HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:04:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell) writes...
>By the way, another interesting fact that I heard from a guy who works for
>Campus Crusade for Christ as an outdoor evengelist. (First name Cliffe,
>don't know the last name) He said there was some statician guy someplace
>that was looking at the prophecies about Jesus. There are about 430 of them.
>He computed the odds of 50 of them all referring to one person in history are 
>same as if you covered the state of Texas with coins, took a coin, threw it
>back mixed up ALL the coins in Texas, and drew the same one out. And that was
>only >for 50 of them to refer to the same person. Not a direct proof that God
>exists, but you start adding up the ones that you know are true (He died on a
>cross, he was whipped before he died, etc, a lot of this written many years
>before the Roman Empire came into existance, and it makes you wonder.

Well, let's look at this example from an information-content viewpoint.
Somebody makes a "prophecy" about someone who will come later, tell people
things they don't want to hear, and get lynched for it. The specifics of
the prophecy tell how he will get lynched.

Knowing that someone will get lynched at some time in the future for
telling people things they don't want to hear hardly requires an uplink
to God.

And guessing that such a person, living at that time, would be whipped and
crucified doesn't qualify as an impressive feat. That was pretty much
standard treatment at the time.

Line up all the insignificant guesses that you please. The information
content here is *extremely* low. Kind of like saying that there was air
to breathe on planet Earth on the day Jesus bought it.

Steve abell@netcom.com
From: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu (Mark Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Leon's PlayTime
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:36:55 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: ccmlh@buitc.bu.edu

>Ha! Did you actually think that my reply was for your benefit?
 
No, I assumed it for your "benefit". Specifically, to indulge
yourself in the adolescent pleasures afforded by your pet
pseudo-philosophy. I can't blame you, really; if I, too, were
able to convince myself that I possessed absolutely certain
knowledge of all that is good and true and real, I'm sure I
would fall into the same trap of vanity that you have.
 
>Please spare you?  Not in your life. This is much too much fun
>for me to stop.  Unlike others, I'm not posting to re-affirm my
>'beliefs' (wrong or right).  I'm simply having fun.  That is the
>general directive of life.
 
What can I say? Someone give this man a Valium.
 
I wouldn't want to interfere with your play-time, Leon, but you might
find that its more "fun" if you play by the rules of reasoned discourse.
Not that you can't be a little insulting, if you choose. But really,
good fellow, calling me a "statist"? Why not just call me a "pinko
commie fag and *really* give yourself a rush?
 
>You know, the world is such a great place once you understand it.
 
Skip the Valium. Try Thorazine. This one is delusional.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:51:54 GMT

In article <mcdermot-210193065943@138.242.64.152>, mcdermot@mdd.comm.mot.com (Steven McDermott) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.090624.27977@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein
>Olav G. Nyberg) wrote:
>> 
>> Steven McDermott on brains in bottles:
>> |> Of course, if objective reality did exist, it might change and take our
>> |> perceptions along with it. If everyone perceived the change would that
>> |> count as evidence?
>> 
>> "Everybody"? If you're a brain in a bottle, you normally don't
>> consider the existence of other brains in bottles.
>
>The whole premise behind the brains in a bottle argument is that you don't
>know you are one. You still "seem" to interact with others and "reality" as
>if you were a person and not a bottle-brain.
>
>Does anyone know of a logically consistent counter argument to the
>brain-in-the-bottle argument?

 SG	Argument is connected to reality but BITB "argument" start by denying 
this, so its not an argument. Fallacy of self-exclusion. Always identify the 
context of an idea before getting inside it. Metaphysics first, then 
epistemology. 
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j)
Subject: Re: Actors as Rand Characters (Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:09:45 GMT

What I find unbelievable is that Ayn Rand wanted Raquel Welch
to play Dagny Taggart! I don't see that working at all.

I agree with a posting from a few days ago; Katharine Hepburn
would have been the best Dagny.  Too bad she was too old to play
her even before "Atlas Shrugged" was even written.

Peter J Nelson

ps: my Raquel Welch source is "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: czeller@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher M Zeller)
Subject: objectivist candidates
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:56:21 GMT

Does anyone know of any  true Objectivist candidates that ran in the 1992
presidential campaign?

How about in any senatorial or house races? Please, I'm only interested in 
those that specifically talk about objectivist beliefs, not adaptations of 
centerist beliefs to objectivist ideals.  Please write back or email
me with a response. If you can, please include any specifics about their  
positions on current issues as well. 

Beyond that, which of the three candidates leaned more toward objectivist 
beliefs. I know the nature of this question is highly subjective but  
please include as much proof and as many examples as you can.

     Thanx a Bunch,

                  Chris Zeller

   

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leb@edgar.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Larry Bright)
Subject: Re: Letting Someone Drown (FLAME)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:58:28 GMT


>... Roark would save [a drowning man], without any doubt
>in my mind.  As an aside, the picture of Roark, idily basking in his glory is
>not an image I would associate with that character.  That sort of idleness
>is not commensurate with a person portrayed to be one who uses his mind,
>actively, for creating and producing.  ... Even if he was designing the most
>impressive structure he ever built, I think he would save this person. He is
>trading the value of a moment of his time, to give life back to a person.
>I think that every moment of his time has value, but it would be by no means
>a real sacrifice to use whatever time it takes to save this man's life.
>This would be the ethical thing to do.  The basis of Objectivism ethics IS
>the life of a human being as a human being.

>... It WOULD be immoral for him to sacrifice his life to save a complete
>stranger.  This is not to say, that an objectivist would not give up his/her
>life in a situation.  Ayn Rand has stated ... that she would stand in the
>path of a speeding bullet to save her husband.  It is not immoral to save
>the life of someone whom you value as much as life itself.

Bravo! This is much more in the spirit of Ayn Rand's thought and art than
most of what I have seen here. While I have serious problems with Objectivism
as a putatively _rigorous logical_ system, there is a _spiritual_ content
in Ayn Rand's work as well that has been mostly overlooked in this discussion.
(I expect flames on the use of the word "spiritual", but decline to respond
to them; I invite serious discussion however. This does not mean that you
have to agree with me or with Ayn Rand.) (BTW, here is a rough definition of
what I mean by "spiritual" as used above: "appealing to the part of us that
desires to  see, know and contemplate the ideal, the best that is possible
to us" [note: no mystical implications])

    -- Larry Bright
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:31:43 GMT

=========================================
 jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:
>
>True. Let's rephrase. The problem here is with words being used too often.
>You have to say that the word theory is given different weights depending on
>the context.
>---[delete]-------
>To avoid this I used the word proof, which holds a more serious meaning.
>Maybe I should have used theory, but the problem is most people would judge
>theory much more weakly than I am asserting. If you can think of a better word
>then ok. Let me change proof to - "Logical reason why you should be at least
>51% sure God exists." Is that better?

 Now that you have somewhat clarified what you meant by the word "proof,"
 could you (or someone participating in this thread) tell me please:

 What is "God?" 
 
 No don't give me "read XYZ and the G-word's meaning is what the
 XYZ implies." Because:
 [1] I have read XYZ (many different religious scriptures).
 [2] I find that its meaning depends on "interpreter." I would like to know
     what Jeff (or someone else) interprets it as. 
 [3] I don't understand what such a concept implies. That is, "so what
     happens because "whatever you mean" exists?"

 Reminds of the time I was reading Einstein's biography. In it he said
 something like, "...., but I do believe in God in Spinozan sense." Well,
 that night saw me cruising thru Spinoza. Spinoza neatly proceeds to merge
 the concept of god with harmony, nature and universal laws. "Thats cool
 with me, Spinoza, I said" and went to sleep.

 No, I am not loosing sleep over this thread, :), still tell me "what is God?"

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<TORKEL.93Jan22120745@echnaton.sics.se>
	<1993Jan22.132736.25136@ulrik.uio.no>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:58:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.132736.25136@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no 
(Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:

   >Your example above falls under the criticism from my last letter.
   >It does not build meaning from the bottom and up.

  From this comment it would appear that the principle you have in mind
is a highly restrictive one, since there is not on the face of it
anything problematic about either "this sentence is meaningless" or
"this is an English sentence". Is "this sentence contains sixty-five
words" also ruled out as meaningless by your principle?

   >A sure test on
   >whether meaning is built from bottom and up is whether or not you
   >get infinite recursion when you try to go from the top and down.

  Is it a consequence of this that to understand a sentence A, we must
first understand every sentence referred to in A? Or does this apply only
to references to sentences in certain contexts?

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:07:41 GMT

In article <C17wEJ.B2r@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
Grossman) writes:
|> In article <mcdermot-210193065943@138.242.64.152>,
mcdermot@mdd.comm.mot.com (Steven McDermott) writes:
|> >Does anyone know of a logically consistent counter argument to the
|> >brain-in-the-bottle argument?
|> 
|>  SG	Argument is connected to reality but BITB "argument" start by denying 
|> this, so its not an argument. Fallacy of self-exclusion. Always
identify the 
|> context of an idea before getting inside it. Metaphysics first, then 
|> epistemology. 

The BitB does not deny Reality, actually, it only denies that
Reality is of a particular kind, and instead proposes another.
The core of BitB is NOT that we positively are and perhaps even
should know that we are brains in bottles, but that we do not
have fail-safe knowledge that Reality is what we believe it is.

As for Metaphysics, I'll gladly take the challenge to show that
BitB is not inconsistent with either Existence, Identity or
Causality. When I have time, I might also explain why I reject
any ideas like BitB, and affirm that Reality is indeed as we see
it, given certain qualifications. Readers of Jimbo's list have
already read this.


Solan

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:16:56 GMT

Jose Garcia <jgarcia@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>     Then you (or was it someone else) have referred to Japan as a free
>market. I allways hear people using Japan as an example of what a free market
>can do. These examples are flawed. The U.S.A is a much more free market than
>Japan and although its economy is strong hasn't being doing very well.
>
>   Japan is a country with massive trade restrictions, not to mention
>government telling companies what  to do in a very active way.
>
>    Does this sound like a free market to you? 
>

Been to Japan lately? They aren't doing too well either. Their stock
market lost about 30% of its value in the last couple of years and
their standard of living has NEVER been as high as that in the US.

In any case, the Japanese market is hardly as restrictive as you would
think. Among other things, there were NO taxes on capital gains until
recently, and there are a fraction of the labor laws we struggle under
in the US. The tax laws are generally friendlier to corporations, with
no tax on dividends such as we have in the US.

Its hard comparing countries with relatively similar levels of
government regulation like the US and Japan. They are generally free,
but have some differences, and it is hard to measure how these
differences (one country having more restrictive labor laws, one
having more restrictive trade laws, etc) alter things. Generally
speaking, both countries are at similar levels of industrialization
and prosperity -- with only a factor of 30% or so either way is hard
to determine how much of the difference is due to what factors.

However, its quite easy to compare a country like Japan with a country
like India -- the differences in government regulation levels are
stunning in a case such as this, and so are the differences in
economic strength.


--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: On the subject of Kant..
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:06:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.100741.15354@ulrik.uio.no>, solan@smauguio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
>In article <C17wEJ.B2r@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
>Grossman) writes:
>|> In article <mcdermot-210193065943@138.242.64.152>,
>mcdermot@mdd.comm.mot.com (Steven McDermott) writes:
>|> >Does anyone know of a logically consistent counter argument to the
>|> >brain-in-the-bottle argument?
>|> 
>|>  SG	Argument is connected to reality but BITB "argument" start by denying 
>|> this, so its not an argument. Fallacy of self-exclusion. Always
>identify the 
>|> context of an idea before getting inside it. Metaphysics first, then 
>|> epistemology. 
>
>The BitB does not deny Reality, actually, it only denies that
>Reality is of a particular kind, and instead proposes another.
>The core of BitB is NOT that we positively are and perhaps even
>should know that we are brains in bottles, but that we do not
>have fail-safe knowledge that Reality is what we believe it is.

SG	my point was that a mere arrangement of letters is not necessarily an 
expression of reason. Im limiting argument to reality. The BitB is not even a 
statement, just parrot sounds which seem an argument.

>As for Metaphysics, I'll gladly take the challenge to show that
>BitB is not inconsistent with either Existence, Identity or
>Causality. 

	BitB is neither consistent nor inconsistent since it is not a 
judgement, just a collection of letters. You have no intellectual 
responsibility to argue with a parrot if its trained to sound like Kant; nor, 
if you use metaphysical basic, should you argue with Kant.
________________________________________________________________________________
	"In that world, you'll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit
you had known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and cer-
tainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe."
                                                              AYN RAND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman <PMSC13SG@UMASSD.EDU>
================================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: leon@cs.weber.edu (Leon D. Atkinson)
Subject: Re: objectivist candidates
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 18:14:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.160852.6183@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st891054@pip.cc.brandeis.edu (Rand) writes:
|> Well, I don't know of any candidates, but Justice Clarence Thomas, in an 
|> interview with Reason while he was the head of the EOC, said that the
|> Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were some of his favorite books.
|> And, as we all know, Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Fed, was in
|> Rand's inner circle for years.
|> 
|> -David Kaufman
|> ST891054@pip.cc.brandeis.edu

Then again, William F Buckley was close to Ayn Rand, but since breaking with
her has reached a beautiful pinnacle of irrationality with his plan for
creating a new draft of youths for public service.  My point is that there
are many people who appear to be objective, but the final test is judging
their actions.  For instance, regardless of the bizzarre Thomas/Hill hearings,
Thomas is not a great example of an Objectivist.  He's a devote christian, for
one.
I know you weren't suggesting Clarence Thomas was an objectivist; I just wanted
to comment and clarify.
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mcdermot@mdd.comm.mot.com (Steven McDermott)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Followup-To: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Organization: Motorola Mobile Data Division, Seattle, WA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:22:13 GMT

In article <ked-240193222625@m248-104.bgsu.edu>, ked@2001.bgsu.edu (Burly)
wrote:
> 	I don't want to knock God's existence.  I would like to be a believer. 
> Someone out there convience me that he's out there and that he does exist.

There is about 4000 years worth of philosophical argumentation, covering
just about any perspective you can think of, so why dredge up the same old
arguments, or worse yet, encourage budding philosophers to introduce a new
slew of fallacious logic. Try instead the study of Physical Anthropology.
Primate->Homonid->Homo Sapiens s.p evolution pretty much decides the issue.
Nearly all of what the divintiy school types are trying to prove becomes
superfluous in the face of evidence from anthropology. The interesting
subject becomes the evolution of culture, values, behavior, psychology,
ideas, etc. In that context religion becomes interesting again. But leave
the existence of god(s) out of it, they are not needed to account for
anything, values included. Although the mechanisms of god worship and the
evolution of culture are fascinating subjects. Unfortunately, too many
people are interested in proving the existence of god(s) so that they can
justify a particular brand of morality.

******************************************************************************

"That which does not destroy me makes me stronger" - Nietzsche
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: godel theorem and godel theorem ....(Re: Where's
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:44:55 GMT

In article <C19vEv.FqC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cole@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Sandra Stewart-Cole) writes:
>There is no proveable truth 
>logically beyond ones own existence if one does not make assumptions of truth.

Does that include this statement itself?  If so, and if your eventual
conclusion undermines all knowledge/truth, then isn't this just a more
sophisticated form of the statement that "I am lying now."?

I don't disagree that there always have to be some premises upon which any
statement must be based, but that doesn't invalidate the statement.  The
axioms Rand identified (regarding existence, identity, and consciousness)
can be reliably assumed true because any attack on them is self-refuting.

>For those who have sought to make only a few assumptuions and prove various 
>truths that fully represent reality consistently from them, GT undermines the 
>attempt. It shows that logical deduction is insufficient to explain anything 
>complex no matter how many starting axioms you take. For seekers of objective 
>truth backed by logic, this is a disturbing concept.

Not at all.  What it points out is that rationalism (that is, pure logic 
unrelated to any real facts) is helpless to deal with reality.  I certainly
have no disagreement with that.  Godel fans seem to think though, that attacks
on logic divorced from reality are effective attacks against logic per se.
Given the objective (as opposed to subjective or intrinsic) theory of
knowledge, Godel is merely pointing out an obvious flaw in rationalism, not
making any kind of effective attack on reason or knowledge (and if that is in
fact what he was doing, his arguments would be self-refuting).

--Brian
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:50:12 EST
From: Robert B. MacMillan <RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: what i think of ayn rand

after having read the fountainhead, i can honestly say that i think she
is one of the most talented writers in the western world.
that was my first opinion.  my second is that she has the shittiest most
reprehensible, pseudo-fascist philosophy i have ever had the misfortune to
read.  i am glad she's dead.
help, someone, please recommend me something that will make me feel different
about this cold-hearted bitch who can write like no one i've ever seen...