Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


StrictlyLogical last won the day on January 16

StrictlyLogical had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About StrictlyLogical

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

12801 profile views
  1. walling people into their own property

    You cant build a cage around a person or their car or their house or their property whether made of iron bars or real estate, and claim they have not the right to escape it, or enjoy the use of what is theirs... to come and go and access their property as they see fit.. they and their property do not become yours by virtue of your "surrounding" them or their property with your private material, (real estate or iron bars). This is not a principle of public law or public access, but of private rights... their private rights to their freedom and property. Courts long ago have resolved such matters wrt real estate (long before Marxism or public rights theories) with easements and rights of way etc.
  2. Jumping into the fray

    In reply to your personal note: Your light and your life are your own. Brush aside the impotent darkness, seek other light. Find souls of measure with yourself, and when none travel with you, find solace and joy in the light and life that are yours alone.
  3. Are contradictions meaningful

    I've often thought about what people normally take false to mean. At face value "false" had seemed self evident. After a few decades of chewing and understanding Objectivism, including such important topics as rationalism, the arbitrary, "nothing", evidence and the senses, and the analytic synthetic dichotomy... "false" takes on new importance, in the form of its sheer impotence. Statements are not the same as gibberish. skdjfh skdjfh khsdj fskdjfh skdj Is no less meaningless than "That blue dog is a red cat" Neither has any possible referent. One (the latter) misleads one into thinking perhaps it will mean something, but its self negation resolves to sheer nothing. It is no more meaningful than utter silence, i.e. no statement whatever. It matters no more to the content of the "proposed statement" whether A) the words do not form a statement OR B ) the letters do not form words. With this in mind observe, for something to be "true" it must be a something, which could qualify as true. In the case of a statement, it must first be a statement. Evaluation as true then requires evidence to validate the statement. Your question essentially asks, is there the same requirement for falsehood? Must something you claim is "false" have to be something which "could have" been true in reality. Must that which is "false" be potentially meaningful? Now, you probably agree "John killed Mary" is false if John in reality did not kill Mary. The referents, John, Mary, and the relationship "killed" are all meaningful, AND moreover evidence of reality is such that it is not true. Now consider "dkjfhs kd kjhs ldfkjh", "", or "That blue dog is a red cat with a dfjdfhsj on its dlkjfh skj" EACH of these is not a statement, EACH is also NOT true, in fact each cannot be true because there is nothing to evaluate as true with reference to reality. Now we could attach a special label to these as some kind of "null" or meaningless, gibberings, but why bother? I tend to see what is essential about the idea of truth and falsity, is the distinction between truth and non-truth, which is the evaluation against reality, not the form of the thing being evaluated. "fkdjhfsk j" lacks truth. Therefore it is to be ignored and dismissed. Floating abstractions, the arbitrary, and statements which are in fact contradictions but not on their face (i.e. you cant tell just by analyzing the words superficially) all lack truth, they do not contain reveal or convey truth. I would also contend that they are false even though they are in fact meaningless. A zero is a zero, the nature of the zero is not important. So the "Boobob is a dead dog who is living" is false (if you don't like the word, simply refer to it as "not true") and although it is also meaningless gibberish such is inconsequential and insignificant in the face of the more important fact that it simply is not true.
  4. The Anti-Concept of Anti-Reference; Paradox

    How would floating concepts be defined in your framework of C's and r's? What about that which is meaningless or incoherent or nonsensical? Does "r" need to be "real", or can it be "imaginary"? Can "r" and or "c" be incoherent or meaningless or nonsensical?
  5. BitCoin

    Let me restate so as to clarify my meaning. The damage courts can do to individuals and their lives is markedly different in the following classes of systems while they are actively and currently operating: 1. An improper system in which altruism collectivism and statism runs rampant as philosophical motivations and bases for all forms of justice, which system also happens to have ANY monetary system (free or centrally planned) 2 A mixed improper system in which proper ethics and politics the noninitiation of harm and trader principles and individual rights proper are the strong philosophical motivations and bases for all forms of justice, which also happens to (presently have) a fiat money system which is used for compensation damages or restitution. This does not mean 2 is actually proper. Nor that 1 or 2 could last Indefinitely.
  6. BitCoin

    I think the development of tort law and contract law are more subject to improper ethics and politics than any kind of danger ideas surrounding a fiat monetary system could ever cause. If the law itself as developed by an improper government is flawed eg monetary damages too high or too low, the monetary system is likely not to blame.
  7. BitCoin

    Then money as such is not something to be dictated by government, but being central to most exchanges and contracts, must be an aspect and important consideration of the body of law regarding "collisions" and dealings between people, i.e. torts and contract etc. (monetary damages being part of tort law and almost every contract involves exchange) which the judiciary of a proper government would be responsible for developing in accordance with correct principles.
  8. BitCoin

    Does anyone know if Rand thought government should create and legislate currency? i.e. force a particular monetary standard of exchange?
  9. The Snowflake Conjecture

    A snowflake's form, is its identity as a type of (pun intended) frozen history. Starting from a similar nucleus, which in fact are often themselves different, each snowflake as it falls and swirls about encounters different temperatures, pressures, humidities, in different orders and for different times at various magnitudes and combinations and with varying asymmetry or gradients versus homogeneities, and this happens as it makes it entire journey. What it encounters directly affects and is frozen in what it becomes. As such a single flake's identity in form corresponds to its identity in past history. To be sure, some snowflakes will be nondescript enough and have seen boring enough of a history such that many will look very similar (degenerate cases) but given how varied and chaotic each flakes history will normally have been (given standard chaotic and active weather systems) it is no surprise they will normally appear quite different from each other. To my mind how a flake even appears is not as interesting as pondering how unique and different each ones journey must have been, even if we cannot see it in their faces, so to speak. To be sure in actuality no two snowflakes are exactly the same. The sheer number of molecules involved and the different historical permutations are simply staggering. Edit: read the science article after my post... interesting stats!
  10. The Law of Identity

    A few random observations: Identifying oneself as other than what one is, IS clearly an error. Identifying oneself as other than what one is BECAUSE of what others tell you about the nature of identity and the limits on the possibilities and actualities of being... how you should act or feel and how these are purportedly linked to what you are and the limited categories THEY supply you... is a second hand inherited error. Identifying, as important about WHAT oneself is, that which is unimportant, is an error. Identifying, as important about WHAT oneself is, with what others tell you or influence you to believe is important (but which actually is not but for your being influenced by their judgments), is a second hand inherited error. Understanding what one can change (and what one cannot) and knowing introspectively whether it would make one happy to ACT to make such changes is no error, it is crucial to all flourishing and the basis of all moral action. A few short concluding observations: Identity is objective. Changes are possible. Changes transform identity. Understanding introspectively what is important to one's own happiness and acting (consistent with survival qua man) to cause change accordingly IS moral.
  11. The Speech Police in Canada

    Wilfred Laurier University is a disgrace. They are likely not very different, however, from many other universities. The entire inquisition is a joke, Bill C-16 is about discrimination... you don't need to be a lawyer, in fact you need only half a brain to realize nothing on the original debate nor in the presentation of the debate in class constitutes discrimination in any form. Complete intellectual FAIL by administrators of a supposed intellectual institution.
  12. The Law of Identity

    South Park character serves as eloquent spokesperson for "transpecies" persons:
  13. To Patrik 7-2321 Rather than attempt to add to a "collective thought" to be gleaned from a combination of the above and my thoughts, I have opted to respond directly to the OP and Patrik with my thoughts. All things are what they are regardless of what people call them, i.e. regardless of what words and concepts they allege refer to those things. There will always exist people who think things are not what they are, and there will always be people who call things what they are not... and finally in the smallest category will be some people who will do the work and be careful enough to see things for what they are and also to call them what they are accordingly. AI is "artificial intelligence". Insofar as one remembers what "artifice" and "artificial" mean, the term is correct in the context of current and near future technology. Anthropomorphizing of machines of any kind (toys, mannequins, medical models, computers etc.) in everyday language is perfectly normal, after all. A toy man is a "toy man" in common parlance... however, far from being a kind of "man" .. i.e. a toy"ish" man, or a man with the property or attribute of "toy"ness ... in actuality "toy man" is a "toy in the shape of a man" and not any kind of man whatever. A toy man has hands which do not grasp and eyes which do not see... as such they are not actually hands or eyes at all (although they represent them or look like them). A computer is configured to act on signals and media in a manner which produces different signals or media, it transforms input to output, in such a manner (we have configured it so) so as to imbue the output with something meaningful to us, information. WE transform information by thinking, and store and recall it with memory, it is perfectly natural to use words like "memory" and "thinking" to characterize what computers do which remind us of what we do. Nothing about how these machines do what they do to what they do it to is sufficiently similar to (in the ways that matter ... which we have yet to discover) what the mind does that there would be ANY justification for calling them the same thing. A human mind, however, is natural and as a natural system it has identity, and it is configured and functions accordingly. A similar natural system, which in the ways which matter, is configured and functions in a manner similar enough to a human mind would be "conscious". But until there is a science of consciousness which fully understands exactly what kinds of natural systems, their configurations and functions are conscious rather than simply being and functioning without consciousness, and WHY, we could never hope to design a conscious system, let alone objectively and scientifically evaluate whether the thing created is conscious. Of course to properly understand complex systems on the verge of consciousness we would need some way to experiment, and well fully developed human brains are not accessible... experimentation may be too dangerous. Animals however are, and combined with computer monitoring and simulations and integrated cybernetic systems, we could do the tinkering necessary for experimental investigation which is required for scientific inquiry. It may be that like a complex process of a weather pattern we discover that in the conscious mind some nonlocal system wide process which is self-patterning or self-reinforcing is the signature of consciousness... but this is mere speculation. Bottom line is that computers (as we know them) will be necessary in the investigation of mind, but the minds and principles of mind we finally identify will not be the same as the machines of today. Manufactured Intelligence (MI) (as distinguished from AI) is not something which we are close to creating, however, as the science of mind progresses, I have no doubt that it will be solved. If not 1 hundred years from now, most likely within 1000 years from now.
  14. You show me a playing card in your hand, which card it is you are unaware of. You make two statements: "This card is suited red." and then 10 seconds later "This card is suited black" One statement is true. Is the statement which is true "tautological" in form? Is the statement which is false, not "tautological" in "form"? What does it mean for a statement to be tautological in form? How is the "form" of a statement distinguished from its status as true or false? Is the assessment of "tautological" form (or no tautological form) of a statement identical with a statement's status as true (or false)? Edit: (Follow up) What is the difference between a concept and a proper noun? Is "this card" an identification of a concrete instance which is conceptual or an identification of a concrete instance which is more akin to a proper noun?
  15. Thankgiving

    We all know how awkward Thanksgiving can be at that moment when some family member asks all to state what they are "thankful" for. Particularly if you want to be completely honest and you are somewhat suspect of what others might consider "thankfulness" to be. While regretfully awaiting your turn... and after having counted the number of people in the "round the table" queue, you begin to ponder: Thankful to whom and for what? For that matter what does it mean to be "full" of thanks? What are these "thanks" you are full of? Are these left over pleasantries that you've gathered up like obligations and IOUs: there's that nice summer day I should have thanked the universe for, oh and that old guy kept the door open for me I should have said something to him, and the grocer lowered her price on bread which I really like I should have given her an innocent pat on the back, oh and my employees, clients/customers, and employer all rationally pursued their self-interest generating economic value all around, which is ALL good... I should have really said something to all of them (over and above eagerly and professionally participating in the value generating interactions themselves??...). A pile of pleasantries indeed... Then again, without a doubt I am proud, proud of myself and my accomplishments, and the bounty of my metaphorical harvests (which do not necessarily coincide with autumn), and proud of my family and friends, for what they have accomplished, who they are, and for the fact that they are my family and friends and that we have made strides and grown together. Without a doubt I am appreciative, appreciative of reality and of many others and their actions, appreciative in the sense that I fully recognize and treat rationally and with justice all that I deal with. And upon a reflection I realize that I already do generally try to exercise justice on a day to day basis, which requires that in every interaction just values in both matter and in spirit are exchanged, but that I could do better... So what is thanksgiving really? Is it a pile of pleasant IOUs to be balanced through a cosmic confessional around a dead turkey or is it a celebration and a reflection on life and its bounty? I think it is more the latter than the former, but perhaps as a small tribute to both, Thankgiving can be seen as a recognition and a celebration of life and a reflection of all its bounty and also an opportunity to resolve to go forward consciously keeping all of it in perspective so that, day to day, in all our interactions, value is created with everyone we deal with, in both matter and spirit, while we all pursue the happiness and life that is ours for the making. Happy LifeCelebMaking! EDIT: So what do you say when finally your turn arrives? Without being too picky about what thankfulness IS (to whom?) and the little cognitive white lie of actually using the term in order to ignore the concept's "inadequacies", the story could proceed as follows: Finally, after your uncle quips something about being thankful for Scotch, with his disarmingly odd smile, and looks your way, you stand up, and raising your glass, you clear your throat, and smile thoughtfully, "To be honest, I'm 'thankful' for this moment in time, a moment to celebrate life and all its bounty, to say how proud I am of us and all of you and everything we and each of us has accomplished and become, and I'm 'thankful' for the opportunity to reflect and resolve to go forward pursuing the happiness and the life that is all, each of ours for the making, and it is you, all of you, I 'thank' for being here, all together, for making this moment and opportunity possible. Thank you!"