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.

New Buddha

Regulars
  • Content count

    1074
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About New Buddha

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://
  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Oregon

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Oregon
  • Relationship status Single
  • Sexual orientation No Answer
  • Copyright Copyrighted
  • Occupation Architect

Recent Profile Visitors

4489 profile views
  1. Welcome to the forum. Which "article" are you referring to?
  2. Where did Eioul ever state in his post the things that you are accusing him of? All he stated was that family/parental nurturing is not the single greatest determinate in the development of an individual's temperament, personality, interests, social skills, etc. At least this is how I took what he said. I know that he is interested in psychology (as am I) and has probably come across (as I have) studies that say much the same thing. This seems a pretty rational post to me.
  3. Terms such as theorems, proofs, conjectures, etc. are fairly well defined in mathematics. I happen to believe that much of how modern mathematics is practiced is either Rationalism gone wild or mathematical Platonism. My use/training in mathematics (Mechanics) is something entirely different from mathematics as practiced by your typical mathematician. If you ask ten mathematicians about mathematical foundationalism, you'll get 12 answers. That being said, if you approach something like Collatz Conjecture, then you need to either play by the rules of the game, or reinvent the rules. The following is a fairly well accepted definition of Proof. Mathematical Proof In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with accepted rules of inference. Axioms may be treated as conditions that must be met before the statement applies. Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.
  4. I have to agree with SK. I spent about an hour looking at the various spreadsheets and didn't see anything that really resembles a "proof" as it is commonly defined in mathematics.
  5. A great deal of learning requires Automatization. The specific mechanics of how we "automate" knowledge is not, primarily, an issue that falls under the scope of philosophy. It falls more truly under such disciplines as developmental psychology and the neurosciences. Rand does, correctly, touch on the importance of automatization in ITOE - mainly in opposition to such epistemic positions as Divine Revelation, Aristotelian Metaphysical Realism, Skepticism, Kantian Categories, Nominalism, etc. The capacity to draw on long-term, stored memories regarding a complex topic (such as Private Property) does require "chewing" or a degree of repetition and rote memorization. So too does learning such complex ideas such as mathematics, physics, engineering, etc. Think of how you first learn addition and subtraction, then the multiplication tables, geometry, algebra, trig, analytical geometry, physics, mechanics, etc. This typically takes 20 + years of study. There are no short-cuts to learning. It takes effort.
  6. In the video, around the 1 minute mark, you introduce n' = (4n+1). I see that it matches the increments of 8, but I don't follow why this needs to be done. It seems arbitrary? Is it something that you noticed could be done, or was there a reason behind it?
  7. Is the Fibonacci Sequence the "exponent reducer" in column E of the Recursive spreadsheet?
  8. Per this video, he suggests that the solution to the Collatz Conjecture might be tied to the Halting Problem. It seems that an effective solution would be one that involves an algorithm that could tell the number of steps it will take for any number to reach 1. How were you approaching the problem? Can it be easily summarized?
  9. I couldn't resist.
  10. Are you thinking along the following quote from ITOE, p. 48. Truth is the the product of the recognition (i.e. identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions.... .... Every concept stands for a number of propositions. A concepts identifying perceptual concretes stands for some implicit propositions; but on higher levels of abstractions, a concept stands for chains of paragraphs and pages of explicit propositions referring to complex factual data." Also, the role of propositions is further discussed in a way that may pertain to your post on page 183. It relates to the economy of thought due to "crow" limits. Without re-typing it in full: Prof. B: Isn't this question really about the theory of propositions, not of concepts? There are twenty-one concepts [words in a sentence] but the first five of them, say, are integrated into one clause, and the various clauses are integrated into one proposition, and that's how we hold it. AR: Yes. Prof. E: If you just strung out twenty-one words at random from the dictionary, you couldn't hold them all. AR: Yes. Prof. A: So there's something going on, when you read the sentence forward, that enables you to grasp it. Prof. E: The proposition, in effect, becomes a unit itself. AR: Yes.
  11. It appears that you are asking what is the relationship between epistemology on the one-hand and and psychology/neurosciences on the other - and how to demarcate between the two?
  12. The issue is, should our actions be guided by abstract principles or not? Don says no. Our continual improvement and refinement of our concrete, written laws and legislation at the City, County, State and Federal levels is directed by principles (what Don incorrectly calls the "ideal"). We take the "given" (i.e. the government into which we were all born into in the U.S.) and seek to improve it by means persuasion, debate, elections, etc., guided by abstract principles. I can only take this to mean that Don thinks making incremental changes is the wrong way of improving our government.
  13. This is completely back-asswards.
  14. Isn't the easiest way to address the issue of involuntary taxation is to readily acknowledge that it is wrong, BUT that the way to address the problem is through education and legislative reform -- via various think-tanks such as the Mises Institute, Cato Institute, Heartland, CEI, ARI, etc.? That is, by proposing concrete workable free market legislative solutions reforming how various levels of government currently work (City, County, State, Federal) we can demonstrate the efficacy and morality of the free market. Rand only really gave Capitalism an objective ethical foundation some 65 years ago. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we aren't living in a laissez-faire society yet. Regarding the OP's suggestion of a social contract, I don't think this is viable. Because it presupposes that there is an entity that exists that an individual can enter into a contract with. Edit: Our current form of government is not horrible. It can be improved, but it's not all bad. I think Rand had a great deal of respect for how our Founding Fathers were able to actually give concrete (i.e. constitutional) form to abstract ideas.
  15. The only other advice I can think to give is to make sure that you are protected. Don't rely too heavily on friendship. If there is a business plan and a contract, it would be worth it to spend a few dollars and have a lawyer review anything you sign. Going into business with friends has both pluses and minuses.