Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Olex

Regulars
  • Posts

    343
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Olex

  1. Hmm, do you mean that in order for a person to have any ideas and knowledge that person must have made a choice to focus at the time of acquiring and using the knowledge? And that this choice is a "primary" choice [in your post]?
  2. This one is actually based on a hidden assumption, which allows one to form such questions. The assumption is "Why should I do X when I already achieved happiness?" However, happiness cannot be acquired like an object, where once you got it, you go it. Instead, happiness is a non-stop process where your goal is "good life." The moment you stop working towards it is the moment when your happiness declines. So, holding this context the assumption is actually "Why should I do X when I already did Y and Z yesterday which should keep me happy for today?" And that's just not the nature of happiness.
  3. That's what is the trick here. (Already described by previous posts.) Law of Identity is axiomatic. Determinism is not. Just because physical laws have been found to be determinist does not mean everything is determinist (since everything is based on some physical aspect in some way). So there needs to be a stronger argument from a determinist. An argument of showing causal chain between some physical events: a->b->c-> .. doesn't mean all events in the universe are determined. When it comes to the analysis of a brain a determinist must show the entire chain of brain function to be determinist. He can start with "the brain is physical," but then he must either (1) show that all physical objects are determinist OR (2) that all brain elements and systems are determinist. (1) has not been proven ever. So far we only have a set of physical laws in current science. Quantum Mechanics is proposing some weird stuff, though. I don't think that QM in its modern representation is correct. But it might present a problem to a determinist who accepts modern view of QM. (It would make the brain random, though, not indeterminate.) (2) has a better "chance." Neurons and all such stuff are shown to be determinist. However, that still leaves to show that a system of neurons will ALWAYS remain determinist as a whole. (This isn't asking for a proof of negative. This is so, b/c there is introspective evidence that shows an ability to make a choice among alternatives. A claim that a reversal of time would show the same outcome is based on assumption that ALL physical events are determinist (1), which remains to be proven.) I've never seen a theory actually that states "a system can only exhibit properties that its elements poses." In fact, there are plenty of examples where systems exhibit qualities that none of its parts poses. A living being is one such example, since its body is composed of non-living elements. So, a determinist can't even win if one "restricts" the conversation to physics only.
  4. Actually, this is not what Law of Identity means. Law of identity means the object acts according to its nature. That's all. It doesn't say anything about a single outcome at any given moment. So, if an object has nature such that it can have 3 outcomes, then that's how it will behave. And none of this will go against Law of Identity.
  5. So how do you know if you arrived to a right conclusion? Or how do you know that you applied reason instead of feelings? After all, whatever is your impression or recollection of what you did had to have happen the way it did, so now your memory of it is determinist, and you had no choice against that. So how do you know?
  6. This has been done a few times before. But the fact is that free will isn't something you can give a formal definition of. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html But there is nothing that belongs to the same group of free will. One can only point it out in a statement what free will means. Free will is an attribute of human consciousness; it's an ability to make choice in the face of alternative. You won't get anywhere beyond that.
  7. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freewill.html
  8. No, they don't make a choice. If x>5 then do1(); else do2(); do1 and do2 are not choices. Otherwise you might as well say that algorithms make choices. They don't. An algorithm produces a result. That's all. That's how rocks "behave". If tipping point is beyond the edge, the rock falls down, if not it stays. Is this a choice? No. Same goes for computer programs. It's just a bit complex than rocks but nothing different in principle.
  9. Thanks, that's kind of argument I was looking for. So, alongside with a "problem" of free will that is based on determinist elements, there is another tough challenge, how could a life form from dead elements.
  10. I'm interested in comments on the following idea which is FOR determinism. I don't think it's correct, but can't pinpoint exact and precise description of the error. A determinist would begin by saying that a mind depends on brain. And all of the mind is the brain. That all emotions and thoughts come from the brain; and all emotions have behind them a specific brain state. Then the argument proceeds with: brain is a neural network, which is a network of neurons, which are all determinist by nature. Thus, the entire chain in this argument is presented as completely determined. Ideas?
  11. That's not free. That's random. Free means free from others, not free from itself. So, to reshape your statement: a person's will is free if nobody else can change his will, and if past events cannot force the choice despite one's will.
  12. Mrocktor, I've read through the thread you linked, however the discussion of this topic in that thread was stopped. So, I'll continue it here with my own questions. For the clarifications, I have some disagreements with your view, but my own one isn't fully clear to me yet. So, I'll bug you for now and see if I arrive myself at something useful. This seems like a weird reason for me. It sounds like the cause if his need to continue to do what he did a day before with the river. Furthermore, it also looks to depend on the degree that he used that river. So, if he used to a small degree yesterday, he isn't entitled to a larger use tomorrow? But then your example with fish is different. Applying my above understanding of your point, it should be that a fisherman is entitled to not have anybody affect the amount of fish the fisherman can fish that he fished yesterday. However, couldn't this be easy to be affected by any other fishermen who arrive later upstream? Say, they fished some upstream, this would then cause the original fisherman to be able to fish slower or possible affect the kind of fish he can wish. Granted, given one-man fishing the effect would be highly small if at all. However, in principlle wouldn't this be a problem? Or to extend the case. What if a large company moves way, way upstream and begins to fish a lot. Even if they don't wipe out all the fish, it would still affect the original fisherman by, say, making his effort return half of his usual fishing returns. Now, you said wipe out (complete, I assume) would be breaking his rights. What about half of his usual return? A quarter, etc, etc. Where does the line begin if at all? Also, does this mean that morally each large fishermen company who stops by any river should first check entire river downstream to ensure that it hasn't been used by somebody else already before beginning fishing themselves? And also check that fishing amount wouldn't significantly affect those who fished before? I'd imagine this would be a lot of pain to go through, especially if those other fishermen didn't leave a mark with some contact info (after they went home after fishing in that river). (The following is your quote from the linked thread.) I'll apply here same problems as I did above. A gold vein has a specific shape and location underground. One can analyze and see if it has any disconnected parts. Let's assume he discovered several such disconnected parts, but built a mine that doesn't cover them all. Does somebody else have a right to mine others, since he isn't using those (yet?) ? Does the size of the gold vein make any difference? Does the amount of gold the discoverer can mine per day make any difference? What if his rate is slow to such a degree that he can't possible mine out all of it in his life time, can others start digging, too? I based this question on your words: ".. is not what is needed for him to be able to produce as he was." In the same regard, does the mining speed of others make a difference? What if their mining speed is so slow, it won't ever have an effect on the original discoverer? ----- So, in the end, my concern is over the difference between: 1. being entitled to perform "fishing" on a river that isn't taken by somebody else 2. being entitled not to have anybody affect (reduce/increase) the amount of fish he can fish tomorrow My view is that a fisherman is entitled to attempt to fish those fish that are in the area of this part of river that he is fishing at. I'm having problem seeing how this would extend his right to be entitled to future fish tomorrow. (I'm assuming a case of a fisherman living far off, and just stopping by this river from time to time, but not actually right next to the river, so land rights from building a house don't play a role here.)
  13. Indeed, I would like add that the first option is for a second-hander. Second option is for a first-hander.
  14. How about a different question to the same topic: This should provide an interesting insight. I suspect that view that says everybody can be great, would have to also reply the same person can be equally great at anything he choses to. Personally, I think a person is better set to some work and not the other. Personality traits along make quite a difference in different jobs.
  15. Right. But this makes me seriously doubt the last link.
  16. My suggestion is to read Ayn Rand's The Art of Nonfiction: A Guide for Writers and Readers. While it is for writers and readers it actually has positive effects on speech as well, if you apply the knowledge you learn from the book. The basic idea is that writing/reading/speech is done mostly by subconsciousness, so what you want to do is to relax and let it do the work [while practicing still to let it improve as time goes by, of course]. Trying to speak mainly through consciousness could be your problem judging from your description.
  17. I think the objective criteria is an achievement of certain goals within the field of work. A chair maker certainly isn't great if all his chairs break under normal conditions. When he makes a steady chair that doesn't fall apart, then he reaches at least one goal in his field. And it's one "plus" to count towards more positive evaluation. Greatness here is compared to the level and mastery of achieving such goals, especially ability to meet many several goals at the same time. One good example of greatness that I recall is a Renaissance painter who had to paint the ceiling of some religious building. The ceiling was way up high, and it was curved in many spots. So, he reached several goals. One was that he painted well. Another is that he did so on a curved surface, so the picture looks correct in the distance from the floor, while he had to paint up close, so he had to keep in mind how to draw what he wanted on a curved surface. So, now the question is how many accomplished tasks will constitute greatness. Here, it has a context. It depends on (1) what a human can do and (2) what is the base of current knowledge in the field. Walking solves a lot of various tasks, but this is an almost given to humans. However, dancing involves solving more tasks, which are correct movements, beat, matching the music, and achieving the style of movement that is intended by the dance style. The same scientific advancement would show a different "greatness" depending on the body of existing knowledge. This is so , because more tasks must be done to achieve the same advancement. So, there is some base/average to judge the "greatness" from. When it comes to assessing one's ability to judge his own greatness, then it's a matter of epistemology and ability to recognize the above.
  18. Right. They want to have both things. Look down on intelligence and have products of intelligence. I think there is a common approach here as well at how to get those products. The plan is to find some kind of job where not much is needed to know and be done, but yet be paid consistently well enough to have those products built by ... "blank out". (Yes, I'm quoting Ayn Rand - I always found "blank out" an interesting and effective psychological description of the process inside those mind.) This is often found in phrases, such as: "Work to live, not live to work." Of all the times I heard this spoken it always had a negative (even if hidden) connotation towards work. Work and intelligence is an ugly necessity to those kind of people. Yuck. Nice, this can be used as a way to answer back to the first half of the quote. I'd imagine it would be very funny.
  19. What do you have to know to enjoy art? Stuff like knowing how to paint or how colors are mixed aren't needed to enjoy it. One can understand art without knowing the techniques behind it, man. So what does it worth? That depends on your hierarchy of values and why you like that art. So, heh, if you can tell why you like it, I can tell you what is your view worth.
  20. Nice, Sophia, that's some onslaught of art posts from you.
  21. Hydrogen Technology from an individual inventor that uses simple water. I think I found this video from this forum actually. BTW, I suggest giving a decent description of the video along with the link.
  22. By the way...What is the definition of ego? It sounds like consciousness to me (and it is defined so by various dictionaries), and yet Lemuel, for example, is using it to denote a particular part of consciousness as something that is a backbone for other attributes of consciousness. (Am I correct, Lemuel?)P.S. I also noticed that Objectivist literature doesn't use "ego." (Or very infrequently.) I agree with that since I don't see what is so special about ego to use it a concept when discussing topics about consciousness. Ah, I see. Right, I knew it wasn't your position. That's a good point about "others." I actually saw people mess this up before and look puzzled when the difference is explained to them.OK, I concede that there are more things involved here than self-evident introspection.
  23. The idea that approval of others is a serious contender alongside in terms of emotional return (or boost in self-esteem) with self-evaluation and feeling of efficacy from productive work. Yes, it is fair to say so. Both are definitely true. My main interest here is comparing these two together. My point is that these two differ by a lot. I can't see how introspection would not provide that. I'm not sure what you mean by "how those two aspects are not contradictory." Contradictory in what? As in the idea that only one is an actual source, and another one doesn't have any effect on the self-esteem?
  24. I wonder where does the source of these second-hand ideas come from. After all, it is self-evident through introspection that a realization of the power of your own ability and its relation to the ability to live provides a very powerful boost to your own "ego," though I'd use this word only to mean your own self-evaluation of yourself. Approval of others doesn't even come close to that. So a good directed introspection clearly shows the right path. So, the options here are either lack of any skill, lack of ability to introspect, and finally evasion from introspection. I doubt lack of skill could cause any problems, since even ability to introspect or simply leave is something positive to start from. And ability to introspect ought to exist in all people expect for ones with mental disease maybe. So, it only leaves the option of evading the knowledge from introspection. It kind of feels like that sometimes from looking at people who don't seem to want to accept the idea of egoism and keep looking for some other sources of your own value. Weird.
×
×
  • Create New...