cilphex

Congrats, West! Hopefully Athena gets in, too : )

Alright, you got me. This makes sense.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I know that each rotation makes it seem as if you're observing the figure from a different vantage point, but I still don't understand why that means anything. As far as focusing on her feet is concerned, I found that it helped because it's easier to switch views on a disconnected part rather than the whole at once. It would be the same if the reflection weren't there, and after studying, I can't see how the reflection gives off any type of clue. You can see her CW or CCW looking at just her feet, or just her head, or her whole body. I reversed the gif with an online gif editor. Now the counter clockwise vantage point is from above, and the clockwise vantage point from below. Still, this seems to say nothing except just that. If the image had been rendered this way originally, would the things you're pointing out demand that the figure was in actuality spinning counter clockwise? I still see nothing that makes the real rotation decipherable. It may be reasonable to assume that the graphic artist rendered the image from a vantage point above the figure's waist, but isn't it just that--an assumption?

Have you allowed yourself to see the figure spinning the other way? I think you're just extracting this 'visual cue' from the only rotation you've observed. If you see her spinning Counter Clockwise, her kicking leg and her arm appears lower with regard to her body on the far side that it is on the near side. So what? How does this tell me which direction she's spinning in? It doesn't. After your brain chooses a rotation to understand the image, you'll observe one of either of those things because it makes sense with regard to that particular rotation. Now, I don't know if any of this means anything about left vs right brain, but you can certainly see it both ways and there isn't any 'visual cue' making the true rotation decipherable. If the graphic artist that rendered this image made a second one with the figure spinning in the opposite direction of what it was originally, it would look exactly the same. There isn't anything in the image that reveals depth. It's like this: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/ima...nt-illusion.gif If you're having trouble seeing it both ways, I suggest scrolling down so that you only see the figure's feet. Try to observe the opposite rotation with the feet alone, then scroll up gradually when you think you've got it. Ditto.

I think this is a very interesting discussion. I have not read it entirely yet, so I don't know if this has been posted, but I would just like to jump in and post this because I think maybe it will help (I hope!) with what you're discussing: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/perception.html

I'm not sure. They seem deeply interrelated and I feel like they were probably all a result of the same evolutionary/genetic mistake. I can't help but see them occurring at once and together. So, I suppose you could say that because of these things, we can form concepts, but it seems like these things must exist because of one fundamental change. Would there be a name for this? Or do you disagree with this idea?

It seems like these are all natural corollaries to (or, results of?) the facts that we can form concepts, and that the structure of knowledge is hierarchical.

I admire Google for their innovation and quality of products, but when it comes to competition they're pretty cowardly and hypocritical. They take advantage of their image as the "Good Guy" to make moral arguments against what they perceive to be threats to them, when it really isn't warranted. In practice they're pioneers of capitalism, but they preach collectivist values.

I think that's a little ironic, considering that Nietzsche was the philosopher who declared: "God is dead."

Here's one answer: philosophizing!

What are the metaphysical limitations that women have, that men do not have?

The video is 9 and a half minutes long, but he really doesn't say anything at all. He talks a lot about "doing something," and "really helping for the first time," without saying what needs to be done or how anyone should go about doing it. I don't really know much about Scientology besides the fact that once you reach the upper levels, you learn about how humans are possessed by little ghost things that came out of a volcano after they were punished by some God from another planet (or something), but this makes it seem like whatever ethical facade they hide and expand behind is equally as shallow. "We are the authorities on the mind." That was classic. How do people buy in to this trash?

My Last FM profile I think the best feature of Last FM is that, if you'd like it to, it will track all of the music you listen to on your computer, and give you neighbors and a "recommended" radio station based on what you listen to. They're both methods for finding new, good music. With the recommended radio, you can even use a scale to set whether you would like it to play more obscure tunes, or things more closely related to your tastes. You can also listen to your own radio station, which I think plays only the artists you've listened to, and the individual radio stations of anyone else with an account. You can friend, etc., so it's social, but you don't have to put effort into it if you don't want to. You can go back in time and see charts for what you were listening to on any given week. You can view your "weekly neighbors" and a list of recommended artists if you're interested. You can see global charts for everyone who uses the service, you can join groups, etc. There are a lot of different music-finding tools. In short, Last FM > Pandora.

About symbolic vs. outcome-directed voting: Yes, I see that. I was arguing about whether or not and why he should be elected, not who to vote for. If he's not nominated, there won't be much sense in voting for him.

Alright, I get you all now (I hope). The American people would never elect Paul based on his current stances, so for him to be elected he would have to change some of his positions, thus eliminating any claim to conviction or principle he might have. For the sake of simplicity, let's just say that he'd hold onto his foreign policy stances because those are pretty crucial to his platform, but would, if he did, compromise on domestic issues because he would have to. Thus DarkWaters' and DavidOdden's points are taken. Right? Alright. Anyway, since he hasn't changed any positions and it doesn't look like there's any reason to believe he will, given that the primaries have already started and he doesn't seem to be panicking to increase his appeal and is only reinforcing what he's been saying all along, I don't think you can equate the potential with the actual and say "because this is what Paul would have to do to be elected, the fact that he's running is tantamount to him betraying his supposed principles, thus proving that he can not be trusted to maintain them once in office." I realize that's not you're entire argument, DavidOdden, for why Paul's 'principles' can't be trusted in office--the other part being that the role of president is very different from that of congressman--but that still strikes me as... not right. It's like you're saying that what Paul would have to do to become elected, which he isn't doing, is indicative of his betrayal of his principles, without mentioning that most of the rest of the candidates are already doing it (saying what they need to to get elected). How is this potential an argument against Paul, especially when compared to the actual phoniness of the other candidates? Is there something I'm misunderstanding? You might say, "If he's not going to compromise, then he must know he's not going to win, so why is he running for president?" I would reply, "There's always the chance!" You might continue: "No, there isn't the chance, and that proves Paul's and your stupidity, which is yet another reason not to vote for him!" I would reply, "Okay!" If an Objectivist had been running in this election from the start, knowing that their stances on issues would give them only the slimmest chance of being elected, would that imply that that candidate intended on being dishonest during his campaign, thus rendering him non-Objectivist? Is it literally impossible for an Objectivist to run for president in this political atmosphere? (Not get elected, but run.) Have we come to such a point where running for the presidency requires either dishonesty or incompetence? And if so, how can that be an argument against one candidate and not equally the rest? Yeah, you do make good points DarkWaters, which I should have considered more thoroughly before using that point as evidence. I did just want to show that historically, it hasn't always been the case that vetoes are used "sparingly." (I did not mean to say that there was plenty of evidence for your claim, Kendall.) Certainly over the long haul they have been used minimally. But is that because it was actually not in good sense to use them, or because the presidents simply accepted what was put in front of them? The types of bills vetoed also matters, but oh, the time it would take! In the future I will have to make sure my points do not have the potential to turn into open-ended questions. I'm not convinced, though, that it's necessarily impossible to run a successful presidential term today which uses a good deal of veto powers for (at least mostly) rational ends. Yes, this is very true. So I don't see either of the points you identified actually happening. He simply won't be elected.

I know it's not the same thing, but this reminds me of the movie http://youtube.com/watch?v=ppQhleVuWPM. The Muslims look like they're having a lot more fun.

According to Wikipedia, Grover Cleveland made pretty liberal use of the presidential veto. It doesn't seem as if the government came to a "complete halt" under his leadership. In fact, after being voted out of office in '88, he was voted back in four years later to become the only president whose two terms were not consecutive. "Cleveland himself insisted that, as President, his greatest accomplishment was blocking others' bad ideas." So far in two terms Bush has used the veto 8 times. Cleveland used 584. FDR used it 635 times over four terms. So it seems to me like Athena's right in that there is no evidence on your part (David, Kendall), as the evidence is to the contrary. Paul has voiced admiration for Cleveland's consistency and use of the veto (no source, remember hearing him say it). When asked about environmentalism and health care he appeals to the free market, explains why that is right, and references presidential vetoes as a tool for keeping it that way ( ). As West has already pointed out, he's been consistent in his record for the past 40 years. I don't see how this is not "credible evidence that Paul would actually act on his supposed 'principles.'" He's done everything short of stating explicitly, "I will veto this bill," or "I will veto that bill." Why is it logical to assume that that, somehow, is the giveaway that he'll suddenly flip when he's president? Especially given West's debate link, where the candidates are asked point blank, "Would you promise that you will oppose and veto any effort to raise taxes as long as you're president?" He says yes, of course, and then takes it further by pointing out that making a promise is easy and that the spending needs to be cut as well. For the other candidates, making the promise is their accomplishment. For Paul, the promise is given, he already assumes it to be his duty--his accomplishment is in identifying what needs to be done to maintain that promise, which is the opposite of evasion. I'm lead to believe he hasn't stated that he'll veto particular bills simply because he hasn't been asked. Is it typical for candidates to state explicitly what bills they will veto when in office? (Genuine question, I don't know.) If not, why do you need it from Paul, but no other candidate? If someone as thoroughly consistent as Paul can be assumed to flip-flop once in office, what basis is there to believe that any candidate will try to do any of the things they're campaigning on? Why should we believe that Hillary actually intends to socialize medicine, or that McCain actually intends on keeping us in the war? DarkWaters argues that Paul will be bad because of his principles, and DavidOdden argues that he's bad because there's no reason to believe he'll act on them! Also, things like socialized medicine etc., Kendall pointed out earlier to be legislative matters, outside of executive control. He asks, "What will it mean for this candidate to 'respect personal property and free-market economics' in an executive role exactly?" You tell us! If this is as simple as the case is, how is it that democratic candidates can base their entire platforms on issues related to these? And if things like socialized medicine are entirely outside of executive jurisdiction, why fear voting Democrat at all?

I agree with you Laszlo that the second half of this statement is irrational. It implies that justification is relative and everyone should be left alone for the sake of nonviolence, which isn't actually a solution. If this were his only opinion on the issue, I'd say he doesn't know what he's talking about. But to a greater extent he argues that our intervention in the middle east is not in our interest--that we have done and are doing more damage to ourselves than good by maintaining the war. Actually, I was not able to find any, which is surprising to me. So my statement that he "always stipulates that these actions are irrational" was false, because there are many interviews with him where he discusses the Iraq/Iran situation without saying whether Islamic fundamentalists are justified or not. The closest he comes is "we don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics," in Laszlo's link, which is not the same thing. Its very possible that it may be out there in any of the many videos which I can't sit through, but indeed, it is distressing that I can't find him addressing the illegitimacy of fundamentalist attacks easily. In this article he actually discusses the apparent "reason" and "logic" behind suicide attacks, but from a causal, not a moral perspective. Contrary to what I had assumed, he seems to have voiced no opinion whatsoever on the rationality/legitimacy of Islamic Fundamentalist or terrorist reactions in Iraq. But if I understand Objectivist ethics correctly, isn't this the sanction he gives them? (As opposed to not considering it a "threat" or "concern." One can acknowledge irrationality in something and also find that its particular consequences given the context are of no immediate concern, no? The sanction would be in ignoring the fact that that irrationality exists.) Just because people agree in terms of what should be done does not mean they agree in why those things should be done. That's like saying there's a problem with Ayn Rand because a particular religious church agrees with her assertion that one should not engage sexually with another unless they are absolutely sincere. I would suggest watching interview. He does not state explicitly, "If put in front of me, I will veto this type of bill," but he does discuss the issues you mention and what he could do about them, including the employment of presidential vetoes. It is an hour long (the links to the other parts are on the side), but he is able to talk to a much greater extent than his time allotments in the debates have allowed him. Given his responses, I would be surprised if his answer to the point blank question "Will you veto any kind of socialized national health care plan" was anything other than "Of course." It is certainly implied. I think you make a good point, DarkWaters, about the potential constitution-over-objectivity problem Paul might have, although it is possible that he has personally evaluated the constitution and come to the conclusion that he agrees with it based on his own judgment. I believe many of his economic stances, for example, he holds because he developed a particular interest in and understanding of that field, outside of the constitution (see video posted). Your point on the We the People act is taken, but it still seems to me that compared to the rest of the candidates, his defense of liberty (individual and economic) is superior to everyone else's. You say that the fact that he's principled makes him worse regarding foreign policy, stating "Ron Paul would not wage a war against Islamic Fundamentalism on principle." But what principle would it take to wage a war on an idea? Wouldn't it have to be an ideological battle that is waged, not a military one? Wouldn't the best method for fighting it be to lead by example, to give countries a taste of what they could have or accomplish by employing rational principles--not occupying them and turning them it into a nations of poverty? Can't ideas like those of Islamic Fundamentalism only be defeated by the gradual acknowledgment of superior ideas? The war is killing Islamic Fundamentalists, but as far as can be ascertained, is it not fanning the flames of Islamic Fundamentalism? Has this gradually morphed into another Ron Paul thread?...

Firstly, I never mentioned Kucinich's political consistency. Is he consistent? Yes, sure; but consistency is a corollary of integrity, not the other way around. And I wasn't trying to claim that the other way around was the case. My claim of integrity is based on other factors of his character, like his knowledge of what he's talking about (even if his conclusions regarding the facts are wrong), and his willingness to talk about the issues head on with minimal bullshit. Secondly, I meant integrity in the more general sense of "loyalty to one's convictions and values." Few of the other candidates seem to have any values, save what they need to say to get elected. I'll be sure to use the precise definition in the future, but the one I used is still the first thing I think of. There are gradients of evasion possible in that large gap between "subjective whim" and "rational principle," and I find it difficult to say as ultimatum that if you're not a free market capitalist, you have no integrity. Thirdly, I know the Liberal trash Kucinich is committed to, which is why I explicitly stated that I like him "Only in the 'lesser of all evils' sense." I'm not completely ignorant! Fourthly, I said I sensed integrity in him, as in I believe there to be some in his character, which is more than I can say for most of the other candidates. This is a far cry from declaring him a 'model' of integrity. This is false. He certainly says that our intervention in the middle east is a factor in Islamic attacks against the US, but he always stipulates that these actions are irrational, not at all legitimate. You can still be opposed to his foreign policy, but don't go on doing it under the false belief that Paul actually sanctions or has empathy for anything Islamic militants do.

Only in the 'lesser of all evils' sense, in which case I like Kucinich for the integrity I sense in him. His political stances, it seems, are not far off from the rest of the Democratic party, but he doesn't strike me as a lobbyist pandering sellout who can't think for himself, like most of the other candidates do (Republicans included).

Welcome! It's nice to have you.

The first book I read was The Fountainhead, in my senior year of high school 5 years ago. A friend of mine had given me a little book called "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," where a vein of the story relies on the main character completing increasingly intellectual extracurricular book assignments for a teacher. Eventually the kid (Charlie) is assigned The Fountainhead, whereupon he is warned to "be careful" reading it, or something to that extent. Its mentioned later, and the character quotes Roark's line to Wynand: "I could die for you. But I couldn't and wouldn't live for you." This intrigued me, and I faintly recalled that it had been an optional choice for a summer reading assignment. So, I picked it up. Needless to say I was enthralled. Shortly thereafter I read We The Living, and that summer I read Atlas in one week on vacation. Eventually I read Anthem, and have been wheedling away at her nonfiction ever since. I hadn't known before I started, beyond the book jacket text, about The Fountainhead's philosophic basis and implications. But my sense-of-life recognition of them, I think, is what made me love it.

Smashing Pumpkins videos! Say what you will about their music, I think their videos are creative: Stand Inside Your Love

Perhaps someone found their John Galt, who for whatever reason ended up leaving them. Out of inability to deal with the social repercussions of expressing that they were abandoned by the love of their life, "he (or she) died," perhaps, is a more bearable escape. That was the first possibility that popped into my head. I'm not sure that Rand being the "you" would make much sense. I think intellectualammo's explanation sounds like a reasonable hypothesis as well.

"This sentence is false" certainly is a sentence, it just represents an invalid concept. It's no different than if I were to ask you to "please draw me a square circle." The concepts these sentences represent both violate the Law of Excluded Middle, which states that a thing either posses a given attribute or it does not posses it. A sentence cannot posses the attribute of truthfulness and untruthfulness at the same time, just as a 2D shape cannot posses the attribute of circularity and non-circularity at the same time. According to Definr, a sentence is: I think the answer is not that "this sentence is false" is true or false, or that it is not a sentence. It is that "This sentence is false" is just a sentence, without any truth value. The concept it represents is invalid, so its affirmation in reality cannot be validated. Edit: Clarified some language.