Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Richard_Halley

Regulars
  • Posts

    532
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richard_Halley

  1. Correction: "What does it mean to be an end in oneself?" "To have your own life as your primary moral goal." ------------------------- Does this solve your problem?
  2. I agree, GC. Bearster, why does a computer need an "arbitrary" bit in order to build concepts? It seems to me that a method for a computer to develop and integrate concepts could be built based on a true/false digital system, and then a concept for arbitrary would be built through this method over time. Concepts themselves resemble objects (in c++) enough where the developing of a concept would be simple, given a means of perception. The complexity of the issue, as far as I am concerned, arises from the complexity of developing methods for initial interpretations of sensory data into percepts and for concept integration.
  3. If our sensory data is tainted by our senses (), than by what means do you intend to refine your interpretation; how do you expect to come up with any sort of accurate mode?
  4. First of all, RadCap knows "you do not have liberty," not because he thinks liberty to be impossible, but because there is nowhere in the world where you could access this forum from and be free at the same time. AT PRESENT, no on this forum is free. Honestly, I am confounded by your insinuation that this implies that no one can EVER be free. More importantly, As I have done this what must be five times by now, I suggust you stop pretending that I haven't. Now that I think about it, it has been quite a while since you even tried to respond to one of my posts on the matter... speaking of red herrings.
  5. These are not processes of the mind (to the degree that they are, they are dependant on what is in that mind). When you are stabbed you feel pain, not as a process of the mind, but as sensory perception. When you hear a loud noise, you may be startled either because you have heard loud noises before, and understand their meaning, or because the loud noise caused pain in your eardrum (more sensory perception). It is true that emotion is automatic, but that is not of relevence, since emotion still is effected by the mind, and so we need to use an objective standard in order to be sure we interpret it properly. Recall back to the threads on emotion we had on this forum earlier this month. Betsy mentioned that, when she first saw Ayn Rand on television, she felt a negative emotion towards her. Note that this did not mean that the negative emotion was the proper one, just that she felt it. Later, she realized that Rand had reminded her of her aunts, whom she disliked. What makes music any different. I hear something, I listin to it--thus creating initial subconscious integrations--then I feel the emotion. In order to be sure that the emotion I felt was a proper one, I must check my integrations against reality, I must OBECTIVELY judge the thing which I feel emotion towards. This means: I think that the first level of judgment after sensory perception is automatic, and independent of the contents of my mind. Basically: I think I have an organ which produces emotions from sensory perception alone, then feeds them to my mind, via a one way street. Your barrage of "integration" quotes plays right into my point. It is these integrations which have the capacity to cloud our judgments of what exists in the music as opposed to what exists in our minds. The key part in the first quote is "in a generalized way," I have already explained why most people would not greatly distort their perceptions about the matter, most aren't completly dumb. More specific discrepencies exist however, and are the matter of this discussion. The second and third quotes speak of the automacy of the process, not of it being seperate from the mind, in fact, it speaks of integrations, so my previous point about integration applys here. And your anecdotes about natural born capacity to understand/create music is not an issue, as they do not in any way disprove the above about integrations, which is (and has been) my primary point. --on a side note: I may have been misleading with previous statments about "conscious" awareness. I used the term conscious too broadly throught this thread. "Conscious" should not have been used at all, as simple awareness (conscious or subconscious) is the issue. The point is, we are dealing with integrations in the mind, which, without objective criteria, can lead us to attribute something which is not there to an object we observe.
  6. Your theory, source, is of interest, but is not the primary question of this topic. This is probably why it has not garnered a response. Here is my response: Your theory is that people who like X like X in music. This theory makes perfect sense, and I imagine, would proven true (to a degree) if tested. The only thing I would like to add is that people who like X usually like other things as well. So you (as an objectivist) should not only like repeating patterns, but heroic music as well. Pehaps you will prefer heroic repeating patterns? The point is... your theory is somewhat oversimplified, but probably accurate to the degree that it is not.
  7. erandror: My problem with that is, basically, that it requires one of two things... 1. That emotion spring directly from sensual perception, not conscious awareness. While I have no actual evidence that this is not the case, it seems downright absurd as a theory about the workings of the mind. In fact, it seems to be contradictory of focus as the primary volitional choice--or as a volitional choice altogether, for that matter. 2. That everyone must focus in exactly the same manner--or at least in some automated, mechanic manner, which most people have in common. That, once I choose to focus, everything from there is automatic. Basically, that the most basic level of awareness has nothing to do with the rest of the mind. I reject both ideas, for reasons which should be obvious, and therfore, I reject your theory as well.
  8. One should note, after reading the most recent post by source, that all rights are derived from the right to life. So, in a way, it is enough to know that one has a right to life... so long as one knows how to apply that right to specific instances. While source alludes to this fact, I thought it important to state flatly.
  9. Erandror, now you got it... But you are not merely saying the same thing you were before, but differently. You are, in fact, directly negating your pervious statments.
  10. Yes, Jackson did a fantastic job with LOTR... Lets hope he doesn't revert back to his cheap horrer flick background with his next film (King Kong?).
  11. I would say that it is probably reasonable to expect that to be included in any objective criteria, yes. But there are differences in musical tastes, granted, they are generally regarding something more specific than harmony vs. dissonance, but they exist and they exist plentifully. It should be pointed out that I believe that the main cause of these differences is step 2--the listining part--not the emotion itself. I merely mentioned that descrepencies are possible in the emotion part, since it is dependant on your mind, as well. That was, however, not my main point (which you have ignored in your response, by the way). No, I don't. It cannot be BAM! anything, since it is not mere sensual hearing that causes emotion. In order for emotion to arise one must first be consciously aware of that which one feels emotion towards; one must first listin to music, before one may feel anything as a result of it. It is in this stage that most of our diagreements about music arise; it is in this stage that we initially mix what our ears provide us with what we already know; it is in this stage that an objective criteria first becomes necessary to any objective judgment of music. The fact that hardly anybody is deluded--or that most people are deluded, as the case may be--in such a way as to reverse harmony and dissonence, is not proof that this stage did not take place, or even that they have performed it properly. Rather, it merely suggusts that they generally perform it similarly enough for the most basic question to be answered the same. If everyone was judging the distince between X and Y, most of them would, correctly, say that X is to the west of Y. This does not mean that they have an automatic distance judging capacity, just that they aren't dumb. And don't even bother saying that music is different, since it deals with emotion... I am comparing the above to the part before the emotion, so that does not matter. Also, in what way non-volitional animals react to music is not relevent to the question of how volitional animals ought to.
  12. I find it interesting that you say: Then, as if it were evidence to support that claim, you continue to argue precisly the opinion I attributed to you.
  13. Comparing emotion to hair color is not going to work. This sort of comparision requires that the act of listining to music works like this: You hear the music. BAM! Emotion--and without any connection to values, at that). That is not how it works. Let me lay out exactly how it does work: 1. You hear the music. This is the only part that has nothing to do with the mind, and therefore, the only part that can be compared to the operation of the stomach. 2. You listin to the music. This is the part where your mind first steps in, and the first part where, without an objective criteria, we have no objective understanding. 3. Emotion. Yes, this is automatic. However, this also adds even more of your mind's interpretation to the matter, as your values are added into the mix. The fact is, the mind is involved in the judgment of music. And since your mind is not omnipotent or infalliable, you need to use an objective criteria in order to be sure that judgment is correct.
  14. I think you misuderstand my point completly, as is shown by this statement, and the fact that your post is not comprehensible as a refution of it. Of course there exists an objective criteria, and if one uses this criteria, than ones decision is not a personal one, it is not an interpretation, but an identification of fact. The problem is that, when one recieves sensory data, unless one uses--not merely knows about--an objective criteria, one cannot be sure that one has identified the facts properly. When one hears a peice of music, one knows the sounds for fact, and ones task is to identify the meaning of those sounds. Unless one uses an objective criteria, one has no basis on which to claim that the meaning one identified is the correct one. No amount of consensus about the matter can prove or disprove that identification, either. It is only when an objective criteria is in use that one may make any sort of claim about the correctness of that identification.
  15. As I have already pointed out, your opinion about the present state of this country--even if it is fact--has no relation to Slave's claims. Slave claims, not that we should remove ourselves from the world, but rather that, if we stay we, should not vote. Note that Slave may, indeed, think we ought to go on strike, but no opinion about whether to leave or not has any bearing on what we should do as long as we remain. Slave says: But there is no delusion on my part, there is no subconscious removal of any options and there is no ignorance of reality. The fact is that one of the options--the one that I have "subconsiously removed"--is not relevent to the discussion, since our discussion is about what to do as long as we don't pick that option, and since the "third option" slave talked about before this, had no connection to the actual third option. Slave's "third option" involves deciding not to choose, and refuseing to take responsibilty for what happens to oneself as a result. I does not involve removing oneself from the effects of that choice, but merely shouting that one is not responsible when the theif, who one could have walked away from for the price of the 25 dollars in his wallet, shoots you. This is not, in fact, an option, since all it does is lead to one of the other two options. Choosing to let others choose for you is not a way of avoiding posion, but a way of pretending that, because you did not pick it yourself, the posion will not kill you. Observe that the real third option, removing oneself from the effects of the choice, only makes my point more eloquent. I argue that one must choose between the two options, so long as there is reason to prefer one over the other. Now observe that, as soon as make the third choice, I no longer have any reason to prefer one candidate over the other. In fact, if I do have some strange reason to vote for a candidate to be in office while I am "on strike," I still ought to vote for him. So, I would make the point that even "the real third option" is not a third option, but a way to make the other choice less important. Whether I am in the country or not, the fact remains that one of two men will be president, I should vote for which one I find preferable.
  16. That would make the good/evil judgment "subjective," yes. The objective judgment we are discussing is the consideration of what it is, precisly, that we are labeling as good or evil. For clarification... When I said: I meant something like: I was attempting to use Spears as an example of how moral judgment--even that based on objective definition--may vary from person to person.
  17. You do... until such time as you identify an objective criteria for the judgment of music, you have no way to identify whether the happyness or sadness you hear is in the music or your head. Here you are suggusting that emotion is non-personal mechanism, in the way that sight or hearing is; you are suggusting that emotion is, like the senses, seperate from the mind, and merely sends it information. The fact is, emotion is dependent on values, on experiences; the fact is, until an objective criteria is developed, you have no way of telling what is in the music, and what is added by your values and experiences. What if 99% of the individuals are adding something to the music in their listining, in their judgment? What if the one who disagrees is the one who is judging most objectivly?
  18. Yes, autoJC, it is relevent to the title topic of the thread, but it is not relevent to the discussion at present. It is not an arugment for or against slave's position.
  19. Quite right. We do not yet have an objective criteria for judging music. This is why, as of now, musical tastes are opinions, every man for himself. Perhaps he is irregular, but perhaps he is right. Since we do not have an objective criteria for judging music yet, we cannot say anything about the correctness of his musical tastes, nor ours. And the objective understanding of a painting is inexorably tied to the interpreting mechanism of color, and of proportion, etc... In fact, the objective understanding of reality is inexorably tied to the senses, as well. Does this mean that reality has no objective meaning outside of our minds? Of course it doesn't, it only means that, in order to objectivly understand something, we must identify which parts actually exist and which are added by our minds. Just as with music. As for your "trance music," while I agree that it is no good, this is not an objective judgment, but an opinion. If you found someone who, besides liking this music, was perfectly moral, it would be a mistake to draw inferences about this taste in music. This said, I think one would be somewhat safe to assume that, when and if an objective criteria is identified, this "trance music" would be objectively defined as "depraved."
  20. Joes response to slaves latest posts will suffice as mine.
  21. Various notes and harmonies, and sequences thereof. So your argument is that A may be non-A for some people, that something which metaphysically exists may do so without objective definition... . Observe what this means: Erendror: Emotion and value are not objective... they are subjective. The goal of objective judgement is not to identify what emotion most people do feel when listining to a peice of music, but to identify what they should feel. It is to identify what actually exists in a peice of music, apart from what our minds put there.
  22. Of course it must. Otherwise, we would simply hear all music as the same. There are qualities which seperate one peice from another. We know those qualities to be identifiable because we routinely identify them--on some level or another--when comparing two peices. All things which exist have an identity. The only question is whether or not we have identified that identity, not whether it exists. Nothing "currently lacks identity," and thus your point is invalid. As for your question about emotions, you should look around the forum for discussions about that, and, if you can't find an answer to your question, ask it again in one of those discussions. Short answer: yes.
  23. Because the music itself exists, it must exist as something--i.e. it follows the law of identity. The objective criteria we speak of is the way of identifying the identity of a peice of music, outside of what our own interpretations add to it. Using this (unknown, as yet) criteria, we may identify what the music is, not if it is good or bad, just what it is. Then, using our values, we decide whether it is good. It may be objectivly proven that Bach produced more meaningful works than Britney (assuming he did), when our objective criteria is identified. It may not be objectively said that "more meaningful" = "better." That is a value judgment.
  24. AutoJC- That is an argument, but it is not one with any relation to the present discussion. Whether Bush is better than Kerry is a significant topic, but the topic here is: If one candidate is better than the other, should one vote for him, or simply refuse to vote because one does not agree completely? It is not unlike the analogy, since one candidate will stand by and watch you be shot, and one will try to prevent the shooting. In the analogy, you have a choice between having your wallet stolen and having you wallet stolen on top of dying. Your argument is that one should not do what one can to make the best choice. That one should leave it up to passerby to decide what happens to him. Absurd.
  25. It seems to me that the Prisoner's Dilema only provides an example in which it would be hard to tell what is in your own self interest, it does not provide an example of time when it is better to act against that interest.
×
×
  • Create New...