LovesLife

One way you might approach this is to first grasp the fact that acting in an irrational way damages you and those around you; if carried to an extreme, it can even be fatal. Perhaps you came to grips with this in your 12-step program. This is true for all forms of irrationality, though, because to be irrational means to deny that the world around you is real. Next, come to understand that a belief in God is irrational, and that the Bible itself is hugely irrational. There's lots of good reading on the web that will help back this up, if you need it. Rejecting irrationality is also fundamental to Objectivist morality. If you can't be consistently rational, then you also can't be consistently moral -- which also means that you can't be consistently happy. Maybe it would help to think of letting go of that last tinge of irrationality called religion as the 13th step. Also, perhaps it would ease your mind to think of atheism not as a belief that God doesn't exist (which would be a belief in the arbitrary), but rather as a lack of belief in God (yet not uncertainty; not agnosticism). They are really two completely different concepts. From Galt's speech: "Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking—that the mind is one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide of action—that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise—that a concession to the irrational invalidates one’s consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality—that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind—that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one’s consciousness."

If consciousness is physical, then where, precisely, is it located? I would say that consciousness and the mind are attributes of the body. They are not physical; they are mental.

That's either an outright lie, or a horrible misunderstanding of Bayes' Theorem. With regard to the claimed resurrection, I recall reading somewhere that it was not reported in the original New Testament, that Paul added the story later on, and that there are no contemporary reports of the claimed event other than his, even though Paul said many people were present. Does anyone know if that's correct?

To think critically, it would help to have a good understanding of: -- Logic (deductive and inductive) -- Concepts -- Percepts -- Objective vs. subjective vs. arbitrary -- How we know things (putting it all together) -- The connection of language to concepts -- The nature of science, evidence and theories That would allow you to break ideas down into their component parts, to identify potential errors. Basic versions of these ideas could be introduced even for pretty young kids, I think.

Sure, it can be rational, but only if your foundation is not anchored in objective reality. Rationalists do this kind of thing all the time. Come up with some arbitrary claim, and then rationally derive a whole set of conclusions from it. The problem is that if the original claim is not anchored in objective reality, then everything you derive from it is wrong, even though it was rationally derived.

Sorry you apparently interpreted it as hostile and rude; that certainly wasn't my intention. I actually couldn't care less what you do. I don't know you beyond your posts here, and I'm definitely not looking for gratitude. You were the one who brought up the issue; I was simply trying to point out what I viewed as a flaw in your logic, and to then support my comments -- which, BTW, is part of what this forum is generally all about, right? Objectively examining the world around us? The fact that you obviously don't agree is fine with me; each of us has to walk our own path. Regarding the whole "misguided fatty" thing -- those are your words, not mine. You know nothing about me, or my personal history or struggles. Certainly not enough to reasonably make such a comment.

Actually, that's exactly how you get to be that heavy. It's not calories that make you fat; it's carbs. A high carb intake drives up insulin levels, which then drives fat storage; without the carbs, insulin is kept low and fat tends to come out of storage and get burned or excreted. Carbs also cause wide blood sugar swings, which make you hungry if you simply try to uniformly reduce intake. Lots of good research, documentation, books and personal experiences out there to back me up, if you're interested. As an example, Jimmy Moore started at 410 pounds and lost about 200 pounds in a year by eliminating carbs: http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/ A few good blogs about Paleo: http://www.paleonu.com/ http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/ http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/ Books: Good Calories, Bad Calories Natural Health & Weight Loss The Protein Power Lifeplan There's also an email list for Objectivists who are following this approach. See http://www.olist.com/oevolve/ Of course, not wanting to examine one's beliefs is also a choice.

Careful. What you are stating is actually an assumption: weight is not controlled entirely by caloric intake and expenditure. It is possible to lose weight by eating more (calorically) and exercising less. I've done that myself by changing the way I eat (the Paleo diet).

Carrying the thought process back a step, it seems to me that a common misconception is that if something happens to you by chance once, then it's likely to happen again soon; if you are lucky once, then you will be lucky again soon. Some cultures use this faulty logic as a way of "testing" their luck; hence the popularity of casinos in some areas (I'm thinking of China in particular). You can also see this when standing around a craps or roulette table for any length of time. When people win, and particularly when they win several times, they start to think they are "on a roll"; or if a certain number has come up several times that it can't possibly come up again -- it's really just a complete misunderstanding of probability / reality. At one level, they assume that previous results influence future results, when in fact they are completely independent. At another level, they assume that something about them (or the things around them) influences the results; so we have people who blow on dice, or do other strange rituals as part of the way they bet or play.

Is anyone planning to go to OCON 2010? It's being held in Las Vegas this year, July 2 to 10, at the Red Rock Resort. http://objectivistconferences.com/ I'm thinking about going, but it's a long trip from New Zealand. I'm interested both in the talks and in networking with fellow O-ists. How have past conferences been? Are they generally worth the time and expense?

You are trying to solve non-problems. First, you speculate that the value of gold would collapse if a huge deposit was discovered on an asteroid. Just FYI, the cost of getting to an asteroid and bringing anything back would far exceeds the value of gold, so such a deposit would have basically zero effect on terrestrial prices. Plus, of course, such an idea is completely arbitrary and should therefore have no bearing on decisions here in the real world. Gold skeptics often cite two issues: first, what would happen if the gold supply suddenly increased, and second, that there isn't enough gold for it to work. Man has been searching for gold deposits for ages. The odds of some large, new, undiscovered source are very, very small, and getting smaller every year. In fact, if anything, the reverse is more likely: existing gold supplies could easily not be renewable once they have been fully mined. Total annual gold production is about 1% of the existing supply, and it has been at around that level for quite some time. Also, keep in mind that bringing new gold to market requires effort: mines have to be located, then mining equipment has to be created, the mine itself has to be created, ore has to be dug out of the ground, then refined, etc. The people engaged in that work are, of course, entitled to compensation. The effect on the overall money supply would be relatively insignificant, particularly in light of increasing population. Regarding not having enough gold: the misconception here is that gold would have to stay at its current value if it was used as money. The value of gold can be anything that people agree on. Because gold is nearly infinitely divisible, it turns out that any amount of gold is enough to run the global economy. It's just that the less of it there is, the higher its value would be. Regarding the idea of substituting some other commodity: an ideal money needs to be something that is easily recognized by most people as having value. Gold has been used as money for 5,000 years for a good reason. No other commodity can make that claim (although silver comes close). Also, for an ideal money, you want to choose something that can't be created easily. If dolls were money, you can imagine how many doll factories would suddenly be created. The advantage of gold is that it's hard to find and hard to bring to market: it's self-limiting.

The main purpose of the test would be to help people with philosophies that are close to Objectivism to be able to see that fact. There is also a secondary purpose: to help show people that the aspects of philosophies that they dislike and that are often attributed to Objectivism (things like excessive materialism or rationalism) are actually primary traits of very different philosophies. That might be done in part by having them choose answers that reflect the opposite of their values. The ideal "do next" goal would be for them to learn more about Objectivism through books, online sources, etc.

It seems to me that in a free market, it's the market that would decide how people would pay and what they would get in return. There's no need to figure it out in advance; there are hundreds of different ways it could work. Insurance companies, pay-as-you-go / fee-for-service, pass-through costs on various transactions, etc, etc. -- maybe a little bit of everything. It's the underlying principal that's important: people shouldn't be forced to pay. It should be a choice. There's an important corollary, though. Government shouldn't be able to fund itself, which includes being able to borrow and to print money. If it doesn't raise enough money, it should be forced to down-size accordingly.

I thought about a situational/concrete-based approach too. I've noticed that many people have trouble thinking in abstract terms, so I think you're right that it would be better. Any ideas for good, short, to-the-point questions? I agree about scoring with a "you tend toward this philosophical outlook" result. My idea isn't to try to pigeon-hole people, but to say their answers are X% in one school, Y% in another, etc. I like that idea, too. It would be more difficult to formulate questions along those lines, but I'll give it some thought. The test would be published online with randomized answers. The fixed answers are just for discussion.

I'm putting together a short online questionnaire that will help people identify which philosophical school they belong to. One of my motivations is that many people who claim to strongly disagree with Objectivism also don't understand it very well, even after they've read Rand's books. They might have some cursory sense about it, but more often than not, it's very distorted. My initial goal is to differentiate between rationalism, subjectivism and Objectivism, by asking a series of multiple-choice questions. In every case, the A answer is for rationalists, B is subjectivists and C is Objectivists. I am intentionally staying away from buzz-words and oft-repeated or easily-identified phrases (like "A is A") or hot-buttons (such as atheism). I'm including below what I have so far, and would appreciate feedback and suggestions for additional questions. 1. To best way to know the world around us is to: A. Just leave yourself open. The truth will come to you. B. Direct your focus inward. C. Study it. 2. Can we believe our senses? A. No, the senses can't be trusted. B. Yes, the senses are the only things we can trust. C. Yes, the only starting point for knowledge is perceptual. 3. How do you know that key pieces of knowledge you possess are true? A. I just know. B. I don't. No one can really know anything. C. Based on a combination of observation (induction), deduction and connection to related hierarchical knowledge. 4. What is the role of emotions in your daily life? A. They are basically useless. They are corrupting and an element of evil. B. Emotions are central to the way I live my life. If it feels good, then do it! C. Emotions are important, but should be balanced with conscious thought. 5. What role do moral principals play in your daily life? A. My moral principles are based on rules that I must obey no matter what. B. Moral principals aren't important. C. My moral principles are important, but their application depends on the circumstances (context) 6. Can morality exist independently of God? A. No. If there was no God, then anything would be permitted. B. Whatever I think is moral, is moral. Anything is permitted. C. Yes. 7. Do things have a specific nature? If so, do they always act according to that nature? Does a rock always act like a rock, or does it sometimes act like a tree? A. Yes, things have a nature, but outside forces can cause them to act in ways that are counter to that nature. B. I don't know. Certainty is impossible. There is too much that's unknown, how can I be sure one way or the other? C. Yes, things have a nature, and yes, they always act according to that nature.

My solution to this exact issue was to leave the US and semi-retire to New Zealand. It's not perfect, but for me, it's a big step up. My ancestors did a similar thing a few hundred years ago when they left an oppressive Europe and moved to the US. I considered moving somewhere more remote, but my (non-Objectivist) wife and family would never go for it. I thought about the yacht idea, too, and actually looked into it a bit. One issue is that maintenance and operating costs are very high. Plus, living completely at sea would be very isolating and lonely. And of course you still depend on land-based resources for things like supplies, repairs, fuel, etc. I would love to get a bunch of Objectivists together -- perhaps at the bottom of the current collapse -- and with combined resources, approach several countries to see if they would be willing to sell off a small piece of coastal land that would become a new country. I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be possible. There's a lot of land in the world today that's considered almost worthless for one reason or another (desert, etc), but that could be made both livable and valuable by a group of motivated individuals. The logistics would be challenging, but not impossible.

The initiation of the use of force is an attempt by the aggressor to deny his victim of their right to life. Responding with lethal force against an aggressor is therefore moral. Once the aggression has been stopped, as through arrest, is it moral to kill the aggressor? I think the answer is of a type that bothers many people: "it depends." Specifically, it depends on the context. If the person in question has a high risk of continued initiation of force (such as by their own admission, or as demonstrated from multiple offences), then yes, I think killing them is definitely moral, as a form of self-defense. The current alternative of life in prison is forcing his victims and others who weren't involved in any way to pay for his care for the rest of his life; we are sacrificing ourselves to people who have hurt us. If they are not at risk of continued aggression, then I think killing them is not warranted. In that case life in prison is also not warranted. In fact, I would argue that no prison time at all is warranted (the idea of "punishment" seems vague and not Objectively supportable to me, although restitution certainly is). The in-between cases, where the risk of future aggression is uncertain, are the difficult ones. It seems to me that the only way to rationally address them is on a case-by-case basis. It also seems to me that the opinion of the person or persons who were damaged should be heavily factored into the final decision.

I think you're asking the wrong question. In Capitalism, if one company competes with another, there aren't "failures" in the usual sense. Both companies will improve; they will strive to make their products better in order to please their customers and to attract new customers. All consumers of the products of both companies benefit. The companies themselves benefit through increased market size. It's win-win. If one company eventually goes out of business, they might be acquired by the other company or the employees might get jobs with the other company -- at higher prices or wages than if the competition didn't exist. Competition is also the best way to allocate resources. Successful ventures can attract better people and afford better materials: success fuels growth and expansion and more success. In socialist or communist economies, failure is rewarded -- so failure grows and steals resources from successful ventures. The result is that everyone suffers: less growth, lower wages, poorer products, fewer jobs, etc.

Your opponent has just ceded the argument to you. Being forced to leave if you don't like something is a direct consequence of the fact that taxes are coercive. My response would have been: "Thanks, I'm glad that you agree." "Voluntarily accepting" is not a refutation of the fact that taxes are coercive. By that argument, if someone points a gun at you and asks for your wallet, you would be "voluntarily" giving it to them. The government offers a clear "choice": pay taxes or go to prison ("your money or your life"). That's the definition of coercion. Just because you're using government services doesn't mean that you agreed to pay for them, or even that you should pay for them. If someone stole your wallet and then shined your shoes, that doesn't change the fact that he stole from you. If you were a shopkeeper and you knew that the mob was going to charge you "protection" on every dollar you earn, but you continue to earn anyway, are you implicitly agreeing with the mob that it's OK? No, of course not. You are doing what you have to do, under threat of force if you act otherwise.

As part of trying to establish a new principle, I decided to "chew" the ideas I'm having trouble with, in the Peikoff sense: establish a context and then list pros and cons, supporting issues and facts, deductive/inductive reasoning and conclusions, etc, keeping them grounded in reality and referenced both to emotions and back to core/contextual principles. This was my first time doing this, but it went very well. One of the things I discovered is exactly what MichealH said above -- I have some principles that contradict the new one that I'm trying to establish. Just knowing that is a major step forward, but seeing the contradictions also makes it possible to resolve them. That's the next step. So far, so good! FWIW, I found the process to be very therapeutic. In fact, traditional therapy in some ways feels like "assisted chewing."

Sorry; you're right. What I said didn't come across as I intended (tone is hard to communicate on a forum like this). Let me try again: This thread was intended to be about my personal experience and opinion. You are clearly seeing things from a different perspective than me. My perspective is as someone who lived in California most of his life, and who now lives on the south island. I've been to the north island several times, and found it to be very unpleasant in many ways; I would never want to live there, and I'm sympathetic with anyone who does and who also finds it unpleasant. I'm not saying NZ doesn't have its problems -- there's no place in the world that doesn't. I'm just choosing to focus on the bright side. At the moment, I'm finding the change to be a very pleasant one. Yes, NZ has some socialism. So do most countries in the world, and those that don't have fascism, totalitarianism or communism instead. California is in many ways much more socialist than NZ. I also found California to be much more oppressive and less free in almost every way compared to NZ. I didn't intend to turn this thread into a debate about nuclear power. I'm not trying to convince anyone else that it's not safe. The point is that based on the sum of my life's experience: education (Chem/Biology), work (I used to work at a National Laboratory), what I've read, the people I've spoken with, etc, the conclusion that I've reached is that it isn't safe enough yet, particularly on the waste disposal and transport side. I'm not saying that it won't ever be safe, but I am happier at the moment with no nuclear material anywhere near me.

Aha! This is great. Yes, of course: principles. For example, very little effort is required for me to not initiate the use of force; clearly a principle is at work. Another way of looking at this is the crow epistemology: if you try to hold too much in your mind at once, it actually interferes with thinking; concepts and principles are the way to reduce a large amount of information to a form that can be easily and quickly processed. So, this leads to my next question: How does one go about establishing new principles? Can it be reliably done using a particular methodology? Perhaps by the "chewing" technique that Peikoff has described?

I know a doctor who worked with people who were exposed to depleted uranium at the "dead tank farms" in Iraq, where they put tanks that have been destroyed by A-10s and other DU-based anti-tank weapons. That's U-238, which is even "weaker" than U-235 (and has a much longer half-life). It turns out that almost everyone who came in contact with that stuff even a little bit gets very sick, in spite of tons of safety precautions. She told me about some people who were just downwind and got sick; they were never even in direct physical contact. Or look at the people living around Chernobyl: lots of cancer, birth defects and other disasters. So it might not matter to you much, but it definitely matters to others. And, more to the point, the level of risk in the event of a spill is non-zero -- and once spilled, it is basically impossible to ever completely clean it up. As we would say in the States: Dude! That's your problem. It's not NZ as a whole that's bad. It's the big cities. Your mind has been warped. Get out of Auckland. I would never live there; I'm not even interested in going for a visit. The SI is where it's at.

I haven't read Philosophy: Who Needs It (since I'm already convinced that I need it) -- but I can see I'll have to add that to my reading list. The quote you provided leads me to think that the issue I'm struggling with could perhaps be characterised as a lack of will, or a disconnect between reason and will. How does one learn to have a stronger will? In my case, focus of the type you described is not the problem. I read a lot, I can solve puzzles well, I can hold my focus on a particular task for an extended period, etc. Rather, the problem is focus at particular times -- such as when under stress, when I feel poorly, etc. It's like learning how to fight in a classroom environment, compared to being on the street in a real life-or-death battle. This used to be a huge problem for the military. Their solution was to "train like you fight," so that the reactions become automatic. I'm looking for something similar, with reasoning being the automatic response, rather than physical action. How do you train your mind to reason in situations where it would normally be impaired? Although my conscious mind completely rejects the idea that emotions are a means of cognition, I suppose it's possible that I'm allowing that to happen at some subconscious level. I'll definitely try to watch for it, to see if that's the case. This was just an example; but the problem is not in coming up with a rational plan. That's easy. The problem I'm interested in is when executing that plan is difficult or impossible. Joining a gym is easy; going there regularly and actually working out might not be. Knowing you shouldn't eat a particular food is easy; actually doing so might not be. But how? What if you know you should do something, you come up with a plan, and are then just unable to execute? There's a piece missing there for me. The more I think about it, the more I agree that it's some form of evasion. But how does applying more reasoning to the problem fix it?

Thanks for your great posts. Lots of very helpful info here. That's a new way of looking at evasion for me. I'm still not completely clear how to turn that into personal change, but it does shed some light on a possible path.