Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

nature of reality · Nov 2, 2003, 05:48 pm

Run in fear from this, altruists, for this shows the dirty secret of your hatred for mankind.

1. CONCIOUSNESS EXISTS

if you care to refute this, there is no point in discussing with you, as you don't think you can think.

2. EXISTANCE EXISTS.

A conciousness needs something to percieve. an existance. Therefore, in order for Conciouness to exist, Existance must exist.

3. A IS A

conciousness is an act of identification, then integration. Each object has a unique identity exclusive to itself.

A IS A.

example; This candy bar is good. If its good for me to give, why is it not good for me to keep? Its the same candy bar, it can't be both Good and Bad at the same time.

Therefore, the concept of altruism as its presented is a obvious lie. What is its true intentions and goals?

This is easily demostrateable by a moral dilema.

A Rich man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100, and thinks nothing of it, for he has vast amounts of money.

A Poor man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100 dollars, and will have to do without for himself for some time.

Who is more moral?

And now you see, what they worship is not the act of HELPING but rather they act of SELF-IMMOLATION. they don't want you to help someone else, they just want you to slit your own wrists.

Geoff332 · Nov 2, 2003, 06:38 pm

Second rate philosophy is so boring. Let's just stick with the second point:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
A conciousness needs something to percieve. an existance. Therefore, in order for Conciouness to exist, Existance must exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>The first premise, 'consciousness needs something to perceive', is not demonstrated. It is easily refuted by the brain in the vat thought experiment, leaving you with the assumption that consciousness requires existence. Your argument then looks like, "if we assume existence exists, then we can prove that existence exists." This is a fairly straightforward circular tautology and demonstrates precisely nothing beyond your own subjective assumption regarding the existence of existence.

Now, let's take a look at an interesting comment:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ayn Rand in Playboy @ 1964)
Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Use reason to demonstrate the truth of 'conciousness needs something to percieve' and I will admit that objectivism is correct.

nature of reality · Nov 2, 2003, 08:15 pm

"It is easily refuted by the brain in the vat thought experiment"

elaborate.

Geoff332 · Nov 2, 2003, 08:32 pm

Brain in a vat -- the point is not whether or not the theory is correct, but that we do not and cannot know the answer either way. Any theory resting on an assumption about reality outside of our consciousness is making an assumption that cannot be proven (philosophical skepticism).

Once again, it can easily be disproven, by using reason to demonstrate the truth of the statement that, "consciousness needs something to perceive".

nature of reality · Nov 2, 2003, 09:28 pm

but conciousness is defined by existance...

saying you can have one without the other is like saying you could create a line with one point. its just as impossible, as the line is defined by those two points, as conciousness is defined by existance.

Geoff332 · Nov 2, 2003, 09:54 pm

That wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was (with bits added in so it actually looks something like an argument):
1. Consciousness exists.
2. Conciousness needs something to perceive, which is existence.

Now you are arguing:
1. Consciousness exists.
2. Consciousness is defined by existence.

Under the first argument, I asked you to use reason to demonstrate that by reason that consciousness requires something to perceive. Now you are arguing that consciousness is existence. So, that means you need to demonstrate by reason that consciousness is defined by existence.

I'm not sure which of these arguments you want to propose, but either one doesn't bother me.

fedfem · Nov 3, 2003, 12:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
Run in fear from this, altruists, for this shows the dirty secret of your hatred for mankind.

A IS A.

example; This candy bar is good. If its good for me to give, why is it not good for me to keep? Its the same candy bar, it can't be both Good and Bad at the same time.

Therefore, the concept of altruism as its presented is a obvious lie. What is its true intentions and goals?

This is easily demostrateable by a moral dilema.

A Rich man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100, and thinks nothing of it, for he has vast amounts of money.

A Poor man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100 dollars, and will have to do without for himself for some time.

Who is more moral?

And now you see, what they worship is not the act of HELPING but rather they act of SELF-IMMOLATION. they don't want you to help someone else, they just want you to slit your own wrists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

They are both moral. I would hope that the poor man would give the starving wretch $50.00 and keep $50.00 for himself.

As far as the candy bar is concerned...why must you present a good/bad comparison? Why not share the candy bar?

I have no idea how you reached your conclusions?

Nov 6, 2003, 11:32 am

identity could only be oneself trying to be oneself. subconsiosly. you can never know if you are different or just trying to be different. what proof is there.

Down · Nov 7, 2003, 05:29 am

I agree that 1 and 2 are valid points. However,

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
A IS A.

example; This candy bar is good. If its good for me to give, why is it not good for me to keep? Its the same candy bar, it can't be both Good and Bad at the same time.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Candy bar does not necessarily equal good in all cases. Your example should read 'A is B', which is only true in some cases. I am sure that there is a mass produced candy bar that you dislike. But other people must like it if it is mass produced. The point is this: not everyone likes what you like. One thing can be both good and bad at the same time in the eyes of different people.

Same with morals. Who says what is moral and what is immoral? You? Me? How about both of us? Yes, our ideas of morality are probably different, but that does not necessarily make either of us wrong (or right)

Geoff332 · Nov 7, 2003, 05:59 am

I never got down to that part of the argument; as far as I could see, the second point collapsed into a paradox that the original author (Ayn Rand, not nature of reality) never resolved. Far more competent philosophers than her tripped up on this problem (Ayer and Popper were forced to reformulate positivism and ultimately change one of it's core principles). But each step contains fallacies.

The core problem with morality part of the argument is that morality is attatched to actions, not to objects. Morality requires a moral agent: an object has no agency, and therefore has no morality. The actions (keeping vs giving) are different, and it is the action to which the morality is attached. The candy bar is an artifact of actions and it's final disposition is a consequence of actions, but it is never an agent of any kind.

An action is usually thought to consist of a behaviour (physical movement) and a cognitive orientation (intention -- requiring an intentional actor: an agent). Actions are instantaneous, although there may be consequences over time. For example, if I throw a stone, the action of "throwing the stone" happens when I release the stone from my hand. After that, I am no longer throwing the stone. The stone may be in mid air -- as a consequence of having been thrown, but my action of throwing it is in the past.

Put all of these elements together and you get the perfectly sensible situation where two actions consisting of the same behaviour, but different intentions can have a different moral value. In some cases giving the same person giving the same candy bar might be moral; in others it might not. In neither case is the candy bar itself moral or otherwise.

Nov 2, 2003, 05:48 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	Run in fear from this, altruists, for this shows the dirty secret of your hatred for mankind. 1. CONCIOUSNESS EXISTS if you care to refute this, there is no point in discussing with you, as you don't think you can think. 2. EXISTANCE EXISTS. A conciousness needs something to percieve. an existance. Therefore, in order for Conciouness to exist, Existance must exist. 3. A IS A conciousness is an act of identification, then integration. Each object has a unique identity exclusive to itself. A IS A. example; This candy bar is good. If its good for me to give, why is it not good for me to keep? Its the same candy bar, it can't be both Good and Bad at the same time. Therefore, the concept of altruism as its presented is a obvious lie. What is its true intentions and goals? This is easily demostrateable by a moral dilema. A Rich man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100, and thinks nothing of it, for he has vast amounts of money. A Poor man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100 dollars, and will have to do without for himself for some time. Who is more moral? And now you see, what they worship is not the act of HELPING but rather they act of SELF-IMMOLATION. they don't want you to help someone else, they just want you to slit your own wrists. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 2, 2003, 06:38 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Second rate philosophy is so boring. Let's just stick with the second point: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by A conciousness needs something to percieve. an existance. Therefore, in order for Conciouness to exist, Existance must exist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>The first premise, 'consciousness needs something to perceive', is not demonstrated. It is easily refuted by the brain in the vat thought experiment, leaving you with the assumption that consciousness requires existence. Your argument then looks like, "if we assume existence exists, then we can prove that existence exists." This is a fairly straightforward circular tautology and demonstrates precisely nothing beyond your own subjective assumption regarding the existence of existence. Now, let's take a look at an interesting comment: </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Ayn Rand in Playboy @ 1964) Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Use reason to demonstrate the truth of 'conciousness needs something to percieve' and I will admit that objectivism is correct.

Nov 2, 2003, 08:15 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	"It is easily refuted by the brain in the vat thought experiment" elaborate. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 2, 2003, 09:28 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	but conciousness is defined by existance... saying you can have one without the other is like saying you could create a line with one point. its just as impossible, as the line is defined by those two points, as conciousness is defined by existance. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 3, 2003, 12:35 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,) Run in fear from this, altruists, for this shows the dirty secret of your hatred for mankind. A IS A. example; This candy bar is good. If its good for me to give, why is it not good for me to keep? Its the same candy bar, it can't be both Good and Bad at the same time. Therefore, the concept of altruism as its presented is a obvious lie. What is its true intentions and goals? This is easily demostrateable by a moral dilema. A Rich man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100, and thinks nothing of it, for he has vast amounts of money. A Poor man finds a starving wretch by the side of road. He gives the wretch $100 dollars, and will have to do without for himself for some time. Who is more moral? And now you see, what they worship is not the act of HELPING but rather they act of SELF-IMMOLATION. they don't want you to help someone else, they just want you to slit your own wrists.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> They are both moral. I would hope that the poor man would give the starving wretch $50.00 and keep $50.00 for himself. As far as the candy bar is concerned...why must you present a good/bad comparison? Why not share the candy bar? I have no idea how you reached your conclusions?

Nov 2, 2003, 08:32 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Brain in a vat -- the point is not whether or not the theory is correct, but that we do not and cannot know the answer either way. Any theory resting on an assumption about reality outside of our consciousness is making an assumption that cannot be proven (philosophical skepticism). Once again, it can easily be disproven, by using reason to demonstrate the truth of the statement that, "consciousness needs something to perceive".

Nov 2, 2003, 09:54 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	That wasn't your original argument. Your original argument was (with bits added in so it actually looks something like an argument): 1. Consciousness exists. 2. Conciousness needs something to perceive, which is existence. Now you are arguing: 1. Consciousness exists. 2. Consciousness is defined by existence. Under the first argument, I asked you to use reason to demonstrate that by reason that consciousness requires something to perceive. Now you are arguing that consciousness is existence. So, that means you need to demonstrate by reason that consciousness is defined by existence. I'm not sure which of these arguments you want to propose, but either one doesn't bother me.

Nov 6, 2003, 11:32 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
rationalist Guest Posts: n/a	identity could only be oneself trying to be oneself. subconsiosly. you can never know if you are different or just trying to be different. what proof is there.

Nov 7, 2003, 05:29 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Down Molten Ash Location: Bellingham, WA Posts: 30	I agree that 1 and 2 are valid points. However, </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by A IS A. example; This candy bar is good. If its good for me to give, why is it not good for me to keep? Its the same candy bar, it can't be both Good and Bad at the same time. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Candy bar does not necessarily equal good in all cases. Your example should read 'A is B', which is only true in some cases. I am sure that there is a mass produced candy bar that you dislike. But other people must like it if it is mass produced. The point is this: not everyone likes what you like. One thing can be both good and bad at the same time in the eyes of different people. Same with morals. Who says what is moral and what is immoral? You? Me? How about both of us? Yes, our ideas of morality are probably different, but that does not necessarily make either of us wrong (or right) http://www.sixtyten.com/images/siggy.gif <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:gray'>Man is afraid of that which he does not know.</span></span>

Nov 7, 2003, 05:59 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I never got down to that part of the argument; as far as I could see, the second point collapsed into a paradox that the original author (Ayn Rand, not nature of reality) never resolved. Far more competent philosophers than her tripped up on this problem (Ayer and Popper were forced to reformulate positivism and ultimately change one of it's core principles). But each step contains fallacies. The core problem with morality part of the argument is that morality is attatched to actions, not to objects. Morality requires a moral agent: an object has no agency, and therefore has no morality. The actions (keeping vs giving) are different, and it is the action to which the morality is attached. The candy bar is an artifact of actions and it's final disposition is a consequence of actions, but it is never an agent of any kind. An action is usually thought to consist of a behaviour (physical movement) and a cognitive orientation (intention -- requiring an intentional actor: an agent). Actions are instantaneous, although there may be consequences over time. For example, if I throw a stone, the action of "throwing the stone" happens when I release the stone from my hand. After that, I am no longer throwing the stone. The stone may be in mid air -- as a consequence of having been thrown, but my action of throwing it is in the past. Put all of these elements together and you get the perfectly sensible situation where two actions consisting of the same behaviour, but different intentions can have a different moral value. In some cases giving the same person giving the same candy bar might be moral; in others it might not. In neither case is the candy bar itself moral or otherwise.