Ifat Glassman

Planet earth.

I have a problem introspecting this one. I first need to identify the rational reasons for choosing something before being able to decide about it, or feel something about it. And when I look inside and ask myself about this, I get blank. I think this is an issue of ethics, because it is an issue of rational or irrational choice. I agree with mrocktor.

Huh, you are right. I just checked Wikipedia: Oops... I should have known that. Okay: so changing the question now: What is the driving force for a substance to move in order to equate concentrations in two sides of a tank? If we have the same two tanks, 1 side has 10M Na+, the other side has 1M K+, and the membrane is only permeable to K+, the final result (neglecting the electrical forces) should be 1/2M K+ on each tank. Which means, K+ will only "want" to have the same concentration with itself, and it doesn't "care" that Na+ creates a lot of concentration on one side. So how would you explain this?

My problem is the following: Why is there only a driving force to compare concentrations of the same substance, but not of different substances? To clarify the question: suppose you have two tanks, connected by a membrane which is only permeable to water. We have a concentration of 5M NaCl in one side, and 1M NaCl on the other side. Water would flow from the lower concentration to the higher concentration. Fine, no questions here. Now: we have two tanks, connected by a membrane permeable only to water as before. But now, on one tank, we have 5M Na+, and on the other side we have 1M K+. Water would not do a darn thing, according to the theory I learned. Question is why?

Masculine: Pride by Brian Larsen, Heroes by Brian Larsen Feminine: I'll second Sophia's choice. And also add: Naked, by myself Romantic: I'll go with GreedyCapitalist's choice (definitely) and also with Alfa's choice (definitely).

I like (especially likED) The Never ending story by Michael Ende. I like the imagination that went into the creation of that book, the bravery of the characters, the brilliant idea of a book that describes going into another book (into the world of that book), the beauty of everything in Fantasia, the adventures. [Potter is also good but differently. The brilliant thing about the Potter series is that the author describes the most unusual things as an everyday experience, which draws you into the book. Ah, can't wait for book 7 to come out. I just hope nobody dies there again, it's getting depressing.]

just what I said. What would be a rational reason that one would not want to "share"? Suppose the time Dagny would spend with Francisco would not be at the expense of the time she could have spent with Galt (for example, she would sleep with Francisco once a month when Galt is not available anyway).

What makes a relationship special comes from the values that two people share. Why is there a need to add artificial things as well? I mean, what's next, is she going to stop dressing up (with pretty clothes) for work so it would be special just for him? Is he going to stop looking at art so that she would be the only piece of art he sees? etc'. Those things also make the relationship more special.

In Atlas Shrugged, when Dagny is in the valley, she visits Francisco one afternoon, and there is a moment that she leans against him, he looks at her and both of them feel passion for one another. Neither of them act on it. Then later on, When Galt and Dagny (and Francisco) are at Francisco's house, and Francisco finds out for the first time that Galt and Dagny are interested in one another, he immediately assumes that it means that he cannot have Dagny, and Galt assumes the same, when he tells him (something like) "I would give everything for this to be different, except for that which is beyond giving". Polygamy is completely out of the question for them, even though there is not a problem of desire. Dagny wants Galt, he wants her, she wants Francisco, Francisco wants her. Why can't she have them both? What is the rational reason why she would deprive herself of that pleasure that she can have with Francisco, and act not according to her emotions for him?

Okay ladies and Gentlemen, I have an answer. Thanks to my smart friend who studies physics, I now know. Quantum levels exist for every matter, for leaps of electrons between different energy levels, energies of rotation, vibration and other stuff of molecules. Now, suppose there is only one atom. That one atom has a few energy levels for electrons. Now we attach another atom to it: the electrons of the second atom, in the outer-layers (higher energy levels) feel the electrons of the neighboring atom. Uh-oh, they have a competitor for the same energy level. No can share energy levels. So now the level splits into a few close levels, and instead of orbital 3 you now have orbital 3.1 and 3.2 (or something like that, these are just names). Now suppose you add even more atoms: suppose you have a crystal, or a piece of metal, with lots of free electrons. They are all "competing" on the same energy levels that they would have had they been alone in space. The result: a split into many many energy levels that are close to one another. When I say many I mean something like 10^18 many. It seems almost continuous, but it is still discrete. Okay, now we have the background to understand why some objects seem black (or transparent). In the case of gasses, they do not have a lot of energy levels, which means that there are only a few wavelength that they would interact with. The result is: they let light go through them without "swallowing" it, and they seem transparent to us (also because they are not very condense). But in the case of solids: they swallow many wavelengths, because they have many many energy levels. In fact they swallow almost the entire spectrum, and leave just a few wavelengths for our eye to detect, and that is the color of the object that we see (that is not entirely accurate but I won't go into it now). Materials can swallow a variety of wavelengths for electron-leaps, rotation, vibration and friends. Those objects that swallow wavelengths in the visible spectrum (something between 400-700 nm), are those that seem opaque to us. The more they swallow in this spectrum the more black they appear. Those objects that swallow radiation at different wavelengths seem see-through to our eyes. Which is exactly what punk said: Thank you for what you said about the eye's evolution. I was searching for an answer to that question for some time. Now, there is another factor, that GreedyCapitalist has mentioned: the surface of the matter. Polished surfaces cause the light to be reflected in the same direction, which causes them to appear shining. Surfaces that are rough scatter the light in all directions, and it might cause the object to appear darker.

Here is Michelle Kwan skating to "Fields of gold". Everything in this dance of hers says "me me and me". She seems focused on her inner emotional experience of the music, and proudly presenting her self to the world. I love it. It's very exciting. I love the parts of long of effortless skating in a position that shows how she gives in to emotion. Just beautiful.

Basically, I want to blaber on about how much I love figure skating, why, and put some links. I'll start with the "why": Dancing (for me) is a way to express emotions and ideas that exist in music. It is a way for a dancer to express their passion, their character, their joy of life. In case of ice-skating, there are additional elements that make it more powerful: speed, height, fluency, effortless movement. The blades, cold and hard, are used to perform soft, round movements, and remind you of the strength and speciality needed to use them, emphasizing the strength of the skater. Here is a video of world champions in figure skating (and justly so). They are skating to Tchaikovsky. Both of them are beautiful physically, they dance beautifully, they are dressed beautifully, and they give a perfect performance: Now, maybe the video online does not do their throws justice, because when you see it on TV it is just amazing: it seems like she is actually flying. Another great skater is Eevgeny Plushenko (think he is also world champion): he skates very confidently, easily, in a relaxed manner. He skates like he knows he's the champ. Here is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmLj3_WaKe0. He has one performance that is better than the rest but I couldn't find it. And he also has some sense of humour... (of the Crazy kind ).

You must be kidding me. Is this all you can give? That example has nothing to do with anything in this topic (other than showing that cats are capable of distinguishing). The fact that cats have some behaviors that clearly do not include any concepts, does not show that they are incapable of conceptual thinking.

Yes, Really. I have showed an example in which an animal is capable of identifying objects according to class, and yet is able to distinguish the difference of units in that class. I have showed that this is not memorization, nor is it an accident, nor is it a final group of people that the animal could have learned to ask for food from by chance. I showed it all in my example of cats' behavior: Cats in my university ask food from people by approaching them, staring them in the eye and myawing for food. It is very clear that it is a purposeful behavior, and not random. Once they spot a human from a distance, they run toward them. They do exhibit the ability to classify objects according to class. Now comes the turn of explanations. Since we rule magic out of possible explanations, and since the list of explanations is final, and since I have eliminated the explanation you provided ("close enough" principle), the only explanation left is that the concretes are sorted according to some abstraction or the shape and sound of "humans". As for proving: if nobody trained the animal to act in a certain way with those people, either it is a coincidence that it acts like that every time, with every new person (a rather amazing one), or you would have to provide another explanation. Perhaps we have a difference of opinions about what constitutes a proof: For me, if Newton's law worked yesterday, and today, it will work tomorrow under the same conditions. Those experiments are proofs of validity. But if you think that I should somehow magically allow you to see the word through the animal's eyes, and then and only then will it be a proof, well I'm sorry, but it can't be done. So what kind of proof do you seek? No concept, and also not a fact which is relevant for anything. So every time your dog recognizes you and choses you over a stranger it is simply because he failed to recognize you as the same object (the "close enough mechanism")? I provided an example in which "this is just like that" is obviously not the explanation for the ability to classify. How about giving some alternative explanation to the cats in my example?

How can "this is LIKE that" help DISTINGUISH things? This sentence does not make sense. "This is like that" is the opposite of "this is not like that" which is a distinction. Drop the smell issue. I am talking about recognition based on sight and sound, because a pet recognizes it's owner from a distance too big for smell to work. Yes, this is exactly the example I gave (about an old lady with a purple dress and a high bald man): I have seen cats come asking for food from people, even people they have seen for the first time in their life. Those people were dressed differently, with different heights and body shapes. The cats walk over to them, sit next to them, look them in the eye and myaw until they give them food. The people they approach are a group of individuals very different from one another. The group is not a final list, since new people come all the time, and the cats still recognize them as belonging to that same "kind". The "kind" that might give them food. Then I said, that at this point you would probably suggest the "close enough" mechanism. And then I said that it is not a valid explanation, since cats obviously can distinguish people from one another (based on sight and sound from a distance). So there is no reason to think that they perceive all humans as the same object. I have shown just that.

What does an "open-ended" concept mean? How do predictions have anything to do with concepts? Please explain and elaborate.

mrocktor, not that I don't enjoy seeing your determination in action, but why do you think that people have a passive mind? If your arguments have been presented once, if someone fails to apply them to other posts on the next page, it means that no matter how many times you would repeat your ideas it would not sink in. A rational man understands ideas, and does not forget that which has been understood. Only someone who thinks that the correctness of ideas is determined by "who said the last word" or "who screams louder over the pages of the forum" can forget what you said when turning a page. That's why it is useless to repeat arguments. Oh, and if you're still not convinced, there are a few threads that need this body-guard role very desperately as well. You have a lot of work ahead of you . Hope I didn't ruin the fluency of the discussion, it's just that I wanted to say this somewhere on the forum and this thread gave me the opportunity. Thanks, bye-bye.

Just thought of something about cats, out of observations I have been making recently: Cats are able to know that different human beings belong in the same group, yet they are able to tell the difference between different members of the group. For them, when they see a new human, it is not an entirely new entity. They expect certain things from the new human they encounter, they expect it to behave like the other humans they knew in the past. KendallJ has claimed that the knowledge animals have about the new human is only due to him being "close enough" in shape/sound etc' to the other human the animal has gotten familiar with, which means that the animal thinks that "this human is that human". That explanation is false. It is easy to observe it in any pet that makes a distinction between it's owner and his friends that come visit. If the animal thinks that "this is like that" it would treat the friends the same, but it does not. It recognizes that all of those are from the same group, but this one (the owner) is different. And if an animal is able to tell that the owner is not like the friends, it can also tell the difference between an old lady with a purple dress and a hat, and a huge bald man, yet to expect the same behavior from them*. It was also suggested that animals act automatically because of chemicals (like ants follow a trail of scent), but it would be a ridiculous explanation in this case of recognizing humans based on sound and vision. So in conclusion, animals think in concepts, is the only explanation left. * The fact that animals expect the same behavior from a certain species is what I have observed. Cats are either afraid of humans (all humans), or they are not afraid (of all humans). Once 2-3 humans have fed a cat, the cat will come asking for food from other humans. It learns that those give food, and it CAN tell the differences between different humans.

I really have no time, but just couldn't help myself, so here is what I have to say: (bold emphasis added for those of you who missed the main point in this quote) And I'll even add translation: Reflexes are pattern of responses which are only active in the absence of brain control. Example: when an object is dropped into your palm, your reflex would be muscle contraction to allow the hand to stay at the same hight. But if your brain is in the middle of executing some other motor command, the reflex will not kick in, or will be modified. Wolves can chew body parts off when caught in a trap. Humans not special in ability to suspend pain or act in spite of it.

Hello, NickOtani. I'd be willing to debate with you, if you accept the basic axioms (existence exists, existence is identity), take reason to be the only way to gain knowledge, recognize that truth is the status of knowledge which describes reality, and respect people's rights. I don't find you obnoxious.

If you want any question answered by me, you need to first answer the questions I have asked you (not anything I asked in this thread). Okay, I agree with that. I was taking that into account as I was answering your question, but eventually I decided not to mention it (=benefit of definitions to just one man) since I thought that a man who had already developed his concepts would have no problem thinking about things to himself using his concepts, and that only in communication will there be a need for definitions. But, okay, I agree that definitions can also help cognition. I already answered that a lot of times in this thread. Two basic things: survival and reproduction.

You are right that there is a difference, but this difference is not the main problem. Life as a state in which there are active processes and life as a collection of processes (or "a process" as Ayn Rand calls it) are close enough in meaning. sNerd is right, this is not the main problem. You said "this [definition of Rand] includes quite a lot": What did you mean? What does it include? If I understand Ayn Rand's definition of life (which I think is bad, for the reasons I have states but no one referred to yet), it does mean something like "the physical state of not being dead". If one has life, one has processes. If one is dead, one does not have those processes, or one is not in the state of having active processes. If I don't understand the meaning of the definition correctly, please correct me. I never said anything about reproducing being the ultimate goal of living things. I said that the functions of the body of organisms lead always to two main goals: self-preservation, and reproduction. And I asked how one goes from this fact to say that the ultimate, single goal of all living things is their own survival. Moreover, if the standard of good is the survival of the organism (nothing more) then it then follows that if an animals/plant lose their ability to reproduce it is good for them, since it increases their odds of surviving. Water: value for animal. Cubs: disease. Gosh no! I was not saying that reproducing should be or is superior to one's own survival. I was saying that on the physical level, both processes take place in organisms. And also: It is bad for an animal to be castrated, it is bad if all living being have lost the ability to reproduce. And this is because for an animal, individual survival+ability to reproduce (something like the definition you gave of biologists (which I haven't read)) correspond positively to it's pleasure-pain mechanism, and are thus good for it. Those are the two processes that characterize it's nature. An animals without reproductive ability is defected, not improved. I don't have time to go into it now. I need my points answered first. Not generally, but specifically. If someone tried to answer them instead of explaining Objectivism to me in general it would be good. One problem is with the definition of life by Ayn Rand. The other problem is with some observations she makes about living things (one single goal). Another problem is with the meaning of "life" used in "life is the standard by which all other values are judged". Yes, I was.

What is the definition of "life" that you are using in your sentence? Other than that, the rest of what you said was just stating the obvious for me, and was not referring to any of my questions. Yes, but some sustain life of the species, not of the individual animal/plant. If the standard of value is only the individual's survival, then wasting energy into producing the next generation is a disease. If, however, life is referring to the survival of the individual and it's activities of reproduction then the energy that goes into producing the next generation is good, it is a value for the animal/plant just like water is. See the problem? How would you know which one exists for what end? Are you talking cause and effect? We are talking about forces of nature here, not about thought-through decisions. The word "end" here can only have the meaning of outcome, not of purpose. Every healthy living being's body is designed to do two basic things: to keep the individual alive, and to prepare itself to reproduce. How would you choose just one as the "ultimate goal of the organism's activity" over the other? If reproduction would serve the goal of individual survival, we would not be having this discussion. But it does not. Quite the contrary actually: the outcome of individual survival serves the goal of reproducing, but not vice versa. Either reproduction is a value for animals, like other functions of their body (breathing, swallowing), or it is not. What is your answer to this? I disagree. For plants and non-human animals there are attributes that do not contribute to the individual survival. In fact if those attributes would not exist, the animal would be able to survive more easily.

Forgot to say three more things: Jennifer already answered my claim #1 in the post in the previous thread, so no need to answer it. Maarten, thanks for the clarification, it's been helpful. Dave Odden, another point about your last post: Can you explain to me how having children is a lesser-goal that serves the ultimate goal of individual survival? It seems false to assume that, to me. Please see my claim/question #2 in the previous thread. and also bear in mind that "goal" here is in fact an outcome, and not a purpose (see point #1 in that post of mine).

The problem with that would be that bearing children is bad if we take life to mean the physical state of being alive. The process of giving birth is risky, the menstrual cycle itself involves pain, discomfort etc' which no doubt sabotages a woman's ability to survive (especially in the past, when technology was primitive). If the physical state of being alive is the standard by which all other actions of humans are to be judged then suicide is never justified. I smell a misused word in my claims above. And the word is "life". I think Ayn Rand uses the word "life" to mean "life of a certain species, as it is characterised in that species. And in that case, human life are a rational life, and the standard to evaluate other goals/values becomes that which contributes to the survival of a rational animal qua rational animal. Sex and sleep are a good examples: if sex was not pleasurable, and if sleep was not needed (metaphysically) then it would be irrational to do it, and it would be bad. But since sexual pleasure and sleep are metaphysical facts that are an integrated part of human life, they are good. The physical state of being alive could not possibly have been meant as "life" in that statement, for the reasons I have shown. So I'm asking: which definition is it? (bold emphasis mine) What did you mean by "life"? "to exist"? I thought the ultimate goal for Objectivists is to be happy - physical existence alone is not the ultimate standard. So what did you mean by "life"? This is easy: I wish you wrote all my tests in biology: Without reproduction the individual's life will not stop, but the life of the species will. Without the life of the individual, there cannot be life of next generations. Pleasure is what triggers animals to reproduce and make more living things. The question is: Is reproduction a value for animals and plants? (like water for example). And most of my questions have not been answered (I mean no one tried to answer them) by now. I'm referring to the questions in the post that was left behind in the other thread, and to questions in my posts in this one. I'd appreciate it if someone tried to answer them one by one.