An axiomatic paradox?

[Paul Mawdsley]

On the other hand, there are some hints of dual-aspect in some things Nathaniel has reported discussing with her. I don't have the cites immediately available and haven't time to search for them now. I think they're somewhere on this board.

This may help: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...dpost&p=369

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul outlines perfectly the process of what I call the cognitive part in judging a person, judging being the normative part. (I believe we have to correctly identify something before we can judge it correctly.) I didn't read Paul saying one should not judge a person. All I read him saying was that one should understand a person in order to correctly judge him.

[...]

Paul also stated quite well what happens when the cognitive part (identification) is done incorrectly: communication breaks down. The popular way to say this is that one person places words in the mouth of the other. The implied add-on at the end is "then judges the person."

As an artist, I find this subject interesting in its own right as a primary challenge. The only communication that breaks down with this process is conceptual language. But there are other forms of communication. The artist's job is to step outside conceptual language and still communicate a vision or idea. Sometimes a quip or an outburst, etc., does more to communicate this than a reasoned explanation because it cuts through prejudice and hits a person from another angle.

(Or lens... or metacontext... )

Michael

Here is Michael's post with GS references removed. It is an interesting subject in its own right. It's unfortunate that discussing it seems to be out of bounds.

From where I stand the flow of this discussion is evidence of my point: judging someone's perspective, only on its external features judged from a contrary perspective without understanding how that someone's perspective was formed, necessarily leads to misinterpretation. Understanding a person is no different, in principle, from understanding any entity. We can't understand what it does until we fully understand the processes that determine its identity and behaviour. Whether we are trying to understand the nature of an atom, a star, an amoeba, or a human brain, we cannot claim to understand why a thing behaves as it does until we understand the processes/principles that shape its nature and actions.

Why should understanding someone's verbal expressions be different? We would not say categorizing an atom's properties from an external perspective only (i.e.: not considering its internal processes as was done by speculative philosophical means prior to the emergence of the scientific method) is enough to identify it and meet the requirements of understanding. Why would we use less of a standard for understanding each other?

The first step to understanding anything is admitting we don't understand it. Assuming that speculative categorization of a thing or person's properties qualifies as understanding is a mistake. A method of observation, generating hypotheses about the processes that give rise to those observations, and reality testing those hypotheses is necessary for generating understanding. When talking about understanding another person, if that person says you have misinterpreted, your hypothesis is falsified so, if you trust their intelligence, judgement and honesty, reevaluate. Continuing to blast them with accusations does nothing to improve understanding and communication.

Incidentally, if the same principle was applied to metaphysical modeling, there would be far less frustration on the part of scientists with those who like to think metaphysically. It would be the epistemic foundation of an objective metaphysics.

Paul

Edited September 23, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Mindy Newton]

Paul,

I read through your post #289. I'm going to speak frankly now while I'm feeling this strongly:

In all the time I've known you in listland, you've never before angered me. I'm angered now, and I'm feeling, oh, hell, never mind; just forget it and drop it.

Ellen

___

Dayaamm!

I had just skimmed post #289 because it was so long. This made me want to read it carefully, which I did.

Ellen's lovely when she gets miffed.

Michael

"Ellen's lovely when she gets miffed." That is monumentally patronizing, Michael.

= Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

Misinterpretation is an art form.

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

Something I found interesting given my difficulties on this thread (from Wiki):

In SSR, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm. For many critics, for example David Stove (Popper and After, 1982), this thesis seemed to entail that theory choice is fundamentally irrational: if rival theories cannot be directly compared, then one cannot make a rational choice as to which one is better. Whether or not Kuhn's views had such relativistic consequences is the subject of much debate; Kuhn himself denied the accusation of relativism in the third edition of SSR, and sought to clarify his views to avoid further misinterpretation. Freeman Dyson has quoted Kuhn as saying "I am not a Kuhnian!",^[3] referring to the relativism that some philosophers have developed based on his work.

I see parallels here.

Paul

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Ellen's lovely when she gets miffed." That is monumentally patronizing, Michael.

Mindy,

OK. For you, I'll change it.

Ellen's a hideously ugly hag when she gets miffed.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"Ellen's lovely when she gets miffed." That is monumentally patronizing, Michael.

Mindy,

OK. For you, I'll change it.

Ellen's a hideously ugly hag when she gets miffed.

Michael

Keep talking. When you stop you'll sink.

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

Old hag? You suck old motor oil, Michael.

Ellen is the reason I read this site. Even if she were in a wheelchair, I would still want to park my...

...thoughts and dreams beside her.

No, you don't really suck. But you keep getting in it with Roger and Ellen, for example—on subjects where you just don't know what the frick you're doin'. They've pleaded with you. It's not a big deal. Just slow down. Think about what you want to say. Don't say too much.

Don't talk about global warming if you don't realize it's about air temp and not under-ground temp., for example.

Maybe you're an artist who should step away and let what happens happen.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Jon Letendre

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Don't talk about global warming if you don't realize it's about air temp and not under-ground temp., for example.

Jon,

LOL...

It's interesting you think I think that. I certainly never wrote it.

Do carry on. It's good to see you.

As you can tell, I always love good friendly advice on my behavior.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Paul,

I'm unsure if you saw my post #300, since it was at the end of a page and you cross-posted starting a new page.

In case you didn't see that post, please read it.

--

Mindy, it's not the first time MSK has employed what amount to male-chauvinist responses.

On the mind-body issue, that is the center piece of the book I'm hoping to finish before I depart this earth. I'd like to continue the discussion, but I truly am extremely time-pressured now -- attempting to get some refurnishings accomplished before our annual "Thanksgiving Seminar," fall chores meanwhile, with many, many trees dropping many, many leaves, plus a series of conferences pending (e.g., I'll be gone 4 out of 7 days next week attending conferences).

I hope we can continue on the mind-body issue on another thread later.

It occurs to me that maybe you're thinking of "dual-aspect" with a different meaning than I was thinking of. In a way, yes, I suppose every theory has to an extent a "dual aspect," unless it's a theory which denies that consciousness even exists. I was thinking in terms of the Spinozan theory of an underlying one substance which is "Janus-faced," matter from one direction, sentience from the other -- in Spinoza's theory entirely determinist.

Spinoza was born the same year as John Locke, 1632, and died in 1677, ten years before the first edition of Newton's Principia was published. Locke was personal friends with Newton, received a personally inscribed (with corrections in Newton's hand) copy of the first edition (among the intellectual thrills of my husband's life was seeing that copy). Spinoza for a long while tended to be considered just too uninformed by modern science to take his ideas on mind-body seriously, but there is a resurgence of interest on the part of some prominent current thinkers, including Damasio.

Anyway, I hope we can get back to the subject, but I haven't time now for posting on it.

--

And:

Jon Letendre, thank you!!

Ellen

___

[Jon Letendre]

Ellen,

Please continue posting as much as possible.

Michael,

I think you wrote it. I think you admitted, at the start of your inquiry into global warming, (but not before much opinion-spouting on the subject) that you had just then learned that global warming was about the warming of the AIR about the earth, not about warming of the earth itself. If I am wrong…no, I’m sure that’s what you said.

You are the hag.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Don't talk about global warming if you don't realize it's about air temp and not under-ground temp., for example.

Jon,

LOL...

It's interesting you think I think that. I certainly never wrote it.

Of course you did, and it's still there in the records unless you've deleted it. You thought the issue was the planet itself getting warmer.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Come on folks, I made a quip.

If you don't like quips, don't read my posts. I am not going to stop.

Boy, do I feel control issues running around all of a sudden...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jon,

I don't have the time to look all that old stuff up, but I do remember once discussing a study on global warming I read that mentioned that cities were pockets of heat both above and below ground in comparison with their surroundings. And this heat tended to dissipate the further you get away from a city.

It sounded sensible to me back then and it still does since large amounts of energy are used in cities. If you can find any other quote, I will be happy to explain it if it is misunderstood, or retract it if I am wrong. Whatever my words were, I have never believed something like the earth becoming a ball of fire like the sun (as your words suggest) and I never intended that meaning.

I also remember a great deal of intimidation tactics during that discussion. I didn't like them then and I still don't like them. I am more than happy to stand up to them if there is a repeat performance.

Ideas are the way to convince me of anything. Rhetoric alone never will.

EDIT: I do remember mentioning, before I studied anything, that I was unsure what global warming even meant when people talked about it. But that's normal for when someone doesn't know something. No? Should he be born knowing?

I studied and I still maintain the final position I posted back then: The fundamental issue was about inducing public fear (especially to get government money) on all sides and not about global warming on any side. Different slants. Different fears. The same money.

The topic of global warming itself was a mere detail. It could be (and is) exchanged for different ones with the same procedures (and same money).

Whenever people are demonized as much as they are in the global warming debate, there is money or power at stake, usually both. The real values are money and power.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

Michael writes, “Whatever my words were, I have never believed something like the earth becoming a ball of fire like the sun (as your words suggest) and I never intended that meaning.”

I don’t recall claiming you suggested an earth that is a ball-of-fire. I don't think my words have suggested that.

I claimed that you admitted to understanding global warming as about earth-warming, as opposed to atmospheric warming. And this really is what you thought, only about a year ago, and after submitting many opinions about the global warming debate.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Jon Letendre

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jon,

Funny how it feels when it comes back in the same coin, isn't it?

Michael

EDIT: Jon, my comment above will not be understood in light of the change you made in your post, but what the hell, I will leave it as it is. I like your change much better than the original.

If you can find a quote I made about the whole earth getting warmer instead of the atmosphere—after a lot of discussion like you said and not at the beginning, I will be grateful if you point it out.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... and it's still there in the records unless you've deleted it.

Ellen,

I have stated this policy before and, for the record, I will state it again. After a day or two, no posts are altered (except for a mess like the plagiarism issue). I have a habit of correcting my own posts soon after I make them. But this rarely goes beyond a few hours. Mostly I clean up spelling and grammar and typos. When I make a substantial addition, I usually include the word "EDIT."

I believe Kat and I set a timer of some sorts so that people can alter their posts up to a certain time (three days, if I am not mistaken).

At any rate, I would never delete a post I made from before simply because I was wrong. I have seen others do that on other forums, but I don't need to do things like that. I am not competing with anyone. I am not preaching. I think with my own mind.

That's someone else's world, not mine.

Working out ideas often means making mistakes. I am proud when I get something right and proud of what I have learned. The records (posts) of my former mistakes show clearly my paths in thinking, so in a certain sense, I am proud of the mistakes too. They are part of the final result.

I got up to bat and swung as best I could. How many people don't even get up to bat, much less swing?

The few times I have been ashamed of my mistakes, I have openly apologized to the pertinent people (Nathan Hawking, Daniel Barnes, etc.).

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul,

I'm unsure if you saw my post #300, since it was at the end of a page and you cross-posted starting a new page.

In case you didn't see that post, please read it.

Ellen

___

Ellen, I saw it. My post #302, was not addressed to you, but this one is. It was a response to the perspectives, positions, and ideas that are emerging from this thread in general. I get that you are not interested any more. So be it. The subject is still interesting in its own right, with or without your continued participation.

I tend to look at the ideas as being something separate to the individuals who hold them. The ideas have their own existence once they are expressed. In this way ideas about the world are no different than mathematical concepts.

The separation of the ideas from the individual who expresses them is why there is no accusation in my posts. This is why I can talk about your ideas without addressing my response to you. This is why I am not offended by your misinterpretation of my position. I am just frustrated because I can't get my ideas across without distortion. I am not offended by the view of my position that is implicit in your posts because it is just that, a view of my position. I, and Michael it seems, understand how mistaken it is.

Paul

Edited September 23, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Barbara Branden]

Here's a puzzler for you Objectivist and logic hotshots. Here is a syllogism (or as near to one as I can make it), which seems to lead to a paradoxical conclusion. What's wrong with the syllogism -- or the premises?

Premise 1: Existence is independent of consciousness. Or, Every thing that exists is independent of consciousness. (This is the Primacy of Existence principle.)

Premise 2: Consciousness exists. Or, Consciousness is something that exists.

Conclusion: Consciousness is independent of consciousness.

I'm really interested in what O-L'ers have to say about this.

Best,

REB

Roger, the premises can be spelled out such that there is no paradox, as follows:

Premise 1: The world external to consciousness exists and is independent of consciousness.

Premise 2: Consciousness exists.

Barbara

[tjohnson]

Roger, the premises can be spelled out such that there is no paradox, as follows:

Premise 1: The world external to consciousness exists and is independent of consciousness.

Premise 2: Consciousness exists.

Barbara

In other words, you are saying there is sharp line between what goes on in our brains and what goes on "external" to them. This is similar to what Korzybski says. I would add that knowledge, however, requires consciousness, and in particular, knowledge of objects requires consciousness. A difference between humans and animals is that humans can be aware of their knowledge whereas animals cannot. To Fido, there is no difference between the "bone" created in his consciousness and what is going on external to his consciousness.

Edited September 23, 2008 by general semanticist

[Mindy Newton]

Old hag? You suck old motor oil, Michael.

Ellen is the reason I read this site. Even if she were in a wheelchair, I would still want to park my...

...thoughts and dreams beside her.

No, you don't really suck. But you keep getting in it with Roger and Ellen, for example—on subjects where you just don't know what the frick you're doin'. They've pleaded with you. It's not a big deal. Just slow down. Think about what you want to say. Don't say too much.

Don't talk about global warming if you don't realize it's about air temp and not under-ground temp., for example.

Maybe you're an artist who should step away and let what happens happen.

That bit about park your dreams and thoughts beside her, that's gutsy. Raw meaning.

= Mindy

[Mindy Newton]

Michael writes, “Whatever my words were, I have never believed something like the earth becoming a ball of fire like the sun (as your words suggest) and I never intended that meaning.”

I don’t recall claiming you suggested an earth that is a ball-of-fire. I don't think my words have suggested that.

You're right about that, Jon. I believe it's a straw-man technique. Defend oneself against an "accusation" that was never made. It's a tactic chosen because that defense is win-able, while the real issue is a lost cause. If nothing else, it tends to de-rail the subject, because the argument then becomes whether or not the straw-man issue was somehow implied...

It is very, very common, of course.

= Mindy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You're right about that, Jon. I believe it's a straw-man technique. Defend oneself against an "accusation" that was never made. It's a tactic chosen because that defense is win-able, while the real issue is a lost cause. If nothing else, it tends to de-rail the subject, because the argument then becomes whether or not the straw-man issue was somehow implied...

It is very, very common, of course.

Mindy,

You are right. That's exactly what Jon did with me with that global warming crap. (You should read that thread.) All I did was return the favor and exaggerate his own nonsense a little. I am still waiting for a corroborating quote from him. Let's see if he can find one.

I observe that people who debate competitively usually turn a blind eye to the strawmen that support them, while criticizing the strawmen that oppose them. I call that a double standard, but that's me.

As you said, "It is very, very common, of course."

Michael

[Mindy Newton]

You're right about that, Jon. I believe it's a straw-man technique. Defend oneself against an "accusation" that was never made. It's a tactic chosen because that defense is win-able, while the real issue is a lost cause. If nothing else, it tends to de-rail the subject, because the argument then becomes whether or not the straw-man issue was somehow implied...

It is very, very common, of course.

Mindy,

You are right. That's exactly what Jon did with me with that global warming crap. (You should read that thread.) All I did was return the favor and exaggerate his own nonsense a little. I am still waiting for a corroborating quote from him. Let's see if he can find one.

I observe that people who debate competitively usually turn a blind eye to the strawmen that support them, while criticizing the strawmen that oppose them. I call that a double standard, but that's me.

As you said, "It is very, very common, of course."

Michael

You intimate I've argued a straw man? When and where?

= Mindy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mindy,

No. Jon did. I intimate that you ignored his strawman (implying a sanction).

I normally don't like the strawman technique, but then competitive debate is not my favorite form. I never use the strawman except to exaggerate an already existing one. Let's just say I am not adverse to putting new clothes on a strawman to show his true nature.

Here is a fuller explanation. What happens to a celestial body that gets hotter and hotter and hotter? It eventually turns into a ball of fire. Jon claims that my understanding of global warming in a very acrimonious debate was precisely this, without the ball of fire thing.

That was introduced to derail the debate and turn this into an "us against them" issue. (No more ideas. Sides instead.) Isn't that what a strawman is supposed to do? I merely added the ball of fire thing to show how ridiculous it was.

I am still awaiting a corroborating quote. I seriously doubt one will be forthcoming. For the record, here is my original quote. It was the thread starter. It was at the beginning of the debate, not during it.

I have never been interested in ecology one way or another, so whenever I have seen the phrase, "global warming," I always assumed that it meant something like the earth getting hotter from the atmosphere all the way down to the core. I was pretty surprised to see that it was merely the weather and the atmosphere (and, to a smaller extent, the ocean). A much better term for me to have understood at my lack-of-interest distance would have been "warming of the earth's weather." I am sure that there are many people who are at the awareness level I was on this and they would be surprised to learn that all the shouting is not over our planet getting hotter. It isn't. Only the weather is.

This is a fight and crusade about the weather.

In other words, I kicked off the debate by saying that this had been my mistaken impression before I looked at some material. Before that thread, I don't recall writing anything about global warming. Jon's contention is that I adhered to that position after a lot of debate. Look and see for yourself (my bold):

I claimed that you admitted to understanding global warming as about earth-warming, as opposed to atmospheric warming. And this really is what you thought, only about a year ago, and after submitting many opinions about the global warming debate.

This smacks of intentional distortion to show just what a dummy I am, thus I should take his advice, keep my trap shut and listen breathlessly to the wise ones. I won't say this is the case because I respect Jon, but it certainly qualifies as a strawman. This kind of crap is the problem with competitive debate. People focus on people and not on facts.

You are free to your own opinions, of course. But before sanctioning a strawman, I suggest you look at what is proposed and not just accept an opinion blindly. On certain issues like global warming, I have found that people are not very objective and they are prone to distortions and errors.

I personally see no value in winning an argument (whatever that means) by distorting what someone wrote. I do see a lot of value in keeping to the facts, whether an argument is won or not (whatever that means).

Michael