Bowzer

The Ominous Parallels is an epic book! I think you made a terrific choice; keep reading! I would enjoy discussing it because I still have a lot to learn about that period of history. It rates quite high on my "must research" list so count me as interested.

Mr. Schwartz's paper is directed at Libertarians and it is in that context that you must grasp the points that he is making. You cannot take his words out of context and apply them to the Declaration of Independence. I am not saying that you are intentionally distorting Mr. Schwartz's argument, Socionomer, I am just pointing out an honest mistake that you are making. I cannot speak for Mr. Schwartz but I know enough about him to know that he holds the United States of America in the highest regards. It is true that liberty is not a self-evident concept. But one cannot fault the Founding Fathers for not grasping this fact. The context of knowledge that existed in the 18th century did not allow for a full understanding of liberty and its philosophical roots. In fact, our present understanding is fully dependent on the concept "liberty" as it was understood by the Founding Fathers. So we do not fault them; we give them their due respect. Libertarians, on the other hand, have perverted the Objectivist concept of "liberty" and it is in that context that they are evil and should be reprimanded. In fewer words, they should know better!

Welcome, Dave! I very much second that. That's a wonderful analogy! Now if I could only get this BBS to serve me a drink or two...

Yes, I emphatically disagree with this point. And just as an aside, not even all cognitive scientists agree with you. Paul Smolensky, for example, has been arguing that connectionist models show the information processing "paradigm" to be false. My demands are to pretty much scrap cognitive science (do I even need to mention current philosophy of mind???). Consciousness should be researched from within fields like biology and psychology. Most importantly, it should be done under the guidance of a proper philosophy (i.e., Objectivism of course ). I have studied more than enough research in cognitive science to know that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that anything other than living organisms are/can be conscious. In fact, the more reading I do in the field, the more certain I am. Until my demands are met, there can be no substantive progress made. There are a remarkable few who will work within the field and actually discover knowledge but they will be few and far between. That about ends it for me on this topic at least until someone makes it interesting again.

It wasn't meant to be a literal analogy. I am trying to point out the difference between simulation and replication. For something to possess consciousness it must replicate, say, a nervous system to a sufficient degree. A simulation on a computer screen, no matter how complex and how well it models the causal powers of the brain, will never lead to consciousness. SheepSIM1.0 is not really a sheep. Dolly is a sheep. Just a simple point.

Art is man's fuel. Art gives man the great value of making his strongest convictions concrete. Ayn Rand captures the need for art best when she wrote about Dagny Taggart:

I've played my share of MMRPG's and I know of their entertainment value. There was a time when I spent more time in Everquest than I should have but it was a great entertainment value to me. Now that the genre isn't so radically new to me, I don't get that same thrill. Consequently, the entertainment value isn't so high now and I don't actually play any MMRPG at the moment. My point is--you are not responsible for the rationality of others. Only they can exert that control over their lives. You are no more responsible for someone spending too much time playing a game than McDonald's is responsible for the ill health of its customers. Each individual is responsible for his own actions and that is the end of it. Build a game that people will love and relish in the fact that you are offering them an important value.

And that's exactly it. But cognitive scientists do not use scare quotes when they peddle their models. They are dead serious when they say that this or that particular model is "conscious." I grant that computer models and simulations can speak for our understanding of a certain fact. I also grant that knowledge can be gained from their use. Neural networks, for instance, have demonstrated principles exhibited by real biological synaptic networks. There is real science to be found in some of these simulations. The context of cognitive science (call it "consciousness research"), however, is fundamentally corrupt as Mr. Speicher and I have both noted. Just as a simulated tornado cannot blow over a real trailer so a simulated brain cannot produce a real mind. Even taken to the extreme--as some here have suggested, e.g., computers the size of the Milky Way--a simulation is just a mathematical or object-oriented model of a real phenomenon. To actually re-produce a phenomenon, you have to sufficiently replicate its identity in reality. Let's say that I want to reproduce a sheep. Further, pretend that I can build a super computer the size of the galaxy and I simulate a sheep in every detail. My simulated sheep leads a virtual life (virtually) every bit as complex as a real sheep. My second experiment is just like the example of Dolly (everyone knows Dolly). Which is the experiment that actually reproduces a sheep? Or are they both examples of real sheep? Neither? [Edit: added the following] This point is implicit in the above but I want to make it crystal clear. Computers don't intrinsically model anything. It is only in the mind of the scientist that the image on the screen or the readouts from the program model anything.

Just thinking of Chopin gives me goosebumps! But good lord! Don't listen to midi's! Although the sound quality isn't the greatest, EMI CLassics has released Dino Lipatti's record Chopin Waltzes. He is amazing! There are five samples if you follow that link. If you know of similar caliber Chopin recordings (hopefully with better sound), please fill me in.

Your post is right on, source, I just want to make a point about the "church thing." There is nothing wrong with going to church as an atheist. I go to service with my family when I am with them for holidays. We enjoy being together and attending church, for example, on Christmas Eve is very important to them. I love them very much and so I join them. It is a great value to me to go to church on these occasions. Yes, you will probably be bored but you will also be reminded that it's great to be an atheist since we don't have the burden of such boredom always on our shoulders.

Patrick, PM me and we can talk about it. This is getting off-topic and I have personal experiences to share with you. I was once on the same track that you are on.

Amagi, I have never argued that man could not synthesize life in some form. I have been arguing that only living organisms are and can be conscious. If this thread is now narrowing down to a linguistic quibble then I think that's a turn for the better. For I am saying that it is improper in this context to group living things--whether synthesized or naturally generated--with machines whereas you now seem to say that there is nothing wrong with this as long as they share certain essential characteristics (i.e., the essential characteristics of life). I'm not sure that you have been holding this context in mind this whole time but it's much better the way you are stating it now. I'm sure that you are aware of academics' useage of the word "machine" and that they use it to argue that computers and thermostats are conscious. This is typically what people mean when they talk about "machines" and the nature of consciousness. That may be more my fault since I am so accustomed to this usage. If we someday create something that has the essential characteristics of life, then I agree that consciousness is possible to it. But it would be alive and this is what I have been arguing all along. I would like to explore the "robot" example but it will have to wait until later.

The OAC has full support for phone students and in fact this is how a majority of its students take classes (my knowledge is dated a few years but I doubt that this has changed).

I don't get personal about online BBS's. What I do have a problem with are people who come to an Objectivist discussion area with no intentions at all of learning or discussing the philosophy. I have already asked you if you come here to learn Objectivism or not and you still have not replied. Please feel free to ingore me. I will not, however, idly stand by when posts are made that are, intentionally or not, animous towards the philosophy that this BBS stands for. I would not have such a problem with it if you at least expressed interest in learning the Objectivist position on these topics and you consistently do not express such an interest.

Very interesting that in all of your posts here (in this thread at least), this is the first time that you have attempted to express knowledge of Objectivism and at that only in negative form, i.e., asserting our lack of knowledge. I also am getting tired of fighting over an issue that is made abundantly clear in so many places in the Objectivist corpus. Seeing that Miss Rand used the example of a robot to disprove the position that you insist upon, amagi, maybe you can show us what we are misunderstanding here. I, for one, would see this as a breath of fresh air as it would turn the discussion to the philosophy of Objectivism which is, after all, the purpose of this BBS.

I should have clarified...I think they are ridiculously wrong not just ridiculous. I also disagree that you can know OF something without knowing ABOUT it. That is a meaningless distinction but I'm not even going to get into why it is meaningless since that would take us into Objectivist epistemology and you have demonstrated that you have no knowledge OF Objectivist epistemology nor do you care to learn ABOUT it.

I know that this won't convince amagi but I'll put this out there for the rest of you. "Life" comes down to this: lock a cat and a robot in separate rooms. Come back one year later and what do you find? A decaying pile of yuck that was once the cat. It has died since it was unable to obtain the materials needed to sustain its life. The robot, on the other hand, looks just as good as ever. Conclusion: a cat and a robot are different in a fundamental way--one is alive the other is not. You won't find that scenario convincing unless you accept the Objectivist theory of concepts. A concept's meaning is in the units that it subsumes and amagi's robot is not a unit of the concept "life."

I'm quite familiar with those articles as well as the debates by academics surrounding them. I have always thought them to be ridiculous. There is nothing in common between those articles and my argument.

I know I'm late but I'm new here. I am avid collector of music and it's always hard to answer questions like this so I'm just going to throw my favorites out there in no particular order: Gentle Giant (probably my overall favorite) National Health Orchestra (terrible name for a band but luckily they mostly play instrumentals) Return to Forever (fusion at it's best) Mahavishnu Orchestra 10cc Pretty much any 80's new wave and pop Buddy Guy (going on 50 years of blues now I think) DEVO Stereolab Dream Theater (intellimetal) Ben Fold's Five ("Philosophy" makes me cry j/k) Joan Armatrading (a brilliant song writer) Esquivel (out of this world!) Frank Zappa (genius) G. Love and Special Sauce Iron Maiden King's X Mike Oldfield ("Ommadawn" and "Hergest Ridge" are absolutely AMAZING) They Might Be Giants Van Halen (1984 is probably the best guitar rock album ever) Charles Mingus (best in the Dolphy days) Coltrane + Davis (wth 'Trane early is good late is awful) John Scofield Raymond Scott (a true visionary) Duke Ellington Mendelssohn Schubert Chopin Mozart (of course) Rachmaninov (of course) My taste is very broad so suggestions along these lines would be much appreciated!

O, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was just using your quote as a launchpad. I wanted to make it clear what the proper method for formulating your own ideas is. I get that a lot and you may be too young to know him but my alias comes from Bowzer in the doo-wop comedy group Shanana. That's his picture as my avatar. Don't worry, I don't really look and act like that. I'm quite familiar with Bowser from the Mario games (which I LOVE).

After thinking about it some more I'm not sure that the man-made vs. metaphysically-given distinction is as much of an issue here as I previously stated. I was persuaded when I thought of synthetic drugs. This is an example of something man-made that is causally equivalent to something found in nature. You are making an argument from causailty, amagi, so I believe that I was mistaken to bring it up. The distinction would be more critical in making an ethical judgment. Chemical A in nature is toxic to humans. Being a part of nature, it would be improper to evaluate Chemical A as evil. Chemical B on the other hand, is a synthetic reproduction of Chemical A and is just as potent. It was created in a lab and will be used to exterminate people. It is proper to evaluate Chemical B as evil. That is the distinction in action. I still think that you are wrong on many levels, amagi, but I am not getting into all of the problems that I have with your position as I've done this elsewhere. To learn about the distinction between the man-made and the metaphysically-given see The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. II, No. 12 March 12, 1973 and the section The Metaphysically Given as Absolute Chapter 1 of OPAR pp.23-9.

I don't think that this is a good method. There are very few good philosophers worth reading (99% of them are Objectivists anyway). Anything else will just corrupt your thinking. I have seen many basically rational individuals trash their minds after studying academic philosophy. They either became discouraged with the entire field or they had lost their ability to think rationally. It isn't so bad if you go at it alone but if you take philosophy courses in college, prepare for a barrage of tidal waves, no, tsunamis of pseudo-problems baked on top of foggy half-thoughts all of it smothered under the weight of 2,000 years worth of irrationality. Ayn Rand was knowledgeable in the history of philosophy but it was not her method of founding her ideas. Her method was exactly that of the epistemology that she later formulated: reality-orienation. Even if you disagree with her, this is the only proper method of formulating your own ideas; at least use her as an inspiration. I think that a basic background in the history of philosophy is a good thing and I also think that much of it should be gathered from the original works. When it comes to validating your ideas, however, you have to put the books down and either introspect or look out at the world.

Although I do not support this use of the word "programmed" in this context, Meriam-Webster seems to agree with you, amagi. So I will have to disagree with the both of you. I believe that this use of the word is improper because it implies intentionality. A programmer intentionally constructs a program to do certain things. Since there is no god to program things in nature, there is no intention to be found there either. Even if I agreed that you could say that cells are "programmed" to do certain things, there would still be a fundamental difference between things that were programmed by evolution and things that were programmed by humans. If you aren't familiar with Objectivism's distinction between the mand-made and the metaphysically-given, amagi, I can provide some references. It has everything to do with the claim that you are making and also explains the mistake behind your argument. [Ed. Note: Added last paragraph]

A man who says is no friend of reason. His theory of ideas boils down to "inspirations" we know not whence they come. It is only the subsequent process of verification through non-falsification that is logical, he said. This is not just a slap to the face of reason, it is cutting its throat. [Ed. Note] Added qualification that Popper's view of verification is not logical in the proper sense.

Isaac, you either have not read the basic Objectivist material or you completely disagree with it. If it is the former, then I would be happy to provide some references. If it is the latter, then please understand that this is an Objectivist discussion group and most of us come here to debate with others who 1) have a basic understanding of the philosophy and/or 2) are making an attempt to understand the philosophy. I am not an admin and I'm not trying to get you in trouble but you must have read the forum rules before you registered to post here. Did you at least check into the Objectivist literature before posting your question? Do you have any interest in actually learning about Objectivism in posting here? Please be sincere.