argive99

I shared Little's link and got the typical response that his paper was just 'math and philosophy with no reproducible scientific evidence and not likely to be accepted by the scientific community.' With modern academics the way it is, even if he offered metric tons of evidence his theory might still be rejected. He's trying to show people that no contradictions exist in physics. They will hate him for it. Lastly, I remember Little saying on Prodos' radio show a few years ago that he needed funding to do the experiments necessary to prove his theory. I believe he said he needed to use a super collider although I might be wrong. Has he made any progress on that front?

I was aware of Lewis Little from the old Prodos radio show. But thanks for the link to his paper. Its good to read a rational physicist.

It seems that the site is actually peddling another armegeddon story; ie their 'singularity.' It seems like the writers of the Matrix movies may have been highly influenced by this. Technology will improve to the point where 'Superintelligent' machines will dominate the earth and treat us the way we treat animals unless it turns out that a 'meta-ethical-golden-rule' exists such as 'treat every inferior the way a superior would treat you.' So according to this group either mankind will be wiped out by his own benignly created inventions and a 'post-human' era will be ushered in or mankind must sort of graft himself onto his super intelligent machines in which case he will be united by some highly advanced information sharing web in which he will basically lose most if not all of his individuality (like the Borg I guess). With options like these why even get up in the morning?

I guess no one is into Lear. I can understand. Its a depressing story.

Thank you AisA. I appreciate your comments and ofcourse agree. I actually did try discussing this subject w/ the person above. As can be expected he came back at me with a discusson of the wave/particle duality ending in the conclusion that there can be no science w/o the observer and ultimately it is the perceiver that creates what he perceives. The funny thing is that this guy is a respected empirical nutritional researcher who has written really good books on how the body works. Yet his view is that Aristotle and Newton have been invalidated and Relativity rules. He is adamant about Shrodinger's Cat (that poor cat). But you are right. Instruments don't create the things that they measure. The Empire State Building is the height that it is despite any observer and Shrodinger's Cat is either alive or dead (hopefully alive) despite whatever "state vector" the viewer chooses. Reality is.

I was having a discussion on another BB about something related to science when a dialog emerged concerning Reality and perception. The other person asserted that in essence there is no reality without a perceiver. I am not a professional philosopher so I don't have all the ammo necessary to answer him. I actually don't think I would even if I did b/c I doubt it would change his mind. But I am interested in a good explanation for my own knowledge. Printed below is his primacy of conciousness argument in his own words. He is a physiologist by trade. "And who says that the Aristotelian model is correct or valid? Newton's model fell by the wayside with relativity, as I recall Wilson argues that modern quantum physics destroyed Aristotles. Our conception of what reality 'is' has changed too much to hold onto centuries old models. The point is that we can't even ratinoally discuss reality without considering the observer, the two are so linked as to make the suggestion of a reality without an observer meaningless. This is a prime finding of quantum physics where observation is required to cause the outcome in many cases. Are you familiar with the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment? Whether you want too call it a reality perceptive device or reality creatino device is irrelevant, IMO. You can't speak of the universe without considering the perceiver, perception is creation for all practical purposes."

LOL. Your post was hillarious and on the money. Still, all and all I like Perigio. He's got spunk. Emotionally, he's much more in tune with ARI than TOC but he just believes ARI runs their organization dogmatically. He refers to ARI as the 'Intrincisists' and TOC as the 'Subjectivists'. He's closer to Peikoff than he'd admit. As for Sciabarra. I can't really figure him out. He's a smart guy and I think he understands O'ism as well as just about anyone (excepting Peikoff) but he believes placating academia is the best way to advance it. Also, he came from a strong libertarian background (I believe Rothbard was his teacher) and its influence is strong in his foreign policy. He even quotes Rand extensively to back his point that the Iraq war is an example of "Wilsonian corporate-statism nation building." But at least he's a gentleman when he argues. Not like another 'independent' O'ist by the name of Arthur Silbur who runs the Light of Reason blog and is a very angry, and seeming troubled man.

Wow. Ok. That's good that he's scientific even though the introduction has all the stuff about "non-Aristotelian" logic, Christian Science, magic, and Yoga. That's what my friend pretty much said, that its scientific in the end. Thanks

Someone who I respect recommended the book "Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilson. It was recommended for insight into behavioral patterns established during youth as well as biological/gentic influences. The ultimate goal being to change those patterns for self improvement. I read about the book on Amazon and see that it is loaded with mysticism and "alternative science" but the person who recommended it (who is not an O'ist) said to stick with it and its value will be apparent. Does anyone have knowledge of this book or its author or the "Eight Neurological circuits" of Timothy Leary that it is based on? The book seems to be offering a philosophy of mind. Thanks

This year I have seen two excellent Shakespearean productions at the Vivian Beaumont Theatre at Lincoln Center in Manhattan: Henry IV starring Kevin Klein as Falstaff and King Lear starring Christopher Plumber as King Lear. Klein's performance was excellent as the lovable rogue Falstaff. Plumber's performance was masterful as the lost, despairing Lear. I have seen Laurence Olivier's performance on video and Plumber's was significantly better IMO. I am trying to make sense of King Lear. It has been described as the most confusing of Shakespeare's plays and I have to say that it is difficult to pin down. Henry IV was easier to analyze. I listened to Dr. Peikoff's Eight Great Plays lecture series where he discusses Othello in great detail. He said that he had the luxury of having Ayn Rand lecture him for hours on that particular play and he wrote down every word she said. He basically described Shakespeare as a nihilist who did not believe that morality, any morality, had efficacy in human affairs. Peikoff said that this was not uncommon at Shakespeare's time (the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning periods of the Rennaissance) as Christianity as a moral force was being broken but nothing positive was replacing it so a skepticism, epistemologically and morally, emerged. He compared Shakespeare with other writers of the period such as Cervantes (Don Quixote). I saw immediately the validity of all the points he made during Henry IV. In Othello both the Villian and Victim (Iago and Desdemona) are ineffectual. But also the fallen hero is also ineffectual (Othello). No one succeeds. Everyone both virtuous and villianous alike fail in the end. This was Peikoff's point; morality as useless to guide human action, which is why Ayn Rand descrived Shakespeare as the spiritual father of nihilism. The same dynamics are evident in Hamlet and, as I saw on stage, Henry IV. Falstaff, the man of no scrupples who scoffs at honor (and gives a famous speech which starts "what is honor") is a broken man at the end. Percy, the bold, fearless warrior, dies a useless death. Harry winds up king but in the process shuns all the friendships of his youth chosing the life of the power obsessed monarch. Again, morality is useless in guiding men in action. Shakespeare seems to mock it. Which brings me to King Lear. There seems to be the same trend as both villian(eses) and victim are crushed at the end. Edmund, who seems very similar to Iago, has his villainous plot foiled at the end and dies a remorseful death. Lear himself dies broken and the only honorable man, Kent (who is IMO a better developed Horatio), pledges to follow his master unto death (ie suicide). Get past all that and it really is uplifting. Yet, there are so many other themes in the play that I feel that Shakespear was trying to say more than Morality's uslessness. King Lear has a pre-Christian setting which I think is relevant and its theme about true power and apparent power is intriguing. Anyway, if anyone has thoughts on the play I'd be glad to "hear" them.

You can't blame us for this. Take a look at what various libertarian organizations advocate. Follow the link below and you will see a libertarian organization calling themselves "Libertarian Socialists." O'ist Dianna Hsieh has speculated that the term "Libertarian" itself is most likely a package deal of various ideologies under one umbrella. http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2004_04_04_...941896945396488 I think of Libertarianism as an eclectic movement with some really good thinkers and some that are horrible. It has a long history which I know only very broadly. The better libertarians (Von Mises, Simon, etc) probably represent the best ideas (ie most rational and intergrated) that can be obtained without Ayn Rand's philosophy (especially her epistemology). Therefore, being that O'ism is in its infancy and not everyone has heard of let alone read and integrated Ayn Rand's work, I tend to cut some Libertarians (and the better conservatives like Sowell and Williams) some leeway. That being said when one reads the American bashing bile that their most prominent organizations put out it becomes tough to stomach it.

AisA: Good Post. I thought of some of the things you mentioned but the way you laid it out makes a good argument against America's foreign policy as being the villian. Also, I recall Mark Stein making a similar argument although at the time of reading it I thought it was a minor point. Also, excellent point about Malaysia. It seems that Malaysia is to Islam defenders what Sweeden is to Socialist defenders; a fairytale they use as a smokescreen. Thanks for the insight. AutoJC: Good idea and one I did think of but got scared off by when I saw the volume of material on it. You're right though, if you are going to argue in this area you need to know the history of the monopoliztion of the M.E. oil fields. Libertarians are very knowledgeable about this b/c Murray Rothbard wrote about the subject. They often argue that when M.E. tyrants offered American Oilmen legal monopolies, the US oilmen greedily took them; JD Rockefella is apparently a big offender here. They then go on to site this as the "corporate statism" inherent in US foreign policy. Some "Objectivists" will even offer extensive quotations of Ayn Rand (especially from her essay "The New Fascism") comparing current US involvement in the M.E. with US buildup of Russia through its LandLease program. So I hesitated here because I realized that the debate would probably get mired in concretes. But your post makes me realize that that is inevitable. Thanks for the reminder. One always needs to be factually knowledgable as well as philosophically sound. Bearster: Good catch. I did not see that aspect of it when I read it; namely the importance of the adjective "weak." It is a tip-off. Libertarians (the anachro-captialists anyway as opposed to the "minarchists") don't believe that the gov't should have a legal monopoly on the domestic use of force (they believe in "competing protection agencies") so how could they believe in strong international use of force? You're right, there is a big difference b/w "weak" and "limited." Although I hesitat to add that there is a grain of truth to their argument in that a government that is domestically controlled can hardly be counted on to deal any differently internationally. Libertarians here will bombard you with "Haliburton horror stories" of overcharging, etc.. They will tell you that Ayn Rand herself pointed out that European history was full of examples of the more controlled country acting as the agressor in military conflicts (ie Nazi Germany). Chris Sciabara and Arthur Silbur make this point all the time in their arguments against the Iraq War. I feel that they are dropping context significantly here but before I go up against them I'd like to have a better grasp of the subject. Any ideas? RadCap: The 'legitimate facts' or the 'grains of salt' are the countless details that a Libertarian will throw at you. Try arguing with one. For example, the US did prop up the Saudi Royal Family, Saddam, the Afgahnis; they did bail out Arafat, etc.. Monopolies were awarded to US companies that do not operate in a free market. Our intervention in pretty much everywhere has been a disaster. Government expansion has proceeded both domestically and internationally (ie the greatest offender here being Woodrow Wilson), etc, etc.. I readily admit that these are all factual points that need to be placed in context but the Libertarian bombards you with these so fast and so furiously that it can make your head spin. Which is why I sought the help of intellignet people such as yourself. I'd appreciate any thing you can come up with. Thanks to all

Hello everybody, this is my first serious post. I have read the boards for a while and while Libertarian politics are often discussed, I have a question pertaining to core arguments of their foreign policy. I have been debating with a Libertarian elsewhere on the net and I have asked his permission to reprint here his basic foreign policy arguments. His is a very good summary of similar arguments that I find from a wide cross section of Libertarians and even some who call themseles Objectivists (although they usually use the term "Randian" or "Rand-Inspired" which is a tip-off). Such "Objectivists" would include Chris Sciabarra and Arthur Silbur for example. My purpose in reprinting his argument here is twofold: to get some good ideas on how to answer such arguments in the future and also to gain a better grasp of what would constitue a rational foreign policy myself. I must say in advance that I feel that there are grains of truth in many of the assertions that these libertarians make, but that when taken as a total, they are sorely lacking in context. You have probable heard many of these arguments before: domestic statism leads to international statism or as they put it the "welfare/warfare" dynamic, the military-industrial complex as crony capitalism profiteering from foreign wars, trade as the solution to the problems of the Middle East, Middle Easterners don't really hate America and her freedoms but just resent our intervention in their part of the world, Militant Islam while bad is not the sole reason for the growth of modern terrorism but again US involvement in the region proping up dictator after dictator, orthodox Objectivist "nuke-em-all" foreign policy as "Strangelovian," etc., etc.. You have heard these arguments before I am sure. As I said, I feel there is some legitimacy at the root of many of these (there probable is a degree of crony capitalism in the military contracting industry, the welfare mentality has been expanded internationaly, US involvement has been unprincipled and self-destructive, etc..) But I can't as yet really answer these objections with any sort of impact argument. That is why I am posting here. Below are two posts from another forum putting forth the Libertarian perspective. I know its not easy on the stomach to read through alot of this but lets see what we can come up with. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Argive I don't understand how you can claim to be pro-free market then support the inherently socialist statist military imperialism. Has it ever occured to you that our military operations is just one, a sizeable one at that, of state-run socialist industries falling completely outside the reign of the free market. Like any other state-run industry the military-industrial complex requires ourselves to bond ourselves into slavery, through an income tax (which yes is a form of slavery, because a certain amount of your work is forcibly directed towards the government), and possibly even direct slavery itself, conscription. Further more the precense of a large military does nothing more but siphon precious rescources away from a productive free market (that steel, equipment and labor could be going into private industries instead of air force battalions). One of the main reasons that Japan was able to grow so quickly post World War II was because they had no military draining otherwise productive resources. Its paradoxial and foolish to assume that we can have a strong interventionist government abroad, but a weak limited one at home. Intervention in foreign affairs inevitably leads to intervention in domestic affairs. The warfare state is inherently tied to the welfare state, and vice versa. Think of the periods of the greatest expansion in our federal governments power, the War of 1812, Lincoln's administration, Wilson's administration during WWI, Roosevelt during WWII, LBJ during Vietnam, and currently our government's massive expansion fueled concurrently with Bush's War on Terrorism. If you're really worried about Islamist fanatics the solution isn't to bomb them, its to trade with them. Trade brings the rule of law, free markets, democratic power, and global ideas, all of which weaken the local monopolies of the religious leaders. Unending war does nothing more than create a permantent nation of enemies. Look at our success at reforming nations through war and intervention: Grenada, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba, Afghanistan, Guatemala, Sudan, Yugoslavia, etc. None to impressive, now look at what we've done with nations that we've reformed by integrating into the global economy: China, India, Mauritius, Indonesia, Chile, Estonia, Poland, etc. The point is intevention usually turns into a disaster, but trade brings real results, gradual, but at least consistent and real. There's no way that we could have intervened in China in '74 and converted it from Maoism to the very staunch free market it is now, but our trade ties with it caused it to liberalize. For direct proof just look at Vietnam. We've done more to make Vietnam capitalist in the past 8 years through free trade than our entire effort in the Vietnam War. 2) Well you guessed my political allegiance with remarkable alaclarity. I'm guessing you're an Objectivist, the militant kind that serves as an apologetic for the West's history of imperialism. You claim to see a culture clash, but I don't necessaryily think thats so. Yes much of the Middle Eastern world eschews Western principles of freedom. But I do not hold the same belief as you that there is no such thing as a moderate form of Islam, i.e. one compatible with Western secularism. One needs only look at Malaysia as prime example of how Islam can create a peaceful, proseprous, democratic and free nation integrated into the global economy. Many of these "cultures of death" were preserving the cumulative mathematical, philosophical and political knowledge while our "cultures of life" was in the dark ages. over 75% of the Arab world respects American democracy and freedom according to most polls. The tired old line "they hate us because of our freedoms" is simply ridiculous. We were free one hundred years ago and we had no Arab terrorism, hell even fifty years ago we were free without any terrorists. No they hate us because we've stationed troops in their holy land, propped up oppressive dictators (like Saddam, the Shah of Iran, and the house of Saud), have consistently fueled and funded Israel's imperial ambitions, and not least of all killed thousands, maybe millions, through our two unjustified wars and the ten year period of sanctions on Iraq. America provoked this conflict. If we would have just stayed out of other nation's affairs we would not have the problem we do. Other nations our freer and more prosperous than us, but you don't see any terrorist attacks in Luxembourg, Switzerland, Liechenstein, Hong Kong, or Japan. Yes I am for liberty and free trade, but your accusation that I have no ideological grounding is moot. My ideological grounding is that the role of politics has no role to play in people's choosen ideology. I am at my core an existentialist, I believe you give your own life meaning. I support liberty and free trade because it gives the people the ability to let them choose their own way to live their life. You attacking me by saying I have no philosophy in my politics is like a socialist economist attacking a laissez-faire one by saying he has no specific plan for industrial production. My ideology is that people must ultimately choose their own ideology. My ideology is don't interfere in my life, I won't interfere in yours. At least my political philosophy is not so vain, superficial, and hollow as to claim that I know the single correct personal philosophy to satisfy and give meaning to millions of different, unique individuals. I agree with your domestic policy, but your foreign policty is inherently Strangelovian and would surely result in the destruction of our own nation. The main point is the whole nuking of the capital city thing. First off you claim to support the culture of life, but then your strategy is to go about killing millions of people who have no connection to the first criminal besides the same nationality. Imagine the barbarism we'd have in the US if the policy of New York was to bomb Chicago every time a murder was committed in New York by somebody from Chicago. Trust me bombing people's homes don't make them want to kill you less. That's just ridiculous thinking. Increased cruelty on the part of an occupying power have never in history made the occupied people easier to control. For proof just look at our own American Revolution. Even if you say this sends a clear warning, and even if this convinces the rational majority to cease support of terrorism, terrorism comes from the small minority making up the most disenfranchised portion of the population. Bombing captiol cities may scare most people in that nation, but terrorism operations require only a few people, maybe even just one. You start boming cities in the middle east, do you think it will result in more or less young men willing to strap bombs to their chests ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you've read through all that you can see there is a ton of garbage such as his explicit endorsement of existentialism, etc.. But there are some legitimate facts thrown in there that make me pause. I don't want to be concrete bound, but I also dont want to focus exclusively focus on the forest and miss some of the trees. Anyway, hope you were able to wade through it. Thanks in advance. PS Notice how he refers to me as a "militant Objectivist" and an "Imperialist." Gotta love these libertarians.