Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ilya Startsev

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ilya Startsev last won the day on September 11 2018

Ilya Startsev had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Ilya Startsev

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/05/1986

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    thanks to Rand, philosophizing as a hobby
  • Experience with Objectivism
    the ones I most like/admire: AS, ITOE, DIM, EoS
  • School or University
    Veda School
  • Occupation

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    fiction & philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

8351 profile views
  1. For sure this new science is influenced by spirituality and mysticism (collectivism -- not so much). Ancient philosophy of Aristotle was pointing exactly to this kind of science as well. You wouldn't call Aristotle a collectivist due to his political views? That story about the girl touched Pearsall for sure, and he was quite honest, if gullible, and emotionally charged in the positive sense. I haven't finished all of the book, but there seem to be more stories about patients experiencing their heart donors' emotions. I would rather believe him than pathological individuals like Novella.
  2. Can you please explain why you consider what I posted 'nonsense'?
  3. Since MisterSwig is seemingly accepting Novella's criticism of HeartMath for granted, I want to quote a famous sociological work concerning some of the practices of the likes of Novella that are common in modern science: In other words, if Novella and his team had the result that McCraty had gotten, they would accept it as true science. The problem with that is that these scientists don't see the problems that McCraty and his researchers do because these individuals clearly look through different methodological lenses, structured by different epistemologies. Reference: Latour
  4. Is that so? You are right that I don't know Biology (sic) so well, or maybe not as well as you do. Can you tell me what the purpose of "junk" DNA is, please?
  5. But I'm not equivocating in terms of the source from where that signal originates. This confusion is similar, for example, to misunderstanding Aristotle's epistemology. The forms (causes) exist objectively, but we need to use our soul (source) to make "imprints" of them, thus originating them within our (sub)consciousness for further processing. If our heart counts as the source of emotions, surely our toes don't. The idea that taking a signal for the thing itself (hereby, emotion) as false goes back to Alfred Korzibski's work (another darn Kantian) who tried to disprove Aristotelian objectivi
  6. The more recent work by HeartMath begins thusly: Then the rest of the article flushes out the details and shows empirical data that is brushed aside by Novella as mere "noise". References & Bibliography: McCraty, R., & Childre, D. (2002). The Appreciative Heart: The Psychophysiology of Positive Emotions and Optimal Functioning. Boulder Creek, CA: Institute of HeartMath. McCraty, R. (2001). Science of the Heart: Exploring the Role of the Heart in Human Performance. Boulder Creek, CA: Institute of HeartMath. McCraty, R. (2015). The Energetic Heart: Biomagne
  7. Just to show that I've considered empirical research concerning emotions from more authoritative sources than HeartMath, here is what I wrote to Bill Harris on my blog after banning him in 2016: I found Purves et al.’s Neuroscience (2004; see complete reference below) to be the most respected and used textbook in graduate neuroscience courses. I’ve read the section on emotions (Chapter 28) and skimmed through most of the book. Here is my interpretation of the neurological perspective on emotions (if you are not familiar with it, see the textbook, and also compare to similar findings of Ek
  8. From Novella's article: Indeed, the neurons in the heart that are only called a 'brain' (for ease of understanding) regulate, that is, as HeartMath found out, encode blood with impulses that have information in them. Skeptics stuck in brain-centered consciousness cannot accept this because this idea doesn't correlate with Kantianesque science, but only some ancient philosophy (like that of Aristotle, who was indeed heart-centered and thus self-conscious). Indeed it doesn't. But it means it might have a soul, which is not reducible to mind (contrary to what Descartes and his fol
  9. No, a paramecium doesn’t have a heart and thus has no emotions. I differentiate thoughts (cognitive content) from emotions, just as I differentiate positive from negative emotions that cancel out, like fear and love. Excitement during exercise and peace are also emotions, since they occur at or after heart-rate changes, when we can become conscious of them. However, just like thoughts, emotions can also be subconscious or unconscious: I use these two terms interchangibly, although I realize there is a technical difference. In philosophy, though, they both would mean being outside of conscious
  10. By the way, if you want to know another mystical psychologist, you should consider Sabina Spielrein, the first female psychologist and one who was related to both gentlemen. Her mystical tendency (yet she wasn't a mystic!) related her to Jung, but her position was more idealist than his. The trio they formed can be categorized as: Freud DISintegrating, Jung INTegrating, Spielrein MISintegrating (a sort of a Hegelian variety). This is the context from which all of psychology developed, along one of these three lines.
  11. If Jung believed that he was brain-centered, then this would relate to himself not understanding his mystical nature, even being opposed to it, and his self-confusion. An essential starting point of any realist/mystic is a real context. All of Jung's psychology is saturated with contexts and context-bound entities. Archetypes come first to mind as we think about how they form the historical, beyond-mind patterns of the collective subconsciousness. In contrast to Jung, Freud dug into his psyche, thus starting with the brain and lowering his focus to the individual subconscious, which he believe
  12. Wouldn't medulla oblongata be the first point that blood pulse passes when entering the brain? Hence this point is prior to the limbic system's processing, yet it cannot be the source of emotions, but merely a subconscious unit on the path between the heart and the brain. Although heart and brain can work autonomously, as we know that hearts starts working before the brain in human development, it's optimum for them to work together, cohering their individual impulses. When one dominates the other, as when heart pulses disbalance our brain chemistry or the brain forces our heart-rate to change
  13. It's a complex question and a problem that doesn't have any experimental data because most people just think that the heart is a pump and can be replaced like any other organ, completely ignoring the fact that the real heart has a brain that's independent from the brain in our head. From books such as The Heart's Code we know that heart transplant receivers experience emotions of their heart's donors. My guess about the artificial heart carriers is that they won't experience the same kind of emotions as everyone else or that they won't be able to become as deeply conscious about their emotions
  14. Has anyone read Ivan Yefremov's Razor's Edge? I am reading it right now and finding that much of aesthetics expressed in the beginning of the first part resonates and in parts joins with Rand's objective aesthetics. Here is a quote to consider (my translation from the Russian original): Yefremov, being a professional scientist (paleontologist, geologist, and biologist), is also an artist of words who wrote science-fiction in beautiful and rich prose. He was inspired by Jules Verne and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, but he also shares many elements from other scientists and philosophers. In th
  • Create New...