ppw

Has the whole idea of 'proof', 'law' and 'justice system' been thrown out of the window?

"Liberal has issues with Objectivism" well, that's news.

This is its logical extreme, but such "anti-racism" to any degree is still racism.

I think the question "Why is there consciousness?" is both unanswerable and unaskable, because consciousness is axiomatic.

More material to think about regarding the blank slate: "Research on the structure and development of the brain in animals supports Kant's theory, at least for the perception of space; that is, spatial representation of the environment includes an innate component that predates any actual perception of the environment itself." -- (an older revision of a) Wikipedia entry on Immanuel Kant This also ties into the next segment: Regarding realism in psychology: "Rand's notion that we can observe reality directly (known in philosophy as direct or naïve realism) is refuted by the current consensus in neuroscience, psychology, and the cognitive sciences (which accepts various forms of indirect or representative realism). In the cognitive sciences, raw input is called "bottom-up perception" and the way the brain interprets this input is called "top-down perception." The visual, auditory, etc. cortices essentially "reconstruct" the input from their respective sense organs, meaning there is always some element of top-down interpretation of raw stimuli. Thus, we do not experience reality directly but in some sense a perceptual facsimile of reality constructed by the brain. A simple example of this is the fact that the image formed on your eye's retina is upside-down, but the visual cortex flips it right-side up. There are numerous other examples as well, including hallucinations and cognitive illusions.[9]" -- http://rationalwiki....m_in_psychology Usually, replies to bringing up these issues are such: - "that's rationalism" - "those are just claims open to debate" - "<insert discipline here> is not a science" etc. Well if Gödel's incompleteness theorem doesn't conflict, why was it attacked in OPAR? Granted it was a single mention, but still. More on Rand's conflict with the theory of evolution -- more striking excerpts: Branden's entry on her (Branden might have been lying here, don't know): "I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." I asked her, "You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms — including humans — evolved from less complex life forms?" She shrugged and responded, "I'm really not prepared to say," or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God's creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable." Her "missing link" theory (also discussed in an essay in P:WNI) slashing humans into two subgroups (human and sub-human): "In her notes for Atlas Shrugged in 1946, she writes: "The supposition of man’s physical descent from monkeys does not necessarily mean that man’s soul, the rational faculty, is only an elaboration of an animal faculty, different from the animal’s consciousness only in degree, not in kind.” (pp. 465-466.) Her most interesting comment on the implications of evolution may be the following, also from her notes for Atlas Shrugged: "We may still be in evolution, as a species, and living side by side with some “missing links.” [. . .] We do not know to what extent the majority of men are now rational. (They are certainly far from the perfect rational being, and all the teachings they absorb put them still farther back to the pre-human stage.) . . . . (Most men are rational beings, even if none too smart; they are not pre-humans incapable of rational thinking; they can be dealt with only on the basis of free rational, consent.)" (p. 466-67.) "She goes on the same entry to describe those incapable of rational life as “sub-human” who need to be “enslaved” and “controlled.” (p. 467.)" [emphasis mine]" -- http://rebirthofreas...Evolution.shtml

I guess the incompleteness theorem is now just a claim open to debate. I guess most of quantum physics are now just claims open to debate. I guess the "cognitive revolution" never happened: "Scientists recognize that the entire cerebral cortex is indeed preprogrammed and organized in order to process sensory input, motor control, emotions, and natural responses.[5] These programmed mechanisms in the brain then act to learn and refine the ability of the organism.[6][7] For example, Steven Pinker argues that while the brain is "programmed" to pick up spoken language easily, it is not programmed to learn to read and write, and a human generally will not spontaneously learn to do so.[8] Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from Behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies. These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits.[8]" -- http://en.wikipedia....iki/Blank_slate "After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis." -- Ayn Rand That does not negate the fact that much of today's science flies in the face of Objectivism. Right, "Objectivist's position" != "Objectivism's position", but by virtue of thought, any rational individual will come to notice that there is a huge, huge breach between today's scientific findings and what Objectivism has to say about the world.

There's a tremendous difference between saying "Objectivism is at odds with today's science" and "Objectivism is at odds with science". A completely different context is assumed, with all of the relevant implications.

I guess some examples are in order? 1) Big Bang theory 2) environmental science (e.g. Global Warming theory) 3) Gödel's incompleteness theorem 4) a hefty portion of quantum physics (e.g. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) 5) (most likely all of) sociology 6) praxeology 7) analytic philosophy 8) realism in psychology 9) ...

Much of today's science clashes with Objectivism; that doesn't mean Objectivism will change its position according to what science "has accumulated".

Thanks, lordcris/leoninmiami ! And BTW, Ehre's avatar is Brando Eaton

Lol. Yes, and it's also the first name of an infamous nationalist Serbian president.

Onkar Ghate described God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son as supernatural subjectivism, and that puzzled me until I understood it as actually a brand of intrinsicism. A moral subjectivist will not claim that morality is an immutable eternal code emblazoned on a block of stone coming from a supernatural being or a revelation etc. Unlike the intrinsicist, he will rather claim that no objective morality is possible (even though the intrinsicists' version of 'objective' morality is an intrinsic one). If you claim "what is right whatever your conscious opinion deems to be right", you are not yet saying about what category you're falling into. Now if you were to answer what your conscious opinion rests on with "the Ten Commandments", "mystical revelations from my rabbi", "Dianetics" or even "Atlas Shrugged", then you would reveal yourself as a moral intrinsicist. On the other hand, if you were to answer "I think it is right because I think it is right", that would make you a moral subjectivist (your 'consciousness' is the source of your morality, not reality as understood by reason). Now, how is supernatural subjectivism a brand of intrinsicism? Your conscious opinion in this case would rest on "whatever God thinks is right". In this case, God's consciousness, intrinsic in reality, is the source of morality. Intrinsicism vs. subjectivism serves to distinguish which part of existence gets denied (evaded, blurred out, attacked) by various schools of thought -- either man's consciousness and his capacity to reason and think (as is in the case of Platonism, Egyptian polytheism, Christianity etc.) or the external reality (as is in the case of hedonism, whim-worshipping, moral nihilism etc.). But both categories ultimately have to result in emotionalism. In both cases, objectivity (reason's continuous volitional adherence to reality) is rejected, leaving only emotions to govern the source of one's actions. That's the common element unifying the two schools -- their result. No, "duty", understood in the context of ethics and not colloquially (as in the context of "an officer's duties"), is a central concept in altruism, with its key tenet that you must drop purpose, desire, need, reason, goals, wishes (i.e. all of your consciousness) in favor of an unknowable reality (or, in reality, whatever an authority or collective tells you to do). (Incidentally, it's also an anti-concept.) It's a prime exponent of intrinsicism. "Whim-worship", on the other hand, says that you should drop reality and pursue what your consciousness has conjured up, whatever that may be. Note how both positions drop reason. But they are distinct in their methods of dropping it.

No. Companies which want to corner the market through excellence (product quality and/or pricing) are truly capitalist. Companies which want to resort to force (lobbying, abusing governmental mechanisms) to achieve the same are *not* capitalist.

I actually disagree with that. It might help clear up some things, but learning as in acquiring new knowledge? That would require a first-handed approach, which you can't get through "discussion".

I'm not complaining about my job per se. (In fact, I quite like it.) I also think that the people I work with are hard-working and honest people. I see the issue as manifold. It's a logical issue. I don't see what I'm doing now fitting into the big picture (even though, paradoxically, I have no clue of the big picture). In other words, my work right now doesn't integrate with the rest, not in the long-term. It's a geographical issue. I live in (tribalist) Europe. I don't want to live here. Ideally I would live someplace where how much effort I put in would actually correspond to how much I earn, which means an objective valuation of my work (as opposed to every government job I've had so far), which can only exist in a capitalist society. And this society would have to hold to its freedom for the long-term. It's a temporal issue. The ethical-economical-political crisis the world is in right now could not have come at a worse time. How am I to think about how to build my future when I see the world around me collapsing? Which relates to . . . Finally, it's a psychological issue. I haven't made the issue of taking control of my life real enough to me to actually do something about it. I have begun to suspect this is because English is not my native language, distancing the issue (and the important corresponding ideas) from my mind. Which means I should either start with the painstaking work of the translation of these ideas, or drop the language altogether (which falls in line with my second point). I'm not miserable and I really can't complain about my job. But I do know that this is not 'it', that it is far from 'it', and that if I want 'it', this is not the way to go. But what 'it' is . . . I don't know. So the argument follows: Well if I don't know what it is, how can I have any standard by which to make decisions? I can't. Hence I "follow".

Fact-value dichotomy.

The point here is that it's completely useless to be independent if you want to get anything done if your work is decided by an authority. "Ah yes, my boss wants me to get this done, but let me think this through and see if it's actually the right thing to do and if it's not, I'll --" you'll do what, exactly? Whine? You can be "independent" all you want -- in your brain. But in reality, you have no choice but to follow, at least initially -- your parents, your boss, the majority, the government, etc. It's this grand delusion of 'freedom' that one can uphold in a bubble, but it's almost completely gone in this world.

But not in reality? Why not just say "Independence is a virtue."? Do you regard Objectivism as disconnected from reality? Are you a Libertarian? That would make sense. What about 80% of your life? 50%? 20%? Where do you draw that line? Is it OK to be a follower your entire childhood? Are you a follower if you obey your parents? So when do you stop being a follower? When you stop listening to your parents? Your boss? When you have your own company? So if you work for someone else, you're a follower? You're not independent? Until the government steps in. What?

So it's either "lead, follow or get out of the way"? There's absolutely nothing morally wrong with being a follower your whole life. I don't have the luxury of choosing my associates, so that spectrum of choice can safely be thrown out of consideration. Apart from work-related interests, I have a set of interests which happens to intersect very poorly with the interests of the people I work with. I certainly don't care if they think I'm boring because of that.

Ah, a reductive materialist.

This has absolutely nothing to do with idealism, just a full embrace of the (false!) moral-practical dichotomy.

lol. a couple of months. your nervous system is chronically inflamed from years of gorging on O-6's, now you want results now now now. lol. have your brain extracted, placed in a jar, and hooked up to a virtual reality to set your mind free.

Wow, some great information in that reply -- thanks! Yes, it was a mistake to just plop quercetin on there without any first-handed experience of it at that time, hah Anyway, "Longecity" (this site which predominantly focuses on longevity, which is not something I'm into) has a great subforum on nootropics, so it provides that which I had hoped to find here as well -- information about ways to enhance the mind. With regards to my motives, I feel like I've reached a cognitive plateau of some sort. I want to go beyond that. I'll get there.

My perceived ineptitude to "climb the ladder" in a relationship to get to the point where the other person thinks of me as a trustworthy, loyal, friendly acquaintance (which I very much can be). I'm so sorry. Because I wanted to be able to defend myself from a completely analytical perspective (I know I'm invoking the analytic-synthetic dichotomy here, but bear with me for a moment) from people who wanted to attack me on ethical grounds vs. telling them to go read AS/FH (the latter being especially difficult to do when English is not their native tongue (I'm not saying it's mine either, but I do believe I've come to the point where I can express myself better in English than my native tongue) and no one knows who Rand is). (Now I just ignore those whom I've realized I can't affect.) I am also a recovering rationalist and narcissist, and logical deliberation used to provide a great deal of pleasure for my inner intellectual narcissist.

I agree, I was just trying to make a humorous observation. Gotta practice, ya know.