RoR: Forum

...(like the brilliant essay by Rob Merrill that all this discussion by you guys has completely sidestepped) ...

Ah, the MSK Macarena - responding to your criticisms is sidestepping Ron Merrill's article.

However, anyone who reads and integrates Bob Bass's piece (sorry, my last post was written on Mozilla, where I can't hyperlink) will see that it addresses the whole question of searching for axioms. So let's deal with that for a moment.

There is nothing inherently wrong with building axiomatic systems. It is the idea that those axiomatic systems will confer certainty on whatever knowledge is "derived" from them that is wrong, but that is the attitude with which the lovers of axioms like to nauseate those of us who disagree with the lovers.

Arguing, like Brendan did, that Rand's formulation is not a significant improvement on Descartes, does not amount to any irrationality. It's a position that can be profitably discussed, and given the limitations of a special foundations approach to philosophy, I agree with Brendan.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 41

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:01pm

Ahem... of course, it is hard to engage in a contest by writing an article. You know, you have to prioritize the ideas...

Oh, if you want a nice article on empirically relevant socio-political and psycological matters like IQ, or research into group/coalitional behavior, or some other biologically motivated view of human nature/development which relies on determinism, I'm the man for the job. Usually, the Objectivist aversion to determinism and analyzing human nature in evolutionary terms has convinced me not to waste my time submitting an article on the subject.

In fact, before my past month was consumed by graduate school and other things, I was going to tie in Ayn Rand's Pyramid of Ability observation with skilled and unskilled labor in economics, IQ in biology/psychology and then talk about a criticism leveled against her by a critic who thought she was dishonestly rewriting the law of comparative advantage. If I get a guarantee that the article will published and not be tossed into the dissent forum, I will write it.

But with readers who have stultified world outlooks and who view opposing positions as evidence of supporting "the primacy of consciousness", I'm not in a rush to write the article. And sorry, I have no weeping and wailing about some watershed Randian moment in my life to present.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 42

Friday, August 12, 2005 - 4:23pm

Laj wrotes:
>(MSK's) penchant for imputing positions uncharitably onto others is getting out of hand...

Laj, you are, as always, far too charitable. I will state the situation more bluntly.

To the objective reader of this thread, three things become abundantly clear about Michael Stuart Kelly.

He is:
1) a rather nasty little fibber who, when a single shred of evidence for his foolish assertions is demanded, tries to pretend that this demand is somehow "playing mind games"(!)
2) a typical posturing ninny ("...determinism, whatever that means...")
3) a coward, who when challenged bungles, blathers, dissembles, and finally scampers away, utterly unable to answer a direct question.

I think that about covers what you amusingly dub as the "MSK Macarena". The beauty of a public forum of course, is that all this is completely open for one and all to see. And the beauty of this particular thread is that he manages to expose himself so completely, from his first post to his last, and in such a short space of time.

- Daniel

Post 43

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 5:20am

I found Merrill's essay a bit belabored, but essentially correct and ideally suited to my needs. I extracted the main points into a one-page document which I placed in a file folder of Objectivist writing that keep in the same shelf as Rand's non-fiction works.

Post 44

Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 3:36pm

Thank you Michael. Ron's article deserves comment. The ideas really are high-quality.

Daniel - I will not address you again - but I will always offer readers rational alternatives when you try to hijack the foundations of reason with your bullshit.

Since Daniel Barnes has called me a liar, and of course I am not one, I am terminating all communication with him as of this moment. I demand respect from all. This is not a request. It is a requirement to interact with me.

This sanctimonious poster does not advance any real ideas ever. He tries to belittle other posters and sell a snake poison tonic of abstract existence and physical existence (which is a variation on the primacy of consciousness theory under a different guise). He will never tell you what "abstract" is. It just is (and it is not even axiomatic). Whatever. He can name-drop like a motherfucker, too, but basically he is full of shit and not worth the effort.

I will refer readers to another brilliant article by Luke Setzer called Benefactors versus Malefactors. I personally judge this person to be a mind game poster and am thoroughly bored now. Luke says it all better than I ever could.

Now Laj,

A word of advice. When you make up "cool" name, you gotta stay cool to make it come off, dude. Your act is a bit ragged. When you try to use slang in one name, but then plod along pedantically, it seems like Richard Nixon saying "Sock it to me." Something gets lost in the delivery and the impression is of a schoolboy sticking out his tongue.

Sorry, but you gotta ways to go, Breeze.

Talking of slippery fishies, I will deal with the Bass article at another time. I have a personal issue to attend to during the next three days and I won't have time to deal with hair-splitting.

btw - The only reason I continue to address you is that I don't feel the petty malice in you - despite being misguided - that I do in that other "paragon of erudition."

Your bullshit level is much lower and we might even be able to discuss a real idea or two. The ideas are what matter to me. The rest is bullshit. Really.

On the article thing, your asking for a guarantee like you did is pretty lame. This is an Objectivist website and if any article you write deals with Objectivist issues, it should pass. Fred Seddon defends Kant from an Objectivist viewpoint, so why not?

But if you are selling a philosophy other than Objectivism, and you want a guarantee that it will be bought, then you really are in the wrong place.

Michael

Post 45

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:27am

Next,

You say:

If I get a guarantee that the article will published and not be tossed into the dissent forum, I will write it.

Are you trying to pretend that what you write will not be a dissent from Objectivism? Or that it will not be discussed as much there as here? Or is it the prestige and unearned respect you are after?

Post 46

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 1:58pm

MSK writes:
>Since Daniel Barnes has called me a liar, and of course I am not one, I am terminating all communication with him as of this moment.

MSK, let me walk you through this.

Accusations that are not supported by any evidence are called "lies".

People who make them repeatedly, but refuse to produce any evidence when challenged, are called "liars".

These are exactly the kinds of things you say, and exactly what you do when challenged. You *are*, therefore, a liar.

Actually, come to think of "liar" probably *is* too strong a word. "Fibber" I think is much better, given the amusingly childish and generally trivial character of his falsehoods. Nonetheless, falsehoods they certainly are.

And of course, caught out repeatedly as he now has been, all he can do is bluster and posture - just like all little fibbers do. He has nothing left he can say.

>I demand respect from all. This is not a request. It is a requirement to interact with me.

This is vintage MSK. Why, you may "demand" it all you like! When I last checked, respect had to be *earned*.

- Daniel

Post 47

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 2:48pm

MSK wrote:
>Since Daniel Barnes has called me a liar, and of course I am not one, I am
> terminating all communication with him as of this moment.

Daniel Barnes replied:
> MSK, let me walk you through this.
> Accusations that are not supported by any evidence are called "lies".
> People who make them repeatedly, but refuse to produce any evidence
> when challenged, are called "liars".
> These are exactly the kinds of things you say, and exactly what you do
> when challenged. You *are*, therefore, a liar.
> Actually, come to think of "liar" probably *is* too strong a word.
> "Fibber" I think is much better, given the amusingly childish and
> generally trivial character of his falsehoods. Nonetheless, falsehoods
> they certainly are.

Liar? Fibber? Falsehoods? In what dictionary? In whose warped concept hierarchy?

If I witness a certain fact and put it into a statement, then refuse to produce evidence to support it when challenged, my true statement does not thereby become a falsehood. At most, it is just an arbitrary assertion, which is not the same as a falsehood. Providing evidence to others for one's statements is not a determining factor in their truth status. Either they correspond to reality, or they don't, regardless of the evidence one has or has not provided to others. If they correspond to reality, statements are true. If they don't, they are false. If they don't correspond to reality, and the speaker ~knows~ they do not, they are ~falsehoods~. You are,
therefore, presuming that MSK ~knows~ that his statements do not correspond to reality in calling him a "liar" or "fibber" and in referring to his "falsehoods."

MSK may indeed be making ~arbitrary assertions~. But that is
not necessarily lying, fibbing, or uttering falsehoods.

MSK again:
> I demand respect from all. This is not a request. It is a requirement
> to interact with me.

Daniel Barnes again:
> This is vintage MSK. Why, you may "demand" it all you like! When
> I last checked, respect had to be *earned*.

And good for MSK, for it is also vintage self-esteem speaking!
You really don't understand the nature of his demand. He is not
saying you must respect him ~period~. He is saying that you
must respect him, ~if you want to interact with him.~ It is not a
Kantian, categorical demand. It is a Randian, conditional demand.
(If...., then....) He is saying that it is a requirement of any further
interaction between the two of you. And guess what? Unless he
relents (don't do it, Michael), ~there will be no further interaction
between you~. Just like gravity. Yes, respect has to be earned,
but so does interaction, and MSK has just trumped you.

REB

Post 48

Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:14pm

Roger writes:
>If they don't, they are false. If they don't correspond to reality, and the speaker ~knows~ they do not, they are ~falsehoods~.

Roger, the only evidence that has been cited is *to the contrary*: and that was cited by MSK himself! (Post 19, this thread)

MSK wrote:
>That's funny you state that so dogmatically because here (DB) wrote:
"I believe our consciousness is dependent on the brain, and dies with us".

So he knows full well this is my position - that *physical existence is prior to consciousness*. Further, he and I have had several exchanges on this topic,so he knows full well what the situation is, as Laj has pointed out.But he just repeats the same falsehood, despite *only having evidence to the contrary* - even on different threads!

I suppose if you want to mount a defense of this sort of thing, that is up to you.

>Yes, respect has to be earned, but so does interaction, and MSK has just trumped you.

I appreciate you have come to this thing late. Hopefully now you can now see that this is not actually the case at all.

- Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 8/14, 3:15pm)

Post 49

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 2:07am

Well, after a bold start, Roger seems rather reluctant to follow through.

Never mind. I agree wholeheartedly with what he says here:

REB>And guess what? Unless he relents (don't do it, Michael), ~there will be no further interaction between you~.

May I just second that - "don't do it, Michael!"

I fervently hope MSK *does* stop trying to "interact" with me by compulsively bringing up his weird misconceptions about me, Laj, etc on every second thread. After all, if he manages to stop obsessing about us, he'll have that much more time to focus on "getting" the other "bad guys" out there he regularly frets about...y''know, the CIA, and all those secret mind control techniques they've developed...

Talk about a win/win situation.

- Daniel

Post 50

Monday, August 15, 2005 - 5:26am

Roger,

Thank you for stepping in and the advice (which was and is my intention anyway).

From one who is starting to contribute toward Objectivist thought to one who has contributed many good things, I just want to say that the only reason I am here right now is to thank you. I should be over at your new article or working on one of my own - or even spending more time with Kat and kittens.

Later on, a few years from now, we will remember and be remembered for our Objectivist contributions and literature, not for exposing the emptiness of the empty (though the garbage detail is necessary from time to time).

As a guy I like on Solo says, shine on.

Michael

Post 51

Friday, August 25, 2006 - 6:22am

I show below the abstract, recently prepared, of Ron's essay on axioms (1995). This is the abstract that will appear in the ABSTRACTS feature of the Objectivity_Archive site.

For the past year, programmers have been working to put the full text of all twelve issues of Objectivity online. The writers (and executors) are very pleased I'm finally having this done. This is an exact reprinting of the journal in the original typesetting and layout. This new site will be freely open to all readers and researchers. It will be another quarter before Objectivity_Archive is completed.

�Axioms: The Eightfold Way� by Ronald E. Merrill

Volume 2, Number 2, Pages 1�15

Merrill proposes a new organization of Ayn Rand�s philosophical axioms, which were three: Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. In the new organization, there are eight axioms. There are three logical axioms, which identify the rules of reasoning; three metaphysical axioms, which root our knowledge of reality; and two epistemological axioms, which are presumed when we assert anything to be known.

Merrill�s logical axioms are (i) the law of excluded middle, (ii) the law of non-contradiction, and (iii) the law of truth preservation by double negation. His metaphysical axioms are (iv) existence exists, (v) existence is subject to the laws of logic, and (vi) change is subject to the laws of logic. His epistemological axioms are that (vii) we have consciousness of existence and (viii) we have free will.

Rand�s axiom of Existence is in (iv), her axiom of Identity is in (v), and her axiom of Consciousness is in (vii). Merrill�s axiom (vi) is Rand�s law of causality. Merrill stresses the importance of expressing Rand�s three axiomatic concepts in propositions, his axiomatic propositions. He criticizes the treatment of the law of causality and the reality of human free will as �corollaries� of Rand�s axioms.

~~~~~~~

Another Objectivity essay of Ron's (1993) has now gotten its abstract for the Archive. I'll share that one here also.

�On the Physical Meaning of Volition� by Ronald E. Merrill

Volume 1, Number 5, Pages 69�93

Given the determinism of physical law, how is free will possible? Merrill takes the introspective phenomenology of our free will as soundly given; some of our choices are free. Additional testimony to the authenticity of free will is the circumstance that denial of all freedom in our intelligence places the denier in a thicket of self-contradiction. But Merrill seeks to elucidate the possibility of free will, beyond the mere impossibility of total determinism.

Merrill calls free will volition, and he takes its reality as a given. Volition is a part of reality, there is only one reality, and nothing in it contradicts physical law. Physics embraces not only deterministic laws, but randomness and its definite contours. Merrill argues against identifying volition with randomness. He portrays the possibility of a volition that is not random and does not contradict physics, yet a volition that is not predictable by physical law.

This portrait of the possibility of volition is by way of a conception of the axiomatization of physical law, which is then subject to logically necessary incompleteness. The method of proof of the pertinent logical incompleteness theorem by G�del suggests that an entity whose actions are neither random nor deterministic would be a self-referring entity. Such are we.

Post 52

Monday, November 30, 2009 - 2:14pm