Bryan
-
Posts
409 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Bryan
-
-
Check out this website:
I've read The Truth About Addiction and Recovery and The Small Book, both of which take a more volitional approach to addictive behavior. The Small Book spends a great deal of time debunking traditional 12-step programs and how they are flawed for atheists.
-
An electron is still an electron regardless of whether or not you can determine its exact nature.
-
No, I was just saying i will have to test how random such things are, and whether or not some languages have a easier way of handling things. I am consdering porting the whole thing to VB anyway.
You want easy, here's how to do it in python:
import random
x = random.randint(1,6)[/code] -
I don't know if this actually corroborates the story but this is from their website:
-The Ayn Rand Institute gets wind of The Fenwicks' philosophical lyrics and asks the band to play at its 2003 University of Southern California Philosophy Conference. -
This is a nice idea. I used to be enthusiastic about the touchstream keyboard, which is completely flat and allows you to mke gestures with your fingers to quickly perform actions like "copy" or "close." Their company went out of business.
The gesture idea is a similar concept to the touchpad on the newer Apple laptops (like the brand-spankin' new PowerBook I'm using right now
). By moving two fingers up or down on the touchpad it scrolls the text on the screen; two fingers to the left is the back button on the browser; two to the right is forward. It works so well, I actually like using the touchpad better than a mouse. -
Do they actually have a working prototype of this keyboard, or are those just artist's conceptions of what this keyboard could look like?
-
Gold pressed latinum? Those are used for external transactions, while most other transactions are accomplished with 'credits' which are not easily converted into other assets, poor liquidity typically is a result of communism. And trade exists??? When was the last time you saw something being bought and sold between two federation citizens? Or the last time you saw a logo that didn't represent the Federation? No stock market, no weapons for the average joe (that I can recall), no personal vehicles, state-run schools.....
All the episodes of Star Trek are in a military context. The medium of exchange aboard a star ship would be different than if you were a normal citizen living on the surface of a planet. Off the top of my head, I don't recall anything specific about the government of the Federation, or if there even is a specific government of the Federation. Don't the individual planets, for the most part, govern themselves?
-
Hello all,
Believe it or not I have looked almost everywhere on the internet for the some good books on Psycology (from the Objectivist point of view) particluarly on book stores related to Ayn Rand and her philosophy, yet I haven't been able to find one.
Check out some of the books from the reading list on Dr. Hurd's website. I found some excellent books about addiction there.
-
I have been looking for a formal, objective definition of "personality." Suggestions?
genus - the complex of all the attributes--behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental--
differentia - that characterize a unique individual
source: http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/we...1?s=personality
-
I am confused as to how you can trick yourself into believing things that you "figure not to be true or unlikely to happen". Are you setting goals that you know that you will never achieve, or just setting extremely lofty goals?
-
My reality is not your reality. Objective can only be what we agree it to be.
The reality in my head is real, and is the only thing i can add to objectivity, which is a set of common knowlege. Anybody who steps outside the common perception is said to be mad. Yet from what i've seen, history is good at labeling geniuses as mad, the common, objective view was that they were mad. Galileo was one of these, and his reality (what we now consider truth) was set aside by the objective church. Reality and truth are not the same.
There is only one reality, it is our responsibility to perceive it and interpret our perceptions accurately. Galileo did just this, he looked at reality as it is, and deduced that the common views about Earth were wrong. He didn't make up his own reality.
While a subjective person can see the objective view, the objective view cannot accept the truth belonging to a single person (or even a group) should their reality differ from the objective view. Thus is truth lost.Now as i understand, objectivism realises the value of the individual's testimony, but objectivity would disregard it.
To re-inforce: i have things (events and knowledge) in my head which i know to be true, i saw them happen, but objectively are denied. Does that mean:
a) i am lying / misinformed
i am mad / delusionalc) i have forgotten
d) there's a problem
I am here, i am real, and i am (i hope) sane. Despite this, in a court of law i would need witnesses to corroberate any statements i may make - otherwise it is hearsay. That objectively flies my truth out the window. Or am i a blind man screaming PURPLE!?
As there is only one reality, there is only one truth. Do you have specific things you believe to be true or were you just giving that as a general example? Your court example doesn't follow, it's a separate issue dealing with the burden of proof in law.
-
People who say they talk to God are either frauds or delusional (or both).
But this topic leads me to another question. On those Christian TV networks, I've seen people faint when the preachers touch their foreheads. Allegedly, they feel the power of God is some crap. Are these people simply faking or is it something similar to hypnosis?
-
I differentiate between immoral acts which initiate force against others, and those which dont. Using the word immoral to describe them both can sometimes gloss over an important distinction. I couldnt care less what others do to themselves as long as they dont harm others while doing so.
There's a difference between indifference and active support.
No. There is something wrong with helping others perform an immoral action.In a previous post you said, "elling pretty much anything is moral (with the obvious exception of nuclear weapons and the like), and I'd include heroin and cocaine in that without a second thought." Selling them heroin and cocaine would definitely help them perform an immoral action, specifically the action of destroying their mind and body.
-
I didn’t mean to suggest that it was the only factor, but I draw the line when you (mis)use a substance to alter your consciousness. I’ve never heard of marijuana being used for any other reason to get high, so I’m not convinced that you can use it recreationally as you would alcohol or cigarettes.
It is possible to use marijuana recrationally/socially/moderately (however you want to phrase it). The reason that you've never heard of people using other than to get real high is because most people (especially younger people) are not going to go the risk of obtaining marijuana, transporting it, and smoking it unless they want to get real high. The cost/benefit ratio is way too high for most recreational users.
I would imagine that during prohibition, the average drinker consumed a lot more alcohol in one sitting than in times before and after prohibition.
-
I think their point is more that these people are going to die anyway, unless something is done. People like Daniel Quinn dont advocate primitivism purely out of some kind of hatred of technology/capitalism - they do so because they believe the current strategies we are pursuing simply are not going to work.
In the essay that Dawn referenced in the initial post, Quinn discussing blowing up a dam and assassinating Senators that advocate "ecocide". He equates human beings to salmon, and the US Government to Nazi Germany. If this isn't anti-technology/capitalism, what is?
Let me see if I follow your chain of civilization advancement:Our planet has existed for X billion years. Homosapiens have been around for maybe 30,000. Civilisation has been here for 6000 maximum, and 'technological civilisation' for only about 400. A civilisation so advanced that it possesses weapons powerful enough to literally wipe out humanity is only 50 years old. Despite the certain sense of inevitability we feel about our progress forwards, it isnt inconceivable that the whole Western experiment is going to end before its 6000th anniversary.1. planet exists
2. Homosapians
3. Civilization
4.'Technological Civilization' [in scare quotes?]
5. Civilization with weapons that can wipe out humanity
How does number 5 follow the others? The nuclear bomb is not an indicator of advancement in civilization.
This realisation, this honest facing up to the possibility that things are going to end in tears if we continue along the current path, is what I believe motivates a lot of primitivist standpoints. As Quinn points out, primitivism might not be glamorous, but it WORKS. There is no danger of a society of savages accidentally obliterating the entire planet as a consequence of some stupid war. It isnt about what is 'right' or 'moral', its about what can be realistically be sustained over a long period of time.So mankind should return to caves because of nuclear weapons??
Do you have any evidence of other high-technological societies that have not been able to sustain themselves? What legitimate evidence do you have that mankind won't be able to sustain?Maybe high-technological societies just have an expected lifespan of 1000-5000 years maximum, and they only appear in the universe for brief moments before destroying themselves.Writing them all off as suffering from some pathological hatred of freedom/science/capitalism/mankind/universal love/whatever doesnt seem particularly useful.Useful to whom? In the above referenced essay, Quinn doesn't make a single valid point. It is the equivalent to emotional vomit. Why should anyone take anything he says seriously?
-
Here is a semi-Objectivist review of Star Wars: Episode III:
A Sith Lord Deals in Pragmatism
The author, Ari Armstrong, touches on a lot of the points brought up on this thread.
-
The religious right is a truly disturbed bunch. I feel a need to be decontaminated after reading that. What leadership has Tom Tancredo exhibited aside from jumping on a soap box every time an immigration issue comes up?
-
One final note that did disapoint me slightly was the minimal presence of Christopher Lee's character in this movie. He is a phenominal actor who ended up getting the short end of the stick in both this and LOTR. I would have liked to have seen a little bit more of his character.
I would have like to seen more of all the Jedi/Sith characters through the first three episodes. Episode I would have been so much better if it focused on the Jedi council and the ancient battle between the Jedis and the Siths instead of focusing so much little Anakin and that unmentionable squid-lizard thing.
-
This aside, I can't respect the moral philosophy of a movie that has quotes like: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yeah that quote struck a nerve with me too. But despite Lucas' flawed moral philosophy SW:Ep 3 was thoroughly enjoyable.
-
With a similar leap of logic we could conclude that anyone who purchases a two-liter bottle of vodka intends to get seriously drunk -- and anyone who sells such a large quantity of alcohol cannot be ignorant of this fact.
I thought I would throw in my two cents and bring this thread further off-topic. Your above comment makes me wonder what goes through the liquor store cashier's head when my alcoholic mother stumbles in there at 8am and writes a check for a handle of cheap vodka.
You are mistaken. Both alcohol and marijuana impair one’s ability to drive. However, if I had to choose between being driven by someone had consumed two martinis and one who had smoked two joints, I’d go with the pothead in an instant.I don't think that marijuana and alcohol are even in the same realm of comparison. Alcohol is a much more serious drug than marijuana. Marijuana just gets a "bad wrap" because the only people who use it regularly are drug addicts. If marijuana was accepted socially the same way alcohol is, there would be a lot of people who could use it semi-responsibly the same way they do with booze.
Give hard-core drug addict an unlimited supply of weed, he'd live a boring unproductive life for several years. Give that same drug addict an unlimited supply of alcohol, and he'd be dead in six months.
-
"ask fish of a red and you"
It means that you should consult a fish regarding what should be done about communism.
-
1) Chinese - pizza takes too long for take-out
2) Beatles - pop music at it's finest
3) Chevy - my first car was an '85 Monte Carlo (I named him Bitey, because he was the big one)
4) Dog - used to be a cat person until I spent some time around a Siberian Husky
5) Night person - my ideal time to sleep is from 3am to noon (sadly I have to be to work at 9
) -
I agree with the last 2 posts. The other problem is that the actual story in Atlas Shrugged is...well...somewhat boring. I loved the book, but I loved it for the philosophy. It'd be hard to make into a movie that will attract audiences.
I disagree that the story is boring, it has the potential to be made into a good movie. The problem is that any movie adapted from a novel never measures up to the original story told in the novel.
A perfect example of this is the new Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie, which was actually one of the better novel adaptations I've seen. The movie was enjoyable, but was nothing compared to the book.
I feel that an Atlas Shrugged would suffer the same fate. Regardless of how good it is, it will be a disappointment. How can you possibly cast John Galt?
-
Can you make that argument from an Objectivist perspective? Because these quotes from Rand give me confidence in my pre-Objectivist belief that many acts of war, including Hiroshima and (especially) Nagasaki were/are immoral.
Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, saved millions of Japanese lives along with thousands of American lives. Think about what would have happened if the big bombs had not been dropped, the islands would have been blockaded by US naval ships, leading to mass starvation of the Japanese population. A larger overal tonnage of "TNT" would have been dropped on heavier populated areas (e.g. thousands of smaller bombs over Tokyo), not to mention all the lives lost when US soldiers finally invaded on foot.
Dropping the atomic bombs destroyed the Japanese will to fight, the necessary condition of winning a war. You can't judge the morality of war in the same context as peacetime. The only moral way to wage war is to end it as quickly and efficiently as possible, sparing as many lives on your own side as you possibly can.
How are concepts of measurement formed?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Try looking at it this way: an inch is a specific distance between two points. The exact location of these two points is omitted.
You can apply that manner of thinking to all abstract concepts, though I don't see how it's particularly useful.