TomL

What in the hell is "phenomological sound" or "sound qualia"? There is "sound", and there is "hearing". I see no need for any other concepts.

Yes, and since dictionaries are written by infallible Objectivist identifiers working from a flawless hierarchy of knowledge, we shall all stop this pointless discussion and submit to the almighty dictionary. Because as we all know, definitions are established by the collective of humanity, not reality. While we're at it, let's look up the dictionary version of "selfish" and use that as well.

I don't. Never have, never will. There has never and will never be a need.

Any analysis of the mechanism of perception -- the mechanical/chemical/electrical means by which consciousness becomes aware of the sound, does not magically transform sound into something generated by the senses. It is not. Psychology is nothing more than applied epistemology. The errors rampant in the current science of psychology are primarily evidenced in the popular premise that there is somehow more to psychology than epistemology. There isn't. If all of the science of psychology were consistent with Objectivist epistemology, there wouldn't be much else.

I have no idea what that means. There is no psychological component of sound. There may be a psychological effect caused by hearing a particular sound, but the physchological effect is not the sound itself. One doesn't hear something differently because of psychology. One hears only the physical waves impacting the ear. Anything further interpretation done by the perceiver is just that: an evaluation, and not a component of "sound" as such.

The important difference is that those who define "sound" presupposing a hearer are using the primacy of consciousness to do so. There is no other way. A "hearer" implies that a consciousness capable of hearing is available, otherwise there is no sound. In other words: consciousness make sound "sound", not the vibration waves that exist in the universe. It is a good question to ask if you want to know someone's basic epistemology. Any premise they have here will have far reaching consequences for any other philosophic premise they may try to integrate.

Actually, it is. The first half is the first half of lectures from OCON 2002 in Palo Alto. The second half of the CD is from OCON 2003, at which point Peikoff backed out about half of what he said in '02 and replaced it, thanks to a question posed from the audience by Greg Salmieri, a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh, who has taken courses at OAC and specializes in epistemology. They put him on the staff for OCON 2004, I'm not sure what he's doing now. (I was present for the lectures in both '02 and '03 in person. I've been meaning to buy the CD but I've not gotten around to it yet).

If it is "faith" that is used to accept that your sense data is an accurate picture of the universe, then "faith" it is. I whole-heartedly contend that we do not live in "The Matrix" however, and will refute this so long as I have breath. All one needs to do is to use the senses you have to gather data into your brain about your surroundings, and the axioms, and thus the correctness of logic, will be self-evident. It is arbitrary to imagine that your sense organs are giving you false data. There is no reason to suspect that is the case. There is no evidence to suggest that raw sense data is invalid. In order to do so, one must have some sense other than physical senses -- but then, if they sensed the physical universe, they too would be physical senses... There is no way the axioms are false.

Why not? An alliance is formed only in a particular context. We may be military allies with a country where we have no need of economic trade, for example. A military alliance does not necessarily require an economic alliance... or vice versa (although there are definitely reasons to defend an econmic ally militarily, it isn't necessarily in our best interest). No, we don't. Our cultures are closer than India, but they are not the same. I don't know about you, but I'm not very tolerant of people who want to blow me up, take my property by force, or want to me accept that wrong ideas are not wrong, "different". While there are plenty of Americans who are, they are wrong to be tolerant. Tolerance is a vice, not a virtue. But, I agree that their culture is largely irrelevant to a potential military alliance. The phrase "agree to disagree" means "let's just evade our moral differences and be buddies anyway". How about NO? If we make some sort of alliance with India beyond the context of the military, the context dropped will come back around and stab us in the ass. Just ask McDonald's about that. "Balance" and "neutral" are the terms used by those who do not acknowledge objective truth. The truth does not require that it be balanced with non-truth, or "neutraled" by offering a lie.

How exactly does a "heritage" further man's life? How does being and old civilization make the ideas of its culture more correct than a newer one? How does the objective truth about a topic have two sides? Everything I've read in the press has suggested to me that India IS our ally, or at the very least, the enemy of our enemies. I have no idea where you come up with this stuff -- it boggles the mind.

I've been married almost two years to my ideal partner ("Pony Girl" on this forum). We are both computer people: she's into security and I'm into network engineering, which is a big part of our marriage. I own a small ISP -- our ceremony was held in the network center before all the blinking lights of routers and equipment that we both love. They are the focus of our productive lives and one of the physical embodiments of our happiness, in addition to being symbolic of our meeting and courtship (which was largely online in IRC, facilitated by that very equipment). We wrote our own entire ceremony. It started with the definition of love and involved us stating explicitly the values we shared and how we felt about them and each other. It was truly an incredible experience -- we plan to do it again someday

If inducing from one instance that "all balls roll" is false, then the following statement is necessarily true: There is some ball somewhere in existence that will not roll.

The key here is that Hume did not understand what induction is. Of course you cannot solve a "problem" if you are wrong about what the problem is. In other words, Hume was an idiot in the realm of epistemology. *shrug* Induction is a method of generalizing by grasping essential similarities and differences and connecting them to causation. Note that there is no mention of quantity in what induction actually is. Induction is not piling up examples and then jumping from "many" to "all" with no connection to causation. Never has been, never will be -- no matter how times Hume wrote that it was so.

"White" is not part of the definition of "swan", so that's where the context dropping comes from. It would be a better example to say that you see 25 birds that are similiar and call them swans, and then see one that's different. The fact is: you don't need to see 25 swans to induce what a swan is. You only need to see ONE, and grasp the essential differences between "swan" and other foul in its genus. A simpler example Peikoff gave in the lectures: A child doesn't need to see 25 balls rolling -- he only needs to see ONE ball rolling (and one non-ball object not rolling)-- to reach the induction "All balls roll". He does so by grasping the essential property difference between balls and non-balls which enables them to roll, and mentally connecting that property to the rolling. It is an implicit recognition of the the law of causality.

Induction has been addressed by Leonard Peikoff recently. It was never addressed by Ayn Rand. Below is excerpts from my notes from Peikoff's lectures on induction. I hope you find them useful. Definition of induction: the primary process of reaching knowledge that goes beyond perception. Deduction, another means of reaching knowledge beyond perception, presupposes induction about its component concepts, thus induction has primacy over deduction. Induction is the jump from many (or one) to all. It is thus a "generalization". Without generalization, there can be no learning. The "swan" method of debunking induction is false. "If I see 25 swans on a lake and they are all white, then I induct (generalize) that all swans are white. Oh, but there's a black one I didn't see before.. thus induction is false." This method is arbitrary, i.e. disconnected from reality. It also drops the context of the definition of the concept of "swan". Generalizations (inductions) are not to be multiplied beyond necessity, i.e. without prerequisite knowledge that gives rise to the question. The problem must exist in reality It must have a valid context i.e. -- not arbitrary Generalizations are not concepts. Concepts are said to be valid or invalid; generalizations are knowledge and thus said to be true or false. Concepts are file folders, generalizations are the files that go into those folders. 5 rules to follow to proper induction: 1. At every stage, valid concept formation is essential, because valid concepts are the only green light to induction. 2. Induction beings with self-evident, first-level generalizations, to which all other generalizations must ultimately be reduced. 3. Induction requires the contextual discovery of causal connections using the methods of Difference and Agreement. 4. Induction at every stage beyond the first level requires integration with other knowledge -- and on the highest levels requires the discovery of principles which integrate fundamentals from a diversity of fields. 5. In the physical sciences, after their early stage, the above steps depend on and are performed through and only through mathematics. Without a defined method of induction, the inducer uses emotion or authority to perform the generalizing, and thus the "problem of induction". Erroneous methods of induction include: 1. Over-generalization (limitation to context overlooked) 2. Premature integration (not enough analyzed data) (piling up examples without analysis pointless) 3. Occam's Razor -- if its simpler, its truer Philosophy is the broadest science -- any philosophic principle is wider than any principle in physics. All other sciences are hierarchically layered on philosophy. Indispensibility of Math to Physics Why is physics without math possible? What does math do for man in knowing external reality [beyond perception]? Consciousness on the conceptual level is inherently a quantitative mechanism, it is an apparatus for measuring quantity. Quantity has epistemological primacy over quality. One can identify qualities only by grasping quantity. Just as in concept formation, so in grasping what the essential causes are of effects being observed -- by quantity. Measurements available to consciousness are in two forms: 1. the approximate, preconceptual, and 2. the numerical, conceptual. It is impossible to know a quality without measurement. Why? Because that is the nature of consciousness as such. Physics completes the job of concept formation. For example, in pendulum damping, the length of the pendulum is proportional to the period squared. To begin, one needs the concepts of "length", and the specific type, the length of a pendulum. One also needs the concept of "time", then the actual numbers are dropped and replaced with unspecified quantities to denote the mathematical formula and thus the concept of the relation between pendulum length and period. There is no way to grasp relationships among objects except to reinsert the measurements dropped to form the concepts in the first place. In thinking about the above example, one's mind begins by imagining 1 for T, then 2, then 3, and calculating the other side... Relation of Math to Reality There are two false theories of math, both of which make physics impossible to explain. Intrinsicist theory: numbers are metaphysical and God thinks in integers. In such a theory, there can be no relation between numbers, cognition, and reality. This theory detaches physics from matter. Subjectivist theory: numbers are an arbitrary concept of consciousness. Leaves you with the same problem. Numbers are facts of reality, i.e. objective, and they are constructed as concepts by consciousness. Reality contributes the fact that entities are real (basis for the concept "1"), and that variations in quantity are real. Consciousness establishes the need to establish relationships among quantities, and thus the need to select measurable units to do so. Consciousness creates the numbers. For example, pi, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. Only round things exist in nature -- the relationship between the circumference and the diameter is constructed by man's consciousness, and thus the concept of pi. Conclusion Philosophy explains the relation of math to reality, i.e. what numbers are. It cannot use numbers to do so! Philosophy is the arbiter of measurements. Philosophy subsumes the proper relationship between one object (the universe!) and consciousness. The message of philosophy is "perceive reality", and philosophy doesn't need and can't use numbers to express it.

You sound honestly deeply troubled, and I think I understand why. Bear in mind this short disclaimer: If you feel you have overwhelming psychological difficulties with this, seek professional help. I am not a therapist. A cognitive therapist can help you sort out your introspections if you need some help early on. What I am, however, is someone who has been through nearly the same issue and understands your question. With that in mind, let me proceed to offer my suggestions: You have said that your girlfriend "thinks only of herself", but you haven't said that she is doing anything bad to you. It is possible for both of you to think of your own happiness and not make sacrifices for the other, and have a relationship that works. In fact, my wife and I do that now. However, I suspect what you really meant to say is that you have to make sacrifices for her. In that case, you should seriously consider what your values are, and what their order of importance is. You need to introspect and decide what is important to you, without considering her at all. You need to be selfish and make yourself happy, because no one is going to do it for you. This may seem like a daunting task. My blog articles on introspection may help. They are in the Egosphere metablog on the front page of this site, and also on my own blog Focus Foundry. To address your problem with your desire to have sex with someone that apparently doesn't like you, you have to introspect again on where it is that desire comes from. I could guess that your subconscious has been programmed improperly, because you haven't ever before known that there should be reasons why you might want to have sex with one person over another beyond their physical appearance. It is most likely the past reliance on physical appearance, and beating that into your subconscious over and over, which has led you to this. If you read my blog entries on introspection, they may help you to understand that as well. And then, if you conclude that is true, then you should value your relationship with her accordingly. What is most important here, whether I'm right or wrong about the reason for your conflicted desire, is that you trust no one but yourself, use your own mind and your own knowledge to figure this out. When you do and you know you are right, you will be very proud of yourself -- and I would be it will be the most glorious feeling you have ever experienced to date.

Because then when he pukes on your carpet, you can expect him to spend $20 to clean it. What if you don't? Why would he then want to make retribution to you if he caused $20, or $2,000 damage to your house?

Try http://www.the-cloak.com. It';s a free proxy. If the-cloak.com isn't blocked, you can go to any blocked site with it.

This is the Platonism David Odden spoke of. The set {1,4,5,12,17,39} and "an arbitrary set of physical objects" should not even be considered to be concepts. Concepts involve abstraction, or removal of measurements, among existents which have an essential similarity or difference. By definition any arbitrary set has no essential simlarilty or difference -- but that is what is required in order to have a valid concept. Not "common-place and simple", but directly graspable through perception. There is no reduction for a directly perceivable concept. The only answer to the question "what is it?" is "look and see." Note that the linkage from perception to a high-level concept is not necessarily (and rarely is) a straight line. There are most often branches, where multiple concepts are combined or separated to form wider abstractions. That's a bad place to start. You should start with something simple, and then move on to more complicated examples when you grasp the process. One does not learn math by jumping into calculus -- you have to learn how to add and multiply first. The concept "marriage" does not refer to the people who are married. It refers specifically to the relationship between the two people and its nature. In order to evaluate a particular marriage, one must consider the two people who are married, but that is not necessary to reduce the concept "marriage". Quick definition (and not 100% accurate, because I don't want to spend an hour thinking about it): Marriage is a legal and romantic relationship between two individuals in which the individuals have committed to being exclusive life-partners. In order to reduce this "concept" towards the perceptual level, one needs to define "legal", "romance", "relationship", "exclusive", and of "life-partner". To organize this hierarchically in a tree-like fashion:

No, it isn't. Concepts are abstractions derived by dropping measurements, not dropping everything but measurements. Numbers as such are measurements, only useful for quantification. Conceptualization is done by dropping quantification altogether. The concept "table" does not involve the set of heights {1, 2, 3, 4, 5...} it involves any particular height at all, so long as there is a height.

You must first introspect to know what to improve. But once you have discovered it you must focus on actually improving -- actually accomplishing that particular item. Unless you are sitting alone staring into space introspecting, it will be difficult to avoid improving those things in the daily course of your life. I don't really understand where the problem is. Are you sitting around all day, staring into space? Or are you having a hard time figuring out how to implement the improvements you have decided on?

No, I mean exactly what I said: perfectly healthy. Which means: not schizophrenic or any other psychological disorders which produce constant and acute mental pain. I even used the phrase "with opportunity for happiness open to them" to specifically avoid you using that as an excuse for not making a judgement. The whole point of the question was to corner you into a making a moral judgement, and you tried to wiggle your way out of it again! But it won't work. I've got you now, you agnostic. No, I'm not. Which is why I specified "perfectly healthy, with the possibility of happiness open to them".

Eric, do you think its immoral for a perfectly healthy individual with opportunity for happiness open to them to stab themselves in the heart with a 6-inch butcher knife? Or will you be unable to judge them for it, because you never stabbed yourself in the heart? So-and-so did it and said it feels good. Who are you to judge? <sarcasm>How will you ever know if you can't do it yourself?</sarcasm>

If you can't answer the question, then why offer a reply to the question? They lie and rationalize, and you know it. They may find it hard to concentrate if they go without once they are addicted, but that is not the same thing as gaining an increased focus over what one would have if one had never smoked. I smoked for twelve years (I quit immediately upon integrating Objectivism) so I can tell you first-hand that is the only way. Unfathomable. There is no causal relationship between smoking and cognition, and no reason to suspect that there is. It is wholly arbitrary. Only because you are open to the arbitrary rationalization of smokers.

A statement, any statement of any kind anywhere, is philosophic. Period. All science is philosophy. Philosophy does not "infringe" on the territory of science, in defines the need for science, what science is, and what it means. You, and those who held that view, misunderstand the term "self-evident". An external fact (one that is not internal, i.e. a fact of consciousness) is never self-evident. Observe the word "self" in the term. All science depends explicitly on a metaphysics and an epistemology. Nothing in any science can ever prove or disprove anything in metaphysics or epistemology. One must first have a particular metaphysics and epistemology to even ask a scientific question, let alone form a hupothesis and perform an experiment! The conclusion reached will always be consistent with the philosophy, good or bad, of the person reaching the conclusion. Science and numbers are not a substitute for the cognition (a process which by its nature has a set of rules which are followed, consistently or not) which must be used to reach a conclusion given the results of the science. The results of science are not philosophic premises. They are statements of metaphysical fact only. "Water boils at 212F" and "Normal human body temp is 98.6F" are scientific facts, not philosphic premise. The philosophic and evaluative premise "one should not poor boiling water onto one's body because the temperature difference is too great and will damage it" is not a scientific conclusion, but a philosophic one. The statement presupposes the idea that damage to the human body is not desirable. Why? Philosophy. It should include the whole of philosophy. You're forgetting all the bad science that's out there! A nothing statement. That isn't the case so there's no point in discussing it. Give me a true instance of what you're talking about and I'll entertain. It was a discovery of another kind of science. Psychology is also a science of consciousness as well as a physical science. It is a mixed science. Note that specifically, the discovery of the subconscious did NOT require math or numbers, it required only introspection and analysis. I do not know what 'certain theories' you refer to, nor do I have any knowledge of any 'modern research' that 'disproves' empircism. Only introspection can prove it -- science can only validate it by being consistent with another philosophic theory.