Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

bluecherry

Regulars
  • Posts

    1165
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

Everything posted by bluecherry

  1. Assuming they did know about this before hiring him, then yes, bad PR. Where does the bad PR come from? Originally, a source that shouldn't even exist in the first place (campaign finance government crap) and (I don't know the details) maybe a group that sought information from that source (also bad of those people). However, the information has spread to people well down the line who had nothing to do with that, lots of them. Those are the people that I'd bet make up the extreme majority of the people that were displeased with Mozilla, the ones that this was bad PR to that Mozilla responded to. The cat at this point is not only out of the bag, it's miles away from the bag. I don't see how keeping a new CEO that has upset a lot of one's customers, customers who by far and large did nothing wrong in how they came about the info that upset them, is standing up for privacy or against those who violate privacy. Seriously, if you do see how, please explain. I really was asking a question in my previous post, not merely making a "nuh-uh" statement with a question mark. Also, side note, I highly suspect people that use Mozilla's products and contribute to them financially have a different ratio on political positions than the general population with gay marriage being heavily supported among them. Interestingly though, when I looked on the Mozilla wikipedia page to see if I could find more info, I came across something about that guy not being newly hired - he was CTO and they promoted him. I thought from what I'd heard that he wasn't previously involved with Mozilla. Hmm. What kind of additional powers does a CEO have that a CTO doesn't? I know there are ones, I just don't know exactly what they are. Or is it maybe having him as representative of the whole company that is what is found particularly unsavory as opposed to when he was the CTO?
  2. "a company that condones the release of confidential information" Hang on. Why does acting on information necessarily condone how the information was obtained?
  3. Existence exists doesn't specify what stuff that exists is like really, just that there is something. The nature of existence is an issue that is dealt with more a little further down the philosophical line. The hallucination issue in particular I think is addressed in epistemology. As for the arbitrary, that issue isn't just something one can skip over. Arbitrary claims aren't just irrelevant to human existence, they're fundamental flaw is that they are irrelevant to existence, period. They are claims made without anything tying them to existence. This is important later in ethics and politics for things like "innocent until proven guilty" and not asserting that we should throw you or me into jail because we did or perhaps just may be time travelers who are in fact the real "Jack the Ripper".
  4. Did nobody ever teach these two to peel the bananas? Even if nobody did, peeling bananas before eating them had long since been come up with by others even if those two didn't know it. The original banana-peeler lived and died waaaaaaay back, and was also likely not qualified for personhood and rights either being a more primitive form of animal that passed down the info to the future generations via literal "monkey see, monkey do". So, point being, the statute of limitations on patents for peeling bananas would have long since been surpassed and there wasn't really a point when there was somebody qualified to be the one patenting it either anyway. Banana peeling is not qualified for patenting. The same applies to chewing food. Breathing is automatic, no learning or inventing involved, so that one isn't qualified for patenting either.
  5. Oh, I'm pretty sure I know where you are and were going with what you were saying/doing with your posts. I just think that as long as you keep being implicit rather than explicit with your point you won't be able to move forward with the discussion. Remaining implicit, I think he'll probably just keep thinking right away that you are misrepresenting him and dodging things. If somebody is arguing against a straw man, one really wouldn't need to give the posts any further thought. However, further thought would be needed to notice that you were actually attempting to make a point about what his arguments necessitate down the line logically. Hence you'd get stuck going in circles until he sees his exact statements being acknowledged and spoken to directly.
  6. "There are people who spend their entire lives incapable of realizing that other minds exist;" He has said minds exist, his claim is just about what the content of those minds is. Anyway, this "they could be lying" thing is a logical fallacy, shifting the burden of proof. One needs to present evidence for such things on a case by case basis, evidence that one is correct about a person's beliefs being different from their statements in any particular instance.
  7. Just checking, but maybe you misread the post slightly? "When someone declares . . . that their rationalizations are just as valid as your logic, . . ." A's explanations aren't just as valid as B's logic, A just claims that they are. That isn't H.D. saying that he himself believes A has just as valid of support for claims as B.
  8. "Concerning restrictions, imagine if you only live in a house and never go outside for 10 years. Now, imagine that you all of a sudden go to a natural location (like an island) and feel the difference. You will feel less restricted, the air will be cleaner, the food more fresh, and the environment much better. So, the idea of restriction here applies to restricting oneself to something bad (i.e., constantly artificial and thus unhealthy)." Pretty sure the problem with staying in one house all the time for 10 years is that you are always in this one relatively small area and unable to go do a lot of activities or meet up in person with a lot of people. That and monotony. So, going from the house for 10 years to the island would feel like a relief, but not because the island is natural - just because it is somewhere else at all. Another building would have worked just as well. An island doesn't guarantee cleaner air or fresher food. As for the environment being "better" - how is it better? If you just mean you like it more, then there's an opinion there, your personal preference, not a fact that applies to humans in general. "And who says that we live in the same perceived reality?" Me (basing my say so on all evidence I've ever had, not just making an unfounded assertion). Everybody else here. The vast majority of the rest of humanity. Ditto for scientists and philosophers being generally in support of the two of us both existing in THE reality, not like one of us lives in the Star Wars world while another of us inhabits middle earth. "So, you go through an intersection and the other guy goes through as well (both on the yellow light)." Well, I can't speak for the hypothetical other guy, but if I'm going through an intersection when the light is yellow, then the light must have just turned yellow and I've got enough time to cross the intersection before it turns red and it is a bit too late for me to try to stop before I get into the intersection. I'm not a reckless driver. If anything, I'm overly cautious. So, unless something really abnormal happens, like somebody else is actually driving straight through a light that is still red and not paying any attention to me being there in the intersection, I'm not about to get into an accident. "One may go" with some extra info that people may (wisely) interpret as a cause not to keep going in some (or many) circumstances is still a form of "one may go". It's just a subtype, like how "Teddy bear with a blowtorch" is still a Teddy bear. "One may go + soon one may not go" is all the yellow light means, period. From there on out it is up to the people driving to determine what the significance of "One may go + soon one may not go" is and what would be the best way to respond to it in their current situation, if they should stop, keep going just like they are, speed up, maybe even turn onto another road or something. "So, yes, in this respect, an 'A' is also 'not A' when there is something added to it. It's the same argument that Objectivists use about capitalism. Capitalism is 'A,' but whenever you have economic regulation then it's not capitalism, thus it's 'not A.' We can go on forever through a continuum of things that can be capitalism or socialism and that they are not." Actually, we're just not in a capitalist system, period. We are "Not A" if capitalism = "A". We aren't socialist either though. This isn't a contradiction because "Not A" comes in more forms than just flat out socialism. All socialist societies would not be capitalist, but not all not-capitalist societies are socialist. What we DO have is a "mixed economy" -- another kind of economic system that itself comes in many different varieties. Mixed economy = "Not A". Our mixed economy contains some policies which would exist in a capitalist economy too, but also some policies which could exist in a socialist one rather than a capitalist one. Then there's other policies that neither capitalism nor socialism would support in our mixed economy too. It's kind of like rather than a Teddy bear or a rubber ducky we have the head of a Teddy bear mashed onto the body of a rubber ducky along with some other lump of rubber that seems to have melted and fused onto the monstrosity. Such a monstrosity is Not A Teddy Bear if the question is if it is a Teddy bear or not. "I reiterate my premises: A, not A, and meaninglessness." Wait, wait. That isn't what I had gathered were your premises before. This is the first time I recall you stating that something being "both A and Not A"/"neither A nor Not A" was meaningless. I would actually agree with that. Something being both/neither A and Not A is a meaningless statement because it does not refer to anything in reality; it's just a bunch of words strung together. "green + red = yellow (look at a color spectrum picture); teddy bear + rubber ducky = toys (but questionable to take it further)." Actually, mixing red and green would make brown. In between red and green on a color spectrum has both yellow and orange. I think the reason those three colors were chosen is because they are easily distinguishable from each other as long as one is not colorblind. Not that important an issue though. I agree on calling the Teddy Bear + rubber ducky "toys". This is like how I mentioned earlier a group of objects would be called by a different name than any one of the names of specific objects in the group. "Our standards of living are higher only because of scientific progress (quality) and hygiene, which is the basis of wealth but not the same thing." Scientific progress (hygiene is the result of scientific progress learning about germs and such) indeed is a huge part of the increased standard of living. That still means though that one can utilize things they think of to increase the value of things that already exist, not lessening somebody else's value they posses, which was my point. A lot of scientific progress is made in the pursuit of earning money. Our standard of living increases when we take new things we've figured out and apply them to reality. That's the basis of increasing value, of earning money: take the stuff that is there and increase the value by adding the products of thought to it. Places where the standard of living is significantly poorer still are the result of less products of thought being added to what they already have from the environment. Maybe the majority of people in that area have chosen to keep on living the same way people did thousands of years ago despite the fact that we know about things now like how some of those things often spread disease. Maybe the government has made laws that make applying various products of thought to things from the environment much harder or even not allowed at all, often even in the name of improving economic conditions. Or some combination of both. "An example is a scrooge or someone who only invests but spends little." Isn't investing a type of spending? When people invest in something, they're funding some project or product that they believe will be a hit, but which the makers do not yet have enough money on their own to do. Investment enables the creation of all kinds of things which would otherwise not be able to be done, things which are then used by other people to make their own lives better. While helping other people is not the sole or primary purpose of people producing things and making money, investing is not bad for people in general. It's a hell of a lot harder to make stuff and money if you aren't doing/making things that other people consider to be a positive thing for their own lives. Can't get money without customers, y'know? Edit: "However, dialectics is natural to every person." What, are we all chopped liver here?
  9. "a system of objects with relations between the objects defined" Yup, we're not talking about the same thing as each other when we've been saying "space." Sans perhaps whatever the absolutely most basic, smallest forms of stuff that everything else is composed of (which are not points, points as defined in math are purely a conceptual thing, just a way to refer to a single aspect of locations even though that one aspect cannot ever be had on its own in reality), everything contains some kind of system of objects. You could say that the systems are part of the things, sure. That's got nothing to do with the location of that thing compared to other things outside the object though, not unless maybe we start referring to another, bigger object, like going from referring to one single atom to talking about a whole bar of gold. The identity of that one single atom would be the same still if you moved it some place else outside the bar of gold. " . . . we are not getting the aforementioned interactions directly from our own natural environments . . ." How is this restricting? And if it is restricting, what makes the restriction bad? Additionally, technically, no matter what we do it would still be a natural environment. Everything that can exist is natural. This point about "natural" may not be all that important though to the current topic. "The reason I say that yellow light is neither 'go' nor 'not go' is because under different conditions there are different answers. You started by saying that it is 'go,'and my grandpa said that it is 'not go.' Who is right? Neither one specifically, but both." Nope, I'm right, he's wrong. Here's a simple proof that yellow is a form of "one may go": You cannot be ticketed for driving when the light is yellow, only when it is red. If you got through the intersection just by the skin of your teeth before the light turned red, still no ticket. The instant the light turns red though, you can get ticketed if you go through that intersection. So, you MAY keep going when the light is yellow, but depending upon circumstances, it may not be a good idea to keep going just because you still may. "May do so" doesn't necessarily mean you must do so. Yellow light says you may go, not if you should or should not. Should or should not is up to a human to determine on a case by case basis depending upon the rest of the circumstances going on while the light is yellow. "You are correct in considering that anything in addition to 'A,' if it's inseparable from it, is also 'not A.'" Do you mean that an "A" with anything else added to it is now also a "Not A"? I want to make sure I'm clear on what you were saying here. "But this logic breaks down in this area, so integrating it cannot be done by a black and white identity mechanic. It is grey because once you try to separate the colors, you get gibberish, like in your teddy bear example. . . . but I don't see a point in doing these types of examples unless to go insane." Or maybe, the problem isn't the black and white identity mechanic but that you're just wrong. ;D " . . . but two teddy bears are more similar than a rubber ducky but they are different at the same time." Sounds like you've already declared them both to be "A"s, not some third option. I'd say both of them are Teddy bears too. With and without blowtorch could just be considered two sub-types of Teddy bears, like how there are brown eggs and white eggs, but both are still eggs. As for the bear with a rubber ducky, supposing we do not treat the ducky as part of the bear, then I'd say we have a group of things - a Teddy bear and a rubber ducky - not just one thing which is both/neither Teddy bear and/or rubber ducky. If we wanted to refer to the group as a whole with the ducky still being treated like it isn't part of the bear, we'd need to come up with something else to call said group rather than just calling it "a Teddy bear" or "a rubber ducky". "You cannot make wealth (energy) out of nothing." I mentioned earlier on in the thread that I thought it sounded like you may be of the belief that wealth (or maybe I said value or something else like that, but not important yet) is a fixed quantity and I see I was right. I also said though that Objectivism does not hold wealth to be a fixed quantity and instead holds that it can be created. Do you believe that every person on earth sum total on average has the same standard of living (or less maybe? just want to be thorough again) now as they did way back tens of thousands of years ago or more? I don't. I think we've got wildly higher standards on the whole. We didn't poof energy or matter into existence though (maybe converted some of them back and forth, but not poofed them up out of nowhere). What we did was come up with ways to use what exists that give us more benefit. For example, if you had a stick you could use it to poke food to eat with. However, this wouldn't work for hard or crumbly food. If you broke the stick in half and used the pieces like chopsticks though, then you could pick up all the same food you could before AND the hard/crumbly stuff. Same amount of stuff, increased value though due to a change in how we used the stuff. No other person suffered any loss in order for this increase in value to come to the person with the stick. Kind of aside here: "You can still use this thread for the other stuff, but I would advise against it, since discussions with me are somewhat taboo on these forums" Huh? That's not true. There's nothing against discussing things with you as such. The forum does have some rules for discussion (namely that the purpose of the forum is discussing Objectivism primarily, so something like somebody coming along for the sole purpose of trying to get us to vote for so and so on American Idol or convert us to Christianity would be unwelcome), but I'd say Objectivism is still definitely part of the topic. I'm not being asked to answer you from whatever perspective a Platonist might take for example. This is far from the only time we have discussed things about Objectivism on this forum with people who were not themselves supporters of the philosophy. We've had plenty of long discussions with some such people. I do think it was a good idea to move the "society" political issue to the debate forum though. That's generally the section of the forums most suited for discussion with non-Objectivists who aren't just asking us what we believe but also attempting to counter what we tell them we believe. "although you don't get any of the negativity - I do, and all the repugnance directed against me does hurt me inside" It happens to everybody at some point - or more likely, at multiple points. You've got to not worry about what others think is true and focus on what is true. If you really, truly believe you are correct, then there's no reason to feel bad just because somebody else doesn't agree, doesn't like it, may not be nice about it. Believe me, I may be in the majority on this forum, but in the rest of life I'm definitely in a minority and encounter plenty of hating on my own convictions. Claims like having me as a supporter of Objectivism having no feelings, being willing to sell out a friend for a dollar, being responsible for the suffering of other innocent people and so on - things like you've had to say in this thread and your other one already - are very common. I'm certain they are wrong about all of that though, so I'm not ashamed. If other people are wrong about Objectivism and the world and me, that's their problem, not mine, just as long as they don't try to use physical force against me because of it. Rest assured we don't intend to try to use physical force against you, we're not a threat. As abrasive as much of this discussion may be, it's worth noting that we believe Objectivism can be a huge benefit to you. We don't wish you ill, we wish you well. In general, we wish everybody well. It's kind of a "tough love" sort of situation here though in a way because, while in the short term being told things like that you are wrong about strong, cherished views of the world (and coming to realize yourself that they are wrong, if you ever do get there) can be very unpleasant, overall in the long run we contend that there's more to help you be happy in the rest of your lifetime in what we have to say than how much potential there is for bad feelings encountered right away while in the discussion. (Not that I think ALL harsh things in this thread have been necessary and merited though.) "bluecherry, I could not find the area of debate among Objectivists that you mentioned earlier, but, in light of my explanations of greyness, do you find anything grey in Objectivism or would you reiterate what you mentioned earlier?" Assuming you don't mean the debate forum (I expect that should be easy enough to find that you've found it already), could you please refer me to which specific post number of mine in this thread you are talking about?
  10. "You keep viewing space as bound locations . . ." because isn't that what it is? :/ If that is not what you are talking about, then we aren't talking about the same thing when we say "space". "but space is a lot more than that." Go for it, what is the additional or other stuff you refer to when you say "space"? "Einstein integrated Space and Time and now we have a spacetime continuum." Pretty sure that the claim is he discovered that they were already integrated, not that he integrated them. "Also, what I meant by Environment is a dynamic relationship that you experience with it, not something that restricts you in any way." Could you give me an example or two of what you would consider to be "restricting you" and what this "dynamic relationship" would be like? "space is not only a location but a distance traveled" Wouldn't that distance traveled still just be made of a bunch of locations? "I am not breaking down the concept of identity." I didn't say you were. In fact, I was saying it can't be done. That it can't be done makes it harder for me to try to deal with any misunderstandings of the concept of "identity" than dealing with misunderstanding of other concepts which can be broken down further into other concepts they are composed of. "I never prohibited a freedom to risk your life at an intersection by ignoring the yellow light." Just to be clear, I started off mentioning a case where stopping would be more dangerous than speeding up when the yellow light came on. I wasn't suggesting recklessness. "I don't understand what speed has to do with traffic lights." I thought you were interpreting "going slow" as the third option that the yellow light represented between green and red. Otherwise, I have no clue how you think yellow lights are neither/both "one may go" and "one may not go". All the yellow light is is "one may go" with some additional information about when it will become "one may not go" in the future. That additional information about not going is not making the light somehow be "A" and "Not A" at the same time and in the same sense nor is it making it neither "A" nor "Not A". Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to consider anything given in addition to "A" to become a new thing which is neither "A" nor "Not A" (or maybe both?), like if I had a teddy bear and a rubber ducky and a teddy bear with a blow torch in its hand I would have "A Teddy bear", "Not A Teddy Bear", and then something that is neither a Teddy Bear nor not a Teddy Bear/both a Teddy Bear and not a Teddy bear. The definition of "greed" has still not been sufficiently clarified for me. I still need to know what standard something is being judged as "excessive" to. In excess of what? "Taking by force and a desire to take by force is inherent in wealth," Oh really? So if I can come up with even one wealthy person that isn't a thief or aspiring thief you would admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that you believe they secretly really wanted to be thieves in spite of having no evidence? "Force does not have to be direct; it's simply intended to take something from others." I'm already counting lying to trick somebody into buying something they otherwise would not have bought and making threats of coming along and violating a person's rights if they don't buy something under the things Objectivism does not support and which are not inherent to wealth and/or free trade. Now, if you mean something else, like calling anything at all that results in one or more people handing something over to another one or more people no matter what the reason they handed it over "force", then we've got a problem. Your use of the term would include both things we already do not support (theft, fraud) and things we are not opposed to. We know why we oppose theft and fraud already, but you'd need to explain why you believe all those other things are bad too. Yup, I'll check that other thread out. This thread is still for discussing all the other stuff that has come up, right?
  11. "The space inside the house is a part of the house . . ." This is basically where we started with this branch of the conversation. You claim space inside stuff is part of the stuff and I claim that this is not necessarily so. Insides of an apple? Yep, part of the apple. The apple is not hollow. Me in the house? Not part of the house. The house is hollow. Suppose I put some gum in a rat's mouth. The gum is immediately now part of the rat? Now suppose I take the gum out of the rat's mouth and wrap the rat in it. Is the rat now part of the gum? I really want to say that location should not determine the identity of something, that it should be the same thing even if you move it around. However, you started off claiming location to be part of the thing/part of it's identity, so I expect you'll just say that the location does determine the identity. Whatever is on the outside at any given moment is the main object and everything and anything inside is part if that main, outer object is what I'm getting from what you've been saying. If this is what you believe, then I think this branch of the conversation has hit a dead end. There's nothing else I can really say to the whole "inside something = part of something, location changes/determines identity" thing except, "Nope, false." Your very concept of identity seems to be flawed. Correcting a flawed concept of identity is something very difficult. I'm not sure I personally would know where and how to start since "identity" is on of the things in Objectivism known as an "axiomatic concept." An axiomatic concept means you can't keep breaking it down into further concepts it is composed of because this concept is one of the very bottom ones, it's part of the base upon which all other concepts are built, there is no further down to go. The only way to learn axiomatic concepts is through observation of things in reality and undergoing the process of concept formation working from those observed things in reality instead of just working off of other concepts. These two pages talk a bit more about axiomatic concepts and concept formation. They only contain some passages from Rand's non-fiction writing, so no spoilers. I was going to link to the page for "identity" too, but that one does have spoilers. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/concept-formation.html "So, when there is the yellow light, do you not feel like you should be stopping when you speed up?" Actually, if I'm already in the intersection when it turns yellow, stopping is a terrible idea and I would indeed want to speed up to clear out of there asap. Also, I said to begin with "one may go" and "one may not", not "stop." Green also doesn't mean "go fast" specifically either, just that one may go, period. It doesn't dictate what speed you go at. Speed limits dictate that. Yellow is still just a form of "one may go", it isn't saying one may not go right now. "You missed a part of my reply." Oh! Sorry about that. I really thought I had looked it all over. Anyway, could you please elaborate a little by specifying what is the standard by which "excessive" is determined? When I looked up a definition for "rapacious", just to be thorough since you said excessive or rapacious, I got this: adj. Taking by force; plundering. adj. Greedy; ravenous. See Synonyms at voracious. adj. Subsisting on live prey. Taking things from others by force is already something Objectivism does not support. Also, such taking by force isn't inherent in wealth nor is a desire to take by force inherent in wealth. The second definition is a synonym, so, useless. The third definition is clearly not relevant here.
  12. "You are overlapping with the space of the house, and thus share a part that is both you and the house." I'm in the space that is inside the house, but I am not literally overlapping with the walls, the floor, the roof, etc. Thus, me =/= house, house =/= me. "Vacuum is not 'nothing' only in realities which we do not yet understand. Just because we can bring something out of vacuum does not mean that we are actually bringing it from out reality." If there's something there =/= nothing for as long as stuff is there. That's all that matters here. At least, I think it is . . . I am a little foggy on what we started discussing that the vacuum and nothing were significant to. "Yellow light is neither green nor red but both," No, it isn't. Not as long as what we mean by green and red is "go" and "do not go" respectively. All yellow is is a form of "go". An advance warning that red (do not go) will be coming does not mean red (do not go) is already here. The rest of that post, I asked you to define exactly what you mean by "greedy"/"greed". I cannot proceed until and unless this is done
  13. "Your house is your environment, and you share its space when you are in it. You are the inner part of the outer context. Environment is basically all you can perceive with your five senses at one time." It's my environment, yes. I'm inside it, yes. I am not overlapping with the house itself though. It's just around me. "Quantum physics repeats the idea of physical vacuum because energy does fluctuate that background of particles and anti-particles that we cannot see with our naked eyes." So then that still would mean the vacuum was not "nothing". "What's extraordinary to you sometimes is quite ordinary to me." By extraordinary I here mean things which go beyond the well established, beyond the soundly proven. You've said numerous times here that you do not have such solid proof for lots of your ideas, in fact even that you have none at all in some cases. What is well established to be the case or at least be possible has already gotten the majority of the burden of proof taken care of, so a relatively small amount of proof is needed for any specific case where the possible thing is claimed to be or have happened. Meanwhile, if something isn't even a very well established possibility, then you have to go through getting it to become a well established possibility before you can get into dealing with a specific case. So, yeah, I'm not talking about things that are a matter of opinion or something like that. "Meanwhile, if something isn't even a very well established possibility, then you have to go through getting it to become a well established possibility before you can get into dealing with a specific case." <-- This is also why I'm putting things like psychic dogs and such on the back burner for now. Those are specific cases. First I'm looking into if a possibility can even be strongly established. ". . . we need the law of identity, but I am against the law of excluded middle." I've noticed this to be your position. I have not found anything here yet which goes against the law of excluded middle though. As for street lights, Green = one may go, red = one may not go. Yellow = one may go, but be warned that soon that will change. At no point is it neither "one may go" nor "one may not go". Lack of yellow light would just mean a lot more accidents when people were caught by surprise when who may go and who may not changed. Whaaaaaat? Where are you getting this from? First off, it's possible to be poor and greedy and it is possible to be wealthy and not greedy. You listed wealth as having two components, greed and quality, but then said quality can be had without greed. I contend that quality already is the only component of wealth, or maybe just quantity instead, but quality is generally a better choice. Could you now define what you mean by greed exactly, or if you've already done so and I missed it because it was in a post to somebody else, could you point me to the post where you already did so? Until I'm sure exactly what you mean, I don't want to start getting into pro- or anti- greed, just note that wealth is very much separable from it. Are you operating on the premise that wealth is a fixed quantity, that for one person to gain something another has to lose something? If so, we do not operate on that premise. We hold that wealth can be created and increase, thus one person can gain without somebody else losing.
  14. "Think of space as flowing through you." Flowing through me still would not mean it was part of me anymore than I am part of the house I go in and out of. "You are inseparable from context as well" I'm in *A* context, but not always the exact same context, unless we're talking about reality in general. Still though, being in a context does not make me part of the other stuff in the context. I'm very much aware of the atom being a center with other bits that are relatively far flung from it and that all bigger stuff is made of atoms. I don't see cause to change what I said because of this. "Material particles come into existence from quantum fluctuations of energy in vacuum. Vacuum is physical by the quantum model of physics." There are multiple interpretations of quantum physics and various results from experiments in quantum physics floating around out there. Also, all is definitely not clear yet with quantumn physics with the whole reconciliation with gravity issue. Also, energy =/= nothing. If there is energy in the vacuum then it didn't have nothing in it. "Sorry, I posted it previously before I read your post. If it bothers you, just ignore the top portion." Hmm? Eh, in any case, I'll get to that stuff later. "You remind me of Dana Scully :)" Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Dr. Sheldrake took this into account and his experiments have been checked by other scientists to be conclusive that there is scientifically unknown behavior of dogs a priory expecting their owners when those arrive at randomly selected times." Were the people perhaps in smell or hearing range when they started reacting? And how did they determine when the dog was expecting the owner? How close did the dog have to be with when they started reacting to be counted as correct? Has it been replicated? What was the sample size? This one particular experiment though isn't really especially crucial to this conversation though. Other stuff needs to be taken care of still. I don't want to get too far off into what would, at this point, be a tangent. "What's more interesting is that Dr. Sheldrake believes that scientists may themselves psychically influence results of their experiments without even believing in psychic abilities." Not the first time I've heard a convenient explanation like that. So get the scientists to have people who do believe in the stuff do the test administering while they themselves are not present. I'd like to say "record the whole thing" too, but I'm betting that would be argued as an interfearance somehow too. This wouldn't be a perfect experiment, but it would at least make a decent first hurdle to subject the claims to. "I have been doing just that." Good to hear. I take it that you are still in the process with that though, yes?
  15. "I don't see how [donating to charity and creating vaccines] would be neither selfish nor not-selfish." <-- me "Ok, it's in the same way as what I am doing. How is my philosophy beneficial to my life right now? It's not, since it does not earn me any money, which I am supposed to be earning, right? Well, but it is beneficial for the future of humankind whether I will live then or not. And besides, I love it, and these philosophies make me happy. So, look at it this way: it's both selfish and not selfish." <-- you Money isn't the be-all, end-all of what is beneficial to one's life and thus not the be-all, end-all of what is selfish or not. I was going to link you to something in the lexicon that explained why I'd say that you intend to do something in these cases for selfish reasons . . . but, more spoilers for Atlas Shrugged on that page. "space is inherent to a thing and inseparable from it." <-- you If that was so, nothing would be able to move from one place to another. "Second, look at an atom of hydrogen, for example. What it consists of is mostly empty space that we consider to be a part of the atom." Maybe you do, but I don't. "Besides, what's nothing, vacuum, void? We do not know. You may be right that vacuum is actually made of 'stuff' that we haven't found materialized in our reality yet." A is A, a thing is itself, nothing is nothing. We know what nothing is -- or, really, what it isn't, which is everything and anything at all. If we found stuff in vacuums, then that would simply disqualify a vacuum from being said to contain nothing. "Do you want me to show your my whole model, so maybe you will see [the third alleged option] clearer?" <-- you Hmm. I think I'll put that one on hold for now until the other stuff in this thread is done with. "Let me give you an example from my life. . . ." XD I used to know a couple people who claimed almost the exact same thing, but I think their explanation was not that time was manipulated, but that not all of the space between point A and point B was traveled through. In fact, they claimed this happened several times when I was in the car with them the whole way even. There's a lot of factors involved in these cases though that I don't have records to pull up to explain exactly what did happen, but there are definitely other mundane explanations possible. Estimates on how many miles are involved getting from point A to point B, estimates on when you left and when you arrived, traffic differences, how many red or green lights you get and more can impact differences in travel time. "The Sense of Being Stared At" I think I *might* have heard of an experiment that had to do with this before. Also, my sister's dog often knows when people are going to come home because people have schedules. An aside, I didn't mention it earlier, but I think it may be worth doing so still: if one was to use two strangers who did believe in telepathy for an experiment like that it would bias the experiment some. Using one person who believes in telepathy trying to figure out the favorite movies and such of another unseen, unheard stranger who may or may not themselves believe in telepathy would take care of that issue, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear it claimed that *both* parties have to believe for it to work. This wasn't part of the post written to me, but I'd like to suggest that before one seeks to gain expertise in the esoteric one should gain expertise (or at least pretty darn comprehensive knowledge) of the exoteric. Though being mainstream doesn't guarantee something is correct, it probably did have to clear some substantial hurtles to gain such acceptance. The stuff is worth checking out and seeing how/why it got there. In the process of that, you may perhaps see how/why some other idea did not get into that mainstream acceptance instead. Or, you could end up finding more evidence that strengthens your case and would help with persuading others on your position. Good possibilities if you get to know the exoteric first. However, if you get to the esoteric alone well, you could easily fall for some mistakes that have been extremely well known for ages.
  16. Oh, I hate these arguments. Like a choice is only free if it's stupid. People DO make stupid choices all the time anyway though. Ones they KNOW they really shouldn't be doing, but they do it anyway. Although, then you get people arguing the opposite - if people make stupid choices, they could only have done so if they were incapable of doing otherwise or else they would not have done it. Got a good reason to do something? REASON COMPELS YOUR BODY TO OBEY! Don't have a good reason to do something? SOMETHING ELSE COMPELS YOUR BODY TO OBEY! Heads they win, tails you lose.
  17. "Abolitionism, however, I thought was against slavery." That's correct. "Can you give an example of doing something for neither selfish nor not-selfish motives?" <-- me "Donations to a charity and creation of vaccines can be neither selfish nor not-selfish." <-- you I don't see how these these things would be neither selfish nor not-selfish. "'Nothing' will be the overlapping space where such thing exists as well as emptiness in the thing." The location of the thing is not itself part of the thing, any area there is stuff is also the stuff, not nothing. Emptiness contained within a thing is still not part of that thing. "Neither one of [Rand's] 'natures' of existence matches my view." What would you say is the third option which is your view that is neither stable in how it functions/knowable/predictable nor all higgledy piggledy/unknowable/unpredictable? "How are body and environment subject to creating a continuum with oneanother?" <-- me I don't see how your response answers me question. Also, ". . . the stretching of a moment"? ". . . the forms of our behavior that we create throughout our lives as imprints" =/= intentions. Even if we put aside for now what the proper word here is, this does mean you are talking about something very different than we are when we say "intentions" and this radically alters what the topic under discussion actually is then. So, we may need to basically start over with discussion involving the word "intention" to respond with the same meaning of the word in mind as one another. "More interesting would be if you could have two complete strangers who can't see or hear each other telling somebody in detail what kind of week the other person has been having or what their favorite movie is or something like that." <-- me "How can we have this if people do not believe in telepathy?" <-- you So get strangers who do believe in telepathy.
  18. Steve's question was this: "With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?" You answered: "I am not sure how to address it since I neither feel equal compassion for everyone nor familiar compassion for anyone, but I do feel compassion depending on circumstances." I asked what you meant by "familiar compassion" and you said you meant "familial" probably instead. Steve is looking for any kind of relationship to somebody versus being total strangers and if this would have any degree of difference in the compassion you felt, all else about the situation being the same aside from that you knew somebody somehow or you didn't. "What middle point are they going away from?" The vaccination one, the middle would be just vaccinating a moderate amount of people. For the one with Steve Jobs the middle would be if he had a lot more lax standards. The middle for abolitionism would have been something like how things were shortly before the Civil War: some places allowed slaves, others didn't; at one point people born into slavery could still be slaves, but not people who weren't born into it; for tax and representation of population purposes in government they even counted slaves as three fifths of a person. For surgery, there are usually some other lesser treatments a person could try, though they may be less effective. As a specific example coming to mind, if you've seen the show House, Dr. House could have had his busted up leg surgically removed after he got in an accident. He could have also just done nothing about it at all. What middle road he did take was not getting the leg removed and just constantly taking pain medication to deal with the chronic pain that would never go away from his screwed up leg. "It was an integrating extreme - an improvenent upon the English monarchy (feudalism -> capitalism)." Which still means there are extremes that can be good, they aren't just always bad. However, I'm unsure how you consider the Revolutionary War to be an integrating extreme, or even how going from feudalism to capitalism would be. We broke apart from England, that definitely sounds like the opposite of integrating to me. "I think that Leninists confused 'owned by the people' (society) with 'owned by the government.'" What alternative would you propose for ownership by society as opposed to individuals? Some other group acting a representatives for society that isn't the government? Literally trying to treat everything as belonging to the community at large with no intermediary sounds like a way to get nothing done ever because somebody always disagrees on what to do with something. If you were to resort to majority vote on what to do with the stuff, that's not "the people" then, that's just "most people." "Government is not the whole society, but only its center." Not the whole of it? Certainly. The center? I think of it as more like they're our (citizens') employees. (Unfortunately, right now, way too uppity ones running amok and in serious need of firing.) "The government should only control the military (and draft, if necessary), police and fire departments, and courts, and anything else that others do not want to control, like the post office. If someone wants to invest him/herself, then government should allow privatizing it." Strike through, succint way to show where I agree and don't agree. The draft violates rights, the other stuff can be done by private citizens. It's not legal in the US for anybody other than the government to deliver regular paper letters, otherwise I have no doubt that UPS and FedEx would take that on too eagerly. Shipping letters in addition to lots of goods they're moving around already wouldn't be the kind of money sink the current post office is where it's trying to run a huge network on mostly a relatively tiny amount of letters and just a smidge of packages. "Only children would not understand the importance of peace." 1) I'm not saying peace is unimportant, I'm asking how it is "greater" than happiness. Lack of peace can make it far, far more difficult to obtain happiness. 2) let's not start name calling, please. "Being a happy person with a lot of enemies who hate one's guts is not perfection, neither is being in an ignorant state of bliss. The standard is self-improvement in the most general sense." So, happy with lots of people that hates you isn't perfect by the standard of self-improvement? How so? How does other people hating you mean that you in any way have necessarily failed? Some people are just bitter, spiteful assholes. Not everybody else's fault there. Also, why is self-improvement a standard others should care about? And what is the standard by which improvement is judged and why should people care about that? As for ignorance, we don't champion ignorance as a good thing. What you don't know CAN hurt you. "What then would you say is this alleged third option [that is neither selfish nor not selfish] you see yourself fitting into?" <-- me "The alleged third option is unnamed and for now taken upon faith(-logic)." <-- you Can you give an example of doing something for neither selfish nor not-selfish motives? "An individual body, however, does not work objectively" <-- quote from you I asked you to expand upon "There is surfacing more and more evidence about our bodies being 'wavy,' if you will. Our bodies are not continuous in reality. Think of virtual particles from which we are made up. Do those particles exist here and now or not? Neither one: they disappear and appear out of who knows where." <-- your expanded reply What is a virtual particle? "Do those particles exist here and now or not? Neither one: they disappear and appear out of who knows where" Actually, I'd say that would just mean there are times they do exist here and now and times they do not rather than it being neither. You also earlier mentioned that you do not consider a group of people to be similarly "wavy", but not all parts of that group exist at the same time either. "I know that you consider [faith] irrational, but maybe you can help me answer on this question in non-negative terms, please." Well, faith is a method of coming to believing something by 1) just making something up through pure conjecture or possibly 2) making it up by "jumping to conclusions" about observations much too soon or 3) just taking somebody's word on a claim that is very far outside of the norm, especially when it comes to claims which go against all the past observations you have (since it is possible that they too could be jumping to conclusions or making it up or even lying.) ". . . everything consists of opposites for the same reason that everything has the opposite, namely, nothing. Isn't this coherent?" Well, I may be misinterpreting this since I can not make heads or tales of what you were saying about the particle and John Locke, buuuut . . . A thing does not have "nothing" as part of what it consists of. Consisting can only be done by things. "Whenever you look at something by itself and analyze its interactions philosophically it is basically metaphysics." Oh yeah, we're talking about different stuff when we say "metaphysics" alright. When we're talking about metaphysics, generally we're refering to the branch of philosophy that addresses the nature of reality at large. This page goes over some of the major topics covered in metaphysics: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysics.html "Body X Environment, where X is the middle of the continuum." How are body and environment subject to creating a continuum with oneanother? "What kind of conscious connections? Connections between what and what else? How does this make anything in Objectivism impossible?" <-- me "The idea of 'sharing' that Eiuol mentioned and also conscious intentions that go beyond a physical body." Oh, hell. I haven't really been following that branch of the conversation well. What would intentions belong to other than a physical body? What evidence do you have to support the existence of such intentions? "I choose to believe the interpretations of data gathered by the Global Consciousness Project." Soooo . . . not really then? " . . . aware of each other's feelings and thoughts to a great extent. Couples that have been married for a long time can also know what the other person wants to say sometimes. You can say that it's coincidence or even a habit, but I believe that they were able to strengthen this connection that I have been talking about." I don't think it is coincidence in such cases, not sure what a habit has to do with this. What I do think it is the result of is a lot of data gathered by observing somebody a lot. More interesting would be if you could have two complete strangers who can't see or hear each other telling somebody in detail what kind of week the other person has been having or what their favorite movie is or something like that.
  19. I think the problem here can be summed up this way: You, Ilya, stated that you knew something for a fact. Then you said you neither know how it works nor have you witnessed a credible, functional example of it. You believe such things can exist, but you have no hard evidence. However, believing isn't same thing here as "knowing for a fact".
  20. "I probably meant to say familial." So then what did you mean by "familial compassion"? "farthest from the center or middle," "farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction," "exceeding the bounds of moderation," and "going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc." How do the things I listed other than the civil war not qualify for these? Also, you didn't answer my other question there looking for confirmation on if you conceded that there was an extreme that was good regarding the revolutionary war example. "Yes, . . ." Alright, sounds like we're getting somewhere. " . . . but I think we should at least try reaching for the awareness of the benefits or other consequences that our actions impose upon others." If something obviously will impact others, we do recomend checking into what kind of impact that will be even when you are acting within the scope of your rights. Going ahead blindly is a good way to end up with results you don't like. However, various actions merit going to different extents in efforts to check into what will happen to others. Spending ages researching any potential, as of yet unforseen consequence of having tomato soup instead of onion soup for lunch is just ridiculously waisting time. "I believe that there can be an order that allows freedoms for all. However, since the order would benefit all, these freedoms cannot be excessive, such as violence or any kind of destruction of others who are part of such order." First sentence there, I think we'd simply say such order is a particular type of government we support. We wouldn't say there is such a thing as being "too free", but not because we support people being able to go around beating up strangers for kicks or whatever. A person is free to do what they so choose with their own life and their own property. But that's it. It is not exercising one's "freedom" to start forcing other people and their stuff around. That's just despotism. That's trampling on the actual freedom of others. I think a quote related to this sort of thing I see used often is something like, "You're freedom to swing your fist ends at my face." The earlier mentioned government's job is ensuring that people don't start trampling on the freedom of others. By what standard would "peace be greater than happiness" and why should people care about such a standard? "What then would you say is this alleged third option [that is neither selfish nor not selfish] you see yourself fitting into?" <- me "As I said before, a self is a dynamic, phenomenological entity whose boundaries are stretchable. This self can be mind, soul, consciousness, awareness, etc. An individual body, however, does not work objectively. Unless it is a body of people, such as a society." <-- you I don't see how this answers my question. However, "An individual body, however, does not work objectively" <-- what makes you say that? And how does a group made up of unobjective stuff secure objectivity? Well, in what little knowledge I do have of dialectics, I'd say that not only do I not understand it but nobody understands it technicaly because it is an inherently incoherent attempted notion. "Metaphysics takes a 'problem' (conditionally speaking) and puts it into different contexts to find a solution for it. Dialectics takes a 'problem' and finds its opposite to see how the two can be integrated, so there can be no conflict." Could you perhaps give me an example here of how metaphysics would handle something and then how dialectics would handle that same thing? So far I'm not positive we're talking about the same thing when we say "metaphysics". I do know I've seen a wide variety of things called "metaphysics" before, so I figure I'll check to be sure. "Rand's metaphysics seems to be bound by a single context (what exists exists) of an individual and nature (commanded to be obeyed), but there is no middle ground." What would such a middle ground look like? In the middle between what and what? Metaphycis in Objectivism I'd say would contain existence as the context everything takes place in and it does hold that in order to change things one has to work with the nature of stuff, not against the nature of stuff, but that's not the totality of what Objectivism has on the topic of metaphysics. "I actually think that Objectivist ideology becomes . . . in this light . . . impossible, since no conscious connections are found." What kind of conscious connections? Connections between what and what else? How does this make anything in Objectivism impossible? "So far I haven't found any conclusive evidence to the contrary [of it being possible to share identical mental states and thoughts/feelings.]" You say you don't have evidence in opposition to this. Do you have any evidence to support it though? "Plus, there is no existing mechanism to connect our minds so that they could even possibly integrate into awareness (at least integrated briefly even!)." <-- Eiuol "There is one: sex (i.e., the good kind that is love)." <-- you What makes you say this? I've got to say, if there was any obvious such connection during sex, then most of the world should be aware of it by now. If it isn't obvious, then you've got to write more on this than just basically "this does!" I've got enough here for the moment. I'll let other people actually speak for themselves on the rest.
  21. I'm not entirely clear on what you consider to be "familiar compassion". " . . . but since England was in a despotic regime, it was good that Americans broke away toward freedom." Why the "but"? And yes, that's exactly my point bringing up the revolutionary war. So, you concede at least one good extreme then? As for the others, if you don't consider those extreme, then what do you mean by "extreme"? "In other words, awareness first, acting second." I believe that is the same general direction the person you were objecting to was going. You need to be aware of something before you can act on it, ie, you can't act for something you are unaware of. Consequent of this, somebody else so happening to benefit from something doesn't necessarily mean somebody was acting for the purpose of benefiting that other person. "I didn't understand what he was asking me." Oh, ok. "Chaos and randomness. I don't know about you, but I don't see much order in today's world" And what is the problem you see with such a lack of order? Yeah, we're on VERY different views here then. I see a TON of order all over the world. Perhaps I'll need you to elaborate on what your criteria is for something to count as "order" too. "I am asking for more than happiness, not less." I wasn't trying to say you were asking for less. By what standard would what you want be "more" than happiness and why should people care about such a standard? "I felt that we were talking about the privacy of emotions." Ah. Well, I suppose the person who asked the question originally would have to answer what he meant. "What I meant to say is that I am neither selfless nor selfish." So you neither are nor are not selfish. What then would you say is this alleged third option you see yourself fitting into? ". . . think of 'self' as dynamic and phenomenological." Hmm? You lost me here. "Remember the first law of dialectics: unity and conflict of opposites." ibid
  22. ". . . am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself?" "Neither one is necessarily a right answer. The second is always incorrect, but I'd say it's theoretically possible atleast for a situation to exist where there are no other good people around as far as one can tell, thus at least in theory the first one could be correct." Oops. I think I typed that wrong. It should say "at least in theory the first one could be incorrect."
  23. "With all contexts being the same, except your relationship to the person, do you feel equal compassion for all people, whether you like them or not?" The bolded is a key piece of Steve's question that your answer hasn't addressed. "Name me an extreme that was actually good." Revolutionary War (the war where the United States won their independence from England), abolitionism, wiping smallpox out by vaccinting so many people all over the world, surgery in general, I hear Steve Jobs was rather extreme in the conditions and demands he had for his company's products and employees, et cetera. Also, side note, your position of absolutely always seeking a middleground is itself an extreme. "am I selfless if I don't care about others or am I selfish if I value Society more than myself?" Neither one is necessarily a right answer. The second is always incorrect, but I'd say it's theoretically possible atleast for a situation to exist where there are no other good people around as far as one can tell, thus at least in theory the first one could be correct. The first option is most likely to be true though, that somebody would be passing up a lot of potential positives for their own life by being indifferent to absolutely every other person. Main thing is, you've set up a false alternative here. Thee two things are not necessarily true if the other is false and there are other options. "Awareness is evolutionary scope." 1) What? 2) That doesn't show any immediate relevance to the quote that you put right before it. "It's hard to understand where you are coming from since I had no psychology (other than 101) or sociology courses, so please be more specific by providing examples." You don't need to have any psychology or sociology classes to make a statement that something like what you've been proposing doesn't suggest. Until and unless their is evidence in favor of something existing, the default position is that it doesn't exist. The burden of proof is on one who says something does exist to provide initial evidence in favor of the existence of something. Then somebody who still contends it doesn't exist would have to show how the evidence is flawed to support their own position. So, first we would need you to provide evidence that such a thing does exist before we can get into much of anything specific. "Think this way: first 'same purpose and future goals' then 'harmony.' It's a causation." Perhaps true, however, if there are alternative ways such harmony can be had then (supposing we've already established that such harmony is definitely worth having) you would need to support why your particular method of gaining it is the best one. "Then there is no evolution on individual level." 1) What kind of evolution are we talking here? 2) What is the problem with a lack of such an evolution? "Is it just happiness that people need?" We need food, water, and shelter too of course, though I'd doubt we could gain happiness without having those things first. "Maybe they simply want to become cyborgs to be 'happy,' . . ." How would becoming cyborgs lead to being happy? The fact that you have quote marks around that word also suggests that what you have in mind would not actually be happiness anyway. "For me, happiness is way too conventional." Alright, I know a lot of conventions suck, but sometimes there's actually a good reason a convention arises. Washing your hands before eating for another example. Being conventional alone is a terrible reason to reject something. Also, there's plenty of other stuff out there to get your novelty kicks from. I skipped the "aboutness" part since I haven't been following that part of the discussion enough to say much about that. Earlier somebody asked if you think privacy should be banned and you folowed with asking if compassion should be banned. It's entirely possible to have both privacy and compassion, but furthermore, while privacy could be attempted to be banned, it's not even possible to try to ban compassion anyway. Privacy is a state that is very action dependent whereas compassion is an emotion. Thus far at least, I don't think we've got the ability to render a particular feeling from being unable to work since it ll takes place internally, unlike privacy which depends on external conditions a lot. [/answeringotherpeople'sstuff]
  24. I have another small irritation about the new chat. It always lists a number in the little red box that doesn't match how many people it lists when you mouse over or when you check the bottom of the main forum page.
×
×
  • Create New...