Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

HaloNoble6

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1097
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HaloNoble6

  1. I understand. What schedule would be reasonable for you to be able to participate as jrs's opponent? We can take it reasonably slow if you wish.
  2. LauricAcid, so are you volunteering for the pro-stolen-concept side of the debate?
  3. Excuse me, I didn't mean to presume you would accept to be a participant. I had thought the following was tantamount to volunteering for the debate.
  4. This article's almost a year old, but still worthy of discussion. Two former classmates (one a serious O'ist and good friend of mine) and a former TA of mine work there. I've visited the plant, and it's a wonderful place to work. Merit is awarded, and there are no sacred cows, unlike the situations at the mega-aerospace companies: Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop. They've struggled long and hard on their first launch, I don't know what their current status is. Nevertheless, this is a company worth keeping an eye on.
  5. A nod to Burgess here, since I'm using his general format for proposing this debate. PROPOSED TOPIC I am proposing a debate, the general subject of which is logic. The particular topic is an analysis of Ayn Rand's "fallacy of the stolen concept." Namely, the debate question is: "Is the fallacy of the stolen concept, as understood by Ayn Rand, truly a fallacy?" DEBATERS I do not have a side to take here, since I do not have any experience in formal logic: I call for someone knowledgeable in logic and who is confident in his position that the stolen concept is a fallacy. "jrs" has
  6. I've merged three additional threads on volition into this "all-purpose" one.
  7. So what is your stance at present on "the fallacy of the stolen concept" as understood by Ayn Rand?
  8. Not to quible, but 2. is wrong. Humans evolved from a species of ape; a human can't be both a human and an ape. I have no clue what "Volition presupposes [the idea of] evolution and therefore cannot even be considered, if volition wasn't a self-evident entity" means. You appear to be under the donnywithana influence. Please elaborate clearly on what you mean by this. As to the rest, I'll say again that not knowing how free-will arose or how it operates biologically poses no problem for the existence of free-will as such. Indeed, any inquiry of the how, when, from what, etc. nature pr
  9. Who is the sub-system in the collection of pixels you posted above?
  10. You certainly have a point. But this poses serious problems for the entropy in the brain, which, given certain stimulus, must increase. The notion that our subsystems are determined seems to imply that entropy goes down with each subsequent thought process. Perhaps perpetual motion machines could be made with the help of our sub-systems? I don't recall us dealing with a volatile system such that catalyzation were possible, but I could be wrong, or I could be right, or it probably doesn't matter, since my sub-subsystem is closed at time t but open at time t+1. Still, I'm not certain, if
  11. This is where the conversation ends. It is apparent that you've already convinced yourself that free-will doesn't exist, and that you are not here to learn about O'ism. Confine your gibberish to the debate forum with someone who's willing to deal with your spectacular misuse of concepts, else I will ban you.
  12. As per usual, this is gibberish. You treat man, for the purposes of discussing volition and consciousness, as if he's a closed thermodynamic system. The "closed system" terminology is used for discovering thermodynamic facts, not for discovering whether volition and consciousness exist. Do not confuse the questions of how, scientifically, free-will works, and how, scientifically,free-will arose, with whether or not free-will as such exists. The problem of free-will is not a scientific one, it is a philosophic one. Can't you see that posing these questions necessarily presupposes free-will
  13. For better or for worse: Blogs for Man Blogs for Living Reason Blogs Who is Blog? All Your Blogs are Blong to Us Reason Inteligentsia Blogs That Think Thinking Blogs Blogs for Thought Blogs for Life I Think Therefore I Blog Mindblog Mind-Blogging Blogs of Thought Blogs of Reason Sharp Blogs Reason Rising Rising Reason Induction Blogs The Valley of Life The Valley of Thought The Valley of Reason Reason's Inferno Freedom's Flare Reason's Salvo A Salvo of Spirit A Mind's Salvo A Roar of Reason Reason's Roar I could go on...
  14. Care to provide the evidence that mice are self-programming? Let me qualify what I mean by "make a choice." I mean to consciously grasp the nature of the alternatives and to consciously deliberate, comparing and contrasting. I don't mean avoiding some negative stimulus. Something the outcome of which didn't have to be. As to the rest of your comments in this or other posts, I won't be addressing them: I've long given up on the chaos with which you present your position on most things. If you care to present a coherent, structured, integrated argument for something, that's another story.
  15. I found this old post by David that might help some of you guys who are stuggling to understand consciousness and volition: While this analogy serves well to describe the nature of consciousness, it doesn't shed much light on volition. While computers and animals aren't self-programming, humans are. That this is the case is self-evident; concepts such as "proof" and "validation" would be meaningless otherwise. Why? Because humans ask for "proof" that such-and-such programming is for or against their nature.
  16. Before answering this question, does asking a question as such presuppose the validity of the notion of "proof"? And, does the validity of the notion of "proof" presuppose the existence of an entity that requires such a notion as "proof", which therefore presupposes that its actions aren't automatic?
  17. But you don't understand, philosophizing can't be done "mid-stream." All of knowledge is connected into an integrated, hierarchical whole. If you aren't convinced that free-will exists, you will not be allowed, here, to get away with using it to attain more knowledge that, unfortunately for you and your notions on free-will, depend on free-will. Without the existence of volition, you can't: choose to act on assumption; discover the concept of "confidence"; or discover the notion of "alternative" in order to deliberate between alternatives. The notion of "waiting for more evidence" or for
  18. Without the existence of free-will, the idea of being "for" or "against" anything is meaningless. Therefore, if you're "not for or against free-will," don't exercise the free-will you're unsure exists by posting on this forum, or doing anything for that matter. Abstain from using your free-will, since you're not certain it exists, by just lying in your bed and vegetating. Oh wait, even that entails a choice. Nevermind.
  19. Grrr, I googled it and it showed up "enough" times. I suppose enough people misspelled it. That's what I get for spell-check-by-Google! You have me there.
  20. Being a member of an emeny people naturally places one under significant suspicion. I think people from an enemy nation must be treated as enemies until proven otherwise, at least in the immediacy. The question of how to determine whether they are viable candidates for citizenship is a matter of policy, not of fundamentals. But, the principle is that you don't conquer an enemy people and presume they are capable of citizenship in your nation until proven otherwise--that's suicide.
  21. I think your solution doesn't bode too well against Acom’s Razor. Regardless, however, in terms of fundamental principles, it doesn't address the relationship between government and the governed. It has long been forgotten that there is no such thing as a right to citizenship. While indeed government, in a free society, rests on the consent of the governed, there is no such thing as the right to govern others. A vote is a power-wielding instrument that shouldn't be given away by birth or whatever--it should be earned. But do notions of consent between government and the governed apply
×
×
  • Create New...