HaloNoble6
-
Posts
1097 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by HaloNoble6
-
-
LauricAcid, so are you volunteering for the pro-stolen-concept side of the debate?
-
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.I see that you have "volunteered" me already. I accept.If you want to reactivate this thread, you might want to move it to the debate forum because I will be arguing against the Objectivist position in it. -
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.
-
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 already agreed to take the opposing side.
It doesn't appear to me that the position on the fallacy of the stolen concept is part of O'ism, since it really is an aspect of the specialized art of non-contradictory identification. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this falacy plays any role in Ayn Rand's theory of proper concept formation. Eitherway, at first glance her position on this doesn't appear to me to be part of Objectivism proper, so this really isn't Objectivism vs. challenger, it is "advocate of Ayn Rand's logic" vs. challenger.
CONDITIONS
Once the pro-stolen-concept slot has been filled, please use this thread to agree upon conditions. I have two conditions of my own, however.
-I would like all important terms clearly defined. These include, but aren't limited to: concept, logic, fallacy.
-Additionally, I would like to see direct quotes, with citations, that clearly indicate what Ayn Rand thought the "stolen concept" was. Additionally, what special place the term "fallacy" has within the context of formal logic, and whether or not Ayn Rand was using the term "fallacy" in this special sense.
Questions? Comments?
-
I've merged three additional threads on volition into this "all-purpose" one.
-
So what is your stance at present on "the fallacy of the stolen concept" as understood by Ayn Rand?
-
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.1. Apes aren't volitional.2. Humans were once apes.
3. Humans are volitional.
Therefore, at some point (or over time), humans must have acquired volition.
The answer seems to be: Volition presupposes [the idea of] evolution and therefore cannot even be considered, if volition wasn't a self-evident entity.
...
As for an explanation of man's acquisition of volition (in the context of evolution), I will try as best as I can.
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 presupposes the existence of a free-will directing such an inquiry.
-
And these animals want a state?
-
Who is the sub-system in the collection of pixels you posted above?
-
-
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 certainty can apply to mere sub-systems, as to whether the Gibbs free energy principle applies--after all, only a finite number of quantum states are allowed for the atoms composing my brain-molecules, rendering energy states static.
-
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.I'm not talking about man, I'm talking about the universe. Now reevaluate your stance. ... -
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? I will not address this gibberish position you present above beyond this. Why don't you answer the clear and understandable questions I posed above:A mouse can learn ...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? -
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...
-
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.Mice are self programming, but not volitional. Mice can make choices between alternative actions as well.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.
-
They were merged into this one.(I haven't been able to find the previous threads) -
I found this old post by David that might help some of you guys who are stuggling to understand consciousness and volition:
I think that attempts to defend volition as purely physical are just as misguided and erroneous as attempts to defend it by quantum randomness. The “mind-body problem” is actually a false dichotomy, as is any attempt to define the mind as either purely physical or entirely non-physical.Consciousness and volition is probably the hardest aspect of philosophy to understand, and the analogy I use to help me understand it is hardware vs. software. Hardware is the framework that the software runs on, and it places certain limits on the speed and complexity of the computation. Software is the conceptual description of the physical process that occurs during computation. Take the simplest example: a light switch. The hardware is the physical on/off switch and the software is our concept of on or off. The brand of switch may vary, but the concept remains the same. The makeup of a computer program is logical commands and raw data, and the makeup of a mind is concepts and sense impressions. We don’t say that software is physical or not-physical, because it is in fact a description of relationships between physical components – and so is the mind. Consciousness is an emergent entity that can’t be reduced to any single idea or brain cell, and is not dependent on any particular “platform” – but it nevertheless defined and limited by the brain it runs on. Thus, computers are limited to a certain operating speed and memory capacity as defined by their hardware, and humans are limited to a certain thinking speed and limited focus defined by their brain.
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.
-
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?
-
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.But I don't want to go in this direction, I'd rather have an answer to my question...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 "proof" has no meaning without the existence of free-will. Ask yourself why the notion of "proof" is meaningless to animals. Do ants seek proof that building a hill is for their best interest before they build it? (Or are you postulating also that it is uncertain whether any entity does or doesn't have free-will?) Would the concept of "proof" arise without a being with the necessity to justify the actions it takes when faced with alternatives?
In short, you can't choose to respond to my objections without the existence of free-will. So, perhaps you should make the one final choice available to you should you follow the logical consequence of the notion that free-will is possibly not valid: stop using it until you are certain it exists.
-
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.I'm neither for or against volition... -
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.
-
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.
-
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 in this instance?
The situation with the Palis and the Israelis is not one of the consent. Back in the Roman times, when Rome was threatened by barbarian tribes, no one asked "Should we give them voting rights after we conquer them?" Anyone asking such a question would've been laughed at. Similarly, I find the plausibility of granting a barbarian enemy people rights upon conquest in modern times rather shameful. The question of voting rights applies to the people of a nation who have an interest in its preservation and the capacity to decide upon issues of political power.
-
You don't grant sufferage to animals. Israel would have to return to the day when citizenship meant something, when it was earned. Take over the territories and enforce the rule of law and make them earn voting rights. What criteria should there be for earning citizenship? Well, for starters, you can't be an enemy of the state (which would disqualify most, if not all, Palestinians).
"Stolen concept" a logical fallacy?
in Debates
Posted
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.