cilphex

Congrats, West! Hopefully Athena gets in, too : )

Alright, you got me. This makes sense.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I know that each rotation makes it seem as if you're observing the figure from a different vantage point, but I still don't understand why that means anything. As far as focusing on her feet is concerned, I found that it helped because it's easier to switch views on a disconnected part rather than the whole at once. It would be the same if the reflection weren't there, and after studying, I can't see how the reflection gives off any type of clue. You can see her CW or CCW looking at just her feet, or just her head, or her whole body. I reversed the gif with an online gif editor. Now the counter clockwise vantage point is from above, and the clockwise vantage point from below. Still, this seems to say nothing except just that. If the image had been rendered this way originally, would the things you're pointing out demand that the figure was in actuality spinning counter clockwise? I still see nothing that makes the real rotation decipherable. It may be reasonable to assume that the graphic artist rendered the image from a vantage point above the figure's waist, but isn't it just that--an assumption?

Have you allowed yourself to see the figure spinning the other way? I think you're just extracting this 'visual cue' from the only rotation you've observed. If you see her spinning Counter Clockwise, her kicking leg and her arm appears lower with regard to her body on the far side that it is on the near side. So what? How does this tell me which direction she's spinning in? It doesn't. After your brain chooses a rotation to understand the image, you'll observe one of either of those things because it makes sense with regard to that particular rotation. Now, I don't know if any of this means anything about left vs right brain, but you can certainly see it both ways and there isn't any 'visual cue' making the true rotation decipherable. If the graphic artist that rendered this image made a second one with the figure spinning in the opposite direction of what it was originally, it would look exactly the same. There isn't anything in the image that reveals depth. It's like this: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/ima...nt-illusion.gif If you're having trouble seeing it both ways, I suggest scrolling down so that you only see the figure's feet. Try to observe the opposite rotation with the feet alone, then scroll up gradually when you think you've got it. Ditto.

I think this is a very interesting discussion. I have not read it entirely yet, so I don't know if this has been posted, but I would just like to jump in and post this because I think maybe it will help (I hope!) with what you're discussing: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/perception.html

I'm not sure. They seem deeply interrelated and I feel like they were probably all a result of the same evolutionary/genetic mistake. I can't help but see them occurring at once and together. So, I suppose you could say that because of these things, we can form concepts, but it seems like these things must exist because of one fundamental change. Would there be a name for this? Or do you disagree with this idea?

It seems like these are all natural corollaries to (or, results of?) the facts that we can form concepts, and that the structure of knowledge is hierarchical.

I admire Google for their innovation and quality of products, but when it comes to competition they're pretty cowardly and hypocritical. They take advantage of their image as the "Good Guy" to make moral arguments against what they perceive to be threats to them, when it really isn't warranted. In practice they're pioneers of capitalism, but they preach collectivist values.

I think that's a little ironic, considering that Nietzsche was the philosopher who declared: "God is dead."

Here's one answer: philosophizing!

What are the metaphysical limitations that women have, that men do not have?

The video is 9 and a half minutes long, but he really doesn't say anything at all. He talks a lot about "doing something," and "really helping for the first time," without saying what needs to be done or how anyone should go about doing it. I don't really know much about Scientology besides the fact that once you reach the upper levels, you learn about how humans are possessed by little ghost things that came out of a volcano after they were punished by some God from another planet (or something), but this makes it seem like whatever ethical facade they hide and expand behind is equally as shallow. "We are the authorities on the mind." That was classic. How do people buy in to this trash?

My Last FM profile I think the best feature of Last FM is that, if you'd like it to, it will track all of the music you listen to on your computer, and give you neighbors and a "recommended" radio station based on what you listen to. They're both methods for finding new, good music. With the recommended radio, you can even use a scale to set whether you would like it to play more obscure tunes, or things more closely related to your tastes. You can also listen to your own radio station, which I think plays only the artists you've listened to, and the individual radio stations of anyone else with an account. You can friend, etc., so it's social, but you don't have to put effort into it if you don't want to. You can go back in time and see charts for what you were listening to on any given week. You can view your "weekly neighbors" and a list of recommended artists if you're interested. You can see global charts for everyone who uses the service, you can join groups, etc. There are a lot of different music-finding tools. In short, Last FM > Pandora.

About symbolic vs. outcome-directed voting: Yes, I see that. I was arguing about whether or not and why he should be elected, not who to vote for. If he's not nominated, there won't be much sense in voting for him.

Alright, I get you all now (I hope). The American people would never elect Paul based on his current stances, so for him to be elected he would have to change some of his positions, thus eliminating any claim to conviction or principle he might have. For the sake of simplicity, let's just say that he'd hold onto his foreign policy stances because those are pretty crucial to his platform, but would, if he did, compromise on domestic issues because he would have to. Thus DarkWaters' and DavidOdden's points are taken. Right? Alright. Anyway, since he hasn't changed any positions and it doesn't look like there's any reason to believe he will, given that the primaries have already started and he doesn't seem to be panicking to increase his appeal and is only reinforcing what he's been saying all along, I don't think you can equate the potential with the actual and say "because this is what Paul would have to do to be elected, the fact that he's running is tantamount to him betraying his supposed principles, thus proving that he can not be trusted to maintain them once in office." I realize that's not you're entire argument, DavidOdden, for why Paul's 'principles' can't be trusted in office--the other part being that the role of president is very different from that of congressman--but that still strikes me as... not right. It's like you're saying that what Paul would have to do to become elected, which he isn't doing, is indicative of his betrayal of his principles, without mentioning that most of the rest of the candidates are already doing it (saying what they need to to get elected). How is this potential an argument against Paul, especially when compared to the actual phoniness of the other candidates? Is there something I'm misunderstanding? You might say, "If he's not going to compromise, then he must know he's not going to win, so why is he running for president?" I would reply, "There's always the chance!" You might continue: "No, there isn't the chance, and that proves Paul's and your stupidity, which is yet another reason not to vote for him!" I would reply, "Okay!" If an Objectivist had been running in this election from the start, knowing that their stances on issues would give them only the slimmest chance of being elected, would that imply that that candidate intended on being dishonest during his campaign, thus rendering him non-Objectivist? Is it literally impossible for an Objectivist to run for president in this political atmosphere? (Not get elected, but run.) Have we come to such a point where running for the presidency requires either dishonesty or incompetence? And if so, how can that be an argument against one candidate and not equally the rest? Yeah, you do make good points DarkWaters, which I should have considered more thoroughly before using that point as evidence. I did just want to show that historically, it hasn't always been the case that vetoes are used "sparingly." (I did not mean to say that there was plenty of evidence for your claim, Kendall.) Certainly over the long haul they have been used minimally. But is that because it was actually not in good sense to use them, or because the presidents simply accepted what was put in front of them? The types of bills vetoed also matters, but oh, the time it would take! In the future I will have to make sure my points do not have the potential to turn into open-ended questions. I'm not convinced, though, that it's necessarily impossible to run a successful presidential term today which uses a good deal of veto powers for (at least mostly) rational ends. Yes, this is very true. So I don't see either of the points you identified actually happening. He simply won't be elected.