Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    4916
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Eiuol last won the day on November 18

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

22280 profile views
  1. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    "Racist" describes your position, that is, advocating for specifically judging people based on their race rather than their individual characteristics, specifically for perceived threat and destabilization of your country. You were telling me about immigration policies you want in reference to race, you didn't mention anything about, say, only allowing people with a certain IQ to become citizens or immigrate (although wrong, not racist). Moreover, this isn't an implication of what you're saying, it is what you're saying, you seem to just want a nice word without the connotations. If you think it is offensive because it is inaccurate, and you don't want to judge people collectively according to their race, you should fix what you're saying about immigration. Otherwise, you should own up to the most accurate label you can, even if it is distasteful.
  2. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Ah, by now it's safe to just say you're a racist, plain and simple. I think all I can say now is I hope you interact with more varieties of people, because I don't think persuasive argument will change your mind anymore.
  3. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Then why do you go on about IQ differences and "moral implications"? If you simply will let it go and allow people to live according to their free will, there couldn't be any implication. People who are less smart than me, I don't treat them as morally inferior, it really doesn't matter, because sometimes they can do things even better than me, and still share similar moral values sometimes. I mean, I think you're wrong to think that homogenous society is the inevitable result of free association, I think heterogeneous society is what happens when you allow people to live according to their own values. But if that's only difference, I have no beef with your political position. And what does your position on immigration have to do with race? If your issue is somebody entering the country illegally, that has nothing to do with race. That's an issue of law, that applies to all individuals, regardless of race.
  4. You didn't say things perceived, you said everything. A daydream for instance doesn't exist independent of your consciousness, and it is affected by your consciousness directly. It can change form based on nothing else but your thinking. There may be some constraints in terms of where the idea originates, but the daydream itself doesn't exist on its own. You could come up with a theory that a daydream exists independently of your consciousness if consciousness is merely a vessel that holds it (even if it can operate on and introspect on the daydream), but such a theory would go against Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics. You're right, it doesn't have to deny consciousness. But it certainly denies that your identification is created by consciousness. You're essentially saying that the identification, in effect, already exists, even before your act of identification. Objectivism has us actively create content in our mind, especially for concept formation. You form a concept in part by creating a relationship, we can even put together relationships with no bearing on reality. You could argue that this content comes in automatically as it is, and reasoning about it can go wrong, but Rand explicitly argues against the idea that conceptual content comes in passively and unaltered by our thinking. If that doesn't convince you, it might help to think of it this way: can there be such a thing as an unconscious concept? I'd say now it's only a contradiction in terms of Objectivist premises.
  5. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    That actually only means that I think the differences are insignificant, or that it's not measuring what you think it measures. This is only further a problem when the category of race is not even a concept used for genetic analysis. It has so many conceptual problems that you won't be able to make conclusions. And even if I assumed you are correct on this, why would the moral implications even bother me? There are in fact no new moral implications if that were the case, because all my ideas about individual rights and individualism and standing against "collective unity" don't depend on IQ or any genetic differences that all for that matter. Do you mean you think black people should be deported from the US? Are your "moral implications" that east Asian people should be kept out so whites don't feel inferior? Should black people be banned from medical school? What about people who are half black - what do you do with them? Should we call Thanos and make half of the nonwhites in the US disappear with a snap of the finger?
  6. 1 is an error. If everything is independent of a person's perception, then your own knowledge is independent of your own experience, and knowledge is independent of consciousness. It would also deny consciousness at all, because identifying something through consciousness depends on consciousness. The whole point seems contradictory. An identification here, as an existent, is only occurring because consciousness provides the means to do so.
  7. Eiuol

    Metaphysics of Consciousness

    Are you a panpsychist then? Is the view you're talking about really any different than supposing that God's consciousness, being the creator, suffuses everything? I'm trying to get a clear picture on the position you're arguing for so I don't misunderstand it.
  8. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    A: Sounds like an undergraduate presentation. Has a little bit of science, but mostly comes across as an op-ed piece. It's mostly an appeal to racism with the guise of science (i.e. lacks scientific expertise or qualification to talk about the complexities of the statistics). B: I don't know why you linked this, it isn't evidence of your arguments and makes me inclined to think that you would rather use shortcuts of reasoning. I think Molyneux is a hack, even if he might say something interesting sometimes, so I don't think it's worth evaluating the quality of your argument against him.
  9. Eiuol

    Metaphysics of Consciousness

    How would you answer this? Would your answer be anything like you wrote about in the OP?
  10. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I don't think a direct case is possible, because I think the race realist argument can only be defeated by a multi-perspective approach. That is, it's an entire epistemological argument where conceptually, the concepts just don't hold up. Statistically and theoretically, it doesn't hold up, but only if I convince you that there are in fact better ways to think about all this. The books and people I recommended focus on cognitive psychology in a way that brings attention to highly complex and cognitive behavior. They bring more attention to the way thinking works, rather than only the outwardly visible behaviors. They don't make arguments like I am, because they don't address the questions you are asking me.
  11. Eiuol

    Metaphysics of Consciousness

    It was a while since I read the paper, but I think all he was saying is that a sufficiently high degree of complexity and intensity is necessary for consciousness, but not sufficient for consciousness. Not only does the complexity matter, but the relation of brain processes to each other also matters. This means that the direction information flows would matter, and the type of information it processes (mental content for instance). "Reverse" consciousness you describe is like a movie projector, where the information contained within is placed somewhere outside. Sure, it might be equally complex in either direction, but filming a movie is not just the opposite of projecting a movie onto a screen. It's a different process.
  12. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup This is a family tree or a genealogy, not race. Like the geneticists at Ancestry.
  13. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    But you don't understand, I'm saying that scientists, generally when discussing human behavior, don't study those things much because they don't matter a great deal. The argument isn't that "scientists do this by tradition", the argument is that scientists do these things because they've tried other things before. When scientists get a PhD, they are expected to refer and discuss previous studies to even get a dissertation approved. I'm not about to get into the entire history of psychology. Your speculations are not enough. It's fine to discuss various possible biases of scientists, but you haven't provided reasons to think that something important is being actively ignored, as if you have the expertise to rely on common sense. We were talking about how people try to generally explain behavior, and genetics is not a primary means to do that, but it is a relevant factor to a degree. I'm sorry for imprecision in my wording, the main point is that while genetics tell you something, it's limited and not studied for developmental cognitive psychology (perhaps there are a few, but they aren't groundbreaking studies). It's not that helpful for thinking about human behavior which is almost all cognitive. So, generally, scientists aren't going to study it. (I didn't say never study.) If you eliminate the presumptions that IQ is highly causally connected to one's race in terms of genetics (keeping in mind what I said way earlier about why IQ would be explained more by genetics when they are much older), I'm fine with much of what you wrote in this paragraph related to abstract thinking, but not about freedom or individual rights. They aren't particularly complex concepts, compared to concepts in calculus or particle physics. The scientific process depends on the individual scientists, so you can't really rely on the process of science in whole more than the individual scientists. Well, do you mean that in sum, scientists collaborating and discussing can help deal with individual scientists who might be biased or do bad science? I'm not sure if that helps either, because I'd say people are even more inclined to be biased in group settings. So, I would say individual scientists are the most important - if you're going to trust a given scientific field, you need to trust specific scientists. Good science flows from them (and bad science stems from bad scientists) Anyway, along those lines a specific scientists, I'll tell you more about the science of developmental psychology. Books that is. I think we've reached an impasse here. But, I do think you're reasonable enough to explore my book suggestions. I'll also mention some scientists by name, not those I necessarily agree with, names to think about. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi Dean Simonton Susan Carey this book: https://www.amazon.com/Organization-Learning-Development-Conceptual-Change/dp/026257098X Robert Sternberg It's reckless and silly to not divide up the numerous kinds of white societies. There are so many that the term white basically doesn't mean a thing. Southern Europe and northern Europe are very different, and I would argue that northern European civilizations are objectively worse than any other "white" groups. They didn't come up with Roman society. The careless use of the term white ruins any potential argument you might have for genetics, because it discredits how careful your reasoning is. * Just to add, this isn't really true. Some of them thought that, others didn't. Jefferson did that. Hamilton didn't. The better founding fathers actually referred to Roman law and British law practices more than anything. And yeah, I'm saying Jefferson is not one of the better founding fathers.
  14. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I'm not disputing that, but that seems to be the primary basis for all of your skepticism. If claims I've made don't conform very well to your claims, you been bringing up that scientists are just being biased. They do study genetics and behavior, it happens, particularly with personality, but is not remotely a big deal as you think it is. For instance, is definitely studied when examining schizophrenia or other mental disorders. Sometimes genetics can make one more inclined to behave a certain way (e.g., your sensitivity to alcohol, which is genetic, can contribute to you becoming an alcoholic), but at least with these, scientists start by studying rats, and have a proposed biological construct to study (e.g., certain chemicals and their impact on neurotransmitters). IQ is not such a construct. You could make arguments for simple behaviors and genetics, which is why we can use rats. As far as advanced cognitive abilities, genetics does not do enough work. The concept "race" does even less work. So, it's more precise to say that genetics is studied when people know very specific biological constructs or psychological constructs. Broadly speaking, it's not very important. "Important" depends on the scientist, I'm using important to convey understand human behavior in a general way. But for complete understanding, it has value. But -race- isn't going to be used for genetic studies. How do I know it's the real reason? Because I study this stuff. Because I studied psychology a lot. Because I'm expected to know these sort of things. I know this might sound like an appeal to authority, is more like an appeal to trust. Clearly, if you have no/low trust in scientists, anything I say won't matter. Are you genuinely interested in reading about developmental psychology? If so, I will mention some books. I dispute that in exactly the same way. To be clear, I'm not saying there are no behavioral differences, I'm saying the behavioral differences are not accounted for by things like brain or hormonal differences. There are precise and narrow differences you might be able to find (I usually dispute those studies, for good reasons I don't want to get into right now, but I grant that there are potential hypotheses where there are biological differences that account for some behaviors). But by and large, it doesn't help much. Differences are not as profound as you might think.
  15. Eiuol

    Grieving the loss of God

    Any and all personal loss is psychological, so it is kind of a stolen concept to say that rejecting God is a loss when the whole point of rejecting God is to say that God is no longer a value. If you feel a loss, it means you haven't rejected God, because you feel a hole, that something is gone, that a value will never return because it has been destroyed. In other words, the person who grieves the loss of God still believes in God. Sure, it's interesting to see how people would adapt to the situation, or perhaps the loss of friends and family depending on your background. But we should avoid the idea that atheists somehow "lose" something when they reject God. The best thing a person can do if they feel loss is to understand that they never didn't lose anything. Nothing is gone, no one died, reality is the same. The people who still believe aren't liars. They are simply people who have not understood yet. By accepting these things, the sense of loss disappears.
×