Jake

Resurrecting the thread to share an interesting article about tribal peoples whose ability to remember quantities is limited by the absence of numbers in their languages.
https://theconversation.com/anumeric-people-what-happens-when-a-language-has-no-words-for-numbers-75828
It seems the number may be four-ish. Perhaps, the seven-ish number requires easy and distinct labels for the items remembered, and our natural ability to perceive numbers is no better than a crow's.

You can't stand by a retort. Retorts aren't things in reality you can stand by. What are you, a Platonist?
Yes, I know my entire position is correct. What are you arguing, then?
Indeed, I don't see any point in talking to someone whose use of languge is so imprecise that they both think they can literally stand next to a retort, concede the whole argument, and then BLANK OUT and continue arguing as if they haven't.
"Contradictions in your position," says the Platonist.
Concepts are the things one uses to understand the world. You don't "understand" a concept. Jeez, and you presume to lecture me on the "precise" use of language?
........
Do you see why the principle of charity is important. One should be as favorable in interpreting other people's words and arguments as one would like his words to be as favorably interpreted.
Deliberately misconstruing other's words to suit one's "arguments" is a childish game anyone can play. It's the pracitce of politicians and sophists, not philosophers.

When one makes a case for freedom and capitalism by arguing against socialism and statism, then one should do so by criticizing the actual arguments that socialists and statists make, and not the conveneint versions of those arguments that are easy to refute.
Strawmanning is a form of dishonesty/intellectual laziness that one must be careful not to engage in because it is so easy to fall into that trap.
As an example, consider the following typical argument:
P1) Liberals believe that taxes are acceptable or necessary and sometimes beneficial.
P2) Taxes are a form of initiation of force (committed by the government) and, specifically, a form of theft.
C3) Therefore, liberals believe that theft is acceptable or necessary and sometimes beneficial.
Why is this argument wrong? Note that both P1 and C3 are statements about what liberals believe, whereas P2 is not. This means that the argument is actually invalid (that is, the conclusion does not actually follow from the premises even if they are true), and only appears to be valid because one is tempted to assume:
P2*) Liberals believe that P2.
Only when one replaces P2 with P2* in the above argument does it become valid, but then the problem is clear. Liberals simply do not believe that taxes are a form of theft.
When you actually ask them, you find that they tend to believe in social contract theory, and that any actions taken by the government that are permitted under the constitution are legitimate. Hence, taxes, they say, are not a kind of theft.
Objectivists will never appeal to more informed opponents if it continues to rely on strawman arguments like the one above.
 

"Defining and sanctioning" does not mean "limiting." Rights don't limit freedoms. The right to liberty utterly sanctions freedom of action. What limits my moral and legal freedom of action is not my rights, but others' rights. Rights don't limit my action, they tell other people what I am free to do - they limit what others can do to me. You don't have the right to pee on others' property because of their right to property.

I wish there was a web site where I could bet real money against conspiracy folk and be sure I'd be paid when I win my way to millions. Also, against other doomsayers like the Mayan end-of-days people.

I believe the very concept of probability is epistemological. When you see blue, you are seeing blue. When you hear a sound, you are hearing a sound. Ad nauseum for any possible perception. Anything else, be it ball-picking or electron impacts necessarily rests on epistemology, because it is not bare perception.

Alternatively, anything which is not in the present tense is not purely perceptual. So asking what will or what is likely to happen is inextricably epistemological in nature.

I think there is only one objective way to measure jokes: by how much they make people laugh. Rejecting jokes for any other reason is the definition of not having a sense of humor. 
 
And there was no shaming, no one ever even attempted to contact this woman. 
 
Oh yeah, and there's nothing wrong with taking a funny photo and posting it, either. If you put yourself in a funny situation in public, expect to be laughed at...better yet, learn to laugh at yourself.

As with any personal mental change that happens over time, it's difficult to nail down a description.
I can describe it more from how I feel now. It's not just the weight change, it's the fact that my body is part of me when it comes to maintenance and improvement. I've always sought to learn, think better, etc. I also play music when I can and consider myself an accomplished driver and pilot. My physical fitness now lies in that same realm of personal accomplishment which was previously limited to mental activities.

I think that previously I had a detachment brought on by evading thoughts about my body or the actions that let it get into terrible shape. I'm certainly no athlete, but I run 30-40 mi/week now, and when I look at my legs or feet, I have a sense of pride and ownership. Eating well also feeds into my personal pride.

I think there's a vicious cycle for many overweight people where disappointment with one's body leads to evasion/detachment, which then enables poor eating/lack of exercise. It's easier sometimes to pretend that "looks don't matter" or "it's what inside that counts" which supports the schism between mind and body. I suppose it may be like people who claim to be "bad at math," detach their math skills from the rest of their personality, and avoid actions which would improve the situation.

It's very difficult to communicate to someone who grew up with and maintained healthy habits what it feels like to shop for clothes, look in the mirror, or be in crowded situations where someone might bump into your flab. I think there are feelings and evasions that a healthy person may never experience, and so they have no reference.

A bit more rambling than I would've liked, but the short answer is I feel more integrated now and comfortable in my own skin.

I think one implication is: don't bet any good money on the political side of Objectivism being realized during your life-time. Invest your time accordingly.
 
The more important question is: given that the world is unlikely to change much in my lifetime, what am I going to do to change my own world? My life, my priorities, my friends, my career, and so on.
 
Objectivism is an egoistical ethical theory before it is a political theory. That's the part one can implement... and the number of countries where one can do so has increased a lot since 1980.

Tadmjones you will glad to know that as one with a physics degree I tend to agree with you.
 
There is nothing in experimental or theoretical physics which relies upon an interpretation of space or time as "entities" in reality, separate and apart from existents, be they tables, stars, or positrons.  Space and time fundamentally are quantifications of relationships between existents.
 
All of physics is entirely consistent with an interpretation of space and time, or any other dimension (e.g. supersymmetry) as values or placeholders which are descriptive of relationships between existents.  A mathematical background which keeps track of those relationships.  To be sure this background is not necessarily "empty" but the activity occurring in any n-dimensional "volume" is to be distinguished from the values we associate with the position and time etc. of those activities. 
 
Those relationships, which we refer to with values of space and time, change in specific ways for specific reasons, but it is not space or time that changes (relativity dismisses any concept such as absolute space or the "ether"), it is the way entities behave in relation to each other under certain circumstances.
 
Length is not a thing, the space between two particles is not a thing, and neither is the position of an existent a thing.   

The implicit assumption is that sex with the woman he's falling in love with is cheapened after sex with the bookstore freak. While it could be, especially in the case of an ongoing romance, I don't think this is necessarily true. There is no betrayal to cheapen the experience if he hasn't met his sweetheart yet.

My vote is laziness or not realizing their method of showing tabulated data resembles a bar chart.

Edward Tufte's Visual Display of Quantitative Information covers these issues really well.
http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Display-Quantitative-Information/dp/0961392142

Ditto, Jake. It's probably worth noting that the Japanese entertained conditional surrender prior to the final raids. Conditional surrender ain't good enough; let's remember the Weimar Republic.

Uhhhh...

The questioner was clearly asking, as Peikoff put it, "a very unfriendly question." Peikoff did not "hit the roof." That is just the way he talks, as evidenced by hundreds of hours of recorded lectures. Peikoff cut to the heart of what the questioner was really asking and responded. The question smuggled in the idea that Peikoff said it's not okay to talk to Libertarians, but to my knowledge, he never said that. He said that he does not debate Libertarians, which is why he answered as he did.

I wish I could thumbs-down the video via this forum.

Check your facts. The last bombing of Japan was on 14 Aug 1945. Hirohito announced the surrender via radio the next day (15 Aug). Additionally, the terrible firebombing of Tokyo referenced by the essay you linked was 5 months earlier on 9-10 Mar.

The single historical source quoted by the essay does not say that 1,000 bombers hit Tokyo on 14 Aug. It says GEN Arnold wanted a big raid on Tokyo, but multiple separate targets were chosen instead. The records I found in a quick google search showed the last bombing of Tokyo on 10 Aug (14 Aug was other cities).

@FeatherFall & Nicky

On second reading, my post was a little premature. It was not a direct response to either of your posts as much as it was an attempt to prevent the direction I thought the thread was taking (and has since taken with Kate's posts and responses to her).

My point is that the principled (and only meaningful or relevant) argument against gun control is that it violates rights. Discussing what-ifs and alternatives is fine, but cannot stand as an argument for or against gun control. When gun rights advocates argue at the statistical, anecdotal, or practical level, they concede to gun control advocates that there is no principled reason to protect 2nd amendment rights, and thereby make it an unfortunately typical pragmatic contest of who has the best statistics or the most shocking real-life story.

An analog would be arguing about taxation by showing that it negatively impacts the unemployment rate, economic growth, etc. It doesn't matter. Such an investigation is a great way to remind oneself that there is no theory-practice dichotomy, but the principle is that compulsory taxes violate the right to property - 'nough said.

@FeatherFall & Nicky

On second reading, my post was a little premature. It was not a direct response to either of your posts as much as it was an attempt to prevent the direction I thought the thread was taking (and has since taken with Kate's posts and responses to her).

My point is that the principled (and only meaningful or relevant) argument against gun control is that it violates rights. Discussing what-ifs and alternatives is fine, but cannot stand as an argument for or against gun control. When gun rights advocates argue at the statistical, anecdotal, or practical level, they concede to gun control advocates that there is no principled reason to protect 2nd amendment rights, and thereby make it an unfortunately typical pragmatic contest of who has the best statistics or the most shocking real-life story.

An analog would be arguing about taxation by showing that it negatively impacts the unemployment rate, economic growth, etc. It doesn't matter. Such an investigation is a great way to remind oneself that there is no theory-practice dichotomy, but the principle is that compulsory taxes violate the right to property - 'nough said.

@FeatherFall & Nicky

On second reading, my post was a little premature. It was not a direct response to either of your posts as much as it was an attempt to prevent the direction I thought the thread was taking (and has since taken with Kate's posts and responses to her).

My point is that the principled (and only meaningful or relevant) argument against gun control is that it violates rights. Discussing what-ifs and alternatives is fine, but cannot stand as an argument for or against gun control. When gun rights advocates argue at the statistical, anecdotal, or practical level, they concede to gun control advocates that there is no principled reason to protect 2nd amendment rights, and thereby make it an unfortunately typical pragmatic contest of who has the best statistics or the most shocking real-life story.

An analog would be arguing about taxation by showing that it negatively impacts the unemployment rate, economic growth, etc. It doesn't matter. Such an investigation is a great way to remind oneself that there is no theory-practice dichotomy, but the principle is that compulsory taxes violate the right to property - 'nough said.

"Defining and sanctioning" does not mean "limiting." Rights don't limit freedoms. The right to liberty utterly sanctions freedom of action. What limits my moral and legal freedom of action is not my rights, but others' rights. Rights don't limit my action, they tell other people what I am free to do - they limit what others can do to me. You don't have the right to pee on others' property because of their right to property.

On the contrary, I find that studying how she puts to use in later chapters the scaffolding she erects in the first chapter helps to understand it. Also, plowing through the book one chapter at a time means not reading the dialectic in the appendix when it would be most helpful.

The military has no coherent ethical system, its no wonder that things like this happen.

My house is shaking right now (yes, over 24 hours after the quake). We only had one thing fall at the house, and it wasn't attached to the wall. I was at work when it hit and I can tell you the concrete felt like the deck of a ship in rough seas. Our helicopters looked like bouncing low-riders. The most notable aspect of the quake to me was its duration. I've felt a handful of quakes in Japan, none of which lasted more than 20-30 seconds. Yesterday's quake had to have been at least 2 full minutes.

Some of the guys in my squadron have delivered supplies to the worst areas. They say it looks as bad as the media coverage. The good/bad news is that they didn't see any survivors in need of rescue. I hope this is because Japan has an excellent infrastructure for communication and evacuation, but some news reports say otherwise. I know the major highway running out of Tokyo was shutdown within a few hours, presumably to serve as an evacuation route if necessary. I flew past Yokohama and the southern portion of the Tokyo Bay today - I think the peninsula on the East side of the bay protected Tokyo/Yokohama from the tsunami.

A small semantic point...


underline mine


Biddle made it clear that he is judging Peikoff's specific act as unjust. He is not attacking Peikoff's reputation, nor denying the importance or validity of Peikoff's work. In fact, as you quoted, he acknowledges Peikoff as his second-greatest intellectual/professional inspiration.

A small semantic point...


underline mine


Biddle made it clear that he is judging Peikoff's specific act as unjust. He is not attacking Peikoff's reputation, nor denying the importance or validity of Peikoff's work. In fact, as you quoted, he acknowledges Peikoff as his second-greatest intellectual/professional inspiration.

I just want to clarify that neither Einstein nor his equations reify space. Later interpreters and people trying to dumb it down for laymen (Brian Greene, et al.) have reified space.

Here's a relevant quote:

Italics original
I think that's the third time I've posted that quote to this forum, but it's a point I like to make. The math is solid, even if some attempts at physical intrepretation are faulty.