Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

StrictlyLogical

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2035
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    116

Everything posted by StrictlyLogical

  1. StrictlyLogical

    Which Eternity?

    Yes, that would invoke time where one argues it is absent: "becoming" presupposes change which is time. If there was a "first" and no before, that implies no change into "first" from anything... but this starts to sound like "first" always was... (not even caused by the causeless since cause is becoming is time)... is there a problem if time is relative, and a measure of change of things that are... the no change and no time are a sort of eternity... but it is only an asymptote towards no change (but never reaching it) is in a sense both endless and finite... (no change would literally mean no time... so an infinity of no change is no time at all...) I think the problem is trying to think of time in terms of time... I wish I could word it better... time cannot form its own definition, and as such it must be defined with reference to other things that do not remain the same... and the measure of the non-sameness defines time. I think in the end time is relative and is defined based on real processes of existents... and measure of time going backward should be with reference to those processes.
  2. StrictlyLogical

    Integration?

    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integration_(mental).html
  3. StrictlyLogical

    Integration?

    see integration (mental) in the Ayn Rand Lexicon online
  4. StrictlyLogical

    Integration?

    I believe your conundrum has been caused by your implicitly equating "subconscious" with "emotional". None of what you indicate represents a contradiction. Can you be more specific as to what has you confused? The DIM Hypothesis deals quite a bit with the subject, if you do not already own it, you should think about getting a copy (or borrowing one from a library).
  5. StrictlyLogical

    Good 2 Person Board Games

    My vote has to be for a game called Quarto The rules are simple but the gameplay is challenging. Board is a 4x4 grid and there are 16 pieces to play, each one of which is either tall or short, square or round, light or dark, flat or hollowed out on top. The player who places a piece to form a row of any of these "attributes" (all tall, or all dark, or all square or all flat topped) wins. The first player picks a piece for the second player to place, after the second player places his piece he picks from the remaining pieces, the piece for his opponent to place, and so on. Keeping track of all four aspects and how thy are forming opportunities on the board is a challenge but more tricky is the fact that at each turn, you pick a piece your opponent must place on the board... and hence you must guess where he could place it, and guess what piece he would give you for your next turn... etc So, Imagine something like 4 dimensional tic tac toe but all pieces are open to both players... and in the end someone wins when the loser literally hands the game away... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarto_(board_game
  6. StrictlyLogical

    Immigration restrictions

    Certainly!
  7. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Yes. Tourism, visits from relatives, extended stays work visas ... each can have rationally defined criteria and restrictions, and differential treatment from citizens given the context... I didn’t say it was simple... my point was that given the context, it is not simple... but not impossible to manage.
  8. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Sigh... in the context of our discussion I was defining immigration with the kind which confers citizenship... not merely temporary status, tourism, work visas etc. i.e. one which confers rights to voting in the rulers, participating in government, law enforcement, etc I am trying to keep It civil and I maintain the above assumption I made (right or wrong) in the context of this discussion to be obvious. Blanket support for something which might be construed as support for evil is ineffective and immoral, THIS is why I provided reasons. Note also that so to, blanket support for something which is in part evil, is ineffective and immoral. The point of restrictions (as I had intended them to be understood) are to identify the kinds of people eligible to participate fully in the country including voting in the rulers, participating in government, law enforcement, etc. I appreciate your seeing the thrust of my reasons, however the following smacks of ad hominem... There is an answer to the issue of citizenship and its intersection with immigration, and it is not blindness, nor is it irrational racism, groupizm, tribalism, nationalism, or collectivism of ANY kind. If I have not SUFFICIENTLY COMMUNICATED this or IF it is objectively incorrect, I apologize.
  9. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    To summarize, immigration is not simply a process whereby some disconnected individual becomes your neighbor, and a benign participant in a free market, whom you are free to avoid or befriend, in the CURRENT CONTEXT of a mixed economy "democracy' (with some lip service to a constitution), every immigrant you invite is a person who shall literally wield partial power to RULE over you. To IGNORE what kind of people you let in is to BLINDLY invite unknown Rules by unknown RULERS, and the creation of an unknown state to which you shall be beholden... at your peril, and very possibly to the detriment of your long range flourishing. Given the current context, choosing whom to accept as immigrants seems quite rational.
  10. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Is it right to deny an immigrant entry, if it can be shown they are against capitalism and would vote in an election to put in place "government" officials who would greatly reduce and/or abolish capitalism from the country in which you live? By what standard? Your flourishing. Seems like your flourishing depends upon capitalism... and if it does not exist now... depends upon moving toward (rather than way from) capitalism... but then your flourishing also depends upon equal application of proper laws as well... but then if there exists improper laws currently (with perhaps few proper ones), is equal application of the current law in your long term interests for flourishing? Then again does ANYONE have the "right" to vote for erosion of your freedoms (better put... your continual enslavement to your "brother")... does the "right" to "vote" convey the right to put in place ANY system of governance and ANY set of "laws" (like those of a mixed economy which are unjust, immoral, and inimical to life)? Is your long term self-interest served by sanctioning the "right" of the Federal Communist party to get government funding (your tax money) to ACT in ways which erode freedom and capitalism? I'm trying to understand your perspective in this context, of rational self interest and the fact that you can either act towards the proper political system, laissez-faire capitalism in a Constitutional Republic where government role is only to protect individual rights, or against it. Of course not. Not quite. "Is it immoral to lie?" Don't forget CONTEXT. It is wrong to lie to obtain a value you have no right to, and it is right to lie to protect your values from one who has no right to it. "immigration" and "restrict immigration" ARE contextual. It can be moral for you to pursue restriction of immigration ... in context. Consider an individual is an avowed enemy of the west and has posted on the web an intention to commit an atrocity... now governments do not have "rights"... but certainly it has a proper role to protect you and your rights and hence bar entry to that person. Again... prevention of entry is not ALWAYS initiation of force nor NEVER initiation of force, it is contextual. Really??? Acting in accordance with proper morality implies your complete ignorance and tacit approval of the nature of the state in which you live? Sure. But what does liberty consist in? There are those who equate the right of free speech to the right to violate property rights (demonstrate) and right to restrict the free movement of others (block traffic)... does curtailing these actions constitute "initiation" of force?... Why? (or why not) Someone is running across the room towards you with an axe... can you make a peremtory strike... what about preventing a Gee Had ist from immigrating? What about a communist? What about someone who explicitly declared he wants to be a leech in the welfare state? Shall you encourage these on the basis of your long term flourishing ?? Nope. Nothing in this context warrants refusing the man entry. His freedom to work and produce can only increase your flourishing. The choices and the actions are not symmetrical in the same way withholding a benefit or a positive is not the same as delivering a harm or removing a positive. A bystander to a negative act he is not party to, is under no positive duty to intervene, whereas as actor being the author of the negative act is responsible for the harm or threat of harm. The absence of the person who would have provided a positive vote, or a positive influence on the society is under no obligation to do so and the intent or the act of withholding such a positive is NOT initiation of force... a person acting to violate your rights, EVEN only by acting to vote.. is no less responsible than a thug voting for his mob boss to target your estate next... Now... is it your self interest to kidnap a Communist next time there is a vote? Most certainly in context.. NO. Is it in your self interest to chat him up about your new book or engross him with a debate over Marx so that he forgets to vote... probably yes Is it in your self interest to support a new law (by referendum) outlawing communist parties running for office in a free country by voting for it... possibly, if the law was motivated by and couched according to proper principles...
  11. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    "Different ideologies" brings an interesting element ... and necessitates a very stark distinction. Moral action as it should be chosen by an individual trying to exert his or her PUNY influence in an improper society is in STARK contrast to what moral action as it should be chosen by an individual living in a proper society. Example: Contrast a society with pure direct rule by the majority government (referendums for anything and everything constitutes the "law") pure mob Democracy, versus a pure Rule of Law Constitutional Republic which has elections only for deciding who implements and objectively interprets the laws, a pure Republic. Persons of "different ideologies" can VOTE to wreck society in a mob rule Democracy but could not (assuming proper systems in place) vote to wreck the pure Republic. An individual's self-interest in the former is advanced by protecting a precarious and flawed system from anti-life ideologies which a person's vote represent, whereas a persons self-interest is advanced in the latter by having members engaged, as part of the free market, in life promoting productive work. In the first context, it is moral to support restraints in immigration (until such time that a proper society is set up), while in the second context it is moral to support free immigration. In the former context a person should vote for stringent immigration checks and criteria, while in the latter context a person should vote for fewer checks if any on immigration (perhaps only criminality). Another Example is the Welfare State... Certainly acting to dismantle the welfare state is moral, but so long as it exists, acting or advocating suppression of its invocation and use by anyone is moral... refusing entry of persons explicitly planning to use Welfare services are an example... Absent the welfare state, no such concern would exist. Moral action here too.... depends on context. As for emigration... clearly no Objectivist would support any restraints on a person's freedom to leave, unless they are trying to escape justice... they are trying to avoid private obligations or a prison sentence or fine...
  12. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Agreed. Objectivists recognize that in a free society there would no rational reason to bar any lower IQ group from entry... there simply is no proper ethical principle and no proper political principle which could motivate it. In fact, efficiently filling in the gaps and holes in the labor/service market left by the "high IQ" people's tendencies/preferences would lead to greater likelihood of each person's flourishing greater.
  13. StrictlyLogical

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    If they can own private property i.e. real estate, they have a right to exclude human from that defined geographical area... that is ... in a free society that recognizes individual rights of rational AI "individuals", (assuming they have those rights) That would be no different from the rights private property owners of today would have in a free society...
  14. StrictlyLogical

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    Sort of. The further point was that if one arbitrarily defines the first square as having sides of unit length, the length of a side of the second square is an irrational number whereas if one arbitrarily defines the second square as having sides of unit length, the length of a side of the first square is an irrational number. My meanderings about incommensurables are just ponderings likely not valid ... nice blog posts about Cantor.
  15. StrictlyLogical

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    Wouldn’t that depend on the mathematician? Consider two intersecting squares which share two points as a common corner, the first square oriented at 45 degrees relative to the second square (as rotated about that point), the first square having a side spanning opposite corners of the second square... i. e. the first square has a side coincident with the “diagonal” of the second square. Consider whether the length of a side of the first square differs in kind from the length of a side of the second square and whether a written magnitude expressing those lengths differs in kind. Observe we can arbitrarily assign a unit of length to be equal to the length of a side of the first square or arbitrarily assign a unit length to be equal to the length of a side of the second square. Thoughts?
  16. StrictlyLogical

    Correspondence and Coherence blog

    2/7 expressed in an arbitrary “math writing” system, such as base-7 would be finite... Does this say anything about actual quantities in reality or more about how we express them? For example are curved lengths in reality somehow incommensurate (not technically correct but I cant think of a better word) with straight lengths or is it merely a consequence of “expression” Sorry I’m being quite vague and reaching ... it’s a sense I’ve had for quite some time now. The quantities Rational and irrational numbers designate are not different in kind but our attempts at designation (manner, base number system etc) do differ in effectiveness.
  17. StrictlyLogical

    Grieving the loss of God

    Well, this is interesting... technically speaking the “loss” of investment was ongoing... its discovery is much delayed and thus can be quite shocking if many years and much effort, thought, and feeling were wasted. I’m not well versed enough in psychology to judge whether discovery of loss of investment can possibly cause the emotion of grief. I usually associate grief as the process of coming to grips with a type of loss which is something more psychologically fundamental than a loss of investment... something loved or cherished .... but I don’t know... it’s an interesting dimension to consider.
  18. I'm no psychologist, but it is fairly common knowledge that grief is a natural part of life, if we conceive of it broadly as going through the process of psychologically dealing with loss. Loss is natural and ubiquitous if one is alive, growing, or changing... all the time one loses one's former self to become something new , something more (or different), a process of being is not static - it is a process of becoming. We transform from a dependent child to an adult, we learn to accept that Santa Claus is a fiction, as an adult we accept "the highschool years" as a part of our ever evolving lives and not its definition, and we must learn to make the transformation through old age and decline as well... These transformations and the subsequent introspections of the differences of self, require a process to fully deal with. We are aware that those who do not properly process these changes, as with those who do not properly process the death of a loved one, have psychologically unresolved issues... which can and will be problematic, until they are properly processed and there is closure and acceptance of the reality of that particular loss or change on a deep psychological level. One of the biggest psychological transformations a person can go through is to convert from an adherent of the religious/supernatural/mystical to a complete atheist. This is no trifle... it is a fundamental shift of a world view, indeed a view of the universe, all of existence, its relation to the self and the very definition of self also. Is anyone aware of any authority, academic, or psychologist who delved into, contemplated, and/or wrote substantively on the subject matter of the psychological process of Grief necessary for fully completing the transformation from religion to atheism in a psychologically healthy manner?
  19. StrictlyLogical

    What is "Appreciations" relationship to "Value"

    Apparently I need to reconsider the value of my time and the length of my posts...
  20. StrictlyLogical

    What is "Appreciations" relationship to "Value"

    This example is quite different from the first. Any assessment necessarily depends on who gave the person the money, and WHY? Was it part of a trade for spiritual value with a very close friend of loved one? Was it a gift to a wife who raised a billionaire's family, and although she did not directly earn it "out in the marketplace" , she surely earned it from the very hard work expended for the family... Was it simply charity given not for the virtue of the person but specifically for their vices (odd I know)? Let's move on to the first hypothetical (two variants... helicopter and climb) and assume that the person got to the top NOT as a result of any charity, i.e. ONLY because of their own effort. 1. Be careful not to set up a false alternative between appreciation and value. Values are objective, but appreciation itself can be a value. Moreover, and this is obvious, you can appreciate values. Much of the value in "being" at the top of a mountain IS "appreciating" being there. In fact, one could argue there is little to no value in the sheer act of locating oneself at the top of the mountain (for example blindfolded and comfortable in an environmentally controlled box), and most of the value is in virtue of the act of experiencing and appreciating being at the top of the mountain. "Appreciation" is both emotional and cognitive, it is a state of "awareness" of the full import of something, I would say, at all levels. (here I divest the appreciation from any mystical sense of "thankfulness" to the universe). The value of "appreciating" a loved one is of a different nature of the value of appreciating the dangers of mowing the lawn while sloshed, and it depends much on who you are, who your loved one is and what kind of lawnmower you have, so too, the kind of value IN appreciating being at the top of the mountain varies from person to person. 2. Although an assumed "goal" is not the same as the "means" of its "achievement", in reality, all of the consequences of the means are achieved, not just the goal. In this sense "how" you got there is a part of the "end results" which have real consequences psychologically, financially, physically, etc. Those consequences, might separately be values in their own right. Moreover, those separate values might also be appreciated. 3 Notice that your capacity to achieve values, whatever mental and/or physical skills, abilities, capabilities, expertise, etc. useful to achieve values, IS itself a crucial value. Interestingly, expending effort often increases your capacity to expend that kind of effort. The pursuit of values then, increasing your capacity to achieve values, ITSELF becomes a value. In such a case one can and should appreciate and be proud of the act of pursuing values. 4. Struggle, as such, is not a value, and should not be "appreciated" as a value. Achieving values sometimes require struggle, but they always require some effort to be spent. But choosing to slash one's finger off to use it as a paper weight rather than simply using a normal paper weight because its "not enough of a struggle" is simply wrong. Now, your capacity to achieve things despite struggling, or your capacity to endure through a struggle, THAT is a value, and that value should be appreciated. 5. Man and individual men have struggled with achieving values and maximizing his productivity, his capacity to achieve those values and to live. One should keep in mind that the value represented by the achievement of a helicopter ride represent a host of efforts and achievement and their trade among free men. The best brain surgeon in a hypothetically free country might work for months on a multitude of desperately ill very rich people to earn enough money to buy a helicopter and learn to fly it. Compared to a starving pioneer forced to make a several months journey through the mountains against his will, with the only moment to "appreciate" being at the highest point on the mountain, perhaps the brain surgeon's journey, starting with all the work he has done over all those years and then continuing into flying himself to a nice perch on the mountain, AND his appreciation of the place and how he got there are just as, if not more, sublime. To summarize: Values can be appreciated and appreciation can be a value. Results include the original intended goal along with all the consequences of how one achieved the intended goal. The capacity to achieve goals is a value itself, and the act of fortifying and increasing those capacities through the pursuit of values is itself a value and one to be appreciated. Struggle is not itself a value. The capacity to achieve despite struggle or enduring through struggle is a value. Men who achieve goals though different ways though their own effort, should appreciate themselves and how they got there, and that appreciation itself is a value. One's own efficacy in action is the currency of pride and appreciation of one's self - one's self-esteem - and that pride is part of the reward of every achievement.
  21. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    A single mind cannot be of two minds. An earth mind seeing and experiencing earthly things and a moon mind seeing and experiencing moonly things are not the same mind... The tech can either: 1. attempt to coordinate the minds, by rigidly causing them to coincide, but that would require one mind to trump the other, and one of the moon or the earth sights and experiences would be lost... this would require blocking all perception of one "copy" so that nothing from the dropped environment would contaminate the "one mind who are two"... this does not result in two simultaneous experiences. 2. attempt to "add" the minds by mashing the different minds into one... but placing two inputs where there is only one, activating two optical images.. requires now two sets of perceptual apparatus... and experiencing the two environments requires two upper brains to process what these two perceptual apparatus provide... no less than two actual minds would be required... for them to coordinated they would need to be exact copies of each other ... i.e. both minds would need to be in both places... this likely would no longer be a human or even a brain capable of any coherent experience... it would be a living dichotomy and would not be able to function.
  22. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    How do you propose to entangle an external particle (used for the purpose of making an entangled pair) with an "integral" particle from a living human being (which you wish to copy exactly) without affecting the quantum state of the "integral" particle in any way whatever?... and how do you intend to "transfer" that external particle without affecting its state or causing a premature "measurement" or "collapse" of the entangled state? And how can you "transfer" or "entangle" the entire POSITION state (in Hilbert space) of a first particle in a second particle which you then MOVE? Also how do you propose to entangle any one of the integral particles such that the entire QM state of that particle, position and momentum and spin etc. all of it can be copied exactly simultaneously without entanglements on any one property affecting any other property (at least until all of it is copied)? If you don't want to answer me, you can post your theories on www.physicsforums.com and get back to us...
  23. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    Except? I said as long as there is disassembly and reconstruction ... which means creating a copy ... and which also is not what merely transportation is.
  24. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    I do not believe the position of DonAthos depends on the details of transporter as long as there is disassembly and reconstruction even if the reconstruction succeeds in a perfect copy. The pop science you read about “transporting” particles via entanglement is a fanciful way, post Star Trek, to denote the nonlocal correlation of quantum states on collapse/measurement of the entangled pair of particles. Coordination or “remote correlation” would have been better terms and likely would have been used but for the pop culture and physicists’ apparent embrace of it.
  25. StrictlyLogical

    The Transporter Problem

    We are in substantial agreement about discontinuity of a person and death upon a certain kind of deconstruction. We also agree on reconstruction being crucial to the issue. If I daresay, perhaps the meaning and permanence of "death" itself... I'm still trying to draw my line... I keep being brought back to the idea that a mind is a pattern, like a wave, and that in some ways it is independent from which particular parts (those which are interchangeable) of its "substrate" give rise to it... a wave pattern on the water has no concern which molecules of water are participating , requiring only that there are water molecules, the wave pattern can move from area to area using "different water" but maintaining its presence. So in what sense does "not changing" in the ways that "rally matter" trump the actual metaphysical changes to the constituents that give rise to emergence? Does that sense require a sort of continuity in the emergent stuff, to justify an acceptance of the other changes to the constituents? I also am reminded by the fact that I literally am not the same materially and even mentally, as the person I was 25 years ago... this is natural, we change, we grow, we are always in the process of becoming. Metaphysically, in what sense am I the "same" person and in what sense has that younger person "died"... his life having gone out from existence.. and I now only remaining in his place? How much of my FPE has changed? Is a different FPE metaphysically the same FPE as long as there is continuity? I'm not conflating here the epistemological issue of conceptually identifying a changing thing with metaphysics, we CAN stand in the same river twice, but comparing the metaphysical significance of a thing such as FPE having gone through changes ... perhaps profound ones, with an FPE which has not changed. So in what sense does changing in fundamental ways nevertheless not matter, when considering continuity of an FPE? With the issue of freezing, you identify it as fundamentally sleeping and hence there are no issues with the temporary extinguishment of FPE as such... but is not the frozen person "dead"? Without begging the question and defining "death" simply as "that from which one may never be revived", what in PRINCIPLE is it about the cessation of the processes of life which we presume is different from cessation of any other process? Is it not true that our technological prowess is so primitive that we simply cannot "fix" a broken living system which has undergone irreparable damage? Is it not true that our tinkering simply actually "breaks" a living system when we try to "pause it" or "dismantle it"? Without invoking any mystical element to the natural world, is there any reason to suspect that we could not MASTER nature to the point that we could completely stop a living being temporarily ... or disassemble and reassemble it... causing in fact a temporary death (no process of life in action) without causing any irreparable damage. In such a world would not reanimation then be a form of resurrection? Not as an inexplicable fantasy but as just another particular scientific reality? My point, is that there is a near mystical aura surrounding the concept of death and when we "invoke" it, which needs to be kept in mind when speaking of objective reality. Back to the dead frozen person temporarily not exhibiting the FPE, who is fundamentally "sleeping": What if we partially deconstructed the dead frozen person.. taking a single natural constituent out and putting it back... but doing this for all of the natural constituents of the person? Would the non-emergent FPE dormant at the time, the FPE the person is not exhibiting... be harmed in any way? What if we partially deconstructed the dead frozen person.. taking half of the natural constituents out and after some time putting them all back... and then doing the same thing for the other half of natural constituents? Would the non-emergent FPE dormant at the time, the FPE the person is not exhibiting... be harmed in any way? What if we fully deconstructed the dead frozen person... taking each of the natural constituents one at a time... would the non-emergent FPE dormant at the time, the FPE the person is not exhibiting... be harmed in any way? What if we transported the natural constituents piece by piece while dead frozen? What if we reassembled them "exactly" using the exact same natural constituents of the person, each of which only underwent motion? What if we then thawed the now reassembled dead frozen person? Would they not wake up with the same FPE? I'm not saying I have the answers... but these are some of the questions....
×