Capitalism Forever

I agree. I have deleted his offensive posts and warned him.

Because his goal is not to refute Hume but to rephrase Hume while pretending to refute him. He understands that Hume's "Nothing Exists" philosophy is too blatant to be taken seriously by most people, so he decides to try and accomplish the same thing, but less conspicuously, using his elaborately convoluted, serious-sounding ramblings as a veneer of respectability. While Hume's weapon is unbridled skepticism, Kant's modus operandi is excessive obfuscation. Kant is to Hume what a libertarian is to an anarchist, or what a liberal is to a communist, or what a "person sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians" is to a Nazi: sounds less kooky, but says the same things.

Yes, at a given instant, there is only one possibility as for what the arm will do at that instant. But what I am concerned with is the possibilities as for what will happen at a future instant. The key to finding where I see the contradiction lies in distinguishing the point in time at which the possibility is said to exist and the point in time at which the action will possibly occur. Referring back to my "10:00am" example: at 10:00am, there exist two possibilities in regard to what you will do at 10:02am : 1, that you will write a four-letter word and 2, that you will not. Both of these outcomes for 10:02am are physically possible at 10:00am ; it is at 10:01am, when you make your choice between them and cause the second one to be actualized, that the first one ceases to exist. From then on, only possibility #2 exists. As you said, the physical process is deterministic once consciousness has acted--but, as I add, not before. I hope this will help you understand my position. In addition, to view the same issue from another angle, consider the claim made by Isaac on the Volition thread: Putting aside the reference to the--in my view--nonsensical "big bang," the claim essentially goes like this: "At any instant t1, there is one and only one possibility for what the world will be like at any instant t2." In other words, everything that happens is PREdetermined. It is this claim that I disagree with. Do you agree with my disagreement?

It is the overall impression, confirmed in just about every detail of her appearance: the way she dresses; her shaggy, asymmetric hair; her black sunglasses and gloves; the expression on her face; her skinny body...She just doesn't look like a woman who enjoys her life and would like to help me enjoy mine. Sorry for the delay in replying!

Yes, we are in full agreement on that: once consciousness initiates the action, there is only one possible outcome. However, until consciousness acts, there are TWO possible outcomes, right?

Ah, I see. You will vote for him before you vote against him!

ROFL! (Sorry JC, but you'll have to find another moderator--this one is gonna wait until Betsy REALLY insults someone. [And then will prolly ban the guy she has insulted!])

Assume it is 10:00am. The physical circumstances at 10:00am are such that at 10:01am Stephen will have to choose whether or not to write a filthy four-letter word. At 10:01am, Stephen faces the choice, and he chooses not to write a filthy four-letter word, but rather to write "Did you read it? No?" At 10:02am, as a result of Stephen's choice, his fingers beat against the keyboard, typing "Did you read it? No?" The fact that this outcome was chosen by Stephen means that it could have been otherwise. Given the set of physical circumstances at 10:00am, this was not the only possible outcome. The physical circumstances allowed for TWO possible outcomes: 1) your fingers typing a filthy four-letter word, and 2) your fingers typing "Did you read it? No?" If there hadn't been at least two possible outcomes, the outcome wouldn't have been a choice. (I hope you will see from my use of the conditional mood that I do believe in volition. My question "So how can consciousness have a choice?" was in the context of the hypothesis that physical processes are deterministic, in order to show that that hypothesis contradicts the fact of volition, and is therefore false.)

We perceive it as a bunch of nutjobs coming over to our forum every now and then and posting their garbage. I can only repeat Daniel's advice to June: Read Ayn Rand. We will gladly answer any questions you may have about the specific issues as long as you remain rational and respectful. And please note that questioning our "sophistication" is NOT something we consider respectful behavior. I am locking the thread.

This is where I see the contradiction. "One and only one action possible" is not compatible with "could have been otherwise." And I do not mean a point in time after consciousness has acted; I mean at a point before it acts. A set of physical circumstances is given. Consciousness has yet to act. Physical determinism prescribes one and only one possible outcome from these set of circumstances. So how can consciousness have a choice ? In the analogy with the boulder affecting the tree, the boulder is a part of the physical circumstances. This cannot be applied to conscious action, since consciousness is not a physical entity, so it cannot be part of the physical circumstances.

According to the Napoleonic Code--which is still in effect in France today--you are guilty until proven innocent. There was no need for him to ignore it; the very reason he instituted it was to allow him to create a tyranny.

But Stephen, this leaves no room for consciousness to have causal efficacy in the brain!

Betsy, Miss Rand talks about forced compliance in that quote, while I am talking about willing submission. "They will jail me unless I give them half my income. Being jailed would be worse for me than losing half my income, so I will comply." -- This is forced compliance, and constitutes no sanction. The victim simply chooses the lesser of two evils. "The law forbids me to work more than 35 hours a week. My business will fail unless I put in an extra hour this week, and nobody would notice if I did. Still, the law is the law, and I will rather go bankrupt than break it." -- There is no threat of force here; the victim freely chooses to incur a tremendous loss in order to comply with a tyrannical law. I am sure you agree that this is anything but moral!

The institution of a law that violates the rights of an individual is an initiation of force. To willingly enforce such a law, or to willingly submit to such a law, is to sanction that force.

That doesn't make them republics; it makes them representatitve democracies. They are still ruled by the majority, only less directly: The majority of the voters determines who the leaders are, and the majority of the leaders determines the government's actions. In a republic, the government's actions are determined by the law, which in turn is objectively derived from the individual's right to his life.

RadCap, I continue to be amazed at your drawing skills! Strangely though, I don't find Red Herring especially beautiful or even distracting. Her evil is showing way too clearly for me to develop any liking of her. I agree that she may distract people with irrational tastes, though.

Exactly. I was considering to write something to that effect in the place of "Objectivist gal," but succinctness was a priority and I figure that, when I introduce her to Objectivism, she will become an Objectivist anyway.

Seriously, I could care less if our philandering friend's dates are Objectivist or not. I am not interested in "Objectivist gals." I am interested in "the sexiest, loveliest, and most beautiful of all Objectivist gals"--IOW, a girl whom you wouldn't want to have a one night stand with! (Besides, when I said Objectivist, I meant "someone who shares my outlook on life," and that would definitely not be a one-night-stand kind of girl. So my gal is certainly not "there with him right now" !)

My favorite among their replies: Kind of says it all...

Well, that could easily be addressed by making the ugly, "feminist-style" looks the societal norm! But even if you don't make her ugly, I would suggest that Lady Liberty be noticeably prettier than she is, for the simple reason that men (and boys) tend to sympathize and identify with and ... well, be attracted to, the women with the best looks. Hmm ... could it be something that rhymes with "vegetarian" by any chance? I think it's an excellent idea!

Whoa, man, that is one strange question to ask! Why do you have a problem with using the word evil? It is a perfectly valid English word, with a well-known set of meanings, among them "morally reprehensible" and "causing harm." In addition, it also has a well-defined meaning as a philosophical term in Objectivism: "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil." By asking Bowzer why he has no problem with using the word, you are asking him to prove a negative. If you think there is anything wrong with it, the burden of proof is on YOU: unless you give us arguments as to why it is wrong, we simply do not have a basis upon which to consider your contention that it is so. In other words, it is like asking: "Why do you think apples aren't harmful to your health?" (Except that it is also self-contradictory to some extent: If nothing is evil, how could there be a "problem" with doing anything, including using the word "evil" ?) Nobody perverts the concept more than Libertarians do. Most people have an unclear concept of what liberty means. That is ENTIRELY different from intentionally perverting the meaning of the word for propaganda purposes!

Yes, I think making her a bit fatter would help. And while we're at it, her face could be squarer and her hair shorter. Just tune in to CNN when they're interviewing a feminist and you've got your model! The idea with the buckles is brilliant, and so is the design of The Mob!

It depends on how exactly you define "anti-American." Possible definitions are: A person whose philosophy differs from that of the Founding Fathers (applies to Bush) A leader whose policies are not fully aligned with America's national interests (applies to Bush) A person who hates America (doesn't apply to Bush) A person who actively seeks to destroy America (doesn't apply to Bush) I strongly suspect that the latter two do apply to Kerry.

Betsy and Stephen have pretty much done my replying--and better than I would have--so let me just add one point: When I say "partnership," I do mean partnership: The man and the woman both have the same goal--the creation of wealth--and their relationship is a trade which allows them to work towards that goal more efficiently. The particular skills they bring into the partnership will depend on the individual man and woman, but from what we know about the nature of men and women in general, we can say that the man's contribution is likely to include his physical strength and that "confidence" Bearster has mentioned on the Woman President thread, while the woman's contribution will likely include (but not be limited to!) her beauty and pleasantness, her capacity to bear children, and similar things. So the leading partner is likely to be the man--that doesn't make the woman any less heroic than he is, for the same reason that a star programmer isn't any less heroic than his project manager: What she does is essential, and she does it extremely well.