Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Prometheus98876

Regulars
  • Posts

    1340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from DragonMaci in Everything Dies   
    Your point being what exactly?



    True, she did create those characters and obviously I would not accuse her of needing any help. However, that is because as nasty as those characters are, it is all to serve an obvious message and might I add in order to convey a sense of life which indicates a very healthy state of mind (along with a good understanding of evil and less healthy states of mind).

    However, I can see no such "defense" (for lack of a better word at this point) for you doing what you have done here, which is really almost entirely a different matter to the manner in which Rand used the villians which you mentioned. While there may be reasons to write this stuff which may not give me reasons to worry (which is why I said you MIGHT need help, to allow such possibilities), I really cannot imagine what they might be. This is certainly stuff which is highly disturbing, and if I could see that it served some valid purpose (even if this purpose was not immediately obvious), I might be less inclined to think that you are simply trying to serve some valid purpose, and that this stuff is merely in aid of helping you make that point, as in the case of what Rand did (and what one of the other authors I mentioned does when he uses incredibly "dark" and "gory" scenes in his work, even though his work has a wonderful sense of life.

    In any case, nothing she wrote is half as macabre or nasty as this seems to be at face value.
  2. Downvote
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from WeDontNeedGod in Everything Dies   
    Your point being what exactly?



    True, she did create those characters and obviously I would not accuse her of needing any help. However, that is because as nasty as those characters are, it is all to serve an obvious message and might I add in order to convey a sense of life which indicates a very healthy state of mind (along with a good understanding of evil and less healthy states of mind).

    However, I can see no such "defense" (for lack of a better word at this point) for you doing what you have done here, which is really almost entirely a different matter to the manner in which Rand used the villians which you mentioned. While there may be reasons to write this stuff which may not give me reasons to worry (which is why I said you MIGHT need help, to allow such possibilities), I really cannot imagine what they might be. This is certainly stuff which is highly disturbing, and if I could see that it served some valid purpose (even if this purpose was not immediately obvious), I might be less inclined to think that you are simply trying to serve some valid purpose, and that this stuff is merely in aid of helping you make that point, as in the case of what Rand did (and what one of the other authors I mentioned does when he uses incredibly "dark" and "gory" scenes in his work, even though his work has a wonderful sense of life.

    In any case, nothing she wrote is half as macabre or nasty as this seems to be at face value.
  3. Downvote
    Prometheus98876 reacted to Mnrchst in Why should there be patents and copyrights?   
    I have a few problems with the idea of patents and copyrights. I'm hoping someone can explain a rationale for them that's a little clearer than Rand's in her essay on the subject.

    1. Rand said that patents and copyrights are a recognition of the idea that people have the right to the product of their own mind. Ignoring exceptions Rand did or would've made to this (children, mathematical discoveries, or a laser which is our only hope of saving the Earth from a giant asteroid on a collision course with our planet) doesn't this just mean that it should be illegal for someone to read your mind and use one of your ideas (which no one else knows) without your permission?

    2. How is telling someone they can't use an invention someone else came up with not an initiation of force if the person who invented it willingly told other people about it? I don't see how you're being harmed by people using an idea you came up with if you voluntarily tell them about it. Someone might argue that without the inventor, the idea couldn't be used by the society at large. However, the other element is them telling people about it, which is a choice.

    Furthermore, couldn't someone invent a new type of metal and sell it without telling anyone how it works and make a lot of money off of it before it gets reverse-engineered? It seemed to work for Henry Rearden (until he gave it away). I have no problem with a person inventing something, not telling anyone how it works, and selling it to people (unless there's a plausible national security risk involved in our not understanding it, like if it's a cold fusion reactor instead of a metal or a faster processor), but it's not like the moment you invent something it automatically becomes known to the general public.

    What about someone getting donations for inventing something? There's no reason why they necessarily would make less money off their invention if there's no patents or copyrights. If everyone could use the a machine which improves economies of scale, there would be the potential for a greater increase in productivity than if it's use is limited. If everyone who could implement the new technology did, and everyone who would've paid the inventor's asking price if s/he held a patent and set a price still did despite the lacks of patents, and someone else who used the invention donated something (however small), the inventor would make more money because s/he didn't/couldn't set a price to keep people from using the invention.

    3. Rand said a mathematical or philosophical discovery is about the nature of reality, but a new machine isn't. Therefore, mathematical and philosophical discoveries aren't copyright-worthy, but machines are patent-worthy. But doesn't the machine also concern the nature of reality (i.e. if you put these things in this arrangement you get this result)? I'm not sure how we draw the line between what's copyright/patent-worthy and what isn't. Is a new style of clothing copyright-worthy? If not, how is it fundamentally different from a song?

    4. Even if patents are legitimate, I'm not sure how copyrights could possibly be legitimate because there's no way (I can think of) where you can demonstrate a copyright violation. At what point does the new song/book/screenplay become similar enough that there's a violation? By what standard? What about "fair use"? How can we draw the line between satire and non-satire? I think it's ridiculous to say "Oh, well that's not an issue for philosophy. There's some line somewhere, and we'll just let the courts figure it out." Can't philosophy at least provide us with some guidelines on this issue? And, if so, what are those guidelines?

    Since antitrust is illegitimate because there's no way anyone can know when they're violating the "law", do I really have to go through every copyrighted book where it's plausible that there could be a copyright violation before I try to release a new book? What if (by a dramatic coincidence) there's a number of similarities with some book written 20 years ago? How am I supposed to avoid this? Maybe no one figures this out until a few months after it's released and I get sued big time. Is that really fair?

    * * *

    Just in case it gets made if I don't already respond to it, I want to address a utilitarian argument I often hear on this subject (I'm guessing it wouldn't, but I still want to cover this just in case).

    "But people won't be motivated to invent without patents and copyrights"

    Wouldn't it make just as much sense to say "But people won't voluntarily donate to the government without taxes"? I'd say that if people are self-interested, they'll donate to inventors/artists. As far as the "free-rider problem" goes with respect to taxes, I suppose most Objectivists would argue (and I agree with them) that you shouldn't trade/hire/work for the non-totally broke people who don't donate to the government. I apply the same argument to the non-totally broke people who don't donate to inventors/artists.

    * * *

    Finally, while this is a bit off-topic, since all property is fundamentally intellectual, isn't the term "intellectual property" a redundancy (like "rational self-interest" or "ethical egoism" or "individual rights" or "laissez-faire capitalism")? Shouldn't we just say something like "ideas property"?
  4. Like
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from Maken in My Anti Gravitational Theory   
    Really? So the fact there is all this evidence for gravity does not seem to phase the original poster. Or the "math" guy leaping to his support ( at least I think that is what his arbitrary rambling is trying to achieve).

    This should be ....well interesting. Floating and HIGHLY arbitrary mathematical abstractions used to possibly even more arbitrary assertions about the non-existence of gravity. Look, this is just nonsense and I suggest you drop it now : It contradicts hundreds of years of evidence , logic and so forth.
  5. Like
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from John Link in The End of Time!   
    Good observation, it does indeed demonstrate that ( amongst so many, many other things). It also demonstrates that the physicists involved do not understand that infinity is a concept which only indicates a certain potential to progress in a sequence or some such.
  6. Like
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from Amaroq in NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights   
    Well that is a pretty different context I would imagine. In this case the Mosque gives moral support to an enemy which seeks to physically murder its enemies RIGHT NOW if possible, and the more the better. ie, we are talking about a war for the survivual of potentially many, many lives, ie a case of Metaphysical Emergency which applies to potentially untold thousands of Americans.

    While Obamas ideologies do intend pose a threat to the happiness of many people and cause untold suffering, the facts are that Obama bumper stickers do not lead moral support to those that we are at war with. Sure many Americans oppose Obama, however the fact is that there is not a state of war against him intended to eradicate his ideology. Such a bumper sticker would not embolden anyone to continue a war and hence continue to take innocent lives.

    War is a specific course of action which pertains to states, or large portions of the population of a State which chooses to oppose the government of their own country and have the desire and the means to initiate force against such a government and to remove them from power. It should not be used to denote the fact that many people within a country might oppose certain things within it. There is no state of war against Obama, his bumper stickers do not lead him embolden him to commit warlike actions. So the above logic just does not apply to these bumper stickers.

    Trying to apply the logic which makes it improper to not build this Mosque and apply it to situations that do not involve war , are pretty much doomed to failure as the contexts are probably going to be pretty different.
  7. Like
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from Amaroq in NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights   
    Very good, very good! Just to elaborate a little on the part about what war is. I will reformulate that part a little more completely for you. Though I focus largely on the one particular enemy, the logic applies far more generally than that:

    "
    -When two groups of people are at war, they are fighting for a value or values antithetical to each others' values.
    - For each side victory the war ends when an enemy is no longer willing or able to fight or when they abandon the ideologies that lead them to war in the first place.
    - In the former case the ideology that lead the losing side to oppose the victor most likely will not be abandoned. In this case the war will most likely rekindle years down the track and final victory will not have been achieved.
    - In the latter case the victors impose a decision upon the enemy - to face utter destruction or to cease surrender with condition. This is his not enough however, as they root cause of the war has not been addressed and final victory will most likely not have been achieved.
    - The root cause of the war must be addressed. This is the ideology that lead the opposing side to war in the first place. The enemy must be made to abandon their commitment to this ideology so that they do not use it to fuel further wars.
    - In the case of America vs Totalitarian Islamic extremists - the latter Totalitarian Islamic ideologies are that which must be opposed. They must be made to see that such ideas are ideas of death and not life. And that to use such wars against America does not allow them to be exempt to the consequences of their own ideologies. Ie there ideologies must be connected in their minds to their consequences - to death.
    - Hence the only feasible option is to commit to destroying all that would fight a war against you on such grounds until they see that to do so will only bring their destruction. And that it is those ideologies that is to blame. This must be made clear to them at every step.
    - Once they are defeated , steps must be taken so that ideology is not allowed to rekindle another war. Be this via occupation , or some other means. The offending portion of enemy state must be made to realize that the offending ideologies are wrong and that supporting them will always => death. Given this stark choice, historical events such as the defeat and occupation of Japan, prove that these offending parties will overwhelmingly cease to support such ideologies and a war over them will not occur again ( at least for a very long time)..
    -America is at war with fundamentalist Muslims. (Whether we identify it or not].

    Therefore America must oppose the ideologies of their enemies. To support them in anyway or to allow them to gain significant moral support such as this is to undermine the efforts to connect in the the minds of the enemy that their ideologi8es are not rational and will only bring their destruction, which prolongs the war and costs more [ innocent in this regard] American lives.

    To allow the mosque in this context sends them a message that it is not their ideology you oppose and that this is NOT what you seek to destroy. Given this premise, it is a huge opposition to your war effort, potentially a fatal one. If you want to consider this to be rational, then that is your right of course. But do not come crying to me when you find that those we are actually at war with do not cease to kill thousands of innocent Americans. And do not tell me that property rights give someone the right to lead invaluable support which prolongs the will of murderers so that they continue to kill. Because I will not hide my contempt.

    You can reply to this all you want. However I do not intend to get sucked into this again, so I most likely shall not respond unless I consider there to be a pressing need. I am quite satisfied the facts are on my side after a lot of careful thought. So I shall not likely bother checking for replies. I only became involved at all due to Amaroq wishing my opinion on the post of his that I mentioned.

    To those that given this due rational thought : Thank you stay classy and stay certain.
    To those others : Check your premises as you are advocating that which would allow the support of mass murderers.
  8. Downvote
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from softwareNerd in My Anti Gravitational Theory   
    Really? So the fact there is all this evidence for gravity does not seem to phase the original poster. Or the "math" guy leaping to his support ( at least I think that is what his arbitrary rambling is trying to achieve).

    This should be ....well interesting. Floating and HIGHLY arbitrary mathematical abstractions used to possibly even more arbitrary assertions about the non-existence of gravity. Look, this is just nonsense and I suggest you drop it now : It contradicts hundreds of years of evidence , logic and so forth.
  9. Downvote
    Prometheus98876 reacted to icosahedron in Handling mathematical concepts that have no relation to reality   
    Mr. D'Ipolito, I respectfully ask that you check your premises.

    Any two distinct rays emanating from the same point are linearly independent in the simplest sense: linear displacements along one ray can never get you to a point on the other.

    The premise I question is that opposing rays somehow coalesce into linear dependence, whilst rays at a tiny angular displacement from opposition are linearly independent.

    The contradiction is due to context-dropping, and a bit of conflation, around the concept "linear". Linear means something different than Euclidean rectitude in the more general context of so-called "linear" algebra, and unfortunately leads to the common mistake of assuming that lines are the basis of dimension in volumetric space.

    Volumetric space is the conceptual context. What can be said with certainty about volumetric space? Well, it's finite, bounded, enclosed. In other words, it has an inside, and an outside (editorial note: people traditionally have underestimated the importance of the inside/outside complementation that necessarily adheres to volumetric spaces). Now, the thing about inside and outside is that, like any truly complementary pair, they are not merely symmetric opposites. This becomes clear from a simple observation: you can only go inward so far before you pass through a volume and thenceforth move outward indefinitely (assuming a ray-like trajectory).

    In volumetric space, in means in towards something, and directions are defined by reference to "inward-nesses".

    Mathematicians may play with more or less unrelated abstractions, but we humans live in volumetric space(s), and cannot assume things are where they are without seeing a signal indicating such facts ... and the signal must traverse volumetric space to reach us ... and two signals sent in different directions are clearly not gonna end up in the same place, clearly represent two distinct dimensions of information gathering. This is just another way of saying, as I originally stated: Any two distinct rays emanating from the same point are linearly independent in the simplest sense: linear displacements along one ray can never get you to a point on the other.

    Rays, not lines, are the proper basis of dimension when traversing motion is taken as the gold standard of proof of (potentially evolving) relative location. I challenge anyone to impeach this standard.

    Ergo, lines are 2-dimensional.

    And therefore, since a vectorial representation is required, I submit my representation of the integers as the most conceptually economic I could devise: pairs of counting numbers with equality defined by reference to equivalent net displacement when one imagines finite, constant-length steps taken to the left, or the right.

    I can keep trying to make it clear if you choose to pursue it -- it is worth the effort, I promise.

    Cheers.

    - David
  10. Downvote
    Prometheus98876 reacted to icosahedron in Handling mathematical concepts that have no relation to reality   
    The modern "concept" of numbers ignores context and conflates distinct concepts. Each class of numbers in modern use is a product of a specific process of accounting. Different accounting context cannot be dropped except in very special cases, e.g., when one is only interested in the quantity and not its units.

    Counting leads to counting numbers. The unit is the type of entity counted.

    Relating counting numbers leads to rational numbers. The unit is the denominator.

    Solving for quantities to fit equations leads to algebraic numbers. The unit is predetermined and then abstracted out of the process -- but the domain of applicability of the equation determines the unit. Complex numbers are solutions of equations, no more, no less -- and labeling the solution to x*x=-1 as "imaginary" is facetious. There is nothing imaginary about the solution to this equation, and physical examples of its reality abound, e.g., electro-magnetics in the context of conductors where phase frequency is complex; or in quantum mechanics where the operators are complex, but the observable eigenvalues are potentially directly measurable, i.e., "real". Complex numbers cannot be directly measured or observed, duh, it would take at least two observations to pin down the real and imaginary components.

    Taking the natural limits of sequences of rational numbers leads to the so-called real numbers. The unit is implicit in that the elements of the sequence must be commensurable. This allows one to model even the transcendentals. To my mind, the representation of numbers as limits of sequences, as used in constructing the real numbers, is the most general; but you can't just blithely manipulate sequences as if they were unitary numerals, esp. the non-terminating sequences become bothersome. And you don't get the complex numbers unless you use two sequences.

    Thinking of the solution of x*x=-1 as the square root of -1 is just people mistaking formalism for fact. It is just a number defined by the fact that it solves the equation, and should have a disparate name such as "freddie" to make sure folk don't conflate it with observable, measurable quantity.

    The problem goes deeper. The notion that -1 or +1 are numbers is false. They have distance and direction. They are vectors. The integers are naturally represented as pairs (x,y) with the equivalence relation (x,y)==(s,t) iff x-y==s-t, with normal vector addition used to construct a vector space from the equivalence classes under this relation across the set of pairs of counting numbers.

    So, if -1 is represented as (0,1), and +1 by (1,0), then what sense does it make to take second power roots of either of these vectors?

    multiply(-1,-1) = (0,1) * (0,1) = (1,0)

    How does that make sense?

    The conceptual flaw is that you can't get somewhere by going in the opposite direction, so scaling +1 by multiplying it with -2 has no basis in reality.

    Cheers.

    - ico
  11. Downvote
    Prometheus98876 reacted to Anonymous Randomynous in So I was thinking   
    Instead of trying to scavenge as many assets to ourselves as possible, and try to kill eachother at the same time....

    ...can't we just be friends and share the money? !
  12. Like
    Prometheus98876 reacted to Amaroq in NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights   
    I was essentially arguing that it is an initiation of force.
  13. Like
    Prometheus98876 reacted to Amaroq in NYC Mosque: Respect Property Rights   
    THANK YOU! I was seriously considering double posting in order to present it point-by-point like this. This is more or less a simplified point by point presentation of the argument I gave. I think if I pulled the premises and conclusion out of my original post, I could make it a bit more rigorous. But thank you for bringing this conversation back to the actual point.

    When I said I don't give a damn about the imam's intentions, I meant it, and I had a reason for it. His intentions aren't the point. Just like if you build a nuclear bomb in your back yard, your intentions for it aren't important. In both situations, whatever your intentions are, you're creating a threat to other Americans' lives, and the government is justified in stopping you.

    Rather than address this argument, people started pulling out fallacies and arguing on technicalities. (I believe CS actually tried to address it. He's the only one who has.)

    I'll also elaborate on what I said about us being at war with fundamentalist Islam. Yes, we are at physical war with the people who hold these ideas. But you cannot simply fight the people who hold the idea. You have to fight the idea itself. Islam is the source of the radical Muslims' actions, and if you only defeat them physically, they'll act on their ideas again. In order to win, we must defeat Islam. Not just the people, but the idea as well.

    You know what? I will provide a point by point argument of my own. (Conclusions in bold. Premises that were conclusions in previous sub-arguments will also be bold.)

    Premises:
    -Rights are limited and contextual. You do not have a right to violate other peoples' rights.
    -Initiation of force always violates rights.
    -If you help someone initiate force, you are initiating force too.
    -If you undermine a victim's attempts to protect themselves from the initiation of force, you are helping the initiator initiate force.
    __________________________________________________
    Therefore, you do not have the right to help someone initiate force, and you do not have the right to undermine a victim's attempts to protect themselves from the initiation of force.

    Premises:
    -Seeing your values symbolized in concrete form can give you emotional fuel and support.
    -Seeing a concrete symbol representing the destruction of your values can drain or wound you emotionally.
    -It is possible for a person to create a concrete object that symbolizes certain values.
    __________________________________________________
    Therefore, it is possible for a person to spiritually (that which pertains to the mind) support/refuel or drain/wound another person by symbolizing certain values in concrete form.

    Every premise I've stated so far should be well established, and the conclusions follow from the premises. I don't think any Objectivist should have any disagreements with me so far. Let's continue, taking the conclusions above as premises.

    Premises:
    -Spiritually supporting an initiator of force helps him initiate force.
    -Spiritually draining a victim who is defending himself against the initiation of force undermines his attempts to defend himself from the initiation of force.
    -It is possible for a person to spiritually support or drain another person by symbolizing certain values in concrete form.
    -You do not have the right to help someone initiate force, nor do you have the right to undermine a victim's attempts to defend themselves from the initiation of force.
    __________________________________________________
    Therefore, you do not have the right to symbolize, in concrete form, values that emotionally support an initiator of force or that drain a victim emotionally who is defending himself from the initiation of force.

    Premises:
    -When two groups of people are at war, they are fighting for a value or values antithetical to each others' values.
    -For each side, victory means the success of their values.
    -For each side, defeat means the destruction of their values.
    -America is at war with fundamentalist Muslims. (Whether we identify it or not.)
    __________________________________________________
    Therefore, America and fundamentalist Muslims are fighting each other for antithetical values.
    Victory for America means the success of our values and the destruction of fundamentalist Muslim values.
    Defeat for America means the destruction of our values and the success of fundamentalist Muslim values.

    Premises:
    -At the site of a battle or attack, if a concrete symbol of one side's values is placed there, the context of its placement makes it a symbol of victory for the side whose values are symbolized by it.
    -Ground Zero was the site of an attack by fundamentalist Muslims against America.
    -A mosque is a concrete symbol of Muslim values. (Fundamentalist or otherwise.)
    __________________________________________________
    Therefore, a Mosque on Ground Zero would be a symbol of victory for fundamentalist Muslims, and a symbol of defeat for Americans.

    Now then, let's pull down some more of these conclusions and use them as premises.

    Premises:
    -Fundamentalist Muslims are initiators of force against America, who (qua country) is a victim defending itself against this initiation of force..
    -You do not have the right to symbolize, in concrete form, values that emotionally support an initiator of force or that drain a victim emotionally who is defending himself from the initiation of force.
    -America and fundamentalist Muslims are fighting each other for antithetical values. Victory for America means the success of our values and the destruction of fundamentalist Muslim values. Defeat for America means the destruction of our values and the success of fundamentalist Muslim values.
    -A Mosque on Ground Zero would be a symbol of victory for fundamentalist Muslims, and a symbol of defeat for Americans.
    __________________________________________________
    Therefore, the Imam does not have the right to build a mosque on Ground Zero.

    I don't think it's even possible to make this any clearer.
  14. Like
    Prometheus98876 got a reaction from Nate T. in Handling mathematical concepts that have no relation to reality   
    You guys are making this way too complicated. Mathematics is the science of measurement as I am sure most of you are aware. The purpose of mathematics is to be able to derive values for any measurable aspect of reality , using certain logically derived, objective methods.

    Are these methods sometimes highly abstract and beyond an immediate connection to perceptual experience? Sure. Do some methods seem to be arbitrary? One might think that, but if they are logically derived from the basiic axioms of mathematics and allow one to acheive real-world values then they are not arbitrary at all. What matters here is that the mathematical methods used are not complicated beyond neccessity and that they can be used to acheive reasonably reliable and accurate results. Not only intuitive they may be, or how well they relate to every day experience.
×
×
  • Create New...