brian0918
-
Posts
2435 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Reputation Activity
-
brian0918 reacted to Dingbat in Chemical weapons searched for and found in Iraq
Taking Iraq would be a good base of operations for other middle eastern targets. Plus, we get the oil.
-
brian0918 reacted to Iudicious in My Love, For The Stars
I've been thinking about getting back into writing, particularly with some more space-based stuff. I decided to give an idea I've had for a while a go, and it came out as this short, short story, titled "My Love, For The Stars"
_____________
When we were young, we'd look up at the sky together. Laying upon the grassy hills out back, we never thought about the present or the past. Hands clasped together, fingers entwined, you told me about the stars and the moon and the planets. You told me about gravity and atmospheres and vacuums.
I didn't understand a lot of it, but I loved it because you loved it.
I was eleven and you were twelve. You had a shelf full of leatherbound books and charts and notepads, and you used to take out your notepads and show me elaborate starcharts, criss-crossed with lines and arrows. You told me all about your plans, all about how you'd get to Mars one week, to Venus the next, to Mercury and Saturn and Jupiter. And then you began to tell me about Andromeda and Betelguese, and how you'd conquer the whole galaxy when you grew up. Sleeping out in your tree house with you, I could imagine that we were in a rocket ship, speeding into the night sky, exploring the universe... hand in hand.
I was sixteen, and you were seventeen. We kissed every morning before class, and you told me every day about our future. I read in the news that some company had landed a ship on Mars, and I could see the urgency on your face. You would conquer the galaxy and no one else, and I always thought that I'd be by your side.
I was eighteen, and you were nineteen. I waved goodbye as you boarded your ship. The crew was already there, and they were waiting for you, and I couldn't see you because there were tears in my eyes. I was happy, because I knew that one day I'd marry the first man to explore another solar system. You told me you'd be gone for months, and maybe years. But it was okay, because you'd write me a message every day, and when the circumstances were right and the technology permitted, you'd call me and maybe I could even see your face.
I was twenty, and you were twenty one. You wrote me a message. You told me that we couldn't be together, that there was too much distance, too much time between us. You didn't know when you'd be home, you didn't know if you'd even ever see me again. They were beginning to set up colonies where you were, and soon you'd have to go farther. You had too little time, too much to do, too much to explore.
But that's okay, because it's been a year now. Sometimes I look up at the night sky and I still think of you. I'm not sad, my darling. I always knew who your true lover was, and that your affair was with me, and not the stars.
-
brian0918 reacted to Steve D'Ippolito in My Love, For The Stars
WhyNot: Iudicious has it right. The primary love is the stars, the affair--the temporary diversion from the true love--is with the narrator. Quit trying to "correct" him.
-
brian0918 reacted to Grames in Integrating Volition
I agree with Eiuol. "Physical" was used correctly, "entity" was not. Instead, to be consistent Tanaka should call them "existents" as he did later in the same post. ("Attributes" is more specific and also correct.) The ability to affect and be effected by physical entities is what it means "to exist".
But that is nitpicking. Tanaka's point that ' "something more", and "non-physical" are meaningless phrases used by people trying to escape the need for actual evidence when making a claim. They're not concepts referring to actual existents' is valid. Jacob86's s stubborn clinging to such 'anti-concepts', concepts that are invalid due to having no referent, make it frustrating to deal with him. I could respond to his earlier replies to me, but it would be useless.
-
brian0918 reacted to softwareNerd in Are trivial optional choices open to moral evaluation
Good question. The answer is: because both are moral. You did not follow a subjective process to evaluate the two. You followed a rational process that took two things into account: the tile and your requirements (the facts of reality and your own context). If you said: "Tile A is obviously always better for everything" you're probably be following an Intrinsic approach. The error there would be that you are not taking your own context into account. If you see the tile and simply choose one because... ... you might be following a Subjective approach. However, if you evaluate the tile based on what it is and how it fits your values, then your approach is Objective. [Don't take this to imply that one must spend more time than warranted on trivial decisions.]
An intrinsic approach could also result in the two tiles being equal (e.g. God -- or Knauf -- just made them that way). So can a subjective approach. So, can an objective approach. Regardless of which approach one uses to make the decision, you might reach an equality where both choices are equally moral. The choice is then optional. So, why not call that last decision "subjective"? Well, I wouldn't make an argument against doing so; but terminology is not Odden's main point. His point is that the decision is a moral one, not outside the province of morality. As an analogy, think of the process of making this choice as similar to putting the item on a weighing scale and choosing the one that is heavier. If they both come out equal, then you can optionally pick up wither. However, whichever one you pick up, the choice was based on the process of weighing them: it is a weighing-decided choice. That is the sense in which either is a moral choice. Morality is the process by which you did all the evaluation.
-
brian0918 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Integrating Volition
Actually, we are not in agreement, and that is why your question arises. Your notion of "volition" or "free will" assumes freedom *from reality*. It is one of the two common false alternatives in philosophy - determinism vs. free will. Both notions are incoherent.
Men interact with reality, and gather knowledge about reality. Men also have value hierarchies, against which they evaluate the facts of reality, and perform actions in pursuit of those values. For example, a man is hungry, and knows where to find food, and so can decide how to act in order to obtain that food, prepare it for consumption (if necessary or desired), consume it, and satisfy his hunger.
What about this requires that part of him be nonphysical? - other than the fact that man's mind, and the choices he makes, are conceptual and abstract, in the same way that a clock's function of "telling time" is abstract, and not self-evident from the nature of any specific atom within the clock.
[zomg 2000 posts! - I should have made this an epic treatise]
-
brian0918 got a reaction from DanLane in Integrating Volition
Actually, we are not in agreement, and that is why your question arises. Your notion of "volition" or "free will" assumes freedom *from reality*. It is one of the two common false alternatives in philosophy - determinism vs. free will. Both notions are incoherent.
Men interact with reality, and gather knowledge about reality. Men also have value hierarchies, against which they evaluate the facts of reality, and perform actions in pursuit of those values. For example, a man is hungry, and knows where to find food, and so can decide how to act in order to obtain that food, prepare it for consumption (if necessary or desired), consume it, and satisfy his hunger.
What about this requires that part of him be nonphysical? - other than the fact that man's mind, and the choices he makes, are conceptual and abstract, in the same way that a clock's function of "telling time" is abstract, and not self-evident from the nature of any specific atom within the clock.
[zomg 2000 posts! - I should have made this an epic treatise]
-
brian0918 reacted to Jacob86 in The Illusion of Free Will
A) For anyone who doesn't know, my posts do not represent "official Objectivist positions"..haha... I am a Theistic admirer of Objectivism.
I didn't say that the mind is "free from the physical world", I said that it must be free from the deterministic cause and effects of the physical world. However, by this, I do mean that the mind must be not entirely physical.
Yes, I hold that there is a "Super Nature" ("nature" here meaning the physical universe), but please do not read into this all the ridiculous and fanciful musings of people in the past. I do not hold to a soul/body dichotomy or mind/brain dichotomy or any other such dichotomy... So don't object as though I do.
C) "Nothing is free from the physical world". That is an assertion- do you have reason for it? I am submitting reason to believe that the mind (in part) IS "free from the physical world" and that this must be the case if we have volition and the ability to reason objectively. Do you have an objection against my reasoning??
-
brian0918 got a reaction from ttime in My Social Contract Debate
Threat of force is initiation of force. Saying, "I am giving you two choices - either you quit your job, cut your family ties, pack up your things, and run for the border... or I will put you in a cage" - that is certainly the initiation of force, even if it becomes commonplace, even if the public doesn't recognize it as such, and even if the force is indirect. And these days, "leaving the country" isn't even a valid option - the IRS will find you and extradite you to the US, or empty your foreign bank accounts.
-
brian0918 reacted to Hermes in Two newbie questions about objectivist principles
Stuart Hayashi wrote an essay on arguing metaphysical impossibilities. "A meteor is about to hit the Earth..." Show a real case and discuss that. Here, the fact is that the cases I know of do not apply. We lived in a village of 3000 people with a central water supply -- from five wells. Later we lived in a township where each home had their own well. Some cities passed laws against collecting rainwater (open barrels let mosquitos breed), but now, collecting rainwater is a "green" alternative. In short, it seems to be a challenge to come up with an example of one entity actually controlling water except as we simply allow it by default. I
And, come to think of it, is it not true that so many people buy water that disposal of the containers has become a nagging point from ecological activists?
-
brian0918 got a reaction from dream_weaver in The Illusion of Free Will
If your understanding of causality is incorrect, then those implications will be wrong.
"Causes" don't exist except conceptually. A "cause" is an abstract concept - it is the observation of the state of entities, combined with knowledge of their individual natures, and how they interact. When one asks, "what caused the plant to grow", you cannot point to a thing called a "cause" - instead, you point to all the entities that are involved in the interactions, and describe the nature of their interactions. What physically exists are entities with specific natures, and they interact.
The statement "nothing is acausal" simply means that all interactions involve entities acting according to their nature. It is in the nature of human beings to be able to observe reality, to weigh the observed facts against their value systems, and to make a determination as to how to act to support those values - to choose.
To say that something is an illusion, and that I am being deceived by that illusion, you must accept that I am capable of integrating knowledge and forming judgments and conclusions. In other words, for me to be deceived by something requires that I make the wrong judgment about it - to come to the wrong conclusion. By asserting that I am *making* judgments, that I am *making* conclusions, you must assume that I truly am choosing.
So, you are saying that I am incorrectly judging that I can make judgments.
-
brian0918 got a reaction from 2046 in The Illusion of Free Will
If your understanding of causality is incorrect, then those implications will be wrong.
"Causes" don't exist except conceptually. A "cause" is an abstract concept - it is the observation of the state of entities, combined with knowledge of their individual natures, and how they interact. When one asks, "what caused the plant to grow", you cannot point to a thing called a "cause" - instead, you point to all the entities that are involved in the interactions, and describe the nature of their interactions. What physically exists are entities with specific natures, and they interact.
The statement "nothing is acausal" simply means that all interactions involve entities acting according to their nature. It is in the nature of human beings to be able to observe reality, to weigh the observed facts against their value systems, and to make a determination as to how to act to support those values - to choose.
To say that something is an illusion, and that I am being deceived by that illusion, you must accept that I am capable of integrating knowledge and forming judgments and conclusions. In other words, for me to be deceived by something requires that I make the wrong judgment about it - to come to the wrong conclusion. By asserting that I am *making* judgments, that I am *making* conclusions, you must assume that I truly am choosing.
So, you are saying that I am incorrectly judging that I can make judgments.
-
brian0918 reacted to Grames in The Illusion of Free Will
There is no difference. If evidence for free will could be found in the brain that would mean localizing it to some brain cells and ruling out the rest.
The whole point of Harris' atheism crusade is that there is not a supernatural dimension for God or souls, so he cannot avoid equating the self with the physical body.
At that level of thought, personal experience will also verify for you that the entire universe blinks out of existence when you close your eyes and pops back into being when you open them. How can you or anyone possibly take that method seriously? It is pure personal subjectivism.
And how does it make any sense to appeal to personal experience that if your sense of self vanishes, then your self actually vanishes and never was real in the first place? Who is having the experience?
Theist free will depends on a supernatural soul, atheist free will is completely natural and this-worldly. Harris asserts that causality is incompatible with free will but he is wrong, probably because he has a poor grasp of causality.
Do you and Sam Harris have the power to change people's minds without their volitional participation by the brilliance of your arguments? Is that what you are claiming? Personal experience verifies for me that this is false.
Harris reasons poorly and fallaciously, so what he wants to or intends is irrelevant to what he actually accomplishes.
-
brian0918 reacted to Jacob86 in The Illusion of Free Will
Harris rejects free-will because he seems to realize (rightly) that it necessitates a supernatural soul.
Objectivism (rightly) insists on free-will because of its logical necessity to reason.. but conveniently ignores the logical necessity of supernature to free-will.
I don't want to turn this into an argument for God per se.. but I would like to ask how Objectivists explain the possibility of free will without a supernatural mind/soul. How can free will (and therefore reason) be possible if Man's mind/soul is not free (i.e. distinct) from physical cause and effect?
-
brian0918 reacted to Grames in The Illusion of Free Will
It would be impossible to be free if there was a mind/soul distinct from physical cause and effect because there would be no means for the soul to affect or be affected by anything.
To put the point more comically, if there are ghosts then there can be ghost busters. And then we can regress another level and ask what makes a soul free? A soul is not a solution to the supposed problem.
The supposed problem is really the misunderstanding of causality as naive determinism. The dilemma of choosing between determinism or souls is a false dilemma.
-
brian0918 got a reaction from Jacob86 in Light and the Law of Identity
Two concepts that were once thought to refer to different things (particle, wave), now turn out to overlap in terms of their referents (e.g. light). Their usefulness for describing how the universe works has been exhausted - the context in which those concepts are useful has been delimited. New concepts will have to be created to better understand the full range of observations.
The appearance of a contradiction is simply a guide for furthering one's understanding: since contradictions can't exist, I will have to determine exactly what about my current conceptual understanding is presenting the appearance of a contradiction.
-
brian0918 reacted to SapereAude in One-Size-Fits-All in Philosophy?
The interesting thing is that your statements are undeniable proof of why Rand's principled approach is so important.
Everything you are saying about what you are glad for having yourself is proof that you indulge yourself in the kind of selfish lack of concern for the lives of others that you accuse Objectivists of.
That many people have their rights violated and their property stolen via taxes for improper government programs.. that's fine by you because it benefits you
The ADA laws which often keep small business people from living up to their potential because so many of them are ridiculous and almost all of them are prohibitively expensive for a small business to accomodate.......that's fine by you because thwarting those other people's potential allowed you to live up to yours
The people who are out of work because their employer was unable to afford ADA modifications in their workplace.. that's fine that the business is gone and the jobs with it... how dare someone make a living doing something that doesn't accomodate you?!
That the school system is nogged down in an avalanche of lawsuits and redtape trying to accomodate every disability known to man real and imagined is in part responsible for the collapse of the school system... that's fine by you because cutting budgets for all those necessary things benefitted you and those other kids that had Latin and formal logic and advanced classes taken away to make room for you don't matter nearly as much as you.
There is a monster of deviant and irrational selfishness here and he is you.
-
brian0918 got a reaction from DanLane in Cuba banned Sicko for depicting 'mythical' health system
One of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables claimed that Cuba banned Michael Moore's Sicko for portraying a "mythical" healthcare system that was far superior to that available in the US. The specific reason for the ban is because Moore highlighted a state-of-the-art hospital which only people with connections and bribe money have access to, and Cuban officials feared this would cause greater resentment from the public.
Also, Moore released a response on his website, claiming that Cuba did not ban Sicko, and that the memo is all a lie to discredit the film and the Cuban healthcare system.
-
brian0918 reacted to Dante in Is Wikileaks morally right?
What do you see as the justification for having special protections for "official news organizations" that do not apply to, say, a private blog? Why should one be able to release certain documents while another is not?
-
brian0918 got a reaction from softwareNerd in VA Judge Rules part of Health Bill Uncosntitutional
Agreed - if they require insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, while not mandating that people be insured, there is no incentive to buy insurance until after a medical problem occurs. The whole concept of insurance is thrown out. The insurance companies will go broke, have to be bailed out, and the government will go further into debt, and need to debase the currency and raise taxes. The need for politicians to always keep their promises (i.e. avoid reality) will mean that we all lose.
Nancy Pelosi was right - it will go down in history along with the other major government entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid).
-
brian0918 got a reaction from Grames in Is the Ayn Rand book program a inituation of force
What specific individuals are initiating the force? Does ARI actively support the continuation of that initiation of force, or does ARI actively and openly promote ending that force?
-
brian0918 got a reaction from Sir Andrew in Is the Ayn Rand book program a inituation of force
What specific individuals are initiating the force? Does ARI actively support the continuation of that initiation of force, or does ARI actively and openly promote ending that force?
-
brian0918 reacted to ~Sophia~ in The Logical Leap by David Harriman
It is unreasonable to be assessing a scholar in the way you state above simply based on the fact that he finds some value in the works of a particular thinker.
Many thinkers, despite being wrong on many things (and usually someone who's philosophical views are explicitly formulated and well grounded in reality can see through their mistakes), can otherwise still be a source of valuable insights.
I am not in the position to comment on Whewell but I came across a post on Noodlefood about his work. This is what the poster wrote:
-
brian0918 reacted to softwareNerd in The Logical Leap by David Harriman
From all your public statements, it is clear that you always were on the ARI/LP side of this argument rather than on the McCaskey side. So, I assume the published statements were not addressed primarily to people like you, but to ARI supporters and donors who had expressed displeasure about this particular episode.
The real proof of the pudding then, will be the effect the statements have on those other folk. There was a little new information in the statements, but not much; so, while they might have some impact, but I doubt they have changed anyone's view in any important way. If someone were to tell me that they were a little cross at ARI or LP about this particular incident, but now feel that ARI and LP acquitted themselves with great justice and skill, I'd be surprised .
The ARI and LP have always had a set of detractors who seem obsessively focussed on being "anti" something. However, most who disagreed with ARI's handling of this incident were not like that; and, what I see now is not so much an change of heart as much as a tiredness over focusing on "what went wrong". Since ARI is the only decent Objectivist activist organization with a very broad reach across various US-based activities, the lack of a decent alternative means that many will support it rather than make perfection the enemy of the good. I see an attitude of "let's let the semi-apology from ARI be the thing that let's us close this and move on, continuing to support ARI with the understanding that it is flawed in ways we did not previously consider."
-
brian0918 got a reaction from Grames in The Logical Leap by David Harriman
Another update: Following Shea Levy's lead, Rory Hodgson (a former regular on this forum) has also resigned from the OAC program, and encourages other OAC students who are worried about the anti-academic environment of ARI to follow suit, in hopes that they will change their policies. The crux of his concern: