New Buddha

From what I've reviewed of Seasteading's available information (and to their credit, there is a fair amount) there is no new technology to "push forward". Nothing they are proposing involves new technology - it's all "off-the-shelf" engineering. The hindrance wrt to Seasteading is that there is no tax incentive (or any monetary incentive that I can see) to offset the exorbitant costs of building a floating city if the taxes are the same. By their own proforma, the initial development and life-cycle costs of the development are ludicrously high, compared to building something similar on land. It's not rocket science. We build buildings on all types of crappy soils, in earthquake-prone zones, etc. The only question is, "Does Seasteading pencil". The answer is no. You have to understand too, that developments don't generate revenue via cash-flow. Developments are long-term investments and build equity over time (decades). This has to be balanced against maintenance and depreciation in order to be profitable. Building on a floating platform in a sea salt, moisture rich environment will offset any possible equity. And land values are driven by three things: 1) location 2) location 3) location. There is nothing remotely valuable about building a quasi-floating city.

Since Ilya is here, I thought I would bump this and also thank Boydstun. He has a wonderful paper on Kant, with the link above. He greatly anticipated the direction I was taking this post.

What the above means is that our SENSATIONS are our MUSCLES acting.

To add to the above, I'm only presenting some ideas as I understand them. Not only can I be wrong in misrepresenting them, but so too can the ideas themselves. This is from Llinas' book, p. 214: The following properties are common for muscle contraction and qualia: 1. They are both triggered by electrical activation of the cell. 2. In both, the cellular event of interest is separable from the electrical event that triggers it, and follows in time the electrical activation. 3. The “corporate event” of muscle contraction or qualia has summing properties relating to the numbers of elements activated and to the frequency of activation. • In muscle the product of cellular activation, force, is the sum (linear) of the pull of each cell, onto a common tendon (a geometric property) at a given time. • In qualia the product of cellular activation “sensation” is the sum (logarithmic) of each cell activation on to a common coherent event (a geometric property), at a given time. The measure for all qualia can be given mathematically by the Weber-Fechner law (Cope 1976), governing the relationship between the intensity of sensory activation and perception: s = kln A/Ao

The reason he splits them is "simulation." If you start with the basic reflex arc, a sensory neuron in your hand touches a hot stove. The signal is sent to the spinal cord - first to an interneuron -- then to a motor neuron where it automatically causes contraction. The signal also travels from the interneuron to the higher cortical regions where the "emotion" is milliseconds later evaluated as a "feeling." Ow! That hurt! If a young child has never seen a bear, and has no concept/memory that bears are dangerous, then no emotional response will be triggered, i.e. no heart rate, adrenal or respiration increase. Nor will there be a subsequent running away response (or any one of the four "F's" - Freeze, Fight, Flee, Fornicate) triggered by the emotion. If as an adult, with a healthy respect for bears, you encounter one while jogging on a trail, the learned, stored emotional memory Fixed Action Pattern (FAP) of the fact that "Stumbling on bears in the woods is is not a good idea!" will be triggered. This emotional response will then, in turn, trigger the release of a running-away FAP (or one of the four F's). However, if much later you are telling the story to your friends over a beer, you will "simulate" the emotional response (increase heart rate, etc.) but not the motor response. The re-lived memory of the event is a feeling only. Emotions (not feeling) serve to trigger motor responses. And it does not need to be anything as life threatening as encountering a bear. Emotions accompany all motor events.

To a large extent, I am not qualified to state much more than what I read. I think that Damasio makes a good case (to the extent that I can understand it) and also Llinas (who I reference above). I've read a great deal, and these two seem to make the most sense. I've seen a movement over the years towards understanding that the purpose of what we call consciousness (and self-consciousness in humans) is about movement. Between sensory neurons and motor neurons is the "mind". We have brains to move about the environment, get from point A to point B, find food, water, shelter, etc. Once we have secured our needs, we go to sleep for the night. If you are lucky enough to live to 90, then you will have slept 30 years. There is the autonomic nervous system which regulates digestion, ph levels, etc. but what we call the "mind" is about movement. Embodied Cognition follows this trend. And the abstract for Llinas' I of the Vortex sums it up well: In I of the Vortex, Rodolfo Llinas, a founding father of modern brain science, presents an original view of the evolution and nature of mind. According to Llinas, the "mindness state" evolved to allow predictive interactions between mobile creatures and their environment. He illustrates the early evolution of mind through a primitive animal called the "sea squirt." The mobile larval form has a brainlike ganglion that receives sensory information about the surrounding environment. As an adult, the sea squirt attaches itself to a stationary object and then digests most of its own brain. This suggests that the nervous system evolved to allow active movement in animals. To move through the environment safely, a creature must anticipate the outcome of each movement on the basis of incoming sensory data. Thus the capacity to predict is most likely the ultimate brain function. One could even say that Self is the centralization of prediction.At the heart of Llinas's theory is the concept of oscillation. Many neurons possess electrical activity, manifested as oscillating variations in the minute voltages across the cell membrane. On the crests of these oscillations occur larger electrical events that are the basis for neuron-to-neuron communication. Like cicadas chirping in unison, a group of neurons oscillating in phase can resonate with a distant group of neurons. This simultaneity of neuronal activity is the neurobiological root of cognition. Although the internal state that we call the mind is guided by the senses, it is also generated by the oscillations within the brain. Thus, in a certain sense, one could say that reality is not all "out there," but is a kind of virtual reality.

On closer reading, tt's possible that we are using the words feelings and emotions oppositely. I had thought that I was supporting your position. In my example I said that the person was in a strange building. By this, I meant to imply that he did not know that the stairs would be in his pathway. The next time he enters the building, there might be a fleeting feeling associated with memory of the stairs prior to actually perceiving the stairs. This might be enough to cause you to decide to take another route. From the article I linked above: MIND: According to your definition, all feelings have their origin in the physical. Is that really the case? Damasio: Interestingly enough, not all feelings result from the body's reaction to external stimuli. Sometimes changes are purely simulated in the brain maps. For example, when we feel sympathy for a sick person, we re-create that person's pain to a certain degree internally.

The differentiation between emotions and feelings is not mine. Here is a much better explanation than I can do. Feeling Our Emotions.

A difference can be made between emotions and feelings. If you are walking in a strange building and come upon a tall flight of stairs that you need to go up, stored learned memories of past experiences will trigger bodily changes necessary to climb the stairs (changes in adrenal, respiration, heat rate, etc.). These changes will kick-in predictively, prior to the actual climb. If, as you climb the stairs, you begin to feel winded, this "feeling" is different than e-motions (changes in bodily states). You may also feel that you'd rather take the elevator due to the anticipated expenditure of effort and the consequent negative feeling that climbing a tall flight of stairs will cause. Very young children have limited memory of prior events, so differentiating between emotions and the more evaluative feelings is something that they will have to grow into.

Not at all! The Watson quote goes to show the thinking that dominated much of the Left in the 20th Century and their assumptions about human nature that lies at the heart of social engineering, centralized planning, etc.

This made me think of the Behaviourist John B. Watson's quote: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors. (1930)

Rhetoric used to not be a dirty word. Aristotle was the master.

Rand spent the better part of her adult life trying to persuade others to accept the veracity of her ideas. And, by all accounts, not only did she not back down from a good debate, she relished them. They were a way for her to hone and sharpen her ideas by constantly forcing her to check her premises. Laika is not presenting a case for Marxism - just the opposite. He fully understands it's weaknesses. He's on this forum trying to find another philosophy.

You decide for yourself, and I do likewise for myself. If we disagree on a solution to a problem common to both of us then we either try to find a mutually beneficial solution or we follow Frost's adage: Good fences make good neighbors. Most complex man-made problems have multiple solutions. From Metaphysical vs. Man-Made in the lexicon: It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. Man is not omniscient or infallible: he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or he can lie, cheat and fake. The manmade may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuity—or it may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil. One man may be right and everyone else wrong, or vice versa (or any numerical division in between). Nature does not give man any automatic guarantee of the truth of his judgments (and this is a metaphysically given fact, which must be accepted). Who, then, is to judge? Each man, to the best of his ability and honesty. What is his standard of judgment? The metaphysically given. [One must] distinguish metaphysical facts from man-made facts—i.e., facts which are inherent in the identities of that which exists, from facts which depend upon the exercise of human volition. Because man has free will, no human choice—and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice—is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so; he could have chosen otherwise. For instance, the U.S. did not have to consist of 50 states; men could have subdivided the larger ones, or consolidated the smaller ones, etc. In regard to nature, “to accept what I cannot change” means to accept the metaphysically given; “to change what I can” means to strive to rearrange the given by acquiring knowledge—as science and technology (e.g., medicine) are doing; “to know the difference” means to know that one cannot rebel against nature and, when no action is possible, one must accept nature serenely. . . . What one must accept is the fact that the minds of other men are not in one’s power, as one’s own mind is not in theirs; one must accept their right to make their own choices, and one must agree or disagree, accept or reject, join or oppose them, as one’s mind dictates. The only means of “changing” men is the same as the means of “changing” nature: knowledge—which, in regard to men, is to be used as a process of persuasion, when and if their minds are active; when they are not, one must leave them to the consequences of their own errors. . . . To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion.

In a civil society, people engage in debate to resolve disagreements. By using the passive voice, you are committing a reification fallacy by treating "Objectivism" as something other than the thoughts, ideas and actions of the many people who self-identify as "Objectivist." No different that a Collectivist who reifies "Society". Are you the arbiter of all things Objectivism? Is Plasmatic? Am I? Leonard Peikoff? How about the Ghost of Ayn Rand? Who exactly is this "Objectivism that needs to engage...." ?

The reason I threw out the Thunderbolt Universe reference was to demonstrate that even intelligent people (and yes, I do think you are intelligent) can follow completely unfounded and erroneous beliefs with the best of intentions.

Your all bold response is borderline psychotic.

Such witty repartee! Look Plasmatic, the only purpose of a philosophical forum is to engage those with whom one disagrees. Forums don't just exist to mirror one's own unanalyzed ignorance, prejudices, and opinions. Laika has clearly come here because he is questioning Marxism. He is precisely the type of person that Objectivists should hope to come to this site. A significant part of my professional career has been spent teaching interns. I enjoy trying to communicate knowledge. If someone doesn't agree with me I don't just castigate them as "people who hold evil beliefs." If Objectivism is to have any influence in the wider reaches of society, then it will need to engage that society. Not everyone has the temperament to do that.

Oh, no! Plasmatic is throwing Thunderbolts at me! Laika has clearly come here because he is questioning Marxism. He's been very open about it. If you don't have the temperament to engage someone like Laika, then why don't you return to Mount Olympus?

As someone who has actually taken the time to read Marx, Engles, Lenin and several Soviet philosophers, I can say that Laika has been very consistent in presenting their case. Within that context, everything he has posted is "true". He's also demonstrated a far greater depth of intellectual curiosity and honesty than many others who routinely participate on this forum.

What does this have to do with anything? Give me a Marxist who has taken the time to actually read Marx over an Objectivist sycophant any day.

I don't think this gets stressed enough in Objectivism - or that it's even properly understood. I think of this quote from ITOE, p. 301: AR: "And don't forget - it is important here - what the purpose of knowledge is. The purpose is for you to deal with that which you are studying. And if you discover why water boils, you will know something more and will be able to do more things with water than the primitive man who knows only that if he holds it over fire a certain length of time it will boil. By discovering such issues as temperature and molecular structure, you have made yourself infinitely more capable of dealing with water and using it for your purposes than the primitive man who only made the first observation." It also makes me think of James' quote from his essay The Sentiment of Rationality (and is one of the reasons why I have such a respect his Pragmatism): "Every way of classifying a thing is but a way of handling it for some particular purpose. Conceptions 'kinds' are teleological instruments. No abstract concept can be a valid substitute for concrete reality except with reference to a particular interest in the conceiver."

Marx/Engles were very upfront with regards to what they considered the "plastic" nature of an individuals mind and how his ideas are determined only by a positive dialectic (as opposed to Hegel's idealism) with the current age's material means of production (meaning roughly, ideas don't create "tools", tools create "ideas"). It's also no coincidence that the Behaviorist ideas of Pavlov, Watson, Skinner, etc. were "Left" and largely ideologically driven. The "new man" was to be "conditioned". This ideology of conditioning even went so far as to affect Soviet Biology (known as Lysenkoism) for decades. Stalin rejected Mendelian genetics because it didn't support the idea that living organisms are "conditioned". From wiki: The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics.[2] Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection.[3] Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that "natural cooperation" was observed in nature as opposed to "natural selection".[3] Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about. Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison, fired,[4] or executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was sent to prison and died there, while scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953.[3] Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.[5] Rand repeatedly states that a man's mind has a specific identity and that it's not infinitely malleable. This is central to understanding her epistemology and ethical individualism. No man or class or tool can "cause" another man to think. The horrors of collectivism stem from treating men as cogs in Society. Edit: In 1907, William James reflected on the growth of Behaviorism in psychology. Many persons nowadays seem to think that any conclusion must be very scientific if the arguments in favor of it are derived from twitching of frogs’ legs—especially if the frogs are decapitated—and that—on the other hand—any doctrine chiefly vouched for by the feelings of human beings—with heads on their shoulders—must be benighted and superstitious.

Wrt to "doomsday scenario", are you referring specifically Global Warming or resource scarcity (or both)? Or are you referring to the deficiencies of centralized planning and/or why free markets are better able to meet changes?

A lot of Rand's ideas on cognition were formed at a time when Behaviorism dominated science for largely ideological reasons - which, of course, she rejected. As a novelist who wrote about very complex ideas, it would be natural for her to explore the roots of emotions. I too started reading quite a bit about cognitive science in the mid-to-late 1980's when I was studying architecture. Research into emotions and what role they play in cognition really only started to take off around the 1990's. There is a ground-breaking book that was published in the early 90's Descartes Error that has had a huge impact, and you might like to read it. The title of the book is in reference to the dualism proposed by Descartes.