Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Grames

  1. Physical ought to mean merely causal for the philosophically minded, or else one run's the risk of committing oneself to dictating what the ontology of the universe is from a bedroom or porcelain throne based on a non-physicist understanding of physics.
  2. Location (x,y,z,t) only exists because of whatever is there.
  3. Space-time is not merely a relationship, it is an existent in itself. For all we know it may even be compound existent, made of more fundamental existents. Wikipedia can provide an introduction to the topic with the article Zero-point Energy .
  4. Space-time has measurable attributes in addition to curvature. If it has attributes then it is an existent. Space-time is not a type of nothing, nor is it a discrete entity.
  5. "Empty space" does indeed have attributes. The permittivity of free space is a physical constant relating to an electric field's ability to spread through empty space. The permeability of free space is a physical constant relating to a magnetic field's ability to spread through empty space. It just so happens that the speed of light, sometimes itself regarded as an independent physical constant, is actually predicted and calculated as the inverse of the square root of the product of the permittivity (Greek epsilon )and permeability (Greek mu). In the equation below the subscript 0 denotes the attribute of empty space. Space filled with some other material will have different values and a different propagation speed of light. c0=1/√μ0ε0 Space is not empty.
  6. The common thread between socialism and communism and fascism (and modern leftism) is identity politics. Whether that politics is based on economic class or race it is still determinism. A proper nationalism would not be predicated on a culture or tradition or politics of determinism.
  7. Collectivism is technically better, but who goes around calling himself a collectivist? It's an abstraction. Identifying fascists as socialists calls attention to the common elements and shared history and tactics. There were street battles between communists and fascists in Weimar Germany because they both HAD paramilitary gangs planned for use in their anticipated revolutions. What variable underlying nationalism could vary up to "extremism" (which is itself an anti-concept dissected by Rand, so you aren't thinking clearly if you take that seriously). Nazi-ism incorporated racism. But if nationalism is equated with racism then nationalism is a redundant concept. Nations can adopt individuals of other races so nationalism is not racism. The different aesthetics are unimportant distractions, highly inessential, not fundamental toward any conclusion. In modern vocabulary it is just branding. On what basis do you find them to be important?
  8. I emphatically disagree. He does not know what he is talking about. It is demonstrably false that the only information is semantic information since Shannon published in 1948. Denying nonsemantic information is as absurd as denying evolution, or more absurd since he uses the internet everyday.
  9. more on Hitler as socialist George Watson was the author of The Lost Literature of Socialism published in 1998. A short article on the book by Anthony Flew appears on the fee.org website at https://fee.org/articles/the-lost-literature-of-socialism/ . A longer article by George Watson more specifically directed at Hitler as Marxist appears at Hitler and the Socialist Dream.
  10. With the new conceptual framework of information theory even mental phenomena can now be included with the category of "physical reality". The distinction between the external world and the content of consciousness is still important for epistemology, but not for metaphysics and ontology.
  11. In the sense that the transformation from the regular internationalist socialist vision of revolution which is to benefit the working class into a fascist vision of a revolution within one country to benefit that country is a simple "search and replace" operation of "international working class" (or also "proletariat") with "YOUR COUNTRY HERE". The "international class struggle" becomes a "struggle between nations". The call for dictatorship, the political correctness, the moralizing consequentialism which excuses every barbarity, everything is the same. Even so-called distinguishing factors such as militarism and emotional patriotism are not distinguishing at all: there has never been a socialist regime which was commonly acknowledged as not fascist which did not also glamorize military force and Stalin had to resort to propaganda that exhorted the protection of the Motherland rather than stale abstract refrains about the world's workers. Even Hitlers racism can be understood as just a recast version of the tactic of extolling the supposed virtues of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. "Bourgeoisie" is a word retained and as frequently used by fascists to identify a common enemy as the socialists and communists used it. Nationalism as political philosophy does not call for a "struggle between nations".
  12. "Doesn't really seem" is a hedging phrase indicating that you don't actually know. Fascism is fully and completely socialist, having been born in socialist theory. Every domestic policy of fascist theory is a socialist policy. The theoretical distinction that Hitler and Stalin fought over was whether or not socialism was necessarily globalist or could proceed one nation at a time. Stalin denounced everyone not toeing the globalist line as a rightist, but it is not actually a fundamental difference.
  13. National socialism is fascism. Wheres the contradiction?
  14. The centrality of individual rights as an organizing principle in the conduct of government is itself an aspect of a culture only few nations have ever possessed.
  15. National socialism is not a type of nationalism, it is a type of socialism. It was a necessary idea because socialist theory called for the whole world to rebel in unison, but some people didn't want to wait for Brazil and India to be industrialized to the same point of "late-stage capitalism" as Germany. So "socialism for one country" was invented. Socialist nationalism is not a type of nationalism because socialism requires wars of conquest to finance the pyramid scheme.
  16. Claude Shannon defined (and coined?) the word "bit". The Shannon Limit is real. Einstein's restriction on information transfer not exceeding the speed of light is apparently a truth. All the recent progress in understanding the physics of black holes has centered around considering what happens to the information that gets trapped within the event horizon, and uses a conservation law for information. You would be amazed at the amount of abstract mathematics involved in capturing keystrokes and sending them to distant places, or the multiple overlapping coding and multiplexing schemes that make cell phones possible. All that and more is what "non-semantic information" refers to. Semantic information is meaning as assigned or interpreted to symbols by consciousness.
  17. One can be an architect. One can be an Objectivist. "Objective Architecture" is not a concept with meaning, it has no referents. Just go be a good architect. The convenient thing for Rand qua novelist was that she didn't have to provide drawings for the "The Fountainhead", she could write some general principles and leave the rest to the reader's imagination. And plenty of architects have been inspired to get into the field because of Rand, but there is no Objectivist architectural style.
  18. He does not know or accept that information is a physical phenomenon properly included within the scope of physics, first defined by Claude Shannon in "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". If information can only be semantic he cannot conceive of studying information non-semantically. For those that persist in doing so anyway, they must be denying the existence of semantic information. Then he has the additional problem, how is it possible for purely semantic information to have physical consequences such moving one's limbs and communicating thoughts in speech or writing? The new mental force or substance bridges the gap between semantic meaning and physical causation. Binswanger also misuses the concept of irreducible in the context of the axiomatic concept of consciousness. What is epistemologically irreducible is not necessarily physically or metaphysically irreducible. Life is also an axiomatic concept but it is absurd to claim living things are not composed of physical parts that can be studied. This line directly addresses the title of the thread: Consciousness is epistemologically irreducible because it is axiomatic but it is an error to claim consciousness is physically or metaphysically irreducible.
  19. No, as a science psychology must be grounded in observations of human behavior. Premises do not come first, that is rationalism.
  20. From his lecture "The Metaphysics of Consciousness" (1998), as reported by Diana Hsieh in "Mind in Objectivism" (still downloadable at http://www.dianahsieh.com/docs/mio.pdf ). Granted 1998 was over 20 years ago, but that lecture is still for sale as of today at the ARI estore for $7.
  21. There have been several nonfiction bestsellers on the topic of neuroplasticity within the last decade or two. Wikipedia: Neuroplasticity Some books: Goodreads on neuroplasticity
  22. This is worth bold face. Remember how Rand divided theories of the good into intrinsic, subjective and objective? There is an intrinsicist approach to metaphysics and identity that expects every entity existing to be sufficient unto itself in a kind of timeless static mode of being which implies contemplating it as isolated. But there is no existence without acting and interacting with the rest of Universe. An entity does not have attributes, an entity is its attributes, and attributes are its means of acting as well as its means of being.
  23. Maslow is a psychologist. Rand was a philosopher. Those are different aspects of humanity. Psychology is (or ought to be) descriptive, philosophy is normative. Using a philosophy as a basis to argue with a special science is what a crackpot does. Don't be like that. If you think Maslow is wrong you need to attack his thesis within psychology with scientific methods or by exposing errors of method. Since all you really want to do is write a book about managerial practices, why do you even need to pick a fight with Maslow? The whole topic of managerial practices should assume business functioning in a context of personal safety.
  24. Not necessarily. I suppose emergence can be a version of re-invented dualism. I myself would accept a version of epistemological emergence, where the novel property must be given its own category of thought not a new order of being. Rand's solution to the problem of universals was to assert universals are epistemological, I would follow her lead with so-called emergent properties.
  25. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/#ProDua section 2. covering predicate, property and substance dualism. I hold that they are all equally untenable. The entire approach of expecting a particular kind of material ontology to explain everything, and when it fails to claim a non-material ontology must be valid is just nuts. It assumes being is static and inert, that actions have some other cause than the entities that act.
  • Create New...