Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

agrippa1

Regulars
  • Posts

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by agrippa1

  1. True enough, but trees growing and rocks falling do not entail electro-chemical neural transmitters, as far as I know. Sensing, perceiving and thinking all do. Remember Einstein: "Things should be kept as simple as possible, but not simpler." If I reduced beneath neurons, I'd be too general (what's a bayon? I thought it was a place in France) If I didn't reduce to that level, I wouldn't have a common element to tie the three together. No, no no! The exact opposite! Words are the precise translation of concepts. Problem is that a word cannot be defined precisely except as a relationship between other words, or a directed reference to at least one physical entity. The more precise and abstract the meaning of the term, the more complex that relationship must be. To use a metaphor, in communicating, we are carving stone with stone tools; the finer our work, the more and delicate strikes we must make. We've had a whole series of messages on this thread, and just when I think I know what is meant by "entity" you toss in the perception itself, the concept and the illusion as entities. And I ask myself, "if we perceive entities of reality, and the perception of an entity is itself an entity, and the perception of an illusion is an entity, that means that reality is in the same class of existence as a perception, whether it be of a "real" entity or of an illusion. So how do I distinguish an illusion from reality, when all I have is reality and illusions to compare and differentiate? Since the identification of an entity is a conscious act, and since conscious identification is subject to faulty logic (isn't it?), is it now in the realm of possibility that I am misidentifying illusions as metaphysical entities (term?) and/or vice versa?" (And to whom am I writing this, anyway?) I am led (erroneously, I know) to a contradiction, so obviously, my understanding of your definitions is lacking. Just as obviously, trying to glean the precise definitions from a series of loosely organized posts is not getting me to the right level of understanding, so I need to sit down with univocal, detailed description of the terminology (ITOE). I don't think you can help with this; I have to hammer it out on my own.
  2. By skeptic, I assume you mean one who requires proof of purported fact, and not one who denies the possibility of real knowledge. We're not supposed to get nasty here, after all. Thanks for the answer. I'll consider it.
  3. So let me get this straight... I observe a constellation, but it is not an entity, just a spatial relationship. I perceive a coke can, and it is an entity, not just a spatial relationship of light and dark, red and white shapes. My mind knows how to differentiate an entity from something which is just a spatial relationship, or a product of my imagination, because it knows the difference between a percept and an observation. But my mind can only differentiate entities, which are the primary objects of perception. So, therefore, I must perceive the individual stars and my consciousness arranges them in a spatial pattern which emulates an archer, or a bear, or a lion. So why don't I perceive the corners of a box as entities, and my mind arrange them to form the spatial relationship that we call a cube? Is there a missing principle at work here? If the lines connecting the spatially related points are not imagined, then it's an entity, if they are, then it's not? Is a corner an entity, or is a box, or both, or neither? It seems to depend on your definition of entity, which changes from poster to poster here, and, sometimes from post to post. That would be okay, I guess, since it's difficult to get to a precise definition, very difficult, it seems; except that something extremely special and unique is being claimed for those things called entities, so you really have zero leeway in your definition, if you hold to that special distinction. Here's a problem: a constellation is not an entity, a solar system is not an entity, an asteroid belt is not an entity, the rings around Saturn are not entities, or maybe they are, depending on how close I am when I see them. The milky way is not an entity, just a pattern of fine stars, unless I squint. If I shrunk myself to the size of a water molecule, this monitor would disappear into a pattern of spatially related molecules. I would perceive these particles (given that I could see), but my observation of "monitor" would be merely a spatial relationship of particles. (Of course that could never happen, I'm just trying to get the hang of it) Yes, I'm being facetious. But the point is not ridicule, it's that there is a principle missing in this philosophy, in my opinion. And no, that's not an indictment of Objectivism (which I don't actually know to this level), just an observation... err, logical conclusion? It's not as simple as "we see what we see and that's reality." The line between the automatic and the conscious is not, in my opinion, a razor sharp one (he said, drawing a deep breath). Cheers
  4. That's a fair objection (although we could have lively debate on whether a root "reports" water to a trunk!). I didn't intend to imply a conscious effort on the part of the rods and cones. The visual cortex crosses into a gray area. Fundamentally, sensing, perceiving and thinking all involve the same physical, electro-chemical mechanisms - nerves and neurons. Where does Objectivism draw the lines between what are apparently automatic functions (translation of stimuli into electrical signals, transmission of signals into the visual cortex), what are apparently conscious efforts (identification, concept formation, higher functions), and what lies between (integration of sense organ signals into perception of entities)? And how does it justify those lines? Hmmm... (scratch, scratch) Aah... That's exactly what I'm trying to do here. But it doesn't matter to me what a term means to me, it only matters to me what it means to you. It's only through precise understanding of each others' terms that we can understand each others' concepts. So my ontology is immaterial, only our shared ontology has philosophical relevance. Which leads me (finally) to realize that I need to read and understand your epistemology before I can efficiently engage in discussions here. I apologize for misrepresenting you. I still think I'm right, but I'll give the benefit of my doubt and go try to learn how you think about these things. Thanks, all, for the illuminating discussions. I intentionally left ITOE off my reading list (I've read just about everything else), because, frankly, Rand intimidates me with her incision and clarity. I wanted to wait until I thought through some of the issues on my own before delving into the scriptures. I think I've gained enough here to be intellectually honest in my reading. I appreciate your patience, ~A
  5. Actually, I do have a little internal movie screen, called the retina. Only instead of "me" watching it, I have millions of individual visual receptors watching. Each of them reports the level and color of incident light from a particular vector direction to the visual cortex, which based on differences between adjacent levels, discovers discontinuities, then correlates the discontinuities to discover edges, then correlates connected edges to discover shapes, then correlates shape areas to discover entities... etc. But all of that is immaterial because I only know about the rods and cones through the medical sciences, and I can't consider that information in my philosophy, so my perception of entities just happens. Or something like that? So I'm still trying to figure out if an illusion is an entity. For instance if twins turn to each other and bring their faces close, is the outline of a vase an entity? Are patterns formed by the random alignment of multiple entities, entities, or just patterns? Is the outline of Orion or Ursa Major an entity? (These are serious questions which seek to establish the precise definition of your terms.) David Odden did, on Dec 11, at 11:14 a.m. (Sorry, David) I think you're wrong there. Imagine feeling a sour spot go from right to left across your tongue. At the same time you hear someone walk across the room, from right to left. Getting an unfamiliar sensory input, your conscious mind makes a connection between the two movements, but it doesn't just automatically correlate and begin perceiving entities by taste, you have to play with it for a while to make sure you really are sensing what you think you are, that is, you're comparing, differentiating, correlating with effort, the movement on your tongue. Once you've determined the sense data is consistent with reality, your mind starts to take over, learning to refine by continuing the correlation process. In other words, it learns to perceive entities through taste, a sense, which by a previous post, you conceded provided attributes only, and not "entities qua entities." (which I take to mean "entities.") I see you're holding on tenaciously to the entity as the irreducible primitive of perception, although I see some cracks. By declaring the primacy of entity is self-evident, you are eschewing any need to prove your point of view. I accept that, logically, but I remain skeptical of the asserted principle. My "problem" is probably that I don't see the Kantian trap from presuming a learned, automated integration of attributes into an entity. The rational mind is obsessed with eliminating contradictions, so in the given example, if you tried to take a bite out of that apple and instead got a purple tusk in the eye, you'd be served with a contradiction between perception and reality. I take it as self-evident that my perception is completely consistent with reality, because I perceive no contradictions, and I can, for instance, correlate all of my senses, pick up a rock and toss it into a drainage pipe 50 feet away. Pink elephants don't routinely appear and disappear in my living room. Every aspect of my perception is consistent with every other aspect, and this completeness, this perfection, proves to me that my perception is representative of reality. I can comprehend intellectually that my senses provide an artificial encoding of attributes, such as color, sound tones, brightness, etc., but regardless of anyone's views on whether they are or are not equal to reality, I can see, hear, feel, etc. that they are representative and consistent, so I don't have any doubts that my perception is "real." To be a metaphysical (term?) skeptic is to abrogate any useful definition of reason, so I reject the irrational conclusions or suspicions of Kant and nihilists. I believe Rand, in her hatred of Kant, may have overshot the mark when attacking his philosophy, and in doing so rejected his premises and any possibility of a causal (and thus vulnerable) processing chain between reality and perception, when in fact she only needed to recognize the weak links in his logic to reject his conclusions. But just as a final point (and then I'm done - promise), would you say that your perception of reality is consistent with subatomic physics? If not, do you reject that branch of science as not representative of reality, or do you recognize a limitation of your perception's representation of reality? I don't think this is a minor point of missing senses, like UV, radio, etc., because there are behaviors apparent in QM that truly are counter-intuitive and incompatible with our (my) perception of reality.
  6. Isn't the interpretation of the conversion of mass to energy and back to mass as a "change of form" a philosophical one? Strictly speaking, all science can really say is that matter exists in one time period, energy in the next, and matter in a later. It seems that it takes the rational mind and a philosophy of some sort to leap to the conclusion that a conversion of form and not the annihilation of one entity and the consequent creation of another is occurring.
  7. skip - I'd recommend a perusal of Aristotle as a basis for Rand and Objectivism (not to mention, life), particularly: Categories On Interpretation Prior Analytics Posterior Analytics These are all available on line, no charge. Also, as a quick kickoff on syllogisms, refer to the logical fallacies entry on wikipedia. (Unless someone has a better source) These are derived from Aristotle; if you haven't studied these before, you'll be surprised at how much popular argument is based on false logic. If you're not using proper syllogisms as the basis of your rationality, you're in trouble (and rightfully skeptical of any conclusions). ("Make sure you aim for the concrete" -- That's rich. Words to live by.)
  8. Is it moral to base government funding on an irrational human tendency?
  9. No, I'm saying one of them (okay, the cop) will take the government role. He's skilled at resolving disputes and he can protect them from external threats. So he decides that he needs some resources to build a wall around their camp. The other three aren't willing to donate - how to proceed? So, they establish a democracy, and they vote 3-1 to build a fence. The dissenting voter doesn't think a fence is a good idea either, so he decides not to donate. How do you get all citizens to donate for something that they don't all think they need - I'm talking the specifics of the expense, not the general good, i.e., protection. (it's the transition from abstract needs, which people can agree to, to concrete needs, which they probably won't, that poses the problem) Now, extrapolate that out to our current gov't's budget. Would you be willing to pay your share of everything the government now does? (It's over 20% of GDP, as the fair-taxers will illustrate in stark terms) How do we whittle down to just those things you feel are worthwhile to donate to? Perhaps you establish a true democracy in which we each get a list of of proposed budget items and we either vote on them or donate to them. How does a single gov't entity resolve competing projects voted for or funded by different swaths of the populace? It sounds like a lot of people are hoping that the populace finds Jesus (Ayn?) and decides that the good of the nation outweighs a possibly better solution privately funded and focused on their individual needs (for instance, a neighborhood security force). Okay, so neighborhood security is a good example of enhancing the efficiency of your donations, and could be considered a gov't entity. (Do we have a precise definition of "gov't"?) Maybe an Objectivist political system would naturally lead to a fracturing of society into smaller groups, with concentration of power closer to the individual. If the neighborhood/city/county/state can start providing most services, then the fedgov shrinks and efficiencies should increase. The bagel study illustrates something - 87% is probably as good as it gets, and that's at the very, very local level. As you widen the scope, the percentage will drop precipitously as anonymity becomes dominant. Maybe the fracturing into very small gov't units provides a means to create a hierarchy of donations to stave off anonymity, for instance, everyone on a block donates to the block fund. The block representatives donate from that to the neighborhood fund, which donates from that to the city fund, etc, all the way up to the federal gov't. At each level there's just enough familiarity between the reps to keep folks honest. That's just an idea, but it's not a complex detailing of the mechanisms, it's an establishment of a principle - maybe I call it "bottom-up gov't funding." The principles behind the mechanism are what are missing. Without them the concept is just a floating abstraction, and not ready for prime time. As an engineer (assumption), I think you would agree that you don't just start hacking away at code without discovering and understanding the principles of software design. The same is true for this. I don't get a good feeling from hearing that a concept that's been thought about seriously for over forty years hasn't yielded even rudimentary principles of practical operation.
  10. Okay, fair enough (I'm trying to learn, not to hang on to stubborn convictions, so I appreciate the thought put into this). The bold quote relates to the apparent automatic generation of gestalts (I'm going by decades-old memory here) by the visual cortex. If I remember correctly, these organize vision into perceived patterns which can correlate to entities in some cases, but can be confused by camouflage or optical illusions in others. (How do you feel about optical illusions that create the perception of an entity, which, on closer inspection does not actually exist? Does the entity exist when we think we see it, then poof! metaphysically disappear when we realize it's not there after all? That is, are entities all in our head, as Kant would assert? Or is an illusion just an illusion, i.e., a faulty perception, with no bearing on the nature of reality?) But your point about poorly integrated secondary senses leaves open the possibility that integration of sight and touch occurs as an initial stage of learning: I can imagine my mind becoming trained (through a small amount of experience) to integrate the secondary senses, so that if I feel heat on my hand regularly, I start automatically (effortlessly in my introspection of process) perceiving an entity that must be the source of the heat. I didn't do this the first time I tried the experiment, the sense of heat startled my mind and I had to mentally conjure the heat source. The next time I do it, I imagine the source will come to mind more easily, and soon enough I will "see" a heat source when I feel the heat on my hand. As an example of this, it's been shown that electrode matrices mounted on the tongue of blind subjects, and activated with a camera (to create a 2-D matrix of taste sensation), soon become integrated into a sense of vision by the subjects. (these early experiments developed into matrices mounted directly onto the visual cortex to create true rudimentary vision in the blind). It is reasonable to hypothesize that the same would hold true for heat-generating matrices placed on the skin. How to explain this, except to posit that the human mind has the innate ability to integrate sensory signals and to learn to perceive entities from them? And if it can from the secondary senses, who's to say that it didn't do the same with the primary senses?
  11. Don't get me wrong, I believe in Objectivist political philosophy, and I believe the evidence clearly supports the benefits of individual freedom. I'm focusing here strictly on an objectivist method for financing gov't. I see only two options to meet this: an exchange tax (either flat or based on value added) based morally on a fee for the efficiency of monetary exchange; and a fine system to levee taxes on those who cause the need for an enforcement organization. (if you've ever served jury duty, you've seen that our court system exists for a very small, costly slice of the population) The voluntary donation scheme advocated by Rand seems to be fraught with practical complexities and does not seem workable to me.
  12. No, I'm not saying there are no instances. I'm also not claiming that if you can find one instance of a thing, then it is true generally. One problem with voluntary donations is that one of two systems must be worked: Either your government's size is dependent on the amount of money donated in any given year, in which case government service becomes a very unstable proposition, drawing only the dregs; or, you set a level of government funding and appeal to the masses until you reach your goal, in which case a small percentage of objectivists eventually donates the lion's share in order to save their philosophy, while the rest of society, knowing that that will happen, sits back and has a good laugh. One thing you must understand from Objectivism is that it rejects living your life (e.g., donating the results of your life's efforts) for another. Giving an amount larger than your share amounts to donating your efforts for the benefit of those unwilling to pay their fair share. I don't see any way around this and it is a fundamental flaw in the plan. (Unless you can show that a gov't is worth significantly more than its cost - enough to offset the unfair share) The church example was given. Seems reasonable at first glance, but there's a big difference between a church, which represents a very small slice of the populace, who each gain value from the donation to the church of their choice, in the form of a stable place to worship and a reinforcement of their personal faith; and a government, which people don't have a choice in (once it's been established) and must fund or - or what? Or someone else who believes in the government funds it for you? And how do you deal with the inevitable situation in which a small group of people funds the gov't, and the gov't finds itself reliant on that minority of the populace? How do you ensure that the government won't become biased towards the needs of its donors in order to maintain its funding? (I"ll give you that it's a huge step up from the current system, which benefits those who donate to the candidates - but not to the government) Another daunting point: how do we divy up our donations between local, state and federal gov't? As you all know, protection from force begins in the neighborhood. You've just added three layers of complexity to the problem. I'd like to see someone provide a microcosm example of this concept working in practice. That is, posit four people: maybe a wheat farmer, a baker, a beekeeper and a cop get shipwrecked. Work through the complexities of this simple example, and assume that at least one person does not buy into Objectivism. If you can't make it work with four people, you have no chance of making it work with 400 million. Until you can do that, you're just talking Utopian dreams, not unlike a lot of other people in history, some of whom have unwittingly unleashed a living hell on their fellow humans. (Ayn Rand could attest to that)
  13. Thanks. (newbie) So, this is an intractable problem so far. Rand's solutions don't seem workable; even Greenspan gave this particular issue as his one reason for disagreeing with Objectivism. It sounds like we haven't yet discovered the principles under which gov't should properly be funded. Voluntary donations seem at odds with Objectivism's enlightened self-interest. It seems that any solution would base payment on the value on receives from proper government, and the cost one incurs on others through your violation of their individual rights. Not paying at all could be construed as taking value from others (by accepting the value of government resources that they paid for), which could be grounds for retaliatory force. An analogy would be an honor-system store, where you pay whatever you think is a fair price for your purchases. If you walk out without paying, you're not technically breaking the rules, but you are stealing. The punishment would be banishment from the store. Would a proper objectivist government consider banishment from a country as the means of enforcing "voluntary" contributions? It certainly would put pressure on other governments to establish similar principles.
  14. I think they actually do come close to being a monopoly, at least in the PC market. I think it's in the upper 90%'s and growing, so that's about as close to a monopoly as you can get. How did they do it? In the two ways in which monopolies can exist: By force and by excellence. For an great example of monopoly through excellence, read Greenspan's exposition of the ALCOA antitrust case in "Antitrust." (CTUI, P.63) Judge Learned Hand's indictment of ALCOA is pretty applicable to Microsoft today. The force argument requires an anti-Microsoft bias (which, luckily, I have). There have been many accounts of Microsoft stealing technologies from small would-be competitors over the years. In some cases from people trying to sell their ideas to MS, in other cases by just taking good ideas and calling them their own. (Apple devotees were especially irritated with the Windows 95 product, since they'd been using "Apple 84" for years.) Granted most cases could be chalked up to reasonable disputes over what constitutes I.P., but in at least one case (sorry I can't provide sources, but I'm sure they're all over the web), Microsoft weathered a civil case long enough to bankrupt the plaintiff, then bought the now-cheap company, and paid itself the hefty fine imposed by the court system. It is clear (to me anyway) that Microsoft used force in taking the ideas and efforts of competitors without permission, and that the government's lack of adequate response allowed them to do so.
  15. Is it ever surprising when polls of Americans find them generally socially "Liberal" and fiscally "Conservative," and yet no viable party has risen espousing these wide held views? I think it would be great if Huckary faced Hillabee in the generals. It would reveal the true nature of American politics: That we have two wings of the same party running a pullocracy, profiting perpetually from legalized bribery, while balancing their powers against all comers through the deliberate division of individual rights issues between the two wings: with the Democrat/altruists trumpeting behavioral freedoms and the Republican/mystics defending economic freedoms. Thus the true nature of power-hungry collectivists is shrouded by the false choice of individual empowerment. Maybe it will take a revelation on the order of these two clowns to wake America up to the necessity for a third way.
  16. "Even apart from the fact that Kant's theory of the "categories" as the source of man's concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man's consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them." Ayn Rand, "For the New Intellectual," For the New Intellectual, P.30. Unfortunately, a critique of her logical progression (pairing the figurative 'deaf' and 'blind' with the physical 'eyes' and 'ears' to manufacture a clear contradiction; twisting Kant's argument against causality into an argument of reversed causality - perception causing or proving non-existence) leaves one in the position of seeming to defend Kant. Which I can't. (you're welcome!)
  17. Kant doesn't write this, Rand does, in interpreting Kant. But you knew that. Interesting syllogism at work here: A: (I feel) Your argument has a similarity to Kantian philosophy. B: Kantian philosophy results in a contradictory conclusion. (an assertion which, in ignorance, I will accept as true) Therefore, C: Your argument is contradictory. (thus false) I hope there's something more convincing in ITOE. (hmm... is there a hidden message in that acronym?)
  18. A gov't lottery, to be profitable, would require laws to prevent private businesses from competing in the lottery business. What would be the justification for this use of force to limit ostensibly legitimate business? Voluntary donations are problematic. From game theory you quickly find that most people will try to give less than the average, if anything at all. An exchange tax could work, but then you would find that all black-market products (prosties, drugs, etc.) would be purchased with pre-tax dollars. The only answer I can think of is to make public, and easily discoverable, the amount of donations each person/business makes. Then you can support your gov't with your purchases, hiring decision, friendships, job searches, etc. Anyone not paying a fair share would be shunned, but only if the majority found that donated dollars were well spent.
  19. Okay, so "sensory input" in your philosophy is limited to the visual and the tactile. In that case, assuming I accept your new, radical definition of "senses," I probably have to agree with you. I won't comment on your Kantian arguments. They are irrational and disconnected from my line of argument. Don't bother answering that, just know that I argued you are blind when the attribute in question is not visual, and that was the basis of my point. Your view of sensory perception is limited to the visual and the tactile, and so, is limited. Arguing that my point of view comes from Kant and the "bizarre" smacks of the ad hominem (especially to those of us familiar with Rand's opinion of Kant - which I share), and reminds me of Rand's illumination of the false choice (an observation which has changed my perception of politics). I see you refuse to engage in my experiment of the sense of heat, so I will drop it. We don't have to agree to disagree, since you will only agree that you're "right" and I'm wrong. I will hang on to the rational mind's inalienable right to be skeptical of others' convictions. I tried the experiment myself, holding my hand up to a heat source. My senses told me that my hand was warm and I volitionally (but not effortlessly) made a connection between my hand feeling warm and imagining a heat source causing that sensation. It was an honest analysis of the process. But maybe my mind works differently from every other human mind on the planet. Perhaps after I've read Rand's Epistemology I will understand better what you mean, and agree with her point of view. But it will only happen after she has torn down all my objections. If you can't tear down all objections, you haven't made your case. Thanks for the debate. I think we're at a standstill, so no further comment is needed (though would still be appreciated). Cheers.
  20. Ahh, you've changed the experiment. I said a strange sound or heat. You replaced it with a familiar sound AND heat! I assume it was either Rover or a slovenly office mate? "Figur[ing] out which entity" tips me that the entity in question already existed in your conceptual model, so that's cheating. You're supposed to form a new entity from the sensing of a single attribute. Try it again with just a heat source sensed by your skin. Other than the heat attribute, what entity do you conceptualize from feeling heat on your skin (assuming you don't just categorize it as a pre-known entity, such as the sun or your dog, or the light over your kitchen table.) What if you feel heat from all sides - are the walls hot? Is the air hot? or is "it" hot? Or are "you" hot? When your mind constructs the sentence "I'm hot" is it attributing heat as an attribute of self? Or is it using the closest conceptual terms to describe a disconnected sensation of heat? Hmmmm...... Okay, so you're saying that the human mind automatically and innately "knows" that every attribute is caused by an entity? Doesn't that require inborn knowledge of the nature of reality? (there are no disconnected attributes) If you're "right," man is born with the concept of entity already firmly established. If I'm "right," he figures out that attributes always belong to entities, then begins thinking effortlessly in terms of entities. Both beliefs converge once the concept of entity is established in "my way." So how to resolve this? Faith?
  21. Here is factual counter evidence: entities do not physically enter your mind. The process for being perceived usually involves the the release of EM energy 92 million miles away, and absorption and reemission or reflection of that energy by the surface of an entity into two transparent fluid-filled lenses which focus the energy on a matrices of specialized cells, each of which generates an electrical signal into the brain which results in the sensation of sight. Inside the visual cortex of the brain there is some automated pattern generation based on color or brightness borders registered over time. One could argue that it is these patterns, generated automatically, that constitute entities. I would counter-argue that the process, though automatic, is not adequate in every case to generate an entity corresponding to reality, and that it takes cognitive effort to force the perceived sensations and patterns into the perception of an entity. It seems the argument is whether the function of the visual cortex alone is sufficient to create the perception of entities, and whether the cortex constitutes a purely sensory function or a cognitive processing function, or a combination. Belief that entity precedes attribute requires an absolutist view of the answers to both these questions. I take a more generalized view, because, as some posters here have pointed out, in some cases I have to consciously transform visual senses into entities. Now I think I have shown that sensing of attributes (in this case the EM reflective and absorptive properties of an entity's surface) precedes the perception of that entity in the brain. Can you provide factual evidence that I perceive the entity *in every case* before I sense the attributes? Here's a more concrete proof: take away the sense of vision (it's night time, if you wish to object on homo-centric grounds), and tell me whether you perceive an entity when you hear a strange noise, or feel heat on your skin; or, if it takes a conscious, cognitive effort to translate the sensation of heat into the possibility of an emitting entity.
  22. I think we're talking past each other. I don't contend that you need the entirety of science in order to be rational, only that knowledge of the nature of reality informs our ability to reason and avoid contradicting proven qualities of reality. Philosophy can have veto power over a conclusion, but only if it takes into account that conclusion and can reason a way around it. For instance, we could assert that "spooky action at a distance" does not occur, that there is in fact an internal (though possibly unobservable) structure to twin particles, but we can only do so if we can reason our way around the EPR paradox.
  23. That's what I was implying by "equal footing": no force against private competitors. Government could probably make a go at competing in this case, because their fixed costs would in fact be very low - staff to seize, staff to sell, no production costs - so most of the price would go to gov't "profit."
  24. I think we're close here, and it sounds like maybe you agree that the source of knowledge (normal man's sensory faculties, or his scientifically extended faculties) is immaterial - so long as the ultimate source of rational thought is reality. I think where we still disagree (or have a question) is whether the initial integration of sensory signals into a perception of reality and entities is an act of conceptual integration. And possibly, whether the first attempts at rational integration, that is, classifying objects into conceptual categories (kitties, duckies, blocks, people) is really something that needs to be "learned," or if it's a natural ability for differentiation and comparison. After all, my dog knows that a "bed" is a soft thing that lies on the floor and is big enough for him, and he will find the nearest one to lie down on when I give him the command, even if he's never seen that particular one before. My opinion is that these very primitive forms of integration are the innate building blocks that make up our later, learned attempts at abstract reason.
  25. True, but if you break that down into its primitives, "seizing" and "selling," you see that the seizing part is not competitive; the selling part is. Not that I disagree with the concept, or see any downside to having the government compete *on an equal footing* with private businesses. (Or am I missing something?) How do you all feel about the idea that a monetary system is crucial for the effective exchange of value. Would it be in keeping with objectivist tenets to see the availability of standard, trustworthy money as providing value to the exchangers, and that it is proper to pay for that value, in the form of exchange taxes? Since any exchange on the market involves a mutual benefit, due in large part to the free method of exchange, is it morally defensible to tax a portion of that benefit in exchange for the proper government roles that make that stable money possible (including enforcement of individual rights and defense against foreign aggressors)? Of course this opens up further questions, like is it reasonable for a government to be given the sole authority for providing stable money (in addition to using force)?
×
×
  • Create New...