Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Posts

    5525
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    235

Everything posted by dream_weaver

  1. Grames pointed out that by confining your definition of entity to a thing having a physical boundary, what do you do when you seek to deal with an electron. Physical boundary may be present in all the entities you are viewing at the perceptual level, but is it essential? Being aware that chemists have identified that the atomic structure of different elements have specific quantities of electrons. Just seeing it stated that there 8 electrons in an oxygen atom brings to mind 8 seperate entities we have christened electons.
  2. You clearly stated entities have a physical boundary. Merriam-Webster puts entity as:a : being, existence; especially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence. I think one of the first words we use as children that captures much of the essence of entity would be "thing". What is this thing? What is that thing? Perceptually, it is still discriminating one (or more) particulars within the range of the entire field. This, however, is parsing physical entity, rather than non-physical.
  3. I don't think I'm denying entity. I've had in my possession such things as 0.999% pure substances, be it iron, magnesium, aluminum, gold, silver, copper. Perceptually they all have extension. Even an atom has extension. To identify that an atom has (a) proton(s), neutron(s) and electron(s) does not deny that. In what way, specifically an electron is distinguished from the proton or neutron, I could probably learn. Does the fact they can be distinguished from one another differ from the fact you can distinguish a blue heron from an egret from a grain of sand? As to non-perceivable, the ability to use technology to aide the senses continues to be improved. Science Daily has provided "photographs" of molecules. Even at that level molecules appear to have a physical boundary. Either protons or neutrons have been broken down to quarks and such stuff that I have to grant some credence to the testimony of the experts. Grames asked, "Does an electron have a physical boundary? Anyone, including myself, that has experienced an electrical shock can attest that there exists a perceptual experience. Failure to be able to explain or put it into full, comprehensive, conceptual terms does not negate the perceptual evidence. I know this is at the other end of the spectrum, but Objectivism holds that the universe or existence has no physical boundary, nor does it apply the concept of method infinite to it. Granted, existence is not considered an entity, as existence is a collective term. Your question is reveals an enigma, the answers to which remain yet to be discovered (or at least by me). The method of discovery still needs to adhere to method of non-contradictory identification.
  4. Chemistry organized the periodic chart, with one of the characteristics of the atoms being the number of electrons possessed by each different atom. This is outside of my forte of descriptive geometry. The electron does play a role in co-valence, such as hydrogen and oxygen combining in the process of forming water. Does the question of an electron having a physical boundry identify an electron as being a non-physical entity, or illuminate trouble that arises by stating an entity has the distinctive characteristic of a physical boundry? @ Plasmatic, yes, a properly conceptualized concept does not get contradicted by new observations/integrations.
  5. To get to an electron requires many more cognitive steps to arrive at. It is arguably not directly available to our unaided sensory apparatus. Along the way we are constantly discriminating this entity from that entity. In that process, the conceptual grasp of entity needs to accommodate any new discoveries while still reconciling or integrating our understanding of entity along the way.
  6. Another way of asking that question is what fact(s) of reality give rise to the concept of entity? Perceptually we can discriminate there are many entities in our visual field. We can pick up a rock, pull a weed out of the ground, watch a groundhog scurry away when approached. We can see the chair and the table, and neither is the other. These are separate, discrete objects.
  7. Instead of giving ontology a sub-category within metaphysics, Objectivism resolves the confusion observed on Standford site via concepts. Ontology asks is there a god, are there numbers, do universals exist. Objectivism adheres to the Parmenides postulate of "what is, is." Ontology queries what is it to be, or what is the nature of being. Objectivism realizes that the only alternative to being is not being. (Law of excluded middle?) Ontology tries to find a method to answer these questions. Objectivism analyzes the distinctly human method of answering these questions via the theory of concepts and how they relate to the "what is, is." It occurs to me that the identification of facts is the identification of existents up to and including existence. Referring to facts as primary, secondary or tertiary would be an epistemological aspect of the process.
  8. The concept of "proof" presupposes free will and the principle of the primacy of existence. Grasping this does require that you actually validate these points (and some others) for yourself, if you are so inclined, that is, if you exercise the free will you are asking the proof for.
  9. The terminology that Miss Rand used "Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal", "The New Left" and "The Virtue of Selfishness" was an "arbitrary postulate". When Robert Campbell claims that: "Peikoff has yet to present an example of an arbitrary claim or supply any instructions as to how to identify one.", he does so ignoring Dr. Peikoff's example starting in the last paragraph of Chapter 5 on Reason on page.184 up to the point where he writes: "Here again we see all the flaws inherent in the assertion of the arbitrary." When "S" puts forth his assertion, O replies: "Can you point to any sign of such fallacy, such as a logical flaw in my argument, or a neglected fact, or an improperly defined term?" In other words, an assertion which cannot be backed up by evidence qualifies it as arbitrary and makes it eligible for dismissal. In the case of Robert Campbell's claim, the existence of the preceding evidence dismissed his assertion not as arbitrary, but as simply fallacious.
  10. Leonard Peikoff's chapters on 'Reality' and 'Sense Perception and Volition' in OPAR identify the basics of O'ism's metaphysics introducing each point with examples to serve as a guide that you can use to validate the points for yourself, if you are so inclined.
  11. Mnrchst said: That is, the concept of man is identical to existent man. The identification via a concept of man via the nature of man's consciousness is identical to the identity of the existent man. Existence is identity, consciousness is identification. Man. Man, oh man. Imagine all the things that come to mind, isn't that what we abstracted it from, by invoking that short little condensed unit "man". That short little condensed unit "man" has all those things that come to mind packed into that tiny weeny package, available to be unpacked and re-examined as need be. And since we continue to discover new qualities*, all we can do is keep fitting them into it as well. *Link to article from Science Daily: Sleeping Brain Behaves as If It's Remembering Something
  12. @ Hairnet The question arose from making a distinction between a democracy without elections, and using a democratic method of selecting representatives via a token system. In this sense, I am sharing with you my idea of democracy as distinguished from other types of political systems.
  13. Could a politician from their podium declare as a condition of delegating your token to me, you are agreeing to a four year, or even a lifetime contract, after which, your tokens will be returned to be reused at some future point in time? Would the contract be binding? Instead of a democracy, could we have a theocracy or a monarchy established without an election too? Is there a way to go about keeping a Constitutionally Limited Republic as Ben Franklin admonsihed? Can we buy and sell our tokens to use on the behalf of or have used on our behalf, as or by an intermediary "token" representative? Oh, and what if we kicked out a politian while he was working and it led to some unintended consequence(s) unlike the markets have been observed to work? What would this do to the confidentiality of ones vote? If there is a record of who voted for whom, and this record were compromised, could this lead anywhere? Would this resolve or increase the complexity of dealing with voter fraud, or discrimination on the basis of discovering how you voted?
  14. Shouldn't that chair be suspended by a rope from the podium with an American flag attached to one of the back braces?
  15. On disc 18, track 3 starting at 7:45 transcribed; "A better analogy is solving a jigsaw puzzle. Suppose that among the pieces of your puzzle, someone has added a few pieces from a different puzzle. As you go about solving the puzzle, the extra pieces will make the process more difficult, but they won't ultimately stop you from reaching a solution. Nor will the addition of outside pieces lead to a false solution of the puzzle that incorporates these pieces because the outside pieces just won't fit. This analogy illustrates the process of induction is one of classification and integration, not of computation (eluding to an earlier analogy in the letter) or deduction." Read from a letter by Paul Blair(sp?) who thought this analogy may have come from Harry Binswanger.
  16. I've about 16gig of ARI lectures. Objectivism Thru Induction comes to mind, but it's been awhile since I listened to it. I do have a deeper analogy involving Generalities as a puzzle, the pieces comprised of Concepts being a puzzle within a pieced together from pieces of the puzzle that form the "pictures" of Percepts, but it's still pretty crude. What timeframe are you seeking this under? I can point my listening back to OTI if a positive confirmation would be of benifit.
  17. One of the lecture from ARI that I have makes the analogy of integration to a puzzle. As the various pieces are put together, a picture begins to emerge. If random pieces from another puzzle are present, it doesn't really matter because one you have the puzzle fully assembled, the errant pieces are easily discarded as irrelevant to the completion of the now completed puzzle. If I were to extrapolate that analogy to DIM, the example given would be applicable to the (I) method or approach. The (M) approach would be to start assembling the various pieces on some preconceived notion of what the picture ought to look like while ignoring that the two edges of some of the adjoining pieces do not fit correctly together, in essence, forcing the pieces together to create the preconceived picture. When the puzzle is finally completed, any extra pieces are discarded as before, whether or not the discarded pieces were part of the (I) puzzle or not. Mixing the (M) approach with elements of the (I) method, the disagreements come down to a combination of "these edges don't appear to align properly" against "this is how I imagined the picture should be". The (D) approach prefers to leave the pieces unassembled. Even if you could put all the pieces together, they counter, you can't know if that is what the picture actually looks like and even so, each puzzle piece is a picture within itself. Mixing the (D) approach with aspects of the (M) method, a few pieces that fit together are discovered here and there, Once you've put these 2 or three pieces together, they are no longer individual pieces. If these groups of pieces happen to fit with another group of pieces, you're no longer trying to assemble a puzzle, you're just trying to assemble groups of pieces. You may be able to determine how two adjoining edges fit together, but once they're together, those adjoining edges are no longer available for adjoining with other edges. Rationalization, from this standpoint, is so much easier to grasp and in many ways see the errors therein. The "floaters", as Peikoff refers to them in DIM, miss reality. The empiricists miss understanding.
  18. Given the dynamics of cultural change, probably pretty much the same. Although, if religion was openly ridiculed at the formation of these United States of America, and the publication and widespread adoption of Immannual Kant as an influence, the dynamics probably depend on how readily a set of ideas can be implemented as well.
  19. If Marilyn Monroe were alive today and were sitting here beside me, I wonder if we would have shared a mutual chuckle on that one.
  20. ITWT stated in #15: Further to the topic, here is a website about the favorites numbers. Everyone can participate. http://www.thefavoritenumber.com The number 1 is ranked n° 11 in the ranking with 5.3 % It is the : - 3rd favorite number in : United States - 2nd favorite number for the : 51 -> 60 years old
  21. Saw a "tie-dyed" VW bug today. It certainly says "Notice me" colorfully.

  22. Well, the original article is no longer listed as content at CNS News. So far, no clarifying statement has been issued by Oglala Lakota Nation, or the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. Given his paragraph starting with "There is another way", he pretty much sums up his philosophy in a paragraph: his view of existence, man, man's relationship to existence - along with his take on the role knowledge. This stuff would be hard to make up.
  23. That is also the big key to the differences. Axioms are not arbitrary principles assembled randomly to create some feel good platform. A principle is a general demonstrable truth upon which other truths depend. The non-aggression principle at best is a variant of viewing the initiation of physical force as wrong while ignoring the contexts where retaliatory force is proper. The Libertarians treatment of freedom is similar. Ripping it from the political context that identify how to determine what are the specific individual rights are that government should be charged with by the individuals to uphold and protect within an objective basis, the Libertarians idea of freedom is elevated into an axiomatic principle and treated as a primary that man should feel free to do just about anything.
  24. Secession! Lakota Sioux Nation Leaves The Union! (Again) . . . Means detailed reasons for the secession including a long list of problems facing the Lakota, such as unemployment, healthcare and life expectancy as well use of natural resources. . . . How many of these issues identified are simply products of how this community chooses to live? Low life expectancy, types of diseases, and general lack of industry attributed to a lack of freedom, specifically the freedom of responsibility, which the question might be returned, how are they not free to be responsible in such a way that the acheivement of life expectancy, general health and entrepeneurship is the fault of the U.S. administration? These do not come across as valid reasons for secession. For valid reasons of secession, the 13 colonies declaration of independence from the king of England comes to mind.
  25. A creator can create a garden, harvest the food, and create many wonderful meals from it. An inventor can put together a combination that has not been previously assembled from those ingredients before, perhaps add a process not previously conceived of and thus provide a new, or previously unexperienced, culinary delight. Producing widgets at work would be creative. Coming up with a patentable widget would be inventive. Wecome to OO.
×
×
  • Create New...