From: alias@removenetserver.org   
      
   On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 00:54:24 -0800, FixinDixon wrote:   
      
   i can't help it.. Jane Doe is sitting here telling me its   
   time to go to sleep.. but i feel..   
      
   strangely..   
      
   compulsed..   
      
      
   >> Assuming Go:del's proof was 'in the ballpark', there ain't no provable   
   >> 'objective logic' nor can there be a provable subjective one. While it   
   >> is true that 'some subjective experience cannot be disproved' the   
   >> point of most "science' and / or 'philosophy' has been to 'prove'   
   >> things as 'facts' and add them to the common store of 'human'   
   >> knowledge. If you can't prove it you cannot add it to the 'holy   
   >> treasures' of science.   
   >   
   > Not true.  There can be provable objective logic.  For example:   
      
   "objectivity" and "logic" are both subjective constructs. (ie. when we all   
   die they go bye bye too)   
      
   language.. its a bitch.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > I'd agree.  Our experience of the world is based exclusively on our   
   > physical interaction with it.   
      
   not necessarily.  its possible that the entirety of our expierence is   
   dictated by objective facts beyond our ability to percieve.   
      
      
   What you see as blue, I might see as   
   > yellow.  What tastes like chicken to you might taste like tasty wheat   
   > to someone else, etc.   
      
   [snap?]   
      
   >   
   > Ah, that would be a small allusion to Plato, right?  Plato said that   
   > we are all looking at shadows being cast from around a campfire in a   
   > cave, and that 'philosophers' (I think he used the term "the   
   > educated", suggesting that only the educated could ever understand the   
   > true meaning of life) were the only people willing to get up, leave   
   > the cave and see the world as it truely is.  It takes time, patience   
   > and learning to get out of the cave, and once you're outside, you'll   
   > be compelled to return to teach everyone what is outside the cave in   
   > the 'real' world, and you'll be hated for it.   
      
   or u'll just never go back.. either one.   
      
      
   >   
   > Either way, I'd agree that our objective experiences of reality are   
   > made up of our subjective sensations of reality.  However, we can   
   > operate within this system because we always work on inductive   
   > reasoning.  For example, the sun has risen every morning of every day   
   > for the past 20-odd years, as far as I'm concerned.  Will it rise   
   > tommorrow?  Yes, BUT I don't know for a fact that it will.  Likewise,   
   > I don't know for a fact that it used to rise before I was born   
   > (allusion to the Evil Demon hypotheis of Decartes).  But I assume that   
   > it did because it has done so since I was born.   
      
   this is a choice we refer to as "sanity" in most circles.  its a good   
   choice.. and most people seem to favor it.  i call it "sanity" not to   
   demean it.. but simply to point out exactly what it is..   
      
   most of us have blinders on that prohibit looking past this choice.. IMO   
   the largest task of enculturation is not to teach a person how to live   
   in society.. but how to modulate reality into compliance with the rest of   
   the "sane" world.   
      
   stepping outside of that definition gets dangerous.. u start thinking   
   things like  "inductive reasoning suggests that the sun will rise   
   tommorow.. but how do i even know theres a sun?"   
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)