hunterrose
-
Posts
1217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hunterrose
-
-
Suppose science one day does explain cognition in purely physical terms; it would therefore follow that volition is an illusion. But...there is _no_ way [the determinist] can, somehow, know that determinism is true, while he also knows that he has no reason to believe that anything is (objectively) true...for the above reasons, we can't draw that conclusion definitively; but neither can we ignore scientific findings.
Whom are you referring to by "we?"#67the paradox I illustrated still presents problemsIf an Objectivist can't draw a particular conclusion definitively, then he certainly can ignore it. And a determinist can ignore scientific findings precisely because he can't draw any conclusion definitively.
May I rewrite this paradox?
Suppose science one day someone does explain cognition in purely physical terms; it would therefore follow that volition is an illusion. But thedeterministcan't know whether this is true or he simply is determined to believe it is true, and thevolitionistcan't ignore objective scientific findings.The paradox does not present problems for volition. If science could and did prove volition was false, then it's false. You meant that there is a paradox for determinism?
With what scientific evidence are you reconciling human determinism with physics???What myself and some others are asking is how [volition] can be reconciled with physics.
1 and 2 do not imply 3, let alone 4.The argument is that- if everything in the mind is reducible to physical processes, and
- since we know all physical processes depend entirely on the initial conditions of a physical system, then
- the mind also must be such a physical system, so
- [the mind] must be determined by its initial conditions just like any physical system.
- if everything in the mind is reducible to physical processes, and
-
I'm trying to work out the paradox I illustrated at the outset of this discussion.
How could this paradox come into being if we are never able to amass all of the data necessary to make the following conclusion?we will never be able to amass all the data required to figure out what exactly will happen to this very large and complex physical system at some later point in time.if modern science shows that everything in the universe is ruled by natural laws and that every effect has a cause, then... -
you still must apply reason as best you can because it has been found time and again to be the best way of optimizing your life
How does the determinist apply reason if the determinist can't tell the difference between what is objectively reasonable and what is "environmentally reasonable?"if determinism is true, then the determinist is forced to believe as he believes by blind forces.
Why? Isn't this, again, fallacy of composition?Our mind [qua subatomic particles] must have a definite nature which will determine its behavior in all situations)
You implied that these are the same things. Lest anyone be misled, they aren't the same.or there is something nonphysical which is outside of the range of physics and thus outside science's domain ... Magic
I'm only slightly acquainted with the Gödel's Incompleteness, and I haven't read the Merrill article yet, but I find this to be a very interesting point.This premise that there exists a set of physical laws which are determinative of everything is a claim that physics is, or potentially is, a formally complete and consistent theory. This guy Gödel had something to say about formal systems that claimed completeness.On The Physical Meaning of Volition by Ronald E. Merrill in the defunct journal Objectivity offers an argument based on Gödel's Incompleteness Proof that the laws of physics can never be complete, so the determinist argument from physics fails.
-
fallacy of compositionIf modern science shows that everything in the universe is ruled by natural laws and that every effect has a cause, then how can we possibly get around determinism?
You mean prove that every thought is reducible to specific environmental factors?? Can any type of lab experiment possibly prove that? If what you are supposing is in fact beyond the power of science, then there's no paradox.Suppose science one day does explain cognition in purely physical terms; it...IMO scientifically proving human determinism is just as impossible as scientifically proving human volition.
For what it's worth, I don't think Rand's statement - that a determinist ultimately believes his arguments for determinism aren't the result of careful independent thought, but rather the result of his environment - was her argument against determinism. That was only pointing out an interesting side thought, not her actual philosophical case against determinism.
-
Too late to elaborate?For anyone disinclined to understand what an Objectivist means when he says "I am selfish," how will taking the negative connotation from a definition change anything?For the sake of argument, say there are 4 types of reactions to the Objectivist concept/definition of selfishness:
- man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
- man on the street thinks negatively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism but is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
- man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism but is unwilling to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
- man on the street thinks negatively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is unwilling to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
Case #1 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish.
Case #2 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish - since he's willing to understand what "I am selfish" means when used by an Objectivist, it doesn't matter whether it has a positive/negative connotation beforehand.
Case #3 is unchanged by using RSI in place of selfish - like RSI, he likes selfishness until he knows what Objectivists mean by it.
Case #4 is the only case where using RSI in place of selfish is advantageous - the lunkhead who thinks selfishness is stoopid and doesn't want to be confused with the facts.
Is there some other advantage to using RSI in place of selfish? Or are we giving up the term selfish in order to appease folks who think Objectivism is bad before and after Objectivism is explained to them?
- man on the street thinks positively of selfishness before he knows of Objectivism and is willing to understand what an Objectivist means by "selfish."
-
You seem to be concerned with the fact that some people, before they even know what Objectivism is, think negatively of the word "selfish", and thus think negatively of Objectivist selfishness.There's just no extra negative baggage that I can see [in RSI.]But once a person finds out what the Objectivist concept of selfishness is, it no longer matters whether "selfish" has a negative connotation or not. Similarly, once a person finds out what the Objectivist concept of RSI is, it no longer matters whether RSI has a negative connotation or not.
For anyone disinclined to understand what an Objectivist means when he says "I am selfish," how will taking the negative connotation from a definition change anything?
-
IMO RSI has to be redefined as much as selfish does.
Personally, I don't think either needs to be redefined.rational1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>
1 : a concern for one's own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear>
hunterrose, how would you change these two definitions, which compose rational self interest?
But both selfish and RSI use the concept of "one's own advantage." If people agreed as to what is to one's own advantage, people would agree on what it means to be selfish. Same thing for RSI.
-
Since I feel like people are debating this point in my thread debating the definition of selfish. Let's drill down one more level. Is Rational Self Interest equivalent to Objectivist Selfishness? This time the debate is about concepts and not definitions. This is in direct contrast to my other thread on the topic.
Do you mean "is the popular conception of rational self-interest equivalent to the Objectivist concept of selfishness?
I'd say no, as large numbers of people, e.g. Christians, prudent predators, etc., have rather popular conceptions of RSI that do not coincide with that of Objectivism.
IMO RSI has to be redefined as much as selfish does.
-
I find this ironic.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."Do you really think that what you consider to be in your "rational self-interest" is that same as these average people who blank out when Objectivists use the term "selfish?"
-
Everyone believes that they act with a reasonable or understandable concern for their own advantage and well-being.What is debatable about RSI?Where do you go from there?
Do you make it debatable by adding positive or negative modifiers - good rational self-interest, greater good rational self-interest, nihilistic rational self interest, etc? That would mean that, like giving up the term selfish, you'd agree that there are good forms of rational self-interest and some instances where acting in your rational self-interest is immoral...
Or do "rational", "understandable", "advantage", and "well-being" already involve the type of value judgements you exorcised with "selfish?"
RSI either is just as debatable or will be debatable before it has any philosophical relevance.
-
With selfish, I have to explain why everyone is wrong and I am right... Meanwhile, explaining RSI, I'd already well on my way down the path of my concepts, in explanation... In the second example, a rational result, explaining things accurately...
There are people who think religion is rational; they include worshipping dieties as within their rational self-interest. You'll find hedonists who think that anything they're interested in is in their self-interest. You'll find collectivists who think self-interest isn't rational unless it serves the greater good.You loudly proclaim how proud you are to be "selfish..." 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're giving up on "selfish" because it's a debatable term, why should these people accept your debatable definition of "rational self interest?"
-
Wouldn't you have to explain what it means to be rationally self-interested?I need to explain my behavior, one way or another, at times in order to function in cooperation with non Objectivists... In fact, some people do find me of interest and would like to know more about my code of ethics, at times. Do I tell them, flatly, that I'm selfish? -
?????I ask because I always thought that she imagined some real life utopia and that was her driving focus for Objectivism.... Just the concept of utopia is a socialist concept, I think. So, I was just curious that despite her being such an anti-socialist movement, were there still elements of socialism which she couldn't reject? This is a separate idea that I might get to some day.I see neither socialism nor altruism in what Rand did.
You may be creating a bigger problem in trying to eliminate "selfish", "altruism", and other debatable philosophical terms.
In Objectivist terms, selfishness is good and altruism is evil.
What you're doing, though probably unintentional, is blurring the moral line between selfishness rational self interest and altruism coerced charity. You creating a system where Rand can be "selfish yet rationally altruistic" and be a capitalist with unavoidable elements of socialism.
In worldly terms, selfish people like Rand are bad influences and people like Catherine Halsey are heroic ideals.
But calling them similar or equal may be worse.
-
Compulsion doesn't effectively apply to an individual who is choosing (i.e. not compelled) to act selflessly. "Selfish" and "unselfish" are not philosophically inconsequential as you imply.I think [compulsion is] the root of what Rand is really talking about. It isn't really about being selfish or unselfish, which I think are bastardized concepts.
Lest you inadvertently give someone the wrong idea,I'm just not sure how a life philosophy based on selfishness is any less self destructive than a life philosophy based on altruism. Both seem pathological to me. Complete disregard towards others seems just as bad- Selfishness doesn't preclude devotion to the welfare of others in instances where it is advantageous to oneself.
- Disregarding (i.e. paying no attention to) others precludes initiating force against (i.e. paying attention to) others.
It would be self destructive to refuse to do any thing that had a benefit for another. It would be self destructive to hedonistically regard others as sacrificial means to one's pleasure. Outside of that, selfishness - acting for one's own advantage without regard for others - is benefical. "Selfish" and "unselfish" are bastardized only when self destructive acts are falsely legitimized as being selfish.
That's the opposite of the dictionary definition of altruism. Disregard for the welfare of others is not altruism.I think maybe Rand was indifferent whether her readers gained legitimate benefit from her work.
She gained financial and egoistical benefit from her writings. That's the opposite of the dictionary definition of altruism. Selfish regard for the welfare of others is not altruism.I do think that Rand was devoting herself to the welfare of her readers
By your own dictionary, there's no way Rand could be considered an altruist.I'm involved in an argument between Ayn Rand and my dictionary! - Selfishness doesn't preclude devotion to the welfare of others in instances where it is advantageous to oneself.
-
I just saw it. It was pretty good to me. Kirk's badass.
-
Attributes don't take action.
-
Never help others?
-
PSN: EmotionalContent
I don't have any of those games yet, but CoD is on my to-get list. I play just about anything though: Burnout, Lumines, Bioshock, Warhawk, etc. Waiting for Resident Evil 5...
-
I have to chew on the FRB money supply effect and the other contrasts you mention. With that said, it seems to me that the depositer potentially gains from having his money in a fractional reserve bank. His alternatives (e.g. put it under a mattress, personally invest it, put it in a CD) are all worse in ways that might make FRB advantageous.The contrast between the bank funding its stock investment via fractional versus non-fractional sources lies in the effect on the money supply, pricing signal distortions, the bank's general riskiness, and what effects all these have on those influenced by the bank's actions. The avoidance of FRB means the avoidance of generating those risks. Since nobody disputes that the practice increases risk...Do those contrasts (money supply effect, pricing signal distortions, bank risk) always outweigh any advantages to a FRB depositer?
Your post was detailed enough for me, thanks!
-
If failure constitutes not prescribing a wrong choice for a particular situation, I suppose it does fail. But why must there be a wrong choice in this burning building case?Aside from the absolute elimination of obligation as a guide for one's behavior, Objectivism seems to fail as a behavioral guide in situations like these.
I don't think going into the burning building proves that she values the life of a strange man more than her own physical survival.If the woman can value the life of the man more than her life...Supposing this woman knew with 100% certainty that she would die as a result of saving this stranger, then that might be a different story. But otherwise, risking your life in and of itself doesn't mean that you value something more than your physical survival.
-
Doesn't that, in and of itself, mean that fractional reserve banking is not fraud?The specified terms in the contracts have not in themselves been breached.
I don't understand this part. Suppose my banker invests some of my deposits in stocks. As we're both benefiting, how is this a negative-sum game?The practice is actually a negative-sum game, where the risk to the economy is not compensated for elsewhere in the economy in any form at all. -
Risk is being underpriced? How so?The only reason why a bank in an LFC world could make a profit at it is because risk is being underpriced by its various customers.A "demand deposit" is "An account from which deposited funds can be withdrawn at any time without any notice to the depository institution" (Investopedia). It is a binding contractual relationship."Fractional-reserve demand deposit" is a contradiction in terms. If a bank both operates with fractional reserves and offers demand deposits, it is defrauding it is depositors, because it has a contractual relationship with them that they may always withdraw their deposits at any time
I don't see the contradiction. What written contract do you get with bank accounts? I can't recall having a contract with any of my banks that guaranteed that I would be able to get all of my deposits at all times of my choosing.Other forms of investment are different. They are not demand deposit accounts. You don't get a written contract guaranteeing that you can take all of your money out at any time and for any reason. -
I wouldn't exactly call it taking advantage of others' irrationality, but IMO the best way to beat the market is to simply invest with a longer term outlook than that of marketeers.Is it possible for individuals to beat the "wisdom" of the markets? Under what contexts? Wouldn't the nature of the markets nullify any strategy that relies on non-industry specific knowledge?Suppose the bigwigs are urging people to sell stock X right now, because they believe it's going to underperform over the next 2 years. If you can see that it will outperform the market over, say, the next 5 to 10 years, you'll come out ahead eventually.
The masters of the markets aren't nullifying a strategy that's beyond their outlook.
-
I know! That's the saddest part of this. Republicans are going to continue losing elections as long as they go about as half-baked Democrats.The Republicans are not questioning whether there should be a stimulus bill or not. If you watch any of the major news outlets you see Republicans have already ceded that there needs to be a stimulus bill, their problem is that it just contains the Democrat's pet projects without including Republican pet projects.
Rand's argument against determinism
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted