HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Subject: Does it exist? (Was: On the subject of Kant..)
Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no (Svein Olav G. Nyberg)
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:59:32 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.

But then, the "other people" "seem" to exist, so their testimony would
only be "seeming", too.

But if you're interested in collective Solipsism, try reading Fichte
or one of his Idealist friends.

|> Does anyone know of a logically consistent counter argument to the
|> brain-in-the-bottle argument?

There is none. It is rooted in how logic works. Given a set of premises,
you can always come up with a conclusion. But you cannot, given some
conclusion, say that it must stem from one uniquely determined set of
premises. So if you say that your perceptions (conclusion) must by
necessity come from the world as you think it is, since the existence
of such world would yield the given perceptions (premises), you have
actually committed a logical fallacy. This, the sceptic knows, and
will use with full force in argument that he will necessarily win,
unless you resort to the "cheap tricks" of saying:

1. Do you mean I don't know you exist, or that you don't know that
   I do exist? [You are here tyeing cognition to a person, and not
   just debating it in abstraction.]

2. But _I_ know this world exist, positively. Or would you claim
   otherwise? Can _you_ know that _I_ cannot know?

3. So, you're just telling me you have a hard time figuring reality
   out, do you? Well, I could tell you a lot, since I _know_, but
   I really don't intend being your psychiatrist. Sorry.


What has happened is that you reversed the situation.

However, this is useful only for debate with people who have that
malicious smile when they tell you "nothing is certain!", in that
you simply feed them their own medicine. It can hardly convince
an honest and thorough inwardly-seeking person who really wants to
figure things out, as you see at the beginning of my answer.


Solan
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: hugh@mks.com (Hugh Brown)
Subject: Re: Active vs. Passive Injury of Others
Keywords: Ayn_Rand,Abortion,Georges_Sorel
Organization: Mortice Kern Systems Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:27:30 GMT

In article <C162Hr.32B@news.cso.uiuc.edu> pjnelson@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (nelson peter j) writes:
>>I think that Ayn's opinion on abortion runs somewhat along these
>>lines: it is absurd to call a 'potential' human being, a mere
>>lump of protoplasm, 'fully human' and accord it rights.  I believe
>>that she goes on to equivocate a sacrosanct fetus with any other 
>>group of cells, in your arm, for instance, of human flesh, for
>>which you could make a similar claim.
>
>>Sounds fine for the morning after - but how about those embarrassing
>>ill-timed third-trimester jobs?  Hmmm...
The Objectivist position (elaborated only by Peikoff in lecture as far
as I know) is that abortion even up to birth is legitimate but
indicates a certain immorality (for lack of a better word) because the
woman could easily have decided much earlier than that late date.
As such, it is indicative of a failure to think or decide.

>
>Ayn's above view on abortion referred only to the first-trimester
>abortions.
Please provide a reference for this.  I am unfamiliar with this
qualification.

>
>>cg
>Peter J Nelson

Clarification on entity in this context:  entity refers to the
separateness and independence.  (please do not misconstrue me
to mean that 3-year-olds are not independent thus abortable.)
The fetus is attached to the mother and cannot live without her.
-- 
hugh@mks.com

Mortice Kern Systems
35 King Street North
From: prabhu@cae.wisc.edu (Vittaldas Prabhu)
Subject: Re: Actors as Rand Characters (Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture)
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 23 Jan 93 20:37:38 CST


Merryl Streep for Dagny. Any takers?
From: bill@triangle.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Fountainhead: The Motion Picture
Date: 25 Jan 93 16:37:47 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing Sciences

In article <1993Jan22.232917.1028@mcc.com>, amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree) writes:
|>
|> BTW, in response to another posting in this thread, a production
|> company _has_ bought the movie rights to _Atlas_ and is actively
|> planning a production.
|> 

Yeah, and UA had the rights to Ian Fleming's books too.  And we all know
how close the movies followed those books.

But, maybe we shall see.  Having bought the rights does not mean the film
will ever be made, and being in the can does not mean it will ever see the
light of day.

bill

-- 

   Bill Gunshannon     | "There are no evil thoughts, Mr. Reardon" Francisco
   bill@cs.uofs.edu    |  said softly, "except one; the refusal to think."
                       |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
From: sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:04:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan27.084249.9635@netcom.com>, abell@netcom.com (Steven T. Abell) writes...
>sulkom@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Sulkowski) writes:
>>        Hmmm.  Consider a defense employee looking at satellite photos
>>for signs of potential enemy troop movements.  Isn't that defense as
>>much as firing missles?  But I suppose you mean that we cannot evaluate
>>how well the job is being done until an actual invasion attempt.
> 
>Not impossible, but hard. Also, by the nature of such operations, if you
>can find out how well your defenders are doing, so can your enemy. This
>is doubleplusungood.

	Point taken.  But a defense company need not give away all its
secrets.  The only drawback is that any secrets it does keep can't be
used for the purposes of advertizing for more donations.


>>        2) In the absense of government defense, which may be rejected
>>        out of a distrust for it, rational individuals will choose
>>        instead to create private alternatives which are funded in
>>        a purely voluntary fashion.
> 
>This can result in factional warfare. Currently, when the US goes to war,
>the US goes to war. Under your system, you will have multiple organizations
>capable of waging war, controlled by people of varying opinions and beliefs,
>maintained in places that may be beyond the reach of US law.

	There are also economic constraints.  Even if there are people
of "varying opinions and beliefs", this does not mean organizations
will go to war on a lark.  War is expensive, and the public goods
problem is already such that defense is likely to be underproduced.
It is likely that these defense companies will stick to purely defensive
roles.


>In most situations, I trust the corporate boys a lot more that the
>gummint boys. This is an exception. A competitive market in the projection
>of force will get out of hand in about a nanosecond. If you don't believe me,
>go look at your local junior high school, or maybe a street corner in East LA.

	Bad examples.  The incentives at work are much different.


>Which brings up another point. The rest of your discussion assumes the world
>is full of rational people. Nice dream. If it were true, we wouldn't need a
>military at all.

	I was responding to the claim that "rational people would not
create a market in defense".  I was merely explaining how that might
not be the case.  I'll avoid a discussion of whether irrational people
will mess things up for now (classes are starting!)


>Nope, this is a case where I'm willing to be taxed to obtain a public good,
>as long as I can exercise my right of free expression, and can own weapons
>comparable to those carried by an infantryman.

	Fair enough.


> 
>Regards,
> 
>Steve abell@netcom.com


Mark Sulkowski
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: joeli@dawg.bothell.sgi.com (Joel Iseman)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:23:15 GMT

This story was told to me third hand, so I can't be certain of it's accuracy.  

Leonard Piekoff was asked in a Q+A session who should be the Objectivist chioce for President.  At the time Perot was out of the race.

Peikoff's surprising response was Bill Clinton.  The logic was this.  Bill Clinton is a vocal proponent of big government, income redistribution, incresed taxation and increased intervention in the free market economy.  Peikoff found this choice preferrable to voting for a candidate who espoused free market economics while IN FACT growing the size of government, increasing taxes and increasing the burden of federal regulation and intervention in the economy.

My Comments:

The average american voter associates free market capitalism with the Republican Party.  George Bush's public rhetoric did not deviate from this association.  But the dirty little secret is that government spending, federal regulation and taxation grew unabated during his presidency.  Bush has completly discredited free market capitalism, AND HE WASN'T EVEN PRACTICING IT!   
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Jimmy -Jimbo- Wales)
Subject: Re: Where is David Kelley?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:10:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.200956.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 33045_211@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
>Does any one know how to get in touch with Dr. David Kelley? He is an
>objectivist philosopher who is on the outs with Piekoff's tribe
> (One indication
>that he is a little more in touch with objective reality.) 
>He published "Evidence of the Senses" through Loisianna State U. several years
>ago but I have not been able to locate him.

David Kelley is alive and well and living in New York State.  His _Institute
for Objectivist Studies_ is doing well, holding an annual summer conference
for graduate students (and others) and doing serious work in philosophy.

David Kelley may be reached at:

David Kelley
Insititute for Objectivist Studies
82 Washington Street
Poughkeepsie, NY  12601

(914) 471-6100
(914) 471-6195

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: what i think of ayn rand
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:13:35 GMT

===========================
 RMACMIL@auvm.american.edu (Robert B. MacMillan) writes:
>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...

 Sure, but first let us know what you mean by fascism, pseudo-fascism,
 shittiest and reprehensible. And why are so you eager to want to feel
 differently? What disturbed you?

T.Y.		(who finds the fountainhead exalting)
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: test, please ignore
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:27:52 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:40:05 GMT

In article 93Jan20192830@bast.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.170740.10203@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>    >So when I say "A = not-A" is meaningless, I mean it in the semantic *and*
>    >logical-proposition sense.
> 
>   "A=not-A", whatever this may mean, does not figure in this context,
> but rather the definition
> 
>                   A = "A is false"
> 
> which is not in any way meaningless, but a mere stipulation, whereby
> the letter "A" is stipulated to designate the string "A is false".

> Here it it must be understood that "false" is taken to be a property
> of sentences, so more explicitly we may define instead
> 
>                  A = "A is a false sentence"
> 
>    Your further comments don't touch on the issues that arise if we take the
> view that A, thus defined, is not a meaningful sentence.
> 

I want to point out that a "stipulation" is a demand for agreement.  I can't
agree to something unless I analyze it's meaning.

But, let us continue.  You say that A is a sentence.  And you define A.
If you expect me to accept the definition, you must first tell me if you
want me to treat A as a collection of symbols without meaning, or as a
collection of symbols with meaning.

If you tell me that A is a collection of symbols without meaning (which
happen to spell "A is false"), then I will agree to your definition, and
state that it is a meaningful definition now that you declare A to be 
without meaning.

But if you say that A is a collection of symbols with meaning, then I must
analyze the meaning as follows: 

You say
that A is sentence which is false.  This implies that A has a fixed truth
value.  But then A is a logical proposition, because a logical proposition is
a statement which has a fixed truth-value, and your fixed truth-value is
"false".

But when I treat A as a logical proposition, I find self-contradiction, and
so I conclude that A is not a logical proposition.  Yet you claim it is, because
you claim that A is false.

I won't get into a repeat of my argument of the last post; you already know it.

But you rejected it out of hand.  You must tell me if you want me to analyze
the meaning of A, or if you want me to close my eyes to any possible meaning
of A, and just treat it as a collection of symbols.

--Rob
From: ac@cheshire.oxy.edu (Aileen Cho)
Subject: Re: Atlas Shrugged casting
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:56:41 GMT


  I assert again that Jeremy Irons is THE Hank Rearden.  Y'know, Linda
Hamilton would be a lovely Dagny. Ethan Hawke as the Non-Absolute, perhaps?
What about Eddie Willers?
				--ac

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Joseph Zell)
Subject: Re: God exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:26:49 GMT

jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:

>>In article <C17y16.Jt6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jlamb@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Richard Lamb) writes:

>>As promised, no flames, but some legitimate questions:

>>Assuming some Biblical statements are provably true, do you think that
>>the *majority* of the Bible is provably true?  (If 99% of the
>>statements, or even 51% are provably true, then it is more convincing
>>for the rest than if only 10% are provably true.)

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.
Joe

 
 
-- 
Joe Zell               *  "I knew Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was my  
zell@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu  *  friend..."
                       *            -Ronald Reagan, 1992 GOP convention speech
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.uoknor.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: Does it exist? (Was: On the subject of Kant..)
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:15:54 GMT


   I disagree with a least one the statements, "... nothing is certain".
I wonder if such a claim can ever be established through evidence or
logic. If nothing is certain, what becomes of all the other things we
believe to be certain? Or, what becomes of our concept of nothing?
This is all very painful. 
   If I understand the meaning of nothing properly, it is a state of
non-being; the absense of everything else. If the definition is to
remain consistent, there is no way to verify the existence of nothing,
since such verification necessarily requires the intrusion of an
observer effectively nullifying the very existence ot the phenomenon
to be observed. The paradox is well known and is of sufficient power
to seriously weaken the assertion, "Nothing is Certain". 
   I think the safest course for reasonable people is to concede that 
nothing is most definitely NOT certain. Combine the uncertainty of
nothing (which must include the question of its possible
non-existence) with what we are certain we don't know (the nature of
gravity for instance), and the only conclusion left to us is that any
conclusion must be premature.

Bill (cogito ergo sum ?)

Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: mdc@crash.cts.com (Milo D. Cooper)
Subject: Re: God doesn't exist
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:53:10 PST

In article <C1FqD7.Hos@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gambit@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
=
=The fact that every entity does not require a cause is obvious, because the
=Universe (if we take it to be the totality of existence) obviously did not
=have a cause.  There could be nothing to cause existence, because it would
=have to exist itself.
=
=Benjamin W. Lagow

	How is it, then, that from such a nihilistic origin of life
emerged conscious life aware of its past, and thus concerned with its
future?  Logic is subject to the dictates of experience.

						 _m d c_
			  Milo D. Cooper  '92   | 1992  |  mdc@crash.cts.com
						`-------'
-------------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Evidence for the market
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:01:57 GMT

In article <C17LHA.BEB@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}violett@indiana.edu (Andrew J Violette) writes:
}>Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
}
}>>Hee hee.  Then why do I have such faith in the free market, in
}>>limited circumstances?
}
}>I am a little bit confused as to what your definition of free market is.  A
}>free market defined only under "limited circumstances" is not a free market,
}>it is a regulated market.
}
}It is possible to have a free market in beans and a regulated market
}in medical care, side by side.

Not really.  The additional costs imposed upon the medical market will
distort the bean market slightly.

}The point is that modelling a
}free market, one makes assumptions (sufficient diversity among
}suppliers and buyers for supply/demand curves to be continuous and
}monotonic, sufficient information about a product that the buyer
}can act rationally); the less likely the assumptions are to hold,
}the less accurate the model, and the more it is necessary to add
}other constraints.

No, Chris, you make these assumptions, and many economists have made them
since the theory of perfect competition and general equlibrium originated
in the early 20th century, but they are not only false, but contrary to
the fundamentals of the Vienna school of economics.

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
From: skillian@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Seth James Killian)
Subject: Re: Gandalph Exists. Proof within.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:18:55 GMT
Keywords: Lord of the Rings




		While you may have found a hole in the overly ambitious
	"Gandalf exists", you seem hesitant to respond to the basic theme
	of his objection.  I will see if I can make it as clear as possible:

	1)  I, Seth James Killian, was logged onto the net at 4:03 AM on 
	January the 24th.
	2)  I have attended the University of Illinois at Champaign Urbana
	since the fall of 1992.
	3)  I was born on June the 7th, 1974.
	etc...
	N)  I claim that God, in any sense or possibly implied meaning,
	does not exist.

		The first three facts are certainly as, if not more,
	verifiable than any biblical happenings.  I could concievably
	write a list of equally verifiable (or at least, shall we say,
	non-false) claims about my own life, or any set of events that
	I so chose.  Within this volume of largely provable occurences,
	I could include the fact that I had a hamburger for lunch yesterday,
	when in fact, I had fish.  Given the passage of several thousand
	years, this fact could certainly escape the possibility of refutation.
 	I could also include the postulate that God does not exist.  By your
	argument, and given the current society's ability to retain information,	my book (while being infinitely less interesting) would be a better
	standard by which to decide upon the existence or lack thereof of a
	God.  Your thought was an interesting one, but this strikes me as
	a rather unforgivable hole.  Maybe I'll just write that book up and
	post to alt.atheism just to put an end to all that thoughtless 
	God bashing... :)

		Seth Killian



Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism