tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post43187124659542143..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Are Non-Christians Unable to "Account for" Their Counting?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46621101287994560322010-01-20T12:31:15.768-05:002010-01-20T12:31:15.768-05:00The cardinality of the empty set is zero.The cardinality of the empty set is zero.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-35608648081610936502010-01-19T23:38:00.740-05:002010-01-19T23:38:00.740-05:00Hello Dawson and Friends
Its been almost a year s...Hello Dawson and Friends<br /><br />Its been almost a year since I last typed a comment, and I hope all are well and prospering. Next time I won't be such a stranger.<br /><br />An interesting aspect of the topic of infinity in Christian philosophy of religion discussions is that Christians will defend the idea of an actual infinity when it comes to the scope of their gods power but will vigorously deny same in context of regression of causation. They can't have their cake and eat it too. There are serious problems for the apologists in claiming their god's Omnipotent powers are not bound by logic or the uniformity of nature. A few years ago I read a collection of essays edited by Michael Martin called "The Impossibility of God". J.L. Cowin's "The Paradox of Omnipotence" laid out insurmountable problems with the notion of Omnipotence. I wish I could recall Cowin's arguments right now. I have the book and will have to reread the essay. <br /><br />On the matter of the infinite regression of causation, many non-objectivists who are atheists will strongly argue for the logical possibility of an actual infinity. Sadly, I do not recall their arguments at this time. However, I do think I recall that Cantorian Set Theory details that a Null Set has Cardinality of one and that CST stipulates that a proper subset increments its main Set's cardinality. If this is so, then an Russian Babushka Doll like infinite regression of Null Sets each containing a proper subset that is itself a Null set would have cardinality of Alph-0, yet it would be equivalent to Zero or nothing. In that sense, God would be infinite in scope and nothingness. Ha, LOL.<br /><br />I would be willing to concede the logical impossibility of an actual infinity as Objectivism's argument against infinite beings would then carry the day. However, if the Christian sought to assert that infinity was an actual number then they would impale themselves on the other horn of the dilemma by accepting infinite regress of causation and thereby rejecting their god as necessarily being creator. <br /><br />I'm glad I came come back here and read your stuff Dawson. Thanks for thinking and writing.<br /><br />Best Wishes for 2010<br /><br />Robert BumbaloughAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83490824170689316572010-01-13T20:57:47.724-05:002010-01-13T20:57:47.724-05:00Expandable Post Summaries
Some new stuff. Good l...<a href="http://www.blogdoctor.me/2007/02/expandable-post-summaries.html" rel="nofollow">Expandable Post Summaries</a> <br /><br />Some new stuff. Good luck.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8005294551264943482010-01-11T16:36:57.688-05:002010-01-11T16:36:57.688-05:00It looks like you don't want:
<data:post....It looks like you don't want: <br /><br /><data:post.jumpText/> <br /><br />you want the "Read More". <br /><br />Whether the code snippet goes immediately after: <br /><br /><data:post.body/><br /><br />or after </div>, is unknown. Try both.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-41257789308782096752010-01-11T16:30:34.684-05:002010-01-11T16:30:34.684-05:00<b:if cond='data:post.hasJumpLink'>
...<b:if cond='data:post.hasJumpLink'><br /><div class='jump-link'><br /><a expr:href='data:post.url + "#more"'>Read More</a><br /></div><br /></b:if >NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83444021827496062732010-01-11T07:57:18.462-05:002010-01-11T07:57:18.462-05:00Go to "Layout" -> "Edit HTML&quo...Go to "Layout" -> "Edit HTML" and select "Expand Widget Templates"<br /><br />Find <br /><br /> <data:post.body/><br /><br />After </div> add: <br /><br /><b:if cond='data:post.hasJumpLink'> <br /><br /> <div class='jump-link'> <br /><br /> <a expr:href='data:post.url + "#more"'><data:post.jumpText/></a> <br /> <br /> </div> <br /><br /> </b:if><br /><br />*************************************<br /><br />The line with "#more" should be one line. <br /><br />I found the code <a href="http://forums.htmlhelp.com/index.php?showtopic=9746%22" rel="nofollow">here</a> <br /><br />i've also found other Minima Black templates that have functioning Jump Breaks.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32241298805025701322010-01-11T07:21:41.785-05:002010-01-11T07:21:41.785-05:00Hi Nal,
In Edit HTML mode, the coding you cite, n...Hi Nal,<br /><br />In Edit HTML mode, the coding you cite, namely <br><br><!-- more --><br><br> is there, right where I want it. But for some reason Blogger is not obeying this tag. <br /><br />Incidentally, I opened the "view source" feature in IE, and noticed that the coding appears there as follows:<br /><br /><br><a name='more'></a><br><br /><br />Any idea why it would show up this way in the source, and could this have anything to do with why the "read more" feature is not working? It does not show this in the Edit HTML mode.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67130708756957101682010-01-11T07:13:19.846-05:002010-01-11T07:13:19.846-05:00Hello Tim,
Excellent question. Yes, Rand does dis...Hello Tim,<br /><br />Excellent question. Yes, Rand does discuss the “crow epistemology,” beginning on p. 62 of ITOE. While this point illustrates that rudimentary mathematical ability has a perceptual basis (she writes that the birds’ “power of discrimination did not extend beyond three units – and their perceptual-mathematical ability consisted of a sequence such as: one-two-three-many”), her overall point is in service of developing her principle of <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/unit-economy.html" rel="nofollow">unit-economy</a>, a benefit which only concepts can supply. She develops her point as follows:<br /><br />“if we omit all conceptual knowledge, including the ability to count in terms of numbers, and attempt to see how many units… we can discriminate, remember and deal with by purely perceptual means (e.g., visually or auditorially, but <i>without counting</i>), we will discover that the range of man’s <i>perceptual</i> ability may be greater, but not much greater, than that of the crow: we may grasp and hold five or six units at most.” (ITOE, pp. 62-63)<br /><br />Notice that, for Rand, “the ability to count in terms of numbers” requires conceptual ability, since numbers are a type of concept. But some quantitative differences can be perceived (such as the differences between one, two and three units). In my blog I noted that “measurement as an epistemological process begins at the perceptual level of consciousness.” Consider how a child forms the concept ‘ball’. He has before him a ping pong ball, a tennis ball and a basket ball. They have relevant similarities, but are different in size (as well as other attributes). The size differences between the units are directly perceivable. The child does not have to know what inches are, nor does he have to be able to count in terms of inches and fractions of inches, in order to recognize that one unit (the basket ball) is bigger than the other two. When he forms the concept ‘ball’, these “measurements” (for him, at this stage, they consist of “bigger” and “smaller”) as well as others are “omitted” – or, as Porter would say, “de-specified” (<i>Ayn Rand’s Theory of Knowledge</i>).<br /><br />Incidentally, the points which Rand brings out of the “crow epistemology” plays directly into my argument that <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2007/04/would-omniscient-mind-have-knowledge-in.html" rel="nofollow">an omniscient mind would not have its knowledge in conceptual form</a>. Rand writes:<br /><br />“Since consciousness is a specific faculty, it has a specific nature or identity and, therefore, its range is limited: it cannot perceive everything at once; since awareness, on all its levels, requires an active process, it cannot do everything at once. Whether the units with which one deals are percepts or concepts, the range of what man can hold in the focus of his conscious awareness at any given moment, is limited. The essence, therefore, of man’s incomparable cognitive power is the ability to reduce a vast amount of information to a minimal number of units—which is the task performed by his conceptual faculty. And the principle of <i>unit-economy</i> is one of that faculty’s essential guiding principles.” (ITOE, p. 63)<br /><br />In other words, the reason why concepts are so useful to our form of consciousness is because we are <i>not</i> omniscient, while an omniscient mind (if there could ever be such a thing) would have no need for the unit-economizing benefits of conceptual knowledge. Such a mind would presumably be one which does “perceive everything at once,” and <i>could</i> “do everything at once."<br /><br />Hope that helps!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78945103615029667462010-01-10T10:34:20.515-05:002010-01-10T10:34:20.515-05:00Dawson,
Wouldn't the fact that many animals ha...Dawson,<br />Wouldn't the fact that many animals have their own ability to "count" undermine the foundation of the argument as well? It seems that counting, then, is something that is possible or has its origins in brain functions that are far less capable than a humans conceptual/abstract process. Without looking it up - I think Rand herself in ITOE explains the "crow epistemology." Animals do not "account for" their use of numbers and yet they still "count." A conceptual faculty is not a necessary condition for counting to exist.<br /><br />Perhaps I am slightly off the nature of the argument?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-6102315761264063292010-01-10T08:50:05.778-05:002010-01-10T08:50:05.778-05:00Have you tried:
In the Edit HTML option for edit...Have you tried: <br /><br />In the Edit HTML option for editing the post, insert: <br /><br /><!-- more --><br /><br />Note spaces before and after "more".NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40120779123051433502010-01-10T08:49:08.534-05:002010-01-10T08:49:08.534-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36633819697192839732010-01-10T01:45:02.096-05:002010-01-10T01:45:02.096-05:00Thanks, Chris. I've corrected them now. It'...Thanks, Chris. I've corrected them now. It's one of the deficiencies of blogger's editing software - it automatically inserts the blogger domain into hyperlink tags when pasting from an external source (e.g., MS Word, which is where I tend to do my work). Very annoying, but something I have to live with apparently.<br /><br />By the way, Nal, if you're out there, I tried it again and it still isn't behaving. It seems not meant to be. The editor features are there, the icon for page break is there, and the tag for the break is in my blog's coding. But it simply doesn't show up once published. Perhaps prayer may solve the problem?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-18425525900069782672010-01-10T01:27:48.739-05:002010-01-10T01:27:48.739-05:00Hi Dawson,
For some reason the links are down.Hi Dawson,<br /><br />For some reason the links are down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com