Styles2112
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Styles2112
-
-
Where is the evidence that horses, dogs or cats understand the unity of the species "cat", "dog", "man", "squirrel"? What facts are you pointing to that show that prove this?
If you take the concept "man", that subsumes any number of concretes, like for example all of the people in Houston. They come in many sizes and colors, which are "measurements". Since not all men are the same height, shape, color, then these aren't essential attributes of the concept "man", and they are omitted. Measurement omission refers to leaving out the details which are not essential to the concept.
Generally, how they act towards said creature. I don't have a bunch of SCIENTIFIC evidence, I just have personal observations. A horse knows the difference between a dog and human (by nature that the horse might approach the human for food, and run from the dog...being a natural predator). I'll try to pull up some sites that might offer insight. Besides, it seems you're suggesting (I could be wrong) that animals have no cognitive skills whatsoever. Basic concept forming MUST exist for cognitive skills to exist (otherwise there's no purpose in them.) How does an herbivore know to avoid poisonous plants without having some form of recognition (via measurements - shape, size, smell, sound)? How does my dog know the difference between all three of his toy bones (the tennis ball bone...his rubber bone....his spiky bone...). How does a horse know the difference between hay and straw? They must have, at least, BASIC concept forming.
http://www.acoustics.org/press/150th/Bee.html
Hopefully, some of this stuff might shed some light on it (or create more confusion...)
-
I don't see that. Concept-formation involves integration (of multiple units), differentiation (multiple units must be recognised), measurement omission (abstraction from the specific non-essential properties of the particular concretes, and symbolic representation -- not just the ability to perform in a particular way on behavioral tests, but actual ability to mentally represent an open-ended class with a symbol. This latter part is most obviously beyond the capability of non-humans; claims about the other cognitive aspects are also commonly overblown.
You may need to break that down a little further for me...since I didn't understand a .25 of that. (remember, i'm a drummer). I know that Horses/dogs/cats can do the first two you listed, but I don't think I understand the measurement omission part. I CAN tell you that a Horse/dog/cat CAN tell the difference between me and you, another person from another person, and even species from species. I can't really speak about measurement omission until I understand it more.
-
(I learned how to type on a manual typewriter, how to calculate on a sliderule, and how to program using Fortran coded onto Hollerith cards. Growing up, hi-tech was color TV and touchtone phones.)
IN the Army we still use typewriters for some things. I have to admit, I felt pretty young (and pretty stupid) when I sat down at it and said,"now how does this thing work?"
I had used them in my youth (my dad STILL has his), but not from about 10 and on...so at 21, sitting down to one was a frightening experience.
-
You want to feel old and really have time fly past? Wait until you have kids. My daughter is going to walk across the stage tonight in a cap and gown as she graduates from high school. This Fall she's off to dance and go to school in NYC. It just seems like yesterday when she was a little crumb-crunching monster running around the house....
Oh, my...don't say that....Alec's only a week and a half old....I don't even want to think about that now...(or what it means for me....)
-
Nobody answered yet what would be the sounds/words/physical gestures that represent these so called bird concepts. Without one of the above whatever it is they might be doing it cannot by definition of a "concept" be conceptual reasoning. So this is in fact a philosophical issue if it can be shown that these birds communicate using some sort of symbolic language which would of course be shown scientifically, but no evidence has been presented for such symbolic representation which MUST be presented first before any discussion involving avian conceptual faculties can be meaningfully discussed either philosophically or scientifically.
On this note, what about horses (which is where most of my experience lies). Some horses may like one person, or even one horse over another. Each horse knows the difference between me, my mother, my father, my wife and acts accordingly. (i.e. there are things that my horse Cris, knows he can get away with with me, but not my wife). For the longest time, no one could even touch my mother's horse (except her) as he would, basically, try to kill anyone else. He's calmed down in his old age (26 now...yikes) but he still carries preferences. I would think that if a horse goes through the effort to pin his ears back/try to kick one person, but not another...that would be concept forming.
The same would be true of dogs and cats (who can recognize their owners from strangers and will react differently even to different strangers).
Now, I can't speak for birds (other than maybe chickens, which I used to have) and their recognition faculty, but I suspect it would probably be, more or less, the same within a limited grasp of their interactions with humans.
-
hypothetical: (seeking a loophole)
6. killing him would be acting on the principle that human life has no value, which seems to strike at my self esteem. can not happiness justify murder? pursuit of my happiness at all costs is an expression of high self esteem--i am worthy. when i kill to defend myself i am similarly killing a human who gives me no value because I think that my happiness and desire to live trump whatever value would be lost when i killed him (i'm not addressing the forfeitng of rights bit in self defense becase as a killer i have none anyway).
I think you answered your own question here.
If you put no value in human life, how can you value (and be subsequently happy with) your own? Also, you know that by killing, you forfeit those rights, which are also a value you seek to earn and keep, so how can you be happy with losing those? Doesn't this seem like a bit of a contradiction?
Also, killing in self-defense (i.e. you're being mugged) is MUCH different than cold-blooded murder. In the murder, it would seem (by the above statements) you're already losing those values.
-
I dont really think it makes sense to compare metal to classical music - they represent not only different sty;es of music, but different approaches to listening to music. I think that Western classical music generally emphasises a more detached style of listening - the music becomes an object of contemplation, something to be analysed from a distance. Enjoyment ('appreciation') of the music often derived from close study and analysis, in the same way which you would study a painting in an art gallery. Metal is more immediate - the music isnt really something to be studied from outside, its something to be felt and lived from inside. Enjoying metal is largely about feeling the passion and raw energy which the music carries. It's not intended to be listened to while sitting in a dark room with your eyes closed, just like classical music isnt intended to be listened to while dancing about your bedroom in your underwear. To put it simplistically, the difference between classical and metal can be concretised as the difference between the concert hall and the mosh pit. Its not that one is 'better' than the other, its just two different things which I would claim are largely incommensurable.
edit: there are different degrees of this. Some very technical metal can indeed be analysed like classical music due to the high amounts of complexity and instrumentation it has (Dream Theatre and The Mars Volta are good examples). And some types of music are even more involving that metal - trance and house for instance. I dont think classical music could ever have the sense of unity and full body/mind engagement, the feeling of being completely part of the music while the outside world disappears, which you can get from (eg) dancing to hard trance in a loud, busy club. A good moshpit may come close though (I wouldnt know, having never attended a metal concert).
I disagree...I can totally get into many Classical works even more than I could get into metal. Maybe I just "listen" to classical wrong, but there's some stuff that can be as/ or more rockin' than much rock. On the other hand, I think trance/house music is some of the worst stuff out there.
-
I see that. Actually, the point about Miles Davis was purely a personal opinion. I did not intend it as fact. I will however admit poor phrasing as the idea of Jazz "being BUILT upon previous music" would have been a better statement. And that was my opinion on improv vs. compo. I like both equally. But I disagree with your "two different standards/beasts" thing. Improv is merely on the fly composition. While I (personal thought) think some "slack" should be cut, I would still judge the music by the same standards. You may also be thinking along the lines of the differences between speaking and writing, but even then, many of the same standards still apply.
-
You hit the nail. But both together dwelling in the recesses of memory is not a easy or simple thing. The life-saving part is a good act whether or not one uses it to judge B on the whole.
IN case number 2, I would still judge the man evil (at least, with the facts presented). He's a cop, right? That means he's paid to save people in those situations. So we take his personal life, in which he's sexually molested people, and his professional (i.e. PAID) life where he saves lives. Which one do you base moral judgement on? I know which one I choose.
-
It seems to me that birds are seen as at the bottom of the hierarchy in Objectivist Epistemology. Didn't Rand refer to the inability to go beyond the number of 3 as crow-epistemology? Hm. I wonder what this would actually mean in regards to "smarter" animals like dogs or pigs. This also reminds me of this report I've once seen on a parrot who was capable of simple calculations and deductions. But I'll have to research to find it.
I've seen a couple birds and horses that could do basic addition and subtraction. I think animals can form concepts (I think any creature with a BRAIN does), but I think those concepts are limited to the intelligence and anatomy of the animal. i.e. if a dog comes to a wall, it has several options that it can come to. It can; dig under the wall, try and jump the wall, try and go around the wall, or just go back the way it came. I also think it requires concept forming to learn (even on smaller levels) basic commands or actions.
-
Well done, Styles! Congratulations!
(Don't tell my mother, but I look forward to having one of those myself one day ...
)The day after, my mom said,"Now you can start working on a grandaughter."
Who does she think I am? >
-
He looks like a small, grumpy Winston Churchill. But then, all babies look like that until they get over the face-squashed-in phase.
Congrats!
Yeah, he's already getting past that....a bit more time, though...
Thanks everyone...
-
Well, we finally had our baby. A perfectly healthy baby boy, that we named Alec Michael. He was born 11 April 2006 at 10:14 pm and was 7lbs 8ounces and 20" long. So far, he's pretty reserved. Last night was the most crying he's done since being born, but he's still a pretty quiet baby (much like his parents). He's already doing short head lifts and pushing himself up with his arms, so I suspect he might be mobile quicker than the average baby. He's got his mother's blue eyes and will probably look a lot like me. Max, our dog, as already taken well to him, though is still getting used to the whole (as are we, actually). Athena, our cat, doesn't really seem to care, as long as she still gets her daily allotment of petting.
What a weird feeling this is...Pride, curiousity, fear, frustration and more pride....oh...and exhaustion....
Here you guys go...
-
Welcome to the forum! Man, more Ohioans....what is this world coming to?
-
Let's not forget we are talking about Massachusetts here. You cannot extrapolate to America from the state that hates America the most.
I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.
Not that CT is better.
-
It just occurred to me that much of the confusion probably comes from the fact that we have a single word for the crime of rape and the mere action of raping--that is, physically overcoming--a woman. So, for those who are still confused, perhaps the following clarification could help:
- The crime of rape consists of raping a woman who does not want you. Roard did not do this.
- If you know that the woman wants you to rape her, then it is not a crime to do so; in fact, it's a gift. This is what Roark did.
BTW, welcome aboard Objectivism Online, Sarah!
You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always understood Rape to ALWAYS be the crime. I.e. Rape is always a forced sex act on an unwilling person.
I would have thought the term for Roark would be Ravish. An equally powerful word, but doesn't point as much to criminal intent.
- The crime of rape consists of raping a woman who does not want you. Roard did not do this.
-
You're pretty darned sharp and wise beyond your years to recognize that with age and what we lose in physical ability, we gain in wisdom. But I also understand what my English professor said many years ago, when making a remark about epistomology: "the more we know--the more intelligent we are, the more we suffer and feel mental anguish." We all know the antithesis of this is embodied in the phrase "ignorance is bliss". Indeed, the street bum who is in a drunken stupor is jolly with not a care in the world because he lives in the moment. The intelligent person is always worried, because he sees deep into the future and is always concerned about trends that may affect his survival. That, to some degree, is contributing to my unhappiness: I know that it is only a matter of time before I fall behind on my taxes and armed confrontation won't be far behind. I know that I am getting too old to be climbing on rooftops and ripping off sheathing, yanking out rotten joists and racing against the next downpour to get it all closed up. I've given up on posting pictures of it because people were appalled that I'm 'raising a child in that house'.
This makes me a bit curious as to how old your are. My father-in-law is in his mid-fifties and has built his own house. Does all his own repairs. Is a master-welder in NH and is just, generally, and all around fix it guy (except for electronics). I mean, he's a maniac...works all the time. I WISH I had the drive that he does. He built a 1929 Model T from a pile of metal scrap (I'm not embellishing either!). He's also one of the more intelligent people I know (in fact I plan to lend him Atlas Shrugged, as I think he'll enjoy it).
I don't mean this to be offensive in anyway, but from what I've read (which has been the whole thread), it seems you now use the cover of "Objectivism" to put the blame of your position on the government, instead of maybe a little more where it needs to be. Maybe there's more to it, but I'm not sure. Anyways, just my thoughts on the matter....take it as it is, I guess.
-
1) an older man (sugar daddy) – worldly-wise, obviously someone with more money than me!, has distinguished grey hair, can teach me to dance and can take me out to nice restaurants. Is a wine snob. Has taken beautiful photographs of many places he has visited – basically, everywhere. Owns huge sailboat named “Incommunicado” which we live on. Is willing to pamper me like a princess and cater to my every whim.
2) a brainy guy – someone who knows how to fix things and put things together and takes charge without asking or assuming that I can do it, even though I can. Also knows a lot about a diverse array of topics. Someone I can debate with. (This is the husband who obviously refuses to put up with any of my crap – in many ways, he is the opposite of husband number 1.)
3) a metrosexual – someone bordering on gay. This husband is interested in buying facial and haircare products (for himself and also for me), reciting poetry, going on shopping sprees for very cool shoes (for me) and hawaiian or floral print shirts (for him) and encourages shopping tendencies by jumping up and down and squealing when I come out of the fitting room. (I may be willing to forego this husband, as I have a wonderful gay friend who serves the purpose. However, none of the other four husbands will be allowed to take on this role or buy me any clothing or cosmetic products whatsoever. If they do, it will be insulting and a sign that I am the ugliest girl on earth.)
4) a cowboy/knight in shining armor – complete with chivalrous attitude and southern or Australian accent. May possess pickup truck that is actually used for pickup-truck type activities, and accumulates mud, which may be substituted for the horse. Possession of both horse and truck would be ideal.
5) a seducer – self-explanatory.
Sweet... I fit 3.5 out of 5. I'm definitely not number 1, and only about half of 3. Definitely have the horse and truck thing down.
(<closest thing to a cowboy smiley) -
I said that men enjoyed a particular advantage - that they can emphasize their masculinity through behavior that is already necessary for their life. To take that statement and get from it your statement is a major leap. I said nothing of the sort.
Wait a second....
But men enjoy the additional bonus that in striving to be heroic, they are not only being good humans, but they are being men.Worship is a devotion to something superior to oneselfSo if the essence of feminitity is hero worship, and and worship is a devotion to something SUPERIOR, how, exactly are you NOT saying that men are better than women? You're making conflicting statements.
-
-
-
I do, because Mass. is far, far to the left of most of the country. It is the state that elected to looney anti-American propagandists to the Senate--Ted Kennedy and Kerry.
Good point.
The rest of the states can't be NEARLY as stupid. (But, I've been known to be wrong before)
-
(addendum: it has been asked, "Shouldn't it be the goal of everyone, not just men, to be heroic?" Yes, of course. But men enjoy the additional bonus that in striving to be heroic, they are not only being good humans, but they are being men. A woman who acts heroically is not more feminine for doing so, even though it is virtuous for other reasons.)
So, Men are inherently better than women?
-
Hello? Didn't you listen when I was over this before? Saying that femininity means hero-worship does NOT say that masculinity is heronine-worship. I severely disagree that it would be. Masculinity is strength; i.e. BEING A MAN, not worshipping a woman.
What is strength? Physical strength? mental strength? Are women not strong? What is strength?
The Cause For Laziness In Younger People Today
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
It still holds true. Between the high costs of college and low paying jobs there's virtually no way to afford a decent home (at the very least, in CT.) Heck my wife and I make decent money, and we can't buy even 3 acres and a small house for under 250,000. (though we did find a nice 60 acre plot with a huge house and indoor arena for 160,000 in South Dakota, but what the heck is in South Dakota?????) Granted, I'm not saying that one shouldn't try (because, obviously, they should), but, in certain areas, the market is somewhat against them.