Travis P.

A year or two ago someone made a reference to me about a lecture by Harry Binswanger (I think) that talked about how to read fiction so that you enjoy it and remember what you read. Apparently it involved, among other things, writing in the margins brief summaries of the plot of the chapter or the section that had just been read. Does anyone know what lecture this might refer to, or if it was even Harry Binswanger?

Responding for myself since I believe I first brought up historical accuracy as an issue, I think you're missing the point. My point was not to criticize it for being innaccurate, but rather for claiming it had a relation to works of literature that were "pure fantasy" and then having really nothing to do with them. It makes no attempt to "base" its story on them, but it does try to show where the story got its ideas from, and does essentially claim that its the "real" version. For me, that's deceiving/frustrating. Maybe it would have been better, for me anyways, if they had simply given it another title, and not tried to smuggle in little "clever" bits about where the myth of the sword (for example) came from. I wanted it based on those works of literature, not some third rate modern telling of what "really" happened.

Is this just flame bait? I hardly think it's worth answering.

I won't speak for Mr. Speicher here, but I think its pretty clear that the "particles" (meaning matter) that compose the brain of a living human are just like the particles found inanimate objects. They are obviously just arranged differently. How else would you get life from non-life? Not by creating new particles, but by rearranging those that exist.

But what you're talking about are principles of logic to guide your thinking. She was talking about the fundamental starting points, the "foundations of everything else". While the principles of logic are consistent with Ayn Rand's metaphysical axioms, and many of them may even directly "derive" from her axioms, they have two different goals. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. The "tautologies" you have mentioned are some basic principles to help guide a person in the use of logic. Before you talk about logic, however, you have to accept that existence exists. Do you see yet why they are separate things?

I hate to disagree, but, the first law was: "A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm." This permits no "sacrificing" of any individuals for others. Asimov actually thought that this was a flaw of the three laws, since the first law would protect individual humans only, and proposed a "law zero" which would say that the robots have to act in the best interest of "humanity". A quote from a third party, This never became a big part of any of the books in his series, though, from what I remember (a good thing). Asimov wasn't perfect, but the themes and ideas from his books would have been much better than this stuff. This movie was fun on an action level, but it had no resemblance to Asimov's books nor his ideas. Nor was it meant to be, as the movie was originally based on a different author who based his stuff off of Asimov, and then the studio bought rights to the name of Asimov's book. Asimov wanted, partially, to get rid of the fear of technology and to be an antidote against the common "Man creates machine, machine kills man, man should have known better" theme. Not only did the movie do nothing to bolster the case of those in favor of technology, but it hurt the case for technology even more (notice the subtle hit against the fear of nanotechnology - "robots creating robots - thats insane" or something like that). Then when you add in its attacks against "logic" (the only good robot was driven by emotions), I think you have a movie with a horrible theme. Can it be a fun movie? Sure. But that's all.

For one thing, Hume's point, if I understand it correctly, was that certainty is impossible, not that uncertainty is possible. Betsy has added the fact to the problem of induction that you can be certain.

While I think that chess can be a fun game, and I know one person who goes to professional tournaments, where is this "proof" that it improves thinking abilities? I would imagine it would to some extent, in light of the fact that you do have to think, but I'd be curious the extent it does this, for example compared with playing the violin.

Well for one thing, most physicists won't even admit that they can predict the behaviour of particles not in the brain. I think they're probably wrong, but that's beyond this topic. Either way, currently, there is no evidence for what you propose. When (if) scientists discover what you propose, then we can talk about it, until then it's just imagination.

I'm not sure that I understand this point. I agree that nothing cannot actually exist. But surely we can find in space, in our "coordinate system," areas where there are no things, where it is empty? The area exists, in terms of being in a certain position in relation to other "areas," but no existents are inside the area.

If you want to be annoying (I say leave your parents be), ask her what she would lose by being a good Islamic fundamentalist? After all, if we're to choose a religion "just in case", that is as good as any. And if you choose the wrong one... well you're going to hell depending on how nice the "real" god is.

Odd that a socialist would write a pro-capitalist book. Look, 1984 can be an enjoyable book, but it is definitely not an anti-socialist or anti-collectivist book. Orwell understood some basic faults of Communism, but not the roots of the faults. It's easier to see where Orwell went wrong in Animal Farm, because that book is more obviously attacking what went on in Russia. In it, he clearly has sympathy for the ideas that led to the revolution, but disagreed with the way things happened. Some of this is there, but more subtle in 1984. It's interesting to note that so many leftists have used 1984 to make arguments against capitalism (ie. invasion of privacy, control of information, war leading to profit, etc.). Most capitalists would argue that they are wrong, that Orwell meant such and such. But there's really nothing in the novel to suggest that he actually favors capitalism. He might conceed it's better than the society of 1984, but I doubt Orwell would promote capitalism above standard European Socialism.

Where in the chapter is this?

If I had chosen to believe in God after reading the story, I logically would have had to reject much of Objectivism, and therefore wouldn't be here in this forum. My presence here should indicate how much it made me believe in God . In my opinion (I read it about a year ago I think) it wasn't very good in terms of theme or keeping my interest. There is much better literature available than this stuff.

I believe the ability to be called back up (the way they are doing it now) is part of the voluntary contract you sign when you join. Nothing scary or worrisome about that.

I'm confused. You first seemed to be arguing that the religious right was a greater threat. But then you argued that the religious right was more redeemable. If it's the only redeemable movement, shouldn't it be less of a threat? I'm unsure that a person, who claims one of the things that should be part of our war on terrorism is converting the muslims to christianity, is really more valuable.

I think more important than asking why did or didn't Ayn Rand like Beethoven, ask why you do or don't like it. What are you reasons? What values of yours cause you to like it? It's well known that Leonard Peikoff loved Beethoven and told Ayn Rand so. Ayn Rand didn't like Beethoven, for different reasons. Liking or not liking Beethoven, Mozart, Rachmanioff, etc. won't make you an Objectivist or not. Last years objectivist conference (which I didn't go to) featured a concert that was "a richly melodic program featuring both shorter and larger masterworks by Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Bellini, and others". I enjoy Beethoven very much, and what I enjoy most when I listen to him is his mastery of technique and the emotionalism. If you listen carefully to many of the themes, however, there is a fairly malevolent streak in many of the symphonies. I would guess that is what Ayn Rand responded to when she heard Beethoven's music. Some, for example, the ninth symphony are nearly impossible to decipher, in my opinion. It's not heroic, but loud in the first movement. The final movement starts with what Wagner called a "terror fanfare". People interpret it so differently that nationalists, nazis, communists and others have used the ninth in history. For an interesting book (although one not good at explaining Beethoven's music) on this see: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...898309?v=glance

The "fuses" in our genes are our telomeres. It is basically a section on the ends of our chromosomes that gets shortened in all of our normal cells each time they replicate, because of the way cells replicate, but not in stem cells or our germ line because they lengthen the telomeres and keep them long. I can complete discredit that article. It takes one thing and draws an incorrect conclusion. I can not only guarantee to you that most scientists would not take what he said as fact, there is no logical reason to draw that. The person is trying to draw, using the theory of evolution, a why about why our telomeres shorten. When our telomeres get short enough, our cells are no longer able to replicate, and some studies suggest (although its not accepted as being the case yet) that genes may become misexpressed when telomeres are short, contributing to aging. You should note that, to my knowledge, essentially every living thing after bacteria has the telomere "problem", with a few exceptions in the insect world. A company has extracted telomerase from some bacteria and sells it to help immortalize new cell lines (make cells that replicate forever in petri dishes so that researchers can study them outside of people). Telomeres were basically an essential consequence of the switch from circular to linear DNA. You should ALSO note that there is no agreement about why aging happens yet. Anyone who tells you telomeres are definitely why aging happens is lying. Furthermore, telomeres act to save us from cancer. One of the hallmarks of cancer is that cancer cells divide out of the control of our body. If a cell starts to replicate out of control because it has gained some of the genetic mutations that cause cancer, then the telomeres will shorten and the cell will stop dividing at some point. However, eventually an additional mutation occurs, allowing telomeres to regenerate and the cells to proliferate (this is simplified). Without telomeres, we would get cancer much much quicker. High levels of telomerase activity are observed in over 90% of human cancer cells. Telomeres are an additional checkpoint for cancer to leap over. Telomere inhibition is something actively being studied by the pharmaceuticals in an attempt to stop cancer. There's also no evidence that, in humans, simply allowing our cells to replicate indefinitely would make us live forever, even absent the cancer we would get much sooner. Old age is also believed to be a result of a number of other factors, including simple long term genetic damage (the same that causes cancer). The collective survival value aspect of the article's theory doesn't make much logical sense. Also, most evolutionists require there to be an individual survival value in something we have (ie. protection from cancer and thereby allowing us to live longer than we would otherwise) and not a sole collective survival value. I haven't studied evolution in most contexts for a while, except in the area of sex determination (why sexual reproduction is advantageous to asexual reproduction). For something like telomeres, that are present in almost all multicellular organisms, there are personal advantages to not allowing your cells to divide forever. Nature, so far, has not found a way to allow multicellular organisms to live indefinitely (unlike bacteria which can be essentially immortal given the right conditions). That's up to us. Note that its true, if we lived forever, our genes would not change and evolution would not occur. Would this have a "negative effect on the species"? Only out of context. What makes us, as humans, unique is our ability to reason. Of all animals, we are the only ones who have the ability to actively change our own genes and actually do what not only random genetic changes over time can't do, but can do it quicker and without bad genetic changes resulting in the loss of individuals. Would it be bad for people if Edison was still alive today? Of course not. The anology used in the article (corrupt ruler), which I have not read but am reading your interpretation, is incorrect, the only way he could justify the living/dying as a "collective" evolutionary is via evolution. Living forever would essentially end the process of natural evolution. This is certainly true, and combined with the individual survival value of preventing uncontrolled cellular proliferation, is probably accurate. If monkeys (or our common ancestor with monkeys) could live forever, and also didn't procreate as much as a result, humans would have never been around. Monkeys themselves might be extinct because there would be no genetic changes to protect them from new conditions, and although they would be procreating (changing the genetic pool), the amount of this would be much less because of limiting living space. Telomeres do ensure that we don't live forever. But we wouldn't live forever without these fuses anyways. Telomeres allow us to live longer, by saving us from cancer. Telomeres were also necessary in the switch from circular DNA to linear DNA, in which a new problem was created: DNA Ends. Dipteran insects don't have these fuses, don't have telomere repeats (they use retrotransposition instead), but they don't live forever either. This doesn't make COLLECTIVISM a part of our nature, I don't see how that conclusion is drawn. The different theories of aging include: Mutation Accumulation Theory, Disposable Soma Theory, Antagonistic Pleiotropy Theory. Evolution really only requires that we live to reproductive age. I think that changes a bit once individuals in a species are capable of reason. Be careful what conclusions you draw from evolutionary theory. Ask what does it mean "the good of the species" in the context of evolution? It means the species is more likely to be around in the future. Even if it were true that the sole reason we age is to ensure the survival of the species (not only not proven and not likely to be the sole reason, but there are also molecular limitations), this would not imply collectivism is a part of us. It would mean that the random genetic changes that occur caused animals to live longer and shorter. The animals that survived until their ability to reproduce and not much longer after, were more likely to have successful offspring. The reproductive age varied based on how competitive the environment was. What does this mean for you, in how you should act and live? Very, very little. Obviously we have aspects in us, derived from our ancestors, which have a species survival value. Interestingly enough, our ability to reason and have free will has enabled us to have more survival fitness than many previous animals. I hope that helps, I wrote it quickly upon waking up, and it's not well organized. You can always e-mail me with more specific questions.

Actually that was a perfectly reasonable ruling, I think. This is more a case of bad reporting. The article makes you think its all about an anonymous sperm donor when really its about the fact that its not a written contract. Person A sleeps with (not donates sperm at a sperm bank) Person B. Person B gets pregnant. Person A claims they had an agreement in which he was a sperm donor and didn't have to support her. Person B claims they didn't have the agreement. That's the problem with verbal contracts, no evidence that it was ever made. Nothing in the ruling suggests to me that real sperm donors are going to have to start paying child support. I concede I may have misunderstood the case... it's impossible to make out all the details in this bit of bad reporting. By the way I think this link works better: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a..._us/sperm_donor

My fault was with the attempt to be historically accurate. When I think of King Arthur, I think of "Le Morte d'Arthur" and also childhood stories about the "Knights of the Round Table". The movie actually had little to do with the stories of King Arthur, except for some well placed references to show where the myth "got" that idea from. I'll grant you the acting is actually better than some other films I've seen recently (not saying much), the movie can be exciting, and the "moral themes" were relatively good. But I think we forget how good movies can be, after watching so many modern movies, and immediately cling to something like King Arthur as if its the best thing since sliced bread. Just because someone says he's fighting for freedom, then fights and makes a few other statements, doesn't make it a great movie. For me, abandoning the stories of King Arthur was enough to ruin it.

The problem is, for me, it wasn't really that much of a heroic depiction of the characters. I don't need every movie I see to have a heroic element (rarely do they anyways), but certain story lines you expect one (such as King Arthur). The movie takes out a lot of the heroic element by trying to make it too realistic. When a movie that tells you they are going to tell you the REAL story that the MYTH was based on, that is usually a warning sign for me (ie. King Arthur or Troy). Neither was a bad movie, but they could have been much better.

Just to make it clear, if the entire context of my response didn't, my comment "A good, intelligent person" was intended for Mr. Speicher. I may have misread the comment "Who is this guy?" as being directed at Speicher (the target of the article), not the guy who wrote it.

A good, intelligent person. Look up his posts and judge for yourself Steven's character. There is no reason to doubt his honesty. This webpage is full of a bunch of useless information, IMHO. Anyone who calls Peikoff a second rate mind doesn't know what he's talking about. The site doesn't even deserve being linked to, in my opinion.

You're missing nothing. The person who started this topic had never posted before. He was probably just trying to annoy some people.

Not that I know anything about it, but I believe it is accredited. If you're looking for more knowledge and not just another degree I would stay away from online universities, at least for philosophy. They may help with an accounting degree, for example, but most don't even offer philosophy. Lectures from Objectivists could fill up your next year or more from www.aynrandbookstore.com and you can easily find self-study material on other philosophers.