And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

Fermat's last theorem was merely the first example that came to mind. The point is that just because *YOU* cannot prove something, doesn't mean that it cannot be proven. Fermat's has been proven. You didn't do it, and probably can't.

The one certainty in philosophy is that nothing is certain.

There are no absolute proofs... of any theory.

And that includes mathematical "proofs" which depend upon assumptions about the truth of the logical axioms from which mathematics is derived.

Münchhausen Trilemma

This is Epistemology 101 stuff.

If you don't exist, then why are you so annoying? Proof can be demonstrated as an absolute to the degree that it matters.

Remember what I said about false boundaries? Sometimes "perfect" is actually just "good enough."



Your comment actually reminds me of a story I read years ago. (I think it was one of Fred Saberhagen's book of swords, but i'm not sure.)

The protagonist upon entering a room discovers a spirit. He recognizes it as inimical and speaks to it plainly. He says, "If you remain in spirit form, I shall simply walk through you. If you materialize into corporeal form, I will slay you. "

That is pretty much my thinking in regards to you and your philosophical points.

[Diogenes]

You say there is a boundary. Prove it!

I can't prove anything.. and neither can you.

I can prove that there is no reasonable process to determine that something is a non person prior to three months of age, and after three months of age is suddenly a person.

I can prove that there is an infinitesimal difference between the previous and subsequent condition.

I can prove that an infinitesimally small difference in reality translates to an infinite difference in legality.

I would think that most reasonable people recognise that there is a difference between a minor and an adult and as such the law determines a somewhat arbitrary age upon which a minor becomes an adult. But no one would ever claim that the chosen age reflects an absolute, finite division between the two states.

And I would similarly suggest that there is a difference between a zygote and a person.

Not from a DNA sample. It would demonstrate that the organism is a human.

In any case, we are not suggesting that Minors should be killed because they are not adults, yet you are insisting that zygotes should be killed because they are not minors.

[Diogenes]

Complete nonsense. Tools have utility. Tools are not living things.

Are you again having trouble comprehending, or are you just trying to think up stuff to respond back?

It's you who has problems communicating your thoughts in a clear way.

This:

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

cannot be read as having the same meaning as this:

Tools have no purpose except to those who use them.

The two sentences are contradictory. /shrug/

My pitching is fine, it is your catching that is inadequate to the task. Both sentences say exactly the same thing.

The concept of "purpose" is meaningless outside the existence of "will" which is a concept that is meaningless outside of the existence of life.

[Diogenes]

Her arguments are solid, and better than anything her opposition has presented. I put her up there with Friedman, Hayek, and Smith.

So you can't fault her thinking?

Even her claims that selfishness is the highest virtue and altruism a moral evil?

As with Newton's equations, her thinking is incomplete. Within the scope of what she was discussing, her arguments are reasonable, but again we have the "boundary" problem. People are always trying to force "this" to be one thing, and "that" to be something else, when the two conditions actually describe a range rather than opposites.

In the context of socialism, her arguments make perfect sense. They are not however, intended to cover the entirety of the human social dynamic. Altruism for your friends and family is a natural and necessary condition. Altruism for strangers for whom you have no inherent love or interest, is not. (The major fallacy with Communism/Socialism. )

Paradoxically, humans dynamically reassign weighting factors to different people within their group dependent upon circumstances. For example, if we were to be attacked by Aliens, suddenly any human would be regarded as an ally, even those who were shortly before, enemies.

The Arabs sum it up nicely in a proverb.

“I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.”

[CKay]

Within the scope of what she was discussing, [Rand's] arguments are reasonable

Yeah?

How about this:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

Ayn Rand

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

[CKay]

This:

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

cannot be read as having the same meaning as this:

Tools have no purpose except to those who use them.

The two sentences are contradictory. /shrug/

Both sentences say exactly the same thing

They most certainly do not!

[Diogenes]

Interesting Rand factoid - she spent most of her life denouncing the welfare state... but then happily accepted social security and Medicare when she got old, poor and sick.

Ad hominem eh?

No, not really.

Her hypocrisy indeed shows her in a bad light, but it was not a gratuitous attack on her character. Rand's evident lack of belief in her own loudly proclaimed philosophy has obvious relevance for the credence we give to that philosophy.

(when I called Rand bat-shit crazy and an unhinged, self-serving, sociopath - now that was an ad hominem)

Build a foundation on sand, and don't be surprised when it gets washed away. Apparently your criticism of Rand (with information found on Wikipedia, no doubt) is based on false information.


Hmm... first Spartans and stealing, now Ayn Rand and Hypocrisy. You is wrong, and you ought to do better research.

[CKay]

we are not suggesting that Minors should be killed because they are not adults

1. It was an illustration of the general that just because we can't provide a finite cut off point between two states of a continuum it doesn't mean that we cannot recognise a difference between one state and the other.

2. In support of the above, we indeed recognise a difference between minors and adults. That we accord them different legal status and rights is evidence of this.

you are insisting that zygotes should be killed because they are not minors.

Where did I say that?

What I have said is that *in my view* a human zygote is not a person.

[Diogenes]

You say there is a boundary. Prove it!

I can't prove anything.. and neither can you.

I would think that most reasonable people recognise that there is a difference between a minor and an adult and as such the law determines a somewhat arbitrary age upon which a minor becomes an adult. But no one would ever claim that the chosen age reflects an absolute, finite division between the two states.

And I would similarly suggest that there is a difference between a zygote and a person.

Seems to me that the questions of 'where is the boundary' is a version of sorites paradox.

You seemingly have no experience with the concept of fuzzy logic.

It is pretty much how I regard any problem.

[Diogenes]

Also see the continuum fallacy.

Note: The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

Your continuum fallacy applies to your own argument, not to mine. I assert a quantum change state occurs at conception, and that no further changes of state occur until death. In other words, there is no transition (the premise of your fallacy) between one condition and another. A fertilized ovum is the minimal quanta necessary to classify as a person.

You are the one trying to create a precise boundary in a continuum, not me.

[CKay]

I assert a quantum change state occurs at conception, and that no further changes of state occur until death.

And I assert that zygote and person are different states and that the point of transition is necessarily imprecise - but that vagueness alone is not enough to invalidate my position.

You are the one trying to create a precise boundary in a continuum

No, I'm really not.

[CKay]

Apparently your criticism of Rand (with information found on Wikipedia, no doubt) is based on false information.

Apparently being the operative word there.

Anyway we now know that she approved of killing babies, which makes any accusations of hypocrisy look a bit tame.

[Diogenes]

This is the fallacy of false equivalency. Happiness created by interacting with other people is not equivalent to happiness created by absorbing drugs that chemically react with your binding receptors. Chemical induced happiness is no different from shutting down processes or introducing viruses into a computer operating system.

It is tampering with the design of the system, and will likely result in a crash.

It is surprisingly easy to find contradictions in everything you say.

Only insofar as people insist on trying to force contradiction because their goal is contrarian.

How do you define chemically-induced happiness?

It must be defined in context, and in context my meaning is very clear; By applications of chemicals which serve no normal or ordinary purpose in the usual life cycle of a human.

Why do you waste both of our times with these juvenile attempts at sophistry?

What about pleasure after exercise caused by endorphins?

Part of the usual biological maintenance/signalling system of any normal human body.

What about the same drugs introduced by intravenous drip?

You really have nothing better to do then to ask questions like this?

What about the same drugs introduced by intravenous drip to correct a genetic defect that blocks natural generation of endorphins and causes depression?

That sounds like chemically induced happiness, albeit for a possibly valid medical reason. Are you now unable to understand the vernacular?

You tamper with your body when you eat chocolate (which also causes chemical-induced happiness). Whether this causes a crash or not depends on many things.

Yes, this is exactly like Huxley's "brave new world." Eating chocolate is the same thing as doing drugs.

This of course is unnecessary argument - there is no absolute distinction between natural and artificial as has been pointed out above....

Oh, you pointed it out above? Well why didn't you say so? That absolutely proves it! Discussion over! We have a winner!


This thread is becoming less interesting every day.

[Diogenes]

Went thru this exact same argument with him possibly over a year ago. He does not learn.

It is surprisingly easy to find contradictions in everything you say.

How do you define chemically-induced happiness?
[...]
You tamper with your body when you eat chocolate (which also causes chemical-induced happiness). Whether this causes a crash or not depends on many things.

This of course is unnecessary argument - there is no absolute distinction between natural and artificial as has been pointed out above....

I don't learn what is not worth learning. As Reagan said:

"The Trouble with our opponents is not that they are ignorant.... It's that they know so much which isn't so. "

[Diogenes]

proof of the existence of God may very well be the consequence of the ability to conceive of the idea, especially if the purpose of God is to serve as an artificial guide star.

Proof - for an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being? Perhaps in your head proof means something like 'ooh, that's such a nice idea it would be good if it were true... in fact I'm going to say it is true'. For most sensible people it has a slightly stronger meaning.

This is once again a case where you aren't catching my meaning. I would have thought that you could have understood by the context of how I wrote it, that I was referring to a "virtual God" which is created by the belief in one.

A "virtual God" achieves a real world purpose. *IF* that is the only God there is, then it WAS created by human thought.

You said: "any more than the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being is proof for the existence of God."


If the only God that exists is a virtual one, then that God was created by "the ability to conceive of the idea of a perfect being" .

To be honest, I don't think explaining it to you was really worth the trouble. If you get it wrong again, I am merely going to let you sit in your crapulence.

And I guess you didn't get the reference to a famous philosophical argument?

Sorry, I simply didn't regard it as worthy of comment.