StrictlyLogical

What is your definition of "Biological self-causation"? What would be your definition of "antecedent causation"?

In a small geography like an island, how would an Objectivist government, on principle, justify preventing (read interfering with) an existing owner from renting or selling his property to an individual not currently residing on the island? In other words, even supposing no rights are considered to attach to an individual not yet living in the geography, how is violation of the property rights of the individual living within the geography justified?

Ignoring the "reductionists" and "determinists", straightforward science does not seem to have any special need of the concept of "emergence". Things act differently and/or have different properties from their parts, this is not new to science.

A direct answer to my questions and referring to my example would help me understand.

*Bump* Still can't use quotes.

volco Management of infrastructure is NOT a proper role of government according to Objectivism and neither is management of individual people who have not committed any crime. Again there is no concept of Country or Nationalism per se, only the administration of the three branches of government protecting the rights of the individuals.

"Irreducibility" seems to be either an appeal to ignorance or mysticism. Either its proponents try to say we do not know why something emerges or imply its magical that something emerges, that somehow it is "nonphysical". To say that properties are emergent i.e. not found in the parts in isolation is not to say that the natures of the parts somehow avoid being such that when they arranged in a particular way, they must, according to reality and identity, cause the emergent property. I think way too much significance is being given to this "property not found in the parts in isolation" fact of almost everything. What I find so far, is only an under-defined mysterious concept of irreducibility. Reality and identity and the "parts" define and necessitate by causation the "emergent" property... this is no different from countless other "reducible" physical systems. So what makes it irreducible? The implication by many proponents seems that is that emergence is "unknowable" or that it somehow it violates the law of identity, or that it is non-physical (read supernatural). All of these are false and impossible. Emergence is not magic and does not differ from any other composite, complex, physical system which cries out for rational explanation. Color and texture and solidity are properties which are emergent if we consider the behavior of solitary electrons, protons, and neutrons, none of which possess these properties. We cannot ignore, however, that the nature of these particles is such that when they combine to form atoms, and they combine to form molecules or crystals, and when these are shaped so in a collection we identify as a specific entity, such as a red bouncy rubber ball, the properties of color, texture, and solidity exist. IF we plead ignorance we can say it is "surprising" that red bouncy balls made of e, p, an n, are red, rubbery, and semi-flexible, but only if we ignore our knowledge. Emergent properties obviously exist and obviously they exist necessarily by virtue of reality and the identities of the parts making up the whole. But what is all this hay about "irreducibility"? In the context of any composite or complex system what does one mean by emergent properties which are irreducible as opposed to reducible? Almost NO directly perceivable property on the perceptual level, sound, temperature, taste, scent, color, etc. are properties of the fundamental particles themselves. So what? Someone tell me how this example of a red rubber ball whose properties are caused by the arrangement and functioning of its parts is different from complex systems giving rise to consciousness?

Mikee: I think your acquaintance has confused "undeniability of the presence of something" in philosophy with the "impossibility of explanation" of a thing according to the sciences. Undeniability of a thing does not in any way necessitate "prevention" of any questions regarding the nature, functioning, origins, etc. of the thing, it merely establishes that the thing's existence cannot be denied. From the perspective of a conscious human being it is inescapable that consciousness IS, but we clearly observe there are things which are not conscious. This leaves open a whole field of opportunity to investigate how consciousness occurs and functions in the natural world (this is a redundant clarification ,,, reality/the universe the totality of all existents is natural as opposed to supernatural). Do you think your acquaintance may be tinged with rationalism or mysticism?

By "control" you must mean "force", because without force you cannot "control" something which in principle would be determined by the voluntary choices of individuals. In a proper society "force" is only used in retaliation and with justification, and such force is delegated to a minimal government. A minimal government's role is to protect individual rights. Demographics per se, as a result of the free voluntary choices of individuals is not a threat to any other individual. As such government would not and could not "play a role". "Overpopulation" is a concept which you have not defined, and may well be an anti-concept or a stolen concept from the minds of collectivist/social engineers and pragmatists trying to "make things work". Free individuals will move and rent or buy as the supply and demand and market allows. IF people are too dense for your tastes, in a city, a town or a village or even in the country as a free individual you have the right to move, i.e. to enter a contract to rent or to buy property. Those people who live around you (in a free Objectivist society) will have gotten there through trade, and are renting or are home owners by right. There are a lot of options for you to exercise if the local population gets too large for your tastes. You have the choice to rent out all the apartments in the apartment buildings neighboring you. You and 19 of your friends can (20 people) rent 40 apartments in an attempt to cut the population (i.e. local population) by half. For that matter you and 200 of your friends could put an offer to buy the apartment buildings (suitable for 1000 people) and cut the local population to 1/5. You could move to the country and purchase a large parcel of land ensuring the appropriate buffer. You could organise or join a private community, perhaps even a "private" city, which has contractual guarantees about numbers of people per square foot or square mile. You WILL PAY MORE for the luxury, commuting will be more of a challenge but these are realities of being free in a free society. As an individual you cannot "control" demographics any more than a proper government could. Use of force is not permitted absent initiation of harm (violation of rights) by another. In conclusion: "Demographics" is simply not a proper "thing" to control in a geography for which there is a proper Objectivist government. nether the people nor the government have the right to force others in an attempt to control "demographics".

Tadmjones you will glad to know that as one with a physics degree I tend to agree with you. There is nothing in experimental or theoretical physics which relies upon an interpretation of space or time as "entities" in reality, separate and apart from existents, be they tables, stars, or positrons. Space and time fundamentally are quantifications of relationships between existents. All of physics is entirely consistent with an interpretation of space and time, or any other dimension (e.g. supersymmetry) as values or placeholders which are descriptive of relationships between existents. A mathematical background which keeps track of those relationships. To be sure this background is not necessarily "empty" but the activity occurring in any n-dimensional "volume" is to be distinguished from the values we associate with the position and time etc. of those activities. Those relationships, which we refer to with values of space and time, change in specific ways for specific reasons, but it is not space or time that changes (relativity dismisses any concept such as absolute space or the "ether"), it is the way entities behave in relation to each other under certain circumstances. Length is not a thing, the space between two particles is not a thing, and neither is the position of an existent a thing.

Racists are collectivists/socialists by definition because of their conceiving of themselves and others not as individuals but as members of groups, races, colors etc, We, however, can agree that when membership in a "group" is not a specific voluntary choice, it is an irrelevant construct which does not necessary apply to the particular individual and is not a proper basis for judgement of a person. This is the root of the problem with racism, judging individuals not by merit and their actual individual natures/characters etc, but by "proxy" and in the light of stereotypes (good OR bad) associated with the "group". Such stereotypes are inapplicable and erroneous because people are unique individuals with volition. A white person and a PoC can be racist, but a white person or a PoC who is an Objectivist is NOT a racist and does not judge based on color or any other irrelevant attribute. To do so would be to commit a gross error. Racism is racism, it goes both ways, it goes all ways... never judge a person based on skin color, because dong so is simply MISjudging the person.

A mixed economy is a system with two components controlled and working closely together, government and economy. In the realm of government, if you view Anarchy with the spectacles of a collectivist, a political scientist, or a mixed system type mentality you see a "system" as though it were man made, designed, purposeful. By definition a non-system, which true Anarchy is, is not a system, not in the sense of an organisation, collective, cooperating whole, formed purposefully, although it can be analysed as one purely from a scientific or analytic perspective (economists). Anarchy is the absence of a system of government. "Laissez-Faire" is the absence of a system (imposed, engineered, organized by force) of economy. Any economy that arises is a natural consequence of the actions of free individuals in a frame work of minimal government which protects them from violation of individual rights. As such Laissez-Faire is not so much a system as the absence of one, specifically the absence of one in the economic realm. In a geography (let us not introduce nationalism) which is under protection of a minarchist Objectivist government, there is no economic "system" to be tainted, only individuals who behave in ways which are either criminal (force, fraud) or not. I do not believe there is anything to taint. There would assuredly be individuals who would be benefiting from the artificial and non-efficient mixed economical systems set up in other countries (in the short term), but the vast majority of them would know that they would benefit more in the long run if those mixed systems moved toward no economic controls, and hence would in fact themselves be instruments "tainting" 3rd world countries with Laissez-Faire "encouragement".

One contextual bit to keep in mind is that this is taking place in the United States, where the founding fathers proposed a political system based on moral principles, a system founded on the individual and that culturally, the legacy of freedom and individuality still lingers even if in the subconscious recesses of those falling into socialism... In such a context there are limits to what could happen and how it would happen... in fact I think AS is a statement of what would happen (|eventually). In essence I think it is the idea that once the ideal of freedom came to be almost fully lived by a society (albeit briefly), it becomes part of that society, and that even when the society is in decline it cannot be fully killed because of the nature of individual men and their volition: I.e. as long as the ideal of freedom is not completely forgotten, the "looting elite" cannot maintain itself indefinitely.

My stab at your 3 questions: 1. Reality is complex. It would be rationalism/mysticism to believe reality "should" or even could be such that "good things" never "happen" to "bad people". 2. Not in the long run. Hence, "No." 3. A looting "elite" is somewhat of a misnomer, more like a looting "mob", or band of thugs. Sanction of the victim is one manifest factor, support by the witless and the evil are other manifest factors. The root factor of all of them is "bad/incorrect philosophy".

Fairness presupposes a "distribution" or "treatment", this presupposes an actor or agent (a volitional entity) doing the "distribution" or "treatment". The universe, reality, or situations as such cannot be fair or unfair, they simply are. So, the question regarding being fair requires definition of an actor, agent, or party who is to be measured as regard to how fair they are in respect of "distribution" or "treatment" of others. I am not sure I can identify which volitional entity we are judging as fair or unfair in the above contexts/examples.

"Fairness" has not been defined. If Objectivism has a meaning for fairness I would say it is grounded in justice and non-interference in respect of individuals. If your question is whether interference caused by the Government in a mixed economy is "unjust" and represents an interference causing harm, I would say "yes", to that extent the Government is "unfair". BUT fairness cannot be judged my way of "equality of results", that is the philosophy of Egalitarianism which is immoral.

Eiuol... Perhaps my humor was more subtle than his? Cmon! I was clearly joking along with him... then you...

DA A and B are different propositions for which there is equal evidence... the amount of evidence is what is identical not the particular propositions themselves.

According to Objectivism, if there is an issue (any issue) for which, on the balance of the evidence, strictly speaking, A and B are identically equally valid propositions (again on the basis of the evidence) Is it: 1) A requirement of logic/rationality to suspend judgement/belief in A being true as against B and suspend judgement for the converse OR 2) Optional to suspend judgement, i.e. it is permissible logically and rationally speaking to judge or believe A is true as against B or the converse. Since the evidence is identically equal anything other than withholding judgement is engaging the use of "intuition", "whim", and/or "emotionalism". Is this permissible (deemed "correct") by Objectivism ?

Eiuol: Calzonie was not making fun, was he?... if so that kind of humor is too subtle for my intellect... I suppose you would never miss something like that.... ever... Do I need to come have a chat with you too at our next Rationalism meeting? Is it this Tuesday or Thursday? Yours truly, SL

If you try to strip away everything said to be possessed by the "I" you are left with a contentless floating abstraction. Be careful not to think of the "I" as some constant unchanging entity independent of reality. It IS the reality. It is the totality, the real/natural which "has" or exhibits, physical properties, psychological properties, volition, virtue, etc. Recall the law of identity, X is X means, if X has certain properties, attributes, qualities, etc., if any of these changes (e.g. no longer evil) then X MUST have changed. Things CAN and do change in the universe, we do not like Heracles take change to be the same as creation and destruction. We refer to things which change as having continuity which they do apart from the change.

dream_weaver How is "free-will" a "pre-requisite" of proof?

Calzonie My hat is off to you. That is the most perfect thought experiment I have ever seen or heard of. It was a privilege to experience it in my mind. Very impressive. I am going to petition that it be entered into the Handbook of Rationalism. You know, I would like to discuss some of my thought experiments at our next Rationalism meeting. I have one very long and complicated one which (finally) proves Existence itself and another almost self-evident one which proves the exact nature of the fundamental entities of the universe. See you then! Yours Truly SL

Perhaps the back of "indecision" can be broken by remembering that THE decision, to act or not to act, is always being made, and cannot be escaped, even through indecision, because not acting IS the decision. Once the indecisive person realizes not acting is in fact NOT avoiding a decision but making a decision, the reality of the consequences of that decision (not acting) may sink in to a point where AT LEAST a decision to do SOMETHING (regardless of what) is made if it is better than the decision not to act. EG Assume the originally apprehended choice is to do A or B each which has a positive value (i.e. not really a risk of loss) compared to doing nothing. the problem is originally seen as it is hard to tell whether A or B is better. The solution may be to understand that the choices really are A, B, or C (where C = do nothing) and that here the outcomes of A or B are BOTH better than C, and that in some sense once A and B are so close to each other in value, or once it is apparent A or B must be chosen before they are lost, then choosing EITHER A or B, even randomly, is better than choosing C. The psychological emphasis here is that NOT acting IS in fact a decision which carries with it the least desirable consequences. (Of course if A and B are risky or represent actual loss compared to C (inaction) then it may well be appropriate to choose C)

I think when technology advances such that it is a viable business opportunity, a John Galt type will see it and do it.