Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

frank harley

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


frank harley last won the day on May 29 2014

frank harley had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    frank harley
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

5097 profile views

frank harley's Achievements


Member (4/7)



  1. The scientific method says that the only real content is that of a tested & supported hypotheses.
  2. Well, no. the arbitrary is just as good as any other notion...or 'concept'! That's because the philo-epistemo-metaphysical-logical status means nothing. What's only of importance is if the statement can be made into a testable hypotheses. Again, 'null hypotheses' means all unproven hypotheses are equally void of content.
  3. >>> Many-valued logic is not scientific or reasonable to Oist.>>>> ...etc... The key to science is the possibility that 'any' concept can be converted into a testable hypotheses. This would include those brought about by a mystical vision. To this end, we speak of science using 'null hypotheses' that 'all' hypothese are equally null from the start. it would therefore stand to reason that concepts, that form hypotheses, are all null in equal measure. Science does not favor binary logic. Rather the opposite case can be better made that tested results and internal competition for the best answer indicates fuzzy logic of the 'sort of-kind of' variety.
  4. Well. no: naturalized concepts are those that purport to explain how nature works. The problem is that scientists don't like the term because it sounds philosopihical (mirable dictu!). Wigner spoke for himself, not for the community. His point, internally speaking, was that while most of his fellow QMers took a Godel-influenced Platonic view of math, they nevertheless insisted that their discoveries were subject-independently real. Again, Wigner's point was that the match was too close. There comes a point (long-crossed in his opinion) at which math ceases to become only a tool, rather, begins to direct the outcome. This has nothing to do with our conscious minds bending an outcome.
  5. Electromagnetic fields are just that, regardless of their source. There would be a measurable EM field due to the rather large nerve that creates an elecrochemical charge. that's because all nerves run on...electrochemical, auto-created impulses. When you get excited, or run a lot, or have sex, the nerve activity increases, telling the heart to pump more blood, faster, to supply tthe brain with more oxygen (among other things!). But this is high-school biology, not serious research. Moreover, a good high school biology teacher would never say, "bio-electromagnetic'. The info i obtained was by listening to your peeple talk on youtube while i was typing. And as for 'only ones doing the research' this doesn't pass the laugh test. research that's not shared is assumed to be prima facie fraudulent, or non-existent.
  6. People today have developed an anti-war mindset precisely because of the horrors of the two world wars. Otherwise, I believe that your suggestion that the US is somehow whimping out is far off base. To this end, perhaps you might explain DIM to the un-initiated, such as I Lastly in two specific cases that you mentioned: * I believe that 'bullshit' and 'tension' are poor words to describe the Ukranian situation. You have the overthrow of an unpopular, pro-russian government whose support was located in the Crimea, and Don Bass. Now it's evident that a regional majority want to become part of Russia. Fighting it out is lose-lose. ** Re Israel-Palestine, yes, we're forcing both sides to negotiate because all-out war would de-stabilize the entire region, from which we derive oil.
  7. Permit me to offer a Spinozan perspective into the debate regarding Walmart:in particular and coroprations in general: In his 'political tract' he noted that the '-cracy' in democracy, meant the people are empowered to change things,(kratos in greek means more like 'direct' than 'rule' as such). Having empowerment but not using it is a definite statement that one accepts the status quo--that there is nothing to direct. Walmart builds huge boxes, pays poorly and refuses to hire full-time--all in the name of economic efficiency. Oth, all corporations are chartered by the states, who have the power to set wage, full-time status, and assess large-scale efficiency againt environmentl impact and the sociocultural benefits of promoting smallness of business scale. Ditto for lobbyists as they're registered under a code of conduct
  8. >>> the most fundamental nature of existence is conceptual, not sensational. By fundamental here I do not mean our reality<<<< I agree. To conceptualize is part of our DNA. Oth, there is nothing that assures us that our concepts will lead to science. Speaking of which....my experience in science indicates that its practitioners have a really hard time with the c-word. Rather, a 'concept' to science is nothing but an idea, or generalized thought that hasn't found it's usable form as a hypotheses. to this end, a 'naturalized concept is one that corresponds to how nature works,by way of the possibiity of forming a hypotheses. You've explained Rand's use of 'unit' quite well, thank you. That it does not correspond to set theory is fine,as i can easily adapt. If numbers are not real, then you fall into the obligation of explaining your way out of the 'Wigner conundrum'. As a truly great QM Physicist, his later book questioned how QM can explain nature, insofar the match between QM results and the math is far too intimate. So if math is mind-dependent, so is QM! In other words, the results of QM would not exist independently of our minds... A good example of his claim came ten years ago--after his passing-- with Dyson's discovery that the algorythmic sequence of spectral lines matched the infamous Z-function of Riemann, created in 1824! In any case, yes, there's a strong argument for the naturalization of math--that it's discovered like everything else in nature. First developed by Quine, the latest is by Penny Maddy, who's actually out at U Cal irvine, a short walk from the Rand Institute, btw. In fact, Dyson is convinced that Maddy offers the best epistemic explanation for his self-labeled 'discovery'. Wigner, for his part, died a hard -core Platonist.
  9. Post scriptum: heart/math is utter nonsense. for one, they're talking of ;'their' reserch, 'their' laboratories, ad nauseum... 'Unseen energetic level' ??? Please. Earth's energetic system interaction????
  10. The quantification of emotional response began in the 1930's with Schracter. it's a measurement of response from the optic thalmus. Things are far more sophisticated now; perhaps this is what the 'heart/math is all about(?), which I'll check out & respond accordingly. My particular pov is that economic transactions are far too emotional-- which is nothing more than to say that we're victimized by advertising into making the wrong purchasing decisions. <<sex is rational-emotional when money is rational-rational>> Perhaps you meant 'while' for 'when'? No on both, imho. There are rational elements in sex and emotional in money...
  11. Thanks for the response. it would seem as if she's saying that 'unit' is a naturalized concept--ie gender and numbers are natural?
  12. Here i'm requesting an objectivist explanation: In set theory a 'unit' is defined as an aggregate of two or more facts or things that have something in common. Yet because we can find commonalities in any two things or facts, the number of units consists of a larger infinity than the infinite number of facts and things themself. The same can be said of 'concept' if we're dealing with qualities of things-- ie 'money' for all objects used as purchasing power, etc...at the same time they might be classed with either 'worthless trinkets', or "status symbol." In other words, the human use of concepts seems hyper fluid: things get aggregated and conceptualized according to moment to moment utility. My own opinionm is that this mental adaptiveness is an evolutionay trait. Thisis why I'm of the school that says concept fundamentally ferers to meaning. Yet to have a 'natural' concept would indicate a particular way of aggregation that's somewhat set in stone. Moreover, in point of fact, 'objectivism' outside of its Randian context means just that! In any case, philosophies are what they are because the adherents feel that their way of grouping into concepts is more important than others. Or perhaps you disagree, and contend that the objectivist way is 'natural'?
  13. I would say that emotion contains volitional elements.that form the content of what's being expressed. Oth, the expression of emotion is not; we all know how importantly difficult it is to keep emotions under control. Aristotle wrote that we choose our children's emonal responses for them thru education (paideia). For example, if I were to say 'Dogaloo akbar- the dog is great', it would not definately not be in a mosque in Cairo among a bunch of teenage theology students. Money is nothing but purchasing power. That said, yes, there's a willfull, emotive desire on the part of a few to have more than others. Likewise, the act of purchasing contains an emotive element. That's why it's so easily linked to sex on teevee commercials. Yes, there's a semantics to emotions: 'I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm in love', etc....The problem here is that the expression of language precludes further discussion, which is to say that the signing is direct, unidimensional, and rebukes the courtesey of a response. To express an emotion is to leave the linguistic field, which is what kant called 'delirium'. A sane person does this on occasion, while the insane person, by definition lives by his/her emotions.
  14. From the 'Organon', 'Peri hermeneis'. or 'Regarding interpretation' is the standard Aristotelian text that deals with propositions and language.. Most readers neglect the significance of Book 9 and the infamous 'problem of future contingents'; a sea battle either will or will not take place tomorrow. Otherwise, this is more or less proof that Aristotle considered cases in which null and negative values are as real as positive assertions. Therefore, a general theory of logic (which Aristotle never developed) would have to account for all possibilities. This would include 'null-A', Lukasiewicz, et al... I disagree with Aquinas' use of Aristotle. Therefore, although deeply admired for their intent, this indicates that, regrettably, there's a serious flaw in the Salamanca arguments. Humans simply don't exist in a state of nature as 'naturally good' because the contrary is seen everywhere as well. Aquinas bootlegged Aristortelian 'fusis' (what's natural is what's found in nature, everywhere, into the social realm in which various competing philosophers state what's 'natural' for humans. and then deductively pound away. We admire Salamanca for supporting the Indians against Spanish genocide, and Locke for opposing an idiotic king's claim to own everything in his realm. But we're a bit edgy about Nietzsche's natural superiority of the few, and sickened over Robbie George's claim that homosexuality should be made illegal because it's unnaturallly unable to procreate. But the base argument is common to all: that we're better off listeninh to naturalist explanations than not. Oth, I vote with Aristotle that humans are zoon politikon. We believe more or less what our society thinks is right, and the best way to change individuals is to change societal ethos. Claims of 'naturalness' are nothing more than non-reflection on how norms, customs and laws came to be.
  15. Rand's literature is about the constitution of The Sunject. So without even having read her pure philsophy, her work would be deemed philosophically important because, after all, the most important question you can ask in philosophy is 'What accounts for subjectivity?' Galt and Roarke struggle to maintain an identity. As over-achievers, they (rightfully feel that their reward are insufficient. Moreover, both raise the issue as to how deprived the world would be without their services. Then I began reading the 'pure' philosophy. Since I do have a background in philsophy (masters thesis on Kant), I do have disagreements as to how he's treated. Yet these are minor compared to Rand's major thrust which, most agreeably, is to place philosophy on scientific grounds. hence, 'Objectivism'. Via her epistemology, her theory of language would be considered 'causal-referential', which is a remarkable insight.. Truth is justified (ostensibly the function of epistemology) by the creation of concepts. In this sense, there is nothing to be said of anything outside of the unit of reference--the word itself--which creates meaning. In short, she has squared a circle by standing both as an exemplary novelist and a philosoper of serious reference. That being said, I reject all -isms because this suffix implies that the particular belief is beyond scrutiny and criticism.
  • Create New...