Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. intrinsicist

    Universals

    I think everyone has the same idea of Logos, as far as I know the concept has roots in ancient Greece prior to the stoics, especially in Plato and Aristotle. The Logos is all the Forms, like the entire concept map. It is all of these abstract objects, coherently ordered and connected. The Christian conception, as best I understand it - and I'm still trying to - is that God is like Logos+, a part of the idea of God but not the whole of it. The Logos is the Word (i.e. the concepts/Forms/essences), it is the wisdom of God (sort of the concept map in the mind of God, since the Forms/essences are mental). "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it." - John 1:1 Jordan Peterson calls it "the thing that brings order out of chaos at the beginning of time". Above I am describing it like this: Aristotle defined the nature of the thing as not being in the material of which its composed, but in its form, in its design, like the abstract blueprint of the thing. So when we are talking about the "metaphysical nature" of the thing, this is what we are talking about, not the material it's made out of, not the particular, concrete instance of it, but the pattern of it, the design of it. And when Ayn Rand talks about "metaphysical self-preservation", she is not referring to your merely material or bodily self-preservation, she is talking about the preservation of your identity as a human being, i.e. maintaining your hold on your distinctly human faculty of reason: "the noblest form of metaphysical self-preservation: the refusal to commit spiritual suicide by abnegating one’s own mind and to survive as a lobotomized automaton" - Ayn Rand, Inexplicable Personal Alchemy
  3. intrinsicist

    Universals

    Not much, no. Honestly I haven't put in much effort in a while. I'm starting to think about pushing this again. I do think the Logos is rationally irrefutable. How so? Actually I'm having trouble reconciling multiple aspects of theism with the mere assertion of the Logos. I can't seem to find them to be equal. @MisterSwig, is that true?
  4. EC

    Immigration restrictions

    It will be, yes. If part of man's nature is that he can use technology to become effectively immortal, and it is, then how could it not be? Do you believe morality stops being moral in 20-30 years when this technology is commonplace? Omniscient beings? We are talking about things that are possible not imaginary and unscientific.
  5. Yesterday
  6. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Ah, so Objectivism is for immortal entities as well. How about omniscient beings? Do they need a philosophy on how to acquire knowledge?
  7. StrictlyLogical

    Which Eternity?

    Yes, that would invoke time where one argues it is absent: "becoming" presupposes change which is time. If there was a "first" and no before, that implies no change into "first" from anything... but this starts to sound like "first" always was... (not even caused by the causeless since cause is becoming is time)... is there a problem if time is relative, and a measure of change of things that are... the no change and no time are a sort of eternity... but it is only an asymptote towards no change (but never reaching it) is in a sense both endless and finite... (no change would literally mean no time... so an infinity of no change is no time at all...) I think the problem is trying to think of time in terms of time... I wish I could word it better... time cannot form its own definition, and as such it must be defined with reference to other things that do not remain the same... and the measure of the non-sameness defines time. I think in the end time is relative and is defined based on real processes of existents... and measure of time going backward should be with reference to those processes.
  8. dream_weaver

    Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step

    Complex molecules emerge without evolution or design Date: January 17, 2019 Source: University of Groningen Summary: In biology, folded proteins are responsible for most advanced functions. These complex proteins are the result of evolution or design by scientists. Now scientists have discovered a new class of complex folding molecules that emerge spontaneously from simple building blocks. Hightlight from within: Origin-of-life Proteins have two major folding structures: alpha helices and the beta pleated sheet. 'In protein design, scientists use variations on these themes, like adding an extra helix', says Otto. 'They tend to stick close to what nature has offered.' The new folding structure results in five stacks of five aromatic rings. The entire molecule has a five-fold symmetry. 'However, the other thiol-based structures that we are still studying show yet other types of folding.' A striking conclusion drawn from the discovery of this new folding molecule is that complexity can emerge spontaneously. 'This is interesting for origin-of-life research: apparently, you can get these complex molecules before biological evolution has started.' The formation of the new molecule is actually driven by folding, explains Otto. 'That is quite special. The energy level of this molecule is very low. This drives the equilibrium from a "random" mixture of small rings towards this specific very stable 15-mer.'
  9. The NFL playoffs are generally the only time of the year I watch professional football. I am primarily a soccer fan, and I generally don't have three or four hours to spend in front of a television set. I follow the game a little, but when I watch sporting events, I want bang for my buck: Ninety minutes of uninterrupted soccer -- early in the day, thanks to time difference, once every week or so does me fine. That said, I was at my in-laws yesterday and saw most of the NFC Championship game (which was close, and marred by a crucial officiating error) and part of the AFC Championship. With my Saints out of the Super Bowl, I checked the news this morning to see whether the Patriots won. When I did, I found the following at the tail end of an ESPN piece with the following promising title: "Patriots' Super Bowl LIII Trip Is a Bill Belichick Masterpiece for the Ages." Image via Wikipedia.In the end, the Patriots won the game because they won the overtime coin toss, because special teams captain Matthew Slater called "heads" and the coin bounced his way. Slater would say afterward in his delirious locker room that he always calls "heads" because his Hall of Fame father, Jackie, once instructed him to. "We always say God is the head of our life," Slater said, "so we call 'heads,' simple as that." Never mind the fact that both teams should always get at least one touch of the football in a postseason game. As soon as the Patriots won the toss, they knew exactly what 41-year-old Brady was prepared to do. They've seen this movie a few times before. [bold added]This nonsensically follows what what had contained the elements of a good buildup. You can learn that football mastermind Bill Belichick and the Patriots faced long odds from the start of the season and overcame them; they had a definite, well-executed game plan; and they managed to built up an early two-touchdown cushion. Tom Brady and company needed every single point of that cushion just to get the opportunity to try for that game winning touchdown. Besides, think what you will of sudden death rules, there's no guarantee that, had the Chiefs won the toss, they would have scored, as spectacular an offense as they have. What was more important than the coin toss or even what happened afterward was what it took to get to that point. That the Brady touchdown might have seemed routine, or a foregone conclusion, does not detract. It underscores that point. Ironically, when I read this story, whatever algorithm ESPN uses to queue stories after each other came close to doing for the sports writer what he says the coin did for the Patriots. That title? "Tom Brady Exults, Says 'Odds Were Stacked Against' Patriots." Congratulations to the Patriots on their continuing success. -- CAV P.S. Curiosity and a desire to learn from Bill Belichick led me to a somewhat rambling article about Burj Najarian, mentioned early on in the above-mentioned story. This led me to a transcript of (or notes from) a show about Belichick's right hand man. From those notes, one can learn just how comprehensive and integrated Belichick's coaching is. (He trains players to answer questions in a way that won't give opponents information they can use, for example.) One can also see that Najarian vitally performs many necessary tasks for Belichick, allowing him to concentrate on football matters. (This is in addition to Belichick avoiding social media and being the only coach to refuse to join the NFL Coaches Association.) Belichick is routinely and unjustly called names and belittled for seeking every small advantage, but one can learn a lot from someone who has a lifetime winning record in the Super Bowl and is heading to another. Link to Original
  10. EC

    Immigration restrictions

    Morality does though. No I'm positing an AI that is morally perfect and wouldn't need to be held in check. It would be the one holding potential rights violators in check with swift devastating force if needed. Objectivism was designed originally for man, but is a philosophy for all possible rational entities. It doesn't matter what you are made of or what caused your existence, if you are an entity with a conscious conceptual mind, an ego, than the code that properly guides your action is egoism. Man is only temporarily a mortal animal, immortality will soon be a very real thing, and then losing the animal attribute may follow. Because mind is mind regardless of what physical substrate generates it's existence. A rational entity requires the usage of reason and concepts which Objectivist epistemology provides. Either Objectivist epistemology is valid and applies to all minds or it's not valid at all. There's no alternative.
  11. MisterSwig

    Immigration restrictions

    Objectivism doesn't make determinations. People do. Are you positing some kind of Objectivist judicial branch that keeps the AI in check? Also, Objectivism is a philosophy for man, not AI. You're assuming that the same philosophy is good for both naturally and artificially intelligent entities, as well as both mortal animals and eternal machines. How do you know what philosophy an eternal AI should have? You're human.
  12. EC

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Yes, but only because you have been taking a semi-opposing opinion. I don't believe IQ is that important as it only measures certain aspects of intelligence. Slight differences in raw horsepower are mostly irrelevant. I also know that this intellectual capacity is inherited or at least you can receive a better overall processor (brain) with the right mix of genetics. The genes build the structure of the brain and those are inherited. I just don't understand why a supposed intellectual capacity needs to be assigned to a grouping of people or why the people are being grouped. I'm not even convinced "race" exists. Sure, if someone asked I would say that I'm white and could point out someone I think is Asian or black, but beyond some relatively superficial attributes what does this actually mean as far as being a sub-division of homo sapien? I think it was just semi-arbitrary divisions people created to distance themselves from others of the same species who look slightly different. Being a semi-arbitrary division based on cosmetic differences, I find it hard to believe that there would be innate intellectual capacity differences between this semi-arbitrary grouping of individuals of our species beyond some level of random noise, if you take out the nurture aspect. There's something I'm not quite saying right but can't put my finger on it atm.
  13. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I think you missed the point again. You keep talking as if IQ is a characteristic of your brain. It isn't. It is not a measure of something about your brain. This would make sense if you were measuring something about your neurons, or neurochemicals, or your synapses, or anything else that is truly a measure of brain capacity. IQ does not measure what you think it measures. I don't understand your previous post directed at me. First, I was saying that height is not like IQ. They are not similar at all. Second, I was saying that for whatever parts are genetic, it would still be irresponsible to say that it has much to do with ethnicity or race (race and ethnicity aren't defined by a specific set of genes). Even in your example about runners, it's not that being black or being Kenyan is why they run fast. There would be specific genes about lung capacity, blood oxygenation, and so on, which cannot be grouped into simple racial categories like black or white. I imagine you mostly agree, so the main point is that you are thinking about IQ in the wrong way.
  14. Hi all, there is a new meetup group in the western new york area for Ayn Rand / Objectivism. There isn't yet a date/location set for the first meetup, but if you're in the area let me know. It would be great to meet some people and talk about philosophy and politics. Link to the meetup page: https://www.meetup.com/Rochester-Buffalo-Ayn-Rand-Objectivism-Meetup-Group/
  15. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    EC: Are you addressing me? I have repeatedly stressed - over anything - volition and character, reason and choice, actions and individualism. Together, they eliminate most or all of the IQ distinction. And I have repeated that "nurture" (in the broadest sense, nutrition, education, parental value, etc. ) has significance. But IQ is only lent the extra weight it doesn't merit, by those who believe it has *absolutely nothing* to do with hereditary genetics. As if one's brain could be an exception to one's inherited physicality. To not admit to the slight influence ethnic-IQ has, surrenders the subject solidly into the hands a). of race supremacists, or b). of egalitarians, who want all men forced to be equal. Both to be rejected outright for what they'd perpetrate, unopposed.
  16. EC

    Which Eternity?

    I'm going to write a response to this thread as there are parts that I agree with it and others that I don't. Just wanted to note for now that the last clause isn't true if all "other sorts of existents" are the product of the ever changing geometry of spacetime at the Plank scale. Also, there was no "Initial Singularity" nor is any singularity possible ever, anywhere. A hint towards what I mean until I take the time to write it all up is that it's no coincidence that GR predicts a singularity prior to The Hot Big Bang and at the center of Black Hole; nor that our "Universe" and BH's both have event horizon's. There's a very related reason that the AdS-CFT correspondence shows via the Holographic Principle that QFT on the boundary of AdS spacetime corresponds to GR in the bulk.
  17. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Ok, I get it. It took me some while to work out the point I'm supposed to have missed. Is this correct: The runners are black, the basketball players are often black. I should have been sensitive to that in the sports analogy, but only recalled another example of the same . It must be that I'm quite blind to seeing people in such a way, by what I've said earlier were an individual's "inessential" characteristics, after living in three black countries.
  18. human_murda

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Which genes are responsible for the IQ differences? Are you saying that some scientist out there has figured out a way to analyze the DNA samples of any two individuals in the world and then predicted the difference in their IQ scores with 80% accuracy? Or is it not predictive? If it's not predictive, then it's not science and the "80%" number doesn't mean anything. Were the genes responsible for IQ differences isolated? How did the scientist discover that it's "80%" and not 0% or 3% or 100% (especially if the genes responsible are not known)? What exactly is this "80%" figure for? Can they pull out two random individuals from the street, give them DNA tests and predict what their future IQ scores (or difference in IQ scores) are going to be with 80% accuracy? Or does the 80% result come from data fitting done on racial IQ averages (in which case 80% figure isn't predictive and the result assumes what the experiment is set out to discover)? I want to see the math. Can you link me to a paper or some website where they calculated and came up with the "80%" figure? Also, @Azrael Rand Can East Asians and Jews prevent White people from entering USA because of the low IQs of White people?
  19. EC

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    What is the purpose of subdividing a species based on different coloring patterns on their bodies? It's mostly an arbitrary discrimination criteria. Like I said earlier, every arbitrary grouping of humans one chooses is going to possess some average IQ, but why does it matter? I fully expect that the people of Africa or other Third World regions would currently have a lower measured general IQ than American's or other First World nations. This is not (mostly, if at all) because of "genetic differences". It's mostly going to come down to things like diet, cultural differences, superior living conditions, better schooling, etc. Living in even a semi-capitalist nation is going to naturally raise average measured IQ of it's population. Living in squalor will lower it. The people who claim (almost without exception) that skin, hair, eye coloring, i.e., genetics of purely cosmetic differences will result in lower or higher general IQ of an arbitrary population are racists. Just as a reminder from the Lexicon: Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men. Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination. “Racism,”The Virtue of Selfishness, 126
  20. Last week
  21. EC

    Immigration restrictions

    What, not who. Objectivism, the same thing that keeps me and you moral. I did say eternally non-changing, but it's not exactly what I meant. I meant the essential laws, power-structure of the government, etc. I.e., a lean government ran initially by AI that was essentially created as the most intelligent O'ist to ever exist until that point. John Galt on intellectual steriods. And yes, I know the irony that Galt actually turned being a dictator down in the book, but what they were looking for was a pragmatist, not a capitalist. The laws would develop as contextually needed. It's my belief (hate that word, but can't think of a better one here) that as time goes on man and machine will merge, and become something different. The need of this AI "overlord" will diminish as we all become exponentially more intelligent, rational, perfectly moral. I think, in other words, that the "singularity" of transhumanists will happen, but they want a "god" who will create some perfect altruistic society. I think we could agree here that a super-intelligent entity will never choose to become an altruist or evil in any way. It will choose to be a perfect egoist. This is what I want to lead us until we all match it. After that, I'm not sure what would be best.
  22. http://cogitoergolibero.blogspot.com/2019/01/a-critique-of-marxist-axiology.html?m=1 Please find linked a substantial critique of the fundamentals of marxist value theory which relies heavily on Aristotelian and Objectivist ideas. Substantial and intelligent feedback is welcome.
  23. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    You missed the point. IQ is not a measurement of a (natural) trait, it's a measure to infer a trait. On top of that, in infants and babies, IQ is correlated a lot less with genetics than for adults. Height is itself the trait you measure. Height has no motivational element, IQ tests do. And in either case, it's bad science to just say something like "black people run better than white people".
  24. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I think height for basketball is a trite and overused analogy, but the general idea remains. Without - some - above average height, the most coordinated athlete, great in other respects, won't compete well at it. To expand the point, the highlands of Kenya and Ethiopia are known for producing some of the best long-distance runners, and certainly it is true to say that each person's exposure, from youth, to less oxygenated air builds up his 'natural' cardio-vascular system. Also, and debatably, as much or more of an influence is his genetic predisposition: to lean, mesomorphic body-type, stronger heart and larger lung capacity, than average. And then - of course -- comes the x-factor - the athlete's motivation and (hard) effort. btw, just to clear up, I am sure you realise that particular parents do not necessarily have to have a certain "predisposition", physical, etc., the gene may not emerge for a few or many generations, so far back does it go. A study follows about athletic DNA: ("not ... predictive", alone and in isolation - for sure, and we know that; an individual's physicality, and his nurture - and - *volition*, above all, are essential components). Conclusion Current evidence suggests that a favorable genetic profile, when combined with the appropriate training, is advantageous, if not critical for the achievement of elite athletic status. However, though a few genes have now been repeatedly associated with elite athletic performance, these associations are not strong enough to be predictive and the use of genetic testing of these variants in talent selection is premature. Key Points Athlete status as well as many cardiovascular endurance and muscular phenotypes are highly heritable, supporting a role for genetic factors in the achievement of athletic success. The ACE I/I genotype is consistently associated with endurance performance. The ACTN3 R/R genotype is consistently associated with power-oriented performance. Genetic variants may alter injury risk or and/or post-injury outcomes, though more research is needed in this area. No genetic variant has reached the level of predictability for athletic success. The summary from a highly technical article written by Lisa M. Guth and Stephen M. Roth: "Genetic Influence on Athletic Performance".
  25. Boydstun

    Which Eternity?

    Which Eternity? Rand held her axiom Existence exists to include that the universe as a whole “cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence” (1973, 25).[1] One would naturally suppose Rand was thinking that immunity from creation or annihilation means the universe has existed an endless time in the past and will exist an endless time in the future. Plausible as that picture appears, might the axiom Existence exists not strictly entail the endless duration of Existence? Might it entail only that at no time was there nothing at all or that at no time was there no time, yet not also entail that the duration of the existence of Existence extends into a past that is infinite?[2] Might the boundary of the past be finite, and at the first, the universe have its present mass-energy (as in classical GR back to the Initial Singularity) and be passing time, yet since it was the first of time, there be no "before" that first, and it simply not be sensible to talk of a "becoming" from a "before" the first? In our philosophical reflection, should we prejudge the physics of whether the universe of mass-energy and its spacetime extend into an infinite or only a finite past? Should that issue be left to scientific cosmology to settle? Nearby issues such as whether time, space, or spacetime in any way have causal powers and whether there are more primitive physical elements from which spacetime arises should not be prejudged by philosophy, I say. Rather, those issues should be left open for scientific cosmology to settle. I think, however, that philosophy can and should go beyond observing that there was no time and will be no time at which there was nothing, go on to the conclusion that Existence is eternal, meaning endless in past and future. If no Existence at all, then no character-identity at all. Had Existence come into existence, it would have to do so in a specific way, yet that way would be some character-identity, which requires some existents and is an existent, and by hypothesis there were no existents. Coming to be without a way, as Parmenides realized, is nothing.[3] Moreover: Coming to be is itself an existent. Coming to be of the all that is Existence would be coming to be of any coming-to-be at all. That cannot be sensible unless there were some background existence lacking any coming-to-be. But by hypothesis there was no existent of any sort—thence no existent lacking coming-to-be—before the coming into existence of Existence.[4] Therefore, Existence has no beginning. Then too, absent power of coming-to-be of its entire self, Existence cannot come to be not. That is, Existence has no end. Rand did not accept the idea that the universe as a whole is in time. She thought that time was one of those things applying to things within the universe but not on up to the entire universe itself. One might sensibly say, in Rand’s view: Existence, the entirety of all existents, is eternal in the sense that it is outside of time, but not in the sense that it exists endlessly.[5] That is erroneous. As my life advanced in time, so did the Milky Way advance in time, Andromeda too and on up to the whole universe. That is how our modern physics has it also. The universe has a certain age since such-and-such event, most importantly, since the event of the Initial Singularity (or Planck-scale of the spacetime around that classically projected event). Existence as a whole endures through definite time, and that is not to say that time or alteration can exist without other sorts of existents. Notes [1] Cf. Aristotle, Cael. 279b4–84b5; Broadie 2009; Sorabji 1983, 205–9, 245–49. [2] Cf. Lennox 1985, 68. [3] “What coming to be of it will you seek? / In what way, whence, did [it] grow? Neither from what-is-not shall I allow / You to say or think; for it is not to be said or thought / That [it] is not. And what need could have impelled it to grow / Later or sooner, if it began from nothing?” Gallop 1984, Fragment 8, lines 6–10. [4] Matter is mass-energy having nonzero rest mass. Only matter and its changes can be a clock. Were the universe to contain no matter, only pure energy, there would be nothing registering the advance of time. So far as I know from modern physics, time would yet advance while a pure-, all-energy of the universe and its changes (say, internal propagations at vacuum light speed) existed. A universe purely energy, of course, would be an existent. The current picture from scientific cosmology is that the quantity of mass-energy in the universe today is the same there has been all the way back to the Initial Singularity. Particles of ordinary matter, the neutrinos (they have nonzero rest mass), emerged after the first ten-thousandths of a second following the onset of expansion of the universe from the Initial Singularity. Dark matter, having rest mass, may have been present before the neutrinos. I gather that at the present state of scientific knowledge the remote future (years from now about 10 to the 100th power, whereas the present day is only about 10 to the 9th power from the Initial Singularity) of our ever-expanding universe will contain only or very nearly only massless particles such as photons and gravitons (Penrose 2011, 139–49). [5] Branden 1962; c. 1968, 82­–83, 101–2; Rand 1990 App. 273; Binswanger 2014, 26. Cf. Peikoff 1991, 16; Gotthelf 2000, 48. References Anagnostopoulos, G., editor, 2009. A Companion to Aristotle. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Aristotle c.348–322. B.C. The Complete Works of Aristotle. J. Barnes, editor (1984). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Branden, N. 1962. The “First Cause” Argument. The Objectivist Newsletter 1(5):19. ——. c.1968. The Basic Principles of Objectivism. In The Vision of Ayn Rand 2009. Gilbert: Cobden Press. Binswanger, H. 2014. How We Know. New York: TOF Publications. Broadie, S. 2009. Heavenly Bodies and First Causes. In Anagnostopoulous 2009. Gallop, D. 1984. Parmenides of Elea – Fragments. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gotthelf, A., editor, 1985. Aristotle on Nature and Living Things. Pittsburgh: Mathesis. Gotthelf, A. 2000. On Ayn Rand. Belmont: Wadsworth. Lennox, J. G. 1985. Are Aristotelian Species Eternal? In Gotthelf 1985. Peikoff, L. 1991. Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. New York: Dutton. Penrose, R. 2011. Cycles of Time. New York: Knopf. Rand, A. 1973. The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made. In Philosophy: Who Needs It. New York: Signet. ——1990. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Expanded 2nd ed. H. Binswanger and L. Peikoff, editors. New York: Meridian. Sorabji, R. 1983. Time, Creation, and the Continuum. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  26. softwareNerd

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    While IQ tests do measure something real and something that can provide information about the individual that may be useful in some contexts, to say that they measuring an innate capacity is definitely wrong. Saying so implies that... that's it. They aren't measuring something else. And that is so obviously wrong that I'm sure you'll come back and say it was just something you phrased wrong. I had two friends in school, both very similar heights, but one was athletic and the other was a couch potato.If they had to do push-ups, or run a race there was no doubt who would win. Yet, you would never guess that if you'd only met the two pairs of parents. That's not to say that there is no relationship between parental athletic performance and that of the kids. But, even where there is...it is very often the result of parental attitudes, parents setting examples, parents knowledge, ... things that translate into some kids choosing a cetain path almost by default... and not particularly about the born-muscle-structure of the parent. People like to use height and basketball as an analogy when they speak of IQ. It is a poor analogy.
  27. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    If you want to measure some sort of capacity, like a sort of calculating power, IQ doesn't actually measure that. Specifically, it's a measure of a particular kind of problem solving on a specific set of standardized tests, narrowly defined. They attempt to measure a general intelligence capacity, but it is extremely controversial to say that it really does measure that sufficiently. It doesn't actually get down into innate capacities, even though that was its original intention. We know generally how it correlates and does not correlate with environmental and intrinsic factors. But IQ is primarily used for correlation research, because that's all it's really good for. It helps to give a sense of intelligence, but only on a broad way. That isn't the controversy. The issue is the explanation. Saying race is the cause is a bad explanation. It's a bad explanation because any study that uses race has a predefined notion of race, and much of the time, there is no genetic measure in the experiment. And besides that, if we did find some reliable genetic measure, like a specific gene that was reliably correlated, we wouldn't even talk in terms of race. We would talk about the specific ways specific genes are passed on. Read the beginning of the thread, much of this was discussed already.
  28. whYNOT

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Insulting billions. I have no idea how to go about that. Is anyone insulted that there are, without doubt, about 4-5 billion adults out there, who each can do, let's say, a half-dozen things (or may have a half-dozen abilities/talents) - better and/or faster than oneself? Plus, those many more activities and pursuits which one can't do - at all? From, say, repairing a motorbike, to solving a math theorem, to knitting a jersey? (generalizing). I don't know anyone (I like or respect) who'd be intimidated or slighted by - all - those others' abilities and active minds, in the world. Nor, especially, others' high intelligence. They rather take pleasure in knowing that fact.
  1. Load more activity
×