Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

MisterSwig last won the day on April 22

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Chat Nick
    MisterSwig
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Extensive

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Politics

Recent Profile Visitors

3613 profile views
  1. To say something is possible means that you have some evidence for its existence. I don't see any evidence for gravity threads. There is clear observational evidence of various individual falling objects creating parabolic paths through the air. And the fact that everything free falls back to Earth suggests a force coming from the Earth. But where is the evidence that Earth creates gravity threads? When I asked about this, you said it hasn't been discovered how Earth creates them, but we know about them because of the way things move. Isn't this arbitrary? Why not imagine projectile elves that live in every object and guide it according to elven magic, which happens to make parabolas that fit with the math? That seems just as possible as gravity threads which mysteriously emerge from the Earth.
  2. The math leads to Galileo's experiments with projectile motion, right? The parabola is therefore a relational existent between the object and its trajectory. A gravity thread represents the reification of a relational existent that has been separated from its object. Without the cannonball flying through the air, there is no objective basis for the parabola's existence.
  3. If someone else wants to start trailblazing, I've got an Easter party to attend right now.
  4. A great mind once said: "Things having possible attributes or properties can always be mentally inverted with a background of attribute or property having a propensity to manifest as a thing."
  5. Is there an AI with conceptual consciousness? I'm not aware of one.
  6. I'll begin with some specific items: 1. I am puzzled by the use of "infinite" to describe the threads. Do you mean they are "without a limit" or "impossible to count"? If they have a limit, perhaps using "innumerable" in the beginning would help. I notice you used that adjective in the end. 2. Why do gravity threads emerge from points in space? What causes them to emerge and how? You say Earth creates them, but how? 3. How does an object attach to a gravity thread? What does "attach" mean here? 4. When an object shifts from one thread to another, what is its thread status while in transition? Is it attached to a thread even while shifting from one to the other? 5. You say that "absent other influence" an object is attached to its "perfect gravity thread." But isn't an object always influenced by Earth's atmosphere, unless you place it in a vacuum? So, under normal circumstances, would the object ever be attached to its perfect gravity thread? More generally, when I think of gravity, I think of Isaac Newton. What do you think he got wrong, if anything?
  7. Absolutely, any suggestion or criticism is appreciated. Even if someone thinks the theory is ridiculous, I'd like to know why. I have plans for additional essays, but will prioritize responding to reader's points or objections. Thanks.
  8. In response to comments, I've posted a critique of David Hume. I talk about his method and theory on free will, compared to my own. I also provide the introspective evidence for my theory, as well as how it works with the law of causality. https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/?m=1
  9. Basically we're asking which language has the most words. Oxford Dictionaries thinks it's English. The quality and usefulness of those words is a different question, though. There's a lot of junk in the English language. Of course, a language must serve the needs and abilities of the particular people who speak it. Even their environment might affect the language they develop. But, essentially, a language must communicate the things that exist in reality. So the more of reality observed and identified, including one's own mental phenomena, the better one's language must be. I therefore don't think that it's a coincidence that English, Hindi, Spanish, French and Chinese are some of the top spoken languages, given the history of exploration, conquest, migration, and spiritual investigation of their native speakers. Users of these languages, or the languages from which they sprang, have been some of the great explorers and thinkers of mankind. So, in considering the best language, they should be at the top of the list. I'm naturally biased toward English, but I think it should score bonus points for being the first language spoken on the moon, and for being the language in which Objectivism was first articulated.
  10. Has Veatch stumbled upon the Stolen Concept Fallacy and applied it to every single concept of the relating-logician via his Inverted Intentionality Fallacy? Every concept would be stolen (inverted) because every concept has its roots in existence, yet the relating-logician denies knowledge of existence. If so, this is brilliant. Rand and the professors touch on this in ITOE on page 250, where they argue that Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Descartes don't really have a concept of existence.
  11. The idea "viable life" is confusing, unless by "life" you simply mean fetus. Viable means capable of living outside the mother, not actually living inside her. So, are you saying that the fetus is a life that is capable of living outside the mother? If so, wouldn't that suggest two different life forms, fetal life and infant life? In the Lexicon entry, the first quote contained Rand's definition of life: "a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." This comes from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged and was used again by Rand in her article The Objectivist Ethics. Do you also claim that a fetus sustains its own action? Now, you claim that the fetus generates its own growth. However, if it were not anatomically attached to the mother, but freely afloat inside her womb, it certainly would stop growing. This fact must mean that its growth is generated by the mother. Otherwise, why would it stop developing? Indeed, in rare cases, something like this happens with complete placental abruptions, where the baby stops growing and is stillborn. The viability argument doesn't interest me anymore. It just gets more and more absurd. I suppose if a fertilized egg could be removed from the mother and developed with "advanced science" in a lab, then would conception become the new birth?
  12. You assume that an abortion destroys life. It would help to know what, in your view, differentiates life from non-life. This has been a matter of some debate on the thread.
  13. The problem is that, in this case, it's the liberals who are defending an individual right, even if they're doing it poorly. So when you attack the small percentage of women whom you consider immoral, and accuse the Dems of bad motives, you give strength to the opponents of abortion rights. The religious conservatives are far worse on this issue, and much more deserving of condemnation.
  14. Thanks. If I write a longer treatise for a general audience, I would definitely need to do that. But I wrote this introduction for Objectivists and people who already share a non-deterministic view of free will, so I did not bother addressing determinism just yet. I also left out a bunch about concept-formation, since Rand wrote a whole book on that already. After listening to others, I apparently also need to address Pavlov's theory. I suppose I could define free will at the start. But I worry about distracting the reader's attention from the process, which does not begin with free will already established. I tried to incorporate induction into my style. In general, I want the reader to use his own concepts and definitions, and be convinced that my theory fits with his own general knowledge. However, I could not resist giving a hint in the title, where I call free will a learned skill.
  15. I created a blog to introduce my theory on free will: https://freewilltheory.blogspot.com/2019/04/free-will-is-learned-skill.html?m=1 My goal is to identify the necessary steps in the development of free will, starting from birth. I briefly discuss reflexes, feelings, and purpose, and how they relate to gaining control over one's body and mind. I appreciate any comments or criticism, placed here or on the blog.
×
×
  • Create New...