New Buddha

It can be tricky to understand percepts (and the perceptual level of cognition) because percepts can only be understood by a mind that is operating at the conceptual level. Once at the conceptual level, your mind automatically identifies existents as "concepts" -- your mind identifies a bed as a bed. Your mind did not do that the first time you saw a bed as a young child -- your mind was pre-conceptual.

That's exactly what it is. You stated in the OP that you are "not qualified to maintain much of a scientific opinion". However, the debate centered around the information in the leaked emails is not about the science, it's about the scientific method which falls under the domain of philosophy. Steve McIntyre, the lead critic of Mann and the hockey stick graph, is not dis-proving global warming. He is "auditing" the work of the scientist behind the IPCC findings and demonstrating inconsistencies in method and deliberate attempts to massage or remove data that does not support the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming. The MSM and Al Gore wants everyone to believe that it's so complicated that they shouldn't look into it, just leave it to the experts, - but it's not. What's been done is so blatantly un-scientific and arbitrary that any adult can understand it and reach a conclusion regarding the quality of data upon which the IPCC findings rests.

This is the role that is currently fulfilled by government through the rule of law. Cities adopt and/or create codes which regulate activites that pose a potential risk people.

You'll want to read Rand's ItOE where she describes such things as length, width, weight, point, etc. as cognitive "units" which serve as a bridge not only between percepts and concepts but also between mathematics and concept formation.

Most cities have Zoning Codes that identify where certain types of activities can take place, such as residential, commercial, industrial, etc. And all cities in the U.S. have Building Codes that require buildings to be designed to accommodate to the type of hazard that takes place within -- both for the safety of the occupants and to prevent the spread of fire from one building to another. Even assuming that Meth. were legalized, the manufacturing and storage of a high hazard chemical in a residential single-family house in a residential zone would not be allowed in any city that I'm aware of. That would, of course, lead to the next question of whether Zoning Codes and Building Codes violate an owners right to use his property as he sees fit.

I've seen the Axe commercial and have a different interpretation. In the commercial, it's the man who is the dweeb and the it's the attractive, stylish women who change him into someone "cool". It's reverse sexism!

The mind, consciousness, the soul are actions of an existent -- a man's brain/body. Actions can not exist separate from existents.

In 2000 the economy was already soft with under-employment and low stock reserves. With 9/11, things came came to a halt. George Bush suddenly had two wars to run and, not wanting to raise taxes, did what all politician do -- he turned on the printing presses. The Fed, to raise money for the wars, drastically lowered the cost of money. Around 2003 developers started to get access to LOTS of cheap money and tax incentives to start developing. Developers hired architects, who hired engineers, which created projects for general contractors who hired subcontractors who placed orders for building materials. At each step of the process, banks lent the same money over and over again through fractional reserve asset lending – thus drastically inflating the total money supply. Also, as employment dropped, companies had to offer higher salaries and more expensive health care plans as a means to attract and keep their workers. People who had previously been unemployed or underemployed sent their kids to the dentist, got new glasses and had medical procedures taken care of. All this added more inflation to the mix because doctors had to expand their practices and buy new equipment, etc. With more and more people working and the government offering tax incentives to purchase all the new homes that suddenly appeared on the market (without demand) and with rent prices going through the roof, individuals started buying houses and condo's. These mortgages were financed with the SAME money lent by the SAME banks to purchase these over-priced and “artificially demanded” houses. Also, many existing home owners took out 2nd mortgages to remodel or expand their homes since property values were going up and the money was cheap. The real estate brokers were not responsible for creating this mess – they actually weren't too involved until the end. And the number of brokers increased during this period which tends to reduced per capita income (but was probably off-set by the inflated cost of the houses). The mortgage lenders were involved with the process, and as you point out, many of those brokers are also the same banks involved in borrowing and lending the Fed's and Congresses money throughout the entire process. But they didn't create the problem. The problem is with the entire monetary system. Everyone needs to know what's going on with the monetary system, and I don't see what Ron Paul is doing as a waste of time. The entire reason for the Fed's existence as an “independent” agency is to prevent such a thing from happening in the first place. It's probably better to enact policy changes through the Fed than through Congress.

While I'm only passingly familiar with Chomsky, I doubt that he truly understands the metaphysical justification for capitalism. Capitalism, as Rand was the first to observe, derives from an understanding that a man, a single particular man, is an end in himself. His metaphysical identity and value is not established or justified by his relationship to another man, society or the state. The bedrock of capitalism is private property i.e. a man owns what he produces and is free to engage in trade with other men to exchange his goods and services. If Chomsky understood this, and accepted it and all the ethical corollaries, he would be an Objectivist.

Taxation will be with us for a long long time, and so will government services. Most people underestimate the complexity of privatization – and the potential for fraud and abuse of public funds in the transition. And, I hate to say it, but a society that has the maturity to privatize government services probably wouldn't need to do so in the first place. That was one of the points of my post. We didn't start thinking about the privatization of public schools until the cracks appeared – and the cracks didn't just happen, they had a cause. At that point, was it too late to turn back the clock? Time will tell. As for John Dewey, I'll have to look that one up. I got my ideas from family reunions -- sitting around and listening to my Grandmother, Great Aunt, Mother and Aunt complain about the teacher's unions and the Fed's!

The real issue is not public vs. private education. For many years the U.S. had some of the best schools in the world, and they were for the most part public schools. We only started contemplating privatization of schools when their quality started to decline in the 1960's and 1970's. The question is why did the quality of public education decline? Historically most schools were formed by the community. My Great Aunt graduated from high school in 1921 at the age of 16. The school board in the small rural town where she lived agreed to pay for her college education if she would agree to teach high school while pursuing her degree. Stories like this were common since Colonial times and reflected the responsibility that individuals and communities took to educate their children. The schools weren't perfect but, from a historical context, they were very good. It was the growth of the Federal Government under FDR that started the decline in the quality of public education, and by the 1960's and 1970's things had gotten pretty bad. People quit believing that it was their responsibility to work together to provide an education for their kids and instead began to see it as their right to a “free” education from the Government. There is nothing inherently wrong with a local, community based public school system. Not all government is evil – especially not local government where there is a much higher degree of accountability. But it's the mind set of the people and the value they place on education that is most important. Before the New Deal, schools worked because communities made them work. There was no other option.

I'm not sure I understand the direction this post is taking. As I understand it, the original question posed was: 1. A person is on trial for a crime he did not commit. He is innocent of the specific criminal activity for which he is currently being charged. 2. However, in the past the person DID commit a similar crime but no one is aware of his having done so. 3. Should he be tried anyway? The answer to me is, no. Unless I'm not understanding the question? It would be like if a cop pulled me over and gave me a speeding ticket when, in fact, I was not speeding. The cop is in error. But the cop takes the position that I may or may not be guilty of the current speeding, but since I've probably speeded in the past, I ought to just shut up and pay the fine.

What's interesting and ironic about the state of the world economy, outside the U.S., is that a historically significant number of people under existing socialist governments know that socialism does not work, and they are trying to find a way out from under it. The governments in socialist countries also know that socialism can't be sustained (as it truly cannot), but they can't admit it because they would lose power -- and no politician will ever willingly give up power by admitting they are wrong. The Chinese government is the quintessential example of this, but it's also holds true for much of Europe. We don't hear much about this growing unrest in the MSM but if you read between the lines in the foreign press you can see that people are getting fed up. Chronic under-employment, dwindling services, etc. America is the last developed country that has yet to openly embraced socialism – and therefore we haven't gotten it out of our system yet. Unfortunately, I think we will have to embrace it enough that we either hit rock bottom or at least see that we are about to before we wake up and reject it. What could prove to be the most absolute and supreme irony in the history of the world is that it will be the Chinese Communist government that will slap us awake. As they are moving away from socialism, we are moving towards it. China does hold a significant amount of the U.S. debt, but they do not want to see the U.S. collapse. It would cost them trillions of dollars and destabilize their power. They will only play their trump card if we don't shape up. I wish I could have been a fly on the wall when Obama met with the Chinese in Copenhagen. They probably told him where to stick the proposed carbon trading scheme being cooked up in the U.S. It remains to be seen if Obama can get out from under the special interests (or even cares too) that are trying to ram it through Congress. We live in interesting times....

Hyper-inflation is when a government floods a market with money with no intent of retiring that money at a later date. It's different then what the Federal Reserve currently does when it loans money at very low rates. Lately, when a country tries that in today's very interconnected world, other countries tend to slap them down. Imagine if the US tried it. Do you think China would accept that money as a way for the US to retire it's debt? No. In a way, being in hock up to our "you know what" with China keeps our government from trying to revisit that tactic (which was last used in 1970's). However, there are still other ways that the government can screw up the economy based on our current monetary system. I just don't see us taking wheelbarrows of cash to Safeway to buy a loaf of bread.

In my last post I was trying to move away from specific examples and instead focus on Objectivist metaphysics regarding the difference between probability and speculation via. scientific breakthroughs. However, I think I see a way to illustrate this using computers. My understanding of the PC CPU industry is that they are still essentially using the x86 architecture that was created in 1978. Other than migrating from 16-bit to 32-bit to 64-bit, there have been no fundamental breakthroughs towards a new CPU architecture. Much of the advance in computational power can be attributed to components other than the core CPU (i.e. multiple CPU's, RAM, GPU's taking on additional processing, more sophisticated software, etc.). As I understand it, the industry is frantically trying to find a new architecture because they have pretty much exhausted the x86's capabilities. They need a fundamentally new architecture. No one can predict when this breakthrough will happen. They can speculate that it will happen, but they can't scientifically state the probability of when it will happen. It all depends on a "John Galt" type inventor with a radically new idea. Again, I'm trying to not focus this discussion on computers (or examples), but rather on the metaphysics of probability (as per concretes and identity) vs. speculation -- realtive to planning for the future. As an architect, my main focus on Objectivism over the years has been aesthetics (including the neurological under-pinnings of aesthetics). It was Climategate that renewed my interest in the scientific method and metaphysics. So I don't claim that what I've stated above to be correct. I'm still learning....

No.

nanite1018, I've enjoyed this post because it's made me brush-up on my Objectivist Metaphysics. Here's what I understand regarding the above quote. There is a difference between probability and speculation (or imagination). However, they are both very important to humans. Probability is a condition of identity, and as such is only applicable to things (i.e. concretes). When you roll a twenty-sided die, the probability of any number appearing is 1/20. Similarly, when planning for potential earthquakes, you do so based upon observation of historical seismic activity in a given area. However, trying to assign a time-line for something like a potential new discovery (a cure for cancer, man's ability to create a rational being, etc.) is not an issue of probability, but of speculation. Any guess to when it might happen is just that, a guess. Even if it's dressed up with statistics. It's important to make the distinction. It is rational for man to plan for future probable events when he has observable, reproducible and verifiable scientific evidence upon which to to base his actions. However, it is not justified or rational to base actions upon speculation about what may happen. This doesn't mean that speculation and imagination are not important, but that they should not form the basis for action.

As a thought experiment, imagine a rational alien race that, like the praying mantis, must kill one of their own rational members to reproduce. Or worse, imagine one visiting earth and using human beings as "parasitic pods" to germinate their young. By their nature they would be acting in an ethical and moral way. However, this would be completely unacceptable to man. Man's values are about Man and are specific to his cognitive and biological nature. I realize that these are far-fetched examples, but it's conceivable that a completely rational race could be required by their nature to behave in a way that is harmful to humans. I only use these examples to illustrate that our values are specific to our species.

This is not what I was doing when stating that I find it doubtful that we can develop another consciousness that resembles our own. I fully believe that we will one day have a complete understanding of man's consciousness -- I just don't believe we will be able to re-create it in anything but another man. The argument is as much metaphysical as it is related to the complexity of the neurological and biological systems involved. Man's type of consciousness is inseparable from the totality of his mind and body. Every single biological system in a man is tied together in his brain. And, as such, only another man can have a man-like consciousness -- A is A. Neurological case studies have shown that impairment, sometimes in as little as one system, can significantly alter a man's mind to the point that we would say that he is "not normal". While the brain has a certain capacity to "work around" damaged areas, it's improbable that there would not be some abnormality if entire systems were missing. Perhaps we could perform radical experiments on chimps, but unless every single system in a man is also represented in the "chimp", it's highly likely that he would be abnormal to the point that his resultant consciousness, such as it may be, would be nothing like mans. And there's no reason to assume that we would share any of the same values, goals or aims. The same argument, I believe, can be made for electronic-based artificial intelligence. I believe that when we imagine artificial intelligence in computer programs or imagine beings from outer space, they inevitable resemble us because that's the only type of consciousness that we can imagine. This is tied to the fact that all thought (even fantasy) can ultimately be traced back to percepts. We can't imagine something un-like anything we've ever seen before. We may some day create artificial intelligence in electronics or consciousness in an engineered animal or discover an alien life form with consciousness, but the odds that they would be similar to man would be very small.

I really wasn't trying to be an ass. I will try my best to answer you. Your quote mentions Zane Grey. Zane Grey was a successful, popular writer who wrote books that entertained many people. His works are also highly accessible – meaning you don't need a formal degree in literary criticism to understand what he has to say. In many ways Ayn Rand's writings (both fiction and non-fiction) can be seen as similar – her works are entertaining, accessible and have enjoyed an almost unparalleled success across a broad spectrum of the public. And, sadly enough, it is for these very reasons that she is so often dismissed by many in the humanities. They don't reject her ideas (they don't even get that far), they reject the fact that she is popular outside of the humanities. Implicit in this type of rejection is the belief that if “anyone” can understand what she has to say, then her works can't have any great depth or meaning. (And, even more frightening, if her ideas are logical and understandable by so many, then what need is there for academics?) A historical parallel can be seen in the Reformation. Until Martin Luther challenged the Catholic Church, all bibles and services were written and performed in Latin. Since at the time most people could not even read their own language, much less Latin, this left the Church in the sole position of interpreter of the “official” doctrine. The parallel is that you will often find academics in the humanities (and soft sciences – see Climategate) “worshiping” what they study in the same way that monks and priests worship the Bible. And, almost universally, what they are studying is as open to interpretation and contradictory -- and therefore meaningless -- as the Bible. However, since only they can “understand” it, this makes them feel special in their little social clique. They, and only they, are the anointed few with the TRUTH! Rand's Objectivism, as I hope you will come to learn, is the exact opposite of what passes for philosophy in most universities. It is logical, understandable and, most important, highly applicable to everyday life – whether you're an architect, doctor, engineer, artist, etc. And it's also fun to learn. It's rare that you will encounter such a logical mind. Even reading her non-fiction work is an aesthetic experience.

I really am trying to ask this in the politest way possible.... ....Are you serious?

Small businesses can and do fail. This is natural and would happen even in a totally free market. However, when you see a systemic failure that affects the entire economy, you can be assured that the government has intervened and distorted the prices in one or more sectors of the economy -- creating an artificial demand which triggers an un-justified supply and ends in a messy "market correction" -- once everyone learns that they've been had. I would challenge you to find one single example in the 20th century where this was not the case. Regarding Wall Street and the current fiasco. The most I will grant you is that we did see a failure of Corporate Capitalism - something which I detest. CEO's, protected by limited liability laws coupled with the lack of responsibility that comes with true ownership, did make decisions that were not in the best interest of the corporations they served. They made decisions they never would have made had they truly owned the companies. Large corporations have been guilty of lobbying for special favors not granted to small businesses. But this is in no way a failure of the "Free Market" or a condemnation of capitalism.

This sounds alot like the Precautionary Principal as applied to epistomology. Without evidence of the existence of other rational "beings" we ought not modify our existing definitions. A possible future "context" cannot and should not be included in the current context which serves as the basis of our concept formation/definitions. Once you start thinking along this line, where do you stop? What concept or definition could NOT be altered based upon this premise? We should only tackle the issue when and if the time comes. As an aside, I don't agree at all that "we will likely develop artifical intelligences.... or genetically engineer some great ape specimens with significantly larger brains...". Human intelligence is so specific to the entire human being, incorporating multiple systems (neurological, endocrinal, somatic, sense perception, visceral perception etc.) that it's almost certain that we will never create another consciousness that resembles our own -- either electronic or biological. Are there other conscious entities somewhere in the universe? I don't have a clue. But I'm pretty certain that if they do exist they will be unlike anything we can ever imagine and there is no reason to believe that we will share any values.

On pages 44 & 45 of ITOE Rand writes "Observe that all of the above versions of man were true, i.e., were correct indentifications of the facts of reality--and that they were valid qua definitions, i.e. were correct selections of distinguishing characteristics in a given context of knowledge. None of them was contradicted by subsequent knowledge: they were included implicitly as non-defining characteristics, in a more precise definition of man. It is still true that man is a rational animal who speaks, does things no other living beings can do, walks on two legs, has no fur, moves and makes sound". (bold is mine). When people refer to a definition as being "contextual" relative to a particular field of study, I think what they really mean is that they are focusing on one of the non-defining characteristic of a given concept.

itsjames, Maybe looking at your question from this perspective will help. A man MUST think -- in a sense, he has no choice whatsoever. If he "chooses" not to think then his continued survival will only be made possible through the actions of other thinking people. Now, take a man out of the safety net of society and place him alone on an island. If he still chooses not to think (ie secure his means of survival) he will die. Once dead, he will cease to exist. A man cannot refuse to think and continue to exist. The fact that others may choose to support him in his non-decision making "decision" is philosophically irrelevant to the discussion of freewill vs. determinism.