Greebo
-
Posts
1458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Greebo
-
-
I was asked, what precisely is the code an Objectivist must follow? I wasn't asked to prove the Objectivist ethics, I wasn't asked a specific question about a specific scenario, just, "What is the Objectivist code of ethics, summarized?"
You were asked for the code, not a justification, but you immediately went to justifying it. The answer you were asked for is this:
To never live your life for the sake of another, nor ask another to live for the sake of yours.
-
EDIT: I want to try to drive this point home. Reactions are not limited to actions caused by direct physical contact with other objects. Reactions cover any and all actions that occur as a result of the action of another object in ANY way (whether it is the mass and proximity of the object as with gravity, or the polar charges of the objects as with magnetic action, etc...) All of these are REactions which presuppose prior action (prior CHANGE in the status of the objects involved) in order for the action to have occurred at all.
Ok so what is the spontaneous appearance of a volitional force which can act upon massless, eternal energy a reaction to?
-
Haven't we been over this gravity issue like 5 times now and I still don't recall you having any response to my position on it. Gravity is not an action, its a force (as you said). Its a force that only causes motion when two objects have some amount of distance between them. If gravity and the objects were eternal, they never would've been separated. If you wish to say that the objects were not eternal, that they sprung into existence as a result of the motion of energy,
Stop there. Motion applies to objects. Objects are not eternal, but energy is.
Energy is not an object, it is a force. When energy is not in a material form, and there is no matter at all, we have no idea how Energy acts. Since energy has no mass, it has no speed limits - and in fact may not even have velocity. We don't have any idea how it works or how causality works or even IF it applies in a massless space.
Equal and opposite reaction stops there. Once we move into "there is no mass" land, we are beyond the bounds of the rules we currently understand. The context ends. You cannot *definitively* apply THIS context's rules to that vastly different context.
then the motion of energy is the prior motion that gave rise to the gravitational motion by creating objects which were separated by distance. Notice, though, that we have only taken the step BACK to the motion of energy (whatever that means). Was this motion ALSO caused by gravity? Gravity acting upon what? And whatever was in motion that gravity was acting upon will bring up the same problem-- that they are separated and in motion as a result of prior action.Gravity requires mass. No mass, no gravity. Energy without mass has its own rules and we don't know what they are but absolute spontaneity could very well be one of them.
-
the nature of an object is such that it either moves of its own accord (volitionally) or as a reaction to some prior action.
FALSE
Strike volitional, and I'll agree - but gravity is not volitional.
-
Every person is unique.
Okay, we're done, troll.
-
Withholding evidence is sanctioning the crime in an objective material way, unlike someone merely sympathetic to the accused. A person withholding evidence is described in common law terms as an "accessory after the fact".
Thanks, I knew I was missing a link somewhere.
-
This question is pretty far afield from the story you linked to, where the evidence was given voluntarily.
Yes, the article was the trigger for a pretty broad topic. The discussion that got me thinking about this was whether journalists had a right to obstruct justice.
But anyway, yes. The only limit is the prohibition against self-incrimination which is necessary to preserve objectivity in evidence gathering. Government use of force in the defense of rights is justified; it is the whole purpose of government.I agree with the latter, but what you suggest sounds like an initiation of force. Government's monopoly is on the use of retaliatory force. No person nor Government may morally initiate force.
If you have evidence as a witness that could convict a person, but otherwise were uninvolved, in what manner are you initiating force against the victim such that a retaliation against you is warranted?
-
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/10/1719209/photographer-will-face-discipline.html
The above is an apology link by the Olympian for having given false information by an employee which they passed along.
A key section of the article is this:
In sharing those photos, Tony violated our long-standing policy of refusing to release to law enforcement agencies photographs and other material that have not been published in print or online.We have that policy to ensure that we can be independent, unbiased observers of what goes on in our community. We are not an arm of any law-enforcement agency.
But applying such a policy is fraught with complications, and reasonable people can disagree about the appropriateness of Tony’s decisions. In the heat of violent confrontations, Tony held evidence of people breaking the law in his own hands, on the memory card in his digital camera. In a split-second decision as he watched people committing violent acts and in one case was assaulted himself, he chose to let police officers look at the photos on his camera’s view screen. That violated our policy.
This has led to some interesting discussions in other venues concerning the role of Journalists when it comes to criminal acts.
First off - I don't think Journalists should have any more "rights" than anyone else, so I couch this question in more general terms:
If a person is in possession of evidence of a crime (an immoral one, to be clear, as opposed to a "moral crime"), for instance, in the form of a photograph, and otherwise had nothing to do with the committing of that crime, does the Government have the moral right to compel the disclosure of that evidence in the interests of justice?
-
That doesn't mean there's no thought process behind people making babies today.
But patents and copyrights and the like only can apply to NEW ideas. Making babies is not a new idea.
So please stop this absurdity and get back to a real argument or we're done.
-
I am a gay man that has started getting interested in objectivism.
Unfortunately I have come to realize that objectivism and being gay does not really mix well.
Although most of the logical/rational arugments that I can find (on the internet) cannot prove anything wrong with homosexuality, I have come to realize that most Objectivists (apart from a few exceptions) do not really keep logical beliefs about homosexuality.
How have you come to realize this - have you met most Objectivists and asked them?
I feel dissappointed since I thought this would be a philosophy that I could really accept as an athiest.You may be putting the cart before the horse here. Being an atheist is not a reason alone to be an O'ist. In fact, it's not a reason at all. The ONLY reason to be an O'ist is to learn the philosophy from its roots, evaluate the arguments and positions, and determine ON YOUR OWN using YOUR ability to reason whether the philosophy is rational and therefore true, or not.
Do you consider hearsay to be valid evidence? If not, then realize that you have presented hearsay to us.While on facebook I found some "gay objectivists" most of them seem to have a problem with their own sexuality. One very outspoken "gay objectivist" couple I found seemed very suspicious i.e. I do not think they are really gay or even a couple - there were just to many inconsistencies. I wonder what their agenda are.I also find it confusioning that most objectivists find Ayn Rand's support of capitalism and limited government more important than her views against religion. I have even found some "christian objectivists" on-online. Please can somebody tell me how that can make any sense at all?
Again with "most"...
-
Primitive humans had no mental thought process?
You are, again, dropping context, or possibly you are that much of an idiot and simply cannot read simple sentences and comprehend them, so I will eliminate the articles from the previous statement to make it absolutely crystal clear.
Because people were making babies long before there was a mental thought process behind the making of babies.
The biological predecessors of human beings have been making babies with no mental thought process - sex in the animal kingdom is an automatic function for the most part. As we developed the ability to think, it stands to reason that while we eventually figured out that sex leads to babies, we didn't figure it out BEFORE we started making babies.
-
But my point is feeding one's self isn't automatic.
And that remotely relates to baby making, how?
-
Eiuol, I'm honestly not sure how baby-making doesn't apply to your definition of creative work:
Because people were making babies long before there was a mental thought process behind it.
Stop being absurd or you're going to simply cause people to conclude you're deliberately trolling.
-
I agree that reality wins and that when reality contradicts established or accepted premises, it is the premises which need to be altered.
However I think the emboldened part is an important point of difference.
You seem to equate established science (i.e. empirical observation) with reality and philosophy with speculative rules. This may be the case in regard to SOME philosophical premises, but not in all. If science discovers something which it THINKS is a contradiction, the philosophical premise of "A is A" should NOT be altered. Rather, the scientists interpretation and understanding of the phenomena is what needs to be altered. Remember that strict scientific inquiry only gathers empirical data. It is up to philosophy to integrate and interpret that data accordingly. If the interpretation of that data contradicts a necessary philosophical/logical law -NOT a special science law like the laws of inertia- but a logical law like the law of identity, it is the interpretation, not the law, which must be altered.
We're in agreement so far - but I would point out that scientists who attempt to break the fundamental rule of A is A are generally considered kooks. When I say established science, I mean science that, in a given context is proven. The 5 pound hammer and the 5 pound feathers on the moon will always fall at the same rate. Hydrogen and Oxygen will always be able to be combined into water via combustion at 72F and broken apart again via electric charge at 72F. Those are established, and any philosophy which attempts to rewrite THAT is flat out wrong.
But the action caused by gravitation force MUST be an action in response to prior action because gravity only acts on one or more objects with some distance between themThe action caused by gravitational force is a re-action to gravity, yes. Gravity itself is not a reaction to anything. The gravity of an object exists whether or not there is something else there to act upon.
(agreed, the distance doesn't matter). If gravity is eternal and the objects proposed are also eternal,I never said the objects are eternal, or that gravity is eternal. Stop there. ENERGY is eternal. Matter is not.
Gravity doesn't exist where matter doesn't exist, and matter didn't exist 400k years after the big bang. It was simply too hot. Based on the big bang theory, basic matter forms because sufficient energy in a non corporeal state exists in a large enough volume that the temperature in that space wouldn't immediately destroy the matter. So - one second there's no matter, just lots and lots of energy in an expanding space, and the next second the universe has expanded and it's cooled down enough and now there's sub atomic particles and hydrogen and helium, and a few years later it cools down enough that gravity can start affecting their motion. You get stable atoms, then you get gravity, then you get motion. Indirectly the motion is a result of spatial expansion, and spatial expansion is probably the result of having all that energy in a singularity to begin with - but if energy is eternal, and has no speed limits when there's no matter (as demonstrated by the expansion of space itself) who's to say that eternal energy doesn't just shift around in completely random unpredictable patterns, or maybe when there is no matter it attracts itself, so that a singularity is inevitable, or one theory posits that black holes (which have near infinite heat) transfer raw energy into new bubble universes which then expand, start to cool and its all an endless cycle. If energy is eternal, it may go for immeasurable periods where there is no matter before a new big bang happens, all of this without any cause except it's own existence.
-
If by "prove" you mean "demonstrate/establish the validity of" and if by "reason" you mean the general processes of logic, then I absolutely would NOT agree with this statement- it would negate all knowledge and reason. Logic is axiomatic, not circular. Therefore, the validity of reason (the use of logic) is axiomatic, not circular.
So you don't agree that you can use reason to prove reason, and as proof of your disagreement, you demonstrate that reason (the ordered process of logical argument based on established premises) can't be proved?
Reason cannot be proved by reason because it is axiomatic. To PROVE something you must base it on valid, established premises. To prove or disprove reason you must USE reason, which means you are basing a conclusion on a begged question, which isn't a valid logical proof.
That which is axiomatic isn't *proved*, it is self-evident and impossible to demonstrate OR contradict without it's own use.
-
Probably to your surprise, I completely agree with you about the need to consider context when discussing established rules. The rules you are speaking of are special science rules (involving physics mostly). I agree that those rules of physics would not and probably did not apply in a different context. It's funny though, because this is usually an issue which atheistic scientists wish to avoid at all costs.
However, I think you have misunderstood my argument. I have not argued that my conclusion is necessary based on the current laws of physics. In fact, I have been very careful not to mention the current laws of physics for the very reasons which you have listed above (the fact that they don't apply to this discussion in the same way they would if we were discussing something else, because of the context). It seems that you are just now coming around to agreeing with me that this issue cannot be answered by the special sciences (something which Plasmatic has rightfully pointed out a few times).
I don't believe I ever asserted otherwise - but at the same time, as I said, if reality and the rules being used to define it disagree, reality wins. If a philosophical premise (the rules) contract established science (reality) - the philosophy is wrong.
We may not know what special scientific rules apply, but we do know which philosophical ones apply. An entity can only act according to its nature.This is why I have insisted that we stick to those things which necessarily remain constant in any context (i.e. the laws of identity & causality).
No matter what context we are speaking of, an entity (whether matter OR energy) can only act according to its nature. There are only two possible types of nature in respect to action: that which is a response to prior action and that which is not a response to prior action; that which reacts and that which acts on its own; that which reacts and that which chooses to act.
What would you call Gravity? It's not an action - it's a force. It's not a response to matter, it's a property of matter, but it acts on other matter, no matter (no pun intended) how far away. It causes a reaction without itself being an action. This being possible, your claim (which I have stated before is unproven and thus itself also arbitrary) that action must either be reactive or volitional is dubious at best.
Your appeal to it possibly being "spontaneous" is somewhat of a cop-out. Spontaneous means without any known cause or without an intended cause- it does not mean without a cause at all. Any "spontaneous" event (just like all events) will have a cause- and that cause will ultimately be owing to prior action or to the volitional nature of the actor.No more than your appeal to God to solve the dilemma.
-
No, its more like saying "A is A" even when we're talking about energy and I don't want to waste time.
It's both - A is A, and A is always A, but A has a context, and when the context changes, so does A, so...
Could you elaborate on what you mean here and on how it is relevant?... so when you deal with the rationally grounded but speculative possibility of what may happen "before everything" (so to speak) you have to recognize that different rules may apply at fundamental levels. A is still A, but A is in Script instead of Courier Block.
So when I say "causality may not work the same in the earliest stages of existences current state of existence" I mean you NEED to consider how the rules work to understand what A is and what rules apply to it.
You've built an argument for God based on motion and in our current context, the rule that a motion must start either in a reactive or in a volitional sense is rational. A rock will not roll unless it either reacts to something else, to be certain. But you're then *dropping* that context and applying it universally at all levels of scale.
We know that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but that reaction is a reaction to *force*. Force requires mass. Force = Mass * Acceleration and since A is A, ANY existent which has mass lives by that formula.
But when you go back to a point before which matter existed - when you go back to the point in time where matter did not exist - what you had was just energy. (Matter is, after all, cohesive energy). When you have no matter, you have no mass. When you have no mass, you have no force, and when you have no force, you have no actions and no reactions. Bye bye Newton's Laws. No inertia, no acceleration, no equal and opposite reactions.
You can not pick up a rule which applies to entities which have mass and drop it in a context where there is no mass and require that context to behave the same way.
If you ask this straw-man question again, I will ignore it. We are both in agreement that SOMETHING eternal is necessitated. We are not debating that. We are debating the NATURE of that eternal thing (volitional or not). What you have written below would have sufficed.I will continue to point out the logical paradox of infinite causal requirement as long as you keep positing that something else must have created existence. That isn't a straw man -
Yes, it is equally necessary for there to have been eternal energy. This begs the question though- energy of what?No it doesn't. Energy is mutable. Energy can be heat, motion, kinetic, potential, electromagnetic, and so forth. Energy is transferable. In relation to physical objects, there are rules about how energy transforms and transfers, but all of those rules are bound to mass. Where no mass exists (such as prior to around 400,000 years following the big bang (or big whoosh)) we don't know what those rules were, though we do know that there was too much energy in the limited space that existed for matter to form, and that energy was pretty evenly distributed throughout space at the time.
And when the state of the energy was altered (in whatever form and by whatever means you wish to posit), was this alteration a result of some prior event (for which another causal explanation is required) or was it volitional?Or, possibly, was it simply spontaneous? If energy must be eternal and can exist in a matter-less state where the conventional rules don't apply we cannot say what causality rules existed (but we're working on it).
You see, I am not saying "God was necessary for the first action... just because". I am saying a VOLITIONAL action must have been the first action (because A is A) and therefore God (a volitional being) was necessary.Remember that in science, when you encounter a phenomenon that doesn't conform to your rules and thus you require some new entity to explain why the existing rules don't work, you have two possible situations:
1) You are right, the rules are right, but there is something new needed to explain the situation; (God) or
2) The rules are wrong. (There's no mass, so rules which work on mass don't work in that context)
When the nature of reality contradicts the rules, it's reality that wins, not the rules.
-
You posit that the phenomena among energy and/ matter can account for the beginning of motion. The details don't matter, so spare me.
That's rather like saying don't show me the fact that 2+2=4 to support your claim regarding how addition works - or better, don't show me the math proving the Earth isn't the center of the universe, the details don't matter.
IF the current theory about early matter physics is correct, then sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "LA LA LA LA" won't change that.
Whatever you or anyone else wants to claim was possible among energy or matter, none of it can violate the laws of identity and causality.True, but causality doesn't necessarily work the same way when you're going from early state energy to matter.
Any event which occurred (either with energy, or matter, or both) will have one of two possible causes. Either an event before that caused it (whether it was heating, cooling, expanding, contracting, gravitation force, a giant monkey, I don't care), or the energy/matter being discussed was somehow volitional and acted of it's own accord without the causal influence of anything else.It doesn't matter how far back on the timeline you wish to go, it doesn't matter how far down the microscope you wish to peer, or how far out in deep space you wish to explore. No matter what, there will always be one of two options: The event was subject to external causes or The event was volitional. All events which are subject to external causes imply previous events which themselves are subject to the same alternative.
It's very simple. Like a math equation.
And if that's true, it's true for your God too - so what caused God? You cannot argue that God was necessary for first action therefore he existed - it is just as equally necessary for energy itself to be eternal, and be it's own first cause for action. Thus you cannot draw a CONCLUSION for God - or against - on those lines - which means you still have arbitrary premises - not provable true or false - so the only logical course of action is to dismiss the concept as arbitrary.
-
You're saying you have to be there every step of the way (creatively) in order for it to be your property. My question then is why this doesn't apply to certain things where you're creatively involved the whole way (like a new fashion style, or a simple phrase). What's our standard for determining what this applies to and doesn't?
A phrase can be protected. Haven't you heard of Trademarks?
Can't speak for fashion.
-
What do you mean when you say copy?
What the hell do you think copy means? We've been using "copy" and "reproduce" in this discussion for pages now...
Someone else could come up with the same idea, so you won't be the only person who controls it any more.You are dropping context - we're talking about in the case where you haven't come up with the idea and I have.
Remember: you have already conceded that if you saw the original before coming up with your own version you cannot make a reasonable claim to have come up with it first.
That's true. How is it relevant to this debate?
AND you have already conceded that my idea cannot be taken from me by force:
I agree with you and I've already covered this point.
So once you've seen my invention you can't reliably claim to have come up with it myself, and I have the right not to share access to my invention, and you (as you conceded) could not come up with it on your own then the ONLY way you get my invention is from me.
"Someone" could come up with the exact same idea - and that's a different problem - but YOU could not - so I have it, I made it, it's the only one, I can give you a copy of it and will if you agree not to reproduce it - and otherwise you'll NEVER HAVE IT. A right is that which cannot be taken from you - you don't have the idea and never will on your own, so you have no right to it, and I have the idea and never have to share it, so I do have a right to the idea. So in the specific, clear, exact context of you and me, yes, I can require you not to reproduce my idea, because you got it *from me*.
You have the right to not tell anyone your idea if you choose not to.Precisely.
BTW since you like the pragmatic considerations - have you considered what would happen to music, literature, the fine arts, cinema, etc if artists didn't have a right to own their creations and the right to the profit from the enjoyment others gain from them?
-
Post #150 was by Greebo. If you mean post #148, you say "people don't MAKE kids, they are only involved in one step of the whole automatic biological process. It's not like you grab parts and BUILD a kid."
That's ridiculous. People choose to conceive a kid, which makes the formation of the kid possible. Furthermore, the mother is also choosing not to have abortion, as well.
If you really believe this, you are an absolute fool.
My wife and I have tried to have kids for years, unsuccessfully.
You can TRY to have a child - but by no means does having sex guarantee having a child - and oh yeah, by the way, apples and cars comparison again - CHILDREN ARE HUMAN BEINGS
If you persist in this absolutely stupid analogy I can only wash my hands of this discussion because you'll say any damn fool think to rationalize your claim to have a right to what you can't produce yourself.
-
You said "it would not exist without my effort". Kids don't exist without your effort. The argument is incomplete.
The effort of my mind. Stop equivocating. Children are not ideas, they are human beings, and one cannot (without a lab at least) consciously create a child. One can have sex which may or may not result in offspring - that is not an effort in any sense comparable on a creative level with the creation of a book or software or music or the wheel.
I’m saying that if people don’t have the right to an idea in and of itself, then no one should be able to sign a contract that says “I won’t reproduce the idea” because they have the right to do so.Ok I will grant, this is a fine point.
But now you still need to prove that people don't have the right to an idea. I assert that if I'm the only person who's created a thing, and I refuse to share any knowledge of that thing with you, and having no knowledge of that idea, you are unable to reproduce that idea, then ipso facto I *do* have the right to control that idea because I am the only one with it and you cannot take that idea from me without my consent, any more than you can take my freedom to chose from me without my consent.
If you cannot take it from me, then it is *rightfully* mine.
Now when we talk books and music - its even more concrete - because what I create with a book or music or software is a specific pattern of information. It's a CONSTRUCT - just as much as a car or a computer is a construct. It's a construct of a different material, to be sure, but a construct just the same. In such a case, since I created the construct, and it can only be copied by gaining access to my own original, then how can I *not* have the right to control who gains access to that original?
-
2. I do not believe that existence as such can be justifiably called an "entity." Perhaps this can be another thread sometime if any of us desire to debate the issue. To state my case briefly I will say: The quote from Peikoff's lecture given is actually in support of my position that the universe is not an entity. It meets none of his requirements for the usage of the term: it is not a single thing, it is the sum of every thing; it has no definite boundary; and it is definitely not perceptual in scale.
RE existence being an entity - I think it does qualify as an entity.
It definitely exists.
It is the sum of everything - but the sum of an equation is an entity. If 2 and + and 2 and = are entities, so must also be 4.
It has a definite boundary - where everything ends, so does it end.
It is, I agree, not perceptual in scale - at least not in our scale - but if you stand at the edge of an ocean, you cannot perceive all of the ocean in scale either, and yet the ocean is an entity. Stand in space, however, and you can see it as the size of your thumb.
We cannot perceive all of existence - YET - but does that mean it CANNOT be perceived in scale? We don't really know that one.
And finally - if existence, as a concept, is not an entity, then how can it be a concept?
-
A man who places his work above his family is, in my opinion, a stupid jerk. But that's just my opinion. Rand asserts it as an absolute, but based on what scientific experiments? How can one PROVE that it is immoral?
One needs scientific experiments to prove this no more than one needs science to prove that A is A.
Man survives by his own productive effort. To prosper long term, he must produce for the long term, and *if* he cares for his family, he very well may be the one who has to produce *for them* for the long term, as well as for himself.
If he puts family before productivity, he puts his and their own futures at risk.
Rand is not saying to *exclude* family and friends from one's life - but simply to balance them properly - and that one must always be concerned with one's own long term survival and thus with productivity.
To do the reverse, to put family first and sacrifice one's own self for their sake - that is what Rand and all O'ists consider the most reprehensible evil - but that doesn't mean we don't have a place in our lives for our family by any means. I work for the future so that one day my work will work for itself, so that I CAN be free to spend more time with my wife. But if I only did the bare minimum to survive so I could spend all my time with my wife, we'd be condemned to a life of mediocre misery, barely scraping by.
Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Tell that to the physicists.
Welcome to the time before matter could form.
AND THUS, knowledge about it is impossible - and thus Jacob's claim that first motion must have been volitional is JUST as unknowable as my claim that energy might teleport freely in a matterless state.
In short - per the physics - ANY speculation about the nature of existence prior to the big bang is and must be arbitrary, and thus, cannot be considered *known* or *proven*.