Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

patrik 7-2321

Regulars
  • Content Count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About patrik 7-2321

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Sweden
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    Patrik
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2983 profile views
  1. Thanks for your comments. This is mainly in response to the comment by William O. After some reflection I must say that I actually find the notion that reduction is (or can be) induction or "Inductive" almost absurd. Mostly due to the fact that my understanding is that induction is hierarchical and must be performed bottom-up from the senses to the abstract, and reduction goes in the reverse order. When I reduce a proposition I conclude what must be established before what, in hierarchical order, for the proposition to be true. If it turns out that no reduction is possible, then ther
  2. Grames, Thanks for reminding me to think about "certainty" in this context, and for recommending lecture 6 of The Art of Thinking. My understanding of certainty thus far has been that it refers to the degree to which one can legitimately be confident that an idea corresponds to reality. One is fully certain that something is true when one knows it to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, on the basis of all available evidence. As I have understood it, full certainty of an idea requires a bottom-up induction. Take "capitalism is the only moral social system": one can reduce it all th
  3. A very accurate summation I would say! You can also tack on that I am, as perhaps more of a side-issue, confused by Peikoff's occasional usage of the term "inductive proof" in the course OTI [1]. I am also confused by the lack of reference to the importance of induction in the written materials, when it is lauded as so crucially important in the OTI course. Refs: [1] just google "ayn rand campus peikoff "inductive poof" " and you should be able to immediately see some relevant transcripts from Peikoff's course on the ARI campus page.
  4. In Objectivism, a "proof" of an idea is reduction. One thereby goes backwards "down" through the steps necessary to reach the abstract idea, which can be a proposition or a concept, through the necessarily prior ideas, until one reaches the most basic kinds of observations on which the idea depends. The prime example of this would be the Objectivist proof of the principle of egoism. It is normally proved by reducing the concept "value" down to its necessary prerequisites, which are entities acting to achieve goals in face of the fundamental alternative of life or death. However, acco
  5. I'm responding to you separately. MisterSwig, I would like to basically summarize your comment as: "These concepts can give rise to legal irrationality - such as granting political rights to computer systems, or depriving humans of rights." I absolutely agree with this. The legal system and our laws surrounding technology would most definitely suffer from these bad concepts. CartsBeforeHorses, You are essentially saying that these concepts, as they are normally applied to AI, are valid, and do not cause any problems. It is just that the technology itsel
  6. Intro: I think it is undisputed that the development of technologies normally classified as AI hold a great value for us. It is at root simply a kind of human-like computer automation, with applications to almost all technologies we use, and even to science as when AI-software has been used to help solve scientific problems. However I sometimes wonder what to make intellectually of the hype surrounding it, what is valid and invalid, and what is good and bad about it. The first thing I am confronted with in this task is the bad terminology used. Hence my question: What are the actual p
  7. See if you find something at ARI campus that you like, to start you off (awesome site): https://campus.aynrand.org/campus-courses For reading I'd say start by reading these essays by Rand (lots of choices here but these are good): "Philosophy: who needs it": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1974/03/01/philosophy-who-needs-it/page1 "Faith and force: the destroyers of the modern world": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/faith-and-force-the-destroyers-of-the-modern-world "The Objectivist Ethics": https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics/page1 "Caus
  8. So there was a guy in academic epistemology who allegedly turned the whole field upside down in the 1900's, by proving that having Justified True Belief in an idea is insufficient for having knowledge of said idea. Read up if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem https://books.google.se/books?hl=sv&lr=&id=Gp9Umi2VEh8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA175&dq=Is+Justified+True+Belief+Knowledge%3F&ots=OGD1Xq6SY1&sig=qfXz6_nL9-_008Z6WmjehU7cKFU&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Is Justified True Belief Knowledge%3F&f=false How I would sum it up: Gettier provi
  9. Mike you seem to have the wrong concept of "reality". Ayn Rand once said something like "There is only one reality. Not two, nor four, nor ten".
  10. I think the closest you will come is the book Understanding Objectivism, by Peikoff and Michael Berliner. Here you will be shown how to validate 4 principles of Objectivism, the purpose of which is to teach you the method of validating the whole philosophy for yourself. That's one half of the book, later there is one chapter explaining the hierarchy of Objectivism, followed by a few chapters on epistemology, and then emotions and moral judgement. The whole style of writing and argumentation is also different from OPAR.
  11. I decided to buy this book as an introduction to economics, mainly because John Lewis from ARI recommended it. Amazon: http://www.amazon.co...35291780&sr=1-1 Book webpage: http://objectiveeconomics.net/ Being new to economics I like the book so far, but then I saw this review by the Objective standard: http://www.theobject...up-buechner.asp And then there were some controversy online over this quote from page 1, (the preface): "To the best of my knowledge, this book represents the first attempt to rewrite economics in the light of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism." - Which is c
  12. I don't think this comes off as troll-ish at all. Here's Peikoff's answer: Podcast from June 30th, 2008
  13. I'm happy with my logic book, which is Logc: An Introduction, by Lionel Ruby. Prior to reading (half of) it I had no previous expreience with logic as a subject, and this one has been good for me. You can find Harry Binswangers endorsment of this book via google. Basically he recommends that Objectivists buy it but ignore some select parts.
  14. I think he meant "the morality which he enacts", rather than "morality as such".
  15. Seems like this question comes up because you don't know the validation of the standard of the good. You are in effect asking why your self-interest is what Objectivism says, and not more dependant on other people's well being. In OTI (Objectivism through induction) the validation of the Objectivist concept of self-interest is outlined like this: You choose values. You achieve values. The commong denominator among basic values recognized by common sense as "good" for a person defines self interest. In contrast: altruism is not in your self interest because it contradicts the nature of value
×
×
  • Create New...