“…Ok. I will bite. Are you a gamblin' man Orn.?…” – stem Stem, Russell nor Boole have anything to do with “…This is why any view of reality that is based on probability is subjective/ relative…”. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: Bertrand,
Positive Analysis was founded in reaction to the concepts of Formal Logic, being based upon abstract concepts that couldn’t be proven. So, the result was a failure to produce positive evidence for those propositions. Now, consider the terms eternity, infinity, love and life. In Russell’s own words: “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” “Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.” “I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any philosophy, not even mine.” “In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RE: Boole His attempt at incorporating the empty set into our thinking, as useful as it might be in limited applications, in no way fully replace Aristotle. A simple exercise is to imagine ‘nothing’. Were you able to do it? Nothing is nothing. On Nov 6, 10:28 am, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taylor, thanks for the thoughts. I am in favor of keeping a strick > maning on words. For instance, True means True...she is not a little > pregnant...it IS or it Isn't. Same for real. It can't be a little > real. > > Ok. I will bite. Are you a gamblin' man Orn.? > > Orn. said >>> This is why any view of reality that is based on > probability is subjective/ relative, <<< > > I believe it was Russel who said something like this. > > [ Drive your car into that wall at a speed equal to the probability > that you believe it is not there.] > > That wall exist in EVERY reality (that we have in this universe), not > just in some "any view of reality". That wall can be verified. If > one chooses to ignore that wall, then one will end up cmoning to an > abrupt stop with possible physical injuries. There is no subjective/ > relative view about it...well there could be...but the one who says it > is there will win every time in that arguement. It either IS or it IS > NOT. P or notP. > > On Nov 6, 11:52 am, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…How do we know our subjective impressions of anything are the same? > > When you're cold, do you perhaps feel what I do when I'm hot? This > > sort of thing isn't knowable yet. Perhaps it will be, perhaps it > > won't. Perhaps the question is meaningless.” – Tay > > > Exactly Taylor! This is why any view of reality that is based on > > probability is subjective/ relative. And, even perhaps meaningless in > > any ultimate sense. > > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > <<Just because non-natural forces cannot be verified does not > > > necessarily > > > mean non-existent. >> > > > > What does "exist" mean if it has no physical consequences? Does the > > > invisible pink unicorn exist? If you don't limit the word "exist" to > > > what can be verified, then "exist" can refer to anything you can > > > imagine and so becomes meaningless. > > > > <<For instance, love. How would one objectively measure (verify) > > > love? >> > > > > Love is an emotional state that could be detected inside an MRI by > > > seeing which sections of the brain were active. There are also > > > biochemical components to this emotion. > > > > Love is also measurable via behavior. Parents sacrifice for their > > > children and husbands and wives sacrifice for each other. > > > > Love clearly exists. > > > > <<the color blue How can that be verified? It surely exist. It might > > > not be your blue but something exist. The color blue exist > > > irrespective of verification. >> > > > > Blue is a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. Our > > > subjective impressions of this frequency rely on biochemical reactions > > > taking place within the eye when excited by this radiation. > > > > Whether our subjective impressions of blue are the same or not is > > > pretty much irrelevant. How do we know our subjective impressions of > > > anything are the same? When you're cold, do you perhaps feel what I > > > do when I'm hot? This sort of thing isn't knowable yet. Perhaps it > > > will be, perhaps it won't. Perhaps the question is meaningless.- Hide > > > quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
