Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rockefeller

Regulars
  • Posts

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rockefeller

  1. Randomness refers to a type of relationship between events belonging to a given set. If events are completely independent, we call it a perfectly random system. Randomness is a property assigned to the system, not the other way round. Randomness does not explain a behavior; randomness is a behavior. Varying cumulative-averages merely imply that successive events in a given system are not completely independent. The "dependence" may be non-trivial or subtle; but it has to result from an existential cause. Now, if you are trying to identify the type of (existential) "causes" that are responsible for drop in cumulative-averages in the systems that you studied, that would be OK. But it seems to me that you are unconcerned about existential causes. Rather, you attribute the behavior of the system to the method of study itself - the mathematics (you call it the "mathematical metacause" here and here). This is dangerously similar to the interpretations of quantum mechanics that ascribe observed uncertainty (behavior) to the act of observation (method) itself. Unsurprisingly, they too use almost the same words as you: "that is how nature works". Finally, I have some questions related to your approach. In case of the random walk, it is possible to "model" the system based on the existential nature of each individual event - probability, independence etc. It could be analytically proven that as the system size would increase, the distribution in this system would converge to a Gaussian. However, in case of your analysis, what is the proof that the systems are indeed governed by power laws? Since you don't say anything about the fundamental cause of change in cumulative averages, aren't you are basically curve-fitting?
  2. The title "Father" is associated more with the "profession" or identification, and very little with "respect". It's just like when you exclaim "Oh God", you are not endorsing the presence of Mr. Evasive. So, I would not consider "father" as a sanction of priest's position. You can actually try prefixing it with a swear word - I bet no one will notice the contradiction. Edit: I must add, however, that since you personally dislike using "father", it's OK if you use "Mr." My point is that it would not be immoral if you hear yourself saying "father".
  3. Great, that's very helpful. I think I will wait 5-6 hours more before voting. I don't think we have sufficient votes for both Juxtys and Marteen because Vestland has a lot of (total) voters. So, I might end up voting for whosoever among them is up in the tally.
  4. Thanks for pointing, but actually, I got that. Still couldn't resist quashing that rights-respecting highly industrial image of India so common in the West.
  5. Excuse me! I thought I was trying to prevent "clogging" by pointing out the relevance of this thread (to a detractor). I'll appreciate if you can pay more attention.
  6. Grill the person who told you so. I can testify about 7-hour daily power cuts in 115 degree Fahrenheit.
  7. These 'howevers' have no connection to your previous points, or my response to that. However(!), here is my response: 1. The OP as well as Jennifer were both concerned only about "common misconceptions" and not every instance of mis-integration by somebody somewhere. 2. Even if they "raise more questions", so what? That is not the point. The idea is to put common misconceptions for "easy reference" and clarification as OP and Jennifer suggest. 3. As far as I can tell, the "common misconceptions" have not changed much since the publication of Atlas Shrugged.
  8. I strongly disagree. 1. While Objectivists, by definition, do not have major misconceptions about Objectivism, many of them are very well acquainted with misconceptions afloat in media/culture. 2. It is irrelevant that non-Objectivists are not the primary focus on this forum. What matters is that doubts and misconceptions are frequently, if not primarily, addressed in several topics and debates. 3. There may not be many Objectivists interested in addressing the issue of misconceptions. But there are most certainly some, as evident in the previous thread 'Howard Roark' posted above. Those Objectivists who frequently debate or teach non-Objectivists are likely to find value in addressing this issue. 4. Misconception - [noun] a false or mistaken idea or belief. (Oxford Dictionary)
  9. CNBC actually made it sound like some thief stole a wallet. I am not aware of any story by CNN.
  10. Scary! Because in my research, I use air-sea data reanalyzed by a govt. research center. Scientists are claiming that the hackers themselves may have manipulated the content of the emails before releasing them on the internet. But it's 160 MB of emails - so it's hard to do it consistently, but still possible! Too bad, we have to rely on thieves for getting the truth out - I hope they are Ragners!
  11. Count me in Vestlandet. (eNick: DzzL)
  12. The original excerpt clearly says: "They own your work; they own you". You are right. Motivation and "being alive (happiness)" are certainly man's values. I am still confused about creativity, though. Shouldn't creativity be a virtue? After all anyone can exercise his creative faculty. The values gained by creativity are self-esteem and the products themselves. There is another problem I have with the excerpt. I think the author advocates independence in a materialist sense, and not in the sense of judgement or self-reliance.
  13. The excerpt reveals a misunderstanding of the trader principle. A trader recognizes the fact that an employer has a value to offer. He voluntarily trades his labor not because of "fear of having to sink or swim" on his own, but because he gains a value. So, it is wrong to say that he "should have a greater fear of what will happen" if he remains dependent. A rational man doesn't work for another man and is not "owned" by him either. That motivation, creativity and aliveness can be achieved by seeking ownership is an attempt to reverse the relationship between values and virtues. There is an implication that values are sought in order to gain virtues. p.s. I just read the excerpt, not the full article.
  14. Brownian motion? Although it's a paper on thermodynamics, it might have influenced Planck because it dealt with the idea of quanta. I'm trying to think whether (and how) it led to Planck's theory of black body radiation. That might be it's biggest influence.
  15. This will be my last response to CJM's posts. I think he (or she, but I'll use 'he' hereafter) is debating on terms I don't agree on. He is 'off' on so many (epistemological) issues that I think it will be a waste of my time to try and address each of his errors. When I first started responding, I erroneously assumed that he has at least a partial grasp of Objectivism. Also, I think there is a deliberate attempt on his part to befuddle the discussion. For example, consider the following: First, let me address the issue. It is meaningless to say that although our knowledge "seem" non-contradictory, it is not. It implies rejection of reason (and thus, logic). Because it is by means of reason one "sees" whether one's knowledge is contradictory or not. Now, let me point out the bigger issue. At first CJM didn't reject the idea that non-contradictory knowledge is attainable. But later, when he was pointed out that this contradicts with his notion of fallibility of the senses, he tried to have it both ways. He is very careful not to accept this contradiction openly. Instead, in his quote above, he is trying to smear up his previous (implicit) acceptance of non-contradictory knowledge. His (intellectually dishonest) manipulation can also be seen in the following: After I pointed him out that he is attacking a "straw man" because he misapplied Objectivist ethics, he is trying to play down his statements by calling them "just an interesting discussion". Of course, he still claims it is not a "straw man", while at the same time conceding that he was deriving "implications of Rands ethics". He is trying to have his cake and eat it too. The same is true in his following response: Observe another attack on a "straw man". I clearly pointed out to him earlier that a rational man will consider "how much he values" and "his evaluation of risk" while making a choice whether to fight for a (top) value or not. Ignoring that point, he still attacks the (never-mentioned) idea that a man must fight even if the odds are insurmountable. He thinks he can get away by making the discussion befuddled. This is evident by the following: My "rejection" was aimed at clearing up that false notion he had heard from someone else. He projected it as if that notion was the only thing hindering his acceptance of the fact that man's primary choice is life vs. death, and that all other value-judgments are secondary to that. Now he drops that entire context and claims that "[t]his rejection had nothing to do with that". He doesn't even attempt to look back and clear up his context. I am starting to wonder if his senses are actually unreliable (as he has been claiming all along). The attacks on a "straw man" continue in the issue of "free will". He brings up a false definition of alternatives. According to him, an alternative could both be physically possible or impossible. After I pointed him out that he is rejecting the standard (as well as Objectivist) notion of 'alternative' in context of choice, he comes up with garbage he had already spewed earlier: As to his following question on "free will": The problem here is his invalid concept of "replay". I will merely point out to what I wrote earlier in this thread: "[This] confusion comes from picturing consciousness as a mere spectator to our thoughts and mental activity. But that is impossible because it would mean that consciousness is completely detached and outside the material universe. In this case, consciousness would have to be a mystical presence devoid of any existential form. Of course, this leaves several other questions unanswered too, if consciousness is free from existence, why does it have an identity? Why does it "attach" to one human body? What is volition? The fact is that you can't divorce man's soul and his body. Consciousness is a process actively interacting with the environment. You can't separate mental actions such as making a choice from you consciousness, and somehow claim that your choices are not yours." This leaves the following: I mentioned many instances of what he missed in my analyses above. A. A person with a poor eyesight sees blurry alphabets on a poster than a normal person. But that does not mean that they perceive a different object. What will be different is their (automatized) method of integration of visual data as well as the extent of knowledge they can gain through their eyes (for example, one can read the word on the poster, other couldn't). B. I already addressed this in my previous post: "You can't talk about objective knowledge without talking about integration of perceptual data by our mind". Edit: Minor typos
  16. Do we have any (potential) allies in today's Congress election? Or is there any candidate who is somewhat inclined (or clearly against) our ideas? It is hard to decide whom to vote for when one knows nothing about the candidates.
  17. I said: So you are refuting the standard definition of 'objectivity'! CJM said: I do not see how I am, could you elaborate? 'Objectivity' means that recognition of a fact is observer-independent. Given that, what should I make of your following statement: "Just because there is a standard does not mean it is objective." (Reminder: the "standard" that you were referring to is man's non-contradictory knowledge derived from perceptual data.) Therefore, you are clearly refuting the idea that non-contradictory identification implies objectivity. Please let me know whether you agree with the definition I provided. If not, then also explain why you still hold that objective evaluation is impossible. What is your evidence? Please refrain from making arbitrary statements unless you can support them by means of evidence. Your last sentence is correct and made me smile. But on whole, you are attacking a straw man. Rand never said it is proper to act on an unidentified "feelings" (that life would be miserable). It's about rationally evaluating choices that you have. For instance, the choices could be: "life of pain and misery" vs. "a very risky attempt to save your top value". A rational man's choice in this matter will depend on how much he values and his evaluation of risk. Therefore, it is not a suicide in the loner sense - it's dying in an attempt to save your top values. BTW, this is what Rand said in Galt's speech: Having said that, I think it is OK for man to choose death if the only alternative is an unavoidable painful survival (e.g. if a man looses all his limbs etc.), but that is a separate issue. Morality applies only to life. Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth." Thus? Do you now see why a rational man holds life as his highest value? Seems like you are moving behind rather than ahead. Now you reject the idea of not only choice but also alternatives. Tell me, if you are asked to clap your hands in next 5 seconds, what would you do? Aren't both alternatives - clapping and not clapping - physically possible? If that is not your premise, do you care to explain where does the statement "I cannot chose other [values]" come from? Since you did not respond to my points on non-contradictory values, validity of senses and "objective knowledge", do you now agree that senses are infallible? If not, why?
  18. I said: [Absolute refers to the fact] that I can perceive the keyboard in a way which is non-contradictory with my or anyone else's knowledge. CJM said: No, your perception could be completely contradictory to another persons knowledge. When was the last time somebody told you that your keyboard is an elephant? So you are refuting the standard definition of 'objectivity'! Please provide your own definition if you disagree with the standard one. Senses are all that we have. If you deny their validity, you have no other recourse to knowledge. Further, (you do not disagree that) perceptual data once properly integrated provides non-contradictory knowledge. Why this isn't sufficient to uphold the infallibility of our senses? Also, please note that sensory data is not 'knowledge' until it is integrated by our mind. So you can't talk about objective knowledge without talking about integration of perceptual data by our mind. I said: If a man holds life as his highest value, then it should be the ethical standard for his choice of all other values. CJM said: Yes, but there is no reason to think the opposite should necessarily be true. I said: By the opposite, do you mean if man chooses death instead of life? CJM said: If we were talking about a mans live being his highest value because it was his standard of value thats what I meant. [... and...] The arguments I have been given have mostly been that mans life should be his highest value since it is his standard of value. I reject that argument given to you (whosoever gave it) - it is an attempt to reverse the role of ethics and metaphysics. So if we ignore that argument, then I presume you agree that if man holds life as his highest value, then it should be his standard of value. Coming back to the question of why a rational man cannot hold any value above his life, you say: Are you willfully evading my point that "man's life is not automatic"? If man has no will to live, he cannot live. Goal directed action is a necessity. If he chooses to live, he has to hold values, and act towards gaining or keeping them in order to live. Your original question was about what values a rational man should hold. Are you are trying to deliberately steer it away from that? You have raised a separate issue, namely: relationship between will (i.e. values) and actions. Even in this respect, you are avoiding straight discussion. Anyone here reading your above quote can see that while it shows your acknowledgement of "huge relationship" (between values and actions), it asserts the exact opposite. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When I tried to previously point out that divorcing values and actions imply that we are not talking about Ethics but fantasy, you completely ignored that point too. I know. But even if you continue using sacrifice in your undefined sense (rather than the Objectivist sense), the issue remains the same: is it proper for man to die protecting his top values - such as his freedom, or his beloved? And I addressed that issue in my previous posts. Let me repeat: man's nature as a rational being implies he lives in a certain way - as a heroic being, not as a tortured soul. Therefore, it is proper for man to die fighting for that without which he is unwilling to live. So, was this another deliberate attempt to steer away and not address the point? I said: Is it possible for you to choose your values? CJM said: It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice. I said: I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice? CJM said: I would define it in much the same way. [... and... ] Yes I can choose my values. However I could not choose any others. I said: What do you mean by "I could not choose any others"? Where did we talk about choosing anything other than your values? CJM said: If I had chosen otheres(which I could not) what makes you think they would not still be mine? The following are my views on this topic: (they are not contradictory to Objectivism, but I am the sole originator of these ideas. I haven't found them anywhere in Objectivist literature): It is a contradiction to say "I could not choose any others". Either you made a choice or you didn't. Your confusion comes from picturing consciousness as a mere spectator to our thoughts and mental activity. But that is impossible because it would mean that consciousness is completely detached and outside the material universe. In this case, consciousness would have to be a mystical presence devoid of any existential form. Of course, this leaves several other questions unanswered too, if consciousness is free from existence, why does it have an identity? Why does it "attach" to one human body? What is volition? The fact is that you can't divorce man's soul and his body. Consciousness is a process actively interacting with the environment. You can't separate mental actions such as making a choice from you consciousness, and somehow claim that your choices are not yours. Edits: Minor sentence edits to improve clarity, without changing the meaning.
  19. CJM said: It was my understanding [of Objectivism] that it was not just knowledge, but objective knowledge that our senses could percieve. I said: [D]epending on whether or not we properly integrate [perceptual] data will determine whether our knowledge has any errors or not. CJM said: Coleecdting [sic] data from objective reality and collecting objective data about reality are two very different things. I said: How does it relate to my response? CJM said: Because I never claimed we did not do what you responded and told me we did As you can see above, I was addressing your concern about "objective knowledge" when I wrote about "the role of proper integration in errors". Does that clear things up? If it was not an objective evaluation, why would you discuss it? You (implicitly) hold that anyone can see the (alleged) facts that you are providing. But that is precisely what objectivity means, that anyone who has eyes agrees with you on facts of reality. By the opposite, do you mean if man chooses death instead of life? In that case, you don't need a morality, and certainly not Objectivist Ethics. Alright. Now, in the light of your statement, please consider my earlier statement: "Our sensory organs are infallible in the sense that they merely "collect" data from an objective reality." Now, how would you respond to it? Ahh, I finally got your point. But here is the problem: "Willing" bears a huge relationship to "acting". Man's premises direct his thoughts, emotions and actions. Otherwise, what is the point of values or even Ethics? And in that case, why do you even care whether man holds his life as the ultimate value or something else? As I explained earlier, it is not a sacrifice, and hence non-contradictory. I wrote: "If a value is so great to you that your life without it would be rotting in hell, it would be a sacrifice to live without it." And thus, sense-perception is infallible. Now do you see the argument? Because my "relevant" post explains why sense-perception is infallible, which you claimed is not. I said: Is it possible for you to choose your values? CJM said: It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice. I said: I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice? CJM said: I would define it in much the same way. [... and... ] Yes I can choose my values. However I could not choose any others. What do you mean by "I could not choose any others"? Where did we talk about choosing anything other than your values? 'Absolute data' does not mean 'all detail'. It merely means that I can perceive the keyboard in a way which is non-contradictory with my or anyone else's knowledge. Now, does it all make sense?
  20. So? How does it relate to my response? It's not about your writing. It's about your belief. Where did you get that belief? "All knowledge is subjective" is an objective evaluation, which contradicts your statement itself. So, not unnecessary. Not so in this context. If a man holds life as his highest value, then it should be the ethical standard for his choice of all other values. What does it mean to perceive reality as it isn't? Acting "against" it necessarily implies self-destruction because man's life is not automatic. It requires thinking and acting to gain and keep one's values. As I mentioned in my previous post, it is man's life qua man, not as a slave or tortured soul, which is the standard of value. You completely ignored that point. "Reliability" presumes a standard. And the only standard that man has is his non-contradictory knowledge, which is ultimately derived from perceptual data. It is relevant precisely because you made the suggestion that sense-perception could be fallible. I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice? Because our eyes do give us absolute data, but not infinite. I request you to read my post again, to answer the question I asked. This is what I wrote: "I understand your confusion here of why you consider it to be an "illusion". All I will ask you is one question, is it possible for you to choose your values? And if your answer is yes, then all you have to do is integrate this knowledge with the fact that actions of our body do not violate causality."
  21. Our sensory organs are infallible in the sense that they merely "collect" data from an objective reality. However, depending on whether or not we properly integrate this data will determine whether our knowledge has any errors or not. A statement of the form "My sensory organs do not work exactly the same as another persons" is a claim to objective knowledge. The mere fact that you can state propositions implies that you already hold that reality and reason are absolute. The phrase "logical supposition" is a contradiction. Logic is an art of non-contradictory identification. There are no "suppositions" while using logic. Ethics is a branch of philosophy and is based on its two primary branches - metaphysics and epistemology. As to your question of "why is it immoral ...", please read my post again. In my previous post, I explained to you that since, metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon which is an end in itself, ethically, it follows that a rational man must holds life as his standard of value. Sorry, that does not make any sense to me. Could you please explain what do you mean by "imperfectly" in your statement "[w]hat we perceive is not objective reality, since our sensory systems act imperfectly". If you hold something above your own life, it would imply that you are willing to sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value. Since it is life which is the standard of value, any such sacrifice implies acting against your life i.e. towards self-destruction. No she wouldn't. Observe that in the quote you provided, she says "t is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value". This is consistent with her idea that man's life qua man (not as a tortured soul) is the standard of value. If a value is so great to you that your life without it (or without attempting to save it) would be rotting in hell, it would be a sacrifice to live without it. Then else do you mean by "imperfectly"? Sense perception is different than forming higher level concepts. When you perceive a table, it's concept is so automatized in your mind (from childhood) and so substantially verified, that you perceive it infallibly. However, when a young man tries to understand, say "whether health care is a right", it entails a complex integration of his knowledge. Since integration is an act of thinking, one can make mistakes about it. (these mistakes could either be honest or be an act of evasion.) Precisely because they are "parts of our physical being". I think you need to precisely define "imperfect". I understand your confusion here of why you consider it to be an "illusion". All I will ask you is one question, is it possible for you to choose your values? And if your answer is yes, then all you have to do is integrate this knowledge with the fact that actions of our body do not violate causality.
  22. How do you know that? Also, how do you define imperfect? (in this context) Metaphysically, the only alternative that faces all living organisms is the alternative of life and death. Since man is a volitional being, he has to choose between life and death. All other issues facing him are secondary and dependent on this choice. Therefore, if a man choses life and acts rationally, all his other values are sought to maintain his life qua man.
  23. "Need does not create entitlement". In what context? Need of what? Entitlement to what? Rand's idea was that one man's need of material goods to support his life does not make him entitled to steal those goods from another man. What would it imply to have a "right" to another man's life and property? It would mean that the other man's rights must be violated in order to guarantee his rights. That would be a contradiction. Rights, properly defined, should have non-contradictory implementation. In other words, for a man's rights to be protected, no other man's rights need to be violated. If survival of animals and fetuses imply a claim on a healthy man's life, wouldn't that be immensely contradictory? A pregnant woman's right to her life, which implies her right to her own body supersedes any alleged "rights" a fetus may have. This is because a fetus is, at best, a potential human being. As to human babies, they also have rights, except that their parents or guardians have the sole authority to exercise them until they get older. "Be free from being killed and eaten", at whose expense? Animals do not have a conceptual faculty; how will they exercise their "rights"? For example, would they stop eating other animals?
  24. That stopped my heart for a second.
×
×
  • Create New...