Olex
-
Posts
343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Olex
-
-
I doubt his dad's views carry any weight here, but their faces from the picture in the article speak a thousand words. http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/2007080...6MJQaF8.Q0rZA--
And didn't Chavez called Bush a devil on one of UN meeting and said (paraphrase) "I can still smell sulfur" or some religious reference. Geez.
-
As an extention of my first question, do all private businesses not work for the approval of others? In order to derive profit, businesses must fulfill a demand set by others in society. A productive innovator does not only search internally for inspiration, but must identify what others enjoy and prefer.
You are using several different meaning of approval under the same name, which creates the confusion and leads to the question you asked.
1. "You are a great industrialist" is an approval based on your standard of value towards another person.
2. "This product is good, I'll buy it" is an assessment of a product and isn't directed at the person(s) who made it.
Don't clamp these two different ideas together.
And, btw "others" don't set the demand. It's the producers who set the standard of the demand by creating new things which "others" take years to accommodate to. Example: computers and how many of "others" can use it well.
-
Yeah, maybe there are grounds for benefit of a doubt, but reforming religions did tame them a bit, but Christianity is now a big problem again in USA. Taking in account, the nature of Islam, which is much crazier than Christianity, I really doubt such reform is possible. In order to tame one would have to remove so much, that the word "reform" becomes very misleading. What would actually remain in Islam after such "reform"?
But, I'll give some benefit of the doubt, since I've only read the article.
edit: clarifications
-
Insightful article on Islam religion, thanks, but:
It is through the first two of these five groups [of Muslims] that progress and reform [of Islam] will come."Reform"? Reforming means leaving major parts of a body in tact. Definitely, a wrong way to approach Islam.
Rather weird to see a "critic" of Islam speak about atrocities of Islam and then look for a reform. Maybe next we should reform the ideology that killing is OK? I mean: "Com'n".
-
Pardon, for late introduction to a thread, but I'm interested in what "equal" and "as sure" refer to above. Would you mind extending the rope to tell me what is the comparison here? [i.e. equal to what? another certainty?]I am almost at the end of my rope pointing this out, but will say it again: certainty does not come in relative shades of grey. If you do not know something with equal certainty, then you do not know it with certainty, period. If you are not as sure of a conclusion, then you are not sure of it. -
Of course, learning Objectivism changes relationships, it ought to.
Objectivism provides a rational approach to relationship, and dismisses one that is based on commonly ideas of "help" (i.e. some sacrifice). So, if one does indeed studies and begins to understand Objectivism, then it is inevitable that one will apply these new ideas to one's current relationships. And thus come the changes.
To myself, learning Objectivism brought me a new relationship as well as changing current ones. Definitely fun.
Edit: clarifications
-
How can I spur on these kinds of changes? I would like to be more comfortable and enjoy myself more around people in general, but I sometimes think I make the situation a bit awkward.
Can you clarify the awkward part and why it is bad and by what standard?
Just "enjoying yourself around people" sounds weird without a proper context and standard, which you didn't indicate in your post. What is it?
Myself, I'm known in some circles (of second-handers) I happen to interact with sometimes as CBB.
Cold Blooded Bastard. But then with my actual friends I have the time of my life. There is no reason for example for me to try to enjoy more the wrong kind of circles. Being comfortable there wouldn't improve things either.But I suppose you meant something else, so I'll just wait for your implied but unstated (yet?) standard.
-
Are there known physical laws that are non-deterministic (other than the existence of free will, although it's not a physical law anyway)?#1 is true, but I dispute #2 as being the only possibility about the laws of nature. I think the two propostions here are incompatible, and as #1 is definite it is #2 that has to go. -
If taking two facts from free will theory:
(1) Free will exists.
(2) Physical laws are deterministic.
A conclusion follows:
(*) There are non-deterministic systems that come from deterministic elements.
As far as I can see, a determinist theory can "hold" on only one assumption: that the above conclusion isn't true.
Has it ever been proved that determinist elements will always form determinist system?
It seems to be accepted by many on a "gut feeling", but is it actually so? Is there any proof for it?
-
No, there is no external influence. But how does the fact that you can choose to vary your level of focus proves that this process is not deterministic?Do you agree that one can choose to vary one's focus, or are you making a polemical point? If you do agree, then what exactly do you mean by "choose" in this context?
I think this is the key issue here.
But, what is really needed here is to define terms.
The following are not used in the same way in this thread:
- choice
- volition
To Ifat: you said that volition and determinism don't contradict each other.
If so, then you have to be using a different meaning for volition. In Objectivism volition implies free will. Volition is "man's power to make a choice."However, by looking at the same things, I can see how the part of volition is perfectly clear, I just don't see how it is evident that it is not-deterministic.I would like to hear your definition of volition and choice.
-----------
In your view, based on your posts, there is no such power, b/c it is determined by previous brain states. You can't even claim that a human makes a choice under your view, since that "choice" is nothing more than an outcome of previous brain states.
Consider (according to your theory): a moment before you saw Seeker's post you had specific brains state, which was a result from previous brain states (and external influence?). This brain state already pre-determined that you will read his post, thus it was already pre-determined that you will try to vary your level of focus. So, all of your actions were already pre-determined before you even read Seeker's post. Right?
So, where is the power to make a choice? You couldn't have changed your choice in this example, since you were pre-determined to a particular choice. So, is your power of choice is simply following your pre-determined outcome? Or is it a power to NOT be influenced by external influence?
And where was your choice? According to your view, nothing of this could have been changed (if it was replayed and if this is how it was pre-determined to be).
You can't even claim that you had a choice. Even though, possible actions are to try what Seeker suggested and not to try, in your view they can't apply to the same moment. In any specific moment, you will HAVE to do one and not the other, and you have no power to change your actions for that single moment.
This leads to the following question:
What about your future actions? Are they already pre-determined? For example, you go somewhere, are all of your actions already pre-determined?
Judging by the meaning I see from your posts, it follows that your actions are already pre-determined, and whatever is coming you can't change, right?
P.S. Just in case the answer is "no." Why aren't your future actions pre-determined? Your current brain state with all previous brain states have already pre-determined your next brain states. Correct? And this coming state will pre-determine the next one. So, it follows that all your activity in the future is already pre-determined. You may not know what external input is coming, but whatever it will be, you will respond deterministically, and thus if the future outcome is bad, you have no power to change it, right?
-
Axioms can't be proved, so you must have had some other connotation. One thing about axioms, though, is that it can be shown that the opposite of the axiom leads to contradiction, so if there is a problem in showing validity of an axiom to a person, then the problem has to come from either accepting contradictions or from some confusion over argument or definition of the terms involved.Maybe I'll learn that you can prove an axiom to someone else.As far as showing the contradiction, Peikoff did it well in OPAR (pg. 71-21). I think it would be a good addition to this thread to add that passage, it's about half a page in the book, but I will summarize because I'm not certain if I can quote that much of the book, but I will add important quote, since it's small enough.
The base of his argument is that the claim "mind is deterministic" is a statement of knowledge, and as such it requires validation to know that such statement does describe reality. But in order to validate, a man must be able to do so correctly, but doing so isn't automatic for man. Peikoff continues with:
The determinist's position amounts to the following. "My mind does not automatically conform to facts, yet I have no choice about its course. I have no way to choose reality to be my guide as against subjective feeling, social pressure, or the falsifications inherent in being only semiconscious. If and when I distort the evidence through sloppiness or laziness, or place popularity above logic, or evade out of fear, or hide my evasions from myself under layers of rationalizations and lies, I have to do it, even if I realize at the time how badly I am acting. Whatever the irrationalities that warp and invalidate my mind's conclusion on any issue, they are irresistible, like every event in my history, and could not have been otherwise."So, the conclusion is that when a determinist arrived to (what he thinks is) knowledge X, he can't be certain that he was pre-determined to use the correct method to arrive to objective knowledge. If he attempts to validate it, he has to do it correctly again, but again he can't choose to do so correctly against "subjective feeling, social pressure, or the falsifications inherent in being only semiconscious." He may or may not do it correctly, and because of his deterministic nature, he can never be sure if his knowledge was arrived by correct means.
If he attempts to check if he is certain or not by introspection, he is already pre-determined to a certain evaluation. Such evaluation aren't automatic, however, introspection still requires focus as opposed to evasion. So even here, he can't be sure that he was certain about something a moment ago, because he doesn't know if he was pre-determined to focus or to evade during his introspection, and he cannot act against what he was pre-determined to do.
When accepting free will all such problems disappear, since a man can choose his actions regardless of the influences, and that's what makes him sure: "Since I chose to focus and I chose to use reason, I know that I did focus and did use reason, thus the knowledge I have arrived at is correct within the context of my knowledge."
P.S. I think the above is the better persuasive argument.
-
How about a more general questions first:
When and why does one want privacy at all?
-
If there was any intent in choosing this song, then my best bet is that the connection comes from autobots putting Earth into danger by either sending that cube to Earth or by directing Megatron and co. to Earth.Can someone tell me what on earth Linkin Park's eco-screed "What I've Done" was doing as the ending credits music? I fail to see the connection.Optimus even says at one point in the movie that he will go far to correct his "mistake".
-
I can see your goal, but the method is weird if not wrong.I don't want the humans to be scared of a powerful potential ally now do I? The same goes for the humans in Transformers.Is making fun of those robots and making them look like kids really the best way one can show that those robots are benevolent?
Such humor would show them as foolish, sure, but benevolence is something different.
In fact, taking the actual movie as an example, I would say that I saw autobots as benevolent from them discussing their views about humans, those jokes only annoyed me as hell. Even stronger case is the moment when they refuse to even rescue their own autobot from humans because they couldn't do it without harming humans. Seeing such powerful machines submit to puny humans who could have been crushed in a moment by any of the guns that autobots possessed was far more effective than any joke could be.
I could see joke be more effective for some dumb audience, though, but even so, one shouldn't make the make art for the lowest of your audience.
-
Why would you try to diffuse this? This sounds like a weird psychological game.I am having to do some light hearted moments in my book to make sure the people in the book don't get scared of my dragons. ... To difuse that I have lighter moments. -
So, was it "done incredibly well" or was it blurry to save the money?But at the same time the CGI was done incredibly well, and it's costly to do that. So it's saves time and money to have the fight scenes a tid blurry.
This is a movie, not a videotape of an experience in battle. As a movie, it should be an art form, not a documentary that tries to create confusion by crazy camera movements. I come to movie to see something instead of a colorful blur and replace it with something from imagination.Plus, I kind of enjoy it in the sense that's more chaotic looking. When your fighting in a huge battle you don't take time out to say "HEY LOOK AT THAT COOL LOOKING ROBOT!!!" you're more prone to say "OH SHI--" and run away while it's chasing you.
Yes, I expect more. So, if a movie portrays what most mediocrity wants, it's OK? This is exactly what I meant by appeasing mediocrity with dumb jokes in the movie.Well okay, Sam is a 16-Year-Old male human. Do you expect anymore? In real life that's usually whats on guys mind.How about the fact that there are 16 year olds who aren't dumb like that, but are actually looking to achieve something, instead of looking to look cool and "get laid"? Is this not part of 'real life' you describe?
Why pick something crappy from "real life" when you can pick something good when you are creating art? What is the point of art after all? Is it document mediocrity or is it some actual rational goal? I suggest checking out Romantic Manifesto by Ayn Rand.
But then he lucks out and gets a living robot car that knows whats going on and is trying to hook him up with the girl. It's great in my opinion.So, it's great to get something on 'luck' instead of earning it? And why is it so great when losers "get a break" ? Is it because it means everyone has a chance?
-
Transformers are yet another example of disconnected mix of good engineering and bad philosophy/humanities.
Transformers as a movie should have been making their living from special effects and a plot that goes along with robots.
Amazingly they almost completely failed on first, and completely failed on the second.
They have spent whatever millions they could find on special effects, but ended up making almost all of them blurry, out of focus with a camera moving like a ping pong ball. So, all I could see were some generic shapes and colors swirling on the screen, while what should have been there were awesome powerful robots that I could actually register and enjoy with my eyes, but nope.
This was bad enough already, but the rest of the movie gets really lame. The rest looks like an attempt to make an awkward comedy out of human characters. The worse moments were the scene of the kid looking for the glasses inside his home, while robots were hiding around like fools. This was really topped off with jokes about masturbation, aka Sam's Happy Time. (What the hell is this doing in the movie about Transformers?) And of course, not to forget that first half of the movie was about Sam looking to get the Great Dream: "A car and a girl (any decently looking girl) - and I'm the Man finally!" This plot line went through most of the movie, which really ruined a lot of fun for me.
In the end, I was left with questions: "What in the world was the point of the movie? Or was there one at all?" Mixing jokes about masturbation and Transformers shows complete lack of understanding of the art/plot creation. It looks like some utter mediocrity got his hands on a great idea, and completely ruined it by wishing to please the lowest of the possible audience.
Will the extreme Transformer fan enjoy it? Logically, by the meaning of "fan of Transformers," such person would hate it b/c of what torture is being done to the great idea of super technology that Transformers are. I suppose one could close eyes and especially ears on some moments and get through it, but this isn't how enjoying art should be.
I'd give it 2/5, where 2 comes from the fact that Transformers are in the movie.
-
Guys, this is clearly bunch of spam bots or spam users.
Lock and delete.
-
I'm surprised this thread isn't locked yet.
-
I get bored walking too slow or even medium pace. Fast pace is easier for me, even when I think of something in the back of my mind.
-
The movie was a lot of fun to watch but be aware it has some really annoying parts that knocked me out of enjoyment for a few minutes.
Mainly there are short moments from the movie that annoyed me as hell. These two moments are when it tries to delve into philosophy - it tries to explain how one chooses or becomes a hero. It fails.
The explanation given is "when there is nobody else to do the job but you, and you do the job, you become the hero."
Now, to put it into prospective how crappy this meaning really is, I will describe what it was applied to.
(SMALL SPOILER AHEAD)
At the end of the movie a kid saves the cop (who saved kid's life many times AND kid is looking up to this cop now for many good virtues [courage, etc., etc.]) and cop's daughter (whom he is starting to like). The cop asks the kid for the reason behind his risky actions. The kid blinks a few times, tries to think or introspect the reason for his actions, fails, looks down, and mumbles: "where was nobody else around to do it." (
) The cop happily picks it up: "That's what makes you a hero." No, it makes a dumbbutt.
The reason to risk to save those people was the value they had for him. But no! Apparently, being a hero isn't about selfish stuff like that. It's about "getting the job done". And apparently it implies that there is no difference in risking your life for complete strangers and people of very high value to you
(OK, done trashing the movie.)
Overall, however, the movie was great despite above bumps.
-
One of my favorites is from The Fountainhead:
He did not know that he had given someone the courage to face a lifetime.P.S. From the scene of a boy on a bike seeing a product of Roark's work.
-
I absolutely loved the theme of the movie. Whatever the plot and character flaws at times, the theme rocked so much, it almost didn't matter. It's quite rare to see a movie that can really portray a romantic, life-reaffirming feel. Some parts were just awesome: such as the meeting between Tia Dalma and Davy Jones, while Tia was inpreasoned (speech lines were romantically awesome and boosted by sci-fi effects). (Granted the plot went haywire after that, but still the makers managed to create that moment anyway, but they didn't have the skills/knowledge to make a logical piece of a whole.)
And, man, Captain Jack Sparrow definitely rocked the house. The weird (drunken-like) run after his ship that was carried away by stone (
) crabs was pure awesomeness. 
Whoever created his character was brilliant, and actor's play made it a gem.I'd give it 4/5 for awesome moments, but lacking a plot that matches up to those moments. It make me think like the movie was made by 2 teams. One brilliantly worked on short moments here and there, while another made a complete mess with proceeding plot events. Pity.
EDIT: spelling and clarifications
-
Can you clarify this? Does "choose the soldier's life" mean that a soldier should live or that he should die for their citizens?If a government has to choose between the life of a soldier, and lives of an innocent civilian, then there is no question that it should chose the soldier's life.
Chavez and Penn
in International Politics
Posted