Proverb

Words have specific meaning and yes the scope of the context of any given word is different among people due to errors and differences in epistemology. However, you can't expect to communicate anything meaningful if people realize that words are amorphous to you and carry changing definitions in any given situation. Your 'reconciliation by definition' is a false process and a circus in the world of concept formation. If you do not wish your current views to be 'misrepresented' it is only you who can prevent this, and simply saying 'you don't know what it means to me' is not an adequate method by which to falsify an argument or opposition to said views.

If this is true I don't understand why you have a problem.

From my readings on Wikipedia about belief I am lead to think that 'belief' is a component of faith and is unnecessary to someone who lives without faith. If I am devoted to the application of reason to the reality which I perceive, what would be the role of belief in my life? I don't see the point in 'believing' that I am human and must live by my nature. The only possible context I could reasonably use 'belief' is to describe my state of mind after I validate some hypothesis or assumption. Even that however seems redundant to me. All comments welcome! I am not necessarily endorsing the validity of any particular entry in Wikipedia, the aforementioned entry simply coincided with my current understanding of the concept.

This is an epistemological inconsistency. It is correct to say that the means to knowledge, or 'truth' to use your words, is a process of perceiving concretes and their relationships. However, it is not correct to say that any higher abstractions or corollaries to abstractions are disjunct from the level of percepts. It is only because we have the basic knowledge of percepts that allows us to progress to any higher level of abstraction. If you are interested in any further commentary on the topic of 'faith,' it would greatly help all of us to actually define your concept of 'faith' so that we may better understand why you are saying that the "Objectivist definition of faith" is clearly different from "rational faith" as you might put it. Which, I must say is a perverted contradiction. Which is an assumption that I will happily explain given you supply your conceptualization of faith. 'Faith' as practiced in an enumerable denominations of religion is clearly and demonstrably a "belief in something apart from and often contradictory to any real evidence." (that 'something' often being a god or ethreal plane)

Ok. I agree. Yes, there is still much to learn about the difference between genetic traits and environmental traits.

Jon, you seem to be using a contextually limited meaning of the word, "determined." Either state the context in which you are using it or realize that determined can indeed apply to chemical genes, asteroids and the like, in that a present state was determined by any specific set of circumstances directly preceding any observed state. I am speaking in the context of inanimate objects. I'm just jumping in on a point so forgive me if I'm missing some context here in the discussion. Genes do not determine our nature. Genes are simply part of a whole mechanism that is the progenerate of the specific nature of human beings.

I'd like to say that I do almost exactly what Dan9999999 does. I usually fabricate a situation or world that I play out in my mind as a means to sleeping. It has increased my incidental rate of lucid-like dreams and I find it very effective. It's pretty much become my norm and I am a very heavy and restful sleeper.

In this day and age, ironically, you know you have reached sucess (as Apple has) when the antitrust suits start rolling in. Man claims that Apple has monopoly on the digital music industry. I felt like posting this on this on this forum so that I could save my time explaining the angst and bitter frustration I feel when I read anything with the word Anti-trust in it. SOCIALISTS BE DAMNED!!!!

Do you propose that you understand the specific connection between the brain and the functioning of conscious thought? If so, your synopsis of this knowledge would be very helpful in this thread. This is my question to you DrBaltar: Do you think that the physical functioning of the brain and its specific connection to the conscious mind (whatever it may be) is irreconcilable with an indeterminate functioning of the mind? If so, the burden of proof is upon you in the debate that you propose. Nonetheless, to me this issue appears to have the following essentials: 1. The deterministic nature of physical entities seems (at least with the current level of physical science) to be irreconcilable with the concept of an indeterminate functioning of the mind. which is being thrown back and fourth between the following: 2. A simple level of introspection and an analysis of the nature of 'knowledge' reveals the reality of the indeterminate nature of consciousness. The obvious level of frustration in this topic seems to be propagated by this dichotomy of sorts. Nonetheless, to claim, because of the nature of physical entities, that the mind is deterministic is as false as claiming, because of the nature of the mind, that physical entities are indeterminate. Science at this point happens to explicitly explain a little more about physical entities than it does about the mind which in turn makes it difficult for most to exercise the discipline required to maintain ones integrity in the realm of epistemology. I am not saying that the mind is 'beyond or detached from the physical' I am saying that it is a product of the physical and is unique as such in a way we currently do not understand.

That was exactly what I was looking for! Thank you very much.

I am interested in going over the whole of what I've written here in an effort to explore my 'progress' as it were. Is it at all feasible for admin or whoever to dump a copy of all of my posts and compile it in a text file? I don't know if there is some feature or tool you could use to do such a thing. If there is however, I would be willing to pay for the troubles of whoever would do it. The only thing I think I am missing in doing it myself is being able to see where all my posts are. If there's a member feature that I am missing to this end will someone point it out please? Thanks all.

The brain exists. The mind exists. Current state of science does not explain explicitly how they are connected. Current state of science does reveal some connection. Volition is axiomatic. Monism vs. Dualism is a false dichotomy. Determinism of the mind is irreconcilable with free will or volition. All of these points have been covered in one way or another in this thread and are not inconsistent or invalidated because of our lack of understanding in respect to the connection of mind and body. QED

I do not agree.

My choice to participate in this topic was a direct result of the value of furthering the reality of Objectivism to as many people as possible in the context of my life. The reason that I called it a waste of time is because it is clear that you are impervious to the thought of rational argument, and that the likelihood of you seeing the reality of it is more than clear at this point. This is the root of your problem. The "mind" and the "brain" are to different things. They are corresponding becuase of their relationship, but differentiated by their function. CHECK YOUR PREMISES, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE TO OR NOT TO.

How can you ask that question?! Are you able to hear what this question means, and what you imply by asking it?! It's not an illusion that you are asking it. It has been set into physical medium. You have yet to realize that if the mind and the consciousness was deterministic there would be no need to ask it. Though this tread/debate was moderately interesting in terms of defending free will, it has grown tiresome because of the skeptic-determinist that it has revealed. I move for the closing of this thread and the end of the debate because all the evidence within the context of "the consciousness" as a whole points to the existence of free will and has been wholly ignored by the determinist. Even if the axiomatic nature of volition was considered suspended for the sake of debate the burden of proof has already been swallowed by the free will side. In the interest of saving everyone time, I implore the moderators to end the debate.

I laughed when I read this. Very nice. I will probably use that analogy in the future.

They wouldn't. (But it's not a closed issue) I'm not sure of the context under which you posted that quoted text but it sounds like it came from someone who is torn between two different ideas: that it's beneficial for everyone to have an education, and that with the current state of affairs the money has to come from 'somewhere.' To address both of the quoted posters: This is the big problem with education (the belief that the money has to come from somewhere) and it comes from the biggest problem in government today in many issues: the power to levy and collect tax. The problem is the fact that the government is in the market of providing 'basic necessities.' Everyone, with few exceptions pays taxes. This fact, through the participation of the government in the market and the basic concept of getting what you pay for, has created a set of "pseudo-rights" such as the "right to education" or the "right to shelter." This is a big factor in the current temperature of voters on the issue of education. The people are trying to draft policies concerning the funding, improvement, redevelopment etc. of education while largely ignoring the debate on whether or not government should be in the market of education in the first place. The right position on that issue goes without saying in this forum. Americans at large are devoted to upholding civil rights, but pseudo-rights like the "right-to-education" are in direct conflict with the proper "right-to-life" in the context of individuals being able to select the desired schooling for their children. The people are in effect saying, "We think we have a right to education because we pay for it through taxes, but we can't let people who choose to have their children go to private school not pay taxes." etc. That's a rough generalization but I think I make the point. Further debate on the funding of education is at a deadlock until people are willing to reevaluate the position of government in education. Because of the the fact that I have had hot debates with people on this issue in the past I will address a few possible newbie responses: Yes, I am wholly for privatizing education. No, I am not for the thought of allowing the poor to fall into illiteracy. No, I do not recognize the power of government to levy taxes on my life. Yes, I do pay taxes, I am forced to. No, I do not recognize the benefits of my paying taxes, I do not know what they are, directly.

I was halfway through the preview and I couldn't stop laughing, joyously. I think that if it's written right it could be the first in a line of movies that will prepare the market for an Atlas Shrugged movie. With lines like, "The people should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of their people." and "Fear became the ultimate tool for this government." and "...ideas are bulletproof." All along with the protagonist being a revolutionist, if it portrays the right philosophical base, I will be exultantly happy. The blend of "vengeance" and violence will sell it to the average vegetable movie viewer hence I hope it portrays the right message. It already has my nine dollars. MARCH 17 OPENING BTW

It would be nice if everyone played by your rules or if you could bend reality to fit your errors. Voilition is Axiomatic. There's no question that the reasons you mentioned, in as much as the causes you posted here, can be and are most likely true. The whole point is that it could have been different, that you could have chosen a different value set and that you could have never heard of this forum. Voilition is Axiomatic.

I was a bit confusing in my wording, but to come out with it, it is the same choice I think. I think that it is human nature to choose to think, initially. I would say that a baby is following its nature when it chooses to think and therefore to live. The choice not to think, can only come later I think; at some point that follows the initial force of nature. Think more on this I will...

I have to jump in. (I guess because I am predetermined to do so according to some people here) So since the certain arrangement of particles that I understand as my body has, by some infinitely complex set of circumstances, come to perceiving this digital forum and reacting to such that has resulted in my typing of these words, which are incidentally self referencing, that suggest that I play devil's advocate; I will. "Free will does not exist" (I'm playing devil's advocate, which I am predetermined to remind you of such, which I am predetermined to remind you of the fact that I am reminding you of the fact that I am playing devil's advocate, which ironically I am predetermined to remind you of again, which of course I have to keep doing so, until the point that you are predetermined to stop reading my reminders at which point your perception of the fraction of what you read will continue to determine an infinite amount of unrelated decisions just for the mere fact that the perception of my reminders has caused a slight change in the chemical balance of your brain, which consequently, on an atomic level may continue to affect the outcomes of circumstances until the predetermined day that your body stops functioning. ) Notice I say 'pre-' determined, because if we could assess every piece of information that affects the outcome of any situation, which theoretically is finite, we would be able to accurately predict the outcome of the universe which, consequently would include having predicted our eventual knowledge of the outcome of the universe. Which brings us to the contradiction. How would we 'know' that we would 'know' the outcome of the universe provided that we knew all the theoretically finite factors that resulted in us knowing that we knew the outcome of the universe? We wouldn't. You can only know something that you perceive. If we were able to perceive the act of someone perceiving something and integrating it into useful knowledge in accordance with reality in a way such that we understood why he did integrate it, we would understand what it was that is allowing us to understand that we are now understanding this new piece of knowledge, the fact that we could have CHOSEN not to understand. It is the nature of the mind, because it cannot be any other way. Which admittedly we do not know, at this point in time, the physical progenerator of such fact.

By choosing to focus and to think beyond the level of perception you have already chosen to live. Humans must follow their nature which involves being able to perceive and the basic choice to think about those perceptions or not. This choice to think is the choice to live. That's why to think about the question "to live or not" without regards to any context other than the question itself is redundant and self-answering.

I guess my short question would be: in an Objectivist government what would be parallel to the modern concept of law? And following: is law necessary in an objectivist government? I'll look into that essay, thank you.

My concept of laws I feel is skewed by my lack of understanding. I often take for granted the nature of law and seem to always liken it to the concept of a rule book. When I think about a government formed upon a rational constitution and as an entity with a monopoly on retaliatory force, it's hard for me to see where the modern concept of law fits in. Can someone at least lead me in the right direction?

Why is it that visitors come in and ask, "Does Objectivism hold that..." or "Is it consistent with Objectivism that..." or "What would an Objectivist do?" ect. Is it a misunderstanding of the nature of Objectivism? Is it not clear to curious readers that Objectivism is not a list of dogmatic rules written in an ancient text? I often think that the nature of Objectivism may be misrepresented because of the fact that much, if not all, of the genesis of the philosophy can be attributed to a single person. As if to say Ayn Rand sat down and wrote down a set of rules rather than methodically developed the process and the basis of Objectivism. I think that it is necessary to make the distinction that Objectivism is a process, not a rule book; that it be differentiated from the dogmatism of religion and represented as something not to be check against rather used to discover the answer to visitor's questions. Any thoughts?