mrocktor
-
Posts
783 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by 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
-
Would it sum up both of your positions to say that teaching a student information that is not true in order to deceive them or hamper their education is immoral, but teaching a student information that is not true in order to demonstrate how human knowledge has progessed, or to facilitate their eduction by presenting simple concepts, that may not be completely true, so that the student will be able to more quickly, or fully, grasp more complex concepts which are known or reasonably believed to be true, is moral?
For clarity I will say that it was reasonably believed that Newtonian physics were correct until the first bit of evidence conflicted with the theory.
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
-
Hume's objection to induction is due to a false idea of induction. If induction were, in fact, merely a numerical catalog of concretes, it wouldn't be valid. Induction's vailidity lies in moving beyond concretes and determining some kind of causal relationship.
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
-
Maybe the term “Objectivist” does not represent a proper concept. Wouldn’t it be ironic to learn that to call yourself an Objectivist is to admit that you do not use objectively formed concepts? That would mean that anyone who calls himself an Objectivist is not one!
My question is: Why would anyone who is sincerely interested in Objectivism not want to look objectively at this concept?
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
-
The computer would not have volition, because it's a computer
Non-sequitur. Why does being a computer imply non-volition? What you described is clearly a computer that is, at least potentially, volitional.
mrocktor
-
That's clearly false. Here's a way that you can see for yourself. Make love to a beautiful woman. Remember the moment of "fruition". That's called pleasure. Now put your hand on an anvil, and smash it with a ball peen hammer. That's called pain. They are not interchangeable.
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
-
The missing step, which she did not take (at least as far as I read it), would be to argue that an immortal being could not evolve that could feel pain, since pain would be evolutionarily pointless.
(...)
The presupposition that a being cannot feel pain just in case he is immortal does not strike me as well argued.
I don't have an entire answer for your question (namely, if we can postulate arbitrary situations, why can't we postulate that our immortal robot feels pleasure and pain?), but I did want to point out that absent the alternative of life or death, an entity could not have evolved at all, since it is the differential survival rate that results in evolution. She may not have made that argument, but it's nonetheless true.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
-
Let's say our immortal has value of hoarding red objects. We needn't ask why he has that particular value, or how he obtained it, anymore than we'd ask why an enfant how or why an enfant has the value of life. The point here would be the immortal has a value at the onset of our consideration.
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
-
Chemical life is far from random. Mutations may be random, but natural selection definitely is not random.
Do you consider computer viruses to be life? Even if they are, they are still far from being conscious.
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
-
Let me ask a follow-on question so I can make sure I understand your position. Does your worry about a non-empiricist argument apply to life itself, so that you would argue the following?
1)"Taking a man's life is an act of irrationality, because I should respect another's man's right to life." The problem with saying such is that
2)"I should respect another man's right to life, because taking a man's life is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?
And, outside of rights per se, do you also worry how to ground the immorality of cheating on an exam?
1)"Cheating on an exam is an act of irrationality, because my grade should reflect what I know." The problem with saying such is that
2)"My grade should reflect what I know, because cheating on my exam is an act of irrationality" would then be circular, wouldn't it?
I ask these questions because I can find nothing essential to property rights in your objection, and thus logically it should apply to more than just that. Seeing it applied in other contexts might help me understand your argument, because frankly so far I have been unable to.
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.
Well, for my part, I can say it's good to discuss this with someone who seems to be actually concerned with understanding the nature of reality. These discussions can often be a waste of time.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:
"Life" comes down to this: lock a cat and a robot in separate rooms. Come back one year later and what do you find? A decaying pile of yuck that was once the cat. It has died since it was unable to obtain the materials needed to sustain its life. The robot, on the other hand, looks just as good as ever. Conclusion: a cat and a robot are different in a fundamental way--one is alive the other is not.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.
I also am getting tired of fighting over an issue that is made abundantly clear in so many places in the Objectivist corpus. Seeing that Miss Rand used the example of a robot to disprove the position that you insist upon, amagi, maybe you can show us what we are misunderstanding here. I, for one, would see this as a breath of fresh air as it would turn the discussion to the philosophy of Objectivism which is, after all, the purpose of this BBS.Rand's robot is indestructible. No real robot is indestructible, this is the misunderstanding.
Amagi, I have never argued that man could not synthesize life in some form. I have been arguing that only living organisms are and can be conscious.(...)
If we someday create something that has the essential characteristics of life, then I agree that consciousness is possible to it. But it would be alive and this is what I have been arguing all along.
In this we agree entirely, a conscious robot must be alive. Note that this does not mean it has to be biological.
For something to possess consciousness it must replicate, say, a nervous system to a sufficient degree. A simulation on a computer screen, no matter how complex and how well it models the causal powers of the brain, will never lead to consciousness. SheepSIM1.0 is not really a sheep. Dolly is a sheep. Just a simple point.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
-
What do you mean "has the principle"? How would he justify that principle? What rational man could conclude that the root of property isn't thought but "might makes right"?
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
-
Risk is inherent in life, but there is an essential difference between accepting an increased risk in order to pursue a higher value, and pursuing destruction. Moral principles don't identify risky courses of action -- they identify courses of action opposed to man's life. Can you get away with violating a principle? Sure, in the sense that immediate destruction need not follow the violation of a rational principle, but absolutely not in the sense that you will be better off than had you adhered to such principles.
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.
This is the core issue. Mrocktor and all those who make the argument he is making take it as given that a certain class of objects is valuable to man, and then ask why it matters how you gain those objects. That is not a given. It is not obvious that having a million dollars is to your interest. That must be proved. The question is, how do you prove something is to your interest? How do you prove that something is, in the full context of your entire lifespan, a benefit? The only way to do it is conceptually.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".
Does doing ANYTHING "always" lead to a specific result? If it did, there'd be no need to think, no need to evaluate, and men could function as machines with no effort whatsoever. These questions are moronic. How nice of you to set up qualifiers that NOTHING in reality can satisfy. And then you accuse hunterrose of setting up a strawman? Please.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.
Consider just one principle: honesty. Does Ayn Rand argue that lying would be great if you could get away with it, but since you never know when you can get away with it, you shouldn't do it? Does she merely observe a lot of concrete cases of dishonesty, noting that in most cases, the dishonesty led to negative consequences, so therefore one should never be dishonest? Absolutely not. What Rand did was identify the essential nature of dishonesty and recognize that such a policy is inherently opposed to man's life. Quoting Galt's speech: "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if gained by fraud" (FNI 129).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?
Robbing a bank is wrong because it violates life-based moral principles. That's what it means to say something is wrong.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
-
Yeah, I like it here. There are obviously pros and cons to living in Brazil as opposed to the USA or Europe, the pros being (in my opinion) personal relationships (people are friendlier and more gregarious) and greater proffessional oportunity. On the con side, obviously, overall safety is a concern. Since I don't have kids, I have found this to be an acceptable risk.
I'm an aeronautical engineer, by the way
mrocktor
Government Contracts
in Political Philosophy
Posted
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