TuringAI

If the government doesn't follow the law then isn't it rule by men anyways? A man can give an order and call it law, but it is sophistry to confuse that law with the unbreakable laws of nature. Where is their call to individually evaluate every order they are given, and in the current political climate no less? If there was one person or group of people, who was/were well educated and knew which laws to disobey and when, and who also gave instruction to these people, would it be any better, or would you still think that these fake made up laws by one group of men were better than the fake made up laws of another group of men?

I gree with Amnesty International. Trying to profit off of 'illegal' aliens is like proposing to legalize marijuana only to add a special tax for using it.

That's because a number of people here don't realize that Objectivism absolutely and unapoloetically identifies racism as a vice. Muslim is a race. Islam is a religion. It's okay to say everybody who willingly follows islam is evil, just not to say that all muslims are evil because it's not their choice to be muslim.

After reading all this, specifically about the part where gender vs sex is discussed, it got me thinking. Along a train of thought. What if metaphysical absolutes and conscious choices both have less to do with sexuality? If so, what about the SUBconscious, the elements of our mind which are alterable by genetics and environment but which do not follow any given law, and which are in an indirect way a consequence of consciousness, though most certainly not simply decided upon? What if gender was due to the necessity of an EMOTIONAL dynamic? I see the fitting of gender into sex as quite related to aesthetics, although not in the conventional sense of 'an aesthetic work'. The subconscious is something Ayn Rand just didn't discuss very often, and perhaps the key to sexuality lies in it. Perhaps, and this is just me bouncing ideas around, the relation of sex to reproduction is not merely in that one may lead to the other, but rather indicates another kind of evaluation? There are TWO primary functions in most other animals, and while Ayn Rand understands this, it seems almost as if the 'have sex and make children' part was discarded when it came to humans. This is an epistemic selection based on the kind of reasoning she already advocated, so it wasn't wrong. However, what if the subconscious represents something that binds human's essential relationship to reality with mechanisms allowing such interplay to occur? I know this is deep stuff, so let me simply: What if there was more to the subconscious? What if there was no explicit value to sex except in terms of something subconscious, and what if there is a line of reasoning in issues relating to the concept of subconscious that ties our basic relation to reality to something more specific, IE our biological nature? Not saying sexuality and reproduction are directly causally related in philosophical terms, but they both have something related in them.

The whole male dominance vs female submission theme is itself a fetish.

It does, because the 1 would be out of scope. There is no 'infinitesimal' or 'infinite' place in the decimal system. The decimal system is a method for representing the real numbers, and in any (integer) base, the number of the place must be an integer, therefore the size of the amount of places is aleph-null. A real number isn't the same thing as a computation of that real number. All computations of real numbers involve successively applied algebraic operations, and so a computation of 0.9999999~ is dependent upon how long the computation is. But the computation is just the representation of the real number for a finite number of steps, not the real number itself. So the real number 0.999~ is 0 with a decimal point followed by an infinite number of 9s. That doesn't mean there is a PLACE HOLDER called the infinitieth place to the right of the decimal point, even though HOW MANY 9s there are in the representation ARE infinite. It is not in general true that infinity - infinity = 0. It does not follow the algebraic rules of real numbers, and this is because it is not an algebraic number. So infinity + 1 = infinity. This means that multiplying 0.999999 by 10 does not increase how many 9s there are to the right of the decimal place. You cannot increase or decrease infinity to get a new number, it remains infinity. The only thing that changes by multiplying 0.999999~ by 10 is that there is now a 9 to the left of the decimal representation of 0.999999~ multiplied by 10. So 0.999999~ * 10 = 9.999999~ where ~ indicates an infinite number of 9s to the right of the decimal place. However, here's the thing. If EVERY number to the right of the decimal place in the decimal on the left is equal to EVERY number to the right of the decimal place in the decimal on the right, then no matter how far you go, there is no 9 that is not matched to another 9. Since 9 is finite, 9 - 9 = 0. So 9.999999~ - 0.999999~ = 9.000000~, which is the same as 9. So that X=0.999999~ and 10X=9.999999~ method is actually being used correctly. So 0.999999~ = 1, simply put. Or not so simply put, as the case may be.

What's so important about G20 that we should violate our citizen's rights without precedent and subject them to what is basically martial law? If we have all this wealth, why aren't the individuals who support G20 summits simply paying people to relinquish land which they have any right to cross? Willingness to declare martial law should be grounds for automatic expulsion from any branch of the government. If the government cannot function without using coercion against the innocent then it should not function at all and should be replaced by a government that CAN. It's one thing to go to war in other countries with specific targets in mind when we attack (and GOOD targets, not targets selected purely out of malice) but to say "Well, there MIGHT be terrorists coming to our G20 summit, let's attack everybody who isn't inside their own home!" is purely despicable. I hope everybody who was in the riot police gets fired from their jobs, never gets another job, and gets forced to live on the streets as a consequence. Life is too good for these creeps. Please forgive my absolute hatred towards these people but they were bullying citizens who did nothing more than holding (and exercising) their constitutional rights. Why doesn't Objectivism have a zero-tolerance for martial law? Ayn Rand wasn't a statist but it seems that to be consistent with that, you kind of have to eliminate any possible chance for 'continuation of government for its own sake' type thinking. That includes the Nazi-ish behavior of the government at G20. And yes, I MEANT to violate Godwin's Law. It was appropriate.

I don't care WHAT kind of emergency it is, forcing the private sector to cut off people's internet is WRONG. It would ease our nation's transition into a bunch of Nazis if it isn't stopped. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html I am spreading this news anywhere I can, so I won't have much time to make my post look sophisticated, so a couple of lines for this post are going to have to do. So please read the article. It may be the last article you ever read! My E-mail is [email protected] and I would like to do whatever I can to spread the news. I am organizing a pro-internet freedom group in Monterey California because of this bill. Anyone else live nearby?

Ayn Rand actually once said that the death penalty should not be implemented because of the possibility of executing an innocent person. Not because a criminal has a right to life, but because an innocent person who might be executed and falsely convicted cannot be resurrected once the death penalty has gone into effect if they are later proven innocent. Although I could imagine that in cases involving national security, such issues as a false execution would be paled by the danger in which such a position puts America. Nevertheless that's a different issue altogether than, say, arson. Back on topic, smacking children is barbaric! How do they even know that the child is intentionally misbehaving, and not merely suffering from a mental illness? Unless it's a life or death situation, I would not advocate a parent using any form of smacking as a method. We need prohibitions against direct and harmful uses of force. And yes, smacking IS harmful. If the government can monopolize force, then it is reasonable to extend the prohibition against individual use of force to the case of a parent and a child. While, depending on the amount of damage, the punishment should vary, it should still be there. This isn't an issue of government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. Government was created for the very REASON of protecting individual rights. While children don't possess the SAME rights as an adult, they DO possess rights such as the right to life, and by extension a right to be free from violence.

I have some of the same problems you have. I regard myself as intelligent, but flawed. The problem is, of course, that this kind of self judgment leads to a kind of dichotomy between theory and practice. The truth is, there is no dichotomy. You are mediocre. You're just smart enough to figure out your flaws, but not smart enough (yet) to overcome them. Don't worry about what other people think of you, and that includes other "Objectivists". If the only thing you stand to lose is potential companionship, consider yourself lucky. Be happy because you have a lot of life on Earth ahead of you, but don't be content only with what you have. Pretty much the only advice I can give for your type of personality has to come from within. Find your INNER strength, something you're passionate about. Trying your best won't work if it's not really you that's trying. I really wish I could tell you that all you have to do is try, but honestly trying is not always good enough. You have to WORK for what you want in life. Self betterment is the very first step and at least you've gotten that far. However, to get further you need to face your fears. Don't come here for a crutch, try spending your time on the internet researching something. If you find you fit in here and earn our respect then good, but this is not a social circle that owes you some level of compassion, and we here all know that. If you want advice, listen carefully and actively to what we have to give, and watch out for those knee-jerk reactions, both of yours and ours, don't offend and don't take offense, and things should go smoothly here. PS: If there is something about my little speech that catches your eye, feel free to talk to me about it, whether it is good or bad. I am still learning how to motivate people, and the feedback would be very helpful!

So, we're just going to take your word that human reason is incompetent? This would mean that what you said is not really based on human reason at all. Amazingly, I agree with you on that.

So if I set up the experiment and walked home without bothering to see the conclusion of the experiment, that's going to have a different outcome than if I do the same exact thing but didn't walk home? Damn, I shouldn't have skipped work that day...

To be fair, transhumanism isn't about man not being man. It's about man developing beyond genetic determinism, beyond simply being a genetically enhanced version of a chimpanzee or a orangutan. It's about freeing the spirit of man from the constraints of earthly biology.

Naw, that would infringe on The Adventures of Pete and Pete, where they actually DID strike against going to sleep in one episode.

I had a question. What exactly do you think they are going to show at the beginning of the movie, before the plot starts and before the phrase "Who is John Galt?" is even uttered? You know, the opening credits?

Does anybody other than me see the inconsistency here? Government isn't supposed to protect your ability to live. Government is supposed to protect your right to life from other people who would do you harm.

What about my post? It's at the bottom of the previous page.

Well, I'd say a taxpayer revolution is in order. If we get enough people (on the order of thousands) to refuse to pay ANY taxes they can, and openly speak against the ridiculous government burden on taxpayers, and if they come from all across America, it might just be enough to put Republicans back in congress. Though Obama will probably win again in 2012, this is to be expected. We want to gridlock America, not hand it over to one of the two parties, both of which want extraordinary amounts of government power, in their own ways.

There is no link to the content of the bill from Huffington Post. Then again, it IS the Huffington Post. They're so full of hot air... (*Sigh*)

What if the wavefunction of the electron IS the physical thing, and the electron is just an aspect of it? Then you could say that the wavefunction occupies space, and that would be no different than the fact that a soccerball occupies several inches of space, for example. Also, since we don't observe individual electrons, but rather whole things which are composed of electrons and similar such things, there is not a contradiction. It would only be a contradiction to say that something macroscopic (IE on the scale of perception) acted this way. Well again, there cannot be two universes, but hypothetically, if "Many Worlds Scenario" was true, the splitting would just be an expansion of the universe, and we would have to have a different fractions of the universe. An appeal to perception alone is not a warrant to refuse to recognize the conceptual faculties we have in addition to perception. Our conceptions of things must follow the world, not the other way around.

Heh, I thought you said Rifttrax at first. To be honest, that's how I would've first wanted to watch that movie.

You've got a good point, but I think the misunderstanding is caused by your uncritical acceptance of determinism. Existence exists, and it has primacy over consciousness, so it's not that consciousness is somehow acting in a way contradictory to the universe as a whole. This can only mean that the universe as a whole is not purely deterministic. However the universe as a whole is also not random. On the quantum scale measured quantities follow a set pattern on the whole, but no specific part is bound to happen one way or another. Perhaps this is because quantum events as such are merely aspects and not whole events in themselves. Whatever the reason, what follows is that, through composition, macroscopic things (that is, abstracting away unnecessary detail) follow set laws, IE there are certain things that HAVE TO HAPPEN. This means when one ACTUAL billiard ball strikes another ACTUAL billiard ball, you could theoretically predict what will happen to the billiard balls as a whole to a great amount of detail, and given any description mechanism (aside from omniscience) you will always see that there was something that was going to happen as soon as the scenario had begun. However, the human mind is something different. The way I see it is this. Determinism precludes 'free actions'. Randomness precludes 'caused actions'. Volition is a recognition of BOTH caused and free aspects of our consciousness and the entity to which it is tied. While it is true that a thing cannot be both determined and random, it is possible that it is neither. In fact, determinism and randomness are flip sides of the same metaphysical coin: The rejection of a world that is accessible to, and alterable by, the human mind. I hope this explains things.

I've been going to these forums for quite a while now and this seems to be a new problem. While trying to search for a topic with specified keywords a blank page shows up. I am using Firefox. Is there any way for me to be able to search? This would seem like something that needs fixing!

Being part of a school shouldn't mean sacrificing ones view of truth. Saying "creationism is superstitious nonsense" and saying "creationism is a valid alternative to evolution" does not violate anyone's rights. On the other hand, forcing children to attend such schools IS a violation of the parent's rights. The case that a parent or parents has/have a right to control what it is to which their child is exposed is correct, but the wrong target is chosen for attack. Rather than attacking the teacher, they should attack the public school system as a whole, in particular the notion that there should be compulsory education by the public or by any persons other than the parent or parents altogether.

Where in that article does it say the games are being leased? There is a difference between leasing something - which means the token is legally owned by the one from whom it is leased and not to whom it is leased - and selling something under a contract not to transfer something - which means the token is legally owned by the one to whom it is sold but it is sold under certain conditions - and to conflate the two is basically theft from the consumer to the producer.