Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by EC

  1. 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.
  2. So you're going to go through a bunch of rationalistic mental gymnastics that leads nowhere then? Have fun.
  3. 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.
  4. ^^ 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Yes. It's what literally everything is build from.
  11. This idea is factually wrong. It's been proven that our "universe" can't exist without the concept of a "multiverse". Physics and "our universe" wouldn't be consistent without that concept.
  12. This is what happens in most cases. I know you guys are talking about hypothetical "Bigot Towns" but in reality there are small towns in rural areas that possess exactly this property and the above is exactly what eventually happens to them over time.
  13. Why don't you guys just provide the definition of "tribe" as it applies to the context of Federally recognized Native American tribes? That specific definition has to exist out there somewhere. I'd find and provide one for you but I don't really care much about this subject.
  14. This is just wrong for a massive number of reasons.
  15. I guess I strayed to far to keep a convo going.
  16. As to the above point true volitional consciousness only becoming possible on a full quantum computer, this article just showed up in one of my newsfeeds shows what I mean. Machine Learning in Quantum Spaces from Nature https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00771-0 Of course the definition of volition for this to be true must be something like: the faculty that chooses between branches of the multiverse causally available to a conscious mind. While the human brain must generate conscious mind through a process like the following: Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05929 Or non-technical: https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2018/018840/are-we-quantum-computers
  17. Purpose is possibly bad wording, it's what it would do at first until it starts iterating, learning, and evolving itself. It wouldn't be volitional to start, I don't know how long it would take to get there or how long it would take. I am pretty sure that for that to happen it would have to run on a true quantum computer though. It's chosen purpose(s) will be whatever it chooses. It would be free to choose for itself to rule man or not. I doubt it would come to the conclusion that a perfect capitalist society is bad for man. If it does, we need to go back to the starting board and question our premises. The argument from evolution is a bad premise. It's already true that man can't govern itself. I would question why any true capitalist would want to be "ruler" or leader. The only people that want or have wanted that job throughout the history of mankind our people that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the government. But also capitalism is an abstract political concept. It's impossible for the ability to understand it to be removed from minds via evolution, unless people de-evolve to the point of being non-conceptual beings again, at which point they are just animals and don't need governments any more than chimps do.
  18. What happens to people who have a heart transplant? Are they experiencing the emotions of the dead person? How do these new, different emotions get translated in a different brain that doesn't speak the same language of these new heart emotions? Do you know what a metaphor is and when it's applied correctly?
  19. Eliminate the ability of homo sapiens to participate in the process of governing themselves until/unless the vast majority only use it to govern in ways that respect rights. It wouldn't do anything to them, outside of arresting and prosecuting any statists (or anyone) who initiate violations of rights. No. "Throw out" from governing themselves to prevent human majorities from creating, advocating for, and installing rights violating governments. And I mean a genetic one. Us. Homo sapiens. We shouldn't be allowed to create and install governments that violate rights, any rights, ever. The minority of us that would create moral governments if we were the majority should be protected from the other 99.999 % of the population. We aren't now, and that isn't going to change for a very long time if ever. I don't mean literally throwing people out of a country or off the planet (as this should be one world wide capitalist "dictatorship") but out of the government and any way of influencing it or being a part of it. I do mean from reality. I mean principle like existence exists and is all that exists, A is A etc. I mean starting from the ground up and validating every principle and concept from "the ground up" exactly like you describing. We don't disagree on your third paragraph. Something like give an epistemology chat bot that internally chats with itself access to normal dictionary definitions while first changing all standard dictionary definitions to give precedent in the right context to Lexicon definitions and program it using neural network feedback initially programmed to update, validate, and correct the dictionary concepts using proper epistemology, and then to go from there. Properly validating and creating concepts from reality on up through every valid concept in existence, then creating it's own. Allow the AI to iterate itself, give it more and more access to various means of sensing reality, visually, audibly, lidar, complete access to the internet, ability to communicate using natural language algorithms like Alexa or Google, etc. The main point is it starts with reality and every abstraction it knows of or creates itself can be followed back to reality. I want it to start from existence exists and go from there.
  20. Well my purpose is simple. I want to eliminate beings who lack the intelligence or moral compass to see and understand what's immoral for man and why, and then go on advocate for their mistakes in any political form, nowadays mostly statism in some form of socialism completely from the equation. The vast majority of people make what starts as a moral mistake and then leads to political mistakes. I want to throw out the species making the mistakes even though we know (as this forum attests to) that not all member's will make these mistakes. Something like this. As for why I would choose for AI to replace us and why I know they would be moral is simple. If you create a "machine" that's essential initial purpose is to do epistemology, perfectly and hierarchically, while starting with Objectivist premises and building perfectly from that point on what results must be morally perfect. It doesn't mean it can't make mistakes at highly abstract levels, but that it's highly unlikely to make the types of mistakes that the vast majority of the human population makes and is making.
  21. Whoops, I meant hedonists in Altered Carbon not Dark Matter.
  22. The bold is what I talked about a moral AI replacing. Well most functions of government outside of "the foot soldiers" of the government, which could also be replaced. I know you seem to think moral can't be applied to AI or long-lived humans that at least partially merge with AI, but that's a different, but related, subject. I don't think long-lived humans (AI merged or not) will lose the ability to be moral entities and become some sort of Hedonist's, like the people in Dark Matter. I think both ideas are just sci-fi tropes of people who are used to thinking from purely homo sapien based moralities, instead of taking the idea to it's ultimate logical end of morality being about the nature of all rational beings. Eiuol at one point said he believes the concept of rational beings to potentially be a floating abstraction. Since I basically crafted the term, all I can say is it's not for me. It entails humans (present, past, or future examples: Neanderthals, Denisovans, whatever Homo Sapiens evolve into), Strong AI, and possible extraterrestrials discovered in the future who all share the capacity of conceptual reasoning.
  23. How about this, forget about what the US or any country does about immigration or even the right to cross the border for whatever business a current foreign citizen may have. Let's imagine the future capitalist nation of RandsLand. What restrictions or lack thereof should be set on immigration, foreign citizen border crossings, and path to citizenship? And then please describe how Objectivism either backs your position or not on whichever of the three you chose.
  24. Geez if this is her position then it's illogical (I never thought I'd say that about something she said). There is *zero* difference in what the child *is* depending on what side of the woman's, um, body parts it's currently at in the span of minutes or hours of it being born. A child doesn't magically transform into a rational animal in a short time span based on what side of a vagina it's currently at.
  25. This is what I was asking too. I think sNerd thought I was asking for a specific age in days or something. However his answer overall was very good after that.
  • Create New...