Tenzing_Shaw

I was extremely pleased with the film, and especially with the portrayal of Kirk. . I am a fan of Star Trek in spite of the few irrational elements (such as the "Prime Directive", and the lack of money in their society), but these elements were largely ignored in the film. Also, it is very rare to see technology portrayed in such a positive light. In many scenes on Earth, we see glittering skyscrapers or giant industrial-looking structures in the background. The crucial scene in which Kirk decides to join Starfleet takes place while he is watching the construction of a starship at a huge shipyard. Scotty is portrayed as a hero who can solve any problem using technology. As others have observed, the "old" Spock casually flaunts the usual rules for time travel. Nowhere is there a mention of environmentalism, and the "red matter" is used by both good and evil characters to achieve their ends (in other words, it is not the technology which is to be evaluated morally, but the entity who wields it). There are no explicitly pro-technology statements in the film, but technology is consistently portrayed as glamorous; the idea that technology could be considered evil never seems to occur to any of the characters. The pro-technology attitude is typical of Star Trek in general, but I have never seen it quite so prevalent as in this film.

I think you might be surprised how much "pure" competitive mind games help in real-life situations. I am most familiar with chess, so I'll take that as an example: Suppose, as you say, that you are sick, tired, distracted, or angry, and you have to sit down and play a six-hour chess game, in which the position may stay the same for an hour or more at times. In this situation, you are faced with an alternative: calm down, focus, and think rationally, or be brutally blown off the board. I have several times allowed myself to become distracted in serious tournament games, with disasterous results. In order to be a good chessplayer, you have to be able to ignore physical discomfort, emotional impulses, and annoying distractions in the environment. If you are annoyed at yourself for having made an error earlier in the game, you are on the verge of winning a tournament and are excited, you didn't get much sleep the previous night, some other players are making a scene at the table next to you, etc., you have to forget all those things and coldly evaluate your options. Basically, competitive chess forces you to adopt a primacy of existence approach, at least in that part of your life. These factors apply less if you just play casually or over the internet, and not at all if you just study the game abstractly. If you play mind games in serious one-on-one competition, however, then they can be just as helpful as martial arts. Which one is more helpful probably depends on your specific personality-I do both, but have far more talent in chess, which makes it more suited to me; others may find that the opposte is true.

Activities such as this can be very beneficial, in my opinion. I view them as improving the "machinery" of the brain. Even if you already have a certain concept, relentlessly practicing it can help to clarify your knowledge and build confidence. When I was in high school, I did a similar thing with solving simple 2-variable linear systems. I would solve every exercise in the back of my textbook, even though I already knew how to do that type of problem. What this did was move the problem from the status of something I could do but had to think about, to something that was obvious and effortless. This also allowed me to grasp more advanced concepts more easily, since I did not have to think anymore about the simpler concepts on which they depended. Some caution is probably also advisable with such training: you want to make sure that you actually understand the problems you are solving, as well as simply being able to do them. With addition, for example, you should think deeply about why the algorithm you are repeating works. A large part of the reason many people have poor mathematical skills is that it never even occurs to them to do such a thing. Practice helps to concretize concepts, but it doesn't give you those concepts in the first place. This is why I think the ideal approach to mathematics (at least for beginning students) is to mix relentless practice with clear understanding. By "clear understanding" I mean that you should literally be able to trace all of your mathematical knowledge back to simple counting. If you can't do this, then what you have is not really knowledge, but just a memorized procedure. In my opinion, if you just memorize an algorithm, you might as well use a computer instead, since they do the same thing much faster. The power of the human mind lies in rational thought, not in lightning fast repetition of simple steps (this is basically what an algorithm is). The purpose of repetition for humans is simply to aid rational thought. Have you heard of the website "Lumosity"? It has a set of mind games which are specially designed to improve mental performance. I am a member, and I have certainly seen improvement as a result of my practice there, even though I don't have much time to devote to it. Be aware that there is a membership fee, although they do have a free trial. Alternatively, you could take up a competitive mind game, such as chess, Scrabble, or Go. I studied chess very intensely in high school, and I saw huge improvements in my reasoning ability (especially in memory, visualization, problem solving, and rational decision-making). I also second aristotlejones' recommendation of martial arts, which can improve your discipline and concentration (besides the obvious physical benefits).

Why are they constraining themselves to giant mirrors? They should hire some psychics to decrease the solar luminosity with wishes and prayers.

She was only "using improper terms" if you take her statement out of context. The only alternative to what I said is that she purposefully used the word "we" in order to mean that she herself was partially taking credit for the achievments of the oil companies, and that it was she herself who had been robbed. Given what I know about Ayn Rand's philosophy, I do not believe that this is what she meant. Being precise in writing is very different from being precise in a spoken conversation.

I'll just address this: I think this was just an abbreviated way of speaking, given that it was clear from the context what "we" meant. Since this was a spoken discussion, substituting longer phrases for "we" and "our" would have been awkward and needless.

I know from experience how difficult it can be to rid one's mind of irrational ideas (though I was a leftist before, not a theist). Out of curiosity, what sort of physics do you study?

Rand states that living organisms act invariably to preserve their own lives. She then states that man is a special case, in that he possesses volition, which permits him to work purposefully for his own destruction-an action which would be impossible for any other organism (notice that bodily functions still act to preserve life even in a self-destructive human, as a previous poster pointed out). The point of this argument is to show that man needs a code of ethics. So this objection is a clear example of context-dropping. Suppose I say that prime numbers are odd, except for 2, which is even. If we take each part of this statement out of context, we come up with A "prime numbers are odd" and B "2 is a prime number", which implies C "there exists an even prime number". Now C contradicts A, so my original statement is a contradiction "in the formal sense". Rand never claims that all living things always act to preserve their lives without exception, nor does her argument ever assume this claim. If this person starts the argument again, you might ask him whether he himself could live a happy life as a murderous barbarian. Mere survival is a necessary but insufficient condition for the kind of life which Rand speaks of preserving.

I think the existence of the draft during the Vietnam war should also be considered. If a soldier was drafted against his will, I think it would be entirely moral for him to accept such an offer (assuming it was valid), and very altruistic to do otherwise (other things being equal). I am guessing this wasn't the case with McCain, but I think this would need to be taken into account when forming any relevant principles. Assuming the soldier is fighting voluntarily, for selfish reasons, in a war he correctly believes to be objectively justified, and assuming that leaving the prison camp can objectively be expected to help the enemy, I think it would indeed be heroic to remain.

Tesla was also very interested in wireless power (as opposed to information) transmission, so that may have been his goal with the Tesla coil. He never made wireless power transmission practical, but I hear that research in this area has resumed recently (this just shows how prescient Tesla was). Tesla was also "one of" the inventors of radio (from what I have read, it's hard to pick out a single person as being the sole inventor), and he predicted that wireless data transfer would become ubiquitous in the future. In Tesla's own words: "As soon as it is completed, it will be possible for a business man in New York to dictate instructions, and have them instantly appear in type at his office in London or elsewhere. He will be able to call up, from his desk, and talk to any telephone subscriber on the globe, without any change whatever in the existing equipment. An inexpensive instrument, not bigger than a watch, will enable its bearer to hear anywhere, on sea or land, music or song, the speech of a political leader, the address of an eminent man of science, or the sermon of an eloquent clergyman, delivered in some other place, however distant. In the same manner any picture, character, drawing, or print can be transferred from one to another place. Millions of such instruments can be operated from but one plant of this kind. More important than all of this, however, will be the transmission of power, without wires, which will be shown on a scale large enough to carry conviction." -Nikola Tesla on his Wardenclyffe Tower in "The Future of the Wireless Art" in Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony (1908) Tesla's first prediction has obviously already come true. His prediction about power transfer hasn't, but may yet.

I was just pointing out that this may explain Tesla's frequent criticisms of Edison. If someone tried to convince people that my invention was dangerous, I would probably react in the same way, and with good reason. You are correct. I definitely need to read that biography of Tesla which I have lying around! I suppose you could argue that the light bulb is comparable to alternating current in terms of its direct effects on our lives, but AC is a much more fundamental invention in that it made so many other things (including the cheap and efficient use of light bulbs) possible. So, it would depend on what standard you used to compare these inventions. Let's not forget that Tesla was also one of the inventors of radio, which we use not infrequently! I agree, but it's hard for me to like Edison knowing that he tried to discredit better technology. Unless he honestly thought DC was better, this was a very evil thing to do. It reminds me of the campaign against Rearden Metal in Atlas Shrugged (the unproven assertions, vague insinuations of danger, etc.). It is true, however that no amount of immorality can erase Edison's great achievements.

If you believe the stories, Edison antagonized Tesla, and tried to discredit his inventions, so this may account for such comments. Apparently, Edison ran a propaganda campaign against alternating current in favor of direct current, although the former was incomparably more practical (but take this with a grain of salt-I'm not 100% confident in my sources, and I need to do some more reading on the subject). In any case, none of Edison's inventions can compare to the induction machine, let alone alternating current. These two inventions together are indispensable to the standard of living we have today (although computers do not rely on these directly, their use would not be practical without efficient power generation and transmission). This is why Tesla is often referred to as the man who 'invented' the twentieth century. The light bulb (or substitute any other of Edison's major inventions) was a great invention, but not on that level.

The only one of these I have read is Lucifer's Hammer, and I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, the concept was fascinating, the plot exciting, and the theme excellent. On the other hand, I thought the characterization was poor, mainly because it was heavily naturalistic. The good points of the book definitely made it worthwhile to read, however.

I don't think he discovered induction, because Maxwell's equations would already have been known at the time he did his work. He definitely invented the induction machine, however. I think you could say he was the first person to apply the phenomenon to practical problems. Additionally, Tesla also predicted much of our current technology, including our extensive use of wireless data transfer. In any case, alternating current must be the greatest invention ever in electrical engineering with the possible exception of digital logic (Shannon) and the transistor (Bardeen, Shockley, and Brattain).

Nikola Tesla: developed a technique (alternating current) for efficient power transmission, which no one at the time believed to be possible. Claude Shannon: the engineer who developed the idea of using voltage levels to represent "true" and "false", thus founding modern electronics. He also wrote a paper which gave the theoretical basis for the first chess-playing computer programs.

Caveat: Slan was meant to be continued, but the author died before finishing the sequel. In the end, the sequel was written by Van Vogt's wife and another writer, and it has been widely described as a big disappointment (which I don't doubt given my experience with multi-author novels, although I would have to read the sequel myself to be sure). I still enjoyed Slan in spite of this fact, but the above may bother those for whom a fully-resolved plot is essential.

That was definitely one of the more revealing parts of the video, as if it wasn't revealing enough already. The obvious implication is that they don't even care about other living things (let alone about humans). They don't care about anything; their goal is a negative: to wipe out reason from the universe.

The only thing I agree with in that video is that Earth is just the beginning.

A. E. Van Vogt is my favorite science fiction author, because of his novel Slan. I am curious as to whether anyone else has read this novel; I consider it a real masterpiece of romantic fiction. I can only describe the main character, Jommy Cross, as a heroic rational egoist (the allusion of his initials is ironic, since he has absolutely nothing in common with Jesus Christ). The theme of the book is also excellent-superficially, it is an attack on racism; more deeply, it is a condemnation of those who resent superior ability in others. I would recommend Slan to any Objectivist. I cannot praise it highly enough; it is close behind the works of Ayn Rand on my list of favorite novels. Slan is quite an obscure book, but I would love to discuss it if anyone else has read it.

I have entertained the idea, and I have concluded that it flies in the face of reality. To predict that the Earth will become uninhabitable within a decade due to industrial activity is arbitrary. There is no evidence for it at all. I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. What I meant is that when one accuses someone of "evasion" one doesn't mean to say that that person is arguing against what he "knows to be true deep down". One means that the person has acquired false beliefs by ignoring relevant evidence. I myself used to evade constantly. I was a socialist, but refused to consider the practical consequences of socialism, or their implications for the theory. I actually believed in socialism, and that it would be good for the world, but I had come to this belief by evading the facts which refute socialism. Most people throughout history who do bad things actually believe that they are good. They are still guilty of willfully ignoring reality, however. Nature is not a democracy, and no "consensus" can alter reality. All of my previous appeals to the general beliefs of competent scientists concerned basic science, which is backed up by mountains of reasoning and evidence. So far I have made three such claims: nuclear power is safe, electric cars are inefficient, and the human race will not become extinct within a decade. Even a brief look at the relevant theory and data will prove the first two claims (I would be happy to elaborate if you want me to show the evidence), while the third is simply a denial of the arbitrary. I do not think that everyone who believes that global warming is a threat (for example) is dishonest. Many laymen believe it because it is repeated in the media constantly, and I would say that most scientists honestly believe it because they trust the word of their colleagues who have conducted research in the area. People like Al Gore, however, who produce global-warming propaganda, are evading. These people never mention the many competent scientists who disagree with their views. Examples include Richard Lindzen from MIT and Freeman Dyson from Princeton (one of the greatest living physicists; see his essay here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html ). Why do they not mention the scientists who dispute the validity of the models they propound? Such evidence is not in line with their agenda, so they evade it. Of course, just as the "consensus" for man-made global warming does not prove that it is real, so my counterexamples above do not prove that it isn't real. Given my own knowledge of science, I am inclined to agree with Freeman Dyson; I am skeptical that current science can produce models which describe the temperature variation of the Earth's surface with the claimed precision. Beyond that, even if man-made global warming is real, I have heard no convincing arguments that it is a threat to human life. Sea levels may rise slightly, but this will happen very gradually and can easily be overcome through technology. As I recall, different models predict different changes in weather severity (both increases and decreases, depending on the model). I have heard reasonable arguments that slightly warmer temperatures will be better for human life. Are these arguments ever mentioned by Al Gore and other environmentalists? No; they are inconvenient also. I even hear arguments to the effect that we should stop worrying about whether global warming is real, and simply assume it is and begin acting (the idea is that the costs of not acting if it is real would be too great). Needless to say, these arguments do not convince me. Why should I listen to calls for "saving energy" given the things I mentioned above? If someone proves that it is in my self-interest to save energy, I will do it. Until then, I will point out the evasions of those who place a political agenda above the truth. I never said that honesty implies infallibility. In fact, if you read my quote, I said that a radical difference between one's beliefs and reality implies evasion. By "radical" I mean that the person's beliefs are consistently not in accordance with reality, across a broad spectrum of ideas. Also, a good meteorologist knows that his models predict the weather to a certain degree of probability. A metorologist who declared that he is certain that it will snow in ten days would probably be evading this fact. Finally, it is interesting that in discussions about evolution (for example), evidence is typically presented in favor of evolution (through descriptions of Darwin's reasoning, or through modern data). With man-made global warming, this is rarely the case. Typically, the "consensus" will be mentioned, and there will then be an assertion by the speaker that global warming is a threat to man's survival. I heard exactly this last week, and this was at a talk delivered to an audience of engineering professors and graduate students, who could have understood any evidence that was presented (none was). For every other issue mentioned in the talk (including, for example, nuclear power and electric cars), rational arguments were given in support of the speaker's conclusions. Then we reached global warming, and all we got were unsupported assertions. Ironically, the claims which were supported by evidence were in fact "settled science", while global warming was the only issue mentioned where there is still any dispute. As a student of science and engineering, I find this fishy.

Visibly protesting an irrational event has obvious value. Even if what you do is not visible to others, it can still be a psychological value; an affirmation that you, at least, are not going to give in to irrationality. Either way, the action is not nihilistic. Also, saying that using energy "decreases the amount of energy left" is true, but irrelevant, given the amount of energy available in our environment (especially if nuclear power were deregulated). Why should we consider this scenario, since it isn't true (and no competent scientitst would claim it is; not even the ones who believe that warming is occuring and will have negative effects)? Also, I think you are confusing "willfully ignoring the truth" with arguing against what you actually believe. Holding false beliefs (which the radical environmentalists do) is a result of evasion (failing to objectively identify the facts of reality, when there was a means to do so). So I think your characterization of this phrase is a straw-man. To willfully ignore the truth is not to argue against what one "actually knows" to be true, but to ignore those facts which would lead one to grasp the truth in the first place. Yes, environmentalists do actually believe what they say, but their beliefs are a consequence of their evasion of relevant facts. Or do you believe that evasion itself is not possible? Finally, it is not necessary to understand the psychology of an individual in order to know that he is evading, or to condemn him morally. If the beliefs of an adult human are radically opposed to reality, and that human has not been subject to any chronic illness or coercion, then evasion is the only explanation.

This reminds me irresistably of the many times in Atlas Shrugged when James Taggart or one of his cronies says "I never said that!" By this logic, Stalin can be defended on the basis of the euphamisms he came up with to defend his slaughter. By this logic, collectivists are actually "well-meaning" because we can't quote a collectivist saying that he condones mass killing and enslavement. By this logic, the ability of a villain to evade or disguise his own villainy adds to his moral worth. Several facts have already been presented to show that environmentalists are anti-technology, including their stance on nuclear power. As a further example, I would mention the case of electric cars, which have been promoted by countless environmentalists. Any competent scientist or engineer will understand why electric cars produce more emissions than regular cars, and anyone who knows some high-school physics should be capable of understanding it. A while ago, I actually heard someone correctly explain why this is true, and then procede to declare that we should use electric cars anyway, on the basis of environmentalism! He explained this contradiction using a direct appeal to Immanuel Kant (this was a presentation in a philosophy class). I don't know what further evidence of the corruption of environmentalism could be required.

Suppose Goodkind did in fact change his views during the series. What difference would this make to the reader? The only conceivable difference would be if the corresponding change in Richard was abrupt and/or unconvincing. Personally, I was very convinced by Richard's progression towards complete rationality. So there are two cases: 1. The change in Richard was convincing because Goodkind had been planning it all along. 2. The change was convincing because Goodkind used his own experience of changing his convictions in order to expertly portray a similar change in Richard. As long as you agree with my evaluation that the change in Richard was portrayed well, I don't see how either of these cases presents any problem at all. Finally, an occasional irrational statement by a main character in a novel does not bother me much when that character has Richard's sense of life.

I should have said read until you get to Faith of the Fallen. Seriously though: if you don't, you will be missing a masterpiece (and some of the other later books in the series are excellent too). I do acknowledge that Richard is not fully integrated in the beginning of the series, and sometimes makes irrational statements or does irrational things out of ignorance. Many characters in Atlas Shrugged do this too, until they learn better. So the question is: is this a purposeful decision by Goodkind in order to show how Richard uses his experiences to eliminate the contradictions from his character? The other option is that Goodkind himself changed while writing the series. Either way, I am very pleased with the outcome. Richard's initial occasional irrationality doesn't bother me at all; I am more interested in the quality of the plot and characterization. That is why Blood of The Fold is my least favorite SoT book; not because of thematic reasons.

The Harry Potter series is exquisitely written in terms of plot and characterization (thematically, it is also quite good). Most modern "literature", by contrast, is not worth the paper it is printed on. I know this after being subjected to "The Best Short Stories of 2004" in a fiction writing class. These stories depicted the most awful mediocrities you can imagine, going about their worthless lives in a drunken stupor, proceeding endlessly from failure to abject failure. No thank you. I prefer to read about heros battling evil, which is what Rowling provides. You ask how an adult can read children's fiction. I ask you why an adult should not read children's fiction. Indeed, some of the best fiction I have ever read was written for a young audience. Why is it irrational to appreciate such work?