From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Modern Logic -- question (was Obj. Philo
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:25:28 GMT
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: baruch@nynexst.com's message of 7 Jan 93 18:57:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.185720.25570@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:



   In article 93Jan6134120@macro.bu.edu, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
   > In article <1993Jan6.153443.27955@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch) writes:

     (...stuff deleted...)

   >    > Point is you must accept "A is A" as true. Hummans do not act or 
   >    > think as Turing machines. Regarding that "A is A" as true
   >    > (which I believe it is as far as I , a human can know it,to be)
   >    > is an act of faith and there is no logical basis for it
   >    > while there is certainly a rational basis for it.
   > 
   > #   There is certainly a logical basis for it.  If "A is A" is false, then
   > #   you cannot argue about "A is A" because "(A is A) is (A is A)" is false.
   > #   Therefore, you don't really know what you are arguing about, and what is
   > #   the point in arguing about something you don't know about?  That was the
   > #   essense of Ayn Rand's statement -- A is A means that before you talk about
   > #   something, you must know exactly what it is you are talking about.  She
   > #   said it another way -- "existence exists".
   > 
   > There is no logical (not rational) proof of self congruence, it must
   > be an axiom. You can never prove axioms, you accept them on "FAITH" 
   > if you are human or they are downloaded to you if you are a machine.
   > 
   > There is a rational basis for accepting self conguence at some
   > level of your perception. That rational decision is based on an 
   > act of faith or if you will empirical knowlegde. Any bit of
   > empirical knowledge has the possibility of being proved invalid
   > is some context. If you say I am 99.99% certain that "A is A"
   > there is still the finite(although small) probability that "A is not A".

#   Really?  If A is not A, then how can you claim that (A is A) is false, since
#   you are already assuming that (A is A) is not really (A is A)!  What in the
#   world does it get you to think that there is a finite probability that what
#   is, is not!

There may be a fact unknown to me that may become known and thus
A is not A at that time.
For the here and now where I am existing certainly A is A(Within the
limits of human perception).
   > 
   > Your observation of reality (your subjective view), will fail
   > to coincide with the `objective reality'. While allowing
   > for a finite but small probability you have in effect remained
   > more consistant with `objective reality'. 

#   How do you know that your objective reality (in which A is A is not true)
#  exists?  After all, if A is A is false, then that reality is not reality, and
 

If any human mind can concieve of something it could exist. You can't
invent reality in your head, but you can use your rationality to
unmasked some aspect of reality that had remained undiscovered
by human intelligence until that point.

#  existence is not existence.  How could your mind function if you aren't you,
#   your mind isn't your mind, and functionality is not functionality?!
#
#   How could you argue that A is A is not necessarily true?  To do so, you would
#   have to admit that (A is A) exists -- that is, (A is A) is (A is A).  If it
#   isn't, then you really don't know what you are arguing about!

 I'm saying for the moment and the forseeable future it is and will be true. 
 I certainly know what we are arguing about. My notion of concepts is
 much more Platonic in nature than the one offered by Ayn Rand to replace
 the Plationist view on the nature of identity.



-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism