The limitations of reason?


audiognostic

Recommended Posts

It is interesting to note that reason has created formal mathematical systems and objects that cannot be completely characterized by finite algorithms created or able to be created by reason. For example the Turing Machine, Allan Turing's abstract version of a computer presents unsolvable problems: among them the Halting Problem and the Equivalence Problem. There is no finite algorithm that is able to determine whether an arbitrary (or general) Turing machine will halt given an input. Some Turing machines have a stopping algorithm but there is no such algorithm for the entire class of Turing machines. Likewise there is no general finite algorithm for determining whether any general pair of Turing machines compute the same function or not.

And of course one should mention the famous Incompleteness Theorems of K. Goedel.

Persons of reason have captured the machinery of logic by way of the First order Predicate Calculus. Alas! There is no finite algorithm that will determine whether an arbitrary closed well formed formula (a formula with no free variables) is or is not provable from the axioms of First Order Logic.

It is like building a wonderful humpah humpah machine but not being able to turn it off.

In an odd sense, reason defeats itself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reason is nothing without the circumstances it is based around

reason is not a pre requisite of existence..

existence is a pre requisite of reason..

even though reason does not create reality

reality creates reason..

but that doesnt mean all of reality is based in reason

Existence is the prerequisite for consciousness, which in turn is the prerequisite

for apprehending sensation; and for logic, which is the prerequisite faculty for forming

percepts and concepts - the totality of which is reason.

"But that doesn't mean all of reality is based [?] in reason."

I don't quite follow what this means; are you saying some existents of reality cannot

be apprehended by consciousness or, integrated into concepts?

If so, which category of existents?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

logical fallacy:

If A then B doesnt mean

If B then A

Plus PROVE IT.. prove that existence is the pre requisite of consciousness . what if consciousness is the pre requisite of existence.. what defines existence?? if existence is everything.. including consciousness . then isnt that a rather redundant statement?

What if the ability for apprehending sensation and logic.. is the pre requisite of consciousness?? what if that is what defines consciousness?

Thats also one thing reason cant always do.. is PROVE things.. ultimately what proves things is EVIDENCE.. or in other words as Nietzche said "WHAT WORKS"... not solely whether it makes sense in someones head... what we need first before we can make any logical proofs.. is all the circumstances and facts of the situation.. you cant just assume facts and then make logical propisitions based off them

ok...

one person prefers this car

76842d1316082924-bmw-bmw-pic.jpg

One person prefers this car

BMW_SX_concept.jpg

objectively rationalize that

which one is objectively "right"

if subjectivity doesnt exist?

and how is this case "explained by reason"

Plus the left brain reason Rand speaks of is Newtoninan in nature.. the deeper structures of the world.. Quantum physics/mechanics.. do not operate by simple reason and rationality..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

logical fallacy:

If A then B doesnt mean

If B then A

Plus PROVE IT.. prove that existence is the pre requisite of consciousness . what if consciousness is the pre requisite of existence.. what defines existence?? if existence is everything.. including consciousness . then isnt that a rather redundant statement?

What if the ability for apprehending sensation and logic.. is the pre requisite of consciousness?? what if that is what defines consciousness?

Thats also one thing reason cant always do.. is PROVE things.. ultimately what proves things is EVIDENCE.. or in other words as Nietzche said "WHAT WORKS"... not solely whether it makes sense in someones head... what we need first before we can make any logical proofs.. is all the circumstances and facts of the situation.. you cant just assume facts and then make logical propisitions based off them.

objectively rationalize that

which one is objectively "right"

if subjectivity doesnt exist?

and how is this case "explained by reason"

Plus the left brain reason Rand speaks of is Newtoninan in nature.. the deeper structures of the world.. Quantum physics/mechanics.. do not operate by simple reason and rationality..

No, no. I don't have to PROVE anything. Primacy of consciousness is your contention.

YOUR proof is required, just as it'd be if you came here defending the 'god concept'.

(Which is also primacy of consciousness.)

Throwing out subjective whims and sweeping assertions does nothing but defeat

your own cause - In effect, stating:

"I believe it because I WANT to, I feel like believing it, and you all had

better see it my way!"

So - disprove the primacy of existence, if you can.

I'm still waiting for a reply to my earlier query:

Are you saying some existents of reality cannot be apprehended by consciousness?

Which ones?

Emotions?

Every emotion, and everything in one's sub-conscious, came via one's consciousness.

If you don't recognize that, then you can't introspect very often.

Then you may not know the high degree to which one can identify an emotion, and even -

often - identify its source.

That's right, I'm saying I can, often: and I am an Objectivist - one who knows a lot more than

you do, it appears, about emotions, and respects them as valuable tools - ultimately,

as allies and friends.

Only an 'emotional-mystic' can argue for mind-body, mind-emotion, duality.

Objectivists well know emotions can be integrated. But also they know that emotions

aren't tools of cognition - or guides to action.

They are instant indicators and evaluations of one's performance: Integrity, honesty

and pride, or the lack of, is reflected in many emotion.

They are the RESULTS of cognition; the consequences of actions.

Not whims.

Your implied notion that Objectivism is robotically 'logical' is laughable.

Reason and rationality encompass the full spectrum of the "rational animal" - from the

animal element, to his highest concepts.

As with the other straw-men : "left brain", Newtonian/QM physics, "subjective" preference

of autos - and rational egoism (derived from primacy of existence) - you are displaying your

lack of knowledge about what you are attacking: O'ist principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one person prefers this car

76842d1316082924-bmw-bmw-pic.jpg

One person prefers this car

BMW_SX_concept.jpg

objectively rationalize that

which one is objectively "right"

if subjectivity doesnt exist?

Of course subjectivity exists. Where do you get the idea that anyone here thinks it doesn't exist?

But since applying an objective verification process makes no sense when it comes to subjective personal preferences, it follows that a question about which choice is "objectively right" in the above case makes no sense either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one person prefers this car

76842d1316082924-bmw-bmw-pic.jpg

One person prefers this car

BMW_SX_concept.jpg

objectively rationalize that

which one is objectively "right"

if subjectivity doesnt exist?

Of course subjectivity exists. Where do you get the idea that anyone here thinks it doesn't exist?

But since applying an objective verification process makes no sense when it comes to subjective personal preferences, it follows that a question about which choice is "objectively right" in the above case makes no sense either.

If subjectivity exists, and it cant be rationally explained through logic.. such as.. i dont like one car over the other because it is more capable of saving my life, or because it has better crash test ratings or gas mileage, but because of its "style"

Such "style" cannot be explained rationally.. it is an emotional decision

What this proves to me is that emotions are tools of cognition.. and if you follow my entire posts on here.. what im essentially saying is that ALL value judgement essentially are subjective, and therefore come from emotions..

The essential choice in the virtue of selfishness for example which allows selfishness to be called a "virtue" is whether one chooses to live ones life for oneself or for others, argue as much as you want, this is still an emotional judgement.. Whether it is illogical, or negates the purpose of ones own existence or what.. If somebody decides not to care about their own existence but instead about someone else s existence.. this is an emotional decision... and a purely subjective one..

What I am saying is the "primacy of existence" argument does not make sense..

Read this youll see what Im saying

http://maverickphilo...-existence.html

Also as far as Im aware , Rand claims subjectivity does NOT exist.. because that implies in itself primacy of consciousness it in itself implies the necessity of irrational, illogical decisions with emotions being valid tools of cognition.. and "mysticism".. that is why i understand she has gone so far as to make an objective theory for art.

From what I understand her WHOLE POINT is that EVERYTHING is objective and rational.

Nathanael Brandon is the person who Ayn Rand herself called John Galt and said that he understood her philosophy better than anybody else.. this is what he posted as the foundations of objectivism.. I strongly doubt you understand it better than him:

Objectivism teaches:

  • That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A;
  • That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
  • That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
  • That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
  • That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
  • That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
  • That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
  • That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
  • That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
  • That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.

Nowhere in here does it ever seem to imply the necessity of subjective thought...

I even heard Rand herself in interviews criticize "subjectivits" saying they are irrational mystics or something of the sort..

From what I understand Rand would not agree with a statement such as "I like this style of car because it "vibes" with me .. I just like how it makes me feel when I look at it so thats why I want it".. she would call that irrational mysticism and using emotions as tools of cognition and demand I break it down somehow into rational postulates..

You might think Im attacking Ayn Rand or that Im some socialist who hates all her theories.. and that is totally not the case..

In fact I live by the idea of rational selfishness, what I have learned to recognize however is that is a SUBJECTIVE decision.. and that those who do not choose to live by that value.. people who ARE altruists.. I cannot OBJECTIVELY call them wrong.. that is like saying someone who likes the black car is wrong because it does not fit the objectivist criteria for art..

I do not think many of Ayn Rands ideas are silly.. what I think is silly is the idea of "objectivism" being the definitive judgement for everything in the world based on pure rationality.. with everything being able to be calculated as right or wrong through some series of objective rational principles invented inside Ayn Rands mind.. her constant throwings out of "good" and "evil" as if they are objective facts...

Value judgements essentially being subjective.. what is "good" is all that which goes for ones personal value judgement.. all that which is "evil" goes against it.. her value judgement was that she wanted to live for herself.. so for her altruism was "evil".. to an altruist who genuinely wishes to dedicate his life to helping others.. selfishness is "evil"... it is a silly subjective word...

This only takes us back to primacy of consciousness and morality becoming subjective again..

To sum up what Im saying, you do realize that.. if irrational subjective choices exist.. and are valid.. that implies primacy of consciousness and "irrational, mystical" emotions as valid tools of cognition, and if they truly are the origin of most value judgments... or at least many.. if not all... that brings us to "primacy of passion" as Nietzche spoke it..

Where I believe people make the mistake.. is thinking that emotional thinking can be validly applied to everything.. or that rational thinking can be validly applied to anything.. in the end.. the most important thing is that one recognizes their place.. emotional being in subjective value judgements.. rational being in procedural arguments.. one cannot intertwine either one into either one..

For example, even for Rand to rationally argue against communism.. first she would have to sit down with the proponents and ask "what is it that we are actually trying to achieve here.. what is the end result we are trying to get to?".. and that would be a subjective value judgement.. once they agree on the end result.. then logic steps in.. and argues whether the procedures outlined are actually going to get to their desired destination or not..

Also this shows that force will ALWAYS exist in the world.. because for as long as people cannot agree on their subjective value judgments.. and there is no way to argue them.. eventually one side will end up conspiring through the use of force to take the other side out so they can get their own way.. essentially coming down to "might makes right"

Sorry... the world is a harsh and irrational place..

Attempting to rationally argue subjective value judgements becomes just as confusing and nonsensical.. as trying to emotionally argue matters of procedure..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one person prefers this car

76842d1316082924-bmw-bmw-pic.jpg

One person prefers this car

BMW_SX_concept.jpg

objectively rationalize that

which one is objectively "right"

if subjectivity doesnt exist?

Of course subjectivity exists. Where do you get the idea that anyone here thinks it doesn't exist?

But since applying an objective verification process makes no sense when it comes to subjective personal preferences, it follows that a question about which choice is "objectively right" in the above case makes no sense either.

If subjectivity exists, and it cant be rationally explained through logic.. such as.. i dont like one car over the other because it is more capable of saving my life, or because it has better crash test ratings or gas mileage, but because of its "style"

Such "style" cannot be explained rationally.. it is an emotional decision

What this proves to me is that emotions are tools of cognition.. and if you follow my entire posts on here.. what im essentially saying is that ALL value judgement essentially are subjective, and therefore come from emotions..

The essential choice in the virtue of selfishness for example which allows selfishness to be called a "virtue" is whether one chooses to live ones life for oneself or for others, argue as much as you want, this is still an emotional judgement.. Whether it is illogical, or negates the purpose of ones own existence or what.. If somebody decides not to care about their own existence but instead about someone else s existence.. this is an emotional decision... and a purely subjective one..

What I am saying is the "primacy of existence" argument does not make sense..

Read this youll see what Im saying

http://maverickphilo...-existence.html

Also as far as Im aware , Rand claims subjectivity does NOT exist.. because that implies in itself primacy of consciousness it in itself implies the necessity of irrational, illogical decisions with emotions being valid tools of cognition.. and "mysticism".. that is why i understand she has gone so far as to make an objective theory for art.

From what I understand her WHOLE POINT is that EVERYTHING is objective and rational.

Nathanael Brandon is the person who Ayn Rand herself called John Galt and said that he understood her philosophy better than anybody else.. this is what he posted as the foundations of objectivism.. I strongly doubt you understand it better than him:

Objectivism teaches:

  • That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions -- that existence exists, that A is A;
  • That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
  • That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
  • That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
  • That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
  • That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
  • That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
  • That no individual -- and no group -- has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
  • That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
  • That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.

Nowhere in here does it ever seem to imply the necessity of subjective thought...

I even heard Rand herself in interviews criticize "subjectivits" saying they are irrational mystics or something of the sort..

From what I understand Rand would not agree with a statement such as "I like this style of car because it "vibes" with me .. I just like how it makes me feel when I look at it so thats why I want it".. she would call that irrational mysticism and using emotions as tools of cognition and demand I break it down somehow into rational postulates..

You might think Im attacking Ayn Rand or that Im some socialist who hates all her theories.. and that is totally not the case..

In fact I live by the idea of rational selfishness, what I have learned to recognize however is that is a SUBJECTIVE decision.. and that those who do not choose to live by that value.. people who ARE altruists.. I cannot OBJECTIVELY call them wrong.. that is like saying someone who likes the black car is wrong because it does not fit the objectivist criteria for art..

I do not think many of Ayn Rands ideas are silly.. what I think is silly is the idea of "objectivism" being the definitive judgement for everything in the world based on pure rationality.. with everything being able to be calculated as right or wrong through some series of objective rational principles invented inside Ayn Rands mind.. her constant throwings out of "good" and "evil" as if they are objective facts...

Value judgements essentially being subjective.. what is "good" is all that which goes for ones personal value judgement.. all that which is "evil" goes against it.. her value judgement was that she wanted to live for herself.. so for her altruism was "evil".. to an altruist who genuinely wishes to dedicate his life to helping others.. selfishness is "evil"... it is a silly subjective word...

This only takes us back to primacy of consciousness and morality becoming subjective again..

To sum up what Im saying, you do realize that.. if irrational subjective choices exist.. and are valid.. that implies primacy of consciousness and "irrational, mystical" emotions as valid tools of cognition, and if they truly are the origin of most value judgments... or at least many.. if not all... that brings us to "primacy of passion" as Nietzche spoke it..

Where I believe people make the mistake.. is thinking that emotional thinking can be validly applied to everything.. or that rational thinking can be validly applied to anything.. in the end.. the most important thing is that one recognizes their place.. emotional being in subjective value judgements.. rational being in procedural arguments.. one cannot intertwine either one into either one..

For example, even for Rand to rationally argue against communism.. first she would have to sit down with the proponents and ask "what is it that we are actually trying to achieve here.. what is the end result we are trying to get to?".. and that would be a subjective value judgement.. once they agree on the end result.. then logic steps in.. and argues whether the procedures outlined are actually going to get to their desired destination or not..

Also this shows that force will ALWAYS exist in the world.. because for as long as people cannot agree on their subjective value judgments.. and there is no way to argue them.. eventually one side will end up conspiring through the use of force to take the other side out so they can get their own way.. essentially coming down to "might makes right"

Sorry... the world is a harsh and irrational place..

Attempting to rationally argue subjective value judgements becomes just as confusing and nonsensical.. as trying to emotionally argue matters of procedure..

What could you be wrong about?

--Brant

we need a starting point for criticizing you for any point any of us choose will have to be subjective making your positions impervious to logic--help! (waiting to slice and dice)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol this is stupid because what you are doing is taking one point i make, and taking it out of context to criticize me while not rationally adressing all the other points i have made

so therefore.. i quit

here is my final propositon...

im going to tell you that i like the black car better than the grey one...

objectively prove me wrong or right

since all things are objective and rational and reason has no limits and there is no such thing as a proper irrationalist or "mystical" judgement

I think that this car

car_2231-15a127c510.jpg

looks cooler and is better art than this car

2007-hybrid-car-pictures-3.jpg

objectively prove me right or wrong using rationality and the objective theory of art

explain to me rationally what is "looks cooler"

after all arent all value judgements related to how much something benefits or hurts my life?

I would still prefer the top car, even if it had lower crash test ratings, and worse gas mileage and worse handling..at least i would continue to think it "looks cooler"

and if thats not a rationally explainable phenomenon.. then does it mean its an invalid one and shouldnt be made because it is "mystical and irrational"?

I think this song is garbage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iim6s8Ea_bE

i think this song is awesome and better

am I right or wrong.. or should i not make that decision because it is not objective or rational?

Please objectively explain to me how one benefits my life better than the other

How are emotions not valid tools of judgement or cognition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you quit you quit--but what are you quiting, Prometheus?

--Brant

the life preserver of "context"

maybe I agree with most of your post--that's not what I'm here about--I don't care if I agree with you in whole or part--so, what's really going on?

what could you possibly be wrong about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

audiognostic,

Your primary error here is the same one that you have made in other thread: you are mixing up philosophical categories. In this case, you are confusing metaphysics and epistemology.

"im going to tell you that i like the black car better than the grey one... objectively prove me wrong or right"

You are (presumably) objectively correct about your own preferences unless you are lying about your preference. This is because a combination of genetics and association-builidng experiences has caused the metaphysical reality of your brain to develop in such a way that makes you prefer the black car. Therefore, it is "objectively" metaphysically true that YOU prefer the black car.

This does not mean that the black car is metaphysically better in any other sense. You are only refering to your own personhood. There is not "objectively" "best" car in any other sense unless you are refering to empirically measured categories like "front-end crash safety."

Metaphysically, there is no such thing as "subjectivism." Metaphysical objectivism refers to the concept of acknowleging the accurate realtionship between the subject (the observer) and the object (the observed). Metaphysical subjectivism refers to the beleif that the nature of the object is dependent upon the subject. This is axiomatically and empirically false.

"What this proves to me is that emotions are tools of cognition.. and if you follow my entire posts on here.. what im essentially saying is that ALL value judgement essentially are subjective, and therefore come from emotions.."

Just the fact that you are attempting to use reasoning in some (ie. substandard) form means that you are rejecting your own conclusion. If you truly believed and followed your point that emotions are a valid tool of cognition, then your thought process would have begun and ended with "I feel that emotions are a valid tool of cognition." In other words, you are using reason as a tool of cognition to invalidate the use of reason as a tool of cognition.

"What I am saying is the "primacy of existence" argument does not make sense.."

Again, you are confusing categories: this time its metaphysics and ethics. "Primacy of existence" does not refer to the belief that one's life is the highest value (though that notion is also true); it refers to the concept that reality is objective and exists independently of conciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are (presumably) objectively correct about your own preferences unless you are lying about your preference. This is because a combination of genetics and association-builidng experiences has caused the metaphysical reality of your brain to develop in such a way that makes you prefer the black car. Therefore, it is "objectively" metaphysically true that YOU prefer the black car.

Here is what I am saying reguarding objectivist psychology.. you are speaking based off assumptions.. and things you know nothing about.. you are attempting to backwards-reason and say that SOMEHOW there is a rational explanation for why i like the black car over the grey car..

when in fact there is no such proof to say so conclusively

Science cannot yet conclusively show or calculate why someone would prefer the black car over the grey car.. that is still a mystery to science.. they have theories, postulates, hypothesis.. but still no solid proof... in essence.. they still dont understand the full nature of consciousness.. nobody has yet come out and said "we understand why people love! we understand why people have tastes and preferences! we understand what feelings mean! we can rationally explain everything!"... all they have is hypothetical and unproven theories.. that is why the study of psychology still exists.. and they havent just lumped it into physics and began developing mathematical formulas to figure everything out..

Some call psychology a "pseudoscience" because it deals with the rationality of "what works" or "what seems to work".. rather than what quantifiably, rationally, and mathematically makes sense..

There are the materialist rationalists which simply backwards rationalize and assume that their postulate that materialism is all there is.. and say .. well even though we cant prove it step by step.. it MUST be this way! but this is all based on their unproven assumption that materiast rationality is all there is .. but that is not proof.. that is why there is still major debate.. and now with the advent of quantum physics, there is even more debate than ever.. Trust me.. I follow this.. Nobody has yet conclusively proven that the brain is just a material block based on simple rational newtonian principles.. and that is it and claim they understand and could effectively calculate everything..

The study of the mind is still in its infant stages.. that is why attempts to "Rationally, logically, objectively, rationalize and explain everything away" based on 1960s level of understanding of the human mind during Ayn Rands time.. just seems silly to me

As I have shown from my very first post.. you cannot effectively rationalize on things in which you do not know all of the contexts and circumstances.. you cannot rationally map an environment, if you do not know all of which it contains.. it will LOOK rational.. but if your understanding of context is not totally accurate.. there is a high probability it will not work in the real world

Just the fact that you are attempting to use reasoning in some (ie. substandard) form means that you are rejecting your own conclusion. If you truly believed and followed your point that emotions are a valid tool of cognition, then your thought process would have begun and ended with "I feel that emotions are a valid tool of cognition." In other words, you are using reason as a tool of cognition to invalidate the use of reason as a tool of cognition.

we need a starting point for criticizing you for any point any of us choose will have to be subjective making your positions impervious to logic--help! (waiting to slice and dice)

this essentially refers to the same point as i see it..

This is a strawman argument as i see it

Fore I never said that reason has NO place.. what I specifically said is that individual "value judgements" are entirely subjective.. and that is the ONLY thing I said which is subjective

NOT every reasoned argument begins and ends with a subjective emotional cause or conclusion.. only those regarding subjective value judgement

For example, if I were to argue the composition of water as being H2O.. this has NO place for any sort of subjective value judgement

The subjective value judgement here is that we are choosing to argue about the same thing.. the nature of water..

Here I am arguing about the nature of argument and reason therein..

If you catch my drift..

what could you possibly be wrong about?

I dont know.. you tell me..

If you follow my whole post it says this

1. Logical reason inside someones mind cant POSSIBLY explain EVERYTHING

2. Reason and logic is strictly limited by its context and circumstances and ones awareness of them.. without a proper awareness one cannot make proper argument.. and many things upon which have been supposedly reasoned.. fall into this category as far as I believe.. including the nature of human psychology, consciousness, and the universe, as explained by objectivism

3. The point behind objectivism is that EVERYTHING is objective.. and that any form of "nonrational" value judgement which cant be distinctly broken down with rational logic is "mystical" and "doesnt exist"... whereas it seems evident to me as I have pointed out that there is no proof to back this assertion up..

4. Therefore I am saying one cannot simply explain away all of the world through "rational objectivism" there is a mixture of objective and subjective

5. What one chooses to speak of.. is subjective.. ones reasoning in what he is saying when speaking of it is objective.. ultimately to conclude his subjective beginning..

6. Therefore what we have is a primacy of value judgements in all reason and argument.. which are in terms subjective.. I know this is rather vague to be explained in this one sentence. but if you understand all which I wrote hopefully you will understand what I mean by this..

Trust me I have no beef nor bias.. all I want is the truth and to think correctly.. that is why I am testing my reasoning here.. I WANT you to try and prove me wrong.... mainly because these are the conclusions I have come to .. and I want to make sure I am right and there are no major flaws in my thinking..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I am saying reguarding objectivist psychology.. you are speaking based off assumptions.. and things you know nothing about.. you are attempting to backwards-reason and say that SOMEHOW there is a rational explanation for why i like the black car over the grey car..

when in fact there is no such proof to say so conclusively

What is "proof" to you? What is "proof" aside from an arbitrary concept that you picked up based on the "assumption" that your senses are accurate, and that you are living in reality, and that you are not a figment of imagination created by a drunken butterfly?

You are rejecting the fundamental metaphysical axiom of existence, ie. that A is A.

EDIT:

I don't believe that you understand what the terms "objective" and "subjective" mean in a metaphysical context. Objective does not mean "the same for everyone," and subjective does not mean "may or may not be the same for everyone." Admittedly the terms are often used colloquially this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the subjective is that which is axiomatic in itself.. it cannot be rationally argued...

I choose that I like cheese over chocolate...

Thats the end of that.. you cant argue it.. there is no further rationality behind it.. it is what it is..

I choose that I wish to live for my grandpa joe, rather than for myself..

Same case there

Here we have a case, including in music lets say, where one makes judgements or lives life according to emotional premises , which have no rational basis, and therefore could be called "mystical" or "irrational" by Rands definitions

You are arguing if my senses are accurate.. and therefore that constitutes no concept of proof

Lets flip that and argue if your reasoning is accurate.. since it may SEEM accurate.. but there really is no PROOF for it..

maybe its just all in your imagination...

maybe you are actually a bannanna.. if you smoke enough drugs it may certainly seem that way..

therefore my statement

"we know what we know in the context that we know it..

imagination_einstein.gif

In that sense.. maybe I am really living in the matrix.. in the context of my life.. it doesnt matter whether it is real or not.. all that matters is what works and what doesnt work to reach my subjective goals... In that sense.. my senses are more important than reality itself..

As Nietzche said.. superior reasoning is not based on a search for "truth" .. but on a search for "what works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the subjective is that which is axiomatic in itself.. it cannot be rationally argued...

I choose that I like cheese over chocolate...

Thats the end of that.. you cant argue it.. there is no further rationality behind it.. it is what it is..

I choose that I wish to live for my grandpa joe, rather than for myself..

Same case there

Here we have a case, including in music lets say, where one makes judgements or lives life according to emotional premises , which have no rational basis, and therefore could be called "mystical" or "irrational" by Rands definitions

You are arguing if my senses are accurate.. and therefore that constitutes no concept of proof

Lets flip that and argue if your reasoning is accurate.. since it may SEEM accurate.. but there really is no PROOF for it..

maybe its just all in your imagination...

maybe you are actually a bannanna.. if you smoke enough drugs it may certainly seem that way..

therefore my statement

"we know what we know in the context that we know it..

imagination_einstein.gif

In that sense.. maybe I am really living in the matrix.. in the context of my life.. it doesnt matter whether it is real or not.. all that matters is what works and what doesnt work to reach my subjective goals... In that sense.. my senses are more important than reality itself..

As Nietzche said.. superior reasoning is not based on a search for "truth" .. but on a search for "what works"

I probably shouldn't respond but...

What does "rationality" or "reason" mean to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the subjective is that which is axiomatic in itself.. it cannot be rationally argued...

I choose that I like cheese over chocolate...

Thats the end of that.. you cant argue it.. there is no further rationality behind it.. it is what it is..

I choose that I wish to live for my grandpa joe, rather than for myself..

Same case there

Here we have a case, including in music lets say, where one makes judgements or lives life according to emotional premises , which have no rational basis, and therefore could be called "mystical" or "irrational" by Rands definitions

You are arguing if my senses are accurate.. and therefore that constitutes no concept of proof

Lets flip that and argue if your reasoning is accurate.. since it may SEEM accurate.. but there really is no PROOF for it..

maybe its just all in your imagination...

maybe you are actually a bannanna.. if you smoke enough drugs it may certainly seem that way..

therefore my statement

"we know what we know in the context that we know it..

imagination_einstein.gif

In that sense.. maybe I am really living in the matrix.. in the context of my life.. it doesnt matter whether it is real or not.. all that matters is what works and what doesnt work to reach my subjective goals... In that sense.. my senses are more important than reality itself..

As Nietzche said.. superior reasoning is not based on a search for "truth" .. but on a search for "what works"

I probably shouldn't respond but...

What does "rationality" or "reason" mean to you?

Left brain formulaic logic

rationalists argue.. that which does not make sense to the left brain.. does not exist

as Nietzche said..

people use reason as a method of negating the senses...

They say.. if it does not make sense it is not true.. in other words, they use primacy of logic vs primacy of senses..

Whereas the reality of the quantum world is

What is true is true whether it makes sense to the left brain or not

For example "Feeling in music" does not rationally make sense to the left brain...

So left brain scientist type people have attempted many times to put together formulaic rational calculation based music machines, they have attempted to rationally study music, then attempt to re create it through rational calculations in terms of what they have picked up "makes sense" in terms of patterns, styles, etc... and trust me I studied this in school actually.. because I took college courses and am certified in electronic audio production..

What the result of those rational experiments were were TRIPE.. music came out which "made sense" but it never made a single good song which people actually enjoyed thoroughly listening to.. because it didnt have any "feel"

That shows my point.. that which doesnt make sense to the left brain.. doesnt mean it doesnt exist.. that which exists doesnt need to make sense to the left brain.. Attempting to say all that which does not make sense to the left brain is not "real" and is "irrational mystical garbage" as Rand attempted to do.. is straight up foolishness.. and a "negation of the senses" as Nietzche spoke.. whom she also called an irrationalist mystic garbage philosopher..

There are some irrationalist terms to describe people who do not comprehend the world outside the left brain "geek, nerd"... people who are trying to be vulcans but are totally out of touch with reality.. these are terms which I would bet describe a rather large amount of people populating this forum.. Including their hero Ayn Rand herself..

Many of these people are not great leaders or bosses, but rather cubicle workers, underlings, and engineers.. they work under those who have "right brain business, and people skills and creativity".. who hire them out to act as miniature computers and make calculations all day.. They mistakenly think that their left brain superiority makes them superior human beings .. but in reality they are out of balance.. and out of touch.. and are just as bad off in many ways as people who have no left brain capability.. These are the kids wearing pocket protectors who get trash canned in high school and go home and try to calculate the reasons why using long division..

Luckily for me, I am very strong in my left brain, but also fairly strong in my right brain capabilities.. a trait common to producers of electronic music, who must have superior technical as well as "feeling" and creative skills..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this article will explain to you.. why being a purely logical person.. a person of pure mathematical rationality..

is actually a great weakness rather than a strength when dealing with the world around you

http://www.fahrenhei...-brain-is-dead/

There are 8 types of intelligence .. and you are only working with one of them.

Being strong in only one area, actually makes someone mentally inferior..

It will show you why through logical rationality alone, someone could never be a producer of great ideas or inventions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you certainly wrote a lot, but you failed to answer my simple question.

All I asked is for you to explain what "rationality" is at a conceptual level. As far as I can tell, you are juggling a giant pile of false dichotomies and definitional confusions which you should sort out. Probably lying at the center of this is your continued "(mis)use of logic to deny logic."

Also this is very important:

"There are some irrationalist terms to describe people who do not comprehend the world outside the left brain "geek, nerd"... people who are trying to be vulcans but are totally out of touch with reality.. these are terms which I would bet describe a rather large amount of people populating this forum.. Including their hero Ayn Rand herself.."

Have you read what Ayn Rand wrote about emotions? As far as I can tell, you believe her stance was, "emotions are evil and irrational and should therefore be banished to the greatest degree possible, like in that Christian Bale movie, Equillibrium." This is not accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually I totally answered your simple question in the very first line of my response, but in case you missed it.. let me re write it for you

Left brain formulaic logic

I have read what Ayn Rand wrote about emotions.. she said emotions are based on personal value judgements........ which are based on?????????????????????????? thats my question....

and as I have attempted to show.. they are based on EMOTION!... so her argument seems rather circular in my mind

emotions are based on personal value judgements which are based on emotions

I have already demonstrated with my car and music examples how personal value judgements are not specifically based of what is or is not good for the continuation of your life.. nor is there any evidence that they are based on rational explanations..

Unfortunately Ayn Rand knew very little of psychology

Currently I am sitting here writing a song.. and I am attempting to accent certain notes over others for greater emotional appeal..

There is neither a "good for my existence" nor a "rational logical explanation" nor a "formula" for any of this..

I am exclusively using my emotions as tools of cognition and to make decisions

If I didnt use emotions as tools of cognition, and I only used logic to guide every decision in my life as she suggested, I could never write music.

As I have been saying over and over agian.. explain to me how I can hit a note "just right" and say.. oh that sounds tiiight!!!.. what is "just right" and what is "sounds tight".?? How can you explain that with logic..?? and if you cant.. does it mean it doesnt exist?

stock-photo-expressive-old-man-thinking-isolated-against-white-background-54533824.jpg

BTW I loved that movie equilibrium..

And what about the picture of that guy right there is funny? (at least to me it is).. how can you explain that "joke" illustration in terms of reason?.. As far as I know that was an example of me using emotion as a tool of cognition and action... I did not have to write a "funny formula" in order to come up with that..

Music doesnt work when made by mathematical machines.. comedians dont work when they try to break everything down logically and into formulas..

there is "timing", "feel".. and other "irrational mystical concepts" of right brain type thinking

Now please excuse me for the rest of today.. I have to get back to writing my song.. this conversation is "throwing off my vibe"....

heheheheheheh128586648214508736.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question: "What does "rationality" or "reason" mean to you?"

Your answer: "Left brain formulaic logic"

Even if we ignore the fact that you used a synonym of the concept in question in the answer, you still have not answered anything. You have not stated what "logic" fundamentally is. If you cannot answer this basic question, then everything else you have written is irrelvent since it is all based off of some attempt at the use of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok i felt like coming back on here to bitch this shit out..

Ok.. reason is a LINEAR SEQUENTIAL connection between multiple ideas...you connect 1 to 35 by counting 1 through 35, 1,2,3 etc...

non-reason, irrational thinking. is an ABSTRACT , non-linearly sequential connection between multiple ideas

it is a connection between multiple ideas which does not "logically make sense" but it "works".. and you can "Feel it" and you can tell it works by teh results it produces

like a comedian uses this abstract reasoning to create "timing" "feel" and "vibe" between him and his audience.. there is no mathematical formula for it, it is neither linear, nor sequential, nor can anybody explain it in any way which "makes sense" other than "just feel it".. that is why nobody can ever , and has never written an effective book on "how to be funny" explaining a linear step by step process of logical proofs..

yet it WORKS... and those who are "good at that which cannot be logically explained" somehow still leave the audience laughing

mathematicians dont make good comedians... and I have never heard Ayn Rand tell a single joke..

in fact here is what she had to say about humor

Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at.

quite possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life... totally showing that she DOESNT "GET IT"

she should write a comedy book.. a comedian can go on stage and say "I will just deny the metaphysical importance of things and everybody will laugh"... probably AT HIM.. haha

she says:

Therefore, humor is a destructive element
Im sure a lot of people who watch funny things in order to loosen up dont feel that way.. but of course she probably doesnt understand what it means to "loosen up" unless I write a logical proof about it..

These statements make about as much sense to me as her statements on emotion.. again showing the limitations of reason.. "technically" it makes sense.. but IN REALITY .. it really doesnt..

one of my theories I came up with is that "right brain" thinking cannot be used to understand nor explain left brain thinking.. and left brain thinking cannot be used to understand nor explain right brain thinking..

that is why people who are stuck in left brain mode simply "dont get it" because they are trying to use left brain thinking to analyze right brain ideas.. also there is this book something about "Right brain intelligence" which talks about kids who do very poorly in school, yet are great artists, athletes, etc.. and people call them "stupid".. because they are too stuck in right brain mode and "dont get" left brain ideas..

Me, being fairly strong in both areas.. I feel kind of weird about it.. because I have to "tell my brain to switch over" and my left brain "doesnt understand" but my right brain does.. etc..

Right brain ideas.. many of them are FUNDAMENTALLY irrational.. and they probably will NEVER be explained through rational Newtonian science.

That is why a whole lot of stupid scientists just "dont get it" and they will "never get it".. they think shit that exists doesnt actually exist just because they cant draw a newtonian logical formula to explain it.. they will probably never be able to explain why I like the sound of a guitar over the sound of a piano.. or why I like onions on my spaghetti.. or why I get up and do a weird dance when I hear a funky beat.. or what is a "funky beat", or why I think my bassline needs more distortion.. hmm maybe I got distorted basslines in my genes.. or perhaps one came to save my life when I was a small child..

As Nietzche said: people use reason as a negation of the senses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So - disprove the primacy of existence, if you can.

I'm still waiting for a reply to my earlier query:

Are you saying some existents of reality cannot be apprehended by consciousness?

Which ones?

Emotions?

- one who knows a lot more than

you do, it appears, about emotions, and respects them as valuable tools - ultimately,

as allies and friends.

Only an 'emotional-mystic' can argue for mind-body, mind-emotion, duality.

Objectivists well know emotions can be integrated. But also they know that emotions

aren't tools of cognition - or guides to action.

They are instant indicators and evaluations of one's performance: Integrity, honesty

and pride, or the lack of, is reflected in many emotion.

They are the RESULTS of cognition; the consequences of actions.

Not whims.

"Therefore...I quit."

No, don't go yet. There's still my post above to address.

When confronted with evidence that Objectivism holds emotions in high regard,

you've merely pretended it didn't happen.

As usual in this kind of discussion it becomes clear that O'ists esteem and know more about their emotions

than even the emotional mystics.

But one thing I've found to agree with:

"This shows that force will ALWAYS exist in the world."[audiognostic]

Certainly! By your lights. Because what happens when one subjectivist meets

another subjectivist? Who prevails when both can only argue from whim and emotion?

The one with the most might, that's who. "Mystics of muscle", indeed.

You've identified the cause of every conflict in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just showed you like 20 times how emotions are in fact tools of cognition and guides to action and not preceded by logical reason

Also I have attempted to show why left brain people see right brain thinking as "mysticism".. simply because they cannot rationally linearly comprehend it

here is your proof against the primacy of existence argument thing.. whatever.. which frankly doesnt even make much damn sense to me.. and this paper will explain why..

http://maverickphilo...-existence.html

Im too lazy to write it out myself..

Here is another paper by Nathaniel Brandon which covers this topic much on objectivist thinking regarding psychology and emotions

http://mol.redbarn.o...AndHazards.html

It has some humerous examples of people getting married over "value similarities" since emotions are supposed to be products of value judgments..having problems with "irrational emotions" and Rand's "nerd romance" episodes in Atlas Shrugged

Are you saying some existents of reality cannot be apprehended by consciousness?

Which ones?

Apprehended by consciousness??? Im not sure...

Im saying they cannot be apprehended by left brain reason... which does not define the whole of consciousness.. which I believe I have already provided sufficient evidence on that point so far

Only an 'emotional-mystic' can argue for mind-body, mind-emotion, duality.

I dont argue for a mind-emotion duality.. I argue for a reason-emotion duality... as far as "mind vs emotion" and "divine inspiration" etc.. you can label it mysticism or what you want.. the fact of the matter is there is no way to prove this doesnt actually exist..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now