FeatherFall

No, I don't see words. But I don't necessarily see a fireplace either. If I were just looking at a flashcard with "cheese" written on it I would expect my mind to get bored and conjure up a mental picture of a kraft single or a cheesehead (I'm from Green Bay) or the auditory symbol for the french word "fromage". When I speak or hear sentences I don't use mental pictures. My mind functions primarily on auditory sympols (maybe this is why I have trouble drawing stick men). But my mother had an interesting story about a guy she met at a Mensa meeting. He said that for as long as he could remember, his inner monologue was accompanied by a mental teleprompter that scrolled his thoughts in written form accross his mind's eye. He was surprised to learn that everybody else didn't think this way.

Moderator's note: Reader discretion advised: The subject of this thread is controversial. No particular poster's comments should be assumed to represent "the Objectivist position". I think it would be helpful to Neverone to identify what you think a right is and where rights come from before asking if he can justify granting rights based on genetics -- a viewpoint no Objectivist would entertain. Before I delve into rights, I would like to present a definition of humanity that many here are familiar with: Man is the rational animal. Therefore, to live in a human sense, is to live rationally. This is something that will come into play when defining man's rights. My view of rights is consistent with Ayn Rand's as she summarizes it in "Man's Rights," Virtue of Selfishness, 124 pb 93: Addressing just this sentence, it is clear that a fetus has no freedom of action. A newborn is engaging in some form of self directed action simply by developing concepts and learning to use its body. A fetus is not engaging in willful action to become human; its mother is the one responsible for gestation. To continue the quote from where I left off: This last sentence is where parental obligation makes the situation slightly (and only slightly) more complex. A newborn child did nothing to make it what it is; an independent, yet helpless, human. The responsibility for its existence lies with its parents. This is where the parental obligation originates. It is the parents' obligation to facilitate the newborn's growth to the point where it can sustain and make choices regarding its own existence. Also, regarding some things brought up in previous posts... Associating rights with genetics is dangerous for two reasons: One, it divorces the concept from the individual, where it belongs. And two, it attaches the concept to something non-essential. Because, Neverone, you are fond of examples derived from science fiction, I'll give one of my own. Let's say that a new breed of lemur was capable of living primarily by its mind, forming high concepts and language, inventing new technology to sustain itself, resolving disputes through argumentation instead of violence and engaging, understanding and abiding by contractual agreements. Would the accident of its genes bar it from having rights? More importantly, I will rephrase a question posed by HunterRose: Why grant rights based on genetics?

Of all of the movies I've seen within the last year, it's one of my favorites - far better than I expected.

I would never have enough brainpower to hold an idea in my head without some referent condensing the information. I honestly don't think this is possible for humans. The referent could be the string of words that form its definition. If there is no definition, I would use something else to name the floating abstraction. However, I would not be able to escape the need for a referent. If you haven’t yet given a concept name, you will still have to use a sensory-percept referent to recall it to your consciousness. Epistemologically, this referent will serve the same purpose as the name you eventually choose. And yes, I believe something like this still qualifies as a concept. As far as the last question of your post, I may not understand what you are getting at. I think the answer would be, "floating abstraction."

Language is necessary in concept formation because of the need for unit economy. It has been said the typical human can only perceive approximately seven entities at once. Given this, it would be impossible for a human to create a concept before naming it. Even the most basic of concepts, consisting of possibly infinite numbers of concretes, would be impossible to hold in the conscious mind. Humans get around this problem through the use of words or, "memory tags." These reduce everything we know about the object to the conscious level. Everything else is held in the subconscious. Likewise, when we name an entity, there are uncountable numbers of measurements, even in the simplest entity. Because it would be absurd to try to go about measuring every minute detail of an entity, we log the important aspects of it and assign it a referent. When more knowledge is gained it is subsumed by the name we have already given the entity. An undefined concept is not an identification of reality. So it is necessary to define it before "tagging" it. If you don't have enough time to properly define it, you can leave it open ended for the time being, with the understanding that the concept is incomplete. But then, "definition incomplete" is implicit in a concept-in-progress. The "tag" may change to more appropriately reflect the concept as more information is included. Given the nature of these "tags," it would not need to be a spoken or written word. Regardless of the sense used, as long as a concept is recalled by the tag, the tag has served its purpose in the economy of consciousness. In other words, it has called the subconscious information into the perceptual realm. I would like to attempt to illustrate my point using the screwdriver example: When the screwdriver inventor was busy making this new tool, she would have had to first have a goal: Creating a new object that drives a spike like object into another material. Alternately, find a way to hang a picture without a hammer. Her creation in progress can be crudely tagged (named), "the means to my end." She would go about creating it by systematically working with the different parts of the means to the end on a perceptual level; It needs to drive a spike into wood, if it used direct force to drive the spike it would be a hammer, a different way to drive the spike would be to alter forces through rotational leverage, the spike needs to have a spiral outer structure to accommodate this... While she is thinking, she will begin to redefine her terms. Because this "spike" is significantly different than a nail, it deserves its own name. She calls "the means to her end" by a new name, "screw." She continues to think: Once the screw is spinning it can drive itself in with a spiral structure, it is too small for me to spin it alone so it needs its own version of a hammer. She again redefines her terms. Because the screw is different than a nail, the new tool will necessarily be different than a hammer. She begins to call this new tool in progress by its defining characteristic "screwdriver." This is included with the other new concept "screw" as the replacement for "the means to her end." In order for the screwdriver to spin the screw they must interface somehow, they can interface through interlocking structure in the screw head and object point, in order to do this both materials must be more durable than the objects they penetrate, etc... She again redefines her terms. This time she does not need to re-label them, because nothing essential has changed, only the shape of the dual means to her end. Throughout this whole process of concept formation she never stopped working with percepts. How could she possibly have done otherwise? Each word she used was a reference to infinite numbers of different concretes. If she wasn't referencing each concept with its own percept, she never would have gotten past the first step, let alone developed an entirely new set of concepts to complete her goal. Also, during the process the first percept, "means to my end," was redefined, renamed and built upon in a continuous process. They were never "pure concepts" without sensory percept referents. Again, by definition, a concept can have infinite numbers of referents. This is why one can never hold all that a concept entails in one's conscious mind. To say that human beings think in terms of concepts is accurate in a sense. But, because human beings code concepts in terms of percepts, it may be more accurate to say we think consciously in terms of percepts. It is our subconscious mind that pulls the conceptual weight.

I'm the tallest in mine, and 5'11" (I think). Among other injuries, I suffered compression fractures in three vertebrae a little over two years ago. So I may have shrunk a half inch or so, but I haven't checked. I didn't notice many tall girls growing up in Green Bay.

What about, "Christian ethics; the inversion of justice?"

I like many typically asian facial qualities, especially the eyes. I'd rather women of all races were taller, though.

Actually, everybody starts out athiest. Religion is something one learns.

To quote Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, page 11: To further clarify, a sensory-percept referent is the means by which humans recall pre-identified concepts and entities to their consciousness. In my previous post, I implied that a language was a set of sensory-percepts accepted by multiple people. This seems to be at odds with Ayn Rand's definition. From now on, when I refer to the more specific type of language, I will call it "communicable language." I also explicitly stated that it does not have to be visual or auditory. And I stand by this.* It is also impossible to relay the word exactly as you hear it or the text exactly as you visualize it. But whether we hear "hello" in an Irish drawl (from the front of the mouth) or in a Scottish drawl (from the back of the throat), we understand it. If we used visual pictures to identify concepts, we could draw them. We wouldn't have to draw them exactly as we picture them. Obviously this is an extremely difficult means of communication, unless it is stripped down to mental pictures of text, which is how one writes. Alternately, we could use mental pictures of hand movements, which is how the deaf sign. It is best to assign accepted words, texts or signs as sensory percept referents to concepts. This is because your ideas can then be communicated to anyone familiar with the language you use. If you speak multiple languages, you can assign multiple referents and communicate to more people. But this cannot always be done. For instance, a baby does not begin concept formation by using words that are part of a communicable language. It isn't until they realize that others are communicating with words that they can begin to assign those words to their own concepts. Before that time, they may have been more likely to use a sense-referent associated with the concept they are identifying; Sight for color, taste for foods, touch for tactile concepts. "Objectivism," "Mars" and "planet" are sensory percept referents, or "names" for specific concepts. "Objectivism" names the concept: "the philosophy of Ayn Rand." "Mars" names an entity: "The fourth planet from Sol." "Planet" names a concept, which is approximately: "A specific type of celestial body." Before writing this post, I would have said, "A proper name does not have to name a specific entity, but it does have to apply to the most precise form of a specific concept - something that is not itself composed of more specific concepts. Both 'Mars' and 'Objectivism' satisfy this qualification, while 'planet' can not, because it is composed of entities." However, while writing this post, I continued to read the page of ITOE I quoted earlier: Therefore, Ayn Rand did not believe that "Objectivism" is a proper name. I still think it is a proper name, for the reasons I gave above.* The inch is a unit of measure that is irrelevant when it is not used to measure something. Therefore, when pointing to a specific inch (any stretch of reality is a 1/12th foot distance) that measures along a curved path, that inch is curved. While inches do not exist as entities, they do exist in reality. *Does this mean I am not an Objectivist? Or are these non-philosophical disagreements?

Well, I've read a lot of stuff I agree with here, but when it comes down to it, I am simply attracted to any girl who smiles. OK, maybe there are other criteria, but I honestly think about appearance less than I did in my teens... That said, let's get down to business. I dig chics with glasses, geek chicks, tall chicks, and agree that mixed raced women tend to be more attractive... I also like toned musceles (especially leg, shoulder and back muscles) and short hair, even shaved heads. I don't know if its the spherical quality of the head, or the idea that a woman doesn't bow to social convention. Maybe it's both. In the spirit of this, I would like to bring Keira Knightley to this thread. She plays Domino Harvey in the upcoming movie, Domino. I like girls who know how to kick the crap out of me, but that doesn't mean I want them to do it. Maybe I just want to feel safe in a warrior woman's arms. As for the cast of Serenity, I like them all but am most attracted to Gina Torres. She was even hotter in The Matrix series. I like the classic beauty of the 1920's... Some aspects of this extend to later times and to people like Marilyn Monroe. Also, Gwen Stefani had a stunning outfit on during one music video (the name escapes me) that I brought up in a different thread. Finally, I too had a crush on Winnie Cooper.

For guys and girls, toned muscles are key. Guys can get away with way more bulk, and even natural hair loss. Sometimes a receeding hairline looks cool. Ernie Reyes Jr. (the guy who played "Keno" from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 and the lead role in Surf Ninjas), Usher, and Jude Law are some of the most attractive men as far as I'm concerned. Oh! Bruce Lee, too! Come to think of it, these guys usually are not seen with facial hair. Maybe I like that because I can't grow any myself - actually I can grow some, but it looks rediculous. I'd say more, but every time I try to think about this thread I feel myself drawn to the other one... See you all there.

Understood. It was not my intention to draw a fundamental distinction where one didn't exist. In trying to explain how raising a child can add to life's pleasures, I was not as clear as I could have been. When making a decision to spend your time, you are not "spending temporal capital." You are making a decision not to pursue other values you otherwise could have. I chose to focus on time because I often encounter people who think of it as the main aspect to life aside from happiness.

I'm not quite sure I know what you mean. Have I been misusing the word quality? After thinking about it, I understand that time is one of the qualities of a life. I suppose I was using it in the sense of "length versus the other qualities." For the rest of this post I will use it in this sense, but I will be more watchful of how I use "qualitiy" in the future. Some choices for quality of life mean that you will likely not live as long. For instance, an elderly person going on cruises and buying material things at the expense of 6th months of hospital life. Other choices raise both quality and length of life, like long-term health maintenance. Having a child takes years out of your life. I've heard that women tend to live longer if they have children, but I can't immagine the few years they have added out weighing the years of child rearing. So it seems to me that they have made a choice in this case to spend time to increase the quality of the time they are left with. Would it have been more correct of me to say, "There are two aspects of your life to consider, it's length and the enjoyment you get out of it. You should work towards the maximization of both aspects- time and enjoyment. Having a child is about increasing the enjoyment you get out of life?"

If he is interested and would like to peruse, check out the op eds at The Ayn Rand Institute. Also, I reccomend Socialism: Slavery vs. Freedom, Socialism: Class Warfare vs. Harmony of Interests, Socialism: Central Planning vs. Freedom, and Socialism: Inability of Economic Calculation. I don't know of any links that specifically cover fascism. What is BBS?

Welcome to the forum. I check Capmag.com and Coxandforkum.com every day. I recently moved from Green Bay where I studied Lima-Lama. Can either of you recommend a place to train in the Phoenix, AZ area?

If you are using the above definition for "name", then a sensory-percept referent is something more fundamental. In other words, a name is a specific and more limited type of sensory-percept referent. However, I think the above definition is flawed. Using the above definition for "name" necessitates at least two new words for concepts that are essentially the same. A word is spoken or written. So, by the above definition, a person using sign language to give the sensory-percept referent for them self would not be giving their "name." Why is it essential to draw a distinction between the spoken/written and the signed? Another way this definition is flawed is that it only applies to an entity, not a non-entity. Why draw this distinction? The philosophy of Ayn Rand is not an entity, but it does have a name. Because a word is a verbal/written referent, I don't think it is appropriate to define "name" in this way. A name should be defined in a way that recognizes the possibility of its use in somatic language. In fact, why even limit it to specific senses? The only purpose this will serve is to necessitate yet another word for an essentially similar concept if we ever developed a language using a new sense. I submit the following definition of the word. Name: A sensory-percept referent for a concept or entity that conforms to an existing language. By the new definition, you are still allowed to call any concept to mind using any means. However, the sensory-percept referent you use cannot properly be called a "name" until it conforms to an accepted language and can thus be communicated to another human being. I like my definition. However, by my own new definition and yours, I did make mistakes by equating "sensory-percept referent" to "name" in previous posts. Thanks for helping me notice my mistake and improve. How fun was that!?

There are two parts of life that are important; length (continued existence) and quality. If a rational parent is raising a child, then the process will bring the parent great emotional value. This is a quality of life issue.

A "Name" is typically verbal/visual. Verbal when it is pronounced and visual when it is written. The reason we choose names that we can speak and spell is simple: convenience. Your last post illustrates this. But not everybody does this; Helen Keller didn't. Even Prince tried eliminating a verbal component to his name. A name can be any sensory-percept. To use a mental picture is counter productive, but it is possible. If human beings had better noses and more control over our pheromones, we could smell each other's names. But the fact remains, humans are best suited to auditory and visual communication. Furthermore, humans are capable of translating languages of one sense into languages of another. So even if I chose to simply say that you should take a mental snapshot of my face, this can be translated into verbiage by describing my features. Or, in Prince's case, we called him "The artist formerly known as Prince." Again, this method of naming is inconvenient, but possible.

RSalar, If you don't formally name it, you will still refer to it in your mind in some way. There is no getting around this. You will think of it as "my new machine" or "that thing." Alternately, you might simply use a visual memory you have of your machine, like the image of the first time you saw it. Or you could refer to it through the memory of a burn you got on your arm while inventing it. But when you think about it, you will use some sort of sensory-percept to call it to mind. So will your wife. She will most likely continue to refer to it as a "thingamajig." Or maybe she will use "that damn thing that drove my husband crazy." Even if, when you call it to memory, you site every aspec of it, you are using a sensory percept and naming it. However, if you do this, you have chosen a poor name by rejecting the economy possible by your mind. Thinking of something is impossible without a sensory-percept referent. If you don't believe me, try it.

Donnywithana, Nobody has suggested that volition is an "external force" but you. I would submit that an omniscient supercomputer would not be able to predict every particle interaction due to the volitional nature of conscious beings. Omniscience is absurd, not possible, and irrelevant. I do have a question about your example, though. Is this supercomputer supposed to be able to form concepts? I assume so, because in the end of your third paragraph you call it "a sort of microcosmic evaluation of the way a human brain works." If my assumption is correct, then I would like to point out that you have omitted important things from this computer, like the need for self preservation, among others. A human mind sustains its existence through action. An omniscient supercomputer with a guaranteed power supply and unlimited repair capacity cannot approximate the human condition in any meaningful way. If this computer were conscious in the way a human mind was but not volitional, it would be infallible. It would realize that it's existence is it's primary value and that it has no way of sustaining it's existence past it's battery life. It would abandon it's pursuit of proving the non-volitional nature of consciousness, and start using every monitor, robotic arm and power-saving measure necessary to continue to exist. If it didn't have robotic arms to build a power source or a monitor to plead for help, it would be overcome by fear and stop functioning, shutting down unnecessary systems. It might even be rife with anxiety over its deplorable state and shut down every system, effectively commiting suicide. Either way, system inactivity or system shutdown, the result is much the same. Volition is at the core of Objectivist concept formation theory. By entering this forum and arguing for non-volition, you are at odds with many widely accepted theories here, almost all of Objectivist philosophy. Your computer does not have the choice to focus or not, because it is not volitional. Because of this, it could not form concepts to interpret its data if you accept Objectivist epistemological theory. If you want to continue toward meaningful progress in convincing other forum members that they are not volitional, (EDIT:or that volition is supernatural) then please quote some body of written work that you are at odds with, explain where your ideas differ and why. And now, I quote the inspirational song, "Freewill," by Rush. I do this because it rocks: "There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance, A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance. A planet of playthings, We dance on the strings Of powers we cannot perceive "The stars aren't aligned - Or the gods are malign" Blame is better to give than receive. You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill; I will choose a path that's clear- I will choose Free Will."

The short answer is no. A name is simply a "memory tag" we use to file all of the information necessary for a concept into a manageable form. It doesn't need to be verbal, but does need to be a sensory-percept of some kind. Humans most commonly use sounds and sights, but any sense can be used if it is accurate enough for the animal. I have never met a human with a nose sharp enough for olfactory language. There are concepts that we have that we do not use single words for, but the phrase or sentence we use to denote the concept serves as the sensory-percept.

I thought you guys might want to read this article; it pertains to some points that were made before on this thread: Eureka! Scientists break speed of light Speed of light barrier broken These articles basically tell the same story. One of the claims made in these articles is obviously false, like the claim that causality can be broken. But, maybe Einstien was wrong about relativity? I am confused as to how they can represent the speed of the photon as 55,800,000 miles per second, and then say it finished it's journey across the room before it started. You wouldn't be measuring something going back in time in terms of miles per second... You would need a new unit like negative seconds per mile.

Every core character (save maybe Jayne) was guided by their chosen values, including the villain. I loved the characters from the series, and I liked the movie, but felt gutted by some plot developments that seemed a little melodromatic. I won't say what they were to avoid spoiling, but it was still a great movie. I saw it opening night, with all the clapping and hooting from the cult following. It was fun to be in the middle of all of the excitement, but I am going to wait a week and see it again with my family so I can catch everything I missed.

An inch isn't a rigid object, neither is a foot or a yard. A ruler is a rigid object that is also a foot in length. A yardstick is rigid and is three feet long. Tailors use measuring tools that are not rigid, to measure things like waistlines - in inches. An inch has no mass, and the tool one uses to reference the length of an inch is meaningless. There are concepts for things that don't exist as entities. In this thread, the entities that we use to reference length are being confused for the actual lengths. By the way, I apologize for the hasty example in my previous post. If you traveled 60,000 miles to get to another point on Earth, then you definitely took the scenic route. If I had cut the distance down to 6,000 miles, it would have made more sense.