Re: Re: Objectivity

On 5/13/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif-ik1l9ssToec+JF/[email protected]> wrote:
> > Again you take something subjective like ethics and judge it
> > pseudo-objectively (rejected as false)
>
> I do not. I have proven that they are incorrect based on more basic
> assumptions.

So I reject their "very basic assumptions". I don't know what they
are, but when I'll see them I'll reject them. The reason for this
preposterous claim is that I'm sure that there are no assumptions I
would agree with which can derive absolute morality by logical means.

> I realise that if something "makes a lot of sense" it may not be correct. I'll
> give you that. However, after having seen N-T criticised by other people
> several times, and after I've understood why these criticisms were false, I
> concluded that I still believe Neo-Tech is true.

That's no proof, and you have take  what they said to be true for a
fact. I don't have a problem with that as long as you admit it's not a
proof and it's a belief that you're holding.

> Well, as I see it, "The Truth is Out There". Objective reality exists. People
> can be misled to believe something about it that is not true. And if they are
> hallucinating or under hypnosis, etc. may believe something completely
> different. However, the reality is still shared, and one can verify what
> indeed happens or happened.

And as I see it, objective reality, if it exists (and I believe it
exists I just can't prove it) is highly overrated. We all live in a
subjective reality and perhaps objective reality is what allows us to
communicate but that's pretty much it.

> > There is more than one reality, Shlomi.
>
> No, there is exactly one reality, and we all share it. We can probably never
> be certain of what really happened or what are actually the facts, but we can
> be sure that they are shared among us all. Either I have a copy of a book
> called "How to Cook Everything" on my shelf next to me now, or I don't. You
> can come to my house and verify it. Similarly, either Mao is responsible for
> killing tens of millions of people or he was not.

You say you have the book, and I believe that you believe you have the
book. Maybe you are hallucinating. Maybe you are hypnotized. Sometimes
I can tell.

Mao may have even pulled the trigger himself. The question is, is he a
bad person. My answer is, according to my moral values he is. There
are moral systems where he's not.

> Well, I can tell him that he cannot be certain he'll go to heaven, and much
> less that God is muslim. It is hard to believe the soul can persist without

But he "knows" he'll go to heaven and that "god" is a muslim. You
can't beat that. Unless you use a heavy stick.

> the body, because whatever affects the body is registered in the mind. And it
> is unlikely that God, assuming he indeed exists, favours the crazy and
> subjective religious theories as put forth by most religions. (And if he
> does - we're in deep trouble).

I'll leave figuring out why this past paragraph is talking about
subjective reality as absolute reality as an exercise to the reader.

> You cannot rely on anything that happens to you after death. Death is most
> probably final.

How can you tell? You don't know that and can't know that or even know
whether it's probable or not.

> > > Like I said, when someone makes an assertion, the burden-of-proof is on
> > > him.
> >
> > Well, I assume whatever I say is true and under this assumption
> > everything I said is true so there.
> >
>
> Well, I don't necessarily buy into what you said, because I need something
> more substantial than that. Not everything I'm saying is true.

It was an example of subjective thinking. I'm asserting that
everything I say is right and using that as my axiom in proving pretty
much anything. It's as good as other axioms.

-- Arik