Why They Fear Us

The Rational Argumentator ^ | December 26, 2003 | Henry Emrich

[MarkL]

Excuse me? What bible is this guy reading?

Beats the heck out of me... I know it's not in the hebrew version... In fact, the word "slave" isn't mentioned at all in the 10 Commandments. And given the fact that the 10 Commandments were given to newly freed slaves (remember, this was before the 40 years of wandering the desert), the thought of having slaves themselves would have been completely abhorrant.

But then, if you think that it's nothing more than a mythology, then why bother with being accurate.

Mark

[Hank Kerchief]

The usual meaning of "purpose" is, I suppose, something like "the aim of an intelligent agent".

...

I understand that you do not believe in God. Thus, I can't make any sense of your reference to "purpose" with respect to the life of a simple organism. What do you mean by the word?

With regard to rational beings, purpose means just what you have indicated, one's intention, or goal, or "aim." But the word also is used of any action that has a specific result.

Life is a self-sustained process. It is at once both the means and the end. Since life does not exist independently of living organisms, and to sustain itself, the life process must sustain itself as an organsim, the purpose of the life of an organism is to sustain the organism.

But notice, to sustain itself, an organism cannot do just anything. What it must do to survive is determined by the nature of the organism. Except for man, organisms that are not defective always act in the way their nature requires. The automatic pattern of behavior non-rational organisms are provided by their nature is called instinct.

I understand that you do not believe in God, is a presumption. I do not know what you mean by God. Who knows, I might believe in God, if a rational (understandable) definition, without floating abstractions and stolen concepts were provided.

Hank

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. donh: I see. So physics has gone into a noticable decline in the last 100 years? Could I ask if you are using carrier pigeons to communicate with me?

Mr. Stolyarov: Much of present technology is based on either Classical fysics, biology (which has remained largely segregated from fysics by the ultra-specialization of both fields), or (in the case of computer-related mechanisms) information theory. Modern fysics has degenerated to empty speculation on an ontological misnomer: "the origin of the universe," and apocalyptic prognoses that would make Nostradamus seem like a healthy realist.

(For the justification behind what may seem odd facets of my spelling, please see "An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics," an attempt to wield scientific systematization precisely where under-determination would have me cower in inaction before the bulwark of stale traditionalism.)

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/filosofyoflinguistics.html

Mr. donh: "Newton's theories implied a universe that was a fixed time-space frame..."

Mr. Stolyarov: Of course the universe has a fixed time-space frame! That is EXACTLY the sort of MACROSCOPIC generalization that cannot be refuted if relativity and quantum mechanics are kept within proper bounds justified by the evidence.

Any denial of the absolutism of space and time amounts to the claim that A does not equal A, and that we cannot know anything, even the most fundamental media that surround us. It is a violation of the very root of logic, without which logic is possible.

I shall respond further in the near future.

[possible]

"I understand that you do not believe in God" is a presumption. I do not know what you mean by God. Who knows, I might believe in God, if a rational (understandable) definition, without floating abstractions and stolen concepts were provided.

Please excuse the presumption.

If I say there is an elephant in the room, this may be false, but it is understandable. Similarly, if I say someone created the universe, you may disagree, but it hardly seems unintelligible. Do you understand the word create? Do you understand the word universe?

[possible]

With regard to rational beings, purpose means just what you have indicated, one's intention, or goal, or "aim." But the word also is used of any action that has a specific result.

Life is a self-sustained process. It is at once both the means and the end. Since life does not exist independently of living organisms, and to sustain itself, the life process must sustain itself as an organsim, the purpose of the life of an organism is to sustain the organism.

But notice, to sustain itself, an organism cannot do just anything. What it must do to survive is determined by the nature of the organism. Except for man, organisms that are not defective always act in the way their nature requires. The automatic pattern of behavior non-rational organisms are provided by their nature is called instinct.

I'll agree that living things have a nature. One aspect of the nature is to sustain life. Another is to die. Another is to reproduce. Without reproduction, extinction comes quickly.

What's the next step in the reasoning from observable evidence to the conclusion that theft is wrong?

[Hank Kerchief]

Do you understand the word create?

Yes, it is what man must do to survive.

Do you understand the word universe?

Yes, it is all of physical existence, although I do not regard it as all of existence. (Life, consciousness, and volition exist. They exist "materially," that is, independently of any particular individual's consciousness or knowledge of them, inlike concepts, or other elements of concsciousness itself, such as emotions, which only exist if there is some one to have those concepts or conscious experiences.)

The only created things are those created by man. Everything else exists without contingency of any kind.

Hank

[possible]

The only created things are those created by man.

Is it fair then to conclude that you don't believe in God, understood as the one who created the universe?

[possible]

Everything else exists without contingency of any kind.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the universe is deterministic? Or do you mean determined plus some element of randomness? Or something else entirely?

[Hank Kerchief]

The only created things are those created by man.

Is it fair then to conclude that you don't believe in God, understood as the one who created the universe?

Since, with the exceptions I previously mentioned, (life, consciousness, and volition--which pertain only to living organisms, themselves all physically existing) physical existence (the universe) is all that exists. It could not have been created because whatever created it would already have had to exist, that is, would have to be part of existence, that is, the universe.

Theists generally believe the universe is not all that exists, but there is no grounds for this belief at all. We hardly have grasped what the universe is, or even how much of it there is, much less have any reason to suppose there is something else of which the universe is not a part.

If you mean by God, something that is not part of existence, (the universe) than I do not believe in that. I do not believe in anything that does not exist or for which there is no reason (or evidence) to supose does exist.

(By the way, I intend to get back to your other question concerning the objective basis for determining theft or "stealing" is immoral. We have a ways to go. We have not yet determined what "morality," means. That will be next, I think.

Hank

[donh]

: Much of present technology is based on either Classical fysics

Yes, well the technology which you are presently employing to communicate with me, is not. It is based on quantum fluctuation.

Modern fysics has degenerated to empty speculation on an ontological misnomer

Give me a break. Modern physics explained the two-slit phenomenon, the black-body phenomenon, resolved dozens of otherwise inexplicable notions about the universe, not least of which, is the question, "Where do the heavy elements get cooked up?"--gave us transistor technology, atom bombs, x-ray machines, and led us to the basic components of matter.

Of course the universe has a fixed time-space frame!

Of course it does not--please get yourself a rudimentary education in physics before spouting off in public about it, and save yourself further embarassment. IF the universe has a fixed time-space frame, than it cannot be the case that the speed of light has an absolute limit, irregardness of the observer's frame of reference. It cannot be the case that a clock accelerating ages more slowly than a stationary clock--and yet, that is the demonstrated case.

[donh]

Any denial of the absolutism of space and time amounts to the claim that A does not equal A, and that we cannot know anything, even the most fundamental media that surround us. It is a violation of the very root of logic, without which logic is possible.

Here's that same patented Rand-ite argument: "If the universe doesn't conform perfecftly to my pre-conceptions about the principle of Identity, than I can't think about it at all."

What ignorant, fearful, gibberish. As far as physics is concerned, A=A is a macro-approximation which doesn't work very well under an electron microscope. But that hardly prevents us from "knowing anything". All one has to do is look to see that we know a great abundance of useful things in physics, right at the moment, in direct violation of the necessity of the invariant principal of exclusive identity, which baldly fails to explain the problems of entanglement, baldly fails to account for electrons penetrating a PNP junction, and baldly fails to explain how heavy elements are cooked in stars, and has therefore, been, quite rightly, rejected by quantum physicists.

Exclusive identity, or "A=A", for those of us whose brains have been cooked by too much Objectivist "philosophy", is exactly like Newtonian physics in this regard. It works on a gross macro scale, at close range, for any problems the 18th century could come up with, but it is a dismal failure when you get right down to the nitty gritty details, using modern equipment, where you need to do precision work.

It is just a human-evolved logical law, for manipulating discrete objects in well-ordered sets, for goodness sakes--it is not incumbant on the entire universe to behave in a way humans have grown comfortable with for a millenia or so, constraining themselves to what they can detect with the naked eye.

You Randites are like the flat-earthers, in this regard. "The universe looks flat to me, so by God, it must be flat." The universe is what it is, cope with it--it's not going to conform to your arbitrary pre-conceptions.

[possible]

I intend to get back to your other question concerning the objective basis for determining theft or "stealing" is immoral.

I look forward to your attempt. On the other hand, I believe that at some point you will see that the project of reasoning from observable evidence to a moral conclusion is hopeless. This was the grand project of "enlightenment" philosophy, a project which ended in complete and utter failure.

[G. Stolyarov II]

Mr. donh: "Give me a break. Modern physics explained the two-slit phenomenon, the black-body phenomenon, resolved dozens of otherwise inexplicable notions about the universe, not least of which, is the question, 'Where do the heavy elements get cooked up?'--gave us transistor technology, atom bombs, x-ray machines, and led us to the basic components of matter."

Mr. Stolyarov: You have not provided a link as to how these fenomena are explicable via modern fysics; how relativism and the macroscopic rejection of the obvious account for them or any modern technological feature. Your arguments are especial non sequiturs where practical accomplishments are concerned, as I can claim that these derive from partially true aspects of given modern theories that are consistent with the Indentity Principle, but these by no means prove the entire theories to be true.

[Mr.Atos]

What is there about, "heaven," (or whatever your notion of the 'afterlife' is) that appeals to you? Why would you want it? I am presuming it is not just to escape some kind of suffering or torment you see as the alternative, but, if that is the case, please say so.

This place has been a frozen wasteland since last we spoke on this subject. Mt. Hood however was fantastic for boarding on Friday, and although the fetching mrs. atos and I did not get to run the miracle mile, we did spend time contemplating your question. The phrasing of your inquiry being as unique as it was, inpired me to convey it to her as well. Her answer remains my personal wisdom. My insights I will share, brief as they may be.

Mt. Hood is a tremendously spritual place for us. It was the destination for a first date, we were married there, and have had numerous wonderous experiences there. I have never really bothered to ask whether it exists. And Friday, like most other days in the Pacific Northwest, it is impossible to see the mountain at all. Nevertheless you know it is there. The knowledge of past experience serves as evidence for the journey and that knowledge is confirmed the moment you navigate the ice and snow to arrive at Timberline Lodge (sans Jack Nicholson). Believing it is part of knowing, so there is no degree of faith involved with my consideration of the mountain's presence. There is a degree of faith involved with regard to our driving ability, the mechanical state of my vehicle, road conditions, avalanches, accidents, and other unexpected phenomena, most of which we have some control over. There is also a significant degree of faith in that the mountain, a lightly sleeping volcano, will not explode when we are on top. This is something over which, we have no control. It could end our existence in an instance. We would not, desire that to happen, but it is, nevertheless, a possibility as are any number of uncontollable events that are even more probable and yet do not deter my journey and the expectation of fulfillment. Do we ponder all of these things when we set out on the journey? Perhaps at some subconcious level we do. And yet, we set out for the mountain without questioning the ultimate fulfillment.

Will it happen? It will.

What if it doesn't? If we pondered that excessively, then we would never consider going to begin with.

It will!

Pardon the metaphorical expanation, but I think that it serves to show that in actuality I do not find myself pre-occupied with the status of heaven or the existence beyond the human state of being. It is an interesting way to ponder the existence of God by reflecting on one's notions of heaven. But, both are equally considered, at a personal level, as aspects of faith. It influences beliefs to some degree and may even guide actions as happens from time to time. Yet rarely is it used as a substitute for reason in THIS current state of existence and with regard to my real motivations. That would render the world subject to my beliefs and be in direct contradiction to knowledge... the primary tool that we posess to engage this existence; the goal of which is survival to the extent that is humanly possible.

Perhaps what develops here(n) is a starting point for the next step(n+1). ??? And perhaps Mt. Hood will immitate its twin sister next time I am up there. I really do not have knowledge or control of either or the consequences thereof.

I believe in something more. I choose to live here.

All else will happen as it does...

...and accordingly.

[donh]

You have not provided a link as to how these fenomena are explicable via modern fysics;

I don't think I really need to supply a link for something that we should have learned in high school.

One explication of the two slit experiment is that light is both a continuous wave and a discrete particle. As these are mutually exclusive states, in classical physics, classical physics declines to offer an explanation at all.

You have not "provided a link" as to how the invariance is "explicable" via classical physics.

Your arguments are especial non sequiturs where practical accomplishments are concerned, as I can claim that these derive from partially true aspects of given modern theories that are consistent with the Indentity Principle,

No, you cannot. Entanglement, in all it's various manifestations is a straighforward violation of the principle of identity. Some aspect of a discrete particle of light goes through both slits at once.

[Hank Kerchief]

On the other hand, I believe that at some point you will see that the project of reasoning from observable evidence to a moral conclusion is hopeless. This was the grand project of "enlightenment" philosophy, a project which ended in complete and utter failure.

Since the product of that effort, among other things, was the American Revolution, and the most noble society every seen on earth, at least for the first 150 years of this country, it was hardly an utter failure.

hank

[Hank Kerchief]

It was the destination for a first date, we were married there, and have had numerous wonderous experiences there. I have never really bothered to ask whether it exists.

Good grief! Why would you? That kind of skepticism is pathological (and a common disease of University professors).

There is a degree of faith involved with regard to our driving ability, the mechanical state of my vehicle, road conditions, avalanches, accidents, and other unexpected phenomena, most of which we have some control over.

This is not what, "faith," means in a "religious" sense at all, and people are constantly and intentionally confusing the two meanings. There are things we "believe" are probably or likely true based on the best evidence we have, which it would be a mistake to act contrary to so long as better evidence is not available. This is not credulity, it is making the best judgement possible on the basis of the avialable evidence.

Religious faith is believing something for which there is no evidence, no evidence except someone's "word for it," or evidence which is contradicted by even better evidence (or reason).

I do not find myself pre-occupied with the status of heaven or the existence beyond the human state of being ...

That seems totally reasonable. I have a rule: ignore what you cannot possible change or influence, concentrate on what you know you can do, not what you cannot.

Thank, you, Mr. Atos, for an interesting answer. I do hope you and the, "fetching Mrs. Atos," have many more wonderful romantic adventures on your beloved Mt. Hood.

Hank

[possible]

I wrote: On the other hand, I believe that at some point you will see that the project of reasoning from observable evidence to a moral conclusion is hopeless. This was the grand project of "enlightenment" philosophy, a project which ended in complete and utter failure.

You wrote: Since the product of that effort, among other things, was the American Revolution, and the most noble society every seen on earth, at least for the first 150 years of this country, it was hardly an utter failure.

Please note that I said the project of reasoning from observable evidence to a moral conclusion ended in complete and utter failure. If you wish to intelligently dispute this claim, you must address the claim.

I sincerely do look forward to your attempt to spell out reasoning from observable evidence to the conclusion that theft is wrong.

[Mr.Atos]

Indeed! Thank You, Hank.

btw... when you drive an 88 Trooper named 'Molly [Brown]' with 180K miles on her, every drive is an act of 'faith' ... as I have learned a few too many times.

Atos

[Hank Kerchief]

I sincerely do look forward to your attempt to spell out reasoning from observable evidence to the conclusion that theft is wrong.

Well, finally, I hope to get back to answering your question. I have been quite busy, completely revising a WEB site, releasing a book, and ... in any case, I really haven't forgotten.

But, to answer the question, we must get a couple of things established. The question is: "how can it be objectively established, reasoning from the evidence (what we can be directly conscious of, including our own natures), that stealing (or theft) is wrong.

We must first establish what we mean by theft or stealing, and, secondly, what we mean by wrong.

I will tell you in very simple terms what I mean by these words. If you agree, you can simply say so, and we will go from there. If you disagree, you can explain how and why, and we can attempt to resolve whatever differences we have along those lines.

My concept of theft is dependent of the concept of property, which I would describe as that which a person has produced by their own effort, or acquired by exchanging what they have produced (bought) or performed some service to obtain.

This assumes all parties are willing to any such exchanges as take place. Loot is not property.

Theft is any means by which someone acquires the property of another without the other's knowing consent, either by using force, the threat of force, or by deception (such as fraud).

By wrong I mean morally wrong. Moral principles pertain only to one class of beings and only one class of actions, human beings and freely chosen actions. They pertain to human beings because they are the only ones that must live by conscious choice. They pertain to chosen actions, because all others are, "caused," by the autonomic nervous system or physical events over which one has no control.

Two things are required, knowledge and ability, before a choice is possible and before it can be a moral one. One must have knowledge, first, of what choices are available (what can I do), secondly, of the possible consequences of the choice (what will happen if I choose this?), and thirdly whether the actions is right or wrong; one must be physically or intellectually able to do what is chosen.

Finally, moral principles are values. All values presuppose an end or purpose; that which advances the purpose is good, and that which inhibits or damages the purpose is bad. There is no such thing as "intrinsic" good. To be good, something must be good to someone for something.

Since these principles are fundamental, we must first either agree or disagree on these, or any further discussion of how something can be established as, "right," or, "wrong," will not be possible.

Hank