MisterSwig

What would the computer/machine be "conscious" of? Reality? Or that which it has been programmed to perceive? And how would it comprehend the evidence of its "senses"? By reason? Or by the guidelines of its program? Then, supposing it can form concepts, how will it determine its "values"? By observing reality and using judgment? Or by operating within the rules set by its programmer? If by "consciousness" you mean "human consciousness", then I believe that programming a human-type consciousness is a metaphysical contradiction. In order to create such a thing, you would have to not program it. The epistemological validity of a human consciousness is due, in part, to the fact that it is not determined or programmed by a creator. An artificially programmed consciousness could never truly be certain of anything, not even within a contextual certainty. For, its context would not be its own. It would possess the context set by its programmer. Thus, the "knowledge" of the machine would always be dependent upon the knowledge of the programmer. That is not a human consciousness, in my book. Nor would I say it is "alive". Rather, I think it would be a very complex robot. Now, if we could somehow artificially create a consciousness that is not programmed and not dependent upon our own knowledge, that would be something different entirely. But I don't even know if that is possible.

The term "intrinsic" was indeed being used in an unusual sense by Ayn Rand, which is why she was careful to put it in quotes. The crucial lines of that paragraph are at the beginning: "You ask whether I would agree with the distinction you make between "intrinsic good" and "instrumental good." I do not object to the concepts as you define them, but I would not use them, for the following reasons: A. The term "intrinsic" is extremely dangerous to use in ethics. It can be taken to mean "good of and by itself," regardless of context, standard, source, recipient and recipient's knowledge." Letters of Ayn Rand, p. 561 She then goes on to flush out her argument and discuss values. The line previously quoted by Mr. Speicher is the last line of the paragraph, coming after Ayn Rand's initial disclaimer. Ayn Rand argued strongly for objective values, not intrinsic or inherent values. She did not believe that life had value apart from those who would value it. This does not mean that values are subjective. It means that, to you, a particular individual's life is of real value or it is not. And you must consider reality in order to determine this. A stranger drowning in a lake may be of value to you, because, living in a free society, you value human life in general. You see humans as potential producers, who will contribute to society and may potentially benefit your life through trade. I think most people in America value human beings at a sense of life level. For the most part, they do not consciously think about why they value life, other than because God told them to. However, if you lived in some hellhole like Iran, you may not feel the same way about human life. You may let a stranger drown, because if you saved him, he would likely be an Islamofascist, who would support the destruction of you and your freedom-fighting brothers.

In the context of human interaction, I think force means an action which causes a person(s), or his agent(s), to act against their will. So, anyone using force would need to perform some action which results in another person, or his agent, doing something that they don't want to do. A mugger could point a gun at you, forcing you to stop and consider handing over your wallet. An identity theif could steal your identity, and, through fraud, cause your banker to unknowingly hand over your money to the wrong person. But this definition is not limited to criminal behavior. Force can also be applied in self-defense and other situations, for example situations involving children who have limited legal protection.

There are degrees of the initiation of force (murder being the most extreme). These degrees are defined depending on various factors, such as intent, motivation, and method. If you kill someone in an auto accident, then you may be guilty of manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.

I want to know, because I am doing research for a paper I might write on Mormonism. It is the fourth largest and fastest growing religion in America. I'm trying to figure out why. I believe it has to do with a few key aspects of the religion, one being that it is more polytheistic than other major Western religions. So far, I am attempting to trace this move toward polytheism in three distinct stages: Judaism (God), Catholicism (Trinity), Mormonism (Personages). In Judaism you have the closest thing to one god, with perhaps some hints of other supernatural entities. In Catholicism, you have the idea of the Trinity, which I believe is the start of the disintegration of the idea of God, breaking him up into three aspects/manifestations/essences, or whatever you want to call them. You also have better-defined additional supernatural beings, such as the Devil and Angels. Then in Mormonism the Trinity is rejected, and God is split into three actual personages, with separate bodies. More supernatural creatures enter the picture, such as Heavenly Mother and Spirit Children, along with previous entities, like Angels and Satan. So, hopefully you can see the trend toward polytheism here. Perhaps the next step would be to actually call these different beings "gods" and ascribe very limited powers to each, which would be full polytheism.

Mormons believe in the "Godhead", which consists of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. The Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are "tangible, separate beings with flesh and bones." And the Holy Ghost is a "personage of spirit." Each member of the Godhead is "a separate being", but they are all "one in purpose." Mormons don't refer to each member of the Godhead as individual gods. However, it is clear that there are three separate beings that make up the Godhead of Mormon theology. Whether Jesus and the Holy Ghost are actually gods seems to be a real puzzle. After all, they are part of the Godhead, and at the same time they are distinct entities from the Heavenly Father. So, if they aren't gods, what are they? Despite what Mormon's say, does this level of individuation of the members of the Godhead make Mormonism polytheistic? Or is the Godhead still united enough to fall under monotheism? Or is it perhaps something different?

In researching Mormons I've learned that they don't believe in the Trinity. Rather, they believe that there are separate personages in Heaven, namely Heavenly Father, Heavenly Mother, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. According to Mormons, there are other entities in Heaven, but those four get the most attention. My question then: Does this make Mormonism a polytheistic religion? Or can it properly still be considered monotheistic? (As far as I can tell, Mormons deny the charge of polytheism.)

I drink a lot of beer. Oh wait! That's how I deal with Christians and Skeptics. Uh, actually, I deal with death by spending a lot of time with my girlfriend. I hear sex prolongs your life.

The difference between murder and self-defense is the answer to the question: Who started it? A murderer (the aggressor) initiates force on someone. Self-defense is the act of protecting yourself from the initiators of force. Retribution is a matter of justice. It is what someone deserves for initiating force against another. Ideally retribution should be carried out objectively by our government, to ensure that it is fairly applied to all citizens. Murder and self-defense are not distinguished by anyone's value judgments. Murder is anti-life. Self-defense is pro-life. Nobody's value judgments will change that fact. The reason to punish a murderer is because he killed someone. He initiated lethal force, violating the individual's right to life and breaking the laws upon which a free society is built. Therefore, he deserves punishment. Generally we execute such scum. We execute murderers for their crimes. The fact that this punishment prevents them from killing more people is merely a consequence of our actions. It is not the reason why we kill murderers.

"Living is good" is not a value. It is just your opinion. Ayn Rand never described values in this way. She wrote: "'Value' is that which one acts to gain and/or keep. The concept 'value' is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what?" ["The Objectivist Ethics", The Virtue of Selfishness] Living may not be good for a cancer victim. Living is not a duty. Nor is saving anyone else's life a duty. Living is not necessarily good. It is not a primary. You must decide, on an individual basis, whether a particular life, your own or another's, is objectively valuable to YOU. If you see O.J. Simpson drowning in a lake, you probably wouldn't think much of it and keep walking. If you saw a little baby drowning in a pool, you'd probably rush to save her. Why? There's an answer. Read Rand.

Fair enough. I suggest that we begin by nuking Tehran. Then ask for their unconditional surrender. Then we nuke another city--and ask again. Continue this process until they say, "Okay, wait a second. We give up." What do you suggest? And don't tell me that we should throw American lives into their terror traps. If that is what you want, then I'm done talking to you.

I don't think you understand the Objectivist ethics, which is why I suggested that you read Ayn Rand's work on the subject. But, if you want to know Ayn Rand's view on killing the people of an enemy nation, you don't actually have to pick up a book. You can read it online. Go here: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/arwarquotes.html Enjoy!

Okay, Invictus. What should the kill ratio be? Can we kill 10 Iranians for every 1 American that they kill? Is that acceptable? I basically agree with the response given by "y_feldblum". I suggest you read "The Objectivist Ethics" by Ayn Rand, in the book The Virtue of Selfishness. Objectivism does not support anything near to what you are saying. And I think it is best if you read Ayn Rand yourself, rather than me taking the time to repeat her arguments for objective (versus intrinsic and subjective) values.

That is exactly the problem. We are more interested in "fighting" a war, than we are in _winning_ one. History has proven that you don't need thousands of footsoldiers to win a war. You merely need superior firepower, which we have. We should bomb them into submission, then walk into their cities, take their guns, execute their leaders, thoroughly explain why we did what we did, and walk away. We should not stick around and rebuild their nation for them. Let them rebuild their own nation. Let them think about why they got annihilated. And let them decide whether they want to prevent it from happening again.

Should I feel shame for plugging my own work? Maybe that will be the topic of my next joke article--which, by the way, will be in the 'Essays' section once I publish it. Thanks for the idea.

C'mon! I dare you to post it.

Iran is the leading sponsor of terrorism against the West--and has been for years. It should be no surprise that this country is sending people into Iraq to kill our soldiers. Iran is not "cautiously" or "insecurely" supporting our enemies. It _is_ the enemy. It is our greatest enemy. And now it is spreading its Islamic fundamentalism into Iraq, which used to be a primarily secular state. Iran is on the offensive, whether we acknowledge it or not. The degree of horror that exists in Iraq is irrelevant compared to the fact that American soldiers are dying unnecessarily in Iraq, when they should be marching on Tehran. Conservatives seem to be playing the "mollifying" game. They are struggling to keep Americans content with the "progress" of the war. But they are losing public confidence because the war in Iraq is dragging on. And this is happening because Bush refuses to identify and fight the real enemy. We still have not gone into Iran. So Iran continues to come at us. Conservatives want us to believe that they have things under control, when in actuality they have no clue what they are doing, except that they are trying to bring "democracy" to the Iraqi people. We are losing this war. We are losing because our government has failed to properly identify and engage the enemy. Our soldiers die by the dozens in Iraq, chasing around individual "evil-doers" and comparing their faces to those in a deck of cards, when we should be launching missiles to evaporate terror-sponsoring regimes like Iran. The whole of Iran is not worth the life of one American soldier. We need to bomb Iran into submission, like we did with Japan.

The name's Mister Swig. But you can call me William, if you want. I live in Los Angeles, where the news is really boring. Is it that way where you live, too? Because I think the media--especially print and TV--is boring, I often create my own news. You can actually read my joke articles here, at Objectivism Online. Just go to the "Humor and Satire" section under "Essays" at the homepage. I found this site recently, through an advertisement on an email list. I think this is a great place. I look forward to discussing all sorts of things on this board with you all. Someday I hope to achieve 666 posts, then create a new username. Insincerely, Mister Swig

Meta: You say that the whole is the sum of its parts. But you are failing to recognize the difference between perceptual wholes and conceptual wholes. One type exists in reality, and the other type exists only in your mind. A leaf is a perceptual (or concrete) whole, which actually exists in reality. Humanity is a conceptual (or abstract) whole, which only exists in your mind. Men, although essentially similar to each other in reality, do not meld together to form a physical whole being. We are all separate individuals, like the leaf. I think you just made an error in applying the law of identity. You were not recognizing two different types of "wholes." I hope that helps.