Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Mikee

Regulars
  • Content count

    224
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About Mikee

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 06/14/83

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location New Zealand

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

4900 profile views
  1. On the question of how to define privilege, I regard it as a motte-and-bailey doctrine: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-doctrines/ OTOH, I think the 'modern' concept of privilege is a little bit like relativity. It works well at the macro level where it provides a convenient shorthand for looking at the collective experience of entire populations or large subsets of populations. However it breaks down at the quantum level.
  2. I do see conscious measurements as a reality, but what matters for measurements conscious or not, is not variability but accuracy. The best way to explain what I am drawing from would be to measure the length of the top of your computer monitor with a standard measuring tape. The potentials are present on the tape, far beyond what you would actually need for measuring the length of your monitor. And the potentials aren't relevant, because we don't measure with potentials in and of themselves, in mind. Potentials really lose value once they appear to lead to worse measurements of the length of the monitor. Potentials that lead to a possibly better measurement of your monitor length still may have value though. That is an example of the point of "ends being mistaken for means", accuracy the end and variability being the means. I just don't see the freeness in the potentials as legitimate. I don't consider freeness, when I use a measuring device of any kind, with that not being the focus. The potentials just account for the unknown range of outcomes that can't be ascertained pre-measurement, rather than an enabling of freeness.
  3. My feeling about it is we are driven to obscure data because of bad data we got that makes us see obscuring as the action to take. It simply boils down to every chance for a choice creates a singular measurment, not mutliple. Just like every other type of measurement leads to a single measurement in regard to the focus. Everytime there is an option for anything, the way I see this, there is a chance that there will be a misperception that will lead to a miscalculation. Alcoholism for example, evidences that kind of measurement even against what we would imagine is a will. In other words the only way to obscure measurement that is happening, is to measure and identify value in doing that, and then taking that course of action. And the more you know you are just measuring the less prone you will be to using your own system in such a backwards way. That is more of the principle of CBT, in enhancing your rationality and self-awareness, and thus increasing your ability to make better choices and have both better relationships and mental health. Though cognitive behaviorists usually still believe in free will. But I see it as mistaking a means for an end.
  4. I'd like to play devil's advocate for this one so here goes: It simply boils down to choice being nothing more than the outcome of mere measurement. The point of measurement is to get closer to right or accuracy. Therefore if we are measuring, then we are just trying to be as accurate as we can be and that is what actually matters. The point is not to have options. Options are as irrelevant is the ability to have a ton of other less accurate measurements. I contend the problem that keeps people from seeing it clearly is all the assumptions that get in the way because people are still looking at it wrong for the most part. And the questions that arise as a result of how that doesn't fit with how we conceptualize and experience reality are many, because we built our conceptual framework to assimilate (Piaget assimilation vs accomodation) our notion of free will. By and large, I see it as choice is seen as valuable and important for its ability to give the best chance at getting things right, because the person most affected by the choice can often see possibilities and risks that others would not, and we could describe that the same way that we do for people who are "out of touch" with a social class, ect. So we value our ability to make choices, because the alternative is of high risk to not only our safety, but also our chance at getting the best. And safety isn't always part of that. We value what is right over what keeps us safe. That is why we can socially shame people into not being cowards in battle, and socially reward people into dying for their comrades, or for their faith.
  5. what do you think of this: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hrolston/Intrinsic-Value-Iceland.pdf
  6. Ok here is one of the papers. I appreciate all the critiques it can get https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7n17lxa8o9gqg1/Lammerts-OrganicPlantBreed-CropSci-2003.pdf?dl=0
  7. I just want to improve my understanding of the concept better.
  8. well my question is: how does the integrity approach demonstrate the presence of intrinsic value? It seems to talk about some intrinsic attributes/qualities but how would you demonstrate a value from such existent attributes? "The intrinsic value of plants is a reflection of their integrity at different levels" pg 92.
  9. anyone want to have a stab at the article i uploaded
  10. I'd like to ask for the member's opinions or more accurately critiques of this attached paper that discusses the framework for organic agriculture. Particularly the section on the integrity approach. 80.pdf
  11. The wrongly aggrieved farmer has yet to surface.
  12. needless cruelty for useless information.
  13. well even those were thought to be problematic by Popper, no?
  14. Can definitions be regarded as tautologies?
  15. Do you still ascribe to this hypothesis? My view is the same as the one Hobbes mentioned in his 1651 book, that intuition is normal thought speeded up rather than abnormal or distinctly different alien thought of some distinct sort. It is merely faster, that is all. As any Chess player knows, the more time we have to think, the less likely we are to err. That is why we play Chess by the clock. Almost anyone will play way better if allowed to take as much time as they need over making a move in Chess. But we do not thereby use a different sort of thought when we think things over slowly.