musenji

I did the free trial of Lumosity, but I didn't have a job at the time, so I couldn't speak for its effect on focus in productive endeavors. I certainly enjoyed the games for their own sake. The game of poker, played at higher levels, requires not only math, strategy, observation, and psychology, but emotional fortitude, patience, self-motivation, and courage.

Sounds like you've been reading up on another Eric, Eric... [edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_(pickup_artist) Okay--"Erik". My bad.

I didn't mean to imply that they were as good as professional opera singers, certainly not that they were professionals; my purpose was only to comment on the style of the singing they do, which is closer to operatic singing than pop music. It was in response to a question about American Idol, which wants marketable pop music-style singing that you hear on popular radio stations.

Both of the British "surprisers" were over 30, and operatic singers. American Idol has an age limit of 28. Also, a talented operatic singer once tried out for the show, and Cowell said that while he was good, that wasn't the style they were looking for.

I disagree with your last statement, Juxtys. A person can be part good. There isn't enough information here to make a good judgement, especially because it looks like it's a loaded question--like you, Clive, already know what answer to expect and are looking for it, by framing the question so as to make the answer "obvious". Why did the man marry the woman? Was it solely because her weakness made him feel masculine? Or did she have some genuine virtues? [edit] Saying "what kind of soul does he reveal" is particularly loaded, as Rand used that exact question, I believe verbatim, when referring to evil people in certain instances.

In the Passion of Ayn Rand, it is written that Rand's sister, upon making it to America, reacted exactly the same way. I seem to remember that toothpaste, in particular, was mentioned. According to the book, Rand didn't get along with her and was very disappointed. (I say "according to the book" because I know that Barbara Branden is persona non grata around here, and therefore anything said in her biography is "of questionable truth". Personally I don't think there's any reason to doubt most of the book's contents, certainly not the parts that have nothing to do with "the breakup".)

I used to hold tl;dr in disdain as laziness...

The rest is: By his hands we all are fed, give us, Lord, our daily bread. I too lol'd at the Muslim Rave, and I think I'll probably have aftershock laughter periodically throughout the day.

Since reading Rand, I've held the "X For Dummies" series in disdain, because even if they are very well-done and logical introductions to topics, the necessary first step in reading one is self-deprecation. It contradicts her philosophy, and Objectivists already have a bad enough reputation for belittling those who disagree with them. Imagine a self-righteous opponent of Rand being told to read the book!

Yeah, I saw this last night too. I was a bit on edge during the whole thing, trying to decide if he was trying to dump on Rand. The ketchup thing had me for a second, but then the guy said "it's just how I like it" and not something like "well that's all they're good for, they're not worth reading"...so it seemed harmless. The comment about "are you even reading these books?" made me very optimistic about how this will affect people, though it may have just been part of the humor. The fact that people say things about Rand's books without having read them is important for a prospective reader to know--they won't just listen to the bad hype and reject her offhand.

Question. Would integration of the senses play into this at all? For example: "How do I know that that wooden block is a cube, and I'm not just seeing it as one when it's really a sphere?" "Close your eyes and feel it with your hand." If we were "creating" reality/perceptions, why should it have to be that the perceptions integrate with each other (in other words, different senses consistently "create" certain types of things in specific ways, e.g. wood makes a certain noise and feels a certain way when you knock it). If reality is at our senses' whim, why should it need to be consistent at all? If they refer to evolution, that assumes that we need the senses to give us accurate information about the external world, because it is accurate information that leads to survival. In other words if they cite evolution, they grant that reality comes first/is the standard, and that we have adjusted to it, over millions of years.

David, what would you accept as an accurate reference for the "standard meanings"? A dictionary? Aren't all dictionaries based on common use, meaning that "standard meaning" is the same as "how it's most commonly used"? It is a very strong theme here that the "standard meanings" of several words need to be changed because the standard meanings are often "package deals". Cue the difference between the dictionary definition of "selfish" and Rand's usage of the term. Rand defined it as "having concern for oneself" while the '67 Webster defines it as "having concern for oneself with disregard to others". Rand would refer to the latter definition as a package-deal, right? [edit] fixed wording.

This isn't restricted to the non-fiction. It's a theme with both Dagny and Hank, in Atlas Shrugged, if I recall correctly--they both make speculative conclusions about family members but are incapable of believing that anyone would be "that evil".

Blueberry muffin? I've had Sunset Wheat but don't remember thinking that. Then again, that was relatively early on in my run of beer connoisseurship. I ought to try it again. Also, this could be split into a separate thread based on Mammon's question.

From your last post, it sounds like you already know how you want to handle it, and are simply looking for agreement or solidarity. [edit] Maybe that's a hasty judgement. But "does anyone else have an opinion on this?" sounds like "Does anyone have an opinion on this that agrees with mine?"--given that your request was based on receiving an opinion that disagreed.

Just to name a couple: chocolate truffles do best when they have some form of flavored liqueur, rather than syrup flavoring, because of the way the flavor hits you. With syrup, the "secondary" flavor (raspberry, mint, orange, irish creme, etc) hits you right away, but with liqueur, you have to wait for the chocolate to melt in your mouth a bit before the flavor starts to occur. It's really enjoyable. And second, tiramisu. This is now being widely done with beer as well, as craft beer has had a huge rebirth. ...I personally find a good porter to go better with steak than any red wine I've tried so far. [edit] Mammon: I like oatmeal stouts, porters, black lagers...dark stuff. I also really like Oktoberfests, which are unfortunately seasonal.

Did you know that at the opening performance, there was a literal riot? People actually went insane from hearing it, trampling and hitting each other in the aisles. But some time later, at the second performance, it was incredibly well received. This radio show investigates a bit into why: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21 It also talks about perfect pitch, and how a computer program has been built which can actually read the "DNA" of a composer's style, given enough music, and create new pieces of music that sound like that composer.

Is your starting premise that ambition is merely "wishful thinking"? It is my general understanding that people with ambition are people who do what it takes to achieve their goals (including gaining knowledge and resources). I have always thought ambition and passivity were mutually exclusive.

I'd be in for both Scots and Scarlet.

I always understood it to mean what softwareNerd said: that it was an extremely expensive jewel, only a few men in the world could "properly" afford to buy it, and Rearden was not one of them. "Properly" doesn't refer to social rules or legality. "Properly" in this case means it would be comfortably within the man's budget to buy. For example, if you're a billionaire, a 50 million dollar ruby is still within your "comfortable" price range for a very important gift. If, however, your net worth is 60 million dollars, much of which you use to develop your business, then 50 million is NOT comfortably within your budget, even though you technically have enough to buy it. From the way it was described, I would guess that the ruby cost Rearden at least 1/4 of his net worth. (That's the low end of my estimate range.)

Rory, I would say that all consciousness exists physically in the interactions of brain pieces/parts. It's not convenient to refer to it that way because we're nowhere NEAR being able to pinpoint exactly what physical interaction equals, say, the concept "tree", but the truth remains that it has to in SOME form exist physically, else it could not be real. Meanwhile: Pacifist Taxman. (I recently thought of asking some pacifist friends, "how do you justify taxation by force, and the fact that the police protect you? You're just letting someone else do the work that you consider 'sin'. What's more, you're counting on them to do it. So what's the difference in principle?")

The basic beginning meditation is actually a focus on breathing. The simple goal is to keep all of one's mind focused on the breath and to let all other thoughts fall aside. But yes, meditation is more broadly defined than I had originally thought. (I used to picture a person sitting Indian-style, humming in the back of his throat, eyes closed, fingers pinched at the sides...you know. The cliche. And yes, this is one of the MANY practices of meditation. Some are far more interesting.) Some do define it in a very similar way to how an Objectivist would define "focus". Meditation usually also includes some form of practice to help one reach that focus, as opposed to saying "Well jeez, I don't know, just FOCUS. I know you know how. Just do it!" I think that the word may actually be synonymous to focus for many people, but they use "meditate" because it sounds more "Eastern" or "spiritual". Which of course I don't condone. I think of meditation more as "intentionally practicing focus with a specific method". Well I know I got the book from my library, but they don't have it anymore. If you are interested enough to spend half an hour, you could look up "meditation" in your library's catalog, and check out a few books, and toss the ones that sound totally mystical. (I did this recently with "visualization", and it worked pretty well. There was one book that, after reading two pages and skimming a bit further--a few-minute endeavor--I knew it was junk. But another, after the same process, I knew was worth reading into, and ended up being a fantastic read. I'm sure you could apply the same process to "meditation".) Here's one link for a breathing practice: http://www.openmindbody.com/breathawareness.htm You can always search Google for "basic breathing meditation" or some such...and do the same thing as with books.

One question first: what do you mean by "scientific"? Do you simply mean "non-mystical"? "Rational"? "Straight talk based on facts"? Or do you mean "I want to see hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion, proving that it's worthwhile"? One simple reason to explore the idea (for some, perhaps not for you) is if one tends to have a scattered mind, meditation helps to let go of "scatter" thoughts. If one has an incredibly busy life, residual thoughts from all the activities can clash into each other, and it may be important to have a time to clear the mind of all that clutter so one can focus on doing one thing at a time. This could hypothetically lead to greater efficiency in action. [edit] On a personal note, I've experimented with meditation somewhat, and it really helps with forming a sense of calm and balance. In some cases it has been for me an end in itself, just because the exercises ended up making me feel good. And there are certainly more specialized meditations than "just clearing your mind". There are meditations for a number of practical ends. If you like, I could try to find you a reference without all the gabbledygook.

Do you mean for him to explain that? Or simply to establish that order, indeed, does precede rights? He didn't specify what KIND of order. Feudalism is a kind of order, without rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude Or to keep it in the terms of this study, even a non-thug might take pleasure in seeing one of the bullies go through some pain, after seeing the bully pick on a kid. Along with Thomas and Sophia, I'd like to add that the mental always IS, in some respect, biological, even if we haven't discovered exactly how. To hold a different idea in one's mind IS to have a different arrangement of brain molecules. Therefore I posit that the error these folks are making isn't that it's biological when maybe it's "just conceptual", but rather that the biological may also be conceptual, and that changing one's concepts is changing one's biology. It looks like this was implicit in what you were both saying, but I wanted to make it explicit.