Karl

Only in fairy stories.

He produced proof of his assertion. There were already variations in dimension amongst objects and entities. That there are small and smaller creatures isn't something people are not aware of. It's then possible that smaller creatures exist than the ones we can see and that larger creatures have existed than the ones we see today. The same goes for inanimate objects such as tiny grains of sand. However, did VL wander around saying 'it's possible, you can't prove it isn't?' No. He set to work to find out if his assertion was true knowing full well it might not be. People get on proving things and then present those findings. That's why I say that it is up to the one asserting the theory who must present the evidence.

'Is it possible' related to materials science, availability of materials, skill of the workmen etc as opposed to "was it possible that aliens did it?" Where no evidence of Aliens, spacecraft, life on other planets, or any kind of sense in an alien helping to construct a large mausoleum in stone after developing interstellar travel is not yet in the realm of the possible. That Egyptians had developed a technology to cut and build lumps of rock is not only possible, but in the absence of any other explanation, a fact. We can certainly argue over what tools were used, but that's beyond my knowledge-as Nungali has offered quite a lot of evidence I'm minded to accept his explanation as probable.

Just think of it like a court room. The accused stands in the dock and announces he can prove he was not at the scene of the murder. The prosecutor says that he must have bribed people, used a look a like, photoshopped his pictures. The man says no he didn't and the lawyer says 'is it possible'. Prove that you didn't. The man says he couldn't have done it because he has no arms. The lawyer says he did it with his feet, the man says no, the lawyer says 'is it possible' ? Prove you didn't. This is the reason why the burden of proof must be on the person who says 'is it possible and prove that it isn't'. In a court the prosecutor must prove beyond all reasonable doubt, it is not for the accused to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. The lack of evidence finds the accused man innocent and this is the same with any situation where there is no evidence. Where no evidence is forthcoming it is unnecessary to be agnostic. It's as if the person offering the unsupported assertion said something unintelligible and so you walk on.

That's the stolen concept fallacy. To use logic to say logic is illogical and rationality is irrational. Anyone who does say this is effectively ruling themselves out of the argument on the grounds of gross insanity.

There isn't one. Its up to the one who asserts that there is something to provide the proof. We might be at the point where something is possible, then probable, then likely, but we are no where near that point. A story is not proof. Give us the facts.

We can be certain because there is no proof or facts to support the assertion.

That isn't what you said. I agree that the title 'the commandments' are a corruption. I would suggest the 'principles/rules best applied to rational thought rather than laws, but it's a minor distinction.

They are the logical fallacies. The bit that says 'logical' might spell out to that which they are related. This is formal aristotlian logic which comes after grammar but before rhetoric.

Thou should try and get to the truth not just attempt to win the argument.

You are inferring things from your estimations that werent in your estimations. You did not discover he was a philosopher and writer, only that you thought he was a 'strong speaker'. Virtually everyone you ask will stress 'stucture and history', its hard to imagine anyone who is going to completely abandon their beliefs and experience. In a similar way most people emphasise the traditional, as they see it. The world is full of occultists in one form or another. That he had a star chart might well point to that interest ? Even then, even if I gave you full agreement, you still have to prove repeatability. Its no good getting it right once out of every half dozen, you must repeat with total accuracy and your astrological descriptions are not specific. Its also, if I may say so, completely useless. I can look up the guy on the internet and find out far more information. When I was learning hypnosis and linguistic techniques a group of us ended up in a restaurant where we attempted to get the waiter to give us extra food. We tried for a good half hour before one of the group realised it might be easier to simply ask him if we could have more chips/cofee. Amazingly ;-) plainly asking and being polite had the desired effect and we got our extras. You have said that "something happened to me", that I stopped believing and this is true, but I didnt simply cross the road to another kind of belief in the way an atheist sometimes does. Im also cognisant of your own personal beliefs in relation to how I previously thought. I think its somewhat of a pointless kind of execise to engage in a process of argument just to beat down the opposing point of view for the sake of a phyrric victory. Instead lets get to the truth objectively.If you say astrology works 100% and can prove it beyond any doubt I might have, then great, but if you say its my doubt which is preventing me seeing it, then Im goiing to call you out. I can point to a cat if someone doesnt believe I have seen such a thing as a small animal with whiskers and a penchant for purring, you must do likewise. I cannot infer a cat by pointing to a tape recorder of a purring sound, or some whiskers stuck on a brush. My credibility would be a big fat zero.

Its not about 'chance' I can make predictions about you without consulting anything much at all. However, you arent considering the person that you are investigating. If they have a penchant to believe in these things then they will tend to agree with your perceptions. There isnt anything mysterious about it-cold readers and other s have relied on it for many years. Whats more, if the reader is himself a believer rather than just a faker, they will discover a positive feedback loop. This has been known about for years as well. Groups can convince themselves that they saw exactly the same thing. Crowds become a collective force devoid of reason and act in unison. I used to 'act as if' when working with clients. I truly believed and so did the client. We can convince ourselves of anything if we stop applying reason. Many people just dont want to know reality, its too harsh maybe? its easier to believe some fantasy that gives a sense of control in a dangerous world.I know how tightly I clung to my own illusions and the comfort they seemed to bring. Nungali is showing you proof. Very interesting proof it is too. He isnt filing things under 'aliens might have done it' because he has the proof that they were not needed. If Aliens were hanging about in Egypt, then they were like bosses on road gangs just watching the workers as we might shoulld we find a primitive race.Then they got back in their space craft after collecting their rubish and disappeared never to return. One day reality does come crashing in Michael. My advice is not to entertain the crash but to work towards reality immediately, to fall in love with it.

Probably not, but makes no difference to me. I've been told 'it can't be done' all my life-then I did it and everyone said they never doubted it for a moment- funny that. ;-)

They think its all over....it is now.

Government doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists only by the support of the people. It is not easy to have objective Government, but it's possible. One of the key issues I came across in Libertarian circles being that if we couldn't have objective Government, then we shouldn't have ANY government. This seemed logical and pointed to Anarchy being the way forward, but, something didn't quite work and I discovered that it was because libertarians didn't operate from a philosophy, but continued to be subjectivists. What I'm proposing, or what Rand proposed was not something that will happen overnight, or either in several generations. It is on the scale of the enlightenment but far more permanent. It won't happen in my lifetime unless there are really miracles :-), but it will have to come or we will either revert to barbarism or vanish completely. These are the options. I like to think of myself as one tiny grain of sand around which, in time, others might gather. It requires a change in thinking by a change in current philosophy. I see objectivism as the only way forward otherwise any change will be fruitless. Perhaps one day we will have a GORT......GOveRnmenT which is incorruptible and impartial and objective just like the robot in the film 'the day the Earth stood still". Maybe we can expand our consciousness sufficiently to emerge from our current darkness. Maybe it will take a catastrophe, maybe sufficient people will realise.

Initiation of force, not that force isn't required. There is a distinct difference. It is the 'oversight' that allowed, legalised and protected slavery and rail road barons. Drug barons (if you mean the current illegal kind) are created by the Government making drug sales illegal (stopping Laissez Faire capitalism from working). I could go on but don't want to snarl up the thread more than necessary. The only oversight needed is an objective government that prevents the initiation of force and has no other part in the affairs of men beyond protecting their peaceful liberty. It acts in the case of others who use force to gain that to which they have no rights and dispense justice through binding laws.

The thing I do find interesting about some of the theories Lanagan has written about is that they parallel the ideas of Ayn Rand in her later years. She speaks of the mathematics as the method of cognition had begun to study higher maths in order to work on the idea. She thought that eventually a link would be established. Rand: The basic principle of concept-formation (which states that the omitted measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity)is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra, which states algebraic symbols must be given some numerical value, but may be given any value. In this sense and respect, perceptual awareness is the arithmetic, but conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition. The relationship of concepts to their constituent particulars is the same as the relationship of algebraic symbols to numbers. In the equation 2a=a+a any number may be substituted for a without affecting the truth of the equation. In the same manner, by the same psycho-empistomological method , a concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumed. Peikoff: what the window of mathematics reveals is not the mechanics of deduction , but of induction. It is not the barren constructs of rationalistic, but mans method of extrapolating from observed data to the total of the universe.

That's Laissez Faire. People trade with people by building trust between them. The market is an enormous network of small groups regularly trading with each other after developing trust from each trade. Bad actors don't make trusted traders and are soon discarded.

It is what it is, not utopia. Laissez Faire and force are incompatible. Everyone won't be 'on the same page' they either choose to be good actors, or they find themselves as outsiders unable to obtain anything and hence survive. They either become part and realise their mistake by working harder to try and regain trust or they resort to robbery and theft. In the case of the latter, eventually the law will deal with them and justice will be done. The free market can never be perfect, only the foolish try to make it so. The point of a free market is that it increases production, innovation and wealth over one which a group try and control. That should be obvious, but no matter what history shows and facts bare out, people continue to demand the application of force. One day they get a Mao, Hitler or Stalin-they get their hearts desire in spades.

You cannot set 'moral standards' you can only set rules under which men have freedom of choice. Like you said. The bar has a bouncer. The rules are clear to follow. It's a private establishment and people enter it knowing what the rules are. That's exactly how Lassez Faire capitalism works-and it's the only type which does. The participants have internal rules and external laws. The use of violent force is reserved for use by an objective body. Internally there are contracts, trade bodies, lawyers, courts, insurers. Most conflicts can be resolved without requiring the government to intervene. It's only when things turn violent that external arbitration is required. It's really very simple and people get how to do this. There are always cheats, but these people are taken care of within the market. Murderers, robbers and rapists are dealt with by the Government. As soon as people want government control of the market, out come the regulators, regulatory capture, lobbyists, bribery, corruption and a complete collapse of justice. That's what we are witnessing now, be it the military industrial complex, banking, big pharma, big Agra. The effect is always the opposite for reasons I have already outlined.

I love tools. Wish I had known about carbide tipped chisels when I was pounding out brickwork to install concealed electrical boxes. I used a thing called a scutch comb, which was quite effective and stayed sharp throughout its life-it might be carbide as it is still pretty sharp and I still use it after 20 years. The comb tip can be replaced, but I've never needed to do that. I'm off to play with my torque wrenches and cobalt twist drills :-)

As I'm sure you realise, you are using an equivocation. The initiation of force against another person is not the same as forcing your hand to obey your brain. If you hold your life as a value against which you judge other values, then to initiate the use of force against another person is irrational. All men must equally have the freedom to pursue their own survival as you do if you are to be consistent with your values. Once you become inconsistent, whimsical or arbitrary, then you lose consistency. Thus you threaten your own survival. In objectivist philosophy these things do matter. To evade and rationalise inconsistent thought creates internal conflicts which produce disharmony. It means you build a hierarchy of knowledge which is built on shifting sand. The result is that you add to the problems that you want to eradicate. The answer to the most effective use of resource is Laissez Faire Capitalism and not more government control which created the problem in the first place. If the initiation of force makes things worse, then it's hardly plausible to believe a greater initiation of force will improve it.

It's bogus because you can provide no objective scientific evidence of a causal link. If something is true, then it is consistently true. Drop a coin and it falls towards the earth. Do this repeatedly and after a few million goes we can reasonably infer that it isn't going to fly off in some other direction. People that believe in astrology confirm their bias by wanting astrological charts-why ? Don't they know who they are ?

There is only one appropriate use of force and that is to protect yourself from attack. It is a zero sum action. Violence produces no good at all. If you decide that you must initiate force then you must do so consistently. If you are consuming, then you must apply that force to yourself as that is how you judge value. If thy eye offends you pluck it out.

We aren't 'exploiting' we are making objective value judgements based on our decision that our life is our primary value. Waste is caused by a poor use of resources and that is caused by people's judgement that a government must decide what's best for them. Hence our current economic mess caused by central bankers creating bubble (malinvestment) through monetary expansion. Other issues are caused by governments promoting or inhibiting behaviour with incentives.