspects that may come along with it. Many times I have awoke from a dream where I did something ridiculous; take for instance 'acrobatic stunts'. After I awoke, I had a feeling that I could do these stunts, but never had the guts to try them out.

    I'm wondering if one was to have a lucid dream (a dream where the dreamer controls what's happening), what skills, if any, could he take from having a selective dreaming experience.

    If a man who has never rollerbladed in his life dreams that he is rollerblading with eloquence and balance, will he be able to tackle the challenge of learning to rollerblade better than someone who has had neither experience?

    I also wonder of the therapeutic possibilities of dreaming. If person X is not self-confident in life, but then experiences a lucid dream where he has unlimited power and creativity, will he awake with more self-confidence, since he had control over a seemingly real reality?

    Also, it has been said that some of the most creative inventions have come from one's dreams. Has anyone had a creative invention come from a dream?

    Thoughts? Comments?

    Also, has anyone kept a dream journal? If so, were you able to draw any conclusions as to why you were having the dreams you were having? And, has a dream brought premonition to you before--or slight glimpses of it?

  17. Do you allow yourself to pass moral judgement on someone such as Hitler? You never aided him in any way (I assume), nor did his actions affect you (again I assume).

    Yes I do, and I believe his actions did negatively effect me (quite indirectly if I may say so). He killed others unjustifiably and thus, b/c I too do not deserve to be murdered, he effected my life, since an unjustifiable attack on someone's right(s) is an indirect attack on mine.

    A piece of paper is a nice innocuous example

    Thanks, I thought so too :).

    Do you think that it would still have no affect on you if you sold a knife to him with knowledge beforehand that he was going to slit his own throat with it? (Hint: Liability and/or Dr. Kevorkian)

    No. Legally yes, but that doesn't concern me for the law is at many times outside of logic. I simply sold him a product and cannot be held responsible for the use/misuse of it. If 75% of the population decides to misuse resume paper (hah, a little stronger now :)), attacking each other violently with it, it is still not the sellers fault that people are dying via resume paper (his product).

    And I agree you with about the vast effects, of what are commonly referred to as "vices," have no our society, but, as I'm sure you will agree, it's the USER who is to blame, not the product.

    How could a dealer ever know if his product is being consumed by rational consumers, short of stalking every consumer to find out how they are using his or her product?

    If a dealer's business is relatively small and done under the table, there's no way to know if your consumers are "rational" or not--which is another reason why the dealer can not be at fault.

    However, I find it hard to imagine that one can "recreationally" use marijuana the same way one recreationally drinks. One drinks or smokes a cigarette for the taste; one uses marijuana to get high

    So 'taste' is the standard by which a drug's use is determined moral/immoral? What happens if marijuana becomes tasteful? (P.S...some of my weed-smoking friends have said they can taste the difference b/t high quality and low quality weed)

    I think we all agree that IF you know, with absolute certainty, that the buyer is going to use your product wrongly, then you ought not to sell him your product. (In this context, "wrongly" is used to mean that which violates the right(s) of another person.) (But what business wants to screen all its users for rationality? And what consumer wants to be screened for rationality?--where is the practicability in any of this?)

    My Argument:

    P1) You do not know how the buyer will use the product.

    P2) You do not know in what context the buyer will use the product

    P3) The tendency of a product to be misused has no bearing or relevance to the selling of the product.

    C) Selling marijuana is not wrong.

×
×
  • Create New...