Posted on 05/23/2003 3:59:51 PM PDT by unspun
I think you and Hank might be crossing swords over the meaning of the word fallacy. I suspect that Hank is speaking to a logical fallacy whereas I took your statement to use the common meaning of the word fallacy which is “a false or mistaken idea.”
For example, physicists are hard at work trying to account for matter. Right now, the hopes lie on the Higgs boson/field to keep the rest of the Standard Model valid. On the cosmic scale, the search for mass continues in dark matter and dark energy theories. The dark energy model might make sense but there as yet is no evidence of such in quantum mechanics.
The same scale of anomalies exists with regard to space/time. Non-locality is at issue with the violations of Bell’s Inequalities at distance. And there is no bridge for the quantum to classic, i.e. Schrodinger’s cat. (The observation paradox...) Sir Roger Penrose says we need a new kind of physics. I agree!!!
Again, I return to Einstein who famously said: Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Ayn Rand's Epistemology is well described in some words once delivered from space and heard by billions of humans on earth: "One small step for man; one giant step for mankind."
Would you please explain your "... perhaps you have already taken the blue pill on objectivism ... " statement?
You brought up the phrase I AM which God gives to Moses as a "nickname" for Himself. It is a profound sentence and a most excellent way to begin meditation and worship - to enter the domain of thought where language fails.
Agreed. Sooner or later, you have to say what you mean and mean what you say.
You too ? How did you know ?
;-)
So that leaves the question open for personal exploration. Finally, I suspect that those whose mindset exists within the boundary of "knowledge, logic, and reason" may be loathe to look beyond.
Thank you Alamo-Girl, and thank you for thanking me Lorianne. ;-) To see the brain as a means for transmission is to ask transmission of what to what? One can then see that the brain is a device of limitation rather than first generation, eh? And as we have brains so we can function in "the material world," so we have the ability to function even more "naturally" with things having to do with "firsts." First things first! We should all pay attention to Primacy - and what a sound, very, very "material" Person Primacy is.
It's good to make your acquaintence, Lorianne. It is good to have the point of view of an architect.... There are a few folks in FR who are very stubborn to hold on to only that which they believe they are in themselves. The fact of them being here serves as a good foil, by which to tell the truth. ;-)
For one to presume that he knows enough of reality by only what he determines is of some apparent but obviously incomplete and non-basic set of the "laws of physics," is a very sad refusal of reality. We love mistaken ones, including ourselves (and that causes us to hate the mistakes all the more). But those most prone to propound tend to be those least prone to turning to a fuller understanding.
Don't let it become too distracting. I've got to get up and have a holiday weekend, myself. Talk to you later!
BTW, have those who would argue against the non-linguistic nature of thought conceded by trying to change the subject?
No.
We are limited in communicating our thinking by our language; Both it's words and it's structure. Sometimes we place limits on our thinking by requiring of ourselves that we only recognize as valid those thoughts which can translate into language (intellect), ignoring the rest. This is why Tesla said "intuition trancends intellect". Language is only a product which is manufactured in the factory of our thinking. It's the factory and it's various processes that are the actual thoughts. It's (language's) structure and purpose are to create an analog in the mind of another that is, hopefully, the same as that in your mind so that the thoughts that originally produced the language are recreated in the mind of the recipient. Precise language is the result of precise translation of thinking into words and word structures. Precise communication is the result of precise use of language by all parties involved in the communication.
If we cannot translate a thought into some kind of precise language we cannot communicate it to another. Attempting to comunicate thoughts that are imprecise, or attempting to communicate precise thoughts with imprecise language (or language usage) results in confusion and misunderstanding. As Wittgenstein would say "what we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence".
IMO, FWIW
Here is an interesting thought I presented on another thread some time ago.
Reality is that which exists, and if God exists in reality, He necessarily must have created Himself.
Based on that dilemma, it's my guess that He who created reality -- God -- doen't exist in reality.
To which unspun and I began a dialogue ...
unspun wrote ... "That is nothing your objecitivism can prove. What it is, it seems, is the product of a mind that refuses to accept that actualized concepts exist outside of present human understanding."
Thinktwice answered ... ...the product of a mind that refuses to accept that actualized concepts exist
actualize ... 1. to make actual or real; realize in action 2. to make realistic.
An "actualized concept" has no basis in perception, reason, or reality; it is without heirarchical roots, there are no earlier -- realistic -- concepts on which it logically depends; and accepting such a "concept" is the intellectual equivalent of "standing on the fortieth floor of a skyscraper while dynamiting the first thirty-nine."
That last quotation comes from page 136 in "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," by Leonard Piekoff.
Have at it, Friends.
A very interesting point. One that I had somehow never considred.
This does not mean it is not useful - it is extremely useful, and should be applied wherever it can be useful.
However it still addresses a subset of reality, more than we can know by using pure sense data/empiricism, but less than we can know of reality it total. Psychotic, by definition, error in their perception of reality. However, one can be insane - and still use logic perfectly. The two are not necessarily connected.
I'm not commenting on you view of dreams, only the fallacy that all that can be known of reality, and all that exists in reality, can be known using reason/logic.
The conclusions reached in the logical analyses of thought omit a critical premise: Because every human being thinks, each individual is naturally biased by the way he (or she) personally experiences intellect and emotion.
The critical importance of this inconclusion of this premise can be seen upon further analysis. Given that (1)each human body experiences sensations in different proportions relative to its other sensations. (2) The neural net of each human brain has been forged by individual life experiences, nutrition and environmental factors. and (3) the human brain is designed from a wide range of genetic and cultural factors, mathematically one may reasonably calculate that there would be very slim odds of two humans thinking exactly the same way.
We can then conclude that there is essentially a "fingerprint" of sensation and logical processing that is unique to each individual.
Furthermore, since thought, like emotion, is universally experienced, if not by all of mankind, then at least by all those participating in this philosophical discussion, there is currently no one (including Wittgenstein) truly impartial enough to determine how "people" in general actually think.
The published novel is actually a sequel to this earlier work, which was rendered somewhat anomalous by the end of the Cold War. But its hypothesis remains one of my basic tenets.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.