Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Grames

Regulars
  • Content Count

    4283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    126

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    Grames got a reaction from Easy Truth in Willful ignorance.   
    What is evil here is the 12 year necromancy involved in raising this thread from the dead.
  2. Like
    Grames got a reaction from dream_weaver in Pewdiepie explains the Nicomachean Ethics   
    It is well done and short.  In general and by design, social media does not reward virtue.
    https://youtu.be/1n_cPIhag28
     
  3. Like
    Grames reacted to whYNOT in Trump, the Anti-Socialist   
    Protecting foreigners individual rights, support Slavery (ha!), great victim, backlash, will support socialism to get elected ...
    This grants Trump not a single principle or recent achievement. Whether you agree or not with his goals and methods, he is obviously genuine about the wholesale, productive success and stability of the USA. That's his "principle". And, naturally, he thinks staying in Office would give that a better chance of success. Last figures, his Black demographic support is up to an unprecedented 35%, they must know something you don't know.
    By what standards are you people judging his Capitalist credentials? By purely Objectivist standards no one President you've had fits. It is clear to me that any "backlash" has been from the Left who had their future Leftist ambitions blocked by the President's (shock) election. Thus, *their* infantile behavior.
    Hearing this sort of talk on an O'ist forum worries me, you guys are closer to Socialism than you think. That will be a long, dark night for America. 
  4. Like
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Notes on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"   
    Yes, that was a kind of typo.  Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality" is the subject under discussion.  Yes, and by the way proof is also a method of integration because what is proved is related to other knowledge.
     
    Yes, the fact that you can contemplate the axioms and relate them to each other is a form of integration even though Peikoff would deny there is proof or derivation or deduction happening.   The order of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness has methodological (epistemological) significance in order to affirm Primacy of Existence and deny Primacy of Consciousness, but each is a mentally abstracted facet of existence which exhibits all three simultaneously. 
    Causality merely appears to come "after" Identity in that it is easier to understand or imagine some object as static and then add the dynamics but in reality everything that exists is always acting (even if slowly).  Understanding Identity as static omits the greater part of an existent's Identity, how it acts.
  5. Thanks
    Grames got a reaction from [email protected] in Notes on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"   
    Yes, that was a kind of typo.  Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality" is the subject under discussion.  Yes, and by the way proof is also a method of integration because what is proved is related to other knowledge.
     
    Yes, the fact that you can contemplate the axioms and relate them to each other is a form of integration even though Peikoff would deny there is proof or derivation or deduction happening.   The order of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness has methodological (epistemological) significance in order to affirm Primacy of Existence and deny Primacy of Consciousness, but each is a mentally abstracted facet of existence which exhibits all three simultaneously. 
    Causality merely appears to come "after" Identity in that it is easier to understand or imagine some object as static and then add the dynamics but in reality everything that exists is always acting (even if slowly).  Understanding Identity as static omits the greater part of an existent's Identity, how it acts.
  6. Thanks
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Notes on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"   
    Horizontal integration should be performed with more than just one other concept.  Ideally it would be done with every other concept one held.  But who has time for that?  So this is a task that is never fully completed, it can only be partially completed.  Still, some of those pairwise selections H(A,B) would be better than others, better in being not trivial and potentially revealing obscured contradictions.
    Possibly some heuristic could be invented for selecting two different concepts (or given one, find another)  that would have the most potentially fruitful result.  I would think something about the concepts being "far apart" would be one good metric to employ.
    Your 2) V(A,C) AND V(B,C) is merely one way to go about performing H(A,B). I don't know of other methods and don't want to commit to ruling out the possibility of there being others.  So I can't actually answer this question.
  7. Like
    Grames got a reaction from whYNOT in Notes on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"   
    Well, no.  The point of doing a horizontal integration is to make your knowledge a noncontradictory unity.  The two reductions don't themselves rule out the possibility of a contradiction.  It is good to be able to reduce a concept, and is a requirement of a well formed concept, but it could still be in contradiction to some other concept.  
    Consider the recent memewar entrant "Islam is right about women".  This is an attempt to provoke horizontal integration in the reader.  It is quite possible for some feminist to able to identify Islam without actually knowing all of the attributes of the religion.  It is possible to have a concept but have it ordered around nonessentials.  To feminists, Islam and muslims are simply a non-white and non-christian ally in the fight against the white christian patriarchal power structure of America and the whole western tradition.  As one of the Abrahamic religions it is in fact patriarchal also, vehemently so when compared to Christianity.  The feminist concept of Islam is apparently no more than that group of people who claim to be muslims, and a feminist would reduce the concept to its referents and stop.  Horizontal integration is need to provoke the feminist into realizing this level of concept formation about Islam is inadequate.
  8. Thanks
    Grames got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in What are you listening at the moment?   
    SABATON - Winged Hussars (Official Lyric Video)
  9. Haha
    Grames got a reaction from dream_weaver in Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.   
    Holy hell, I did get something out following this thread.
  10. Haha
    Grames got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.   
    Holy hell, I did get something out following this thread.
  11. Like
    Grames reacted to MisterSwig in Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.   
    Ah, you want to communicate through music? Well, at this point I'm willing to try anything.
     
  12. Like
    Grames got a reaction from Easy Truth in Which Eternity?   
    No, there can be no boundary.  Whenever you think you might be able to imagine something outside or beyond the Universe, it expands to include it.  It is the intent of the concept Universe to encompass everything by definition.  All concepts are like that, having open-ended referents.
  13. Like
    Grames got a reaction from Easy Truth in Which Eternity?   
    Is not the view actually put in the positive sense, that it is claimed time is only inside the universe?  Time is an attribute of what exists.  Outside of the whole of existence there is nothing.  Nothing can have no attributes.  Nothing can be claimed about what is not-existence.
    All of that is merely laying out foundations of straight thinking in metaphysics to rule out some mysticism.   I would not read Rand as making wild claims about the ultimate fate of the universe, whether it exists endlessly or not or in what form.
     
  14. Like
    Grames reacted to 2046 in Charles Tew   
    This may be a broader topic than what you guys are talking about, but I think this is all predicated on that there is such a thing as "the Objectivist movement" and that it has a clear and district meaning and purpose. What even is "the Objectivist movement" and what task or problem is it solving that requires its existence? Why does it have a health and what would this be that I can even know it? Can anyone point to any example of this movement, who is in it, what has it accomplished? Does it even need one? What is the difference between a philosopher working on Rand being in a movement versus not being in one? How would this work differ as "operating with a movement" versus not? What would just any old group of people doing whatever they do look like as "operating in The Objectivist movement" as versus doing the same exact things just as regular people doing whatever they're doing? Do we need to be in "the Objectivist movement" to discuss any set of topics or talk philosophy at all?
    Rand 1968 "A Statement of Policy" denies both the existence or need for any organized Objectivist movement (and of course raises many more confusing questions for what she even means.) Is there even enough content in her Objectivism to be a coherent ideology for a "movement" and does it even have a criteria of membership in said movement, or a program of action, or even a coherent and realistic single end for action? It's clear to me that the answer is no it does not. I realize this is a larger topic but that leads us to the following:
    Implicit in all of that is that (1) Tew even is an actual philosopher, and that he's saying anything substantial or has done any important and original philosophic work one can point to. And (2) that his YouTube videos are even significant, important, or relevant to this "movement" you speak of, whether in terms of substantial content or number of views and popularity. And it's also clear the answer to 1 and 2 is both no.
    Rather it seems to be, the whole idea that there even is "the Objectivist movement" is widely pathological, and leads to things like everyone condemning and "sanctioning" one another qua "representative of our movement" or "hurting our cause" (whatever that is) whereas normal folk just look and go, "What? Y'all are weird." Implicit in this is the assumption that the space is zero-sum, that engagement with Rand can only be done in that space, and that everyone must give moral sanction to everyone else or "they're out."
  15. Like
    Grames reacted to merjet in Octonions   
    The Peculiar Math That Could Underlie the Laws of Nature
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-octonion-math-that-could-underpin-physics-20180720/
     
  16. Like
    Grames reacted to whYNOT in Notes and Comments on "The Virtue of Nationalism"   
    National Rights

    A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense) . . . .
    Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
    “Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
    The Virtue of Selfishness,
    ----
    "Such a nation has a right to its own sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens)..." [AR]
    No one is there yet.
    So? Does one put on hold one's nation's sovereignty and national interests until this is achieved?
    It is national *identity* which I think concerns us here. If that identity is not 'perfect' as yet, one may be advised to "not let the perfect be the enemy of the good". That's a source of frustration and unhappiness, and, most probably, an obstacle to achieving this desired state of affairs. The "good" has to be emphasized, not left behind and forgotten.
    To mention again the "esteem" one has (or has not?) "...for one's country's liberties... etc.".
    Perhaps some would think that one cannot hold any value for one's country and the amount of freedom all individuals have - until -  individual rights are attained? I disagree. E.g. Americans have much to be proud of due to their aggregated national culture - their specific identity - which was and is still individualism, implicit and not fully realized as it may be. I would think this is THE sound base to be built upon. To expect individual rights and laissez-faire to arrive in one's lifetime, is likely unrealistic (depending on your age ;)). 
    A national identity is what anti-nationalists, internationalists/globalists repudiate, quite as altruist-collectivists do an individual's identity, by playing on fears of war-mongering, xenophobia, etc.. (I.e., a person's subjective, predatory 'selfishness'). From what I observe there are hidden motives here to merge a nation's unique identity with other nations, so to sacrifice it.
     
     
  17. Like
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Notes and Comments on "The Virtue of Nationalism"   
    The centrality of individual rights as an organizing principle in the conduct of government is itself an aspect of a culture only few nations have ever possessed.
  18. Like
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Consciousness as Irreducible   
    He does not know or accept that information is a physical phenomenon properly included within the scope of physics, first defined by Claude Shannon in "A Mathematical Theory of Communication".  If information can only be semantic he cannot conceive of studying information non-semantically.  For those that persist in doing so anyway, they must be denying the existence of semantic information.  Then he has the additional problem, how is it possible for purely semantic information to have physical consequences such moving one's limbs and communicating thoughts in speech or writing?  The new mental force or substance bridges the gap between semantic meaning and physical causation.
    Binswanger also misuses the concept of irreducible in the context of the axiomatic concept of consciousness.  What is epistemologically irreducible is not necessarily physically or metaphysically irreducible.  Life is also an axiomatic concept but it is absurd to claim living things are not composed of physical parts that can be studied.
    This line directly addresses the title of the thread:  Consciousness is epistemologically irreducible because it is axiomatic but it is an error to claim consciousness is physically or metaphysically irreducible.
  19. Like
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Consciousness as Irreducible   
    Consciousness is an attribute of living things.  Living is action.  Consciousness is a type of action.  The concept of action assumes entities that act, nevertheless the action is distinguishable and distinct from the entity that acts.   So yes, as Binswanger writes “Consciousness exists and matter exist” but also I would add consciousness can only exist because matter exists, matter as both subject and object of consciousness.  
    Binswanger is correct to argue against a version of reductionism that would deny consciousness exists.  But to investigate the physiological nature of brains (human or animal) to identify what actions of consciousness are and how they occur is not reductionist.  Binswanger is wrong to adopt the dualist premise that consciousness is one of the fundamental ontological components of the universe, literally a yet to be discovered substance.
  20. Like
    Grames got a reaction from EC in Eco-fascist attack in New Zealand   
    The central bank is the central pillar of fascism.  America has had its central bank for over 100 years now and a lot of toxic shit has spawned in its shadow.  We have the black shirts and political correctness, we have the degenerate popular culture of Wiemar.  We have the race vs. sex. vs religion identity group struggle over control of local and national government. Mass news media and academia is entirely given over to moralizing propaganda of the fascist perspective.  Fascism is here.  It isn't fully manifested yet and isn't fully in control but it is definitely here.   Its going to get worse.
  21. Like
    Grames reacted to Reidy in Law of Identity and Evolution   
    The argument here (identity precludes change) first showed up in Parmenides ca 500 BC. From the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology:
    On the former path [i.e. of reason] we convince ourselves that the existent neither has come into being, nor is perishable, and is entirely of one sort, without change and limit, neither past nor future, entirely included in the present. For it is as impossible that it can become and grow out of the existent, as that it could do so out of the non-existent; since the latter, non-existence, is absolutely inconceivable, and the former cannot precede itself; and every coming into existence presupposes a non-existence.
    His writings give us the first example of an explicit premise-and-conclusion argument. Much of Aristotle's metaphysics amounts to an explanation of what's wrong with that argument.
  22. Like
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Which Eternity?   
    Causal connection.  Physical, material causality through direct and indirect contact or through fields or whatever else physics may discover.
    Then that thing would be unknowable, and it would be arbitrary to speculate about its existence.
  23. Like
    Grames got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Which Eternity?   
    No.  The concept of Universe works just as well whether what exists is finite or infinite.  Concepts are by definition and in practical usage open ended.   Furthermore, paraphrasing Aristotle and his principle of identity, everything that exists has particular definite form.  A 'sum' or 'whole' used in reference to the diversity of all that exists then is not something that has a primary sense of existence but rather it is merely an epistemological device.   A good definition will specify a genus and differentia; but the definition of Universe can have no differentia.  Universe then is a special and problematic epistemological contrivance.   
    Is it a problem that needs solving?  Can it be avoided?  I say no and no.
  24. Like
    Grames got a reaction from MisterSwig in Which Eternity?   
    Potential is identity viewed from epistemological perspective, a mind with memory and imagination.   All that exists are particulars, doing particular definite things in accordance with their identities.   It takes imagination or memory to divert the mind's attention away from what the object of the mind's attention is doing right this moment.  
    'Potential energy' is a concept taught in elementary physics classes.  Pendulum motion is described using the principle of conservation of energy such that the sum of the pendulums kinetic energy of motion and its potential energy of position must remain constant (neglecting friction for the moment).  Here the so-called potential energy is real and actual because the pendulum is a real and actual existent with a real and actual position within a gravity field at every instant.   One can avoid the potential confusion of thinking of potentials as real because it appears in an equation describing the pendulum's motion by using the term 'energy of position' instead.   
    This kind of statement "a sea battle either will happen tomorrow or not happen tomorrow" is formally true because the alternatives are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, but it does not constitute knowledge and cannot be categorized as a fact because it does not predicate anything.  (It predicates two perfect contradictories which cancel to net zero predication.)  The grammar of the statement is correct, the logic of the posited alternatives is flawless, yet it remains entirely an exercise in method.  It is an unfalsifiable statement of the kind Popper scorned.  The statement employs the useful and valid concept of "tomorrow", but that does not transform the referent of "tomorrow" from an epistemological construct (a 'concept of method' in Objectivist jargon) into an existential fact.
    Tree rings exist in the present as an effect with a cause in the past.  The cause existed, then the effect existed.  The present existence of the effect does not require the present existence of the cause.
    Going back to your argument:
    No beginning and no end can still be literally true if a finite Universe had some kind of strange asymptotic boundary conditions governing time.  For example, space and time are related such that a very high mass density implies a very high space time curvature such that time slows to a crawl relative to a lesser curvature. The Big Bang would have played out very slowly, and extrapolating backward in time beyond the Big Bang requires crossing an inflection point where time would not pass at all.   A remote future in which all matter had entered black holes and then been re-radiated as Hawking radiation until all the black holes were gone would be a perfectly static universe in which time had no meaning.
  25. Like
    Grames reacted to StrictlyLogical in Which Eternity?   
    Sorry to interject, and I cannot speak for Grames,  but everything which exists, exists now.  That does not in any way detract from the fact that things existed "in the past" or that things (or states or configurations of things) will exist "in the future".  I know it sounds like a semantic game, but it is not.  The fact that we can remember and/or deduce the past from the present, or predict (to varying rates of success) future events from the present, does not serve enough to "equate" the fundamentally different categories of NOW versus "PAST" and "FUTURE". [ I do understand there is some nuance involved in talking about the fundamental differences without invoking the ancient fallacies that "change requires destruction and creation" (or there can be no change?) or "you cant stand in the same river twice"]
    So what is the status of traces of the "past"?  Whether rings of a tree, or photographic remains from the 19th century, or actual memories in our brains, there exist states and configurations of things as they exist now, which are a result of causation which occurred in the "past" and involved existents as they were in the "past".  But the existents are no longer as they were in the "past"... forms, chemicals, arrangements of matter change... although some preservation of states (or a clear connection of present states to those of the past) is necessary to deduce the past (chemicals in a photographic plate which have preserved their states which were caused by interaction with light at the moment the photograph was taken)   [Aside: I accept the oddness that since time is always in motion, even the act of recalling the distant past involves processes which themselves involve time... to see an image of my childhood home, my visual cortex and associated systems are provided with something which has been stored for years, but the experience I have of seeing it in my mind, is already milliseconds old.. since the time of recall to the time of "display/experience" is not instantaneous....] 
    In that sense things only ARE, but we see from what they ARE what they (or perhaps what other things) WERE.
    What about the status of the "future"?  The "future" IS not, but it WILL be.  What it will be is inexorably through causality linked to all that is now, so we have the luxury of being somewhat able to predict and project, what to expect existence to be in future, by thinking about it.  That a ball will arc through the air into your baseball glove according to a parabola, and you can place yourself to catch it is a wonderful thing.  But "time" is simply a measure of the changes in the things which exist... it is not that there is a ball and time and you somehow have figured out the relationship between the two, there is, was and only ever will be the ball.  The FACT is that the ball, its attributes (position momentum weight size) and its arrangement in relation to the Earth its nature and the fact of gravity, all mean that there will be a causal chain of events which is not random.  The facts of things that ARE do exist, and they will affect the future, but those facts of things as they are now, exist now.
    Again in that sense, things only ARE, but we can see from what they ARE what they MIGHT (or WILL) be.
     
    Although we can remember the "past" and predict the "future", although the "past" affected the present and the present will affect the "future", there IS only NOW.  Moreover, since time is merely the fact that THINGS change, and "time" is not a thing in itself, there literally is no PAST or FUTURE.  They do not EXIST now...  All we should mean when we refer to various "points" in time are the THINGS as THEY WERE (or WILL BE) AT those times.  Referring to a disjointed floating time is technically meaningless.  There is no December 2, 2020 as such, but we CAN speak of THINGS AS THEY WILL BE on December 2, 2020.
    It's the same as the concept "number", one is no more correct to refer to a disembodied "past" or "future" (rather than referring to the past states of things or the future states of things) than to refer to "six" absent specifying six "what"? [As in "I saw Six running in the lobby today" ... "Six?  You saw Six what running in the lobby?" ... "No just Six, I saw it running in the lobby" ... "Incredible... utterly fantastic numbers are not things... there are only numbers of things (and by measurement omission ... numbers of "anythings")]
     
    For clarity, I do not think you are wrong to see the "past" and the "future" in things that ARE, but the notions "past" and "future" can only ever mean what things were and what things will be, and the act of seeing those "in the things that are" is merely an identification of identity and causality as the prime "movers" of "change", not an identification of a literal past or future "in" the present.
×
×
  • Create New...