Eiuol

I think your convoluted writing style about this topic might reflect your feelings. You seem to have a very hard time describing anything negative about this person. In fact, it's hard for me to understand what it is you think is even negative about him. Not that you're evading the truth about him, but that you're searching for any possible flaw he might have. Even flaws that might be overall insignificant. Try to think about what it is you value in a person. For me, using one word adjectives like "rational", "honest", "creative" are good ways to do this. Does he have many of those values? What are the things about him you don't value? If you can think about these things in a concise, clear and to-the-point manner, whatever issue you're having can be resolved. Or at least it will be a little easier.

To me, it seems that Nanite is searching for a scientific answer of how "free will" came about and doesn't quite see how human will can be completely free. I recognize -that- I have a free will, but I have no idea -why- there is free will. Without knowing why, it's hard for me to fully understand the nature of what free will -is-. Since humans are biological organisms, there definitely is a certain way it came about. Nanite's problem (and mine in a similar yet different way) seems to be that he has a hard time finding where determinism "ends" and where free will can actually begin to work. I'm not sure if anyone can really answer this question, except people working on the cutting-edge AI or computer research.

Well, I don't think that particularly shows evidence that free will is self-evident. With advanced and cutting-edge AI programming techniques, I can develop a computer in order to respond to posts on a forum. In order to do this, I'd have to give it certain concepts (I don't want to use this word in this context, but I don't know a better word). The decisions it makes would obviously be deterministic. Maybe you'd also program it to make one decision before anything. "If target is an Objectivist, then don't post arguments relating to determinism." But what if you keep adding concepts (or increase the storage capacity of what it receives as input), and computer processing power increases to the level of the human brain? Animal brains seem to develop in a similar way. Evolution made animal brains capable of more processing power and more storage. Clearly, at no point would decision making would become just free will, because it is completely limited by the way it is programmed. In other words, the way it is built. Similarly, the human brain can only function the way it is built, according to its nature. Given that humans evolved from other animals, I don't see how where this deterministic part goes away. The ability of introspection seems to be a way that the human brain was able to be more advanced than any other species on earth, but that ability must have come from something. I don't see how introspection could function completely independent of any deterministic process. Arguments that free will exists based on it being self-evident sometimes seem like they would require the human brain to function in a different way than its nature. My only point is simply that free will is not self-evident and proving that free will exists requires a much more complex argument. edit: clarification

Neither a word nor a language belongs to anyone. There is no absolutely official use of any words in the English language. The smaller the group, the easier it is to agree upon a certain definition. I would say that an agreed upon definition is a standardization. Many things are standardized. No standardization is accepted as "the truth", whether it be involving computer science, mathematics, language or even writing techniques. When we're speaking of the entire English speaking community, you'd probably be surprised about all the different ways people use particular words. When I hear the word selfish used with a negative connotation, it doesn't usually seem to be the best word to use to convey a particular concept. I never understood how "disregarding others" will always lead to bad or immoral actions. A thief is certainly a selfish type of person. Many people would say he's selfish, and they would be right. What I think is more important is to emphasize that what makes a thief bad is their irrationality. I would also emphasize that a thief's selfishness is not what makes him immoral. When I'm describing a person who acts with rational self-interest, I don't describe them as "rationally self-interested" because that manner of speaking is a little awkward to me. I would describe them as "Selfish and rational". I would want to emphasize the fact that the person is selfish, but I also want to emphasize that they are rational. Sometimes I do need to use the word selfish because I need to emphasize a disregard for others. If I describe myself as selfish, it is useful for me to also explain that I don't really care what another person thinks or what happens to them.

In fact, going around yelling like that is essentially selfless. Doing so is a need to convince others that you are behaving by the standards you set for yourself. If people ask me why or how I'm able to be so consistently happy and confident about myself, I will tell them that it's because I live as selfishly and as rationally as I can.

Wouldn't the tools that chimps create in order to acquire food require some grasp of alternatives? A chimp may see a twig, but that stimulus is certainly not enough to make the chimp use the tool in order to access hard to reach termites.

It doesn't seem like you really understood anyone's posts, let alone read them. Rand's definition of selfishness is pretty consistent by most dictionaries as well as common understanding of what the word means. I've never seen anyone use the word selfish incorrect. Many people just attribute the "badness" of an action to its level of selfishness.

Think about actions. You're so caught up in definitions. The meaning of words are important, but words don't exist just as words. They represent concepts. None of my actions have any regard for other people. I don't do things for other people, I do them for me. If I write a book and other people find it offensive, I don't care. Of course, if they like it, that's fine and it would probably provide me with some money. When you do something because someone else wished it or wanted it, you are acting unselfish, with regard to others. If you help someone because they have something of value that you want, not because they want to be helped, you're being selfish.

Well, you'll have to think about what aspects of those careers you can do, or what you value about those fields. I don't see why you can't be a doctor still (unless of course that is what would require you to go to school). Some of your abilities may be gone or deteriorate to become useless, but you won't lose all your abilities. You'll still have your ability to think. It is clear that you need to re-evaluate your status in life, but you must devote time to thinking about what it is you think is worth devoting your time to do. Maybe to help get your thinking going, write down all the things that you value. Even if it seems silly, write it down. Think about how those things can relate to each other. If one of those things requires action, start taking action at the most basic level, even if it seems fruitless. Don't worry too much about what you can't do or will be unable to do in the future. Adaptive devices will be invented, medicines will be discovered. Maybe invent those devices yourself and sell them to others. Just take some time to just think. I'd be willing to help you, my own disability puts me into a similar situation, even though the causes are completely different.

What are the careers you want? What are the things you want to do? Maybe you'll just need to explore others options in those fields. Maybe explore interests you once had before you were even a teenager. I was pretty into ancient history when I was younger, but my other abilities/knowledge gave me interest in other fields. It's hard to give much advice when I don't know what it is that you like. My own medical condition is probably a lot worse than yours. I certainly can relate to everything you said. There are still plenty of things I can do that I care about. Sometimes being able to do what you want is simply about figuring out a different way of doing things than the perfectly functional person.

You should be more specific about what it is you do and don't like about the Boy Scouts. You didn't provide very much information. Just don't use "it's only 3 months to become an Eagle Scout from this point, so I may as well reap the benefits that comes with it" as a reason to finish it. I'm only vaguely familiar with what is required to become an Eagle Scout.

Why is the word "selfish" such a problem to you? Even Rand's explanation of selfishness fits the dictionary definition. Selfishness is good even by the dictionary definition, many people think it's a bad thing because they assume it MUST mean you are acting deceptive. Many people add unnecessary meaning to a word. The only "good" thing about a person who is "irrationally selfish" is their selfishness. Their lack of reason is what makes them bad, not their selfishness. If you act with rational self-interest, that is being selfish. If you were unselfish, you would not act with rational self-interest. Therefore nothing is altruistic about rational self-interest. Rational self-interest is CANNOT be unselfish, even by the dictionary. It is selfishness. If you hold yourself to be the most important value, you are being selfish. It's putting your own interests first. You may care about another person, but that does not mean you are unselfish.

This is precisely what I was confused about. An animal still needs to process information, so a selection between A and B must be made. What does an animal DO then? A medicine can "act" but it certainly does not process any information. I need a word to use to that also implies processing of information for animals. I guess I'm wondering how free-will can come about from a biological point of view. Otherwise, it might be too similar to saying "God gave man free-will". I'm not doubting that there is free-will, but by what means did this characteristic come about?

It would be accurate to say that they act to be able to reproduce (and occasionally that involves death). But that doesn't change the fact that they only act in one way given a particular input.

Because they didn't truly understand what they believed. If they understood, they would already be on Galt's side. They didn't understand what they believed would -lead- to death. They indirectly chose death. Maybe it hurt too much to think that they dedicated their life to something bad like death, so they were simply evasive of the truth. They chose ignore what they saw, if they were even capable of using reason to figure out that their beliefs would lead to death.

I don't see what your deception was. Are you saying that the script provided was full of lies and deception and you read it off? Maybe it was the most rational choice. That's why if we lived in a truly free society, with a free market, you wouldn't feel trapped to make certain choices. Again, can you be more clear what it is you are discussing? First you ask if Ayn Rand is an altruist, but you seem to have said that you don't think she is. Then you seem to be talking about rational selfishness and irrational selfishness both as the same selfishness Rand talks about.

That is true. But you're just making an observation, you didn't really explain what those observations mean. People who are too unselfish usually come across as an idiot, but why is that? People who are thought of as too selfish do come across as conceited to many people, but why is that? Notice you didn't say such people -are- idiots or -are- conceited. I'm not really sure what type of information you're looking for. It's not like Rand said the only bad philosophy to have is an altruistic one. You should emphasize to yourself that the selfishness she talks about is rational self-interest. I'm not even sure if you disagree with Rand or just wish she spoke about compulsion more. To me, compulsion is a type of force, and the one of the biggest reasons that force is bad is because it prevents a person from living selfishly and living -their- life.

It would of course have to depend on your current situation in life. The first choice could easily become an altruistic choice if you're not careful. There might be better and more selfish choices, even if there are some pretty nice benefits for yourself.

I'm confused as to why "choice" must mean that a choice is made by rational means. An animal makes "choice" to live or die, but that choice is not made because they thought about. "Selection" would do a better word to use in that context. An animal will only "select" to live, but it's only because their biology told them to make that selection. It was certainly not made through reason. It would be like a biological robot, like you said.

To clarify, I do think people have free will. I just was suggesting that the argument given was not a particularly great one. In particular, I had issue/confusion with how free will could be self-evident. I suppose I should have said "the fact that a selection is made does not mean that free will was involved". I was trying to make a distinction between a computer making "choices", a computer choosing between true and false based on a specific rule set, and a person making choices, choosing between true, false and even contradictory regardless of a "biological rule set".

I don't understand how free will is self-evident. Introspection might not always be accurate, since you're always able to lie to yourself. The fact that there is a choice isn't enough to prove that it was a free choice.

(which, not witch) In general, I don't think I quite follow what you're saying or what your purpose is. People are definitely motivated to do things -by- things, whether or not they acknowledge it. I was motivated to make a post by the post that you created. Also, potential of humans is definitely limited by the amount of knowledge your brain can hold. That's the limit. Even if the brain were able to store every piece of knowledge in the universe, human potential would still be limited by what exists in reality. I'm not 100% sure if my concept of infinity is accurate, but I think it's safe something can't -be- infinite. Crizon, I do think free-will needs to be proven. It's not enough to just say "you chose whether or not to make a post". What you do perceive is certainly true, but that doesn't mean what you think about that perception is true. Everyone -should- recognize that the axioms are self-evident, but that doesn't mean they will. But that's sort of off topic. Having a possible choice doesn't always mean there was a choice. I can program a computer to make -specific- decisions, but it was certainly not based on the computer's "free will". I think to really prove free will, you need to show that a choice can be made despite a specific set of rules. I think this is sufficiently dealt with in what Rand wrote about tabula rasa. If you don't quite follow, please ask me to clarify. (edited out "Rand doesn't say volition is an axiom either", I misunderstood/misread a quote I read)

Now I understand what art is, but when at what point does "bad art" turn into "not art"? Sometimes I find myself thinking that something is "not art" when it might actually be "bad art". Similarly, I probably would consider paintings by impressionist artists (like Monet) to be art, although not very good art because I don't think they effectively show a selective or abstract re-creation of reality. I just have a hard time being able to judge whether art is just bad, or not art at all.

"Form follows function" is just one method to design anything in a rational way. I think ultimately what matters most is that you -think- about how something can be designed. This can apply to architecture, designing a user interface for software or even how to design a chair. Don't include a ornaments just because you can. Don't design something based on popular opinion. Base design on what you want to achieve. If you're explaining a design to another person, you should be able to say -why- each element is included. Also, I would not say "form follows function" is a rule. While I would say it is very common feature of good design, it is not a requirement for good design.

At the 6 minute mark, she explains why she likes Charlie's Angels. I'm not sure if that's the video you saw, but she was definitely serious.