Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

EC

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

EC last won the day on March 10

EC had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About EC

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/23/1977

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Michigan
  • Chat Nick
    EC
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Physics

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan
  • Interests
    Physics, Philosophy, Sports, Reading in General, Thinking, Shooting Pool, Movies, Music, Technology, Poker

Recent Profile Visitors

6216 profile views
  1. This is equally true on the Left and Right. Basically nobody that exists on this planet is capable of thinking for themselves. This is why we Objectivist's are the minority of the minority. The immensely vast majority are incapable of thinking for themselves on at least some issues because of centuries of bad philosophy and it's resulting culture infecting nearly everyone and everything. As a depressing aside, I think we have close to a zero chance of ever winning the the war of idea's, that's how far gone the world is and will remain.
  2. That exclamation is the actual truth though? Islamic terrorism is caused by Islam.
  3. None actually, but I'm sure this has been adequately argued in other ways here, so I'll bow out because this isn't worth my time. I thought your issue would be better than this when I saw the threads length.
  4. It does no such thing. You can create two entangled black holes that exist at opposite "sides" of the universe but are the same space inside of the event horizon of either. Entangled particles share the same exact feature because ER = EPR. There is no contradiction involved; you just don't understand the science.
  5. Couldn't "green" be taken to mean "new" or "newly-formed" here? If so, then this sentence "could" potentially have actual meaning while initially sounding meaningless. "Colorless" is an accurate description of "ideas". "Green" could mean something like above. "Ideas" is straight-forward in it's meaning. "Sleep" could be metaphorical. As in, something like, not fully thought out. "Furiously" could be similar to "sleep" as it could be metaphorical. So it could be roughly translated: New and creative ideas emerge suddenly after haphazard subconscious simmering.
  6. You posted this one HBL too? I saw this there yesterday and had clicked on it because it's exactly what I've been thinking on the subject lately, also. I've been thinking about it because of the non-stop irrational questions I've been seeing on god and religion on Quora lately. One would have to explain by what means and laws of physics and reality a god would exploit to violate all the other laws of physics for it to exist. As a "god" that couldn't violate any of the known laws of physics and reality could not be really defined as an actual god. "God magic" would have to be fully explainable and defined for an actual "god" to exist. The above is more of a thought experiment on the subject which can be rationally dismissed prior to even getting that far because of such a concept being both arbitrary and counter to the Primacy of Existence to begin with.
  7. What if instead of discussing at which point a human being becomes an entity with rights, we discuss when any entity gains rights? Whether or not late-term abortion for humans is moral can only be decided when humans and all animals are abstracted out of the picture. All the problems with this discussion is that we are all "too close" to the issue. When does an AI gain rights? Answer that, and it tells you how to properly answer the question for *all* types of life that potentially possess's the ability to reason conceptually. We have to correct philosophy so that it applies to all types of entities that possess conceptual consciousness or it can lead us to the wrong answers, like in this exact case.
  8. So you're going to go through a bunch of rationalistic mental gymnastics that leads nowhere then? Have fun.
  9. No. It's adding pure rationalism to subject matter that is naturally anti-rationalistic. Responding in a way that appears "intellectual" just gives the subject intellectual credence that the subject matter doesn't deserve. Are we to take Karl Hopper's philosophy seriously also? Because that's what this thread looks like it's converging to in my eyes. I'm not anti-intellectual, but I hate seeing people over-complicate things that are actually simple. It usually comes from people who are faking their intellectual abilities, which is annoying. If something can't be stated in plain English it's unlikely to be true.
  10. ^^ I hate when people try to turn something that's relatively simple like concepts and concept formation, that can be stated and explained in simple english, into rationalistic nonsense. The rationalistic nonsense of most philosophies is the reason most people properly think that most of philosophy is complete nonsense only studied by idiots in universities that aren't intelligent enough to study a real subject. Please don't do this to Objectivism. It's the only philosophy that doesn't do this idiotic nonsense that pretends to be intelligent.
  11. I see Mr. Swig answered, but I was also going to say what you are describing sounds exactly like how I understand the law of identity.
  12. I understand that you are trying to argue for what you consider the "official" Objectivist position is on this issue, but I think either that position is wrong on late-term abortion or it's not as "official" as it's made out to be as @DonAthos has been arguing. I think (very limited) rights begin when a being develops the faculty or reason (a fully or nearly fully developed brain capable of producing a conceptual mind) develops regardless of it's ability to use that faculty yet.
  13. I had already thought after I posted that certain things, virtual particles for instance, can "pop" in and out of existence. You are correct that death can be instant also. But I don't believe an animal's life comes into existence instantaneously at birth, it's a process over weeks and months. They call mammalian birth live birth for a reason, the animal is alive during birth. It's also why there are stillborn births where the animal is "born" dead. You are attempting to wipe out these facts, i.e., reality, to preserve your rationalization that it's appropriate for mother's to choose late term abortions (outside of things like threats to her health, of course). She has already made her choice when she chose not to abort before the fetus became viable as a living child.
  14. I made the simplest possible argument-- that the identity of an entity does not suddenly "come into being" from one infinitesimal time period to another. I'm talking about human babies here but it applies to everything, including the universe.
  15. You are essentially claiming it "becomes" an animal one Plank Time after full birth, but not one Plank time before full birth. Think about how ridiculous such a claim is please.
×
×
  • Create New...