Eiuol

Then all you ended up saying is "measure values according to the value they provide", which is question begging. "Things have value, you evaluate value of things based on the values they provide". Paraphrased by mixing up the syntax. It's more like "things have value or disvalue, and once you discover what standing it holds in your life, you finally determine if it has value". In other words, EVERYTHING is a value or disvalue, to some degree in context, nor is there an eternal context where we already know something has value. You agree I think, but what you said doesn't quite add up in total, and the topic is more specific than what is the standard of value. I don't disagree that your method is sufficient, but it's just way too generalized I think.

I don't think so. You claimed that consciousness is something but as a something totally different than what I am claiming. We only agree that consciousness is real. Past that, I don't see a similarity.

No, the answer is fine - if you already determined in general the value of some set of items. The issue is question begging. How do you determine what values to pursue? Look at the quality and quantity they provide. How do you determine the quality and quantity they provide? Look at what your values are. Make as many graphs as you want, but you need to establish your normative claims first. With two flavors of ice cream to choose from, I need a more definitive method to establish the value of something before (abstractly) making my graphs (caveats for how people don't literally graph this out).

Not really. I say there are natural reasons for consciousness to exist and is essentially an abstraction to refer to our first person awareness, or subjective awareness. The mechanics and processes are not themselves consciousness, at least to the extent that each neuron is not conscious. But in total, as entities that are not merely composed of parts, we can label the total faculty that results in first person awareness as consciousness. Otherwise, it is no different than describing how a thermostat works where we know all its parts but it still isn't conscious in any sense. In fact, some philosophers go as far to say anything that processes information is to at least some degree conscious - even thermostats! While all consciousness will process information, the essential element I'm referring to is first person awareness. Consciousness is only an experience. That doesn't deny consciousness as arising from a real process, nor does that deny that consciousness can be explained. Likewise, saying that sight is an experience and only an experience doesn't deny that it arises from visual processing and eyeballs. But when I talk about sight, I mean the experience. If I say that the neurons firing ARE consciousness, then I'm already mixing up origin and result. To keep those distinct, I have to keep consciousness as a first person experience and what it *does*, and use a different concept to refer to what makes it possible. Often, this other concept is called "architecture" or "cognitive architecture". The actual mechanical makeup is not conscious, at least going on what I said so far. A functionalist would accept the term architecture, but will say mental state A is identical to neuronal activation X, and only differentiates based on one how one is concrete and the other more abstract. Sometimes, it is a form of dualism called "property dualism". This is how I understand functionalism, and it varies in the extreme people go to. Anyway, yeah, first person experience is "subjective", except only in the sense there is no absolute state of consciousness - that no one is conscious of your consciousness and able to experience it too. This is no issue, if you're concerned about objective knowledge. All you need to remember that objective knowledge is a matter of using the right methods to integrate the world around you. A total separation from the real world though is one error, but I don't think that issue comes from seeing consciousness as only an experience. Ideas to read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism

To me it sounded like you were asking about being conscious OF your own consciousness. I'm still not sure if you are. If you mean noting other conscious entities, that's difference. Either way the property of consciousness is a first person experience which Rand called a faculty of awareness and many philosophers say similar things. I don't know what you want to say, you said your concept of consciousness is independent of the view you happen to observe it. That's asking about consciousness apart from being conscious. The philosophers who are functionalists and say consciousness is JUST particular activated neurons that correspond to mental states, they'd claim that the brain and neurons is the independent thing you want. The problem is, functionalism doesn't CARE about first person experience. Trying to ignore it or avoiding it is a fool's errand - the mechanics are not equal to the phenomena.

I don't follow what you're saying. Most philosophers are pretty clear that how consciousness works is different than what it is like to be conscious. But yeah, consciousness IS the first person experience. When I ask if you're conscious, I'm asking if you are aware of your experiences. By the way, if consciousness is independent of any viewpoint of any observer is equivalent to asking for evidence of consciousness without using consciousness. A consciousness "outside" my consciousness such that I observe my consciousness is self-contradictory! This is one reason consciousness is axiomatic: it is senseless to talk about observing the very thing your observation depends on. We can analyze its identity and what gives rise to consciousness (the brain is part of it at least), though. The closest to "outside" I get is identifying someone else as conscious. Still, consciousness refers to my experience of the world.

I hope this is satire of rationalism. There is a grain of truth to the whole thing, but it lacks any mention of context of one's life and knowledge, while presuming an absolute measurable value of certain consequences. Yeah, all this is helpful for approaching decision theory, but any theory of decision making presumes what is deemed as valuable. If, somehow, you would rather be unhealthy, then this whole thing is a different graph. To me, the question of the OP is how we determine what values to pursue.

Okay, I just need to give another look through his book on teleological concepts. Other disagreements I have are in less substantive works like short articles.

Err, well no, those are their additions and to that extent isn't Objectivism at all. I think Binswanger is wrong more often than right even. Ideas don't die, only supporters do. And as individuals we change and grow. But specific ideas don't. Aristotle's Golden Mean is still the same. Cogito ergo is still the same. Objectivism is still the same. Philosophy doesn't stop. Also you're making bad assumptions about Objectivist thought and other people. Perhaps Russia was really that bad. Maybe Peikoff had a bad family. It happens, it really does. Rand didn't like her mother, but I think she liked her father a lot. Still, don't take Rand's personal life and import that into her philosophy.

It's "private" in a sense except also with government involvement. This isn't even on topic. No idea what you want to convey either. You called it scifi and it seems your intent was to lie to get people to watch Thrive. It just... makes no sense. You made more sense earlier on, but your positions only got into ignoring people telling you about your misunderstandings.

Nice Evangelion avatar!

To say that high calories means you ought to avoid it is something like an is/ought fallacy. I know you probably mean that keeping healthy is good, thus ice cream can be bad. But there is certainly a level of variability where ice cream is bad for some people yet not as much for others. There is no absolute level of calorie intake to maintain, even if there is a range of healthy levels. I think the whole point of Objectivism is to treat all values similar, where there is no absolute value to hold, while there are principles that I should follow in virtue of the similarities I share with all people by definition. If rationality wasn't needed for me, I wouldn't be human - it is the essential feature giving rise to an objective morality. I'd be careful with the word "preference" or "optional" though. Optional makes sense if you take it to mean lacking it doesn't inherently reduce quality of life. Ice cream isn't necessarily bad or good. If I choose to forgo ice cream, that is IN GENERAL optional. THAT it is optional doesn't mean there is no best choice for me. Compare that to valuing self-esteem. If you forgo that, the requirements of your existence won't be met. Preference makes sense if you mean values that don't necessarily go with a reason. There is no particular reason I prefer chocolate to vanilla, but insofar as I really do prefer chocolate, there is no sensible reason to choose vanilla. So in that context, it's a preference. In either case, for *me*, there will be a right answer. If I'm diabetic, it's against my life to then eat ice cream. If I prefer chocolate, it goes against my life to choose vanilla over chocolate. On the other hand, if someone else preferred vanilla, and bought that, it's consistent with their life. IF something has no detriment to my life and I enjoy it, I see it as self-sacrificial to deny myself whatever it may be.

I'm perplexed that you called it science fiction. It's a documentary. Science fiction has story, plot, and various scientific speculations. This is a theory, albeit a bad one. If you're going for suggesting art works that capture rhetorical or literary depth in philosophy like Objectivism does, this isn't a good example. Mostly, it's a conglomerate monstrosity of facts without anything much to say. UFO sightings are weird. The Federal Reserve sucks. Yup, heard that in Zeitgeist - Thrive is nothing new. It's the documentary equivalent of campy.

I watched parts of it just now. It's not scifi. It's not even fiction - although it might as well be.

Uhh, that's not science fiction dystopia... it's one of those weird documentaries that try to be factual but are made for people with tin foil hats.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/etymolog.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fakeprec.html Artificial means imitated AND/OR man-made. So... your point isn't relevant anyway... Don't use the imitation definition, no one else is talking about that concept. * 2) everything you listed depends upon working hardware or software. People can be turned off with anesthesia i.e. lose consciousness, but if you slice them in half, they're dead. You can't reboot what is destroyed. Indeed copying is needed to prevent permanent deletion, except that's the point: maintaining existence. 3) Sorry, but your understanding of programming is flawed. True, if/then is important to programming today, it's just that even human volition is an interaction among various non-volitional parts. Good programming involves a complex creation of many interacting parts, including abstract relations between functions and objects. To be sure, no programming methodology has been developed that allows you to set up an underlying architecture for volition. We know an architecture exists, just not how it needs to be built. Once you set up an architecture, you let the AI do its thing. Even babies are like that. They're born with a cognitive architecture, then they do their own thing to learn. Generally, even though computers now aren't really based on the human mind at all, better AI research or even software development aims to be hands off as possible. That might mean to achieve "fully hands off" is a radically new hardware and programming method. My presumption/hidden premise is that volition in the sense I mean here needs a conceptual consciousness. Rights stem from man's need of using concepts, so as long as an AI can think conceptually, it would have rights.

Clearly, VECT isn't talking about imitating human intelligence. Yes, AI today is only imitation. The point is the creation of intelligence, but "artificial" also conveys man-made creation, so if you keep in mind the topic of the thread, there's no need to argue about the definition of artificial. Give it a new name if you prefer. I'll keep saying AI because it makes sense. I do NOT mean artificial as in imitation. 1) a volitional AI might not need emotions. Emotions can be useful because of how they help with efficient decision making, but that might not mean emotion is required for volition. 2) Any AI can die. An AI must preserve its hardware and software. 3) What is a "genuine" ability to choose? I get the gist of how toasters aren't doing any considerations. But it doesn't follow that non-biological entities cannot possibly be arranged to be volitional. 2 and 3 are relevant to rights. 1 is only relevant to determine what volition requires in order to work. I suspect emotion is needed, but it's only speculation, although it is needed for people.

I don't think so, but William Gibson started to get at this deeper level in Neuromancer. Cyberpunk gets into these questions more than Asimov's stories. It gets into more than the human likeness of robots - it goes into an AI superceding human cognitive ability. If and when an AI manages this, well, that's highly speculative.

I don't think Rand was unfair towards ethical philosophy in general, and Kant receives criticism especially as a result of Rand's attacking deontological ethics. Consequentialism is criticized, usually in terms of its lack of using principles to act or Rand's arguments against Pragmatism. Virtue ethics is mixed, as Objectivism has features like it. Rand attacked subjectivism as a moral philosophy, but I don't think any philosopher takes it seriously anyway. The only thing Rand didn't address is relativism, which isn't the same as subjectivism. Relativism is morality of convention, but any relativist wouldn't say the conventions are arbitrary, so that one got away. Plus, I believe relativism is more modern, so it's not like Rand even could criticize it.

August 16th is when it'll be, does it conflict with anyone?

It doesn't. Integration is epistemological.

Just... no... That's not what is meant by integration. Integration here doesn't mean a synthesis of thesis and anti-thesis. And as dream_weaver was getting at, you seem to be trying to treat Objectivism under Hegelian terms. Not as in Hegel per se, but as in Hegelians like Marx. Integration is observing a group of entities or noting some group of mental entities (e.g. concepts formed earlier), then uniting a subset of the group along some similarity. That's a one sentence version. Objectivism rejects those dichotomies you listed, it doesn't attempt to create an integration out of them to reach some transcendent truth. That's a totally different philosophical method and tradition.

Choosing the pursuit of happiness, not choosing happiness! I choose to pursue happiness, but it is never sufficient to act with only an intention in order to attain happiness as an emotion. It is always sufficient to act with only an intention in order to achieve non-emotional ends. Will yourself to be happy, and you will fail in futility - more is needed than your will and choice to act. Will yourself to pay a bill, and you will succeed - all you need is to choose to act. My motivation to pursue happiness is that it is necessary to do right actions, but there is more to an emotion than simply a consequence of my actions. I didn't say it isn't possible to achieve a desired emotional state by ways of chosen actions. It is affected also by things like sense of life especially, and any alteration to that will change how your emotions work, love included. Those changes happen naturally and aren't always subject to moral blame, as it doesn't reflect on your honesty or selfishness negatively, aside from how it's not a choice anyway how your emotions will work. In any case, if I don't take any actions, I'm doomed to fail.

You can't choose to not feel hungry, you can only choose to ignore or hopelessly try to erase the feeling. Similarly, you can't choose to not feel lonely. All you can do is take actions which establish having an emotion, but once you feel it, that's it. All you'll be able to do is take new actions to replace your emotions. On top of that, any actions you take can and will affect your emotions, even if you aren't trying to replace your emotions. Note the difference between choosing actions, with the resulting feeling that happens regardless of your intention to feel an emotion. Paying a loan is a choice in that it is entirely up to your intention, making it fair to make contracts for loans. Feeling love is only partially up to your intentions, so it isn't fair to make contracts for love. There is not necessarily moral failure if you end up feeling differently than you want - the parts of love unavailable to choices and intentions aren't up for moral judgment. Do you mean to imply a ranked list of levels of commitment? In other words, do you think marriage is inherently more commitment than a relationship of cohabitation without marriage?

You can't make such a massive generalization from Amazon reviews... Have you actually talked to many people about quantum physics? I really don't know the rest of what you're saying, I can't make out what you're saying as even Objectivism, just forcing a system into yours then using terms that don't work. Square pegs don't fit in round holes. "Fragmentation" is a loaded term, and people keep telling you that you misunderstand Objectivist epistemology. I don't mean "not agreeing", I mean not even understanding the claims. The result of your misunderstanding is seeing Objectivism as some sort of Cartesian Neoplatonism mixed with a form of Logical Positivism. What you're missing is everything about interconnectedness of all knowledge and all the views on perception (which you've sometimes taken to be the same as one's conceptual view of reality...). Showing a "problem" before having understood the relevant claims, on any subject, is more like showing what you still don't understand.