glibber

Yah, the Dune miniseries was fantastic.

To get a good grip on Objectivism read Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" or for general philosophy try Russel's history of philosophy.

The difference between Atheists and Agnostics I've met have, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, differing ideas of "God". Most Atheists I know mean something very specific - the impossibility of the God of Abraham or other historically active deities which can be easily disposed of. Most Agnostics I know differ in that they can imagine some entity that can not be disproven; something like Aristotle's Prime Mover (keep in mind Occam's Razer is not a proof for Atheism). In practice this makes them effectively Atheist. It wouldn't make sense to call this cowardice, perhaps simply "He who dots too many "i's" for no good reason" Another kind of Agnostic, as previously mentioned, would be Empiricists (from whence we get the term) who reject any and all questions of traditional metaphysics as unprovable and therefore something that can not honestly be said to be known. It makes no sense to call this cowardice either as long as it is arrived at through honesty and consistency. While Agnosticism, in some contexts, can be derived from cowardice, many Agnostics I know no longer label themselves as Atheists because they see the new Atheists (Dawkins etc) as unjustifiably Militant, the flip side of the coin.

My understanding is that omniscience was a function of its omnipresence, if that were the case power and foreknowledge would not necessarily conflict. As well God is traditionally seen as "outside time"..... But when you start a concept with nonsense it can mutate with more nonsense upon attack. This is why I don't argue with Christians about theology.

Plenty attempts have been made but most are quite shoddy. The problem being Rand wrote outside and against the Academia so not many philosophers, scientists, sociologists, theologians, (etc) have written replies. As well when they make replies they tend to be very specific in what aspect is critiqued - some like Walker in the "Ayn Rand Cult" attacked her and Objectivism as one would attack a group of people (power struggles and the like), others like the blog "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" focus on how Objectivism interacts with other disciplines (its reading of History, Religion etc) as well as its internal consistency. Another layer of disagreement can be found in groups and ideologies linked to but competing with Objectivism as expressed by Peikoff - David Kelley at The Atlas Society is the biggest one currently but other individuals like Nathaniel Branden have material online as well. The gap between Peikoff and his opponents is wide, their reading of Rand, the nature of evil and relationship to those outside Objectivism is not bridgeable. Through the publication of "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" the conflict exists on a personal level (dissecting the stories of the Branden's and making evaluations about them and their philosophy based on it), on a political level (in relation to Libertarianism), and on a philosophical level (the "Mind/Body Dichotomy" etc). My own opinion on reading Rand, Peikoff, Kelley and others is that Peikoff represents most closely what Rand left us as a legacy. Moral Judgment, understanding "proper definitions" of philosophical ideas and her view of the World is best scene in Peikoff and the ARI so I would consider that the true Objectivism during your study.

While your post makes me want to, I'll not reply here. Though I fear you missed my point if the post was directed at me.

Its not that I sit on the fence so much as to me its a either a false dichotomy (similar to asking whether music emotional expression or mere vibrations of cold inhuman air swirling through the void mechanistically mocking our human pretensions to meaning) or is an (at least through the history I know) unsolvable contradiction, in the sense that the two perspectives can not be unified (in the same way you can't see the shores of both sides of a river at once). How is freedom any more obvious upon introspection then determinism upon external observation? I'm not saying we "feel" free any less than an observed neuron "looks" determined.

In my mind the problem in the Free Will versus Determinism "Debate" is the degree to which words and contexts get tripped over. With a sufficiently advanced imaging system one could see the neurons firing that are our emotions, feelings, thoughts etc, one could even see the neurons firing that are the choice to focus the mind. This observed biological world controls our reason and perception, drugs and physical modifications prove this. However if one "Wills" oneself to feel, think, or act it can be explained entirely as a determined physical process in the same way the apple falling from the tree was such a process. Looked at biologically, externally, there is no reason whatsoever a human is less determined than a clock. When we talk about "Free Will" however we mean something different in a different context. It makes little sense to say "My grief is this chemical" or "My elation was that sequence of biological events" even though those statements are biologically true. When we talk about freedom or emotion or other states of mind we are entering into a different way of using language and thinking. Internally choice exists, we know it because we are the entity which both chooses and perceives that a choice took place. We know it as surely as we know what our senses are telling us. Freedom is not even a 'thing' that can be looked at, it is the condition our thoughts are in, omnipresent and coloring action and experience. Try to think internally of not being free, of not being the active agent - it can't be done; try looking at the brain through the microscope and say it is not determined - it can't be done. When we make the change from external observation to internal observation and action the meanings of freedom and determinism shift, I don't see how one can be proven true and the other false.

Good topic! Action - "In Conquest Born", but that could be done like an epic drama too. Visual Effects - In Baxter's "Xeelee Sequence" the Phonino Bird Victory arc. Star destruction, artificial galaxy formation, billions and billions of enemies, throwing the moon at some of them.... Mood - Robinson's "Green Mars" was depressing as Hell so.... Vogt's "Slan" had a good suspense edge to it. Gibson's "Count Zero" had some nice mood in it but the subtlety of the text might not be translatable to film.

A war with an author turns out badly - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNyDyCXZLW4 What my dreams would look like as silent films ... only with sound and hot Nordic chicks - http://www.vidivodo.com/82757/death-is-my-alter-ego A freeze frame of Modernist versus Post Modernist Politics, Chomsky versus Foucault - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes&...feature=related Accelerating Returns - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4 For some good news I watch things like: Persian Pride - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=t7xm2kGveDQ (Note references to Human Rights, Education, Western Heritage and Israel) http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=VADyN45rBWM (I'd like to see Osama take on some of these) The Beauty of China - http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WwfRz8eOZaA