Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Posts

    2783
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    107

Everything posted by MisterSwig

  1. I watched this portion of Joe Rogan's interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson. They talk about military footage of UFOs. https://youtu.be/1u0VDFppCI4&t=5m52s Tyson seems to be saying that he's skeptical of the footage because sensors on equipment can provide false data. He uses as an example the incorrect data that caused astronomers to search for planet X when they noticed that Neptune's orbit didn't make sense, only it did make sense, they just had bad data and didn't realize it. I've never been impressed by Tyson's reasoning skills. And I don't follow his logic here either. Rogan points out that the military pilots saw the UFOs with their own eyes, or they at least have video of them. So what false data might we be using in this case? We have the testimony of the pilots, and the videos. I don't think the problem is false data. It's that we don't know how to interpret the data. We aren't certain of what we're seeing.
  2. That's bad, but I don't think there is a pro-rape movement that threatens the rights of Americans. I wouldn't expend resources looking for such people, but if it comes up on someone's application or background check, I don't suppose they'd be granted citizenship, even by current standards.
  3. I stopped reading at "gender non-conforming individuals." But to answer your point, can't both be a problem? After all, the social media giants often enable the online harassers and bullies. The "victims" however should take some responsibility for policing their own pages when possible.
  4. Yeah, I don't think I can answer that with any specificity. I'm not even sure if Mars can be terraformed. The best I got is that maybe some of the life support operations (producing oxygen and food and heat) could be combined with the terraforming process. Perhaps terraforming could be a byproduct that doesn't cost anything extra. Otherwise it would simply be an expense, and maybe you have to rely on the rich "mental fuel" types to finance it. So, the product would be a terraformed Mars, assuming it's not worth anything until it's fully terraformed? That might be a false assumption. If it's 10% terraformed, that would mean something like 10% less life support required. Maybe you could spend 10% more time outside the biodome with the same oxygen tank, for example. Thus, gradually increasing the quality of life on Mars could result in more people wanting to work and visit and more profit from that trading activity. You used a bread example, but let's take something slightly more complex, a pizza. You might assemble all the necessary ingredients for a pepperoni pizza and could sell them in a package, raw and unmixed, for a couple bucks, making a dollar profit. Now let's say you spend some time mixing them together into a single frozen pizza which you can sell for more money and make two dollars profit. Or, even better, you cook the pizza for the customer and sell it for even more money and make three dollars profit. Here there are three stages (assembling, mixing, and cooking the ingredients) and with each stage is an opportunity to make extra profit. Perhaps terraforming Mars could work like that, with more value being produced (for which people would pay more) as Mars becomes more like Earth. If that's the case, then it's a problem. Even if "mental fuel" investors come to the rescue, it'll need to be profitable (or self-sustaining) at some point. Otherwise the colony will be a self-defeating project. Instead of supporting life, it'll be a drain on Earth's resources.
  5. They monetize the intermediate steps and take a share of the profits. If they expect profits from the next stage of development, it might be rational to invest in it. Terraforming would be an expense. I'm not sure it has to be a money pit for the company. Perhaps there is a way to profit from it. It would certainly reduce the amount of material resources needed from Earth. And maybe marketing deals could be made with McDonald's where every Happy Meal includes a toy Martian terraformer from SpaceX. The corporation that settles Mars will own the portion it settles. Let's say SpaceX settles Mars first. Maybe they work out an agreement with the US government to provide security to handle trespassers and lawbreakers.
  6. Kind of like the difference between someone who rapes your wife versus someone who merely threatens to do it? You do what's necessary to defend yourself. In this case I think screening for socialist advocates is sufficient, in addition to the more common checks. And I'm talking about immigration, not visitation. If some socialist is visiting his grandma, that's not a huge concern. Just make sure he leaves when his time is up. Socialist citizens of other countries don't vote in our elections and they don't run for political offices here, so they aren't threats. https://www.dsausa.org/ No, I'm talking about advocates of socialism, though there might be a case against advocates of aspects of sharia law. Someone who's had abortions isn't a threat to anyone but their own fetuses. Not exactly a political issue. Then why did you do a podcast about the subject? I did an interview of Valliant. Immigration was a small part of the interview. I'm saying there are better threads on this forum where we discussed the deeper, conceptual issues of this debate.
  7. The terraforming project could be a corporation-level goal, so the corporation is building toward something in the distant future, but the officers and employees are trying to hit subgoals. For them it's a job and they don't have to spend their whole lifetimes on Mars. Maybe the first generation only visits Mars for a few weeks a year and builds the terraforming machines while also building biodomes. The second generation stays for a couple years at a time and terraforms 10% of the planet while producing needed food and materials, handling tourists, etc. After a number of generations maybe the planet is suitable for lifelong habitation. Generally, when it's in your self-interest. For early investors the money goes toward producing a single step in the longterm plan, such as space transportation and tourism, which helps finance the rest of the steps. But it also attracts investors who want to go to space or make money from space industry. I doubt it, unless Earth were in serious danger of exploding in the next couple hundred years or so and terraforming Mars became a huge priority, in which case whole governments would probably be devoting major resources to the effort. I think so. Maybe you're a wealthy businessman and enjoy sponsoring the space projects of your friends because you like helping them and thinking about the future of space exploration. However, if you're not in it for the business success, it seems more like charity, which is fine. But sometimes charity goes toward buying food, and sometimes it goes toward buying heroin. So you gotta be careful about what sort of mental fuel you're purchasing with your donation to the "terraform Mars" project. It could be a swindle.
  8. If it were possible to terraform Mars, it might be a rational value as a potential new home. But I'm not sure its lower gravity is enough to maintain a nitrogen and oxygen-rich atmosphere. Mars is 95% carbon dioxide. Maybe it can't hold much lighter gases near the surface. Colonizers might have to live in biodomes for eternity.
  9. To elect representatives. The "non-violent communist," as in the communist who isn't presently confiscating your property for the socialization of the nation? You still need to address the immediate problem if you're ever going to solve the deeper problem. If your arm is bleeding, you still apply a tourniquet even though you ultimately need stitches to heal the wound. We have an absolute right to control the border through reasonable, objective laws and policing. In times of war we might even need to shut down the border completely. That's not how it works historically. People vote in the bad guys, and then we have to fight a war (or apply economic or political pressure) to remove them from power. "Political change" is not inherently good. What you're voting for matters. And if you're voting for evil, retaliatory force might be justified to stop it. Voting is not a sanctified process that must always be respected. It's a weapon in the ongoing political battle. And it can be used for evil. If you reject freedom and advocate against it, then you don't deserve a free society based on individual rights. Freedom doesn't mean we have to tolerate those who seek to destroy our freedom. It means we have the freedom to protect ourselves from such people. We have the freedom to stop them at the border, the freedom to deny their application for citizenship. Really, this is a debate over the meaning of "freedom" and "rights," for which there are plenty of threads in the Politics section.
  10. Yeah, which is a problem, because it's an impossible hypothetical. You can't test it. The closest situation might be a patient with no short-term memory. Give him the same simple choice repeatedly, after he's forgotten making it before. See if he chooses differently or always the same.
  11. Because you have a liberty of will. You have volition, and maybe you want to do it differently this time around. If the choice is between things of equal value (say, a slice of pepperoni pizza versus a slice of sausage pizza), you can choose either one with no problem. But as the choice becomes more important to more of your life, you might not find it so easy to choose either one. For example, you're standing on a cliff and you become aware of the choice to jump off and crash into rocks or walk back to your house. If you value your life and are sober, you won't be able to will yourself off the cliff under normal conditions, because you know you'll die. Your volition is regulated by your chosen value(s). You won't do something stupid that leads to certain death. Context can include the fact that it doesn't much matter which slice of pizza you choose. Or it doesn't much matter whether I finish writing this sentence or stop in the middle of it. (See, SL, I finished it this tim
  12. Scott and I interviewed James Valliant on a wide range of subjects. We talked for 3.5 hours. The content is split into three parts. I hope you enjoy and subscribe to our channel. In part 1 we learn about Valliant's introduction to Objectivism, and we talk about the split between Rand and the Brandens. Part 2 focuses on Valliant's history in the Objectivist movement and then we discuss Rand's attitude toward conservatives (33:17). Finally part 3 covers four different topics: immigration (0:00), memory (9:01), the Derek Chauvin trial (24:20), and Valliant's book Creating Christ (30:54).
  13. Yes, I think if it affects a major value, and only one option is beneficial, you'll most likely always choose that option, because you see that only one choice leads to what you want or need. But I can imagine a scenario where the value is so trivial that I could easily choose differently given the same exact situation and knowledge and history, etc. Let's say it were possible to duplicate me right now and both of us faced the option of finishing this sentence before posting, or stopping mid-sent
  14. It's only odd because of the association with an inanimate object and the laser. You just said that some gravitational force could cause the rock to move suddenly. Therefore that force might affect the rock at the same moment you point the laser at it. Indeed the force might affect the rock every single time that you point the laser, fooling you into believing that your laser is causing the reaction. All you need to do is eliminate your faith in the rock's ability to sense the laser and move itself out of the way. That might be hard to do, however, due to the extraordinary and repeated association between the rock and the laser. But you could probably concoct some lab test to prove that you're mistaken. Maybe someone laced your drink with LSD. As for your title question, some special feature of the brain might indicate the potential for, if not the existence of, volition. It's interesting to me, for example, that mirror neurons have been found in humans, primates and some birds. The mirror neuron fires when you act and when you see others performing that same act. It might provide a mental stimulus which allows for an introspective choice between mimicking and not mimicking. If you're a bird and you see another bird drinking from a fountain, it might stimulate a memory of drinking from the fountain, but since you're not thirsty, you are not physically stimulated to drink. Such a context might be the biological framework in which a volitional process is generated.
  15. That is the question. The objection is that being in the courtroom, or being an actual juror, was some kind of advantage to discovering the truth in this case. I, however, think it was a disadvantage. This is similar to the point Mr. Nelson made about perspective. The jurors were limited to their in-the-moment perspective, particularly regarding witness and expert testimony. The human mind can only take in and retain so much information, which limits its ability to integrate and evaluate a large body of evidence. I, however, was not limited to an in-the-moment perspective. When I became overwhelmed by the trial testimony, I could pause the proceedings, think critically about what I had heard and observed, notice fine details, and reach a greater understanding of the evidence. I could replay any confusing testimony. I wasn't in a stressed mindset, where I had to put aside confusions and push through mental fatigue or distractions. When I got confused, tired, or unfocused by other thoughts, I paused and took a break at my leisure. I was in a peak, objective mental state for nearly the whole trial. I'd call it a "free time" perspective. I could watch the live recording or rewind to history or stop and think freely about the evidence, even contemplate what the defense or prosecution might say or ask in the future.
  16. The fentanyl was at a possibly lethal level, but the meth was at a low level. One problem is that Floyd might have developed a high tolerance for fentanyl. Also, he was not found at home. There were other known factors. The fentanyl intoxication, however, is substantial grounds for reasonable doubt.
  17. We discuss the concept of "virtue signaling" in this new episode.
  18. Random in the sense that the lion might have gone left or right. The path he took was not determined by the factors compelling him to move. Let's say he was thirsty after waiting out a storm under some rock. He leaves in search of a puddle and comes to the junction. It's a new area, so he doesn't know where the puddles might be. He happens to be stepping toward the path on the right when he reaches the junction, so he continues in that direction. Now he's on the path to the right, but he didn't choose that path over the other one. It was where his roaming for water took him.
  19. Postmodernism is a placeholder word. It refers to a series of intellectual plagues that will kill off the weakest ideologies and leave a wasteland in which the strongest ideas may flourish and spread out.
  20. Yell at it and see if it turns to face you. Basically test one of its sense organs. If it can't see, hear, smell, taste, or feel you, then it's probably unconscious, likely dead. We can easily test a lion's extrospection, because we can provide stimuli to which it either responds or fails to respond. Testing its introspection is more challenging, because we are not inside the lion's mind, and thus we cannot provide its own mental stimuli to which it responds or not. It must be hard to do, because bacteria are microscopic in size, but I've read that they have some simple sensory abilities that you could probably test. Bacteria don't have brains, so I'd say no. Its lack of a brain might also exclude it from the realm of potentially conscious (aware) life forms, but I haven't given that question much thought. It would depend on your definition of "consciousness." I believe so. Being aware of a path on the right and a path on the left is different than being aware of a choice to turn right or left. A lion might see both paths but go right involuntarily, automatically responding to the sight or scent of a deer it's hunting. The cause of it going right or left does not have to be volitional in nature. It might even be random if there is no compelling factor urging the lion one way or another. It needs to move, so it moves. You certainly need to be aware in order to be volitional. But I don't think you can be volitional without first being aware of a choice. That requires a certain level of introspection, where you are aware of your ability to choose between alternatives. Focusing comes before volition. It is a prerequisite of choice. First you must focus, which comes automatically in response to stimuli, then you can be aware of a choice to change your focus, narrowing or broadening it to this or that level of perception. You don't choose to be aware. Awareness is axiomatic. You choose to direct your awareness.
  21. Could one say that it wants to survive? Or perhaps it acts like it wants to survive. Biologists say there are four phases to a bacterium's life cycle. Within each phase you might say it has a different "goal." In the lag phase the "goal" is to grow. In log, it's to multiply. In stationary, to cease growing and multiplying. And in death, to die. So all four phases amount to a bacterium acting toward its ultimate death. It grows so much and multiplies so rapidly that it consumes all the available nutrients, then the environment can no longer sustain its life. It acts like it "wants" to grow as much as possible and then die. Its short-term "goal" is growth, its long-term "goal" is death. If a bacterium "wanted" to live, it would remain small, wouldn't multiply, and would thus maximize use of the available resources for its one, individual life. Instead, it appears that the "goal" of bacteria is to consume material and excrete waste as quickly and as efficiently as possible. They're part of the natural process of breaking down materials for the consumption of plant life, without which animals could not eat and poop.
  22. What is the goal of bacterial action? I think it needs to be aware of a simple choice, that's the foundation. Then you can debate whether its selection was voluntary. How do you determine if a lion is aware of a choice, that's the problem.
  23. I remember when Gary Hull and others were butting heads with the postmodernists back in the mid-90s when the buzzword was "multiculturalism."
×
×
  • Create New...