StrictlyLogical

This premise is flawed:
 
"If all values are equal no choice is possible."
 
The truth is "If all values are equal ALL choices are possible"
 
Imagine the animal approaching a single bail of hay in reaction to a hunger it has chosen to satisfy, as it nears they hay bail it realizes that the bail of hay is not rectilinear but is actually a  small angular section of a circle of hay and lo and behold the animal is at its center, all of the hay now being equidistant from its snout.  This I suppose paralyzes the animal, because all of the hay it was it intending to eat is now equidistant and it "cannot" choose which way to go? 
 
The answer here is not that there is no way to choose, it is IT DOES NOT MATTER which way is chosen.
 
 
Here  the choice is to eat or die, the particular patch of hay chosen for munching is immaterial.
 
 
Please note, the choice to not place any significance upon the particular bit of hay to eat is not non-rational, in a choice between life and death, choosing life and ignoring the irrelevant is imminently rational.
 
 
I'm afraid this flawed thought experiment, in addition to being flawed in more ways than one, simply does not prove anything.

I'm sorry, but as far as I know humans and animals choose between equal values all the time.  Watch your dog eat a bowl of dog food.  Every pellet is for the purposes of the dog's hunger and even by the standard of the dog's "differentiating capacity" perfectly identical.
 
Again the truth is "If all values are equal ALL choices are possible"
 
 
 
As for a halting problem, in an artificial system that really would require bad programming (equal values to cause inaction causing lack of value), and from a biological evolutionary standpoint if ever such a mechanism appeared in the variation of species, it would almost certainly ensure extinction of that new species within a paltry few generations.

StrictlyLogic and whyNOT have offered sufficient responses. Collectively, I thank them. Nicky, while I (think I ) understand your distinction between "language" and "choice of words," I believe that at some point the English language will need to shift more toward a common idiom that places a higher value on individualism and reason. This includes common platitudes.

... and yet governments, and laws can and should be judged against the standard of morality, if a man wishes to erect and/or live in a moral society.

But are they perceiving falsely, or concluding falsely? The stick appears bent in water. The senses automatically take in the full context. Our conclusions require us to understand how light refracts in water leading to the illusion (or wrong conclusion) that the stick is bent, artificially or misintegratively challenging the infallablity of the senses. We find and fix such errors by recognizing (as in the case of the stick, perhaps via touch) that what we conclude based on one sense without integrating it with the data from the other senses can potentially lead to error. The more interesting aspect is: given the finite nature of our 5 senses, is there data out there that our senses are not cognizant of? Consider our ability to build equipment capable of registering data and presenting it within our sensory ranges, that lie outside of our sensory ranges. (Magnetic Resonance Imaging, radar, infrared imaging, x-rays, microwaves, ultrasound, etc.)

Wonderful series of YouTube videos visualizing Galt's speech (by subject) with video clips and music.  Really quite a wonderful piece of work.  Currently unfinished but it is worth a watch. 
 
 
"John Galt Speaking" Series two on YouTube by Richard Gleaves
 
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL67D866897588DB8B
 
 
 
I'm curious to know what you think!

Good thing, too, because I know some pretty burly "sissyboys."

This actually isn't true. Rand repeatedly said that compulsory taxation is wrong, and Objectivism is opposed to it. How are you going to protect rights with an agency that is violating rights as a means of its existence?

Too true. I've told my son something along those lines. Also, with the fairly anti-abortion sentiment in the U.S., a younger girl could be under a lot of pressure from family, not to have an abortion. And, if she is underage, the law may give her parents some type of legal rights on the decision.
Come to think of it, if the law says that parents must give consent for a minor's abortion, then the girl and boy ought to be off the hook for child-care. Lack of grand-parental consent should be taken as an implicit undertaking by the grand-parents, to financially support any resulting kid (but, choice of control and custody should still be the choice of the biological mother).

Mental "state" is a misleading term and a clumsy concept.
The mind does not have discrete and persistent "states"; it engages in processes.

Consciousness is not an attribute like vertibrae or thumbs; it is an activity.
So mental "states" are like respiratory or circulatory "states"; unintelligible without the previous and subsequent "states" (processes).

And whether mental processes cause neural processes, or vice versa, is an invalid question; mental processes ARE neural processes, from a different perspective.

That's like asking whether the computations of an active video game cause the images on your TV or are caused by your controller: the options aren't exclusive and no matter which you choose, you'll be wrong.

In the body, principally in the brain. It is distributed over the volume of the brain, and in general the entire nervous system.

An attribute may be non-material, but no attribute can be acausal. Nothing violates causality, including consciousness.

Move very far away then get psychological therapy.
Learning Objectivism is not your most pressing need now.

Sense of life is likely more of a passive component: how a man sees the world and his interaction with it.  "Sense" implies an input or means of "viewing" or contemplating.
 
Character although there is the passive component of how a man sees himself, is more active, and deals with something a man introspectively participates in, choice of principles and values.  It is also more akin to "nature" or "identity", i.e. what a man IS, and as a result likely to do.
 
These two are of course closely intertwined, but a man with a strong principled character can still have a sense of life which is for lack of a better term is "pessimistic" and a person whose sense of life is more on the sunny side can still be unprincipled.

Severinian, I think any one who "proves" free will would be deserving of the Pulitzer prize, since such a knowledge would no doubt allow us to create and/or assess complex artificial thinking systems approaching, and thanks to the discovery, actually having free will.
 
I seriously think the problem we still have here is a definition of just exactly what "free" means in the context of "free will".  When we say "Will" or "choice" is free, "what" exactly are we saying it is free from?  External influence?  External determination?  The past nature of the actor?  The nature (identity) of the actor at the very moment of acting? The context?  Everything in reality that IS or ever WAS?
 
We must recall that we are in the context of a philosophy that has "causality" as a corollary of the law of identity, specifically the law of identity as applied to action, which states that an entity of a specific nature (in a specific state) in a specific context, can act only in a singular inexorable way (rather than freely from a number of multiple actions) doing the one thing its unique specific nature and the unique specific context together determine. So causality is argued to be a logical inevitability.  The reasoning is that to assert something as acausal, with any degree of freedom undetermined, would be to assert a contradiction of the law of identity.  This holds in reality only if identity (of the entity and context) and possible action are related in a 1 to 1 mapping. 
 
We must also recall that we are in the context of a philosophy that does not ascribe to any form of supernaturalism whatever.  All of reality, whether described by biology, chemistry, physics, comprise systems of existents which at any one time exist in accordance with the law of identity.  Whatever it is at a time t it is what it is at that time t and not what it is not.
 
What does it mean for you to have "free" will?  I have heard it is not "freedom" from external influence, or even "freedom" from external determination.  I have heard it said, given your nature, at time t and the entire universe as it was at time t, even if you made choice B at t+dt, you COULD have chosen differently.  It matters not whether this choice is to devote your life to becoming the president, or whether to raise a finger, or whether it is the choice to think or abstain from thinking... THAT choice made by you (the complex natural system of existents in reality) could actually have been different.  AND how is it "free"?  The particular choice say B (from A, B, C) as against A, was not determined by ANYTHING.  This is one definition of "free" will.
 
I cannot speak to the position of Objectivism itself, but I am of the view that whatever any system is free from, whether you speak of it physically, chemically, biologically, or psychologically, it cannot escape the laws of "causality" and specifically with respect to the law of identity as applied to action.  In other words IF there is a law of identity as applied to action, if it is a law, it must be applicable to all of reality, any combination, system, group, sub-portion, existent, all of reality.  If it is applicable to SOME of reality or only some of the time, then we have something OTHER than a law of reality.
 
Others will appeal to experiments based on your ability to introspect.  I ask you to indulge in a critical examination of what you experience as you experience it:
 
1. set up a decision context, give yourself two choices, make them as arbitrary as possible (no preference for either) say choosing to write down letter J or K.
2.  Prior to making the choice solidify your introspection that you a. do not know what you will chose, b. are "free" to choose J or K
3. Make your decision: with full introspection.  Can you identify exactly when or why you chose what you did?  Try to focus on the EXACT instant of your choice not before it was final, and not after it was made...
4. Recall the process 1 through 3.  Assess what it means for you to think to your self "I could have chosen differently" and upon what evidence it is based.
 
I submit in performing 4 you will note that you cannot believe you actually made a different choice (of course you cant you are not insane), you will recall what it was like to realize you had just made a decision, and you can recall the feeling BEFORE you chose of the possibility of choosing either.  Remembering 3, the very instant of choice, you may find things blank or possibly unreachable (it is very possible the subconscious is involved in the very instant of choice).
 
What do you know?  I would say A. you know nothing about the exact mechanism of choice at the very instant of choice, B. You know you cannot choose otherwise now that the choice is made, after the choice, and C: You know before the choice you felt as though you could choose either but did not know what that choice would be.
 
It seems an open question to me whether choice is independent of your nature and hence truly acausal and non-determined by anything in reality.

I just realised that empathetic joy... "feeling" joy via empathy or happiness in response to knowing someone else's happiness.. IS a very selfish and natural thing.
 
I think only a person who feels anger when someone else feels happiness or feels happiness when someone else feels sad would ever come to the thought that empathy is somehow selfless or laden with duty.. but such a selfless concept of empathy is fraudulent and dishonest... in some sense anti-empathy, strained-empathy, or pretend-empathy.
 
It's a little off topic.. but I felt something here and thought I'd mention it.
 
LaBogala it was wonderful hearing you speak like that in post #19! I selfishly enjoyed it!

I have a particular interpretation of "information" which may or may not be relevant to others interpretation of the term.
 
 
Information is a potentiality of knowledge,  In a sense it is pre-mind,  But for information to truly be something connected with knowledge, something which can help give rise to it, it must be causally linked. 
 
So a pattern in the sand is information precisely of what caused it or what the sand is because something did create a pattern in the sand.  Knowledge can be gleaned from the pattern, i.e. from the information.  this is to be distinguished from mental contents which may or may not be information for other people (imagination is not information .. and is causally not linked to reality) so when someone tells you something it can be information if causally linked or a lie (if imagination etc.).
 
Is a random pattern information?  only insofar as it reveals its source, which would be a contradiction for random "information" (stolen concept).  This leads to questions of whether any process is truly random... since only a pattern created by a truly random process would be truly random, and hence contain no information.
 
Edge cases I have heard of which seemingly are exceptions to the causal definition of information is the purported random information which is somehow actually information (but acausally so).  
 
E.g.  Imagine if you will a billion monkeys typing on keyboards or a billion monkeys painting, We could categorize all that they produce as simply random, and since it is causally connected to nothing, simply meaningless (except perhaps as a compendium of knowledge of the tapping or paintbrush waving proclivities of primates). 
 
if in a trillion years one of the monkeys reproduces a Mona Lisa or a Shakespeare sonnet, has "information" magically been created?  I would say no.  The patterns are still random tappings or brushings of a monkey.  why? Because in reality that is all they are...  causally speaking they represent physics of paint, or typwriters and biology and psychology of monkeys no other information of reality is contained therein.  When someone looks at the words or the paint and identifies them as being coordinate with something else, the words or paint in combination with the identification by the person, becomes information, i.e. capable of being used as knowledge.
 
How?  A person ignorant of the Mona lisa or the sonnet, now can be supplied with the Monkey text or the painted sheet, and assuming they can trust the person as being honest they can know that there is in reality a correspondence between the text or the paint and respectively the mona lisa or Shakespeare.  this is causal because the original work (mona lisa or shakespear) and or copies thereof are causally linked to the person who saw or read it and that person after seeing the Monkey work has identified the correspondence.
 
 
So information is simply states or arrangements of existents which can be used as evidence or as starting material for an individual's gaining of knowledge of something in reality, and as such (by implication) information must be causally linked to the entities of which knowledge may be gained. 
 
 
Just a few ideas.

With animals-it's not immoral, just disgusting. It's like to ask is it immoral to eat vomit? As for family members-no, it's not immoral. But a person who sleeps with his mother obviously has deep psychological problems.

"your children and grandchildren might get mediocre education, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good."
"you want what's best for your child, but your child doesn't need it. . . She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and LIVE WITH THAT." [obnoxious caps mine]
"Im saying that i survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all."
[final few paragraphs]

I reiterate: the twisted little creature which defecated that article is not human.

Observe the consequentialist test in respect of "good economic consequences", as connected to morality, is only in respect of or from the perspective of the proper beneficiary, the individual.  Insofar as the individual IS moral and takes voluntary action consonant with reality the economic consequences in capitalism are maximised.
 
We here know that taking morality, consciousness and other concepts applicable to individuals and trying to apply them to aggregates, communes, collectives... is generally not effective, proper, or perhaps not even rational.  If "goodness or  "goodness for" and equally "consciousness in" is defined for an individual does it make sense to even try to think of a collective having "more goodness"  or "more consciousness" simply because there are more individuals? 
 
The proper moral evaluation is on an individual basis.. on an individual level,,, as a noneconomist I ask is this the level of economical analysis?

Greater aggregate prosperity is irrelevant.
 
Focusing on the ends is dangerous with those (general public) already predisposed to pragmatism and justifying means (immoral ones) by the ends.  Speaking of Capitalism in these terms makes us look like we are ALSO trying to justify the means (the system) by the ends - purported prosperity.
 
In fact Objectivism is focused on the individual and which system is best most moral most just etc, for that individual.
 
To name but a few principles, justice, honesty, independence are all something undermined by the concept of "aggregate" prosperity being a goal.  Imagine a villainous hybrid system that allowed people of moderate to high moral and intellectual capacity to act on their own volition but forced people (I mean literally forced like some sort of involuntary rehab... not merely persuasion but force) of objectively low intellect and low motivated self-destructive people to educate themselves, to get healthy, to become rational, to reform themselves, and then to work.  Such a system might very well lead to even greater "prosperity" than Capitalism but it would in no way be morally superior due to the use of force against the self destructive and hopeless.  In a truly free society people are permitted to be self-destructive, to be irrational, to be non-prosperous.  To the extent that the freedom of some people to be self-destructive and non-prosperous is interfered with (as in the example) "aggregate" prosperity can be raised.  This however is not moral.
 
 
Perhaps "potential for moral individual prosperity" is the kind of result of capitalism we should try to demonstrate.

tjfields,
 
If you ran across a deadly yew tree on your island and consumed the fruit, or some poisonous mushrooms, would you consider it right or wrong to consume them?
If you consider it right, why?
If you consider wrong, why?

In post #76 I said:
 
 
When others failed to keep context, I further elaborated in #79:
 
 
Others further dropped context by claiming I was stealing, reifying, or mystifying the concept "right", and proceeded to demand I break down all of their related errors of knowledge concerning Oism. (for me, a quote from someone who I thought held one idea directly contradicting that idea, is enough stimulus to go do my own homework...)  I explained further in  #81:
 
 
 
Since I am in a forum, the context of which is Objectivism, it is proper and reasonable to post in a way that is consistent with that context and expect others to realize that context is the standard. In other words here it is necessary to state if your view is not in agreement with Oism, because it is a forum dedicated to it. If I were in a forum dedicated to Kantianism I would have to post in a manner that respected the purpose of that forum and identify my self as a non-Kantian, because it is not the pretext for that forum. The only way to demonstrate that my points are consistent with Objectivism and others points aren't, is to quote the only author of Oism. (The issue of my own validation of those ideas is separate from this ! (fans of psychologism take note!... )
 
1. I maintain that Objectivism holds that all rights are individual rights, derived from the right to life, and that this is the condition for any other right, as well as the precondition for any society and government. Just as rights presuppose life and value, government presupposes the individual possessing that right and is the reason governments are formed to "secure" them.
 
   Ayn Rand said:
 
 
 
 Ms. Rand illustrated the fact that the individual right to life is not granted to one by society in Anthem by having Equality 7-2521 derive the concept of the individual introspectively within a social context that did not possess a concept for it.
 
Edit: Equality 7-2521 does not feel guilt because of there own introspective sense that the socially dictated "sins" were anti-life.  

 
 
The Island dweller can not escape the requirements of his own existence. He must discover the values required to live as man. His values must be in accordance with the full context of his life. This extends beyond mere metabolic requirements, man is an integration of mind and body.
 
Ayn Rand said:
 
 
The island dweller needs only know his own conditions for life as man, to grasp that he should not value murdering the unconscious man, and that the man has a right to his own life. The consequences for murder are not exclusively or primarily the destruction of others value and rights!
 
The importance of conscience in Objectivism is tremendously overlooked by many of its proponents. Psychological harmony/integration is essential to mans life and therefore plays an important role in Oist literature. The harmony of Galt's actions and premises with his own life/identity derived values, showed in his body/face. Rearden's path to inner integration required him to realize the he "placed pity above [his] own conscience" etc.
 
The selfish value of a man who lives with integrity, is because of what violating what one knows to be "right" does TO HIMSELF,  to his own conscience.
 
When a rationally selfish man doesn't cheat on his wife when no one would find out, it is primarily because HE would know!
 
EDIT: Fixed sentence below
 
The unconscious mans right to life is not predicated on his value to the island dweller as such. The island dweller doesn't violate this right because of the island dwellers value of himself! As a secondary he will rationally derive the respect for life in general from this knowledge.
 
 
As to the question of the hypothetical being a social context, the idea that it isn't is so obtuse I refuse to debate it further.

Yes, the answer will make a difference, as it would determine whether it's any kind of rational decision. By rational, I mean an evaluated choice to achieve the most for your self-interest. Now, if this stranger were a friend, it's rather easy to see how killing a friend is harmful to yourself, so I wouldn't need to go into it really. Friends provide value to you as an individual, in whatever manner their life is important to you. But extend that choice to kill a little: consider a friend saying, while chopping onions, "I'm going to kill you" as a joke because you did something silly. If you were grumpy that day because you slept funny, perhaps you'll just say "eh, I don't like him today, so I'll kill him". Destroying your value because of motivations like that is largely immoral because you're destroying the sort of interactions that help you attain further values. You'd basically be taking an action that harms your ability to attain values you want. Suppose the same event happens. "I'm going to kill you" when they have a knife pointed at you and genuinely angry. That's the only difference. In this case, if you killed your friend to protect your life, that is actually  protection of yourself. But if your reason was still "I don't like him today", then your action would be immoral to the degree you're killing for no particular reason at all - if you kill on whim, there is no basis to say what possibly improves or worsens in life. Your motivations matter, because it reflects how you make decisions, and by what standard, if any. Motivations are a way to identify what you gain. If there is a loss, then that's immoral, and if you base a decision on some momentary feeling, then you're not even trying to note values.

Objectivism isn't consequentialism. Consequentialism doesn't care about motivations if the results are the same, all that matters is what happens. Objectivism isn't deontology either. Deontology doesn't care about results, as long as your actions are within ethical boundaries - nor does deontology care about what happens to you in particular. Objectivism has more teleological ethics to anything. Right or wrong is determined by what an entity is (not that all teleology is sensible, it depends on how you evaluate the entity). That is, actions are tightly linked to who you are, as opposed to the other two I mentioned that are mostly concerned about actions as such. Consequences matter to teleology, but the concern is consequences to you, not just a consequential event (i.e. the consequence of a person being dead has to be related to what happens to your value. So, when you ask "is murdering this stranger wrong", motivations help to answer what happens to you. As much as you want to say everything continues on as if nothing happened, that's impossible, as very literally, you are being impacted indirectly by all actions you take.

Suppose you killed the stranger on the beach because the sun was in your eyes, like The Stranger. You don't know anything about him, so he's not a friend at all. So you kill him to preserve the food you have on the island. But you have to ask: what do you get out of killing him? If you just say "I just felt like it", then you're admitting you have no idea of what you gained or lost. Whether your action had a positive or even neutral effect on you would be impossible to know, so you couldn't evaluate whether it was good or bad. Objectivist ethics presumes that ethical actions help or improve your life and that you can make such decisions objectively. Skipping any thought is irrational and immoral because what you do might have a profound negative impact on your life.

One reply might be "if I kill him the island won't change, and since he's unconscious, I won't know what I'm losing out on". Pretty standard idea that your ignorance of additional information can't ever hurt you. But that's wrong. What you don't know will hurt you. Not attempting to make any evaluation is equivalent to willful ignorance and evasion. You look at coconuts and figure out how to drink from one. You learn which fish are easiest to catch and then feed yourself. There's nothing about another person that makes the process any different, you should learn what another person can provide in terms of value. Perhaps he has a waterproof cellphone and can call for help. Maybe he'll help build a house. Who knows? You won't know until you ask. If you fear he'll take away your resources, that's bad reasoning - value isn't zero sum, not even on an island. An interesting point Rand made is that people are neither lone wolves nor social animals. They are traders.

I am disappointed you would simply lump me in with any other forum member.  I am not a member of any clique, subgroup, commune, or gang.  I addressed you individually as an individual.
 
 
Secondly, I am disappointed you would accuse me of adopting a "tactic" as though my statements were disingenuous or intended to deceive. 
I find that insulting and disrespectful and in fact not consonant with reality: I was respectfully engaging in an exchange of ideas.
 
 
This is below the threshold of normal forum etiquette, and certainly below what I would expect from an Objectivist.
 
 
 
UPDATE:  Everyone, I have received no PMs regarding EITHER the example piece of music I suggested, or the video posted/linked to by Nicky.
 
If I get 4 or more responses in re. either of them I will let everyone know the results.  

Mysticism is the reification of a contradiction.