The Wrath

Christopher Hitchens is always amusing and usually right. His problem is that he goes out of his way to be an asshole. He could express the same ideas without being ridiculously rude to someone who is being polite to him. If he argues with someone like Sean Hannity, all bets are off...be as much of an ass as you want. But what was gained by being a prick to this guy, who was going to great lengths to be polite to Hitchens? Saying that he wants to "destroy" the religious right doesn't do him any favors, since people will twist that to mean something other than what he meant (i.e. ideological destruction).

Did you really just suggest that we nuke the capital cities of Europe?

I give up. Whatever other Objectivist stances I may disagree with, this one strikes me as the most asinine, the most petty, and the most indefensible. Ultimately it doesn't matter. What matters is the concept that you describe with the word "selfish" and I describe with the phrase "rational self-interest." But continue using the word in an esoteric way, if you wish. All it accomplishes is to further alienate the Objectivist movement from the rest of society.

These arguments are really laughable. What in the hell is corrupt about thinking that a word is best defined by the way most people use it? You need to take a linguistics class...because this is how languages are formed. The word "selfish" does not belong to you and it is not yours to surrender or defend. It belongs to the English-speaking world, of which the Objectivist community is but a minute fraction of a percentage. To support this ridiculous argument, you are burdened with showing why "selfish" has an intrinsic definition. You can't just assert, as is apparently your wont, that the rest of humanity has it wrong.

Your entire argument breaks down when you consider that your definition of "selfish" is not it's actual definition. Your definition is wrong. To argue otherwise is indefensible, assuming that you accept (as I'm sure you do) that words do not have intrinsic meanings that exist in nature.

I have never met a single person who considers it wrong to act in his own self-interest. Virtually everyone agrees that it is a generally good principle to act in your own self-interest. And when you consider that giving your life so that a loved one can live is actually sparing yourself intense sadness, most people will admit that even death can be in your own self-interest, in some circumstances. Many of these people are people who can potentially see things the way you do. That's why I think it is essential that the Objectivist movement stop stubbornly defending its esoteric definition of "selfish." You're saying there's a false dichotomy. Okay, fine. You can construct arguments against the dichotomy without using definitions that 299,990,000 out of America's 300,000,000 people disagree with. Even so, I disagree that there is a false dichotomy here. I've never met anyone who thinks that the only way to not be a greedy, hoarding, exploitative bastard is to be completely selfless and spend all your time helping other people. Everyone realizes that there is something in between, where you are concerned with your own welfare but do not needlessly step on others to get what you want. Altruism and self-interest lie on a continuum, with Mother Theresa on one end, Ayn Rand on the other, and virtually the rest of humanity somewhere in between. They are not discreet categories, and I challenge you to find anyone who thinks they are.

My 2 cents (which I've given many times before): Since words have no intrinsic meaning, the proper definition of a word is the one that is used by the majority of people who speak the language. Most people think "selfish" means "willing to step on others" or something to that effect. Since that's what most people think it means, then that's what it means. Period. Stubbornly insisting that it means something else does you no favors. You loudly proclaim how proud you are to be "selfish." Well, if most people accepted your definition, there wouldn't be anything wrong with that. Indeed, I suspect more people would find it admirable than you might imagine. But, since that isn't how it is defined by most people, what most people are going to do is look at you and say "man, what an asshole," and then never give Objectivism a second thought. And just think...that might have been a person that you could have brought over to your way of thinking, if you had used some phrase such as "rational self-interest" instead. If you want for Objectivism to continue being viewed as a right-wing fringe movement, then by all means, continue with your undying loyalty to an arbitrary group of phonemes with no intrinsic meaning. When you decide that it is the ideas, rather than the specific letters used to describe those ideas, that are more important, then you can come help me defend the principle of rational self-interest from the attacks of my left-of-center coworkers.

Just read it...very inspiring speech.

Yes, the calendar system is inherited by Western tradition...as is the celebration of Christmas. I don't have a problem with continuing tradition, even if it was religious in origin. I don't have a problem with continuing to use the suffix "anno Domini," and I think it's silly that people have tried to change it to "common era." By using our calendar system, you aren't affirming any particular doctrine of Christianity, but let's be honest here...we all know that the system is based on the birth of Christ. Well, so is Christmas. Few people are more anti-religion than I am, but I have no problem with recognizing that, for good or ill, Christianity has always been an important influence on our society. It's influence is, in my opinion, almost entirely negative, but I won't deny that I enjoy certain religious traditions, even if only for the sake of posterity.

I don't think this is a fair comparison. Firstly, the only Christian holiday that is an actual federal holiday is Christmas...at least, I don't think Easter is, but I could be wrong. I'm sure you're aware that December 25th was celebrated by the Europeans (our cultural ancestors) long before the introduction of Christianity. Even so, since most of this country is Christian and most people are going to celebrate it anyway, I don't have a problem with it being a federal holiday. When the government decides to declare a certain day to be "Christianity Day," I will be equally as incensed as I am about the declaration of Islam Day. I understand the objection to official government recognition of a religious holiday, but if we're going to be sticklers about it, then we should also demand that the government find new names for the days of the week, since the ones we use are all named after Norse gods. While we're at it, we need to do away with the current year numbering system, since it's based around the birth of Jesus Christ.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090504/ap_on_...angels___demons For those who don't know, Angels and Demons is the prequel to The Da Vinci Code...well, rather Da Vinci is the sequel to A&D. The book is an absolutely horrid piece of popcorn for adults who never progressed past the 4th grade reading level so, while I don't recommend it, that isn't the point. Just wanted to highlight another example of the Vatican still not willing to completely let go of the sway it once held over Europe. Isn't it about this time the world gave this relic of Medievalism the boot? The book sucks and the "history" in it is absurd, and I don't doubt the movie will be much the same. But it's always fun to watch religious nutjobs squirm when someone threatens their superstitious view of the world.

Just out of curiosity...how exactly do you propose that the military is going to deal with a cyberattack? Are they going to blow up the internet?

As much as I hate the BCS, I remember laughing when I heard this. Is this really what our country has come to? I may not agree with most of what Congress does, but I can at least understand their justifications behind the policies I disagree with. But I am seriously having trouble comprehending the argument here.

Calling me a leftist is nothing short of laughable. Thinking that you're full of shit on the Israel-Palestine debate (which you are) does not make me a leftist. I said nothing whatsoever insulting about Ayn Rand. You'll also note that I changed the post to something a little more reasonable than my initial gut level reaction.

I was going to respond, point-by-point, but decided not to because it wouldn't do any good. I've stated explicitly that I am not an Objectivist, numerous times. For a philosophy that abhors packaged deals, its followers sure do like to try and make it one. I agree with much of Objectivism, and my posting history reflects that. I also disagree with numerous parts. If you think that means that I am, on principle, rejecting the efficacy of reason...well, whatever. To me, that sounds like the words of a religious fanatic who condemns everyone who doesn't agree with him 100% of the time. In the end, I don't claim to have everything figured out, and I don't think you should either. I'm sure I'm wrong about some things, but I don't doubt that I'm right about others.

Politics: I agree with more or less all of the politics, as I can discern them from Rand's actual writings. I disagree strongly with the ideas suggested by many people on this board...including foreign policy that sometimes sounds nothing less than aggressive. I also support limited environmental restrictions, mainly regarding air and water, since there is no way to pollute water or air without it also affecting other people. Morality: I'm a strong supporter of individual rights, but don't buy the argument that altruism is "evil," since altruism is an individual choice. Preaching to others that they should also practice altruism is definitely evil, however. I also don't buy the sexual ethcis. Lastly, with respect to morality, I don't agree with the way she reached her conclusions. While my ultimate conclusions are more or less the same as Rand's, I don't think you can prove her moral system to be correct by starting with A=A. Whereas math can be proved because it describe relationships of things that actually exist in nature, I don't think that morals exist in nature. We derive them from our perception of what is good: happiness. I start with the assumption that happiness is good and pain is bad. I suppose it's logically possible that the opposite is true but, if it is, then I want nothing to do with morality. I suspect most people would agree that that is a good assumption on which to base morality. From there, I get to individual rights by way of noting that only individuals feel pain or happiness, not groups. Metaphysics: No disagreements. Epistemology: I don't believe in absolute certainty about anything but logic. I think that there comes a point where it is ridiculous to doubt certain things, but I think we should always admit the possibility that we are mistaken.

Not much cleavage on this girl...in part because I only ever see her dressed for work, but also in part because her breasts aren't particularly large. Everything else is about as perfectly sculpted as it can be.

Oh, I'm not interested in any kind of relationship. She's not a very pleasant person, in part because she is incredibly stuck up. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy looking.

I'm not sure that question makes grammatical sense. What are you trying to ask?

There is a girl I work with who I seriously think might be the most attractive woman I've seen in my life. Unfortunately I don't have any pictures, because I don't want her to think I'm stalking her, but it takes every ounce of willpower not to stare at her with my mouth open. The one problem: she has major hot chick syndrome. As in, she knows she looks good and is not very friendly as a result. I had a friend who once asked her a question about where something was, and her response was "I have a boyfriend." I guess I can't blame her...poor thing probably gets hit on 50 times a day.

Okay then, 5000 years ago. I'm not trying to argue that it will be possible at any particular point in the future. Just that there's no reason to say that we can't eventually create a machine that is actually self-aware. Sure, in the sense of brainwaves and such, but consciousness itself is still a subjective experience. A blind man can become an optician and tell you everything there is to know about the various wavelengths that make up visible light, but that doesn't mean he knows what it is like to experience the color red. Then we were talking past each other, because I don't disagree with what you say here. I don't think the Turing test is much use, because a machine could just be so well-programmed that it perfectly mimics human behavior. This is why I place such emphasis on the reverse engineering of the brain, and understanding what particular processes produce consciousness. But today's science fiction is tomorrows hard science. That's been the case for years. If you buy Kurzweil's singularity hypothesis, then things like true AI aren't far off. I don't know that I buy his ideas, and I suspect these things are certainly beyond my own lifetime. I just don't think we can write them off as impossible, for some future generation.

Pretend we are 150 years ago and change "artificial intelligence" to "flight," and we could be having the exact same conversation. We know consciousness is possible, because it exists. What reason can there possibly be to think that it is only possible in the form that nature made it? If this were the 19th century, you could have argued that flight is only possible in the way that nature produced it. The Wright brother disproved that. The problem with AI is that "consciousness" cannot be observed by anyone except the by the conscious being itself. I can't prove to you that I am conscious, but you assume that I am because I behave in more or less the same way that you do, and you don't doubt that you are conscious. Your theory that artificial consciousness isn't possible is essentially unfalsifiable. No matter how much like us a robot behaves, you can just wave it off and say "it's programming is just sophisticated enough to where it acts exactly like a human." What would it take for you to admit that a machine is conscious? I'm a believer in functionalism, when it comes to AI. If you could create a neural network, made entirely of artificial components, that functions in exactly the same way as a human brain (although I suppose it doesn't have to even be a human brain), I say it is conscious and self-aware. Once we've reverse engineered the human brain (which is, admittedly, in the distant future), then we will be able to understand what "consciousness" is and how it is produced. From there, it's just a matter of replicating, in a machine, the same processes and interactions which produce our own consciousness. If carbon is the only element that is able to form the right types of chemical bonds, then so be it. Whatever elements are used doesn't change my underlying point. You just made my point for me.

I'm not saying we can do it today...just that there's no reason to think it's impossible. My reason for thinking that man-made things can be conscious? Because the unintelligent processes of nature created us. Unless there's some reason to think that the only way consciousness can exist is in the form that nature actually made it, then there is no reason to think that we cannot make artificial consciousness.

I admit that I'm no authority on this topic, so I may be talking out of my ass. But I just haven't heard of any reason why man-made things cannot be conscious, by definition. If the chemical properties of silicon don't make it feasible, then fine. But my underlying point remains. Why can't we build things using carbon? Essentially taking nature's design and improving on it.

And what magical property is it that biology has which allows thought, that electronics does not possess? Why should it matter that biological neurons use ribosomes and mitochondria, instead of the silicon of an electronic "neuron?" I don't doubt that we are a long way from such technology, but if the interactions between neurons that produce what we call consciousness can be replicated with electronic circuits, why would you not be willing to call it consciousness? The example you gave about planes, etc. doesn't really work...b/c it's conceivable that a plane could be invented that flies by flapping it's wings. It is conceivable that, someday, scientists could construct--atom by atom--an actual human brain. If they can do it with biological matter, they can do it with silicon. What reason is there to suppose that carbon is inherently better at sustaining "consciousness" than silicon?