humanities.philosophy.objectivism

David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mar 21, 3:04 pm, Jim Klein wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 10:57 am, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > > You know, I had a long reply written, but I think a single sentence
> > > would be better. Jim, do you think a warm day is still pleasant even
> > > in the absence of consciousness?
>
> > Deep, David. I think the molecular action which causes the
> > heat to be as it is, would be exactly the same.
>
> Exactly. And nobody disputes that the Sun and Earth would suffer any
> changes in their molecular action should all conscious beings go away.

You dispute it, David. You even say that their relative sizes would
change should all conscious beings go away.

Hell, you even say that they wouldn't even continuing
existing, as objects.

So don't say you don't dispute it, when you do.


> No, we agree on both. What we disagree about, primarily, is exactly
> what kind of judgment "larger" is in this context.

"Larger" is not a judgment; it's a (non-judgmental) fact.
That's why it's still a fact even with no judger around.


> What kind of property is it for a molecule to be part of the Sun?

Who cares? Whatever the answer, you say it goes away
when consciousness goes away.

I say it doesn't. I'm right, you're wrong and you're not
going to change this with any words.


jk