Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

human_murda

Regulars
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by human_murda

  1. Sorry for the triple post. But it seems I am wrong about sexual selection being apart from natural selection. According to wikipedia (link), natural selection seems to be ecological selection plus sexual selection, both of which are apart from the "human selection" I am talking about. Presence of biological forces other than natural selection (and "instincts") seem intrinsically tied to the evolution of conceptual mentality in humans.
  2. Let's just define (to give it an Objectivist touch) an ecological niche of an organism as "the immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background". The more suited an animal is to an ecological niche, the more vulnerable it is to any possibility of change (of course, humans don't have to worry about that, at least, from an evolutionary viewpoint, since natural selection does not apply to them). No, natural selection only refers to specific adaptations to specific environments (which does not cover all forms of evolution. An easy example would be sexual selection). Human beings did not evolve to deal with any specific environment and hence, their evolution did not involve natural selection (or "instincts"). Of course, there was still evolutionary pressure on them but only in the more general interest of survival. Also reason and language aren't any concretes of the environment humans needed to adapt to and hence aren't part of natural selection. But they still served an evolutionary pressure (which is not natural selection) in the interest of human survival: let's just call that evolutionary pressure "human selection", just to distinguish it from natural selection. Note that this evolutionary pressure was unique in evolutionary history and has never occured prior or since and cannot be explained in terms of other types of evolutionary pressures. "Doesn't matter how smart you are": it's not a question of degree (you would then have to be talking in terms of animal cognition). "More likely to survive": it's not a matter of likelihood of survival. Humans are equipped with everything to ensure survival for (contextual) certainty. The choice to be stupid (an "anti-conceptual mentality", the assertion that human reason isn't fully equipped to deal with reality, which is more along the speed of "likelihood" of survival and the degree of smartness increasing degree of survival) is an entirely different matter. And to think all this would result from accepting "instincts" and "instincts don't contradict reason" as starting premises. Maybe accepting "instincts" would necessarily lead a person to talk about "chances of survival", since that seems to be its only defence. Talk of "chances of survival" is essentially talk of impotence of reason.
  3. Ayn Rand wasn't wrong. She was talking about adaptations, i.e., how animals cope with change. She was talking about whether adaptations were necessary for an animal's survival. And the fact is that it is necessary for all animals other than humans. All other animals (including your beaver) have to depend on some kind of ecological niche. Humans don't have to depend on any ecological niche. Their evolution did not involve an adaptation to any ecological niche (their evolution, presumably, had to do with transcending any particular ecological niche or any prebuilt set of actions to specific environments/circumstances). Consider a thought experiment: suppose all trees on earth suddenly disappeared. Where would all your beavers go to collect wood to build those dams? They can no longer build dams. Their perceptual level of awareness meant that they could only work with "the immediately given, directly perceivable concretes of its background". Because of this, they have a "limited" (in a certain sense) degree of response to circumstances. Now, consider humans: since they don't have any specific ecological niche to live in, there is no classic example to ascribe to them. Let's just say that humans predicted that the Earth was going to be consumed by the sun some time in the future: their response isn't to run away and cower, whimpering "we aren't equipped to deal with this". They move and inhabit another planet.
  4. You mean to say you saw an attractive woman and and some primal part of your brain went: "I must do this. For the human race". Can't seem to find that same exact quote, only this: I was only using the quote to make my point. The quote is true and the implications follow.
  5. You didn't understand my post very well at all. I wasn't eliminating a mental world. I was saying that instincts are responses to certain inputs and that input can't be specific percepts (as percepts can't be passed through your genes). I am suggesting an alternative (where alternative doesn't mean "new and exclusive" but "in addition to") process that result in motor output. One is obviously a human's or animal's consciousness which result in the most complex and varied motor output and the source of such output are percepts and concepts. The other is the instinctive process, where non-conscious phenomena give rise to motor output. The former obviously exists. Reflex actions (non-conscious phenomena giving rise to motor output; they are responses to sensory data and not percepts) exist, so the latter also exists. I am saying both exist (not one at the exclusion of the other). The problem arises when considering instinctual actions other than reflexes (eg:baby turtles "know" they have to crawl to sea) : many people claim they are responses to specific percepts or concepts (eg: "Human beings as a whole tend towards being aroused by the opposite sex", which necessarily involves percepts/concepts; also, "The working material" for a mothers emotions are concepts, but instinctual resposes are responses to sensory information and no human emotion can be instinctual and based on sensory information. Another way to say this is to remark: "since no specific perceptual or conceptual information has ever been passed to your gametes, emotions cannot be responses to specific percepts or concepts". I am assuming he was talking about something like this) "So we're left with one alternative: they have those desires from birth.": desire is a cognitive process that cannot be related to instinct. although, by my earlier arguments, they cannot be. Percepts/concepts are the "working material" for consciousness (emotions, curiosity, desire, etc., basically all "cognitive" functions). Sensory data are the "working material" for instinctual processes (reflexes, FAP,etc). Cognitive processes cannot be invoked for instinctual processes (which is done in this thread for "human instincts" but not for "animal instincts"). Consider the following examples of "fixed action pattern" as wikipedia gives them : Kelp Gull chicks are stimulated by a red spot on the mother's beak to peck at the spot, which induces regurgitation. Some moths instantly fold their wings and drop to the ground if they encounter ultrasonic signals such as those produced by bats; Mayflies drop their eggs when they encounter a certain pattern of light polarization which indicates they are over water. None of them involve percepts. They are all resposes to very specific sensory information, before they could be integrated. All the "examples" given in this thread about "human instincts" involve (other than reflexes which does not involve the brain) percepts and concepts. If humans had a way to store specific percepts or concepts in their genome, you would have sufficient reason to think that emotions are also "instinctive". The fact that emotions are not instinctive is further evidence that there are no specific percepts or concepts in your genes (if there were, you would have automatic emotions to certain percepts/concepts). Even when you claim humans and animals have instincts, you use very different standards for both (eg: percepts/concepts sometimes for humans vs sensory always for animals). Here is a random article I found (written by a feminist) that discusses the tendency to invoke specific percepts/concepts in relation to "instincts". With a perceptual/conceptual definition of "instincts", people can even use it to describe their liking for ice-cream flavours (which is a cognitive process by the way and not subject to "instinct") or to explain cognitive "feelings" and "tendencies" they have always had, by invoking the "fact" that some very specific percepts or concepts (eg: attraction to specific features of a person's body, or, as she lists in Reason No.4, inclination to draw feet and shoes, loving cheddar cheese, trashy pop music, etc all of which are percepts) managed to get into their genes. Of course animals have complex behaviours that involve learning various behaviours maybe even to count and sign language (not in the human way): but it doesn't matter because none of that is relevant to what I am talking about. The instinctive process could be related to the "sensations" of the lower of the conscious animals Rand talks about: "Sensations are an automatic response, an automatic form of knowledge, which a consciousness can neither seek nor evade." But she never stated any relation between the two that I am aware of.
  6. I have issues with it on the basis of cause and effect i.e., with regards to the question: if humans have a disease, is it necessary for them to evolve it out? No, they could develop a medicide (not the same as eating medicinal leaves which are part of "nature" and hence the "metaphysically given") and then cure it. Adaptation isn't the automatic course of action for human beings. As Ayn Rand said, "The difference between animals and humans is that animals change themselves for the environment, but humans change the environment for themselves". This implies that using natural selection for solving your problems is an appeal to the metaphysically given. Again, there is nothing wrong with artificial selection which is what is proper and required for man. Now, "Changing yourselves for the environment" runs contrary to the conceptual nature of man. Man survives by "changing the environment for themselves", implying he can use the evolutionary forces to his advantage. But evolution is applicable to humans only in as far as it helps man to change environment to suit himself i.e., in the development of his conceptual faculty. Now, as far as what this means for your instincts: they are an endless stream of failing ideas (assuming they are "conscious tendencies") that clogs your reason. Instincts may improve the survival advantage of animals but it works against human survival: which requires a mind free from endless streams of "evil" thoughts and "compulsions". Existence of human instinct (again, assuming you are all conscious of it) is the assertion that there are "metaphysical" components to human consciousness. Natural selection does not apply to humans because human deaths are not metaphysical facts. They didn't have to happen. Development of the human genome is not a metaphysical fact. It didn't have to develop in a certain way. I was saying that using crying to communicate is a learned behaviour, not that crying itself was a learned behaviour. I don't know much about biology but isn't the frontal lobe involved in "inhibiting" reflexes, not causing them? Various reasons. For one, I've never "felt" any instinct. Secondly, it is part of the "Break free of all traditions. You're brainwashed if you accept anything your fathers held as true. There is no objective morality. Your "innate" biology/psychology is all that is moral. Philosophy is redundant" nonsense. Thirdly, I've always wondered how very specific percepts could be transferred to your genes, when that is used to explain attraction to specific body features, specific "talent" in various disciplines, etc., so on and so forth...
  7. I'm implying that evolution applies to human beings (i.e., humans can evolve traits that allow them to survive better) but not by natural selection. I am not contesting the validity of evolution. Given our genetic coding system, it would be pretty much inevitable. Of course, suckling is a reflex and I give exemption to that because it doesn't pass through the brain. Isn't that a learned behaviour? Given that crying is the primary means for a baby to communicate, isn't that, err.. inevitable? Really? What is that even called? Annoyance instinct (it can be one of the response)?
  8. I don't have a citation and I am not aware of any study which was specifically aimed to distinguish between human and animal motor development. My post was merely a contention that that was worth looking into. Really? How is that? I don't think it is merely a computational issue. Human consciousness (and all its prerequisites) is itself different. I am not sure it constitutes a behaviorist theory. Of course I left out any discussion of the processes that lead to the mechanical impulses primarily because it was automatic: there was no consciousness involved (but is still mental in the same way integration of sensory data into percepts is mental, but automatic); secondarily because I have no idea what it is. But that doesn't discount its role in the process. Why? What makes it necessary that if one species has an instinct, another should have too? Considering that you believe that there is some ambiguity regarding whether there is any species at all that possesses instincts, your assertion seems arbitrary. What would establish such a causal link if you see no reason at all to believe the thinks being linked? Epigenetics still doesn't explain how concepts and percepts (which exist in your brain) can reach your gametes.
  9. Of course you never said that mothers are waiting to dispose their babies at the nearest doorstep. I wasn't attacking your statements but your premises. I am saying that there is no way you can conclude that mothers have instinctual behaviours without a properly controlled experiment and how do you control this experiment? By providing a conflict between their personal motivations and "instinctual impulses". You can't distinguish between the two, otherwise. But, why wouldn't you? The burden of proof falls on the person asserting the positive ("humans have instincts"). Also (in case you didn't notice), I never said humans didn't have instincts. I was merely challenging your positive assertions and premises for those assertions. I don't have to supply proof since you made the first assertion and I made none. Too bad humans natural selection does not apply to humans, which necessarily implies: getting rid of instincts would be the most advantageous, evolutionarily, for humans. Your 1. and 2. are wrong (if you can try to understand why 1. is wrong, you are pretty much all set). You don't know what evolution means for humans.
  10. True. I was thinking about other posts in others threads, but I should stick to arguments stated in just this thread to avoid confusions. I have thought about that too (i.e., whether animals have instincts) but not along those lines. When you look at the basic premise of instinctual actions they state that it is some kind of information retained in the basic biology of an organism that can lead to specific behaviours (not making any statements about motivations), which were never learned previously. However, when you look at the cognitive information gained from the experiences that an animal has, none of that can affect their genes (there is the concept of "Genetic Memory", but the wikipedia article states that it is not "Lamarckian"), since genes are immutable since conception. So the information carried in the genome cannot be percepts or concepts (or atleast not the percepts or concepts experienced by the animal) but has to be knowledge added to the genome by natural selection, i.e., information stored (through natural selection) and retrieved (i.e., the final intinctual action) without reference to cognition (percepts or concepts). So if an animal does an instinctual action, it is not conscious of it because the information involved does not speak the same "language" as your consciousness (which uses percepts and concepts). For example, when you do an instinctual reflex action such as a "knee-kick", you are not conscious of the action but only the effect (or the "feedback" by the various senses you have). Also, since you cannot be conscious of instincts (assuming they exist), whatever love and affection you have for your child cannot be instinctual. Now, if you go deeper, you'd see that these "information in another language" or "codes for action" whose execution is automatic is primarily observed in terms of motor action. So, in order for them to work, they (motor action) must necessarily not be under your conscious voluntary control. The crucial idea is that for humans, their motor development is fully volitional. A human baby infant does not know how to walk whereas the young ones of a "precocial" species learn very quickly. It seems to me that these "precocial" animals have impulses (which they are not conscious of, so I don't use "impuse" in the usual sense) to do certain motor activity and as a feedback mechanism using their percepts (i.e., using information from their senses), learn the motor activity perceptually and adjusted to the environment. It seems that, for humans, their motor development goes in a different pathway such that they can never carry out these "codes of action" (if they still exist) and hence can't learn from them. The importance of motor control is also significant when considering the shift in brain regions used when "primitive reflexes" disappear as a child develops. This feedback mechanism can also explain how "birds" appear to learn to fly: at a certain stage of motor development, they generate motor impulses and by a feedback mechanism, learn from their own actions. This can also explain other "learning processes" in "precocial" animals that involves a combination of instinct (an automatic code of action, i.e., separate from your consciousness) and practice (by perceptual feedback mechanism). Now as for why humans still retain simple reflexes but not complex instinctual action, it may have to do with the fact that the information never passes through the brain: the synapse is in the spinal chord. But all this is speculative (although they seem very logical), but unless you have a research lab, you probably can't test them. You can still talk about complex instinctual behaviours (which are mechanical responses) under my analysis but you also need to invoke feedback mechanisms to bridge the "language" gap. I think instincts are inescapable when trying to explain animal behaviour (although they are not the primary processes, which are percepts). There seems to be no other way to explain, for example, how baby turtles "know" they have to crawl to sea (of course they don't "know" even with their instincts, which, as I proposed are primarily mechanical, but the instinct gets them into the sea and that is all that matters). The feedback mechanism allows animals complex instinctual behaviour while still keeping it a mechanical response, which can also be influenced by environment because the actual learning is still perceptual. Instinctual action is like having a robotic parent built inside you to "guide" you only by "showing" you what to do.
  11. You'd know all about that won't you? Your information should come handy now: Prove logically why getting rid of instincts (if that is what actually happens) is not necessary to evolve the kind of consciousness humans possess. In other words: state precisely all the contradictions that arise assuming instincts need to be got rid of to evolve human consciousness. (You need to analyse first the nature of human consciousness and then state the proof). I don't need "abundance of evidence". Just any one will do. Also hypothesizing infinitely (which most psychologists do nowadays), with barely one or two experiments designed to test them does not constitute "abundance of evidence". There is also an "abundance of evidence" for the born-gay theory and it is all just infinite hypothesizing with no time to verify them or challenge them. You know, "tendency" is such a huge package deal that can be used to sanction any whim, undefined feeling or motivation (which is its purpose). And talking as though it as a fact that only a "tendency" is required for you to act, is pandering to all irrationality (notice how people use explanations like this only when they have no proper justifications for their actions when challenged to bring up with some), by basically having "scientists" say: "You see, you don't need to know all the motivations for your actions. We at FutureLabs [not referring to any real lab] have it all worked out for you. Just blindly follow whatever you feel, because that's the way evolution meant it to be". You see, reason requires you to properly define all your premises and acknowledge all its consequences. A "tendency" is the proper territory and realm of an irrationalist. Reason requires you to pursue clearly defined goals, which require clearly defined actions. "Tendency" is neither here nor there. To be more precise: it does not have an identity. The result of accepting "tendency" as a motivation is not a harvest of all the time-tested evolutionary guideways. The result is to psychologize yourself and to accept all subconsciously accepted premises (which is the basic problem with immoral humans by the way - this is a significant problem. Meanwhile, you act as though reality does not require strict adherence to logic and anything goes) as inborn and immutable. It is essentially a way out of resolving your inner conflicts and doubts. You may claim your "tendency" can be properly analysed and then meet the requirements of reason, but then it stops being a tendancy. "not a result of nurturing or societal conditioning." So, according to you, all mothers are just waiting to dispose their babies at the nearest doorstep and are only prevented from doing so by their instincts? You talk as though instincts are the only way to explain this obviously paradoxical behaviour that confounds all reason. Humans don't even have any instinct to eat (no, hunger is not an instinct and hunger does not create paddy fields). Why would they have an instinct to mother children?
  12. There is a fundamental difference between emotions and animal instincts. Emotions are part of the indirect reward system of the brain (as opposed to the direct pleasure-pain reward mechanisms when a thorn pricks you, for instance). There is not much of a difference (in terms of function) between human and animal emotions, but the "working material" for human and animal cognition (which the emotions derive from) are different, and since the working material for humans is concepts, humans have an indirect choice in the otherwise automatic emotional realm. Human emotions are not "left-overs" from some other "complete-package" as a result of evolution: our emotions still have the same intended functions it had originally evolved. There is no conflict between emotions and our rational faculty (in fact, humans would never be able to experience emotions properly without their rational faculty). Of course your emotions can influence your behaviour, but only if you let it to. Now the question about animal instinct is completely different: it is a form of automatic knowledge which has nothing to do with any reward system (such as emotions). Emotions are not knowledge: they are subjective experiences (for example, apparently if you inject certain chemicals into the brain, you would be ble to feel certain emotions, but there is nothing you can inject into your brain that can give you knowledge). To be frank, there is not much of a relation between emotions and instincts, except maybe that they are automatic (and the word "automatic" may not even have the same meaning when applied to the two different cases).
  13. You are right. Axiom of constancy of laws is merely the axiom of identity. Scientific method helps you to come up with laws (non-contradictory identifications) and then, to distinguish between laws and pseudolaws (i.e., something which you initially misidentified as a law and can later be discovered to be wrong). I don't know what exactly you are referring to (I agree with the first part of the statement but not the second). Could you be more precise? I would say science/reality is the ultimate standard of meaurement. One reason is, as Ayn Rand said, "before it [consciousness] could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something", i.e., existence of an objective reality precedes consciousness. So, before human beings can be identified as standards of measurement you should first discover it using other standards in reality. Wouldn't setting human beings as the ultimate standard of measurement be circular? The reason I maintain this hierarchy is because any mystic can claim that they have had supernatural revelations otherwise and, since human beings are the ultimate standard of measurement, no one can challenge them. I think I get what you are trying to say (i.e., we should only be concerned with what humans can know), but "human beings as the ultimate standard of measurement" has a lot of other connotations: Primacy of Consciousness being one of them. The problem here is just imprecise language. Can you define precisely what you mean by saying "human beings should be the ultimate standard of measurement"?
  14. If it is indeed true that laws can't be proven, then of course, you can't prove that laws can't be proven. But I don't think it is necessary to prove laws. Consider the law of gravity: has it ever been proven? No. Has that in anyway impeded the functioning of the law? No. Lack of provability does not mean there is any reasonable doubt regarding the law (you need contradictory evidence for reasonable doubt and if such evidence existed, the law has already been disproven anyway); it does not mean there is an equal expectancy for outcomes that contradict the law: what is predicted by the law (in which you have confidence) is the only thing you can expect (there is no reason to expect otherwise); it does not mean that you have to keep expecting your laws to fail (the law, by itself, is an expectancy for itself to be correct and not for it to be wrong). The only use of the unprovability assertion is when conflicting evidence is presented and you can no longer say: "but this has already been proved!". The assertion is a marginal one and does not give much of an insight by pondering over it (other than when you may have been lead to believe in the wrong assertions stated two sentences prior and you have to correct it). Maybe the concept of laws is axiomatic: in order to try to disprove it, you have to first assume it is always correct (and you just need to contradict any one instance of it being correct). If it wasn't always correct, you can't disprove it as you can brush off any instance of contradiction as just one of those instances where the law just happened to be incorrect. So you have to accept (axiomatically) that a law, by its nature, is always true even though that can't be proven. The "unproven" and the hypothetical "proven laws" are functionally equivalent in all respects except when conflicting evidence is provided: a person who asserts the lack of provability would accept a more complex guess that explains phenomena when presented with conflicting evidence; a person who asserts the provability of laws would state that the Universe is inconsistent (the law is both true and false at the same time). Unprovability of laws (the assertion that laws are always true even though it may not be proven) is different from statistical truth (the assertion that laws are sometimes true and sometimes false, which is the foundation for many a pronouncements based on correlation). Anyhow, what is a law? It is concerned with the symmetry of the universe, i.e., something that never changes with respect to space or time. An assertion of provability of scientific laws is an assertion that laws can be shown to be held for the entireity of the Universe for the eternity of time: such knowledge is only possible to an omniscient being. Humans cannot prove the constancy of laws under all conditions (i.e., can't prove the constancy of natural laws: uniformitarianism), but nevertheless have to assume it to be true.
  15. OK, Let's start with this : I don't suscribe to the notion that, of multiple guesses explaining the same data, the simplest one is most likely to be correct. However, we are interested in predictions, meaning, we are interested in scientific laws. So if the simplest explaination were true, we have a scientific law, which is broader and therefore, of more value (both scientifically, and in terms of survival) . So we can prefer it over other theories. It is not that this theory is more likely to be true, but that it is of more value (if it were true), so you can focus you energy on proving it wrong, and when you can't, your confidence in the theory increases. Occam's Razor gives you an idea about how to sort theories in the order of their importance and give research priority based on this order. Scientists spend their lives coming up with as well as trying to falsify such laws. So relativity was never accepted as a scientific theory because it was the simplest theory available and therefore more likely to be correct. It is a scientific theory because it is the most valuable/general theory that has never been contradicted and verified by countless experiments (but it also isn't and cannot be proven correct). I am not saying there is no truth beyong non-falsehood, only that such truth is probabilistic. You can only prove one instance of a law, but not the law itself. But that doesn't mean that such laws are unscientific. It is just that such considerations are inherent in the nature of scientific laws. Some so called "scientists" live evading the simpler laws, so they see no value in pursuing research and hence the apathy to experimentation. Maybe another Feynman video (on scientific rigour) is in order: Again, making these scientists more moral won't be enough. Fields like psychology need people with superior minds (like Albert Einstein, Ayn Rand, etc) to come up with laws ,i.e., the most valuable (alternatively, more general/simpler) guesses (these guesses are also the non-contradictory integrations). People of superior intellect, by the ability of their mind, can come up with general laws, which, by the virtue of their broader predictions, are more valuable to human beings. Yes, they do. And this evidence can be meaningful only if it is used in conjunction with a law (which here is: "the person is not lying"). Assuming the person has a consciousness like everyone else (which by itself is an alternate theory, which isn't relevant here), there are two possibilities concerning the words that come out of a person's mouth : He believes what he says (i.e., he is saying the truth) He doesn't himself believe what he says (i.e., he is lying) Case 1 is the simplest guess while the complexity of Case 2 can reach enormous proportions depending on how big of a conspiracy you are willing to allow the other person to cook up. Since Case 1 is so simple, it would be immensely more valuable to you (in terms of your understanding and dealings with the other person) if it were true than if it were not. Now, like in other scientific theories, you prefer Case 1 and you have to lookout for contradictions to Case 1 (either by them contradicting themselves or through their actions). If, after extended periods of time, you find no contradictions, then your guess is scientifically correct. However, if you find some contradictions, your relationship with the other person can become very strenuous. It can drive you crazy trying to guess what the other person believes as Case 2 can get pretty complicated, may be even leading to paranoia regarding everything associated with the other person depending on how malicous the original lie was. With present technology (and the usual obvious methods suggested previously), you may not be. But if his mind exists, he cannot be doing nothing as his brain would be metabolizing. There could also be a lot of other evidences which can be linked together.
  16. As for the OP, your problem is with the scientific method. The question of absolute certainty is inherent in the scientific method. As for the person saying a lie, that is not a problem at all as the lie forms an additional content of the brain that you have to figure out, by whatever methods, even if it means (in the future) mapping the connection of each of the neurons to every other neuron. All the evidence just has to corraborate. The only way your arguments can be true is if your brain leaves absolutely zero evidence (like in QM) when thoughts are being processed. In every other case (i.e., other than QM), and with no exceptions (and including your brain and its thoughts) it is possible, in principle, to fully describe the reality of the existents. Your claim that non-QM entities behave in a way that cannot be identified, if true, would revolutionize physics. If you are as convinced of its truth as you claim to be, you should write a paper on it. "pro-science"? Don't kid yourself. As for making guesses, that is exactly how the scientific method works (see my previous post for reference). You make guesses that account for observations and also take them to all their logical extentions and using experiments, determine which ones are false. The scientific method cannot tell you what is correct but only what is wrong, for certain. Scientific experiments can tell you what is likely to be true/correct. The great physicist Richard Feynman essentially says this in the following lecture: However, the bigger problem with science isn't with the experiments themselves (except for QM) but with conceptualization (i.e., coming up with the different guesses). In daily discourse, what is scientifically more likely is what is true/fact and what is scientifically less likely is what is false. If it is scientifically likely that a person has a certain mental content, that is also what is true.
  17. Again, I don't agree with the OP, but this is incorrect. If you see "one and one and one crow", the rational conclusion is that there are "at least three crows" and not that there are "three crows". You have to come up with a conclusion that would give you the least error. Depends on how ancient it is. If the belief was post 3rd century BC, the belief would be irrational as the heliocentric model had already been proposed. So here (post 3rd century BC), we have two guesses (an Earth centric model and a Heliocentric model), which have (apparently) same observables (using equipment available to the ancient people). It does not matter that evidence distinguishing the two guesses had not existed. Since the concept of Heliocentricism existed, a claim that Heliocentricism is not a possibility or a disregard for its possibility involves an evasion and is unscientific. So the belief in an Earth centric model was irrational much before the availability of modern astronautical knowledge. The same applies for the crow experiment. Since you can already conceptualize the possiblity of cases where there are more crows (as you have stated yourself), with the observable being three crows, it would be irrational to conclude that there are three crows since you have to take into account all the other cases. But suppose you were an animal and saw the three crows. Since you cannot conceptualize the other possibilities, you can conclude there are three crows. But you cannot achieve any more sophistication than this and hence the reason why animals are not rational. So seeing three crows and concluding there are three crows is what animals would do, but a rational animal, with more developed concepts would have to conclude "at least three crows". The more developed your conceptualization is, the more rational an animal you can become. In general, you have to admit to the possibility of all cases (to the degree to which your conceptualization allows) which predict the same observables. This is what Ayn Rand fought for: not to give anyone a list of things they should and shouldn't do, but to make sure that the concepts (which permit a beautiful and happy life) can at least exist. Then if anybody disregards its possibility that would be evasion. So that would be irrational, simply because the concept exists (thanks to Ayn Rand and anyone willing to keep the Objectivist movement alive) that it is exactly the human mind that is the spring of all that is good. Now once you admit to the possibility of the different guesses, you can concot a beautiful experiment to distinguish between them. However, a man who lives evading the consequences of their ability to conceptualize evades the possibility of the different guesses, leading to a kind of apathy to experimentation (which we kind of see in psychology today). They do not see the purpose of experimenting since they don't have any guesses they would want to distinguish by experimentation.
  18. I don't agree with the OP but I don't think this is true. Things having identity, which cannot be identified is exactly what quantum mechanics(QM) is about.
  19. "Uncooperative" A person who is uncooperative believes that others' achievements would somehow get in the way of his own, and in group activities requiring cooperation, would try to make sure he gets his own way, at the expense of what specific arrangements others make to make group activities (for example, being in a meeting or living in society in general) work. But I don't think the word is strong enough for all cases.
  20. (@Reidy: A late thank you for that information) It has been a year since I posted on this thread; A lot of things have happened in my life and I am doing a U-turn (again) in my moral stance. The reason for this is I have understood the necessity for choosing life as the standard for morality. So I would describe the logic (although everyone here probably already knows this). I have been out of touch with all Objectivist literature for a year, so I have come to this conclusion myself and therefore have more confidence in this. Here it goes: First you have to consider a human being at birth to be an empty shell. He has no knowledge or desires. So what does he have? He has: The methods of gaining knowledge: (a.) rationality (b.) emotions, hunger, pain, etc. Your genetics only provide for the methods of gaining knowledge but not the knowledge itself. Desires only occur in the presence of knowledge (specifically, the knowledge of what is good for you) and all desires/attractions are a choice (i.e., based on what you know to be good, in other words, your value systems). When a person is in love (emotionally), what he basically has is knowledge: the knowledge of what is good for him (people even state this: they say when you are in love “you know you are meant to be with this person, through and through”, i.e., you know he is good for you). It is this knowledge that produces the desires (religious people use this fact to push their nonsense. They define “God” as “the good” and since love is the knowledge of what is good, they claim love is the knowledge of God and since everyone can love, everyone has knowledge of God, whether they accept it or not. Then they use this “knowledge” to pursue God as they now have a desire to do so [they have a knowledge of what is good, God]). Now the only remaining question is: which method of acquiring knowledge is proper (to know what is actually good): the answer is rationality. Rationality is the only infallible method of acquiring knowledge (of course a “thinking” person can make mistakes, but that would only be because he was not properly rational. His mistakes say nothing about the validity of rationality itself). Now the only thing remaining is to work out rationally what is good for you. To do this, first you must accept life as your standard for morality. This might seem like a leap in logic, but it isn’t: in order to work out what is good for you, you must first assume the importance in the preservation of life as an axiom, to construct a logical structure. Assuming life as a standard is a logical necessity to work out what is good for you. You cannot work out what is good for you if you consider your axioms as non-preservation of life (self-sacrifice). Assuming life as the standard is the method employed to gain/work out the required knowledge (in mathematics, in order to gain more knowledge about something, some assumptions are made. Considering life as the standard is the assumption you have to make, to gain knowledge). Now this (assuming life as the standard) is something I am quite sure is true. So, some of my previous premises were probably faulty. Of course, I had earlier accepted that you have to survive first to feel positive emotions. This was true. The problem was with considering emotions to be good in and of itself. Emotions are only [possibly faulty] a method of gaining knowledge. Emotions give you a [possibly faulty] knowledge of what is good. Emotions are only the knowledge of what is good and not the good itself. As an interesting side note, you can also consider the case of sexuality as a choice now (it should be rather obvious, however, the “born blah-blah” theory is all over the internet). Basically, a person is not born with the knowledge that the opposite sex (or same sex) is good for them. Puberty does not suddenly give them that knowledge. Puberty only gives them a method for acquiring that knowledge: sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure [primitively and at times wrongly] gives them the knowledge of what is good. It is the knowledge of what is good that gives them the desire/attraction. Also, since sexual pleasure is somewhat primitive, the knowledge remains in the subconscious, explaining why it is so difficult to change. Of course there are so many other methods (rationalization in some feminist lesbian cases, emotional dependency, etc) of gaining that knowledge [of who is good], explaining the various pathways to becoming a homosexual. I suppose that is all I have to say for now. Of course I have to have a look at my previous assertions and weed out the faulty premises that led to them. Probably later..
  21. Can any one confirm this (I found it on the internet): Apparently, after publishing 'Atlas Shrugged', Rand fell into depression and had said: (I would ask this regarding the question of survival as the sole source of happiness. I mean, if it was, why was Rand depressed?)
  22. But how can your own life and somebody else's life both be at the top of the hierarchy of values?
  23. I just thought that this was funny (kind of like the Schrodinger Cat thought experiment ) : Ayn Rand said- Now, if you think about the guy who runs on batteries, what would be the best way for him to use his fuel properly for survival? Yes, he would have to make himself as dead as possible so as not to use up the battery. So, pursuing happiness is out of the question [actually evil, within Objectivism] as it could decrease his life [and you should not be doing anything that decreases your life, the Ultimate value]. (I am talking from the view-point inside the VLT time frame here). Actually, it would seem that once the guy has found out where he might get a recharge for his batteries [within a fraction of the VLT time], it would be better [within Objectivism] for the guy to shut down his brain [which requires a ton of energy just to keep you conscious] somehow until it is needed for the next recharge [as in a hibernation]. Now, if an energy-efficient artificial surveillance system was in place, then staying conscious can actually be considered evil, by Objectivism. He would only have to use his brain when he needs it [and he only needs it once in a million years or so. Dangers in the environment, which only happens once in a blue moon if you have hidden yourself well enough, is taken care of by the low-power surveillance system, which would awake you in case of emergencies]. Any thoughts on this? @Avila: I was talking more about the fundamental, individual [as well Universal] aspect of morality presented in the Harry Potter books rather than the cultural aspects. I would only focus on the main characters because a lot of the imperfect but "good guys" are only "good" because they are better than the average and they only screw up within a particular limit [the Marauders, Hagrid, Snape, members of DA & Order, Kreacher, Regulus, etc]. This is because most people other than the main characters are "ordinary" people. Now the magical themes were only meant to prove her point and are just extreme cases for the application of her morality. Voldemort is not actually very different from the battery powered guy being discussed here. Both are in a kind of rat race to see who can live the longest valuing only their lives, while they scorn whatever it is that impedes them from achieving it [love, remorse, etc in the the case of Voldemort and consciousness itself as for the fuel-cell-guy]. It is as though they lead a cursed life, sacrificing everything except their lives, to protect their lives. I wonder if Rand would drink Unicorn blood if it was available on the menu [just kidding]? @Leonid: How can you say all that and still be an Objectivist? Don't you think your views are in contradiction with Objectivism in more ways than one? Are you actually on the positive-emotion-fundamental side? If so, why should I take your personal views as the Objectivist position [i have directed my questions at the arguments put forward by Ayn Rand. Bringing personal views into it will only distort her actual arguments]? Actually, you needn't be immortal to be presented the alternative between a 'happy life' and something like 'living death'. Only, your energy requirements need to be fulfilled [and made less urgent]. A person who inherited a ton of wealth is quite close to being presented such a choice [and he is hardly immortal] and that is a very simple case. The 'happy life'-'living death' alternative did not arise out of longevity, but rather due to non-urgency regarding energy usage. Suppose you were attached with an energy supply the day you were born [let's just assume future babies are born fully developed and functional so that they won't need nutrition to build their bodies] which would last about a hundred years. This person would face the same alternatives [after having picked up the minimum of "life skills" in 2-3 years]. The point is: immortality is not what provides us with the alternative, which is applicable even for a "human" life span.
  24. If you look at the full context in which Rand said it, you will understand that Rand only meant that fear is not a proper motivation. If your goal is the avoidance of death, you will probably end up dead [as Rand thought]. Your survival is only momentary if your motivation is fear [as Rand thought]. Rand's quote: Rand believed that if survival is what you want, then that itself and not 'avoidance of death' should be your goal. This is because Rand thought 'avoidance of death' is an improper motivation and would eventually lead to death. This is why you have to explicitly choose life as Rand felt that your other goals are internally inconsistent and cannot be achieved [like I said, Rand felt that if 'avoidance of death' is your goal, then it cannot be achieved]. 'Avoidance of death' is therefore inconsistent with who you are: i.e., your rationality. So 'avoidance of death' is still death [literally]. So it is the literal life vs. death that Objectivism is concerned about. There is nothing higher than survival , which is the only self consistent goal as Rand feels. All other goals will eventually contradict itself [altruism, avoidance of death, etc] as Rand feels. Rand only rejected 'avoidance of death' because she thought it cannot be achieved and not because she thought it was some kind of living-death. Rand thought that avoidance of death was literally the same as death due to self contradictions in the theory. Rand quote: So Rand never thought that living-death [if achieved, as in the case of the being with energy pack] is immoral as she never thought that it can be achieved. She thought that there would be some contradiction in the theory which would lead to a literal death if living-death [= 'avoidance of death'] was your goal. She only thought "stillness is an antithesis of life" because she believed that stillness will lead to literal death. But she never condemned a stillness that would lead to life as evil. She felt that the terms 'good' and 'evil' are inapplicable to such a stillness [because as far as she was concerned the only alternative was life or death.] Emotions meant nothing if they weren't achieved during the pursuit of life, according to her. Rand thought that it was impossible for a being to have any meaningful emotions if the being cannot pursue its own survival: she never considered emotions independent of survival [or anything independent of survival] as adding anything to life, because, as far as she was concerned, 'life' meant 'long-term survival'. Rand expressed the uselessness of emotions independent of survival in the following quote: So, this brings me back to my first post: what matters is the in-between, i.e., emotions are meaningful independent of survival. Once again, I am not saying that survival is unimportant. I am saying that survival is not enough. If you want a more systematical approach, let us look at a living being with reference to their capability of being good or evil according to Objectivism: (1)Normal human being: can be either good or evil (2)Supernatural human being: can be neither good nor evil (3)Being with energy packs: can only become evil [if he explicitly chooses death, by an act of free will]. The being is implicitly -neither good nor evil- if it implicitly chooses life. Its survival is ensured if it doesn't choose death and it cannot pursue survival. So even if it achieves positive emotions, these are independent of its life and is meaningless [i.e., it cannot be good as it is not part of a pursuit of survival/life] according to Objectivism. So, in terms of evil, he is somewhat similar to a normal human. For other purposes, he is similar to the Supernatural being, condemned to never being able to become good. The point is that the being can pursue death but cannot pursue life. The being can be evil, but cannot be good. So as time passes, the amount of evil one can do increases and the amount of good one can do decreases [if your goal is survival] until a point comes when you can only commit evil and atmost a minimum amount of good - in the case of the being with energy packs. So I doubt Objectivism is a philosophy of the future [it isn't objective enough to stand the test of time]. As for the present, I guess it works, more or less [but still not enough]. Also, if life really is the ultimate value [Rand: "Life can be kept in existence only by a constant process of self-sustaining action. The goal of that action, the ultimate value which, to be kept, must be gained through its every moment, is the organism’s life."], then wouldn't self sacrifice for any cause whatever be a sacrifice of a higher value to one of lower value? Another cause can never be more valuable to you than your life. Life is the first value that you should learn to keep and your love for anything else is because is helps you keep your ultimate value. As soon as you say that you value a 'thing that helps you keep your value' more than you value own life, isn't that some form of altruism? [Rand: "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value."] Wouldn't all other values be a lower value compared to the ultimate value, life. So wouldn't sacrifice of one's life always be altruism [inside Objectivism]?
  25. You just inverted the basic conditions within which Objectivism is applicable. Objectivism assumes that there is a constant alternative between life and death and if you don't choose life, "nature will naturally take its course", i.e, death is a default, the natural outcome of your inaction or improper action. You have to choose life and then pursue it. Now, in your situation, life is the natural outcome (but only for a "very long time") of your inaction [here you can't "improperly act" to bring about survival]. Death is what happens if you screw up (before the energy runs out), i.e, by choice. Now, within this "very long time" time frame (VLT time frame), so long as you don't choose death, your choice of life is implied [the same way, in present real life, death is implied if you don't choose life], i.e, automatic [animalistic]. The point is that your choice of life is an implied/automatic choice and not a rational one. Sure you can rationally choose life, but that is of no value to you as that is something you don't need to pursue [i.e, your survival is ensured even if you don't explicitly choose life. The only thing you had to make sure was not to choose death. He won't be immoral for not explicitly stating that he chooses life as it is irrelevant to his survival]. Ethics is not simply a code of values "accepted by choice", but also by necessity. Now, we can "Zoom Out" of the VLT time frame. Now the being's need to find an energy source would appear more urgent [let's assume the maximum life span of the organism to be the age of the Universe]. So even if the being already has a full battery, he needs to find a new energy source. Assuming he does find that within a fraction of the VLT time frame, he can rest for the rest of the time [or guard it. But that would be more conspicuous]. Either way he wouldn't have to do much for survival. In this "Zoomed out" time frame, Objectivism is just minimally applicable [if the being doesn't take the necessary precautions for a refill, he can be labelled as stupid]. For a very short period of its life-span, the being would be occupied with its survival. For the rest of its life, it can count stars. The point is, Objectivism isn't applicable for the majority of its life [as there is no 'constant' alternative]. Only because he has to choose [Within Objectivism]. But here, if death is not explicitly chosen, life is implied [inside the VLT time frame]. Not for Objectivism. Any value you obtain is a derivative of physical survival. If you don't have to 'actively' pursue life, Objectivism cannot make up for any values you may not acquire on the way. Within Objectivism, positive emotions are what you catch on the way and not objects of principal pursuit. How did you get from "beings with energy packs" to immortal beings? Immortal beings, by nature, need to outlive the end of the Universe. Therefore, they cannot be killed. They are "condemned" to live. Stabbing them wouldn't kill them. The beings you described were not immortal. They were just creatures with extra-long life spans and intermittent energy requirements. "Real" immortal beings could be ghosts, angels, etc. Not even a Big Bang could kill them. Objectivism wouldn't even be remotely applicable to them. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to Lily Potter. And Dante: are you in the process of formulating a solution for this, or are you just ignoring this thread? Now, if Objectivism does establish Lily Potter's sacrifice as evil, at least we'll have more grounds for saying that the two philosophies [Rand's and Rowling's] are different. [Although, I have to admit, softwareNerd's second linked thread is pretty interesting. Maybe we should be looking for a Grand Unified Theory.].
×
×
  • Create New...