-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
In a recent interview, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) rejected Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism as atheist. Instead, Ryan prefers the epistemology of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas adhered to the correspondence theory of truth, which says that something is true “when it conforms to the external reality.” This sounds a lot like Rand’s Primacy of Existence wherein consciousness is subordinate to reality – wishing doesn’t make it so.
Rand’s and Aquinas’ worldviews quickly diverge after that brief congruence.
Aquinas claimed that certain truths were only available through supernatural revelation. Aquinas’ first problem is to resolve this supernatural transmission to a human mind with external reality. Calvin postulated the “Sensus Divinitatis,” but this revelation wasn’t available to Aquinas. How does one distinguish a supernatural revelation from a mere product of one’s imagination?
Rand’s Objectivism separates consciousness from the objects of consciousness. These objects exist independently of any cognition of them. Reality is not subject to the mind, any mind.
To postulate divine revelation is to postulate the divine, that is God. Aquinas wrote “The Five Ways” to prove the existence of God, of which, the second one, is the Argument from Efficient Cause:
- There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
- It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
- To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
- If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
- Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).
This argument is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then God must also have a cause other than God, so God cannot be the first cause. If the first premise is true then the conclusion must be false.
The worldview offered by Aquinas is inherently subjective, incoherent, and imaginary.
Has Paul Ryan ever received knowledge via divine revelation? If so, what was this knowledge, more tax breaks for the wealthy?
H/T: Theodore Schick Jr., Dawson Bethrick, p.l.e., Gordon H. Clark, Sarah Posner, Steve Benen.
“Mike S is putting together a groupie group to convert some of your logic to feelings.”
I’d quit any group of mine that someone would join. I’m just trying to keep my head above water and deciding what’s best to do second by second.
One last, that says the drunkard.
GeneH,
Your logical tool, agreed designation, is based however on a belief. The belief that it relates to reallity. Aye, it is and will be demonstrated (proven as it perhaps is called, like mathematics), but like all hypotheses, it presumes actuality only until proven false. So, it does not necessarily prove anything as to reality, but only our way of perceiving and thinking about what we perceive. Thus it IS a belief.
Or did I misunderstand again. You reply little so it must be in consideration of my advanced age, or declining resources producing only HS ideas.
Not said as a provocation, only a demonstration of being out of control.
Wheeeeeeeeeee!
As to the rest, you guys can fight it out. Mine is too small. Got bitten off by a “snapping turtle” in Singapore.
Blousie,
I am a multiple tool user.
What’s the point of having more than one if you can’t use them?
Dredd,
“Nor have I said you did, I said your exudation of it is the problem. ”
Actually the problem is in your inference.
Just like your ridiculous inference that microbial behaviors indicate the practice of science and/or religion in microbes.
“‘logic is a better tool than belief’
Logic is a form of belief.”
Said the guy who thinks microbes have religion. Logic is a tool. It is no more a belief than a hammer is a belief. The choice to trust the function of the tool is a rational decision, not a belief, but if you want to descend into epistemological nonsense again on yet another thread, you go right ahead.
“’As to the “grandpa’s dictionary” thing? Get a new act,’
No way, not as long as you call me “boy”, because I know the DNA of that deeply generated exudation.”
Espouse the ideas of children and you earn the appellation of children. Get used to it.
“You need to rewire some of the outer extremities of your amydala, and I am not going to abandon you when these relics continue to surface.”
You’ve mistaken me for somebody interested in your criticisms of me personally. I’m not the one with a demonstrated fear of logic and a willingness to distort definitions to suit a belief. Remove the beam from your own amygdala before pointing to a mote in mine.
“’Midicholrian-boy.’
Gotta luv it.”
Glad you do. Because as long you hold on to such a ridiculous belief, you continue to demonstrate why I take your opinion of me or my application of logic with the same degree of seriousness I take a child who thinks Darth Vader is a real person.
You have a lot of knowledge, Dredd, but knowledge without understanding and proper integration is just information.
Gene,
NO MATH!!
You speak truth when you insist: “I do, however, argue that logic is a better tool than belief because belief has no checks on veracity whatsoever.” That has always been the basis of your logic usage.
However, I have know you to take quite a fling of fancy now and then and logic be damned.
Dredd,
I don’t favor beating in any way., but must out of love of GeneH. recite this. and a key bit more.
“Consult professor Idealist707 por favor.
“logic is a better tool than belief”
Logic is a form of belief. You are an evangelist of that belief, in the fire and brimstone denominational sense.
One of the best scripts I have seen, but not the best.””
I believe (there we are again) this belief that our ideas circumscribe the universe is fallacious. I sure I must have misunderstood GeneH on this point in believing he meant logic did embrace it all.
Whatever, and I getting woozy on oxygen, not beer, there remains the fact that many of us love GeneH. And are longing for the day when his feelings come out other than in his hatred of our political farce, all the evil in the world, and senile whippersnappers with wheezing brains sensitive to passing farts, imagined or otherwise.
Hope he joins MikeS group, I would be there with him—–along with a few other I’m sure (that’s belief again).
You all remember the Lieutenant in “Hill Street Blues” who popped up unannounced in the AA meeting. Well there’s a place for us all, who have really joined the human race, or have ambitions to do so, in some group somewhere.
If I disappear, you know that the above was stupid to write. Not the first time. And hopefully not the last. Just trying to return the favor he did me. Not a small one in terms of effect.
“Blouise, Idealist is pretty darn wise for being a novice at this.lol” (SwM)
That he is.
Dredd,
I missed your photon comment. As well as those by others, see above.
I will accept willingly the hypothesis. And wonder if anyone has done an energy balance on the brain. It consumes, it is said. 25 percent of our oxygen and presumably 25 percent of our energy. That’s about 75 watts I believe. Not much, about what an old laptop would consume.
So can we assume that not if the energy consumed is less than that measured in heat radiation, where does the rest go.
If we further assume that the eventual light (photon) energy is not converted to thermal energy but used in chemical neuron processes, then we perhaps have some support for your supposition of photon signaling. Considering the possibilities it might be worth exploring.
The chemical-electrical solution which seems apparent is in a way crude and limiting speedwise. Nature made eyes sensitive to light. Other similar cell light capabilities are thus obvously within range.
Speaking of crude. OTOT, there was a tale of mankind trying to make rockets and not having discovered electricity and its uses, used instead chemical signals. Of course, it failed endlessly. Which demonstrates not the effectiveness of electricity, but the need for access to basic science knowledge. Galileo’s foreshadowing of Einstein 500 years in advance (the thrown ball on a moving barge and the one thrown on the quayside alongside), and the slit and the electron wave-particle phenomenom, and the EPR, and Black holes have no hair, etc.
As Feynman said: “He who thinks he comprehends quantum physics, doesn’t understand it at all.”
So please gives us more on the photo signaling brain cells. I would assume nano-distances. But it was “calculation” we were discussing, not longway signaling which is well measure. Even I presume reflexes—-although I have my doubts there.
idealist707 1, May 5, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Dredd …
So, please help us all in recalling what was the area he ventured into so terribly?
===============================
The only thing I can figure is that he put on the mantle of a software engineer team manager, who is not a software engineer.
A feckless and fickle realm of exudation I dare say.
They believe in the Mythical Man Month, and other peculiarities.
They think pure logic drives humans to use their human brain activity to make machine brains, software, that operates flawlessly.
And all that while using a “less than perfect” language to do it with.
I speak about 7 (never try to be too exact) computer languages, and have been known to be chastened by the CPU for trying to lie to it in all ~7 of them.
The only good thing about an empty cold one is that the next one will be full.
idealist707 1, May 5, 2012 at 3:09 pm
…
And kudos to JT’s who not only tolerate wild ideas, but seem often to find some sense in them.
=========================================
How the hell do you think he put his paint ball squad into devastating action, whipping the paper and ink off the contract squad?
He got game!
Blouise,
Thanks for the thanks. It was only an idea in passing, not based on more than what he had related and my similar experiences.
Anyway, kudos to you for having such superb taste. Hyperbolic ironical smile.
And kudos to JT’s who not only tolerate wild ideas, but seem often to find some sense in them.
Dredd and GeneH,
I am mcuh enamored of Roger P. and of his achievements which exceed my comprehension but not appreciation.
My dismay was his abysmal mistake in going outside his “area of expertise” and expounding on whatever it was to be then swiftly sliced into small pieces by every besserwisher all categories worldwide. And I had to agree, He sounded like a teenager after being excited by a chemistry lab demonstration.
So, please help us all in recalling what was the area he ventured into so terribly?
Gene H. 1, May 5, 2012 at 2:00 pm
“Your “exudation” (Idealist707 coined word) is one of absolutism, in that you argue ad nauseum, at times, that human devised logic is an absolute source for rendering truth, when in fact it is not. ”
Straw man. I’ve never argued logic is a source for absolute truth and my comments above reflect that stance. I do, however, argue that logic is a better tool than belief because belief has no checks on veracity whatsoever.
Try again.
As to the “grandpa’s dictionary” thing? Get a new act, Midicholrian-boy.
====================================================
“I’ve never argued logic is a source for absolute truth”
Nor have I said you did, I said your exudation of it is the problem.
Exudation is known to exude things from within, whether the exudor or the exudee is aware of it or not.
Consult professor Idealist707 por favor.
“logic is a better tool than belief”
Logic is a form of belief. You are an evangelist of that belief, in the fire and brimstone denominational sense.
One of the best scripts I have seen, but not the best.
“As to the “grandpa’s dictionary” thing? Get a new act,”
No way, not as long as you call me “boy”, because I know the DNA of that deeply generated exudation.
You need to rewire some of the outer extremities of your amydala, and I am not going to abandon you when these relics continue to surface.
Stay with me on this.
Mike S is putting together a
groupiegroup to convert some of your logic to feelings.“We are all in this alone.” -Lilly Tomlinson
“Midicholrian-boy.”
Gotta luv it.
Sorry gang, I have been drinking a cold one and reading a science book:
(Scientific American). I think Idealist707 and Mike S would dig it.
I can’t figure it out yet myself.
Will get back to this thread after I master those equations.
And to those who say: WTF is all this about?
I would reply: Have you really looked and considered deeply the chocolate muffin you have on your plate. Do so. At least for 30 minutes. And then report back. We will be undisturbed by you in the meanwhile and waiting eagerly for your revelations.
Sincerely if not truthfully,
GeneH,
It’s all stipulated. That’s what’s so glorious. You, and the rest of us. And to think, nature did this.
Beliefs are meant to be manipulated. Like I believe that WW3 would have occurred if Kennedy had not been assassinated, choosing a non-religious one for a change.
Or the inevitability of water-based life if proper conditions exist. As you would quickly say: Lack of something can not prove its unconditional non-existential possibility. Sorry I’m poor at doing these thing. You do it better.
“mathematics, have some ‘not perfect’ essences in them that
willcan render A = ¬A or A = x (as A = ¬A still implies an intra-set relationship where the actually may be a true unknowable outside the boundaries of the set).”That’s better.
Dredd,
Can I jump on the me-too wagon? Logic ‘R’ Us as I could put it. It is made by humans, it is not shadowed ín Plato’s cave, nor existing certainly and securely in his heavens. No, all things we can think or R us.
And will so be surmiseable until we get tentative confirmation from another sentient species.
Assumptions as to the power of our minds in relation to “fact”, “reality”, “relations” are all conveniences we have discovered within the system of our minds and senses. Where is the border between hubris and logical thought?
Hope this means something.
And not said in rebuke to GeneH or any other person convinced otherwise.
We are merely discussing how many angels fit on our logical pinhead. Are we not.? So don’t get your pecker caught in the door when you’re on Viagra or some such hormone. If you please.
id707,
I’ll stipulate (extended) sensory input as a limiting factor.
“Your “exudation” (Idealist707 coined word) is one of absolutism, in that you argue ad nauseum, at times, that human devised logic is an absolute source for rendering truth, when in fact it is not. ”
Straw man. I’ve never argued logic is a source for absolute truth and my comments above reflect that stance. I do, however, argue that logic is a better tool than belief because belief has no checks on veracity whatsoever.
Try again.
As to the “grandpa’s dictionary” thing? Get a new act, Midicholrian-boy.