Integrating Objectivism and Marxism

[Ilya Startsev]

Eiuol:

A better example is "I am less than 6 feet tall". I can't simultaneously be greater than or equal to 6 feet tall. That's what the law of identity refers to.

True, and I am not arguing against the law of identity. All I am saying is that there is also a grey area that does not follow the law of identity and that Objectivism does not cover it (even though it may be internally consistent). As in your example, your height either increases as you grow up or decreases as you become old. Hence time-wise even a specific height is not permanent. You can either be consistent or complete, but I believe there is a way to be both. However, it involves faith-logic.
 

Not the same thing as the idea being true at one point, then not being true at another.

So, it's more complex than that.
 

except the supposed lack isn't about lack of compassionate emotion.

Agreed.
 

?? Contradiction.

Hm, yeah, but I did not mean it literally, since I never experienced this myself. For example, I heard that some couples after passionate sex were aware of each other internally. Completely or greatly? - I don't know the details, just the fact of it. Sex is not my field of experimentation, so I am left to rely on other people's experiences.

Repairman:

What other silly beliefs comprise your theories? Post #40?

Ok, so Gaia hypothesis for Nature is one. Electromagnetic fields from A.Presman's work for Aura is two. Phytons as paradoxical particles from Shipov's Theory of Physical Vacuum for Void is three. Marxist Global Communism for Society is four. A guess about organelles, DNA structures, and cells resulting from molecular Lattice is five. Considering semi-gaseous state of cells in pulmonary alveolus in lungs for one of cellular States is six. But the main one is the faith part that is in the middle - indifferent awareness. EDIT: There is actually a lot more if you go higher than Society--Nature - eight more levels in total to be exact - but I did not show them because you will not believe in them anyway, so I cut the model short at Society--Nature.
 

So help us to understand, professor.

That nature is alive? Well, its ecosystems are as intricate and sensitive yet stable as our own bodies. So judging by how we are made and by being alive, we could say the same thing about nature. That's metaphysical thinking for you. Other "silly" theorists say that our planet actually grows in size and that's one of the reasons for continents to separate and "grow apart." From your comments, it looks like you are enjoying yourself living in "the society" that we have right now. You or your world do not need to change, since you do not want it to change.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[bluecherry]

Steve's question was this: "With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?"

You answered: "I am not sure how to address it since I neither feel equal compassion for everyone nor familiar compassion for anyone, but I do feel compassion depending on circumstances."

I asked what you meant by "familiar compassion" and you said you meant "familial" probably instead. Steve is looking for any kind of relationship to somebody versus being total strangers and if this would have any degree of difference in the compassion you felt, all else about the situation being the same aside from that you knew somebody somehow or you didn't.

 

"What middle point are they going away from?"

The vaccination one, the middle would be just vaccinating a moderate amount of people. For the one with Steve Jobs the middle would be if he had a lot more lax standards. The middle for abolitionism would have been something like how things were shortly before the Civil War: some places allowed slaves, others didn't; at one point people born into slavery could still be slaves, but not people who weren't born into it; for tax and representation of population purposes in government they even counted slaves as three fifths of a person. For surgery, there are usually some other lesser treatments a person could try, though they may be less effective. As a specific example coming to mind, if you've seen the show House, Dr. House could have had his busted up leg surgically removed after he got in an accident. He could have also just done nothing about it at all. What middle road he did take was not getting the leg removed and just constantly taking pain medication to deal with the chronic pain that would never go away from his screwed up leg.

 

"It was an integrating extreme - an improvenent upon the English monarchy (feudalism -> capitalism)."

Which still means there are extremes that can be good, they aren't just always bad. However, I'm unsure how you consider the Revolutionary War to be an integrating extreme, or even how going from feudalism to capitalism would be. We broke apart from England, that definitely sounds like the opposite of integrating to me.

 

"I think that Leninists confused 'owned by the people' (society) with 'owned by the government.'"

What alternative would you propose for ownership by society as opposed to individuals? Some other group acting a representatives for society that isn't the government? Literally trying to treat everything as belonging to the community at large with no intermediary sounds like a way to get nothing done ever because somebody always disagrees on what to do with something. If you were to resort to majority vote on what to do with the stuff, that's not "the people" then, that's just "most people."

 

"Government is not the whole society, but only its center."

Not the whole of it? Certainly. The center? I think of it as more like they're our (citizens') employees. (Unfortunately, right now, way too uppity ones running amok and in serious need of firing.)

 

"The government should only control the military (and draft, if necessary), police and fire departments, and courts, and anything else that others do not want to control, like the post office. If someone wants to invest him/herself, then government should allow privatizing it."

Strike through, succint way to show where I agree and don't agree. The draft violates rights, the other stuff can be done by private citizens. It's not legal in the US for anybody other than the government to deliver regular paper letters, otherwise I have no doubt that UPS and FedEx would take that on too eagerly. Shipping letters in addition to lots of goods they're moving around already wouldn't be the kind of money sink the current post office is where it's trying to run a huge network on mostly a relatively tiny amount of letters and just a smidge of packages.

 

"Only children would not understand the importance of peace."

1) I'm not saying peace is unimportant, I'm asking how it is "greater" than happiness. Lack of peace can make it far, far more difficult to obtain happiness. 2) let's not start name calling, please.

 

"Being a happy person with a lot of enemies who hate one's guts is not perfection, neither is being in an ignorant state of bliss. The standard is self-improvement in the most general sense."

So, happy with lots of people that hates you isn't perfect by the standard of self-improvement? How so? How does other people hating you mean that you in any way have necessarily failed? Some people are just bitter, spiteful assholes. Not everybody else's fault there. Also, why is self-improvement a standard others should care about? And what is the standard by which improvement is judged and why should people care about that? As for ignorance, we don't champion ignorance as a good thing. What you don't know CAN hurt you.

 

"What then would you say is this alleged third option [that is neither selfish nor not selfish] you see yourself fitting into?" <-- me

"The alleged third option is unnamed and for now taken upon faith(-logic)." <-- you

Can you give an example of doing something for neither selfish nor not-selfish motives?

 

"An individual body, however, does not work objectively" <-- quote from you I asked you to expand upon

"There is surfacing more and more evidence about our bodies being 'wavy,' if you will. Our bodies are not continuous in reality. Think of virtual particles from which we are made up. Do those particles exist here and now or not? Neither one: they disappear and appear out of who knows where." <-- your expanded reply

What is a virtual particle? "Do those particles exist here and now or not? Neither one: they disappear and appear out of who knows where" Actually, I'd say that would just mean there are times they do exist here and now and times they do not rather than it being neither. You also earlier mentioned that you do not consider a group of people to be similarly "wavy", but not all parts of that group exist at the same time either.

 

"I know that you consider [faith] irrational, but maybe you can help me answer on this question in non-negative terms, please."

Well, faith is a method of coming to believing something by 1) just making something up through pure conjecture or possibly 2) making it up by "jumping to conclusions" about observations much too soon or 3) just taking somebody's word on a claim that is very far outside of the norm, especially when it comes to claims which go against all the past observations you have (since it is possible that they too could be jumping to conclusions or making it up or even lying.)

 

". . . everything consists of opposites for the same reason that everything has the opposite, namely, nothing. Isn't this coherent?"

Well, I may be misinterpreting this since I can not make heads or tales of what you were saying about the particle and John Locke, buuuut . . .

A thing does not have "nothing" as part of what it consists of. Consisting can only be done by things.

 

"Whenever you look at something by itself and analyze its interactions philosophically it is basically metaphysics."

Oh yeah, we're talking about different stuff when we say "metaphysics" alright. When we're talking about metaphysics, generally we're refering to the branch of philosophy that addresses the nature of reality at large. This page goes over some of the major topics covered in metaphysics: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysics.html

 

"Body X Environment, where X is the middle of the continuum."

How are body and environment subject to creating a continuum with oneanother?

 

"What kind of conscious connections? Connections between what and what else? How does this make anything in Objectivism impossible?" <-- me

"The idea of 'sharing' that Eiuol mentioned and also conscious intentions that go beyond a physical body."

Oh, hell. I haven't really been following that branch of the conversation well. What would intentions belong to other than a physical body? What evidence do you have to support the existence of such intentions?

 

"I choose to believe the interpretations of data gathered by the Global Consciousness Project."

Soooo . . . not really then?

 

" . . . aware of each other's feelings and thoughts to a great extent. Couples that have been married for a long time can also know what the other person wants to say sometimes. You can say that it's coincidence or even a habit, but I believe that they were able to strengthen this connection that I have been talking about."

I don't think it is coincidence in such cases, not sure what a habit has to do with this. What I do think it is the result of is a lot of data gathered by observing somebody a lot. More interesting would be if you could have two complete strangers who can't see or hear each other telling somebody in detail what kind of week the other person has been having or what their favorite movie is or something like that.

[Repairman]

Repairman:

Ok, so Gaia hypothesis for Nature is one. Electromagnetic fields from A.Presman's work for Aura is two. Phytons as paradoxical particles from Shipov's Theory of Physical Vacuum for Void is three. Marxist Global Communism for Society is four. A guess about organelles, DNA structures, and cells resulting from molecular Lattice is five. Considering semi-gaseous state of cells in pulmonary alveolus in lungs for one of cellular States is six. But the main one is the faith part that is in the middle - indifferent awareness. EDIT: There is actually a lot more if you go higher than Society--Nature - eight more levels in total to be exact - but I did not show them because you will not believe in them anyway, so I cut the model short at Society--Nature.

 

That nature is alive? Well, its ecosystems are as intricate and sensitive yet stable as our own bodies. So judging by how we are made and by being alive, we could say the same thing about nature. That's metaphysical thinking for you. Other "silly" theorists say that our planet actually grows in size and that's one of the reasons for continents to separate and "grow apart." From your comments, it looks like you are enjoying yourself living in "the society" that we have right now. You or your world do not need to change, since you do not want it to change.

So, this explains how a planet is conscious? I s the moon conscious? Are Jupiter, Mars, and Mercury conscious?

Plants, fish, worms, bacteria, and other lower life-forms are obviously alive; are they conscious? You claim they are. What proof do  you have for this claim?

The greatest change that could happen to humanity is the discovery of truth, exposure of fraud, and restricting myths and fairy-tales to childhood. Grow up and face the facts.

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry:

Steve is looking for any kind of relationship to somebody versus being total strangers and if this would have any degree of difference in the compassion you felt, all else about the situation being the same aside from that you knew somebody somehow or you didn't.

It's hard to pinpoint for me; it all depends on a situation.

For all the "extreme" things that you mentioned, I do not really have a stance on them, since I do not know enough about them. Abolitionism, however, I thought was against slavery.
 

We broke apart from England, that definitely sounds like the opposite of integrating to me.

The fact of breaking up - yes. But there was social evolution involved, and it fits Marxist theory of history.
 

What alternative would you propose for ownership by society as opposed to individuals?

I was thinking more of professional communes. There needs to be enough resources and energy for all in order to avoid conflicts, though, so alternative and self-sustaining sources of energy will have to be tapped.
 

2) let's not start name calling, please.

Don't take it too close to heart.
 

How does other people hating you mean that you in any way have necessarily failed? Some people are just bitter, spiteful assholes. Not everybody else's fault there.

I was thinking about corrupt individuals and some criminals. Having too many enemies is a sign that one is not trying to find a common ground with people, not coming to terms with others. There must be a reason why people hate one.
 

why is self-improvement a standard others should care about? And what is the standard by which improvement is judged and why should people care about that?

To improve oneself is to grow out of ignorance. The standard for judgement will then be one's breadth of experience, knowledge, wisdom, and other valuable traits.
 

Can you give an example of doing something for neither selfish nor not-selfish motives?

Donations to a charity and creation of vaccines can be neither selfish nor not-selfish.
 

A thing does not have "nothing" as part of what it consists of. Consisting can only be done by things.

"Nothing" will be the overlapping space where such thing exists as well as emptiness in the thing. But this is in addition to what I was saying earlier, namely, that everything consists of an extreme thing and its opposite thing because everything is an extreme opposite to nothing.
 

This page goes over some of the major topics covered in metaphysics: http://aynrandlexico...etaphysics.html

Neither one of her "natures" of existence matches my view. Like I said, Rand only saw the world in black and white, in an extreme rather than moderate view.
 

How are body and environment subject to creating a continuum with oneanother?

First, Objectivist perception of consciousness is bodily (i.e., consciousness that has no other materialization besides an individual body). This is subject #1. Environment responds (or not) to actions of subject #1, whether it's physical force or nonphysical manipulation, e.g., the stretching of a moment. Hence Environment is subject #2. Notice that I do not discuss interactions between subject 1s, but if these interactions lead to a symbiosis with subject 2s, I am all for that.
 

What would intentions belong to other than a physical body? What evidence do you have to support the existence of such intentions?

First, these intentions are inseparable from our consciousness. Second, they are not purely bodily, that is, they are the forms of our behavior that we create throughout our lives as imprints (think in a time continuum here). We cannot talk about exoteric evidence since traditional science haven't figured out nonphysical (i.e., physically non-localized) fields. Such fields are called informational, morphic, or nonthermal, and there is plenty of lesser known literature that looks at them. You may want to search Kirlian photography, A.S.Presman's analysis of electromagnetic fields, or morphogenetic fields theory.
 

More interesting would be if you could have two complete strangers who can't see or hear each other telling somebody in detail what kind of week the other person has been having or what their favorite movie is or something like that.

How can we have this if people do not believe in telepathy? Although there is evidence for it in works of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.

Repairman:

Plants, fish, worms, bacteria, and other lower life-forms are obviously alive; are they conscious?

If, for a human, pride and consciousness are the same thing, then it does not work for other life forms that you mentioned. They are more conscious of their "societies."

[bluecherry]

"Abolitionism, however, I thought was against slavery."

That's correct.

 

"Can you give an example of doing something for neither selfish nor not-selfish motives?" <-- me

"Donations to a charity and creation of vaccines can be neither selfish nor not-selfish." <-- you

I don't see how these these things would be neither selfish nor not-selfish.

 

"'Nothing' will be the overlapping space where such thing exists as well as emptiness in the thing."

The location of the thing is not itself part of the thing, any area there is stuff is also the stuff, not nothing. Emptiness contained within a thing is still not part of that thing.

 

"Neither one of [Rand's] 'natures' of existence matches my view."

What would you say is the third option which is your view that is neither stable in how it functions/knowable/predictable nor all higgledy piggledy/unknowable/unpredictable?

 

"How are body and environment subject to creating a continuum with oneanother?" <-- me

I don't see how your response answers me question.   Also, ". . . the stretching of a moment"?

 

". . . the forms of our behavior that we create throughout our lives as imprints" =/= intentions. Even if we put aside for now what the proper word here is, this does mean you are talking about something very different than we are when we say "intentions" and this radically alters what the topic under discussion actually is then. So, we may need to basically start over with discussion involving the word "intention" to respond with the same meaning of the word in mind as one another.

 

"More interesting would be if you could have two complete strangers who can't see or hear each other telling somebody in detail what kind of week the other person has been having or what their favorite movie is or something like that." <-- me

"How can we have this if people do not believe in telepathy?" <-- you

So get strangers who do believe in telepathy. 

[Repairman]

This may ran rank as one of the top 20 most absurd things I've read on this forum:

 

Yes, I believe that the planet is conscious, but I have no evidence for it, except the kinds of hypotheses you consider woo woo, e.g., Gaia hypothesis. I am an environmentalist, though, and I do not believe anti-environmentalists when they say that our planet and nature can take a lot of pressure. Sooner or later, it will all break. Humans, similarly, have a limit of patience.

Tell me: Is "the planet" conscious, as you claim? Through what mechanism does it process its conscious? Does "the planet" have consciousness? Prove your claims with factual evidence, no more unproven theories and evasions.

[Ilya Startsev]

bluecherry:

I don't see how these these things would be neither selfish nor not-selfish.

Ok, it's in the same way as what I am doing. How is my philosophy beneficial to my life right now? It's not, since it does not earn me any money, which I am supposed to be earning, right? Well, but it is beneficial for the future of humankind whether I will live then or not. And besides, I love it, and these philosophies make me happy. So, look at it this way: it's both selfish and not selfish.
 

The location of the thing is not itself part of the thing, any area there is stuff is also the stuff, not nothing. Emptiness contained within a thing is still not part of that thing.

I disagree, but "I will defend to the death your right to say it." First, as I mentioned earlier, space is inherent to a thing and inseparable from it. Second, look at an atom of hydrogen, for example. What it consists of is mostly empty space that we consider to be a part of the atom. Besides, what's nothing, vacuum, void? We do not know. You may be right that vacuum is actually made of "stuff" that we haven't found materialized in our reality yet.
 

What would you say is the third option which is your view that is neither stable in how it functions/knowable/predictable nor all higgledy piggledy/unknowable/unpredictable?

Do you want me to show your my whole model, so maybe you will see it clearer?
 

Also, ". . . the stretching of a moment"?

Let me give you an example from my life. It always takes me no less than 1 hour 30 minutes to get to my university classroom. One day, by a mistaken judgement, I started from home late half an hour. Here is what I did: throughout the trip I concentrated and focused to the best of my ability to get to my university as fast as possible, so I weren't late to class. I relentlessly fought against my doubts by "knowing" that I will get there on time. I set realistic (for my imagined potential ability) limit: get to school in 1 hour or less, and I believed in it faithfully like if I had already reached my goal. I materialized it by driving faster. Notice that the physical side of things--e.g., driving faster--is not the only driving force of the stretching of a moment, since your intent for a specific result and your conscious ability to focus on it play just as important roles in you reaching this goal. The traffic and traffic lights worked to my advantage as I saw reality submit to my conscious will. Guess what happened? Yes, I reached my classroom in less than 1 hour. I called it a miracle in class knowing that it's not. It's how we create our realities if we really want to.
 

So, we may need to basically start over with discussion involving the word "intention" to respond with the same meaning of the word in mind as one another.

Perhaps.
 

So get strangers who do believe in telepathy.

Like I said, read Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's The Science Delusion or A New Science of Life for a general outline of his experiments and results, or maybe check out his other books, like The Sense of Being Stared At, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Seven experiments that could change the world, etc. Dr. Rupert Sheldrake is a distinguished biologist from Oxford University, and he also studied philosophy of science at Harvard University. I talked to him about his morphic fields and he agreed that they can be the same as electromagnetic fields, but different than how most scientists view them today.

[Repairman]

Just another example of extreme absurdity:

Repairman:

If, for a human, pride and consciousness are the same thing, then it does not work for other life forms that you mentioned. They are more conscious of their "societies."

I mentioned plants. Is the lawn conscious of the "society" of grass?

Edit: Pride and consciousness are not the same thing.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Repairman

[Repairman]

This tells me that you can count to six, but nothing more.

 

 

Repairman:

Ok, so Gaia hypothesis for Nature is one. Electromagnetic fields from A.Presman's work for Aura is two. Phytons as paradoxical particles from Shipov's Theory of Physical Vacuum for Void is three. Marxist Global Communism for Society is four. A guess about organelles, DNA structures, and cells resulting from molecular Lattice is five. Considering semi-gaseous state of cells in pulmonary alveolus in lungs for one of cellular States is six. But the main one is the faith part that is in the middle - indifferent awareness.

[Ilya Startsev]

Tell me: Is "the planet" conscious, as you claim? Through what mechanism does it process its conscious? Does "the planet" have consciousness? Prove your claims with factual evidence, no more unproven theories and evasions.

We cannot prove it, but only believe in it. Nature is on a level above us, just like Society in which you do not believe! Why are you jumping ahead? Let's get to Society first, before we destroy our Nature. If you feel so smart, tell me what is in the core of the planet? Give me factual evidence, proven theories and no evasions. Has anyone seen what's inside our planet? Let me tell you one fact: the deepest we ever got underground was during the "horrible" U.S.S.R. (whom we also have to thank for the invention of multistage rockets, so humankind could fly into space) - The Kola Superdeep Borehole. It's depth is 40,230 ft. Do you know what they found there? They found temperatures and mineral formations that completely contradicted the scientific views of Earth's core without even touching upon the fact of what could be underneath.

[Repairman]

We cannot talk about exoteric evidence since traditional science haven't figured out nonphysical (i.e., physically non-localized) fields.

Then, if we simply frame every statement as "exoteric evidence," we don't need any evidence to prove anything, and we can say lots of crazy things, and everyone will have to, like, believe it!

Ilya, why don't you save it for the stand-up routine, but spare us the schtick.

[Ilya Startsev]

Just another example of extreme absurdity:

I mentioned plants. Is the lawn conscious of the "society" of grass?

Edit: Pride and consciousness are not the same thing.

I guess it would be conscious of its environment more than of itself. A school of fish, a hive of bees, and others, though, can be considered "societies." Pride comes with an identity of being a human, but it can be overcome. We can learn a lot from other animals and how they interact with each other and their environments.

 

This tells me that you can count to six, but nothing more.

I can count to a lot more, but you will ignore it anyway.

[Repairman]

Ilya, you do seem to have a difficult time handling the truth.

 

We cannot prove it, but only believe in it. Nature is on a level above us, just like Society in which you do not believe! Why are you jumping ahead? Let's get to Society first, before we destroy our Nature. If you feel so smart, tell me what is in the core of the planet? Give me factual evidence, proven theories and no evasions. Has anyone seen what's inside our planet? Let me tell you one fact: the deepest we ever got underground was during the "horrible" U.S.S.R. (whom we also have to thank for the invention of multistage rockets, so humankind could fly into space) - The Kola Superdeep Borehole. It's depth is 40,230 ft. Do you know what they found there? They found temperatures and mineral formations that completely contradicted the scientific views of Earth's core without even touching upon the fact of what could be underneath.

Did they find "the planetary conscious" there? If not, go back to the drawing board.

[Repairman]

I chose not to ignore it. You seem a bit flustered by the truth. Bees are not grass, and neither are capable of any other actions other than actions of survival. Your theories are bunk. You need validation? Not here.

 

I guess it would be conscious of its environment more than of itself. A school of fish, a hive of bees, and others, though, can be considered "societies." Pride comes with an identity of being a human, but it can be overcome. We can learn a lot from other animals and how they interact with each other and their environments.

 

I can count to a lot more, but you will ignore it anyway.

Count on it.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Repairman

[Ilya Startsev]

Then, if we simply frame every statement as "exoteric evidence," we don't need any evidence to prove anything, and we can say lots of crazy things, and everyone will have to, like, believe it!

Ilya, why don't you save it for the stand-up routine, but spare us the schtick.

Ah, Repairman, how you make me laugh sometimes. Thank you for your humor. First, let me define that exoteric means "mainstream," esoteric means "known to few." This is one of major divisions in our world. There are exoteric and esoteric sciences, religions, and even world-views. I am not calling myself an expert on exoteric stuff, but I am surely close to being an expert on esoteric stuff, having studied it throughout my life. If you are only interested in exoteric evidence, well, I can only recommend you to get it from open-minded scientists who take all evidence with a grain of salt. Just like in religion, doubt is essential to all of our evolving views of reality.

[Repairman]

I'm certain the nut-house has plenty of esoteric experts.

[Ilya Startsev]

Repairman:

Did they find "the planetary conscious" there? If not, go back to the drawing board.

No, but they discovered that we may be wrong about Nature and our World in general. This is reason enough to believe that there can be something more to Nature that we haven't realized before. I choose to believe that it's conscious, but there is no evidence for it, and I did not say it in order to talk in detail about this topic. Besides, you took it way out of context (I didn't plan to discuss it then, just as I did not plan to discuss it now with you.) I do not understand why you keep bringing it up. Does it bother you so much?

 

Bees are not grass, and neither are capable of any other actions other than actions of survival.

Plants have no bodies or organs, and thus, please, do not put them together with bees and other animals. These are different categories and levels we are talking about. You grouped them in order to create this mess on purpose? You like to see me on the defensive? If you are provoked like this, I am sure you will start evading and talking in too general terms. If you do not want to accept what I tell you about our Nature, then please end the discussion about it. I came here to discuss Society with you. Nature can be discussed on other forums, such as those on climate change/anti-environmentalism. I am sure they have better arguments against my view than the ones you are (not) sharing here. If you are an anti-environmentalist, please share your views. If not, then ignore our possible disagreements and let's move on. I don't want to argue about Nature with you unless you are an anti-environmentalist.

[Repairman]

Repairman:

No, but they discovered that we may be wrong about Nature and our World in general. This is reason enough to believe that there can be something more to Nature that we haven't realized before. I choose to believe that it's conscious, but there is no evidence for it, and I did not say it in order to talk in detail about this topic. Besides, you took it way out of context (I didn't plan to discuss it then, just as I did not plan to discuss it now with you.) I do not understand why you keep bringing it up. Does it bother you so much?

 

Plants have no bodies or organs, and thus, please, do not put them together with bees and other animals. These are different categories and levels we are talking about. You grouped them in order to create this mess on purpose? You like to see me on the defensive? If you are provoked like this, I am sure you will start evading and talking in too general terms. If you do not want to accept what I tell you about our Nature, then please end the discussion about it.

You are the one who brought it up. You are writing this nonsense. You evade reality. You make the generalities. You can't handle the truth. You claim things that are nonsense, and that is the reason for my engagement: I do not believe lies should pass unchallenged. Stop the nonsense, or I, and others, will persist.

[Repairman]

Repairman:

I don't want to argue about Nature with you unless you are an anti-environmentalist.

Actually, I'm anti-liar.

[Repairman]

Repairman:

No, but they discovered that we may be wrong about Nature and our World in general. This is reason enough to believe that there can be something more to Nature that we haven't realized before. I choose to believe that it's conscious, but there is no evidence for it, and I did not say it in order to talk in detail about this topic.

Simply because we lack knowledge or certainty of facts is no reason for inventing myths, superstitions, or lies as a substitute for rational explanations.

[Ilya Startsev]

Simply because we lack knowledge or certainty of facts is no reason for inventing myths, superstitions, or lies as a substitute for rational explanations.

Please, provide a substitute that is rational and does not conflict with available evidence.

[Repairman]

What evidence does your "faith-logic" require? Apparently nothing other than, "Because Ilya says so." Rational argument requires substantiated evidence.

What other proclamations are hereby ordered from "The Self-Dictatorship of Faith-Logic"?

What other "calcified reasoning" have you monopolized?

 

Edit: You see, I am not going to change the world, neither will the world change me. The most misguided, and often evil leaders, have been those whose life's mission is to "fix" the world. To save humanity from itself. I look out for me, and let others choose their own coarse of direction. If rational people find each other, if they choose to discuss ideas, and if I can participate, then MY world is a better place. Go save the world at your own expense, Ilya, but remember: better men than you have tried and failed, and worse men have tried and nearly destroyed it in the process.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Repairman

[Plasmatic]

The statement:

All I am saying is that there is also a grey area that does not follow the law of identity

Is itself a repudiation of the law of identity.....

[Ilya Startsev]

Actually, I'm anti-liar.

I am not going to change the world, neither will the world change me.

better men than you have tried and failed, and worse men have tried and nearly destroyed it in the process

Humankind would have been nothing without those men who tried.

 

Ok, Repairman, let's backtrack. I am anti-liar too. My problem is that I am gullible, so I cannot tell if someone is lying. I do not understand why anyone would invent elaborate intentional lies if I'm not paying for them. I also have an extensive imagination, but I use it to connect ideas to reality, not separate things and make them conflict. I hope that having imagination is not a sin with you. So, let me differentiate then between something that might have carried my imagination too far away and something that is more or less objective as it was presented. In light of this, consider nature's consciousness and unusual engines as my imagination. Just let go of them - I won't mention them again, since they do not add to my arguments anyway. If I do not present sufficient (by your standards) evidence for it, then it's probably my imagination.

 

Is itself a repudiation of the law of identity.....

Aristotle was mistaken in physics. Do you consider his first law to be the Ultimate Truth?

[Plasmatic]

Startsev said:

do you consider his first law to be the Ultimate Truth ?

I consider it to be the truth that all truths depend on.