The 3 axioms

Debates
1

Status: Proposed debate.

Hi moderators/administrators :slight_smile:

Since the forum “tells” me this: This post will need approval from a moderator before this post is shown - the first part of this post is about the format and how to do that!

-I can’t handle an one to many debate.

-If only one steps up as willing to debate the subject within a maximum of one week this individual by default becomes my opponent.

-I will propose that if there are more than one willing to debate and states so in this thread, that after a maximum of one week my opponent in the debate could have been found in the following manner:

-A moderator/administrator or the moderators/administrators nominate one based on who he/she/they knows will benefit the debate most.

-If the moderators/administrators wish not to do so, I am then told to pick one.

This is of course depended on the choices of you as moderators/administrators. :slight_smile:

As to the rule about answering I will make a post every day and night based on my time zone, Central Europe, and the period starts 00:01 AM.

As stated above I will not answer anyone else than my opponent, but I do wish that others to post and thus that they debate with the debate. :slight_smile:

I will start with an example of how I reason about the 3 axioms and this quote:

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html

This is one way of how I can reason about the words(concepts) in the quote in relation to 3 axioms.

How can I be conscious of something as that someone has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality?

Where is someone, which has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality?

If someone somehow is different from reality is she/he a case of either existence exists, non-existence does not exist or non-existence exists?

With best regards

Mikael

2

We’ve not used the debate sub-forum for a long while.

However, if someone wishes to debate this, please PM the OP with some type of response, and if the OP tells a Mod that an opponent has been selected, the mod will unlock this topic.

Mar 18th, 2011: I have unlocked this topic, because the OP tells me he now has an opponent.

3

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

m082844

Today, 12:21 AM

I’ll debate ya. I’m new here so I want to give it a try…

Initial response is that Our mind is our only tool to interact with existence, so when we denounce our mind we check out of existence and check into a looney bin…

if you like my response, select me to debate.

Hi m082844 :slight_smile:

Please clarify how you know that “we check out of existence..” as back to:

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. …

http://aynrandlexico…icon/logic.html

With regards

Mikael

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

4

Hi Mikael,

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

Hi m082844 :slight_smile:

Please clarify how you know that “we check out of existence..” as back to:

http://aynrandlexico…icon/logic.html

With regards

Mikael

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

To save time I will assume you disagree with the statement, “…to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.” based on your three questions:

  1. “How can I be conscious of something as that someone has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality?”

  2. “Where is someone, which has evicted her/himself from the realm of reality?”

  3. “If someone somehow is different from reality is she/he a case of either existence exists, non-existence does not exist or non-existence exists?”

If this is not correct, then I apologize.

Context is important so I’d like to break up her statement to bring it into full context as I understand it.

To “abdicate one’s mind” meaning to relinquish (as sovereign power) formerly your mind.

“Mind” meaning our sole tool in which we use to interact with reality.

“evict oneself”. What is “oneself”? I identify people by their mind and I identify myself by with mind (as the defining characteristic). So to cast out our minds could mean to “evict oneself”.

“realm of reality” meaning all that exists.

So to relinquish, as a sovereign power, one’s mind has the effect of casting our mind from existence because our mind is dealing with non-existence (the contradiction). How does accepting a contradiction lead to this conclusion?

Our mind is the only tool that can judge and distinguish truth from non-truth — no other mind can do that for you. Contradictions do not exist, so when you accept a contradiction in your mind you are now dealing with non-existence. By carrying contradictions in your mind, and therefore, non-existence you relinquish the sovereign power of your mind to distinguish truth (existence) from non-truth (non-existence). Since you’re mind no longer has the power to distinguish what is not true about the contradiction (because you accepted it), then you have casted your mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving yourself with the contradiction (or non-existent).

Now to answer your questions:

  1. By rejecting contradictions.

  2. They are living within their contradiction.

  3. Reality will not budge; it will fail to comply with your assumed contradiction. E.g. I assume I can spend more than I earn. I don’t work and spend until my check bounces—that’s a message from reality flagging an error. Now I will die unless I change my premise to make equal or more than I spend. If I don’t change and I die, then that is justice and the contradiction no longer exists within my consciousness since my consciousness no longer exists.

5

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

Hi m082844 :slight_smile:

I will start with some metaphysics, epistemology and logic.

The 1st axiom as existence exists and its derivative non-existence does not exist I understand in the following way - existence exists covers everything and non-existence is an formal empty set as I can’t show you in any sense non-existence exists.

Here are some examples of epistemology - if I claim that I can fly by flapping my arms and thus jump out from a sufficiently high place I can fly and will not fall to the ground nor die; then that is not true. I would fall to ground and in all likelihood die. Notice it doesn’t involve non-existence, but rather that I would fall to ground and in all likelihood die. Here is another example - imagine you and I looking at a cat, you could explain to me via your senses what the cat looks, sounds, smells, tastes and feels by touch like. Further we could use several instruments, e.g. thermometer, radiation counter and so. Yet another example - imagine you and I standing facing south and you turning west and I east.

All of this ties in with epistemology as it can be observed.

Now some logic: b8389f542395d2d12d3ec6b2218ae01c.png

The law of non-contradiction relates to switches in the following manner: For a single switch it can either be on or off. The double switch can be top-on, off and bottom-on.

Now this relates in part to truth in the following manner. The flying by flapping my arms is case for which it can never be shown for any humans; i.e. it will always be off. Where as the example of turning west/east resembles the double switch and further you can turn west and then turn east.

The example with the cat sets out a version of the theory of correspondence truth. With all of the above in mind I am going to claim the following - I don’t believe this is true: "Since you’re mind no longer has the power to distinguish what is not true about the contradiction (because you accepted it), then “you have casted your mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving yourself with the contradiction (or non-existent).” Thus I have accepted a contradiction and the following is the case -

I have casted my mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent).

-So who/what has written this?

-How has this text gotten back into the realm of reality?

-If you accept that a mind or lack of same is connected to a brain, how would “my” brain look like if it was brain scanned or otherwise examined?

-How can “I” know as per awareness know and describe what is like to be “leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent)”?

-For any answer to what is like to be “leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent)” how would you know that the answer is true?

-For the following two examples where do they differ? “I” have written this versus I have written.

-If “I” claim I have written this and I haven’t done something, which is not a case of non-existent/non-existence, but rather there at least 3 different usages of the word contradiction in play here - A) Either P or non-P can’t happen in reality at all. B ) Both P and non-P can happen but not at the same time and in the same sense. C) That I can in my mind/brain add up P and non-P and get the result of it doesn’t add up is a case of existence exists; then is this true of the usage of the word contradiction?

What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axioms.html

“I” must ask you this:

  • How do you know this - "you have casted your mind (or oneself) out of the realm of reality leaving yourself with the contradiction (or non-existent).?

  • What is the non-contradictory identification for the actual case of non-existent happens as claimed by you and as back to existence exists?

  1. Reality will not budge; it will fail to comply with your assumed contradiction. E.g. I assume I can spend more than I earn. I don’t work and spend until my check bounces—that’s a message from reality flagging an error. Now I will die unless I change my premise to make equal or more than I spend. If I don’t change and I die, then that is justice and the contradiction no longer exists within my consciousness since my consciousness no longer exists.

As “I” have been doing this contradiction for 20 years - namely claiming a contradiction in “my” mind as something “I” can do, is not a case of non-existent, and thus it is a case of non-existent, then so “I” have to ask to this:

  • When will “I” die?

  • How will “I” die?

With regards

“Mikael”

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

6

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

  1. “If contradictions do not exist in reality, then how come contradictions exist abstractly in our minds?”

We have volitional consciousness, meaning we have to make an effort in thinking, what to think about, what to apply our focus to, what we’ll choose to pursue or not pursue. This means we don’t operate automatically like trees or water or volcanoes. Those things can only respond one way to any given event/stimulus, it’s compelled to happen that way according to their natures, they have no “say” in it to fight it or protest. They can’t have anything in any way contradictory about them. Because we have choices though in our thoughts, options in our actions and pursuits, we’re not infallible. We’re not completely automated or omniscient, so we can make mistakes. We may try to avoid admitting that two particular things can’t both be true because we have decided to whine at reality that we’re not satisfied with it and want both to be true anyway. Or maybe we simply haven’t integrated relevant information yet to realize where a conflict is, since that doesn’t all happen instantaneously. Or maybe we’re just a bit confused because we don’t yet understand the meaning of all the data we have. That we possesses a volitional consciousness is just part of our nature and the possibility for contradictions in our thoughts comes with that. Why that is our natures is a matter of science, generally explained by evolution, genetics, et cetera. We’re the result of many natural interactions.

  1. I don’t think you actually answered this question, but I agreed of your description of volition. I have a theory that assumes that the ability for contradictions to exist in our mind and our ability to distinguish a contradiction from a non-contradiction gives us the power of volition (not the other way around). After all, we are made up of existents which cannot contradict so volition most likely is a byproduct of the ability to use reason.

Is this relevant at all?

With regards

Mikkel

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

7

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

Perhaps it will help. I think I need to define more words and list some premises, if only just to clarify things for myself.

Concepts: are existents because there is evidence that they exist, even if abstractly.

Words: physical representation of concepts, in which we integrate abstractly–obviously the word “horse” is not an actual horse, but the idea is an abstraction in our head. They are existents and can exist as either sounds or written.

contradictions: only exist abstractly and never physically (meaning never in reality).

non-contradiction: “A” is “A”. “A” cannot be “A” and “B” at the same time.

perception: a tool to interact with existents (hear, taste, smell, touch, see).

mind: our tool to integrate perceptions into concepts (identification); works best when being rational. E.g. that sound/sight/smell/feeling/taste belongs to what I identify as a cat. It is also a tool of reason, and uses logic or “non-contradictory identification”.

Are my premises and definitions good so far?

8

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

Perhaps it will help. I think I need to define more words and list some premises, if only just to clarify things for myself.

Concepts: are existents because there is evidence that they exist, even if abstractly.

Words: physical representation of concepts, in which we integrate abstractly–obviously the word “horse” is not an actual horse, but the idea is an abstraction in our head. They are existents and can exist as either sounds or written.

contradictions: only exist abstractly and never physically (meaning never in reality).

non-contradiction: “A” is “A”. “A” cannot be “A” and “B” at the same time.

perception: a tool to interact with existents (hear, taste, smell, touch, see).

mind: our tool to integrate perceptions into concepts (identification); works best when being rational. E.g. that sound/sight/smell/feeling/taste belongs to what I identify as a cat. It is also a tool of reason, and uses logic or “non-contradictory identification”.

Are my premises and definitions good so far?

Hi m082844.

Yes, they are very good! They cover the basics. Now a fair warning from me, m082844. I am not an objectivist, but it doesn’t mean I haven’t learned from Objectivism. It means that I subscribe to 3 out of 4 of the main points of Objectivism.

  1. Metaphysics Objective Reality - Yes.

  2. Epistemology Reason - Yes.

  3. Ethics Self-interest - Yes.

  4. Politics Capitalism - Ranging from in part a no to a yes with qualification.

Now as to my life I am having overtime at work, in my spare time I privately teach students and fix computers from family, relatives and friends. So I have to do this when there is an open slot. Therefore this answer is short and only part of how I understand your points.

From the concept of non-existence it is a compound concept and if we check for how it connects to the rest of reality it does so as far as I can tell in following manner - it is an abstract, hence it requires a mind/brain to be connected to the rest of reality and in its literal sense/meaning it is empty of any actual connecting to what it implies! There is no non-existence exists in all of reality, but rather if I get a result in any variant of non-existence exists I have to check my reasoning because there is in it an error, which leads to the following contradiction:

For all of reality as all cases of existence exists and A is A, there is an A for which it is so that it - A is non-existence exists. There is more to it than that when it comes to 1. to 4. but it will have to do for now.

Until later and with regards

Mikael

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

9

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

Hi m082844.

Now I have some time so here is something about non-existence does not exist and b8389f542395d2d12d3ec6b2218ae01c.png. For I can fly by flapping my arms, when I try to do that something else happens, namely if on the ground I remain on the ground and in the air I fall to ground. In abstract terms non-P or rather non-true/false is as per existence always something else. Here is another example - we are outside and the sun is shining from a clear sky. Now the claim it is not raining is not literally true, because it would mean that the clear sky had the property of not raining.

So back to concepts and the following question - are there concepts for which it is so that we can’t “ground” them via the external senses? And the answer appears to be yes, because if we look for the concept of no as per the word no, we can ask this - what does no as no look, sound, smell, taste and touch like? It goes deeper than that and is connected to both the mind and ethics. Here is what I do when I come across a strong materialist/physicalist with the following reductive claim:

A physicalist: The mind is epiphenomenal!

Me: No, it is not!

The problem the physicalist faces is that she/he has violated the second axiom - I am conscious of. In other words to know that - No, it is not! - is wrong she/he uses what she/he denies. The 1st and 2nd axioms make up the core requirements of epistemology; namely - I know something. Now some natural scientists are used to using the following methodology in acquiring knowledge - namely the public, externally observable and tangible (either directly or indirectly via instruments, but it has its limits.

It also relates to ethics as self-interest and how to evaluate something for its ethical value. I will give some examples as to the epistemology of ethics and how it relates to metaphysics.

So here is the core of epistemology - with reason to check how reality works, check for contradictions in my knowledge and check for how words/concepts connect to the rest of reality. Now for ethics it means that I have chosen to live, but that won’t do it in itself. Merely wishing to live won’t make it so, rather I must obey reality to command it.

So e.g. water or rather fresh water has the relationship to me as I wish to live, that I need it to live, but if we check as per the cat I can’t see, hear, smell, taste of feel its value. Of course water can taste good as feeling, but that doesn’t cut as such. In itself feel good or bad can mislead, because though I need to eat e.g. overeat though could make me feel good, will kill me. Likewise I hate being injecting with a needle, but it shouldn’t stop me if I need the injection to live.

The point is this, water in itself has no value to me; rather it gets its value to me , if I have chosen to live. Likewise of the ethical evaluation of other humans; e.g. someone says to me - you are wrong, Mikael. Now as with water I can’t see, hear, smell, taste of feel as per touch that someone is wrong. Now I can feel/think someone is wrong, but it doesn’t make that someone wrong. For that to be the case then there had to be casual and determined path from me feeling/thinking someone is wrong to the actual case of someone being wrong; i.e. having the property of being wrong. I have yet to hear evidence as for how that takes place and to me it contradicts the primacy of existence. It is so, because if it was the case then I could literally by feeling/thinking you are wrong, make you wrong.

Rather just like water someone else has value to me as it relates to my choice to live.

Now ethics relates to existence exists and the primacy of existence in that for that which I can’t change by simply choosing otherwise it is objective in the sense of having reality independently of my mind. For that which I can choose, i.e. that I want to live, it is objective in the sense that choosing it in itself won’t make it so and if I don’t rationally and with reason choose life, I will in all likelihood get myself killed and/or have a bad life. It is not subjective in the sense that I can simply choose my life and that is it, as per:

Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims. It is the doctrine which holds that man—an entity of a specific nature, dealing with a universe of a specific nature—can, somehow, live, act and achieve his goals apart from and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality, i.e., apart from and/or in contradiction to his own nature and the nature of the universe. (This is the “mixed,” moderate or middle-of-the-road version of subjectivism. Pure or “extreme” subjectivism does not recognize the concept of identity, i.e., the fact that man or the universe or anything possesses a specific nature.)

The subjective means the arbitrary, the irrational, the blindly emotional.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

But ethics in its epistemological sense is subjective as it doesn’t not have reality independently of the mind. You as you in yourself have no value to me , whether positive or negatively. In yourself you are devoid of value to me. Of course the same is the case in reverse.

I will end it here, for now, with the following consideration about rational versus irrational. Other humans are not bad/evil/wrong as themselves if they are not rational nor use reason. They can only be so for me in the context of me.

With regards

Mikkel

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

10

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***

Clearing up definitions of “values” and “good”.

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good–the.html

The first school is the belief that things are good in and of themselves; the second school is good evaluated by an individual’s feelings dethatched from reality; and “The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value.”—Ayn Rand

Also, one must grasp “presence” before “absence” can be considered—existence before non-existent. Existence and non-existence is only an option for life forms; they have a choice between life (existence) and death (non-existence). In animate objects have no choice; they will merely exist and obey external and internal reactions dictated by laws of nature. Values are associated with a choice and is an answer to the questions of “to whom?” and “for what?”. Where no alternatives exist then no value (or good) can be exists.

Lastly, there is a huge difference between existence and non-existence; they are not opposites. One is a positive, the other is a zero.

Achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not “the absence of pain,” intelligence is not “the absence of stupidity,” light is not “the absence of darkness,” an entity is not “the absence of a nonentity.” Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing. . . . Existence is not a negation of negatives.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/non-existence.html

Ok, getting back to your post right before my definitions/premises post…

Let’s say you have accepted this contradiction—“you can flap your arms and fly”.

  1. -So who/what has written this?

  2. -How has this text gotten back into the realm of reality?

  3. -If you accept that a mind or lack of same is connected to a brain, how would “my” brain look like if it was brain scanned or otherwise examined?

  4. -How can “I” know as per awareness know and describe what is like to be “leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent)”?

  5. -For any answer to what is like to be “leaving myself with the contradiction (or non-existent)” how would you know that the answer is true?

  6. -For the following two examples where do they differ? “I” have written this versus I have written.

  7. -If “I” claim I have written this and I haven’t done something, which is not a case of non-existent/non-existence, but rather there at least 3 different

  1. You did.

  2. Words are existents, they never left (“left” would suggest that the text still exists, but somewhere else). The phrase “you can flap your arms and fly” exists.

  3. not any different is my guess.

  4. you wouldn’t know—knowing is not automatic. You would be left with your premise “you can flap your arms and fly” and you wouldn’t be aware of the contradiction until you can compare it with a non-contradiction—is this case, you experiencing you falling even though you flap your arms. Also you will not know contradictions are non-existent until you discover that law of nature. I don’t realize I assumed a contradiction until I’ve identified it (after the fact) and address the contradiction.

  5. you wouldn’t know. Same reasons as before.

  6. Not sure I understand. You are you, and as long as you actually write something those letters and words exist.

  7. Not sure I understand. Are you saying you claiming that “you haven’t done something” is not the same as doing something (or the opposite)? If so, I agree. Existence and non-existence are not opposites.

So, you can identify a contradiction, accept it, and still exist. Your body is still here. However, your mind now has a non-existent within it. Whatever degree of non-existents within your mind is the degree to which you (your mind) are separated from reality. If you take it to the extreme and nothing within your mind represents a non-contradiction (everything is a contradiction), then the whole of your consciousness is incapable making sense of reality. Taking it one step farther; cause-and-effect along with human nature will make it extremely difficult for you to survive for long, and when you ultimately die from your contradictory choices and actions, then your life with cease to exist (the full logical conclusion of your contradiction which results in casting your life out of existence completely).

To sum up, every contradiction you accept is one more degree of separation between your mind and reality; that is one more subject (referencing the contradiction) in which your mind will be unable to help you—it will not have a means to help you until you identify and clear up the contradiction. That is what I think is meant by “to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality”. I don’t think she meant you’ll die or be ejected out of existence since she maintains “oneself” still exists but no within the “realm of reality”—death (non-existence for life) is the tendency of a contradiction, but it’s not a guarantee. We (our consciousness) may still exist in a realm of “non-reality” by maintaining and processing contradictory concepts.

*** *** ALL: Please do not reply in this topic. At this point, this is a debate between m082844 and Mikael only *** ***