Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Yes and I agree with all of what you have said. Just trying to resolve some questions that come up. I am concerned that "concepts are also in time, in "change"" is interpreted as an intrinsic view of concepts. I think of concepts as patterns you can find out there. The argument can be made the pattern is out there no matter if I (we) see it or not. At the heart of the question is: at what point does a concept exist? From what I understand if all billions of humans have never come up with the concept via induction it does not exist. When one person comes up with the concept (even if he has not communicated it to any one else), then the concept "exists", i.e. it is real. That concept did not exist in the physical realm or else we would have said it always existed. Isn't the conclusion: Therefore, it is not physical i.e. matter. The other thing I notice is that for a concept to stop existing, it has to become unimportant and forgotten by ALL humanity. It is a mistaken contradictory concept that once existed as a valid concept, then changed to a known contradiction, and then poof ... gone. Maybe its a rationalistic thought process, but I can't help follow the logic.
  3. It can include rationalizing things about a culture that are bad or toxic, or saying things like white/black/Latino pride, desiring an ethnostate for an "uncontaminated" nation, things like that. I honestly don't know about Europe, but at least in the US, white nationalists are exactly these kind of people, and distinctly independent of leftist politics. I'll put it this way. He clearly disagrees with nationalism as any element of a rational political culture. So you are right, that's not what Journo means. I should have been clearer: Journo made clear that irrationality can result from nationalism if we use the wrong principles, so the point I want to make is that wrong principles would have to do with overfocus on nationality. Still, the idea we can take from the article is that we should make explicit that individual rights need to enter the discussion. Give me some examples of this, I contest that the people who are concerned about the death of their culture actually face any threat, and the reason they see it that way is their racism (judging whole populations by racial or ethnic identity). Desire for self-preservation is not evidence that their judgment of the threat is rational.
  4. @StrictlyLogical But there is always an inherent limit with all living beings. The living human body is a far from equilibrium thermodynamic system that actively undergoes a continuous progression from non-equilibrium energy state configuration (low entropy) to equilibrium energy state configuration (high entropy). This is a defining characteristic of all living things. It's the reason that you're able to actively change over time in the first place. There's a certain amount of irreversibility that cannot be reversed. A certain amount of that progression cannot be halted otherwise you wouldn't be alive in the first place.
  5. Perhaps we do not have enough information to answer this question scientifically. Your concept is part of your mental contents. but mental contents are not static material, although some material is necessary to make your mental content possible, some functioning is also required. A concept probably involves memory recall, some logical processing, a focused mind etc. when it is active... [are concepts dormant when you are not thinking of them.. or are they just "stored away"... or a potential, the way you can ride a bike now that you know how]...? I do not know enough about the science of the mind .. or if anyone does. At the very least, your mental content requires a complex natural system including material and functioning, an that means your concepts also require these things. So it does make sense to say your mental content and your concepts are "in your head"... but they are also in time, in "change". Back to your earlier post and my vague answer... If you take as granted that your thoughts are self-directed, willed and steered by yourself, it should not be difficult to see how your choice to think about something.. say beautiful people you find attractive, causes changes in your mind. BEFORE you decided to think of those things, the material and functioning of your natural complex brain, were in particular complex states and configurations changing, and processing in some particular manner to some particular degree... when you started to think about those beautiful people... the material and functioning of your natural complex brain took on different particular complex states and configurations changing, and processing in some different particular manner likely to some different particular degree...the pulsing and waving complex patterns BEFORE are not the same as the pulsing and waving complex patterns AFTER. Your CHOICE to think of something different made real changes in reality. Your complex and natural system which is your whole body (and brain) includes an interface between the material and functioning of the brain and the material and functioning of your muscles, that part of the nervous system which you use to control your body. In the same way your choice to think of something different automatically makes changes in reality, your can choose to "will" in such a way that the parts of your material and functioning natural complex brain which is coupled to that interface changes so that the muscles are thereby controlled. There is a continuity between your brain and your body. What your brain is and does (which encompasses the mental) is continuous with the rest of your body... the same in reverse is how you can perceive anything at all via your sensory organs.
  6. Clear this up, I specified that anti-semitism *does* exist (and is worsening), the only thing being "exaggerated" by media is the role that the far-rightists have in it. Leftist-progressive- socialists who are forming alliances with political-Islamic elements are together and apart the more threatening to Jews, long term. Leftist Jews, also, are finally beginning to realize this, I notice. Prime example, Corbyn's Labour Party in the UK which openly takes up with terrorists. It's partly the numbers, of course. Muslims are a big voting bloc there, and he is popularly anti-semitic . Whatever the swings of the past, the greater threat is from the Left. It is "a left thing" today, predominantly. The outcome is of Jews emigrating to Israel, considered a "nationalist" country, to many (of the Left). And "Zionist- apartheid". To them, it is immoral that Jews - while they make things extremely hard for Jews elsewhere, ironically and viciously - should desire a national identity, self-determination and a (relatively) secure homeland. "Open your borders to everyone!" Quite, and that's the end of Israel and half the world's Jews. Which is the aim. Not so different from conservatives in European states, as I said, who are not xenophobic primarily -- simply self-preserving. The "overfocus on nationality" can't be what Elan Journo had in mind, I'd think, when he titled his essay: The Vice of Nationalism. I don't know how one can overfocus on one's roots, anyway. They just are what they are. You didn't make them, you are not responsible for your nationality, ethnicity, gender, rearing, early ed, and so on. Can one feel ashamed of them? Neither can one derive all one's pride from those. But - should one negate and meekly self-sacrifice *any* part of one's identity - intellectual, moral, physical, cultural, and background - to those who wish to bring one down (and perhaps one's country), out of their power-lust, envy, etc.? Never.
  7. First I want to focus on the concept itself. Is the concept matter? (or is "a" concept matter) I grant you that a concept is "represented" somehow in the brain. I would argue that the representation mechanism is not the "thing represented". The projector is not what you see on the screen although it does cause it. Kind of like saying "you see that film on the screen, it is a projector". I see it similar to a "pointer" in a computer program that points to a memory location. The pointer is not the memory location, it points to it. I hope I am not muddying the water by my examples.
  8. The point was that if there is an overfocus on nationality, to an irrational degree (after all, the principle of nationalism underlying a country that we are referring to, individual rights is not baked into the concept and could even be absent), then some people would begin to see -any- foreign culture as inherently a threat. Anti-Semitism is not a left or right thing. The Soviet Union was anti-Semitic, or we can take those influenced by Wagner who didn't focus on some global takeover but still thought Jews were a threat to Germany. Then what, we start saying that Wager wasn't a "real" German? No, because it's German-ness taken to an exaggerated degree, that cultures cannot be mixed without severe damage to a nation state (the idea that it would be impossible to be both or require complete subjugation to *all* values of a particular culture). As for the modern day, whether or not anti-Semitism is exaggerated doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And besides, I wasn't talking about a specific country.
  9. By "indefinite" I only mean nothing inherently (within the body) limiting the lifespan. e.g. as long as there is enough energy left in the universe to extract the heat and work to perform the ongoing repair and maintenance (external resources) etc. you'll live. Assuming the universe is slowly dying of heat death via entropy and expansion, it does not have indefinite potential for energy use... so the transformations required for consciousness would eventually stop. Asymptotic death is interesting... life could be extended by slowing life down, but the quality and quantity of life would be spread out over more and more time... and eventually at the end normal subjective experiences would not be able to complete prior to the exhaustion of the universe... if you had the last grams of available heat energy to burn in your artificial brain you may not even finish your final thought.... and it might last millions years while your "rationing system" asymptotically feeds your dying mind... until it finally exhausts your stores.
  10. Longstanding French citizens, the Jews have been exiting France, not because of "nationalists" - extreme right-wingers - they rate third on the threat-agenda, but because of Islamists and anti-Semitic Leftists. That's not the only EU country the Jews are beginning to feel insecure in. That "right-wing-anti-semite-meme" is mostly a media exaggerated fiction, diverting attention away from the Left and Islamists.
  11. Are you thinking about the concept "swimming" OR is the complex natural system which is your brain and body engaged in doing it?
  12. I can see that the mind controls the hand and I can't explain the connection. But the thought or concept "isolation" or "swimming" has no weight or location. How does that get reconciled?
  13. It's ironic how Antifa protests against that which you think we've already defeated.
  14. Writing about the recent beating of journalist Andy Ngo by Antifa thugs in Oregon, George Parry offers a solution in an American Spectator piece. The former state and federal prosecutor notes parallels between the license granted to Antifa by Portland's government with that given the Ku Klux Klan by the government of Jim Crow-era Mississippi (and dramatized in the 1988 film, Mississippi Burning). Here is the crux of the legal portion of his argument: Not only is the group's name highly ironic, the emblem on this flag reminds me of the pointed masks favored by Klansmen. (Image by Old White Truck, via Wikipedia, license.)[W]hether Antifa acted under color of law under [18 USC] Section 242 or whether the mayor of Portland or other city officials can be held criminally responsible for those acts depends on the degree to which Antifa and the City of Portland combined, conspired, confederated, or agreed to promote or permit Antifa's campaign of terror and intimidation. To be sure, unlike the outrageous direct involvement of the Mississippi law officers in the murders of Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman, there has been no suggestion that Portland police actively joined in Ngo's beating. But the question remains whether or not Portland's hands-off-Antifa policy was part and parcel of a conspiracy to allow Antifa freedom to threaten, oppress, intimidate, and deprive others of their civil rights. In that regard, the bad news for Portland is that such a conspiracy can be proven without direct evidence of a formal agreement. In fact, most conspiracy cases involve an informal agreement that can be legally inferred from circumstantial evidence. On that basis, the facts and circumstances of how and why the City of Portland has allowed Antifa's masked thugs to prowl its streets while wearing masks, brandishing weapons, and threatening others warrant investigation by federal law enforcement. In particular, it should be determined whether there was a nexus between Portland's hands-off-Antifa policy and the attack on Andy Ngo. In addition to criminal liability, Portland may also be answerable in money damages if it can be proven that its official policy regarding Antifa was a substantial factor in bringing about Ngo's injuries... [bold added]It is alarming (to say the least) that governments like Portland's are allowing this to happen, but heartening to know that we have defeated worse in the past. I am not an attorney, but Parry's particular idea seems worthwhile to me. More important, I fully agree with his (more general) call for the federal government to hold accountable officials -- such as those in Portland -- who invite such atrocities. -- CAV Link to Original
  15. Apparently he did not touch the subject https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Even by myself? You do not give me any details so I have to ask. So someone that thinks that life do not have several, and is depressed (to avoid the it only exist in the person head) but do not kill himself. What do you call it?
  16. And let me see if I understand what you mean ... If a contradiction is found is wrong, because the law of Identity has to be taken as an article of faith? Yes please. Philosophie is a science, you like it or not. When I talked about my belief?
  17. Neither do I, but (to use your flawed terminology) I take it as an "article of faith" that I exist. Even if we're all in the matrix or something my mind must exist SOMEHOW, in SOME form. And I'm guessing that you feel the same way about your own existence, too. I bring this up because it's another axiom (just like the Law of Identity). It's something we all have to assume in order to even function. I exist, I think and I try my best to do so in non-contradictory ways (because contradictions are always wrong). It's interesting to me to find out how you can even claim not to, but if you're fundamentally opposed to such "articles of faith" then at the end of the day that's your problem. You can never get away from them.
  18. The Law of Identity is what says that contradictions cannot exist. You violated the Law of Identity when you claimed that contradictions do exist. You then appealed to the Law of Identity when you claimed that this DISPROVES the Law of Identity. It's a disproof by CONTRADICTION, isn't it? If "life is full of contradictions" then that doesn't disprove the Law of Identity, just because it contradicts it. Hence: "sure, contradictions exist, and also are metaphysically impossible". Do you need a diagram? Sure. It's not science; it's what science is based on. But it's not "faith" either. And you've proven pretty conclusively (and hilariously) that it's a belief which you share. You can't disprove it; the very concept of "proof" or "disproof" assumes it (which is what I mean about science being "based on it"). You can call it "pseudoscience" all you want, but nobody here is pretending that it is science and anything you have to say about the moral character of those who hold it applies equally to you, too. You're more than welcome to try and disprove ANYTHING I just said WITHOUT using the Law of Identity, but please try and come up with some new arguments for it. Your old ones are all dead already.
  19. No one said otherwise (the thing you are arguing against, no one made that argument).
  20. Last week
  21. It's necessary to bear in mind that the religious are not going to conveniently disappear anytime soon, merely because *we know* that Objectivism is right and proper, and that the Christians, etc.are "mystics" who - it could be wrongly supposed -will eventually have "revealed" to them this fact and become persuaded by the philosophy. Which is why I can agree with the principled argument made by Journo and still think he's dropping context. He is preaching to the O'ist choir and partly ignoring that vast number of religious conservatives for whom family, community etc. is their mainstay - and won't change. My argument still, that nationalism and individuality/individual rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even when a country and several others perhaps, adopt individual rights, e.g. when trade is undertaken by *individuals* - not controlled by bureaucrats/government agreements and tariff wars ("economic nationalism")- and when people can move freely from one to the other - and, say, a person is a Christian who holds to family, community, nation and God, those individual rights 'accomodate' all the people and all their ethics throughout the free nations. As irrational as one rates those ethics to be. Now, such a reduced govt. would have no intention, consent or resources, to do any more, militarily, than protect its border integrity from other un-free countries (which would still be around). Then and still, I don't see why each (free) nation would not continue to possess its own *sovereignty*, the core of nationalism (since Left/Right, socialist/fascist collectivism is dropped from the equation). And if one values one's nation for these accomplishments, for protecting one's freedoms, even national patriotism could be in order.
  22. As far I've read, absorbing material - not so trivial I admit. Thank you. I will need to return to this exchange on Karl Popper, further.
  23. Over at Hacker News this morning, I learned that something I have been doing for years has a nickname, "do-nothing scripts." (I was calling them "guide scripts.") The basic idea is that one can write a script for a cumbersome process one might ultimately want to automate, even when only pieces of it are immediately amenable to automation. In other words, the script serves to provide cues, help one keep one's place in the procedure, and act as scaffolding for a piecemeal automatization: Image by Jannis Brandt, via Unsplash, license.At first glance, it might not be obvious that this script provides value. Maybe it looks like all we've done is make the instructions harder to read. But the value of a do-nothing script is immense: It's now much less likely that you'll lose your place and skip a step. This makes it easier to maintain focus and power through the slog. Each step of the procedure is now encapsulated in a function, which makes it possible to replace the text in any given step with code that performs the action automatically. Over time, you'll develop a library of useful steps, which will make future automation tasks more efficient. A do-nothing script doesn't save your team any manual effort. It lowers the activation energy for automating tasks, which allows the team to eliminate toil over time.I do not write software for a living -- I see my software more as an "exoskeleton" -- and I am always on the alert for ways to make it even more useful. I stumbled upon the idea for this kind of script a couple of years ago, when I had to generate a large number of reports with very similar steps very quickly. I saw right away how to automate some of the steps, and knew I could do the same for others, but that I'd need to learn more about some software before I could do those. I also wasn't sure how long I'd need to keep creating the reports, so I doubted that getting myself up to speed on the unknown software was really a good use of my time. But in thinking about doing this, I did realize the value of having the computer keep track of where I was, so I wrote the script, anyway. This was so helpful that I have since written several other "do-nothing" guide scripts. The one I use for weekly data backups has been helpful in that that process has a couple of time-consuming steps. I don't need to babysit them, so I can focus on something else. I can turn again for a moment to backups at any convenient time, when the script awaits input between steps -- and I am in between tasks that require my full attention. -- CAVLink to Original
  24. Causal connection. Physical, material causality through direct and indirect contact or through fields or whatever else physics may discover. Then that thing would be unknowable, and it would be arbitrary to speculate about its existence. So based on that, a false thought, a mistake or contradiction, a thought without referent, is "somehow" connected to everything/existence. That seems to be a known-unknown (a known nonsense). As opposed to a non-existent which is not connected and not noticed at all. That seems to be an unknown-unknown. (or would this be an unknowable or both) How do I know about the unknowable when it is not connected? (Why is one capable of forming the concept)
  25. "Falsifiablity" is not about proving something wrong. Is about the possibility for the profe to exist. If it is not possible to prove that something is wrong there is an article of faith and not science. I don't know what is Popper’s position on existence.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...