Young
-
Posts
78 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Young
-
-
So I was thinking with various means of potential exposure from non-Oists to Objectivism/Objectivist principles (everything from the video game Bioshock to the AS movie which may or may not come to fruition) what kind of exposure do users of this board experience and create? A couple of questions I have include:
How many people are aware of your beliefs?
What type of impressions do others take away from meeting you regarding Objectivism (I was particularly wondering whether anyone has experiences which contradict the stereotype of Objectivists as selfish in the Kantian sense)?
What do most people you interact with know about Objectivism at first blush? (For instance, are people more aware of Rand's personality, the 'cult' stereotype, the issues with the Brandens, etc.)
Lastly do you think positive "advertising", if you will, would have be of any value, and if so how would you suggest going about it? (Note: I know that many will say, no advertisement is needed, just have people read the books, but it certainly makes it harder to interact with the vast majority of people and the possibility of, say, an Objectivist Political Party is made difficult by negative impressions)
-
This topic probably bears on Metaphysics as well but I think its specific enough that it would probably be discussed with regards to psychology.
Does anyone know if Ms. Rand ever made any comments on the nature of physical addiction or dependence? Was she aware of neuropsychological findings regarding either?
The answer to either these bear on various questions regarding consciousness, can ability to focus be quantified, do altered states of conscious affect volitional choices, can rationality be assessed for someone in an altered state of consciousness (and whether there is any way to delimit the difference between complete loss of volitional control and a reduction in the ability to think rationally).
-
Green Lantern.
Particularly the former Hal Jordan Character. Sure he hangs out with ultra rich commie Green Arrow but his powers came entirely from his strength of will, bravery, and pride in himself. What's more if you ever read the series in which he goes 'rogue', emerald twilight, there are many parallels to the Fountainhead. Namely,
after his home city has been destroyed in the death of superman saga
rather than accept the traditional stance of the guardians to act like an intergalactic even-more-impotent UN, he chooses to put his own values ahead of everything. Plus, power wise he's the ultimate in rational superheroes, the extent of his powers is only limited by his imagination.
-
I think we might be discussing this with different definitions of determinism at this point.
Determinism means that every event has a cause.
Indeterminism means that not every event has a cause.
Free will means that our actions are caused by our self, but our self has no cause.
-
As far as corporate agendas, my experience has unanimously been that the corporations both privately held and publicly traded that have owned the papers I've worked at had a singular agenda: to make money. And the mantra to achieve this has always been through good journalism and value for advertisers. Good journalism means news that reflects a fair, accurate and complete report and good value for advertiser means growing circulation and readership - more eyeballs on those ads. Typically, corporate owners set financial goals for their newspapers and expect them to know how to meet those goals. In some instances, there could be collaboration on issues such as training or seminars, and corporations use their economies of scale to reduce the costs of commodities such as newsprint, wire services, etc.
When a publication promotes an agenda or a niche subject it limits its audience, and therefore commands much lower ad rates than a general-interest publications. That's not to say that they do not have value. For instance, there is a reason that Mercedes-Benz and financial services companies advertise heavily in Investor's Business Daily, but, say, not as heavily in a general newspaper. It's a better investment.
None of this addresses bias. That's another topic altogether. And the source of it is reporters and editors, not so much publishers or corporate overseers. Most journalists are of a liberal or leftist bent, largely, I have come to believe, because of their idealism, altruistic mentalities and because people highly inclined to individualism and free markets/capitalism tend to go into more money-making enterprises or careers or publications that play to that (like Investor's Business Daily).
Thank you for your post.
My questions were more toward why Good journalism as you describe it should result from rational self interest. Specifically if it is to my benefit to leave out that the forest being knocked down will allow for a highly efficient factory because of my tree-hugging readership, why shouldn't I? Wouldn't it be to my advantage to write things my readership will like (and hence attract better advertising)? Are lies of omission in this business tools of the trade?
Where does bias arise from and how is it beneficial? Does being corporately owned require that you have a wider variety of writers (in writers' perspectives, audiences, etc)?
-
While there are some interesting thought experiments going on here I think it might be fruitful to other implications of deterministic vs non-deterministic systems. Specifically if we are in a completely materially deterministic system then mental states have no causal efficacy, aka Epiphenomenalism. An epiphenomenalist can not argue that they have any responsibility for any actions, hence any form of compatibilism, like that espoused by the article you linked to Martian, is meaningless. If you are going to argue that we are conscious and that we are determined, anything mental about us is basically John Cusack's character at the end of "Being John Malkovich". I am not offering this as a disproof of determinism but if you advocate it then you are also advocating Epiphenomenalism.
-
Why do you think there is something beyond existence?
I assume you are asking if I think there is something beyond existence (rather than asking "why" I do, which would imply that I did). I wasn't implying, and indeed it would be nonsensical to imply that. I was stating that if extended you could say that you can violate others rights if you are certain that there is no chance of it diminishing your chance of survival. For instance if I developed a special 'Young' gun which when fired would reduce everyone to obeying me it would still be wrong to do so, despite the fact that it would greatly increase my chances of survival, etc. Your goal should be a life oriented to your choosing which respects others' goals so long as they don't conflict with yours. Just saying that it consists of your survival is inaccurate.
-
The contradiction arises due to the impossibility of the machine. Leaving aside the outside world, such a machine would have to consider information about every particle within itself, since those particles themselves are causal to the future. This leads to an impossibility in terms of computing power.
I agree, the machine specified could not exist but that only addresses predicatability as a practical notion.
What purpose does consideration of determinism serve?Since the universal thought experiment proves the lack of any conceivable purpose to anything in reality, the answer is: None.
Determinism has no relevance to reality, regardless of its "truth."
I think there are some advantages and at times some necessity to supposing people will act in accordance with the way they believe they are 'meant' to act at times. For instance if you give me sufficient evidence that you are a killer on the loose it is to my benefit to consider you a dangerous person and prepare much more for the eventuality in which you would choose to kill me than the eventuality in which you would choose not to. Past choices don't dictate future ones but it would be foolish to ignore the implications your past choices have on what type of choice you might make. Whenever this inductive leap is taken there is a chance of error but use of it as a hypothetical is helpful in many cases.
-
Maybe; in the sense that we can look at a non-conceptual consciousness and see "We are different from them; what exactly is the difference?". I don't see that studying chimps teaches us anything at all about the evolutionary development of human ability to conceptualize -- there's really nothing in common.
I disagree, a fair amount of our ability to form concepts is informed by perceptual processes and these and certain abilities that approach abstraction are found in animals. Evidence for separate coding of different forms of numerosities are found in the animal brain (and much debated in humans). And the work which helps us distinguish between concept knowledge in humans and lack thereof in animals is very important, almost equivalent to that which helps us distinguish between adults and children.
-
The case is often made that in our current culture that News Media is owned by companies with agendas. Many news outlets cater to specific populations or ideologies, it seems, in their political bent, etc. Is it possible to find really objective news sources or resources that have equivalent coverage to major news networks that don't have 'agenda'?
The greater question is in a free market capitalist society what incentive is there to offer news free from a corporations advertising? Do you imagine in an idealized society that news outlets will compete amongst themselves to be the most 'objective' in reporting? Will this be a highly sought out (and expensive) commodity?
-
Prior to himself? In that case, the man is not only not a hero, but also a very bad soldier.
Besides this point it really comes down to what defines a hero, is it simply dying for something you believe in, was he not acting heroically/virtuously before he died?
This term is bandied about too much, in the news victims, martyrs and heroes are equated so often that they become indistinguishable.
-
Would it be possible to form an Objectivist-based country? Has anyone seriously contemplated taking the steps in order to achieve it? It seems to make sense in that if one is to live in a truly rights-respecting environment, that environment must be created, rather than go through the arduous, and very likely futile, process of political reform and education to make it feasible where one lives.
I think this is impracticable at the moment, what's more the idea of a country comprised of people who respect each others rights would have to come long before an Objectivist-based country.
-
This does not logically follow.
It doesn't address the validity of a claim that everything is determined but it yet again affirms that you can't have responsibility in a world in which you have no causal efficacy.
-
That's a fundamental problem with all of these animal claims, that they leap from negligible evidence to profound conclusions. The howlers that have come out in the chimp language literature can be real side-splitters. I'm describing the first-grade Turing Test version of an argument, and I don't believe that performance on such tests is anything like evidence for a faculty of abstraction and generalization. But they can't even muster a pass on that test. When a monkey or a dog can actually author a novel, then I will believe.
I certainly agree that many primatologists are looking for profound conclusions. On the other hand looking at the way in which for instance primates or ravens can use numbers give us a better understanding of how our own concepts develop and their form.
-
But since, in addition, you can never gain more value by doing so, you should not violate other people's rights.
Actually, I don't mean that. Life-threatening metaphysical emergencies are exactly when you should. You should violate a man's property rights when snowed in in the woods and you encounter a cabin. You don't have the right to do so, but you should do it, because the alternative of death kind of takes the motivation away from acting in a strict rights-respecting manner. Your reason for following principle is defined in terms of your ultimate goal and choice, namely to exist. Deciding to die cannot be better, in terms of that ultimate goal, than deciding to live. Putting the matter in comparative terms, what's more important to you and your long-term goal of existing as a man, respecting another man's property rights or avoiding a minor inconvenience by violating those rights; living because you violated someone's property rights, or dying?
This is confusing, it smacks of the Ring of Giges. Is there anything else you would add to 'ultimate goal and choice'?
-
In other words, me writing this post in reply to you is not necessitated by a neuro-chemical reaction in my brain. I freely chose to reply. One can say that the bio-mechanical neuro-chemical components of what we are made this reply possible -- i.e. we are what we are, including what we are composed of -- and it is this make-up that gives us the ability to have free will; but those mechanics did not necessitate that I reply the way I am replying. I
When does biochemistry end and free will begin? Or are you saing that there is no way to possibly ask/answer this question?
-
Precisely.
Currently the only rights you need concern yourself with, in terms of ethics, are the rights of the other drivers not to be harmed or have their property damaged - which is quite a separate issue from the arbitrary and often idiotically low speed limits set by the government.
I think you already have your answer, which is that these rights are the ones endangered when you break speed laws. Now they may be arbitrary in many cases but I ask, in a situation without private roads, shouldn't the people who live in the area, have greatest danger on those roads, and pay most local taxes have the greatest claim to 'ownership'. This, I assume, is why 10 soccer moms can get a speed limit reduced around their cul de sac while all of us together wouldn't stand a chance of changing national speed limits.
-
There is some arbitrariness where we draw the line between living parts and inanimate parts, but in general we can say that a cell is a living entity while it can grow, reproduce itself etc., using the DNA/RNA machinery that forms the basis of all life on Earth, while the individual molecules in the cell like the DNA molecule or a protein molecule are not alive.
How are these arbitrary? If you look at a mitochondrion it is not alive (even if it might have been when it was an organism all its own) because of these rules.
On the other hand, if we build a system consisting of deterministic subsystems then, no matter how complex the total system is, in a complete description it is still a deterministic system.Please look up the word 'irreducible' and tell me if makes any sense to you.
-
I can describe a series of experiments -- which have never been done, from what I can tell -- which would at least begin to experimentally test the existence of a conceptual faculty in animals. Unfortunately, the chimp-huggers are insanely anti-science (even the supposed scientists), and they prefer to do pseudo-science in the name of animal rights. The simplest form is to present the animal with a relational concept, such as "biggest", "smallest", "second nearest", "between", "second from the left" etc. Their task is to select the one item that has that relationship to the set.
The more I think of these the more I feel that something like this has to have been done, by 'psychologists' as early as the behaviorists. But how would you ever know that abstraction was going on? How do you know when the rat who has been so trained to press the second button continues to do so when you change the way the button looks, etc. that they are really abstracting? Could your experiment be falsified?
-
I apologize, I typed that fast without realizing it would sound so derisive. In any event with better and better vehicles accidents are becoming more likely to result in greater damage to your property and insurance (which is outrageous) than to you.
-
Watch the emphasis I added - property rights. He didn't say the rights of others, he said property rights. I'd like to know what he meant by that and where he got that conclusion from.
Oh I'm sorry, are the other people on the highway floating around on indestructible magic carpets? What about the safety of other drivers' vehicles(on top of their rights)? Perhaps in a new thread I should ask when can you really separate your rights from your property rights in the real world.
-
As in, these?
Sorry, when you said series I assumed you had meant more beyond that. Again there is some admittedly weak evidence of a chimp (Ai) being able to extract some meaning from a number of objects and extend it to different types of objects. However this does require quite a lot of training and seems to have failed when 'zero' was used so I'm not certain if it is a clever hans type situation or not.
-
Are you arguing that target-practice ranges are a violation of man's right?
No, just as bumper cars are not a violation of rights.
-
Where did you come to the idea that traffic laws represented property rights? Whose property?
Other drivers potentially? This is an exaggeration, but if you were to consider that everytime you get in a car and drive recklessly you are doing the equivalent of waving a gun around, the extension to application of force is not hard to see.
Public Relations
in Introductions and Personal Notes
Posted
Just as a bump and to share some of my own thoughts, few people known of my beliefs, though I am fairly certain that my advisor shares at least some of them. When I discuss certain principles of Objectivism with students they are receptive but I don't think it quite proper to be introducing or advocating positions to them in an introductory class
. It seems to me that the greatest amount of discussion of principles comes from speaking to work colleagues but even then in depth discussion doesn't usually occur.