[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> An expert could likely complicate your life by trying to show that it's   
   >>>> either false or meaningless.  (Don't ask me to do it---I'm just the   
   >>>> student.)  They could attack ``reason for one's existence'' as   
   >>>> meaningless and they could certainly attack ``subjective'' by claiming   
   >>>> that the vast majority of the world is quite objective.   
   >>>   
   >>> Hah... I'll take the challenge! ;) I agree, objectively speaking,   
   >>> that there is no reason.   
   >>   
   >> No reason?  I think there is reason. :)   
   >   
   > But can you prove it, objectively?   
      
   Objectively?  You mean kinda like a proof that the whole world with   
   stand in awe, like beautiful math proofs like Godel's Theorems?  I   
   believe I can't and likely wouldn't work on trying.  Why should I do   
   something that's looking pretty difficult?  Because it's important?  I   
   kinda doubt it's important.   
      
   I think proofs are just constructions.  In math, for example, their role   
   is quite clear.  I don't even know what it would mean to prove that   
   there is reason.  I think there's reason because we seem to be doing   
   some stuff here that we decide to call reason and then, evidently, it   
   exists in the sense that we conclude it does and move on.   
      
   > If you can, I think you'll have solved 2500 years of ethical   
   > philosophizing.   
      
   I doubt I could do something that would classify as that.   
      
   > Or, another out, is the way of definition.  Depending on your   
   > definitions, it could of course be "made" objective. The question is   
   > then if I accept the definitions or not. =)   
      
   So you seem to think that a proof is something like too hard to   
   resist---like a math proof.  I believe I don't think like that.  A proof   
   to me is a joint work between a writer and a reader.  If the reader that   
   catch the spirit, there is no proof.   
      
   For a proof to have meaning, it needs to be shared and recognized by   
   another person.  If you were completely alone in the universe (a   
   counterfactual and ridiculous proposition), you would have to read you   
   proof a few times in order to simulate a second or third person sharing   
   and recognizing your proof.  In other words, thinking is a collective   
   phenomenon.  When we do it alone, we actually simulate someone else   
   that's listening and talking back.  (Pretty strong evidence, I find.)   
      
   If someone /rejects/ an axiom I came up with or a definition I wrote,   
   then there's likely little friendship there.  Friendship exists when   
   people go along with you without judgment.  Rejecting /or accepting/   
   anything is judgment, which is not friendship.  When someone proposes me   
   anything, I look at it without accepting it or rejecting it.  (Unless   
   I'm a really bad mood!)   
      
   >> It's not subjective.  We all have seen the same stuff.  Of course, from   
   >> where you look is different from where I look.  But we're seeing the   
   >> same things---evidently.  It's what nearly all of the evidence shows.   
   >   
   > Agreed! But boy have I had endless email discussions with people who   
   > reject the proof of their senses.   
      
   Excessive refinement in thinking?  They want a kind of super assured   
   certainty?  I think that's a waste of time.  It's not a waste of time to   
   care for your math proofs, say, or removing bugs from your programs and   
   so on.  But rejecting the senses as in I don't know if really exist or   
   I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.   
   That's when thought escapes from the leash.   
      
   >>>> Freud observed himself and made conclusions that apply to everyone else.   
   >>>> Like everyone else, he perhaps made mistakes in the fine details of   
   >>>> things, but he also made huge contributions---from a unitary sample   
   >>>> space.   
   >>>   
   >>> True, but freud these days is disproven. As you say, he did lay a good   
   >>> foundation for psychology however, and it has progress from him.   
   >>   
   >> I don't think he's disproven at all. :) Look, it doesn't matter if a   
   >> mathematician got a conjecture wrong---he did a lot of useful work in   
   >> his life.  Same with Freud---just his independence from public opinion   
   >> makes him a type of Socrates.   
   >   
   > I did a lot of good, of course, but his theories about dream   
   > interpretation and the psyche I think are no longer relevant. On the   
   > other hand, I am not a psychologist, so who am I to say? =)   
      
   Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help   
   you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really   
   would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that   
   nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.   
      
   >>> It seems, like me, you are not always comfortable with   
   >>> counterfactuals.   
   >>   
   >> A beg your pardon?  I'm not sure what you mean, but I think I agree.  A   
   >> counterfactual is something that goes against the facts.  Surely.  I   
   >> could never deny that 1 + 1 = 2, say.  I can't even ignore evidence.  I   
   >> don't mind leaving questions open at all.  Every now and then it's a   
   >> good idea to hang a question mark on all those things we've long taken   
   >> for granted.  (Is that Bertrand Russell again?)   
   >   
   > Not quite. Counterfactuals are questions such as... "imagine you ate an apple   
   > this morning, would that mean that later in the day you would have a stomach   
   > ache". So when those types of thought experiments are not made with the   
   > intention of high lighting something tangible or empirically provable, I find   
   > them to be useless idle speculation. That's what I was trying to get at.   
      
   Oh, I see.  We're in total agreement.  I think counterfactual   
   propositions are useless distractions.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)