Ifat Glassman

I know, there is room for improvement. It needs to include the most basic things that distinguish a living thing from dead objects, and it needs to be described in the broadest terms possible. For example, instead of saying "metabolism, breathing, movement, etc'" I should write "processes that prolong the continuous-activity of themselves (as a group)". But then I need to add a description to distinguish these processes from processes of dead-matter that prolong their own existence (like the water cycle). It's a difficult task. I'll think about the definition some more and improve it. We want the best possible definition so the sentences we communicate will be understood exactly with their original meaning of the person saying them. If the definition is messed up, if the definition leaves room for different interpretations, two people looking at the same sentence can understand different things from it. And then knowledge cannot be passed on through generations. Your assumption is correct. And Okay, I agree to leave Artificial intelligence and aliens out of this discussion. I was judging Ayn Rand's definition in the context of earth, of what exists here and now. As for your two posts above: How can a definition be "excellent", "best" (or "bad")? It can only be true or false in Objectivism. Right? First of all, you did not define "life" there, you defined a living being (the genus is "thing"). Your definition does not describe what you intended it to describe. If you want to change it to "the state of an organism in which it has active cells" then it would help us to expand the definition to explain what does "working" means, since this definition does not distinguish a bunch of cells in a dish, which are alive individually, but not as a group, from an organism that it's cells act as a system to prolong the survival of the entire system. Once you eliminate them, you expand the group of entities that can fit to your definition. This will cause you to communicate to other people ideas that you did not intend to communicate (you are thinking X and they are thinking Y). Just thought of a question about "self-generated" - what is "self" referring to (in Ayn Rand's definition)? I was taking "self" to refer to the process ("Self-generated process"). Maybe I am missing something here?

Molecules are set up in a structure that allows the molecules to absorb radiation of certain wavelengths, required for electrons to make leaps between different energy levels (Orbitals). Whatever is not absorbed is reflected back to our eyes and perceived as the color of the material. So far so good? I've been trying to figure out what is the common characteristic for see-through objects, and black objects, but have no answer. Three known see-through objects are glass, water and diamond: diamond is very organized, glass is amorphous, liquid water are amorphous as well, and the chemical elements are very different as well. So what gives? I can find no common characteristic. And black objects, as I see it, absorb radiation indiscriminately of the wavelength. Why does that happen?

LOL! you killed me with that one! Of course there is a difference between a living being and life-less objects. And I sure better recognize that biology is important, otherwise, what would I be doing studying biomedical engineering? My problem is with the definition. And after going more deeply into this subject I now have a few more problems, that I've written about in my last post. Life is the state of organisms and individual cells in which they have several active processes and capabilities: metabolism, response to stimuli, ability to grow/renew tissues, ability to interact with the environment in a way that contributes to that entity's survival and needs, ability to reproduce (last one not necessary for being alive, but it is still a characteristic in most cases). I'm not entirely happy with this definition though. I'll need to think about it more. Because I think that if we humans create a robot, that is operating on electricity, acting to self preserve, and experiences thoughts and emotions (how the heck can that be achieved and verified I don't know, but it can, proof is our consciousness exists) then it would be alive too, even though it is not a carbon-based life form. Now you're on to me. My ultimate goal in life is to eat. In fact, what you are reading at this moment is just the result of me trying to chew out the keyboard. Tfuy, not tasty. But seriously now, how on earth did you come to the conclusion that I think the ultimate goal in life is to eat? An ultimate goal has a context. In the example I gave to Jennifer the context was somebody's plan, not his life. Just like in the context of this thread my ultimate goal is to get answers to my questions, and writing this post is a goal meant to serve that ultimate goal.

Thanks for posting Jennifer, I was beginning to lose hope on ever having my questions answered. I do not understand your terminology at all. It sounds like complete nonsense to me. If I work to earn money, and I use the money to buy food, then one goal was to earn money, but the ultimate goal was to eat. The ultimate goal requires achieving other goals first, which is exactly what makes it an "ultimate goal". To quote Ayn Rand on this: (bold emphasis mine). Producing offsprings is one goal that a living creature is directed to. Preserving it's life is another. That's just a fact, easily observed in reality. It is true for plants and for animals. And those actions taken by the organism to reproduce do not contribute anything to the organism's own survival, but to the survival of the species. Now Ayn rand wrote: (bold emphasis mine) That is a mistake - plain and simple. On the physical level - an organism's body also takes actions directed to the goal of reproducing. That's just a fact. First - I didn't say what the differentia part was. But since you're asking, I was referring to "self-generated, self-sustaining". "Process of action" is the genus. The differentia part is bad because there are many processes that are self-generated and self-sustaining, like the ones that I've mentioned. Can you point to a reason why those processes are not self-generated and self-sustaining? Why? The pain-pleasure mechanism is inherited in most animals. It dictates what we desire. Pain and pleasure can be both physical and emotional (not all animals have emotions): but the fact that certain animals seek pleasure cannot be changed. Men may make mistakes in judging how pleasure can be achieved but have no choice about wanting to experience it. Gaining pleasure is a purpose of human beings (and not just goal-directedness) because we are aware of it, we consciously act to gain it. It is "thought through" (to go back to the definition of "purpose" from Wikipedia that I supplied), even if we don't have a choice about it. Happiness is the highest form of emotional pleasure (though sexual pleasure is a competitor). Happiness is more than just emotional pleasure, but that's for another thread. (Translation from Hebrew edition) There is a different definition of life used in this sentence, and it is not stated anywhere in my books. "Fulfilment of a self-generated process of action" is not what is meant here. Anyone has any idea what IS the definition of life used here? Since obviously, just having blood flowing does not make man happy.

No, you are wrong here. Exposed sexual organs can have nothing to do with sex. And if you don't believe me, check this out. Not everyone share your idea that a naked body means the naked person is about to have sex with you right then and there, or is having even the slightest sexual interaction with you. I myself think it can be nice to have a naked walk on a windy day on the beach. And trust me, I will not be inviting anyone for sex by doing so. In fact I would consider it rude if they interpreted it as an invitation without asking me first. Here is part of the quote of Ayn Rand that you gave: The last emphasized part of the sentence is of tremendous significance. "A right is a power or liberty to which one is justly entitled, or a thing to which one has a just claim" (courtesy of wikipedia). The word "justly" in the definition ties "rights" to morality in an unbreakable connection. You, Capitalism forever, are trying to claim it is your right to not be offended, while Ayn Rand says that this is "an issue of procedure, not of morality". An example of such rule would be "Making noise between 2-4PM and between 0-7AM is forbidden" on a certain neighborhood. This rule is agreed upon by contract by everyone in, say, a building, wishing to get services from the building committy (Sure hope I translated it well from Hebrew, if not, ask). These people all have a similar hours of activity so they decide to live in a place that fits their lifestyle and allows them to sleep at noon. Some regions offer housing especially for elderly people and enforce certain regulations in that area that allows the residents to live peacefully. But this is all done by citizens, through contracts, not by a government. A law that a government enforces has to be derived from rights, which means from ethics. Which means that even if all the religious people in Israel decide that seeing my naked arms and head-hair is breaking their sexual integrity (and in fact they think that), No government would make any law to force me to dress according to their dictations. Give me freedom, or give me Death of uptight religious Jews! Right on! If they want to enforce those laws in their buildings, in their stores, they are welcome to do so (and they do that in fact), but heck if they would force me to dress like a penguin! There, that's all I had to say.

[Mod's note: Split from another thread. -sN] You can point the funny thing about his claims to him - that he tries to claim in all of them that he is "right". Ask him how he is right. How can anyone be right if there is no such thing as "Truth"? And if he agrees that "true" is a statement that corresponds to a fact of reality, ask him why does he rely on the self evident fact that existence exists, and that there is such thing as "a fact of reality". Now, that said, I have a few questions of my own on this subject: Just because the outcome of this self sustaining process is to have it continued, doesn't necessarily make it the purpose of it. Nature cannot have a purpose, only human actions can, according to how I understand "Purpose is deliberately thought-through goal-directedness" (courtesy of wikipedia). Forces of nature cannot plan or desire anything. Another outcome of life is offsprings. Animals act not just to preserve their own life, but also to reproduce and raise the next generation (while putting further risk on themselves). Why can't this outcome be "The purpose of life"? If there are several outcome to some process, what makes one of them "the purpose"? The entire definition of life by Ayn Rand has several problems as I see it: First and foremost: it does not have a good differentia part. There are a lot of processes that are self generated, like the blood circulation, the water circulation (rain, water flows to sea, sun vaporizes water, rain again), the menstrual cycle. Secondly, it does not explain what that process is. What IS that process which is self-generating? [*]Moreover, according to Objectivism the purpose (as in, the metaphysically desired by man) of man's life is to be happy. If you are in captivity for life, and cannot have any pleasure or happiness, Objectivism will not encourage you to keep on living. Which means that man's purpose is to be happy (first he has to be alive, but that isn't the ultimate end). So how do you reconcile this with the statement included in Ayn Rand's definition of life?

Capitalism Forever, as I was posting on another thread I thought of a possible way you are misinterpreting miss Rand's statement, which does lead to your conclusion. The error is dropping the time variable. Here is her statement again: (Oh, and can you please provide the full paragraph?) If I don't like seeing something someone is showing me, I have a right to not be chased around with that thing in front of my eyes. If that person is chasing after me and forcing me to see what I have told him I do not wish to see, then he is violating my right: My right to use my senses to perceive reality. However, the right to not see that which I don't want to see does not mean that the man should never have showed me something I might not want to see. Just because I don't want to see something, or a bunch of people do not want to see something does not mean other people should be forced to act to please them. It just means, they should not force them to see nothing but that thing. If a naked man chased me down the street after I have told him I am not interested in seeing him, he would be violating my right. But just by showing me for the first time, something that I don't like, he is not violating my rights. And just by walking naked in the street he is not violating my rights, because I can still look at other things. The time variable is important. "Forcing to see" does not mean for the first time, for a moment; it means continually, against one's will which was well communicated, when one is given no other option but to continue seeing one's naked body (or whatever). Think I'm on to your error... Let me know about it.

How loud is loud? If he plays it nonstop, not loud enough to damage your hearing but loud enough so you can't hear yourself speak, it is an initiation of force: because it prevents you from sleeping, it prevents you from communicating in your own home, or any other activity that requires listening to something (other than his music). Imagine someone walking in front of you in the street holding a huge cardboard in front of your eyes wherever you go, so you can't see what's in front of you. Sure, he does not physically touch you at any time, but he is still using force against you by blocking out your vision, and (objectively) reducing your ability to deal with reality. This is why I think that any music loud enough that it disables other people's ability to hear other things, should be illegal. It should be the liability of the person creating the noise to get the consent of others to disable their hearing sense for a while. Either they use headphones, build special rooms to play with their band, or reach some agreement with the neighbors. If your neighbor is listening to music that is soft enough to allow you to hear someone else speak, then it should be legal, as long as it is not all day long all week, because then it prevents you from sleeping.

1701=1559 (Talking about UN resolutions).

The kitten in your picture is so cute! And so fluffy! The right hand is definitely smaller than the left. It is still in the same shape since the first draft, which was smaller. Which reminds me something about how I created this painting: At first I tried to take a different approach with this painting than my usual approach: First I measured and scaled the original picture using a pencil and my eyes. Then I took the total size of the girl (or young woman) as I wanted it to be, and divided that block into smaller units, according to some converting method between the small blocks on the original picture and the drawing area. Then I started drawing the external-lines according to how they appear in the blocks in the original picture. This was the first time I was using this method, so about half way through I noticed that her shoulder is half a block lower than the right shoe. I realized I must have made an error in dividing the blocks, but the darn thing took over an hour to do and I did not have a strong desire to go through the boring process again. So I erased the whole blocks and just continued drawing using my eyes (fsheew! what a relief!). And it turned out fine.

Your approach is anti-freedom, and it is not supported. You suggest that laws should be made according to whims, not according to some objective standard. The whims this time being social conventions. If we follow this logic it means that the laws forbidding Muslim women to dress in short clothes are just, because in their society, an woman's exposed mouth is a sign for a sexual invitation. Interesting how you chose to ignore that question in your reply.

First of all, notice that you never answered the question. So why quote it? Secondly, by "necessarily" I mean metaphysically: That human beings are created with brains that automatically associate nudity with sex (nudity--->sex, not sex--->nudity). Thirdly, to apply your answer to my quoted question, are you suggesting that laws should be made according to society's conventions? So because some Muslim men find it sexual that women go around without covering their entire body, there should be laws forbidding women to dress in short clothes, else they would be sexually harrasing the men?

Does one have the right to spread biological weapon into the air in one's property? I'm sure you will have no problem answering no. While it is true that he is performing the action on his own property, it is still initiation of force against others, because the biological weapon spreads through air. Well, so does sound. And constant, loud sound is objectively harmful to any man, so it is an initiation of force. Same if someone is pouring poisonous chemicals into a river flowing through one's property. Edit: grammar

Seeing a sexual organ is not necessarily a sexual situation. People can want to walk around naked simply because it is comfortable. Are you suggesting that a rational society should make a law to forbid people to walk around naked?

I don't know the songs you mentioned so I can't make any judgement if our judgement of what is "melancholic" is the same or not in other songs as well. I want to emphasize that I was not making a direct comparison between "Otto" and the songs I've mentioned. I just mentioned them to explain what I mean by "mysterious" or "strange" in music. I think Kate Bush's "Wuthering heights" and "the pink panther" are both mysterious, but the later gives the atmosphere of a detective story, with dark Bars and dark alleys, and the first is mysterious because there is a shred of insanity (or possession) in it and yet it is intense emotionally and describes a highly personal experience. Very different songs but they both sound mysterious to me. Is "Just can't get enough" an example? I love that song, it is very happy and the the synthesizer just makes it unique.

It can be clear from the context, in the same way that eliminating vowels from certain words can still leave the word recognizable. When math is taught for the first time, it helps a lot to be introduced to these symbols. I myself use them because it makes things easier for me, because I like the meaning of a sentence to be as accurate as possible, and when I read some exercise I wrote a few month ago, it makes the understanding of what I've done quicker. I guess it is personal preferences. It doesn't yield true or false: it yields values of x for which it is true. I agree with the second part of your sentence: "it is neither an assertion nor a definition, as its context informs us. Often, this question is put into words as follows: find the values of x for which df/dx(x) = 0" All fine and well in mathematics. What about language? In Objectivism definitions are statements of truth (Because they are identifications of reality, according to Objectivism). Obviously, this definition of 'f' in this case is not a statement of truth. I was told that 'f' is not a formal definition, so just because it's definition is not a statement of truth, does not say anything about formal definitions. But I've been thinking... Why isn't this definition of 'f' a formal definition? the genus being a mathematical function, and the differentia being a second order polynomial with coefficients 1, 8 and 9.

Thanks The significance of the number "23" is that it was the number on the shirt of the model in the picture I was using as a model for this painting . But now that I think of it, 23 is also the amount of years in my life that I wasn't so darn busy studying, and had more time to paint .

It refers to the melody. By strange I mean something like a combination "mysterious" (for example. mysterious melodies sound like "You are my destiny" by Paul Anka or "The pink Panther"), and a bit melancholic. I think I can best describe it as something of Depeche mode. Some of their melodies are also strange like "Enjoy the silence" or "Shake the disease".

The reason I paint is that I enjoy it tremendously. The enjoyment it gives me is incomparable to anything else in my life. Even if I could make no money off of it, I would take some other job just to allow myself to continue painting. I also paint because I like looking at the final result, which is what I think you meant by "like seeing it done". If I remember correctly you talked about falling in love with your own painting when looking at it on the thread about your drawing of Dagny. I understood perfectly well what you were talking about there. And yes, it is also a major factor in why I enjoy painting.

I've added a new section to my site, for new paintings. It contains 1 new painting thus far entitled "Girl and a kitten", in the first stages of creation. Enjoy!

I think the connection might be that artists (I mean those who create worthy art) are people who focus in-wards, because creating art requires someone with (a) emotional world (b ) awareness of one's emotions and self. Focusing in-wards and "listening to one's emotions" also requires independence. So maybe this is why... Heard your song, here is what I think (in the order that I thought as I was listening): The sound quality of the recording was kinda bad. Too bad. I liked the melody and the beat (not crazy about it but it's nice). It sounds strange, though it's difficult for me to point at the reason. Parts of the song (the chorus I think) Reminded me a lot of a song by REM, but I don't know the name of it. It goes something like "smiling happy people holding hands..." but the part of their song that resembles yours is not the chorus it's the one when they sing "meet me in the crowd... something something " . I liked your voice. The sound quality was bad so I couldn't tell for sure, but your voice transmits a strong atmosphere. Good singers have that ability - to transmit emotions through their voice. So Edit to fix that annoying thing with the whenever I want to write b )

I must say that I find these definitions revolting. I especially dislike the "emotional insanity": it allows every man with no self control, who allows himself to act like an animal to get away with it. "Irresistible impulse to do an act"... just disgusting, when you think of the things that can be justified using this law. A little late, but here is my response: I am a student of biomedical engineering. The law is not of great interest to me, but I asked for the definition of insanity out of curiosity and also because I figured it would help the discussion and improve it's quality. I got word of this case (of Charles Whitman) in a lesson dealing with emotions in the brain in a course in neurophysiology. You can find his suicide letter in the wikipedia link.

Understanding the meaning of language is perception? I'm not sure... I thought that perception is just the very first level of perceiving shape/color (similar things in the realm of sounds) etc'. What definition of "Perception" are you using? There is also a problem with saying that a person does not have rights to not perceive certain things. What about a case in which the people who moved to the apartment next to you make non-stop loud noises? Those noises prevent me from being able to be productive or relaxed (or to function in general) in my own home. I have no choice about perceiving the noise and about the noise being a disruption. I can't tell my mind "stop hearing those sounds and go to sleep". I would consider non-stop noise to be physical violence of some sort, like if someone had constantly shoved me. What do you think about this?

(bold emphasis mine) I did not read the thread, but just want to comment about this: What do you mean by "state of one's mind"? Volition does not allow man total control of the contents of his thoughts, when by "thoughts" I am referring to a very broad concept, uniting everything you experience. For example: if someone speaks a language you know, you have no choice about understanding the meaning of the words. You can try it: but as much as you'd want to, unless you cover your ears, once you hear something you have no choice about associating the sound with your concept of it. Your volition will also not be able to stop your brain from associating meaning to shapes when your eyes are open. Some things in the brain happen automatically and you have no control over them. Consider the following case: you are driving, when all of a sudden the person next to you yells something in surprise. This startles you and you press on the gas pedal and make an accident. You might say that since this man has volition, he should have stooped his mind from being startled by the sharp change in sound intensity, but I think that in this case, your brain is causing the startled reaction automatically because of rapid change in environment. Volition is not omnipotent: it has a nature and boundaries.

Febod, I'm just curious to know something: Would you consider a guy who spends his Saturday nights in front of the computer, reading articles about the latest scientific innovations, and his nights reading History books, to be in need of "a life"?