Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SpookyKitty last won the day on April 24 2018

SpookyKitty had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SpookyKitty

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • Interested in meeting
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, ITOE, Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and various articles

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2155 profile views
  1. Thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful contributions. You two are truly the bearers of a deep and enlightening philosophy. I will immediately file away these incredible insights alongside the deep wisdom I acquired from flat-earthers, creationists, and post-modernists. As a more direct answer to William O from a more traditional Objectivist perspective, some concepts are formed solely through introspection. These are what Rand called "concepts of consciousness", and modus ponens is one of them. I am currently writing up a short paper which explains how the various concepts of logic ("and" "or" "not" "implies") are derived from introspection, and I will hopefully have something posted sometime tonight. I can't guarantee that I will get to modus ponens, but I can guarantee that I will get to conjunctive and disjunctive introduction and elimination rules, the rule of assumption, and ex falso quodlibet.
  2. I am currently working on a theory which aims to show that the formal theory underlying the Objectivist process of concept formation is something very similar to Per Martin-Lof's Intuitionistic Type Theory. If we understand Objectivist concepts as types, then a statement like A -> B says that there is a computable function which transforms any proof/construction of the concept/type A into a proof/construction of the concept/type B. The rule of modus ponens is then simply function application. If f : A -> B, then the term f a , where a is a proof/construction of concept/type A, is a proof/construction of the concept/type B. Hence, from a proof of A and a proof of A -> B we derive a proof of B. One could then argue that the rule of modus ponens is somehow inherent in any process of computation. This is just what it means for a concept to be "axiomatic" in Objectivist terminology.
  3. I'm sorry but this seems to just be a very clever restatement of General Relativity.
  4. It's the same with sex! Moral of the story: Chess is neither work nor war. It's just sex.
  5. This is one of my main disagreements with Objectivism. The description of human cognition that Rand and Peikoff give us sounds good on paper, but then when you actually try to go and use it... you can't. It simply doesn't work. To this date, I have never seen even a single detailed step-by-step account of an interesting and/or useful idea being formed and validated using the Objectivist method. Formal logic and probability theory are the way to go.
  6. DavidOdden I would like to see your attempts to solve the above problems. Since you seem to know more about concept formation than anyone else, a conceptual breakdown of the process you used to tackle the problems would be very valuable.
  7. What are you even hoping to achieve by insulting me? Read the thread title and apply yourself to the given problem.
  8. Suppose you had an infinite amount of time on your hands. How exactly would you go about searching through every possible function? How would you know when you've found the best one possible? What do you imagine distinguishes it from all the rest?
  9. @Nicky and @Doug Morris Is it possible to measure the "simplicity" of a provided answer? Also, just drop this side argument about what an open-ended question is and isn't. It's just fucking stupid and not even remotely productive.
  10. Why not try every function? Can you attempt a definition of elegance?
  11. @Doug Morris I just looked up "genius" in the dictionary, and it said "see Doug Morris" Your second answers are not conceptually lazy at all. You are now on your way to finding a general solution. But why fit polynomials in particular? Is that the only class of functions you can try to fit to the given data? Suppose that 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, 1, -1, ... had been one of the sequences. Any polynomial fit here would result in the terms tending towards (+/-) inf at some point, yet that doesn't seem "elegant". That being said, is any class of functions equally as good a space to search through as any other? Why might one or the other be better? Also, how would you define "elegance"? @Nicky "Open-ended" means that I will never give you the correct answer although there is one. And just because a problem is "open-ended" does not mean that some answers are not better than others. That being said, at least you tried, but I'm not at all convinced that you gave the problem 100% effort.
  12. Use the full power of your rational mind to answer, as best as possible, the following open-ended problems: 1) Predict the next five numbers in each sequence and justify your reasoning: a) 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,.... b) 0,1,3,7,15,31,63,127,... c) 0,1,-1,3,-5,11,-21,... d) 0,0,1,2,1,-2,-3,2,9,6,-11,... e) 0,0,1/3,1/3,2/15,7/90,73/630,... 2) Do the same as above except come up with a different answer and justify your reasoning 3) Which of your two answers is better? 4) Why?
  13. This is true, but the local relation between force and acceleration has nothing to do with whether or not a theory is causal. Imagine that you have a ball sitting at rest on a table. Now imagine that a leaf falls somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy. The ball, according to Newton's theory of gravitation will begin to move at the same instant that the leaf does. Thus, we have no way of telling whether it was the leaf that caused the ball to move, or whether it was the ball moving that caused the leaf to fall. On the other hand, in relativity theory, the disturbance in the force caused by the leaf has to propagate at at most the speed of light, and so, we always have that the cause precedes its effect.
  14. Yes. This sentence is ungrammatical, and I can't guess what you're trying to say. But not being causal doesn't mean that the theory isn't a good theory. Being anti-causal, in the sense that future events can effect the past, however, would mean that it isn't a good theory. No. In physics, a cause is an event and the effect must also be an event. Accelerations and forces are not events.
  • Create New...