Of course you are correct that you have been, you are and you will be and that is all factual. However so what? Unless those facts are embedded in a personal context they are factaully meaningless. Fact or no fact?
-----Original Message----- From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, Sep 18, 2009 10:59 am Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism act is it is that simple because fact in and of itself can be ontained in the moment. You start out with an object hurtling owards earth but then attribute our detection of it to subjectivity hereby reducing the object to a mere screen blip. This may be true ecause we have not actually seen the object beyond technical means. owever, to ascribe to a notion that the fact the moon exists is not a act because we have changed it's appearance, even rather minutely, is imply off point. Considering any and all changes to the moon, the act of the moment exists. The existence of the moon today with all t's newness, embellishments, paraphernalia, pollution and footprints S a "Fact". Eddington's fact was fact in Eddington's time. I see a winkle in the sky, I call it a star, the fact is I'm looking at it nd whether or not it exists or once existed and when it did, does not hange the fact that I'm looking at it, as are billions of others. e don't insist on facts, facts are resultant of an awareness of an ctuality. ur physical environment can change and therefore facts c an change, ut not as a result of subjectivity. Justin once place our existence n a eternal form, such when what we do and say becomes eternal, in he time line, so fact is I'm sitting here at this moment but soon 'll be off and then fact is I was sitting here earlier. There is no nterpretive element in establishing that fact and any obscure hilosophical tangent on being doesn't change it. You can run this ut all you want; fact is I don't mind. Fact>There is a clothesline>True act>There is underwear hanging on the clothesline>True act>The underwear is very nice>False act>The underwear is colorful>False act>The underwear is worn out>False act>The underwear is faded>False act> The underwear is worn by a woman>False act>There is underwear hanging on a clothesline>True act>There is a clothesline>True What is and can be interpreted subjectively is not fact. On Sep 18, 12:50 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: It isn't that simple Slip. If a large object is hurtling towards Earth and we detect it because of all the mental (subjective) work done in providing us the means and then deflect it using technology only possible because of said means, then the mental has changed reality. Eddington once said 'we do not change the moon by looking at it' - yet we eventually got there and changed it - having polluted its atmosphere and leaving footprints - the looking may just have been the first in events leading to this. One reason for insisting on facts is that we m ight otherwise just piddle around in language forever. Realism is always a hypothesis and structured, though not necessarily deeply philosophical and reflective. The environment clearly changes what we are physically, and this may change what we can experience mentally and thus what we can do in our environment and what we are as part of that environment containing us. It is a fact in special relativity that nothing can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, but we seem to see stuff exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. Facts are probably just the best of what we can do at present in explaining what we know, including the fact from the history of science that it is likely we are missing a future theory on the evidence available to us now. Dead soldiers from Afghanistan are currently saluted as they are driven through Wooton Basset. My fallen comrades murdered in Northern Ireland by terrorists were never subject to the honour of such parades. These are facts, but where do the facts lie as soon as we consider fuller issues of what is and was going on? Even some of my mates (most) don't regard what happened in Ireland as terrorism these days, and I can't believe Afghanistan is about terrorism either, though you'd see me saluting if I was in Wooton Basset. The media is keen on these parades of the dead, but makes a poor fist of proper explanation of why we are at war (whatever is going on this war ain't about protecting the streets of London). It is, of course, a fact that much presented to us as factual is not, serving only to hide what we would need to assess what is fact. On a statistical basis I would claim that most of what government puts to us as fact is not true. I think I could show this as fact on the basis of history and by polling people who provide government stats in confidence (68% admit to lying). I do not believe we change lead into gold by staring purposely at the stuff, but we can now do similar. On 18 Sep, 04:29, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Not like you to ride the fence Chris. As one of the most stringent > empiricists here you should emphasize the actuality of fact in > empiricist terms. Surely philosophical challenge on the level of > "being", in itself could dismantle the most basic human existence. > However, we do exist, we are here, we feel, we dream, we explore and > most of all we establish fact within our existence. Obviously fact is > what we experience as reality in our world not construed with outer > dimensions beyond our physical world. I know in my dreams there are > occurrences that could never be construed as earthly experiences but > we don't live in our dreams, we live here in real time which your > alarm clock will reveal to you in the morning. > Lee might argue that not everyone has an alarm clock but that is not > the issue . The subjective is weak because it is a means of > fragmentation which further weakens foundations. Our planet is our > foundation, on which we are poised to exist, without choice and > without direct control, we only live accordingly to what the world > delivers, ergo, we are not in control. Experiencing the objective > subjectively does not change the objective and perhaps the > subjectivity is resultant of denial, failure to recognize, failure to > understand or simply the lack of knowledge or comprehensive skill > necessary to discern the difference. > One thing is for sure, that is the it is "Fact" that you are reading > this. Unless of course your not, which would be the obverse fact. > On Sep 17, 8:36 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we run into the same problem anytime we have a thread on > > Objective/Subjective. As a materialist, I think that there is an objective > > reality, but recognize that it can only be experienced subjectively. This s > > why it's so hard to define what a fact is...is it the thing, or the > > perception of the thing? I tend to agree with your hard pressed points > > regarding objective facts, but I'm sympathetic to those who struggle with > > that. > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No I don't get the point you don't have. > > > The point is: IF data can have multiple interpretations,=2 0perceptions, > > > leading to multiple conclusions the data cannot be deemed "fact". > > > Facts are immutable and have no malleable quality. > > > There are many facts that no one can dispute and I'm sure you can name > > > a few. If you dare you might want to dispute some facts concerning > > > our solar system or the fact that if you chop your hand off a new one > > > wont grow back or that castration renders the male unable to > > > reproduce. Lee might waste time arguing some cryogenic sperm storage > > > process but the point is clear; "Fact" at it's core is exactly that, > > > "Fact". > > > Some Dictionary blurb: > > > fact > > > –noun > > > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth. > > > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is ow > > > a fact. > > > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something nown > > > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. > > > I find it all so simple and wonder why the conundrum. Facts are not > > > enigmatic but simply truths. > > > The "Only" facts I've ever known to be false (pure bull) are the facts > > > that come from witnesses during a trial or a myriad of other > > > fabrications stemming from marital disputes. > > > Of course those are just lies and not fact at all. > > > On=2 0Sep 17, 5:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Perhaps you are technically correct. But you get my point No? So help e > > > out please. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:09 am > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > herefore, 1+1=2 is not a "fact" to begin with except as viewed by > > > > hose who accept, understand and acknowledge it's numerical base. It > > > > s only subject to interpretation by those living by an alternately > > > > efined numerical system or those who would debate whether > > > > athematical systems are simply human constructs. 1011 might be > > > > iewed as one thousand eleven unless your a computer analyst, so the > > > > xample presented in regards to the 'fact topic' appears to be > > > > nvalid. > > > > On Sep 17, 7:47 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > A fact is a fact but like all data this factual data has to be > > > interpreted. > > > > hen interpretation is added into the > > > > mix - the same or dofferent people may well view the same fact fropm > > > multiple > > > > erspectives. Case in point: > > > > most people would probably agree that one plus one is two. However 1 1 > > > might > > > > alidly be viewed as 11. > > > > Then again one plus one might be viewed as three as in the Law of hrees > > > - or > > > > ealian Logic or the mystery of the > > > > trinity. Thus the initIAL FACT is transformed into a variety of > > > alterrnative > > > > eanings depending on the scale of > > > > observation of the observer in question. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Don Johnson <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Sent:20Wed, Sep 16, 2009 3:06 pm > > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > understand that some people refuse to accept certain facts. I also > > > > nderstand that some people accept as fact what is, in fact, no such > > > > hing. I don't see how this makes facts subjective. Facts are facts. > > > > ither something is true or it isn't. Whether or not somebody > > > > elieves it has nothing to do with it. I'm on Slips side of this > > > > oin. > > > > dj > > > > n Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand ants > > > > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really re. > > > > <<Lee Sep 16, 9:57 am > > > > .........facts can be subjective as well as objective<<Lee Sep 16, > > > > 10:17 am > > > > On Sep 16, 10:21A > > > > 0am, "[email protected]" > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Umm settles what? > > > > > Ohh and you're welcome! > > > > > On 16 Sep, 16:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective, hat > > > > > > indeed both kinds exist. <Lee > > > > > > OK! Well I guess that settles it. Thanks mate! > > > > > > On Sep 16, 9:57 am, "[email protected]" < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Bwahahahah ohh Slip, you slay me mate honestly. > > > > > > > Listen very carefully sir, I'll say it again. > > > > > > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective, > > > that > > > > > > > indeed both=2 > > > > 0kinds exist. > > > > > > > The point? Or why do I make this ... read more » -~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ ou received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Minds Eye"" group. o post to this group, send email to [email protected] o unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] or more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en ~----------~----~----~- ---~------~----~------~--~--- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
