Iudicious

Just a gentle reminder - "animal" instinct is no different from "human" instinct. It exists in humans just as much as any other animal. There are behaviors that we are genetically hardwired to have or tend towards. Evolutionarily, there's absolutely no reason to have gotten rid of such instincts, and an abundance of evidence points towards humans having instincts just as animals do. I don't have anything biologically to say about the difference between emotions and instincts - I don't know the biological basis of the former - so I'll draw a distinction philosophically and semantically. Semantically first. Emotions are a mental response to stimuli. Instincts are a physical set of actions that we are programmed to tend towards. A good example is caretaking behavior - mothers instinctually pursue certain courses of action with regards to their young. This is not a result of nurturing or societal conditioning. But it's also not a mental response as an emotion is, it's a set of actions. So, semantically, there's a pretty solid difference between the two. Philosophically, I would argue that emotions are not entirely genetic and not entirely automatic. Emotions, philosophically, are a mental response to reality as compared against our set of values. If something happens that goes against our values, we feel bad. If something happens that goes towards our values, we feel good. Our values are established as a result of nurture as well as individual, directed thought. That means that we can actually change our emotional response to stimuli over time. This is a pretty key difference between emotions and instincts, which are hardwired behaviors.

As someone educated in basic chemistry and who has followed the same issue for quite some time, I can say with absolute confidence that you're wrong. But I'm not gonna back that up or anything. In all seriousness though, I believe there's good reason to be concerned about global warming. I'm assuming that no one debates the basic facts - that CO2 exists, that it, and other atmospheric gases, retain heat in the atmosphere, and that there are massively increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to all of human history, and many thousands of years of history preceding it, and, finally, that humans produce CO2 on a level unmatched by nature, which has had a definitive effect on CO2 levels. There's enough evidence for each of those assertions that I really can't see a person claiming to be objective and still disagreeing with any of that. If not anywhere in there, where does your disagreement with the scientific establishment lie? Do you believe, perhaps, that the increase in CO2 does not cause a notable increase in global heat retention? Do you believe that the climate is not affected by increased CO2 and heat retention? There's plentiful evidence across dozens, if not hundreds, of objective studies for both of these things. So, where do you disagree? I do know that some Objectivists believe in global warming, and simply think that there's no reason to worry, or that we should do nothing about it and instead adapt to it. There are some arguments, though I wouldn't tend to believe them myself, that global warming would have a net positive effect, at least for humanity.

I don't get the resistance to "instincts" that I see among some Objectivists. "Instinctual" actions exist among a great number of animals, and they coincide with the ability to reason about surroundings. Animals don't act "automatically" - they respond to their surroundings in a thoughtful manner, and can often take surprisingly creative actions, or surprisingly downright incorrect actions. They don't have reason as we do, but that's not really relevant here - a certain level of instinctual action is clearly beneficial on an evolutionary level, so why on Earth wouldn't humans have it? Instincts are fairly simply defined in conventional terms: "an innate, fixed pattern of behavior in response to stimuli." I would consider omitting the "fixed" part of the definition, simply because most animals that "instinctually" do things will also not do those things in response to certain stimuli or even in response to emotional state [i've read about bears, for example, starving themselves in captivity when they aren't provided with conditions that are conducive to a positive emotional state. Some birds will pick out their own feathers in response to high emotional distress, which is a very harmful action]. Biologically, I have often heard the distinction that instincts are the inclination to carry out certain actions - meaning, they are not things that absolutely will happen, but things that an animal will tend to do due to natural urges. Humans too do things instinctually: the most obvious instincts are the ones we share with almost all animals, including the urges to eat and procreate. These are things that we feel natural urges to do, even if we can, like most other animals with instincts, decide to not carry out those actions. When you think about it, there are a lot of behavioural patterns that we see in human beings which are simply natural inclinations, or instincts. I've heard of Objectivists being resistant to the notion of human instincts before, but I think that it's really not that devastating of a concept. Possessing a natural inclination to certain behaviors does not negate reason. There would simply have been no evolutionary reason to get rid of natural instincts in human beings, and in many cases, such instincts, such as our "fight or flight" response to danger, are quite beneficial.

Off-topic, but Is it really necessary to question his behavior or intent at this point? He hasn't acted particularly out of turn, so much as pursued a counter line of thinking. If anything, it is an interesting question that gave rise to discussion. As I pointed out in my reply, the core of the issue is what you just supplied from OPAR: the context for rights had not arisen as yet, because the questioner hypothetically lived alone on this island. Now that it -has- arisen, rights come into play, and there's a specific line of reasoning that explains why. Humans survive by means of reason, and in order to live in the context of other human beings, rights are a necessity in order to facilitate the use of reason in order to achieve our values and the affirmation of our lives. If the questioner does not wish to live in a society, and does not wish to respect rights, than he has ceded his own rights - if he kills the man who intrudes upon his island, he no longer has his own rights, and is just as liable to be killed by a rights-respecting human being as the man whom he himself killed. The issue of morality and ethics arises only in the context that a human being chooses to affirm his own life, achieve his own values, by the human being means of accomplishing such: reason, and in the context of ethically-charged interactions with other human beings [as all interactions with human beings are a matter of ethics in their handling].

I'm not Leonid, but the basic idea, at least in Objectivism, of values is that they are inherently subjective. The hierarchy of values that you establish is a personal matter - I may very well not value solitude, just as much as you may value it. The essential issue is not whether solitude as a value is good or not. The essential issue is whether or not you can take the action that you have based on a value. You initiated force - but is it ever right to initiate force in pursuit of a personal value? I would say no. You said in your original post: "Because my ultimate value is my life, that which furthers my life is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys my life is the evil." Now, you described building up a moral and value system based on this idea, in the context of being alone on an island. The issue is that, by introducing a new person to this island, your context has changed, and so, therefore, must this moral system that you've built up from scratch. You are no longer alone - you are part of a society. A society of two, but a society no less. Conventionally, this is where rights come into play: if we are to affirm our own lives, if we are to be capable of pursuing our own values and pursuing the ends of maintaining and improving our own lives, by means of reason and in the context of a society, it is absolutely necessary to have "rights", the first of which being the right to life. The standard establishment of this idea is that, in order for reason to operate in the context of human interactions, certain ground rules must exist, those being the rights to life and protection of property, because without those ground rules, reason cannot operate. Ayn Rand puts it as such: "To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight." You may not have desired to enter into this society, but you hardly have a choice: only in the context of human interactions does this right to property exist [after all, to whom would you assert your right to property if not another human being?], so if you are not already a part of a rights respecting society, on what could you stake a claim to the island? Now that you are dealing with another human being, if you are both to act in a manner that affirms your lives and your values, you must assume that you both have rights. You could just kill the guy and be done with it and not have to deal with this whole business of rights, but then you've set the precedent: you do not want to be part of society, you do not want rights and do not respect the rights of others. So you can stake no claim to the island and to your own rights - so what you did to the man, may very well come back and happen to you when someone comes to investigate the man's whereabouts.

As Hairnet was saying, I don't think you should be worrying too much about philosophy in the context of your interview. You're being interviewed about neuroscience, not philosophy - it may have connections, but it's doubtful those connections will be too relevant to your interviewer. Beyond that, keep in mind that if any philosophy, including Objectivism, is consistent with reality, it will hold up under empirical scrutiny. Approaching neuroscience in the empirical manner that you'd be expected to as a neuroscientist should not violate your ideas as an Objectivist. Perhaps you may consider a different end goal for your studies - you want to understand how learning works, right? You don't necessarily need to put that in the context of Objectivism. If Objectivism is consistent with reality, nothing you learn in your studies should contradict it.

I'm not really an expert in biology. The focus of my studies, at the college level, are mathematics and biology, however, so I have had introductory courses and I do do a lot of studying on my own. I do feel well qualified enough to give a decent answer to this. It largely depends on the topic of biology that you're interested in. Like most fields of science, biology is a heavily diversified field - there's a variety of subfields, and a broad knowledge of biology may not guarantee you enough knowledge in any one subfield to give an educated opinion on something in that field. That said, there's a number of broad sections of biology which are good to know about: general taxonomy [e.g. what the high level domains and kingdoms are], general cell structure and microbiology, basic biochemistry, basic ecological principles, general plant and animal systems, basic genetics and evolutionary principles. For these things, the best introduction you're going to get is going to be from a college level textbook. I've been exposed to several of them, and I would honestly recommend the textbook that I've had the most occasion to use - Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition. You can probably get earlier editions and be just fine, however, remember that even on the most basic levels, our biological knowledge is always evolving: for example, as of right now, the Kingdom Protista is undergoing some pretty major taxonomic changes, and may potentially be split into a number of separate kingdoms. We're still discovering new structures in the cell and new functions of previously known structures in the cell as well. So getting an up to date book may be very beneficial in terms of how current your knowledge is. For more specific knowledge, there are a number of domain specific books that offer good introductions. Botany for Gardeners, Third Edition, by Brian Capon is the most widely recommended book on botany - it goes pretty in-depth but assumes only a layman's knowledge of science. The college textbook Raven Biology of Plants is also widely recommended. I've always heard The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins recommended as a good read on evolution and natural selection - though, again, there's a solid introduction to that in pretty much any good college level biology textbook. The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin is, of course, a good read on evolution, and most people who read it are surprised at it's accessibility and depth of coverage, as it was written to be readable by people who aren't biologists. Carl Zimmer has a number of good books on biology, including several on microbiology - A Planet of Viruses has a lot of information about, well, viruses. One book I've heard widely recommended on microorganisms and health is Good Germs, Bad Germs: Health and Survival in a Bacterial World by Jessica Sachs.Just googling a little finds The Naming of Names by Anna Pavord, an apparently well rated book about the origins of taxonomy. Isaac Asimov also wrote a good historical introduction to biology, titled A Short History of Biology, so if you like Asimov, which you should, you may like that. Again, though, I really think you'd be best off just getting a college level textbook on biology. Most such books are very heavily invested in making sure you can understand the ideas conceptually. Thankfully, a lot of biology at the most basic levels is process based - understanding the basics of biochemistry and microbiology is largely just getting a conceptual understanding of a number of processes, such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration (and their respective subprocesses, such as, for example, the Calvin cycle, the Citric acid cycle, et cetera). Biology is also one field where having access to good illustrations can be incredibly useful in understanding what's going on.

"These concepts cannot be reduced to perception and hence are meaningless. " Could you clarify what you mean by that? There are plenty of things that cannot be reduced to perception that are chock full of meaning. Just because you cannot "see" infinity per se does not mean it has no meaning. It seems that you're trying to object to the concept of different sizes of infinity, and even to the concept of infinity itself. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, because that would be a pretty gigantic leap for someone who has a PhD in mathematics.

The fact that something takes significant intellect to understand does not make it elitist, not by the definition of elitism. Honestly, I think there are a lot of facets of Objectivism that are not necessary for everyone to understand to practice a rational lifestyle. There are people who take pride in having studied Objectivism "for years" and still, somehow, not understanding it to its full extent. That's ridiculous to me. There are certain principles that exist in the Objectivist philosophy that can be said to be necessary to live a rational life in a rational society, and these principles do not require a full understanding of every nook and cranny of the Objectivist philosophy to grasp. One can logically explain why it is necessary to live without the use of force and to live by the application of one's faculty of reason without explaining every aspect of metaphysics and epistemology, and one can explain the necessity of living selfishly without writing a 1168 page novel. This isn't to say that such things are unnecessary or unwanted. An Objectivist society should, naturally, have people in it who understand Objectivism and laissez faire Capitalism. A politician who writes and passes laws should have a philosophy appropriate for interpreting such things. But not everyone needs to understand every facet of Objectivism, though the knowledge should of course be available: Objectivism, after all, -isn't- elitist. It is for anyone who has the will and the intellect to understand it to do so.

In several crime shows I've watched, I've seen writers take potshots at Ayn Rand by associating her books with the criminal. In an episode of Numb3rs, this murderous leader of a promiscuous cult of brainwashed women (if I recall correctly) is said to have read Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzche while in prison. They don't give any explanation as to why that is relevant, they just say it while going over his profile, as if that alone fully explains his actions, and all of the characters accept it as such.

You certainly have a talent for writing. Very descriptive, and your vocabulary is more than exceptional. I love the extended metaphor of a battle of sound, it's very interesting. However, my question is: what is the purpose of the piece? It seems like just a single part of something, as if you had torn a length of canvas from a painting and shown it to us. Where's the rest? What does this fit into?

Curiosity. I love a girl who is curious about the world, about what she can do in it and about all the things that can be accomplished and seen and enjoyed. Curiosity coupled with ambition is simply fantastic to see in a person. I don't need an extreme level of intelligence - I don't mind taking the time to explain myself, and I'm not elitist enough to believe myself inherently better just because I might grasp a concept faster than someone else. I don't need her to share the same ambitions or be the definition of rationally selfish and independent per Objectivism. What I want is someone who has a curiosity and ambition for life, someone who wants to know more, and wants to share more, and wants to do more. I love the feeling of inspecting something new and getting to know it and hungering for more. I need someone who can share that feeling with me. Edit: Upon looking back, I find it slightly interesting that I'm the only one who chose curiosity.

I appreciate the feedback, particularly on my style, whYNOT. When it comes to the way I used my words though, I think that it's best left as is. I used the words correctly by their definition, and the possibility that someone might misunderstand it is no reason to dumb down my writing. @brian0918: I'm not sure if it's bad or not that you expected the story to end that way.

@whYNOT: I'm not sure how it came across, but the way it was written was meant to mean that speaker's lover had always loved the stars, and that his love for that was primary, his love for her secondary. I.E. He didn't abandon her to explore space and the such. Rather, his love for the stars had -always- come before her, and that she had known that. Could you elaborate on what you said about my style? @Rudmer: Thank you, that's what I had hoped for.

I've been thinking about getting back into writing, particularly with some more space-based stuff. I decided to give an idea I've had for a while a go, and it came out as this short, short story, titled "My Love, For The Stars" _____________ When we were young, we'd look up at the sky together. Laying upon the grassy hills out back, we never thought about the present or the past. Hands clasped together, fingers entwined, you told me about the stars and the moon and the planets. You told me about gravity and atmospheres and vacuums. I didn't understand a lot of it, but I loved it because you loved it. I was eleven and you were twelve. You had a shelf full of leatherbound books and charts and notepads, and you used to take out your notepads and show me elaborate starcharts, criss-crossed with lines and arrows. You told me all about your plans, all about how you'd get to Mars one week, to Venus the next, to Mercury and Saturn and Jupiter. And then you began to tell me about Andromeda and Betelguese, and how you'd conquer the whole galaxy when you grew up. Sleeping out in your tree house with you, I could imagine that we were in a rocket ship, speeding into the night sky, exploring the universe... hand in hand. I was sixteen, and you were seventeen. We kissed every morning before class, and you told me every day about our future. I read in the news that some company had landed a ship on Mars, and I could see the urgency on your face. You would conquer the galaxy and no one else, and I always thought that I'd be by your side. I was eighteen, and you were nineteen. I waved goodbye as you boarded your ship. The crew was already there, and they were waiting for you, and I couldn't see you because there were tears in my eyes. I was happy, because I knew that one day I'd marry the first man to explore another solar system. You told me you'd be gone for months, and maybe years. But it was okay, because you'd write me a message every day, and when the circumstances were right and the technology permitted, you'd call me and maybe I could even see your face. I was twenty, and you were twenty one. You wrote me a message. You told me that we couldn't be together, that there was too much distance, too much time between us. You didn't know when you'd be home, you didn't know if you'd even ever see me again. They were beginning to set up colonies where you were, and soon you'd have to go farther. You had too little time, too much to do, too much to explore. But that's okay, because it's been a year now. Sometimes I look up at the night sky and I still think of you. I'm not sad, my darling. I always knew who your true lover was, and that your affair was with me, and not the stars.

Once. I couldn't get through it a second time. I really couldn't. I loved the Fountainhead, but Atlas Shrugged isn't among my favorite books. For me, it's simply impossible to get through the book. I understand that she's trying to get messages across with Atlas Shrugged, but for me it's like she's preaching to the choir, and it gets boring and feels dragged out at times. The first time I read it, I couldn't put it down, but the second time really wasn't enjoyable and I decided not to finish it. However, it's still extremely good for what Jolie does. I love dipping into it and grabbing quotes or random passages at times.

Does it matter which he is? The two parties are almost identical.

How did they do that? The closest they came to doing that was one of them saying that she was giving her heart, soul and body to the team. Obviously she was pretty damn dedicated to the race and her team, so I don't see any conflict with reality, or morality for that matter. Being dedicated to your team isn't "sad" when you're doing a team sport or whatnot.

One of my favorites is from American History X, when one of the main characters (Derek Vinyard, played by Edward Norton) is in jail after committing a hate crime. The principal of his former high school (Bob Sweeney, played by Avery Brooks) comes to visit him and talk to him after something happened in jail and he's injured. Bob Sweeney: There was a moment, when I used to blame everything and everyone for all the pain and suffering and vile things that happened to me, that I saw happen to my people. Used to blame everybody. Blamed white people, blamed society, blamed God. I didn't get no answers 'cause I was asking the wrong questions. You have to ask the right questions. Derek Vinyard: Like what? Bob Sweeney: Has anything you've done made your life better?

I usually don't trust essays that have that many (improperly done and improperly used) ellipsis in them.

I'd have to agree with both Amaroq and CapitalistSwine. Since you're already considering moderators, now might be a good time to consider chatroom moderators as well. The trolling is simply getting out of control there. It's hard to have a serious conversation when you have a number of well known (at least to the chat users) trolls active in the chatroom. I can't say exactly who I'd like as a moderator. There are several good members who frequent the place. Dwayne (Prometheus98876), Eiuol, and Knast are all good possibilities to me. I also would have to agree with Myself's post. I'm on the forum almost every day, at least looking around a bit, though I only post when I think that I have something to contribute that hasn't been said already. I may be interested in a position, but I'm not sure what exactly is desired.

I don't think that this is the primary reason. I've never really had an IQ test, but even if I were above them in intelligence, unless there were a massive difference (and I doubt there is), there shouldn't be as much of a problem as there is. I think Louie identified something that I probably should have, and it seems to me that what he identified (that some people don't hold their lives as the standard of value) could, and probably would, lead to the two differences between myself and my friends that I noticed. And thank you to brianleepainter for that quote - I love it!

Among my friends, I'm often the geek, tech guy, and even sometimes the wise one, that people come to for advice or help. When it comes to a difficult task, I know at least a few of my friends look to me for help because they've come to the conclusion that, for some mystical reason (to them), I'm better at completing these tasks than they are, especially when it comes to technology. The purpose of this post was to analyze, and identify the essentials of, this situation. Basically, I've noticed that when it comes to any kind of challenge, I face the task in a fundamentally different way than many of my friends do, and I want to identify what ideas that I hold, or what ideas in general, make this so. The first major difference that I noticed between my friends and I is that when I approach a problem, I look at it with the absolute knowledge that what I want to accomplish -can be done-, and by extension, it can be done -by me-. When my friends approach these problems, they often give up very early on, because they are not absolutely sure that a task can be accomplished, or that it can be accomplished by them. The second major difference that I noticed between my friends and I (and by no means does it being second mean it's any less important; it may, in fact, be more important) is that when I face a challenge, I almost always face it as an opportunity, and as something to gain from. Every challenge is something that I can gain knowledge from and improve myself with, and this fact makes me enjoy challenges more. Many of my friends take challenges as something to be avoided at all costs. You can guess why they come to me. These are just two differences, and I feel as if there may be more to it than -just- this, because I'm even aware of myself at times having problems accomplishing tasks, not for lack of skill but for other reasons (i.e. I get drawn away from a task and am easily distracted sometimes, and this is something that I work on conquering but it's also something that I want to identify the reasons for/essentials of.) So, to sum up the main idea or question of this post: what ideas make one person more capable and willing to face a task than another person, and, as an addition, how can these ideas be faced and changed? I think that this is different from (specifically, broader than) just the difference between facing a challenge with pleasure and fearing it (which is the topic of another thread.)

Oh sure, he can try. But in a proper legal system, he wouldn't get the domain name.

To start, I never got that message from Atlas Shrugged. Could you explain why you're getting that message? If you've read so much of her non-fiction and fiction, and so far you've been nothing but inspired by it, I don't think it's Atlas Shrugged that's giving you that message, because Atlas Shrugged never really expressed anything that Ayn Rand didn't make explicit in her non-fiction. Further, if you're in any way serious about asking the questions you've asked and getting answers and figuring out why your experience is different from everyone else's, do you think it's too much to ask that you not be so mocking?