mrocktor

I have read practically all of Asimov's fiction. It is very good. I would recommend Frank Herbert, the Dune series is fantastic (at least the first three books, which is as far as I've read till now). Fred Hoyle has good books as well, "The Black Cloud" deals with an idea that is very interesting from an ethical point of view: a gaseous cloud moves into the solar system, potentially blocking sunlight from the Earth. The cloud is found to be sentient... "Ossian's Ride" is also excelent. mrocktor

It is On topic, most military equpment, in fact most products, can be defined by specification. It is easy to write a "value function" with which to compare competing proposals. In essence, you would have: 1- your submission must provide *basic requirements* 2- your submission will be evaluated according to these parameters *list* You then receive the proposals, plug in their specs into your formula and voila - an objective technical evaluation of each alternative. Objectively evaluating services is a lot tougher. mrocktor

I've read: Tolkien: Lord of the Rings series Robert Jordan: Wheel of Time series George RR Martin: Song of Ice and Fire series Terry Goodkind: Sword of Truth series (first 3, haven't gotten the rest) Frank Herbert: Dune series, The Black Cloud, short stories Isaac Asimov: Foundation and Robot series (I agree about the last Foundation books, very disappointing) Tom Clancy: almost everything he authored (the co-authored books are very poor) Timothy Zahn: Star Wars trilogy And lots of other assorted books... My first four Rand books are in shipping as I type mrocktor

I agree with this, in general. When I teach simplified concepts, though, I do make sure the student knows that it is a simplification, or that there are more complex things "behind" the simple ones. It keeps the student interested in digging deeper into the truth. mrocktor

In my opinion, you guys come across as excessively agressive when dealing with questions from new users, which can be detrimental to communication as it introduces emotional responses in the people you are trying to help. Instead of the bare "what is your definition of "blank"" posts, which can be misinterpreted as a challenge to the worth of the question or the questioner himself, perhaps some explanation of what you are trying to achieve is in order. Other argumentation strategies can also elict the basic definitions you are trying to establish. Clearly stating what assumptions you are making about the person's question in your response will allow any misunderstanding or problematic definitions to be addressed. Should any of their definitions be different from the ones you used, they will point it out to you. Applying to the current thread: "In my opinion teaching inaccurate information as fact is immoral, within reason. For example, I don't expect a 15th century lecturer to know all the facts about genetics. However, choosing to teach inaccurate information based ones own bias immoral." Apparently "teaching inaccurate information" in the context of your question means deliberately teaching information known to be false as opposed to teaching false information that you beleive true. Using the Objectivist definition of morality, deliberately teaching information scientifically known to be false is clearly immoral, conflicting with the principle of honesty. In one of your follow-on messages you proposed an example that admits a second interpretation of "teaching inaccurate information", being omitting information you rationally beleive false. This in principle is not immoral, for instance not teaching creationism is not immoral since the theory can be rationally dismissed. On the other hand, in the specific example you cited (evolution), there are no rational grounds to dismiss the theory. Omitting a valid theory, while not as essentially dishonest as lying, probably conflicts with the responsibility you assumed as a teacher of biology - to inform your students about existing knowlege in the field. mrocktor

Does Hume not object to causality itself, on the grounds that past cause/effect observation is not solid evidence that in the future the cause/consequence chain will remain valid? mrocktor

I don't see what the problem is, it has been clearly and objectively defined repeatedly in the replies above: Objectivist is he who understands, accepts and follows the philosophy of Ayn Rand. What is the trouble? mrocktor

Non-sequitur. Why does being a computer imply non-volition? What you described is clearly a computer that is, at least potentially, volitional. mrocktor

Not to me, since I'm not immortal nor indestructible. If I were, I'd be glad to do exactly your test. I might be mildly curious as to how one sensation compares to the other, I might like the woman today, but after a few decades of that, I might decide that the anvil is actually cool. As you see, there is no point to pleasure or pain, no clear distiction of why one should be pursued and the other avoided if there is no consequence to the chioce. mrocktor

Both of you miss the point. Assume for the moment that you are immortal and indestructible. You have a pleasure/pain mechanism and how it evolved is not really relevant. Now, from the moment you are granted immortality and indestructibility, what keeps you from stepping on rusty nails - just to know what it feels like? Why not cut off your arm just to know what *that* feels like, if it will grow back? The point is not that pleasure and pain cannot be felt, rather that they are meaningless and interchangeable from the moment that they *have no consequence*. mrocktor

Of course we need to ask why he has that particular value. Why does he need red objects? What possible value can he derive from having red objects? He can't die if he does not collect red objects, whatever "feelings" he has over red objects are irrelevant. If you are immortal, what difference is there between pleasure and pain? Both are sensations, but they have no more meaning. Basically you assumed exactly what we are trying to discuss. mrocktor

Good points. Natural selection has a random part (differentiation by mutation) and a non random part (the survival of the fittest). Mental experiment, assume we write a simple program and execute it on a computer. The program has two features: it randomly rewrites its code (small parts each time) and it makes one copy of itself each time it successfuly executes. Now, it should be obvious what I'm getting at. If we start this program, it will "evolve" in every sense of the word. In a non-infinite memory scenario, eventually programs will compete for memory. Those that are most effective (execute quickly, are insensitive to small adverse changes in the code) will become dominant. Of course actually setting up an experiment of non-infinite scale that does not lead to a bunch of "dead" programs may not be feasible at the moment (we are after all trying to reproduce quadrillions of molecules interacting over billions of years to generate life), but I see no intrinsic limitation that would make it impossible. Todays computer viruses are far from biological viruses on a "life" scale, though regular viruses' life iteself is debated. The computer viruses capable of mutation still mutate according to a program, should a randomly mutating computer virus be constructed, it might not "work" but it sure as hell would be a lot closer to life. mrocktor

Although it is hardly a proper philosophical formulation this is what gives me reassurance that non-biological life is possible: If random combinations of chemicals are capable of generating consciouness, it is reasonable to assume that random combinations of computer code could do so as well. mrocktor

FeatherFall, Your derivation of property is what I was looking for. As Doug had stated in a previous reply, deriving the principles (as Don always chides us about) erases the distinction between preperty I need versus property I'd like to keep. All value is created to sustain or further life, life is not only biological life, but life as a rational being. Thus all value created by the individual pertains directly to his life. Don brought up this line of reasoning as well. Feather seems to have brought things together for me, thanks. mrocktor

I think both your examples are not proper representations of the issue hunterrose and myself are arguing. If you kill someone, he is dead. That is tangible and unequivocal. The right to life is not derived from honesty, no circularity exists. If you cheat on an exam, your grade will not represent your level of knowlege. Although only you might know it, it is still true (primacy of existance). The fact that you don't know as much as your grade says you do is not derived from honesty, no circularity exists. On the other hand, theft is faking reality only if property is actually part of reality. If the right to property is derived from honesty, then the definition is circular. Thus we are interested in how to derive the right to property directly from reality, without basing the definition on honesty. (I'll get back with a decent post as soon as I can) mrocktor

Doug, I wouldn't say the issue is the Primacy of Consciousness. You see, property is not a physical characteristic of anything. If every human died on the planet, a rock would still be a rock. This is the Primacy of Existence. Doug's pet rock would still be a rock, but an alien landing on Earth has no way to know it's Doug's rock. Thus property is a concept that is not inherent to physical reality, it is related to how man interacts with physical reality. I liked your tack on "stuff I need, stuff I'd like to have versus stuff I value". I'm short on time now but I'll put some thought into it. Thank you. mrocktor

Doug, Don, thanks for working with me so far. I think we are moving in the direction of the kind of reasoning I was looking for. Doug's point of human effort being required to transform anything into a value is granted. Ditto to the right to life. The justification of honesty (as pertains to living in reality) is also clear. From this basis it is easy to derive that an individual has the right to the property he needs to support his life. It does not entail that the individual has the right to all the fruits of his efforts to dispose of at will, no matter how superfluous (as we are trying to demonstrate). The derivation of a right to property from the right to life would be: "a man is entitled to the use and disposal of that which he produces to support his life". Don's argument about the use of force, I beleive, is also not applicable. An individual only has the right to use force in defense. He can, therefore, use force in defence of his own life (this derives directly from the right to life). He can also use force in defending the property necessary to sustain his life (this derives from my conclusion above). Until we demonstrate, independently, that the individual has a right to all of the fruits of his efforts, whether they are essential to his life or not, he is not justified in using force to protect this property. An example (and I forward the example as an aid to comprehending the principle, not as justification): I am a farmer and have a full crop of some foodstuff in my silo. If I find some guy eating from my stockpile of food, do I have the right to shoot him? My derivation above would allow me to shoot the guy if he was threatening my life (i.e. eating food I will need in the winter). It would not allow me to shoot the guy if I have tons of food. Since we have not demonstrated that I have the right to that property, he does not have to use force to take it from me and the "use of force" argument is moot. One obvious tack would be "I may need that property in the future to support my life", but I think this is rather weak. mrocktor

I just read over the thread and have some comments: This is fallacious. Come back in ten years and you will find a decayed pile of goo and a decayed pile of metal and plastic. Rand's robot is indestructible. No real robot is indestructible, this is the misunderstanding. In this we agree entirely, a conscious robot must be alive. Note that this does not mean it has to be biological. You assume that the only way to produce consciousness is replicating the one means we know: the human nervous system. I don't see why this assumption should be granted. A simulation on a computer screen, if it models the causal powers of the brain well enough to by its own initiative type out "Please don't format me Mr. Bowzer", is by any plausible definition conscious <b>and</b> alive. mrocktor

Some thoughts: Can there be consciousness without life? What is life? Kenstauffer used the following definition: "self generated, goal oriented action". The definition is sufficient for my purposes here, I will use it. What is consciousness? I do not have a good definition to use, though self awareness and volition are certainly ingredients, still this will not significantly undermine the reasoning. The first proposition is: 1. Consciousness requires a physical medium. Consciousness implies means to aquire, process and store information. This can only be achieved through some physical mean. I guess basically I'm re-affirming that existance exists here. 2. Any physical medium is ephemeral. Matter is indestructible, but order is not. In order to posess consciousness, the physical medium requires order and this order is destructible. These two propositions basically determine that an immortal consciousness is not possible. Now, it is reasonable that something that is conscious will act - within its capability - in self preservation. Self preservation is necessary because its physical medium cannot be indestructible. Volitional goal oriented action is our definition of life, so consciousness would imply life. Can a computer be conscious? It is apparent that a computer executing a static program cannot be conscious. A static program would imply repeatability of reactions, and this nullifies volition. On the other hand, should the program have the capability to change itself, there is no self evident reason why a computer could not become conscious. To deny this flies in the face of evolution as a theory for the origin of humanity. If random permutations of chemicals are capable of ultimately becoming conscious, why should random permutations of computer code not be? The "immortality" argument is absurd, a computer is not indestructible. To argue that consciousness is inextricably linked with biology is fallacious, as has been pointed out. That consciousness is inextricably linked to life seems reasonable, as I tried to demonstrate above. mrocktor

None of your answers adresses the key issue my (obviously unsuccessful) example was trying to evoke. Ok, honesty means "not making up a new reality". Fine. However the possession of an object by an individual is not part of reality. The object exists, it is real. The individual exists, he is real. The relationship of ownership is not. It is established by whatever principles we use to determine property. Thus taking an object from another person is in no way going against reality unless we derive the right to property from reality. My question is: how do we derive rationally the right to property without circular reference to honesty (after all you are not being dishonest in stealing if the right to property is not ratinally and independently derived). Thanks for your patience, and for the record I am having trouble obtaining Rand's literature down here in Brazil (and I do not want a translation, which complicates matters). mrocktor

For the sake of the argument, not that I intend to propose a full set of beleifs that I do not subscribe to: The world is full of rational and irrational men. Thus our test subject concludes that a physical resource in the hands of someone not capable of "keeping" it is either owned by a "weak" rational individual or a "weak" irrational individual. In the case of the resource being owned by an irrational individual, the test subject concludes that the resource will not be utilized to its maximum potential thus he is justified in taking it and using it. In the case of it belonging to a weak rational individual, the risk exists that it could be taken by someone irrational, so he takes it himself. By the way, since you did not grant the assumption I proposed in my previous post, I understand that in the Objectivist view the right to property is the primary principle and honesty derived from it. Is this correct? mrocktor

I'm still stuck on the circularity of property rights versus honesty. Assume, for the sake of the argument, that our rational being has the principle that you have the right to any property you are capable of obtaining and keeping. This is oposed to the Objectivist principle that any property that is fruit of your own efforts is automatically yours irrespective of your ability to "defend" it. Thus, when this being steals he is in no way "going against reality" as he knows full well that he stole the item. Let us further assume that he is completely truthful about it: "Nice car Joe, where did you buy it?" "I stole it from Mike, he left it unlocked with the keys inside" "Then its not your car, Joe" "It is now" "I guess I'll just steal it from you then" "Good luck trying" Sure, its against the law and he would be in trouble but we cannot lean on the current laws and behavior that is considered acceptable when trying to define principles. The point is, how is this set of beleifs inconsistent with reality (not that I subscribe to them)? It is obvious that a society of such minded individuals would be less productive than a society of Objectivists, but this is not a valid argument as the individual would be deciding his own principles based on expectations of the same behavior in others. Of course this complicates the issue of initiation of force: does Joe have the right to use force to protect his ownership of the car? Does Mike have the right to use force to try to take the car back? Thoughts? mrocktor

I still do not have a decent answer to post on this subject, but meanwhile the following though came up: You define theft as immoral because the thief is "going against reality" by taking something (say, a 50 dollar bill) that is not his. Well, the 50 dollar bill is certainly real, but the "fact" that the 50 is not his is as debatable as the ethics of stealing it in the first place. Is the concept of property not derived exaclty from the principle we are trying to prove? mrocktor

I now understand your position Don, to be honest I will have to think about it before I can proceed with this discussion. Thank you for an extremely well written post. mrocktor

Don, you are assuming the principle is valid, that violating others "rights" is in fact opposed to the violator's life, we are trying to validate the principle in the first place. Here again you are trying to "define" the principle into validity. The principle defines value, therefore breaking the principle cannot add value. This approach is highly questionable, because it only applies to those people who adhere to your set of principles, which are not logically derived from reality but simply "defined". On the contrary, you are proposing that violating other peoples "rights" is always a negative value to the violator, thus you must rationally demonstrate that this is true every time. If you cannot prove that point, then there is no moral principle rationally derived, because it may be in the individual's rational self interest to violate other's rights. I'm not being confrontational, just not accepting anything but a rational derivation of the ethic principle. Don, this is the crux of the matter, from your Galt quote: "neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if gained by fraud". How does this derive, logically, from reality? It's wrong because... it's wrong? That is not an acceptable argument. I've been working with the following reasoning: 1- The violation of another's rights presumes the existance of another rational being (to be violated), thus we may assume that a society (at least two individuals) exists. 2- Let us define the "total value of the society" as the sum of each individual's value (If this concept is not new, I lay no claim to ownership. As I've said before, I'm new to all this). *Important point* There is no society value per se, as there is no way to judge value except on the individual level, the total value is an abstraction. 3- Violating an individual's "right" to life or property *at best* transfers value from one individual to another. The total value of the society, therefore, must stay the same or be reduced by each violation. 4- The violation takes effort by the violator, and by the violated (defence), thus effort that could be productive to the society is instead diverted to reducing the total value of the society. 5- Living in a high value society is beneficial to the individual in the long term These concepts permit us to state that violating another's rights is not in one's rational self interest in the long term. Points 3 and 5 could use stronger support. Also, this does not provide an ironclad demonstration that one should never violate anothers rights, as the ocasional violation by one individual could bring him gain while not damaging society enough to affect him. Interested in hearing your opinions, mrocktor