immortality
Bob Collier
grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus, when ones heart gets worn
out, he has a new one developed for replacing his old one, etc. Theoretically,
the same process could be extended to virtually any body element, possibly even
to serve for brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be
among the first immortal humans.
Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of developing a
stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal population; and, what may
such a society be like?
--
Robert L. Collier,* C.E.O.
Collier Electronics - http://www.flash.net/~rcollier
*Member:
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
http://www.ieee.org/ , and
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
http://www.aaas.org/
"Many men stumble across the truth, but most manage to pick themselves up and
continue as if nothing had happened."
--Winston Churchill
melofool
population problem. and even with birth control, lots of people will want
children and there's not enough room. with competition for living space
huge, the government will not be able to hold on to an immortal population.
and its very unlikely that immortality would be available to all. maybe the
government would institute some kind of life tax.
but maybe we could colonize the other planets or live in space or
underground. only the priveldged, most powerful, richest could live on the
surface.
actually, i have no idea what i'm talking about. sorry...
Bob Collier <rcol...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:37DC4C6C...@flash.net...
Dr. Necrophage
rcol...@flash.net wrote:
> Studies in cloning and molecular biology suggest that it may soon be
> possible to grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus, when
> ones heart gets worn out, he has a new one developed for replacing his
> old one, etc. Theoretically, the same process could be extended to
> virtually any body element, possibly even to serve for brain
> maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be among the
> first immortal humans.
>
> Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of
> developing a stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal
> population; and, what may such a society be like?
> --
> Robert L. Collier,* C.E.O.
> Collier Electronics - http://www.flash.net/~rcollier
I find the prospect of literal physical immortality exhilerating. I do
think, however that as we advance closer and closer to making it a
reality we will have to finally address some issues that humanity still
has a hard time facing. Your question of the chances of a stable, crime
free society can only be adressed if we are able to discover the
real root causes of violent criminal behavior in the hopes of 'cureing'
it somehow. Other pressures such as population and food distribution
also factor into the prospects of a stable future society, humanity will
have to curtail it's reproductive activities to an extreme degree,
unless space colonization becomes feasible. If the human life span can
be extended nearly indefinately, then deep space exploration actually
seems more likely and possible. Issues such as poverty and other
socially destabilizing problems will have to be addressed as well. One
answer to this that may also tie into the immortality prospects is the
realization of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology could concieveably
eliminate almost all material want and need and with that I think alot
of real crime and social unrest can be addressed. I do think, however,
that there will be much turmoil as these technologies progress and are
used without a clear understanding of their real potentials. Selfish
business concerns and the basically criminal thuggery which passes for
'government' in the world stage today may result in misuse of some
aspects of genetic engineering and other technologies and that may taint
the public perseption of these technologies too much for their real
fruits to be achieved in our lifetimes. I do not doubt that such
advances are comming, or that it is possible to achieve them in the next
50 years or so, but I don't know if people are *willing* to achive them
as the prospects of immortality and the elimination of material need are
both exciting and very disturbing to the basic paradigms of human
societies. I envision a struggle with those who seek to maintain the
status and power they have due to their control over the 'needs' of
people as well as with those who fear technology and see it as their
enemy.
I do think that eventually a free and stable human future will be
acvhieved, but not without a period of much pain and danger.
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything it has
it has stolen' - Nietzsche
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ala...@mindspring.com
melofool <baske...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:7rhp2h$ug$1...@lark.jmu.edu...
> well, if they can keep the reproductive stuff working, we'd have a
huge
> population problem. and even with birth control, lots of people
will want
> children and there's not enough room. with competition for living
space
> huge, the government will not be able to hold on to an immortal
population.
> and its very unlikely that immortality would be available to all.
maybe the
> government would institute some kind of life tax.
>
> but maybe we could colonize the other planets or live in space or
> underground. only the priveldged, most powerful, richest could live
on the
> surface.
>
> actually, i have no idea what i'm talking about. sorry...
into hibernation to wait for all of the improvements to occur, and,
then, wake up, pay those who stayed behind a commission for their
administration of our incubation vessels, and laugh at them because
they will look so much older than we do.
Oh, and give the scientists who stayed awake a prize of some kind.
Alan
Jon S.
"Welcome to the future, XPK35Z. You owe us $358,972,428,666,583.37 in
parking fees."
gavelis
possible to
> grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus, when ones heart gets
worn
> out, he has a new one developed for replacing his old one, etc.
Theoretically,
> the same process could be extended to virtually any body element, possibly
even
> to serve for brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we
may be
> among the first immortal humans.
>
> Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of developing
a
> stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal population; and,
what may
> such a society be like?
> --
The only gift for which you must pray to all possible gods is the fact
you're mortal. The time will come, and all your earthly sufferings will
reach the end. That's the basic fact of human being as such.
What would you do, being immortal, replicating yourself again and again? I
suppose you'll simply kill yourself one day. It's unbearable - to live
eternally being the same person. It's deadly boring.
RG
Dr. Necrophage
"gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
>
> Bob Collier <rcol...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:37DC4C6C...@flash.net...
> > Studies in cloning and molecular biology suggest that it may soon be
> > possible to grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus,
> > when ones heart gets worn out, he has a new one developed for
> > replacing his old one, etc. Theoretically, the same process could be
> > extended to virtually any body element, possibly even to serve for
> > brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be
> > among the first immortal humans.
> >
> > Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of
> > developing a stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal
> > population; and, what may such a society be like?
> > --
"gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> The only gift for which you must pray to all possible gods is the fact
> you're mortal.
Provide empirical, experimentally validated evidence for the existence
of a 'god' thingy.
"gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> The time will come, and all your earthly sufferings
> will reach the end. That's the basic fact of human being as such.
Just what sufferings are those?
"gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> What would you do, being immortal, replicating yourself again and
> again? I suppose you'll simply kill yourself one day.
Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it away as we see fit to.
The ability to kill onself is the most important power an individual
has, it is this which firmly established his ownership of his existence.
"gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same person. It's
> deadly boring.
And you would know this how? At the point of technology we are speaking
of here we may be able to sellect what personality we wish to have and
alter our consciousness through chemical, electronic, or surgical brain
change as we see fit.
haye...@my-deja.com
> What we all need to do is to invest a penny at compound interest, go
> into hibernation to wait for all of the improvements to occur, and,
> then, wake up, pay those who stayed behind a commission for their
> administration of our incubation vessels, and laugh at them because
> they will look so much older than we do.
>
> Oh, and give the scientists who stayed awake a prize of some kind.
>
> Alan
Funny, but stupid.
-the Misesian
haye...@my-deja.com
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <37DC4C6C...@flash.net>,
> rcol...@flash.net wrote:
> > possible to grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus,
when
> > ones heart gets worn out, he has a new one developed for replacing
his
> > old one, etc. Theoretically, the same process could be extended to
> > virtually any body element, possibly even to serve for brain
> > maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be among
the
> > first immortal humans.
> >
> > Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of
> > developing a stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal
> > population; and, what may such a society be like?
> > --
Long, but stupid
ala...@mindspring.com
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7rlhve$gov$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37dd...@news.takas.lt>,
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> >
> > Bob Collier <rcol...@flash.net> wrote in message
> > news:37DC4C6C...@flash.net...
soon be
> > > possible to grow our own replacement parts in laboratories.
Thus,
> > > when ones heart gets worn out, he has a new one developed for
> > > replacing his old one, etc. Theoretically, the same process
could be
> > > extended to virtually any body element, possibly even to serve
for
> > > brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may
be
> > > among the first immortal humans.
> > >
> > > Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of
> > > developing a stable, crime-free society with a stable,
all-immortal
> > > population; and, what may such a society be like?
> > > --
>
> > The only gift for which you must pray to all possible gods is the
fact
> > you're mortal.
>
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > What would you do, being immortal, replicating yourself again and
> > again? I suppose you'll simply kill yourself one day.
>
> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it away as we see fit
to.
> The ability to kill onself is the most important power an individual
> has, it is this which firmly established his ownership of his
existence.
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same person. It's
> > deadly boring.
>
> And you would know this how? At the point of technology we are
speaking
> of here we may be able to sellect what personality we wish to have
and
> alter our consciousness through chemical, electronic, or surgical
brain
> change as we see fit.
Is this a test of character? Whoops, I can change that if I want to
with surgery. Let's all be Teddy Roosevelt today.
lol
> --
> Dr. Necrophage
Dr. Necrophage
> > it may soon be possible to grow our own replacement
> > parts in laboratories. Thus, when ones heart gets worn
> > out, he has a new one developed for replacing his old
> > one, etc. Theoretically, the same process could be
> > extended to virtually any body element, possibly even
> > to serve for brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all
> > suggests that we may be among the first immortal
> > humans.
> >
> > Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans'
> > chances of developing a stable, crime-free society with
> > a stable, all-immortal population; and, what may such a
> > society be like?
>>
>> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
>> The only gift for which you must pray to all possible
>> gods is the fact you're mortal.
>>
>> [...]
>> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
>> What would you do, being immortal, replicating yourself
>> again and again? I suppose you'll simply kill yourself
>> one day.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it away
>> as we see fit to. The ability to kill onself is the most
>> important power an individual has, it is this which
>> firmly established his ownership of his existence.
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>And I thought "No man is an island, entire unto himself."
But are not all humans truely alone in the final analysis,
who goes with them when they die? Who but I can rightfully
decide to dispose of my person? Should I choose to die, or
to live, who makes that decision if not me?
>> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
>> > It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same
>> > person. It's deadly boring.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> And you would know this how? At the point of technology
>> we are speaking of here we may be able to sellect what
>> personality we wish to have and alter our consciousness
>> through chemical, electronic, or surgical brain change
>> as we see fit.
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Is this a test of character? Whoops, I can change that if I
> want to with surgery. Let's all be Teddy Roosevelt today.
>
>lol
Heh...If there were a brainscan of Teddy available in the
future I am speaking of, I suppose you could possibly choose
to 'be' Teddy Roosevelt. I suppose a person could be made
to *think* they were Teddy with a high degree of
probability. My point, though, was a bit more general then
that, but I can see it being a feasible option to choose a
personality like a suit of cloths.
Dr. Necrophage
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ala...@mindspring.com
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
news:27acf7e8...@usw-ex0102-010.remarq.com...
> Bob Collier <rcol...@flash.net> wrote in message
> > > Studies in cloning and molecular biology suggest that
> > > it may soon be possible to grow our own replacement
> > > parts in laboratories. Thus, when ones heart gets worn
> > > out, he has a new one developed for replacing his old
> > > one, etc. Theoretically, the same process could be
> > > extended to virtually any body element, possibly even
> > > to serve for brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all
> > > suggests that we may be among the first immortal
> > > humans.
> >> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> >> What would you do, being immortal, replicating yourself
> >> again and again? I suppose you'll simply kill yourself
> >> one day.
>
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it away
> >> as we see fit to. The ability to kill onself is the most
> >> important power an individual has, it is this which
> >> firmly established his ownership of his existence.
>
> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >And I thought "No man is an island, entire unto himself."
>
> But are not all humans truely alone in the final analysis,
> who goes with them when they die? Who but I can rightfully
> decide to dispose of my person? Should I choose to die, or
> to live, who makes that decision if not me?
alone--each and every action affects others. I would not make an
absolute judgment on Dr. Kevorkian, for example, but I do believe that
the lawful ways to show concern for suffering should be paramount in
any individual decisions. If the law is out-of-date or insensitive to
useless suffering, then let's change it.
> >> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> >> > It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same
> >> > person. It's deadly boring.
There's a big world out there to explore. Given time and money, I
could stay busy for an awfully long time. But this might not be the
best thing for the planet as a whole. We all make great consumers;
it's producing that's a bit more boring.
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> And you would know this how? At the point of technology
> >> we are speaking of here we may be able to sellect what
> >> personality we wish to have and alter our consciousness
> >> through chemical, electronic, or surgical brain change
> >> as we see fit.
>
> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Is this a test of character? Whoops, I can change that if I
> > want to with surgery. Let's all be Teddy Roosevelt today.
> >
> >lol
>
> Heh...If there were a brainscan of Teddy available in the
> future I am speaking of, I suppose you could possibly choose
> to 'be' Teddy Roosevelt. I suppose a person could be made
> to *think* they were Teddy with a high degree of
> probability. My point, though, was a bit more general then
> that, but I can see it being a feasible option to choose a
> personality like a suit of cloths.
And I am afraid that fads would come and go. Is there any type of
personal growth to this? Would we really be walking in someone else's
shoes or just trying out a new suit of cloths? Elvis meet Elvis who
is 2nd cousin to Elvis over there.
> Dr. Necrophage
Alan Roth
Adeline and Keen
themselves and about their lives. Perhaps the change will be for the
better - we might be more liable to focus on the long term goals of our
relationship with our environment and with each other, rather than on
immediate gain - or perhaps the change will be for the worse - why
should I behave morally or sensibly if I cannot die or if I can surivive
extreme physical trauma with transplants? Why not live for the moment
since I can have as long as I like to patch things up afterwards?
Much of our moral and political fabric is based on the mortality of men,
our mutual vulnerability calls for some middle ground, some modus
vivendi to allow us to live in society and in relative civility. What
might happen if mortality is no longer a factor? An interesting question
...
Dr. Necrophage
< snip >
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote
>> >> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it
>> >> away as we see fit to. The ability to kill onself is
>> >> the most important power an individual has, it is
>> >> this which firmly established his ownership of his
>> >> existence.
>> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > And I thought "No man is an island, entire unto
>> > himself."
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
>> But are not all humans truely alone in the final
>> analysis, who goes with them when they die? Who but I
>> can rightfully decide to dispose of my person? Should I
>> choose to die, or to live, who makes that decision if
>> not me?
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I was reacting to what I see as a form of solipcism. We
> are not alone--each and every action affects others.
So? Why should I care what other feel about the descisions
I choose to make for my own life? My task is to live (or
not) for my own ends and not for the interests or ends of
another entity.
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I would not make an absolute judgment on Dr. Kevorkian,
> for example, but I do believe that the lawful ways to
> show concern for suffering should be paramount in any
> individual decisions.
The way the individual chooses for *themselves* to be
treated is to be respected, reguardless of any
so-called 'law' to the contrary.
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> If the law is out-of-date or insensitive to useless
> suffering, then let's change it.
The 'laws' established to impose the idiotic 'morals' of a
certain sect of cultists are irrelevant in reguards to how
an individual chooses to end their existence in any event.
< snip >
>> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> > Is this a test of character? Whoops, I can change that
>> > if I want to with surgery. Let's all be Teddy
>> > Roosevelt today.
>> >
>> >lol
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote in message
>> Heh...If there were a brainscan of Teddy available in
>> the future I am speaking of, I suppose you could
>> possibly choose to 'be' Teddy Roosevelt. I suppose a
>> person could be made to *think* they were Teddy with a
>> high degree of probability. My point, though, was a bit
>> more general then that, but I can see it being a
>> feasible option to choose a personality like a suit of
>> cloths.
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>And I am afraid that fads would come and go.
And? If that is what people choose, then so be it.
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Is there any type of personal growth to this?
Does there have to be? Some may choose to do it for
'personal growth,' others for the fun of it, what's wrong
with that?
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Would we really be walking in someone else's shoes or
> just trying out a new suit of cloths?
And? What's so wrong with a new suit?
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Elvis meet Elvis who is 2nd cousin to Elvis over there.
Heh...even though I don't particularily like Elvis, I don't
see anything wrong with this so long as it is people's free
choice to be Elvis or not.
Marvin B. Edwards
[My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and not for the interests or
ends of another entity. ]
Not quite. That has not been the legacy handed down to you. The benefits
we enjoy today are in part due to the sacrifices of others in the past, who
looked beyond themselves to us. We in turn do not live merely for
ourselves, but also for those who follow.
eisn...@idt.net
> Studies in cloning and molecular biology suggest that it may soon be
possible to
> grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus, when ones heart
gets worn
> out, he has a new one developed for replacing his old one, etc. Theoretically,
> the same process could be extended to virtually any body element,
possibly even
> to serve for brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be
> among the first immortal humans.
>
> Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of developing a
> stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal population; and,
what may
> such a society be like?
IN THE SPAN OF A BILLION QUADRILLION YEARS?
> --
> Robert L. Collier,* C.E.O.
> Collier Electronics - http://www.flash.net/~rcollier
>
> *Member:
> The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
> http://www.ieee.org/ , and
> The American Association for the Advancement of Science
> http://www.aaas.org/
>
> "Many men stumble across the truth, but most manage to pick themselves up and
> continue as if nothing had happened."
> --Winston Churchill
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Bert Clanton
<m...@cstone.net> wrote:
Right on.
Actually, his real task is to grasp the fact that if everyone lived by the
philosophy that he advocates, he, or his descendants, would be living in a
disintegrating dog-eat-dog society, in an environment well on its way to
being unable to sustain them.
But then what did his descendants ever do for him?
Best wishes,
Bert
Dr. Necrophage
be...@sonic.net (Bert Clanton) wrote:
"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
>
> > Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote
> > [My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and not for the
> > interests or ends of another entity. ]
"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
> > Not quite. That has not been the legacy handed down to you. The
> > benefits we enjoy today are in part due to the sacrifices of others
> > in the past, who looked beyond themselves to us. We in turn do not
> > live merely for ourselves, but also for those who follow.
I 'owe' nothing to the dead. I 'owe' no 'sacrifice' to any entity
living or dead or not yet existing. If I *choose* to care about the
'future generations' it will be to ensure that my genetic code is
carried on in a suitable environment and that ultimately serves my
interests and not those of the possible 'future' generations. I mayt
choose to do any number of things, but they all ultimately serve my
benefit and only incidentally the benefit of others. I 'owe' nothing to
anyone or anything.
be...@sonic.net (Bert Clanton) wrote:
> Right on.
>
> Actually, his real task is to grasp the fact that if everyone lived by
> the philosophy that he advocates, he, or his descendants, would be
> living in a disintegrating dog-eat-dog society, in an environment well
> on its way to being unable to sustain them.
If it serves my interests to cooperate with others and to assist in
keeping the 'environment' such that any possible descendant of mine have
a place within which to carry on my genetic code, then I will do what I
deem necessary to accomplish that. If my self interests are served by
cooperating with others I will do so. I do not 'owe' anyone any amount
of my time or effort or property.
be...@sonic.net (Bert Clanton) wrote:
> But then what did his descendants ever do for him?
Nothing. They are imaginary and will most likely never exist as I
choose not to contribute to the overabundance of humans on this planet.
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
Dr. Necrophage
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I find the prospect of literal physical immortality exhilerating. I
> > do think, however that as we advance closer and closer to making it
> > a reality we will have to finally address some issues that humanity
> > still has a hard time facing. Your question of the chances of a
> > stable, crime free society can only be adressed if we are able to
> > discover the real root causes of violent criminal behavior in the
> > hopes of 'cureing'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Given that this is an objectivist newsgroup, aren't the reasons
> obvious to us all?
Given that I encountered this tread on alt.philosophy.debate and that it
is cross posted to several other newsgroups in addition to the one you
are posting from, I do not see how any answers to this question are
'obvious.' Sure, to an 'objectivist' some answers may be 'obvious,' but
as I am only partially enamoured of 'objectivist' thought and not, I
hope, entirely consumed by ridged dogma, I like to look at and entertain
many different thoughts on this issue.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> In answer to the original question, growing philosophical
> irrationality fused with powerful technologies is not a happy mix.
I do agree, but the progress of medical and technological sciences, I
feel, make the prospect of physical 'immortality' inevitable.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Along with the issues of totalitarianism a near immortal person with a
> poor philosophy will likely be more unhappy than someone who lives 80
> years with a sound philosophy, 80 years of joy is better than 1000
> years of confusion, doubt and contradiction. Immortality is unrelated
> to philosophy and morality.
'Happiness' and 'unhappiness' are states of mind that pertain to
individuals and can only be judged by those individuals. If they feel
happy that's usually enough for them to justify their actions, so
regardless of opinions concerning as to the 'soundness' or
'irrationality' of a philosophy people will choose that which they
*percieve* to be in their self interest, if they think living 1000
years will be fun then they'll do it, if not then they can choose to
die whenever they wish. 'Immortality' may impact on both 'philosophy'
and 'morality;' particularily 'morality' as some so called 'moral'
issues (such as abortion) may become moot, if medical science advances
sufficently to render us 'immortal' and give us a control and pwer over
life and death we can only imagine now.
Marvin B. Edwards
news:bert-15099...@d53.pm.sonic.net...
[But then what did his descendants ever do for him?]
ROTFLMGO!
Marvin B. Edwards
[If I *choose* to care about the 'future generations' it will be to ensure
that my genetic code is carried on in a suitable environment and that
ultimately serves my interests and not those of the possible 'future'
generations.]
Why not just put some of your genetic code in a frozen jar and bury it in
the arctic ice someplace? If you meant to refer to actual people, then what
kind of life would you want for them? Would it be possible for your direct
descendents to prosper if they are exceptional but surrounded by slaves? Or
would it be better if they were in a civilization that shared and sought
prosperity for each other?
Marvin B. Edwards
news:robertc-1609...@news.ihug.co.nz...
[Given that this is an objectivist newsgroup, aren't the reasons obvious to
us all? ]
Whoa! When did objectivity imply that all facts and their correct
interpretation are "obvious to us all"?
Robert J. Kolker
"Marvin B. Edwards" wrote:
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote
>
> [My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and not for the interests or
> ends of another entity. ]
>
> Not quite. That has not been the legacy handed down to you. The benefits
> we enjoy today are in part due to the sacrifices of others in the past, who
> looked beyond themselves to us. We in turn do not live merely for
> ourselves, but also for those who follow.
Not I. I live for my own happiness and my own good. Let those who follow look
out for themselves. While I am alive I will not concern myself for those who
follow and when I am dead I certainly will not concern myself for those who
follow. Life is NOW. Being is NOW. You worry about THEN, I won't.
Bob Kolker
Demon Buddha
Bob Collier wrote:
>
> Studies in cloning and molecular biology suggest that it may soon be possible to
> grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus, when ones heart gets worn
> out, he has a new one developed for replacing his old one, etc. Theoretically,
> the same process could be extended to virtually any body element, possibly even
> to serve for brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be
> among the first immortal humans.
>
> Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of developing a
> stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-immortal population; and, what may
> such a society be like?
Probably would be worse than living in proverbial hell. I think
that humans would lack the stamina for such an existence. And
here I speak of mental stamina. As the eons passed and you learned
all you wanted to learn... play all musical instruments, did all the
best men and women, got degrees in everything, painted, climbed
all the mountains, etc. and so on, you'd become bored and tired of
this life. I believe the human mind or spirit or whatever you want
to call it, is specifically designed for a stay of just so many
years and then to expire. I may be wrong, but in observing old
folks, by the time they are in their 90s, they are ready to go.
As for crime-free, if you're defining crime as per the objectivist
standard, then I'd imagine that could be a relative breeze, in theory.
However, I would also speculate that this would last for a limited
time. That span might be many centuries, but it would eventually end.
As immortals begin to tire and bore with life, they will in time
become restless either for an end to life or to find new thrills.
So why not go out and start killing people... perhaps just to
see how well you do it or how long you could get away with it.
As for stable, what do you propose... that we spay and neuter
ourselves? I sure as hell would have nothing to do with that.
Now you have a population that will grow and grow. Sure, some
would be killed in accidents, but as our technological ability
to render safe the lives of all people grew, there'd be no
check's on the population. Imagine you're 394 years old with
the body and hormones of a 19 year old stud, looking to bang up
every female within 10000 miles of you. We'd get a bit crowded
and then the rats-in-a-small-confined-space syndrome would set
in and we're back to killing each other. Legislative prohibitions
on reporoducing would serve to make peoples' lives utter miserly,
so wile it may work for a while, it will fail in the end because
people will probably kill other people in order to protect their
unborn children.
In a word, immortality would be a fucking mess. OK, that's two
words :).
I could go on about this until you'd all want to see me killed
in a bus accident, but I think I may have given you enough where
you might be able to extrapolate on your own. The picture is
very ugly.
--
-Andy V.
Eventide Forge
Mad Science Inc.
Freehold, NJ
"What's a burning city -- compared to tearing the lid off of
Hell and letting men see it?"
-Francisco d'Anconia
Demon Buddha
Robert Chapman wrote:
>
> In answer to the original question, growing philosophical irrationality
> fused with powerful technologies is not a happy mix.
Amen! Ooops... was that not an objective statement?
> 80 years of joy is better than 1000 years of confusion, doubt
> and contradiction.
Agreed. Quality above quantity in this case.
Demon Buddha
ala...@mindspring.com wrote:
> And I thought "No man is an island, entire unto himself."
John Dunne was a blathering collectivist idiot.
Every man is an island unto himself until he's filled
with the lies and bullshit like this that tell him he's
not and that to be as such is to be sore wounded and
to have the greatest cause to wail and lament.
Being an island entire unto yourself doesn't preclude
the possibility or even the likelihood that you will
CHOOSE to be a social being. It's usually more fun
and interesting. But that, in turn does not imply
that you cannot flourish on your own.
God do I hate blathering crap like Dunne's.
Demon Buddha
"Marvin B. Edwards" wrote:
>
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote
>
> [My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and not for the interests or
> ends of another entity. ]
>
> Not quite. That has not been the legacy handed down to you. The benefits
> we enjoy today are in part due to the sacrifices of others in the past, who
> looked beyond themselves to us. We in turn do not live merely for
> ourselves, but also for those who follow.
Baloney. Pure, utter baloney. I have NO obligation to live for
YOUR sake ot the sake of anyone. Not even for myself, if I so
choose. I owe nothing to those who came before me who may have
provided that by which I now live. You assume that these are
things to be thankful for. What if they were things to curse?
What paradise, what eden MAY have been stolen away from me by
the acts of my distant forebears? One cannot know, but one CAN
speculate...
Your statement smacks of a mindset that would employ force to
have me behave as you would see fit even though I acted in no
manner to cause harm or trouble to others.
I owe you NOTHING. You owe me nothing. If we cooperate, we
shall do so because we CHOOSE to, not because you or I or
anyone else forces us to. That is the one crime for which
instant and mercy-free death is the rightful penalty.
Don't tread on me. :)
ala...@mindspring.com
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:37E0233F...@usa.net...
>
>
> "Marvin B. Edwards" wrote:
>
> > Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote
> >
> > [My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and not for the
interests or
> > ends of another entity. ]
> >
> > Not quite. That has not been the legacy handed down to you. The
benefits
> > we enjoy today are in part due to the sacrifices of others in the
past, who
> > looked beyond themselves to us. We in turn do not live merely for
> > ourselves, but also for those who follow.
>
follow look
> out for themselves. While I am alive I will not concern myself for
those who
> follow and when I am dead I certainly will not concern myself for
those who
> follow. Life is NOW. Being is NOW. You worry about THEN, I won't.
commitment to Hedonism, which is all that I can sense that you're
saying. Are you good or bad depending on what is going on in your mind
right now? Don't you think of consequences, or are you just so
naturally good that you never have an impulse that has to be
suppressed? And, I am hoping that you will get your tongue out of your
cheek, if not, I shall keep mine in -my- cheek, right where it is.
> Bob Kolker
Alan Roth
ala...@mindspring.com
Demon Buddha <os...@netlabs.net> wrote in message
news:37E06789...@netlabs.net...
>
>
> ala...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > And I thought "No man is an island, entire unto himself."
>
> John Dunne was a blathering collectivist idiot.
> Every man is an island unto himself until he's filled
> with the lies and bullshit like this that tell him he's
> not and that to be as such is to be sore wounded and
> to have the greatest cause to wail and lament.
yet. What are you talking about? Has homophobia set in? Must you
remain so separate that no one can accuse you of liking another man?
What about the collective if it includes members of the opposite
sex--want to join in now?
> Being an island entire unto yourself doesn't preclude
> the possibility or even the likelihood that you will
> CHOOSE to be a social being. It's usually more fun
> and interesting. But that, in turn does not imply
> that you cannot flourish on your own.
I've just read some stories recently of experiments in social
deprivation--they tend to argue that flourishing on your own is
difficult if not impossible.
> God do I hate blathering crap like Dunne's.
You're allowed--I've checked with the Thought Comissar and Dunne is
not currently protected by the Social Organization Council.
Alan Roth
Robert Chapman
<dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I find the prospect of literal physical immortality exhilerating. I do
> think, however that as we advance closer and closer to making it a
> reality we will have to finally address some issues that humanity still
> has a hard time facing. Your question of the chances of a stable, crime
> free society can only be adressed if we are able to discover the
> real root causes of violent criminal behavior in the hopes of 'cureing'
Given that this is an objectivist newsgroup, aren't the reasons obvious to
us all?
In answer to the original question, growing philosophical irrationality
fused with powerful technologies is not a happy mix. Along with the
issues of totalitarianism a near immortal person with a poor philosophy
will likely be more unhappy than someone who lives 80 years with a sound
philosophy, 80 years of joy is better than 1000 years of confusion, doubt
and contradiction. Immortality is unrelated to philosophy and morality.
Rob
ael...@my-deja.com
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <37dd...@news.takas.lt>,
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> >
> > > Studies in cloning and molecular biology suggest that it may soon
be
> > > possible to grow our own replacement parts in laboratories. Thus,
> > > when ones heart gets worn out, he has a new one developed for
> > > replacing his old one, etc. Theoretically, the same process could
be
> > > extended to virtually any body element, possibly even to serve for
> > > brain maintenance/refurbishment. This all suggests that we may be
> > > among the first immortal humans.
> > >
> > > Supposing the previous is true, what are the humans' chances of
> > > developing a stable, crime-free society with a stable, all-
immortal
> > > population; and, what may such a society be like?
>
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > The only gift for which you must pray to all possible gods is the
> > fact you're mortal.
>
> of a 'god' thingy.
>
I am. You are. Thus, God is.
All evidence is of God.
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > The time will come, and all your earthly sufferings
> > will reach the end. That's the basic fact of human being as such.
>
> Just what sufferings are those?
>
The limitatons imposed by physical reality and the disappointment and
pain they cause.
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > What would you do, being immortal, replicating yourself again and
> > again? I suppose you'll simply kill yourself one day.
>
Death is just a change of state characterized by a great loss in
complexity. It is avoidable. He who truly lives cannot die. Death is
a misunderstanding of life.
> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it away as we see fit
to.
> The ability to kill onself is the most important power an individual
> has, it is this which firmly established his ownership of his
existence.
>
> "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same person. It's
> > deadly boring.
>
> And you would know this how? At the point of technology we are
speaking
> of here we may be able to sellect what personality we wish to have and
> alter our consciousness through chemical, electronic, or surgical
brain
> change as we see fit.
>
We have long been able to do that, and it certainly doesn't require any
complicated technological devices. The human brain, being a neural
network, is too put it simply, a knowledge sponge. Learning itself
alters personality, and it happens all the time.
Robert Chapman
<dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Given that this is an objectivist newsgroup, aren't the reasons
> > obvious to us all?
>
> Given that I encountered this tread on alt.philosophy.debate and that it
> is cross posted to several other newsgroups in addition to the one you
> are posting from, I do not see how any answers to this question are
> 'obvious.' Sure, to an 'objectivist' some answers may be 'obvious,' but
> as I am only partially enamoured of 'objectivist' thought and not, I
> hope, entirely consumed by ridged dogma, I like to look at and entertain
> many different thoughts on this issue.
Fair enough but your comment about 'rigid dogma' and even more so the
situation of being 'entirely consumed' is interesting. You are suggesting
blind belief to a philosophy?
In my case, I am an Objectivist for the same reason I am an evolutionist,
Newtonian, etc, because it's true and I can back it up and prove it.
Nothing revolts me more than the ignorance and irrationality of blind
acceptance of the arbitrary.
Incidentally there is no 'prescribed' idea of why society is currently in
collapse, rather the answers are found in the history of philosophy.
Philosophy has since last century turned away from reason causing most of
the present ills of society. The insanity of Columbine High School and
the amorality and blatant welcoming of irrationality of Postmodernism are
fundamentally connected as all ideas are with society.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > In answer to the original question, growing philosophical
> > irrationality fused with powerful technologies is not a happy mix.
>
> I do agree, but the progress of medical and technological sciences, I
> feel, make the prospect of physical 'immortality' inevitable.
As long as the immortality is definitely in quotation marks I agree. You
could still be hit by a bus! Within a hundred years I think we will have
travelled a large part of the way. However every new advance will be a
fresh opportunity for increasing totalitarianism.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Along with the issues of totalitarianism a near immortal person with a
> > poor philosophy will likely be more unhappy than someone who lives 80
> > years with a sound philosophy, 80 years of joy is better than 1000
> > years of confusion, doubt and contradiction. Immortality is unrelated
> > to philosophy and morality.
>
> 'Happiness' and 'unhappiness' are states of mind that pertain to
> individuals and can only be judged by those individuals. If they feel
> happy that's usually enough for them to justify their actions, so
I am speaking of rational happiness, it has to be genuine. It can be said
for instance without a doubt that there are no happy Satanists, their
beliefs preclude actual happiness and foster internal torment and
confusion, their beliefs are anti-man.
> regardless of opinions concerning as to the 'soundness' or
> 'irrationality' of a philosophy people will choose that which they
> *percieve* to be in their self interest, if they think living 1000
> years will be fun then they'll do it, if not then they can choose to
Oh they'll certainly choose it yes, but people are used to being
irrational, making decisions on whim and emotion instead of using reason.
> die whenever they wish. 'Immortality' may impact on both 'philosophy'
> and 'morality;' particularily 'morality' as some so called 'moral'
> issues (such as abortion) may become moot, if medical science advances
> sufficently to render us 'immortal' and give us a control and pwer over
> life and death we can only imagine now.
Well that applies if instead of morality you refer to the 'morality held
by most people'. What I was more saying is that immortality will not
solve the problems in people's heads, it won't cure the problems that lead
to unhappiness, crime, etc. A near immortal society could have far more
problems then we have today.
Rob
Robert Chapman
<m...@cstone.net> wrote:
Objectivity and Objectivism are not the same, the former is merely a
characteristic of the latter. Anyone who is an Objectivist and who has
read 'Atlas Shrugged' should not be unaware of the causes of crime and
society's ills.
Rob
Robert Chapman
<os...@netlabs.net> wrote:
> Probably would be worse than living in proverbial hell. I think
> that humans would lack the stamina for such an existence. And
> here I speak of mental stamina. As the eons passed and you learned
> all you wanted to learn... play all musical instruments, did all the
> best men and women, got degrees in everything, painted, climbed
> all the mountains, etc. and so on, you'd become bored and tired of
> this life. I believe the human mind or spirit or whatever you want
> to call it, is specifically designed for a stay of just so many
> years and then to expire. I may be wrong, but in observing old
> folks, by the time they are in their 90s, they are ready to go.
Given the science involved, a 90 year old would be unable to be
differentiated visually from a 30 year old today, the aging process would
be halted. So a 90 year old will not want to go anywhere.
Rob
Robert Chapman
<ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > John Dunne was a blathering collectivist idiot.
> > Every man is an island unto himself until he's filled
> > with the lies and bullshit like this that tell him he's
> > not and that to be as such is to be sore wounded and
> > to have the greatest cause to wail and lament.
> John Dunne was a man in a time when collectivism hadn't been invented
> yet. What are you talking about? Has homophobia set in? Must you
> remain so separate that no one can accuse you of liking another man?
> What about the collective if it includes members of the opposite
> sex--want to join in now?
Collectivism involves sacrificing yourself to a group, this is evil. 'No
man is an island' is a phrase always used in the same breath as a
suggestion for coercion and force, it's no co-incidence. Individualism is
nothing to do with the idiocy of Buddhism and Taoism and the retreat from
society, an individual can CHOOSE to associate voluntarily with anyone,
including the opposite sex. But he or she should not live for or
sacrifice themselves to the collective.
> > Being an island entire unto yourself doesn't preclude
> > the possibility or even the likelihood that you will
> > CHOOSE to be a social being. It's usually more fun
> > and interesting. But that, in turn does not imply
> > that you cannot flourish on your own.
> I've just read some stories recently of experiments in social
> deprivation--they tend to argue that flourishing on your own is
> difficult if not impossible.
See above. Collectivism is best represented by the old USSR,
individualism is best represented by the USA earlier in its history.
Consider that it was the *former* in which men kept to themselves and
reduced their associations with others and the *latter* in which
individuals voluntarily associated with men of all types. Why do you
think this is?
Rob
Dr. Necrophage
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Given that this is an objectivist newsgroup, aren't the reasons
> > > obvious to us all?
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Given that I encountered this tread on alt.philosophy.debate and
> > that it is cross posted to several other newsgroups in addition to
> > the one you are posting from, I do not see how any answers to this
> > question are 'obvious.' Sure, to an 'objectivist' some answers may
> > be 'obvious,' but as I am only partially enamoured of 'objectivist'
> > thought and not, I hope, entirely consumed by ridged dogma, I like
> > to look at and entertain many different thoughts on this issue.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Fair enough but your comment about 'rigid dogma' and even more so the
> situation of being 'entirely consumed' is interesting. You are
> suggesting blind belief to a philosophy?
Many of the 'objectivists' I have met are extremely dogmatic and
'ridged' in their adherence to 'certainty' and the belief that whatever
Rand wrote may as well have been written by a 'god,' treating 'Atlas
Shrugged' as 'innerrant' like 'fundamentalist christians' treat the
'bible.' I tend to think of them as 'Randians' rather then
'Objectivists.'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> In my case, I am an Objectivist for the same reason I am an
> evolutionist, Newtonian, etc, because it's true and I can back it up
> and prove it. Nothing revolts me more than the ignorance and
> irrationality of blind acceptance of the arbitrary.
I agree, that is why I will not characterize myself as 'objectivist.'
You may be the exception to the rule, but as I say above, I have found
most of the 'ojectivists' I have met personally to be not only arrogant
and highly dogmatic but annoying in the extreme. I like much of what
Rand wrote and agree with most of it, but I am not about to accept any
point of view I encounter as being *THE* one true point of view which is
certain and unchangable through time. Human knowlege changes and grows
incrementally over time, nothing is 'certain,' only 'so supported by the
preponderance evidence that it has not currently been proven to be
false.' I am very deeply skeptical and pragmatic, I don't believe
anything is 'true,' only useful/funtional or not useful/funtional at
this time. I accept evolutionism, for example, because it is the
current best explaination for the development of processes of life and
has proven itself useful in the pursuit of further knowlege and
development of technologies. I do not accept it as some kind of
'eternal and unchanging TRUTH,' but only as our best, current
explaination of things.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Incidentally there is no 'prescribed' idea of why society is currently
> in collapse, rather the answers are found in the history of
> philosophy.
Is 'society' in 'collapse' or is it just in a period of upheval and
discord as it evolves into a different sort of 'society?'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Philosophy has since last century turned away from reason causing most
> of the present ills of society. The insanity of Columbine High School
> and the amorality and blatant welcoming of irrationality of
> Postmodernism are fundamentally connected as all ideas are with
> society.
I think the 'insanity of Columbine High school' is more a result of the
kind of 'soul' and personality crushing collectivist and statist
indoctrination so-called 'schools' perpetrate on children and call
'education.' 'Irrationality' is perpetrated by this kind of
indoctrination *purposefully* as it serves the ends of the collectivist
state to have 'schools' produce cattle rather then humans capable of
using their rationality.
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > In answer to the original question, growing philosophical
> > > irrationality fused with powerful technologies is not a happy mix.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I do agree, but the progress of medical and technological sciences,
> > I feel, make the prospect of physical 'immortality' inevitable.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> As long as the immortality is definitely in quotation marks I agree.
> You could still be hit by a bus!
Sure :), but if I have had my personality ('mind') downloaded into a
'computer' it can then be implanted into a new clone body.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Within a hundred years I think we will have travelled a large part of
> the way. However every new advance will be a fresh opportunity for
> increasing totalitarianism.
So long as any form of the State is accepted, that seems a plausable
danger. I do see a great potential for the application of technology
for the independance and freedom of individual humans.
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Along with the issues of totalitarianism a near immortal person
> > > with a poor philosophy will likely be more unhappy than someone
> > > who lives 80 years with a sound philosophy, 80 years of joy is
> > > better than 1000 years of confusion, doubt and contradiction.
> > > Immortality is unrelated to philosophy and morality.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > 'Happiness' and 'unhappiness' are states of mind that pertain to
> > individuals and can only be judged by those individuals. If they
> > feel happy that's usually enough for them to justify their actions,
> > so
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I am speaking of rational happiness, it has to be genuine.
What do you mean by 'genuine?' How can a person's emotional states and
the physiological events that cause them be juged in terms of 'genuine'
or 'not genuine.' If a person reports that they are experiencing a
state of consciousness they perceive as 'happy,' how is anyone to judge
if it is 'genuine' happiness? By what standard is the consciousness
event in their brain to be judged? Are we to assume they are lieing?
But then how would we know? Are we to take samples of neurotransmitters
from their brains and examine them for the amount of 'happiness'
chemicals?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> It can be said for instance without a doubt that there are no happy
> Satanists, their beliefs preclude actual happiness and foster
> internal torment and confusion, their beliefs are anti-man.
I do not accept that *anything* can be said 'without a doubt.' By what
empirical method or standard are we to determine the difference between
'actual happiness' and what I suppose would be called 'false happiness?'
What do you mean by 'satanists?' The Anton Levey / Church of Satan kind
-they are usually very humanistic/hedonistic in their views, or the kind
we see in movies and hear about from 'christian' propaganda?
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > regardless of opinions concerning as to the 'soundness' or
> > 'irrationality' of a philosophy people will choose that which they
> > *percieve* to be in their self interest, if they think living 1000
> > years will be fun then they'll do it, if not then they can choose to
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Oh they'll certainly choose it yes, but people are used to being
> irrational, making decisions on whim and emotion instead of using
> reason.
I agree that people tend to be irrational and that a greater amount of
rationality should be promoted from all quarters. I think, though, that
we are in a 'millenial phase' and as public unrest caused by the
irrational fears promoted by the statists and religionists peters out
the 'voice of reason' will be heard more. An effort must be made by
those in the scientific community to be more vociferous and
'pro-active' in defence of reason. I think the current efforts of
CSICOP and James Randi, et. al. are laudable, but not enough. A serious
and concerted attack on all forms of 'irrationalism' must be made,
especially a concerted assault on 'religion' as that forms one of the
core tenents of irrational and magical thinking still in existance.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > die whenever they wish. 'Immortality' may impact on both
> > 'philosophy' and 'morality;' particularily 'morality' as some so
> > called 'moral' issues (such as abortion) may become moot, if medical
> > science advances sufficently to render us 'immortal' and give us a
> > control and pwer over life and death we can only imagine now.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Well that applies if instead of morality you refer to the 'morality
> held by most people'.
Is there a difference? What is 'morality' appart from arbitrary rules
of conduct left over from our stone age past? The only 'moral' I come
close to seeing as a valid principle of conduct is 'do no harm.' (where
harm is defined as actual physical injury)
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> What I was more saying is that immortality will not solve the problems
> in people's heads, it won't cure the problems that lead to
> unhappiness, crime, etc. A near immortal society could have far more
> problems then we have today.
I agree, but I do not see that as a reason to oppose the development of
it. Risk is a good thing, it helps both the individual and humanity as
a whole survive and evolve. If humanity continues to embrace the
irrational and ultimately destroys itself then we deserve to fail and
make room for some other entity to evolve in our place before the sun
dies.
Dr. Necrophage
>
> [If I *choose* to care about the 'future generations' it will be to
> ensure that my genetic code is carried on in a suitable environment
> and that ultimately serves my interests and not those of the possible
> 'future' generations.]
"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
> Why not just put some of your genetic code in a frozen jar and bury it
> in the arctic ice someplace?
That may ensure it's preservation, sure, but not that it would be
'reborn' or 'carried on' into a suitable environment.
"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
> If you meant to refer to actual people, then what kind of life would
> you want for them?
A life where *they* not I determine how it is that they are to live.
"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
> Would it be possible for your direct descendents to prosper if they
> are exceptional but surrounded by slaves?
Possibly, but the main method I see for ensureing the freedom of humans
is the elimination of those gangs that claim to be 'government' and the
elimination of the very concept that a 'government' is needed for them
to flourish as *they* and they alone choose to flourish.
"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
> Or would it be better if they were in a civilization that shared and
> sought prosperity for each other?
Only so long as it is absolutly *voluntary* in nature, and not supported
by extortion or coercion of any kind.
Dr. Necrophage
> > "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > > The only gift for which you must pray to all possible gods is the
> > > fact you're mortal.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Provide empirical, experimentally validated evidence for the
> > existence of a 'god' thingy.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am. You are. Thus, God is.
>
> All evidence is of God.
Then 'god' is an unnecessary additonal complication, worthless to any
reasoned examination of empirical reality. If 'god' is the universe
and the universe 'god,' there is no need for the 'god' concept, the
universe is sufficient.
> > "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > > The time will come, and all your earthly sufferings
> > > will reach the end. That's the basic fact of human being as such.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Just what sufferings are those?
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The limitatons imposed by physical reality and the disappointment and
> pain they cause.
Many of those 'limitations' can already be overcome with the proper
drugs, and I see no reason why we will not be able to
genetically/technologically 'breed out' all of those things if we so
choose. 'Dissapointment' ought to spur one on to greater attempts of
success, if not, then the person is lacking in abiltiy to deal with
their own life in an effective manner and is of no consequence in any
case.
<snip>
> > "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > > It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same person. It's
> > > deadly boring.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > And you would know this how? At the point of technology we are
> > speaking of here we may be able to sellect what personality we wish
> > to have and alter our consciousness through chemical, electronic, or
> > surgical brain change as we see fit.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> We have long been able to do that, and it certainly doesn't require
> any complicated technological devices. The human brain, being a
> neural network, is too put it simply, a knowledge sponge. Learning
> itself alters personality, and it happens all the time.
I agree with you here, but my comment was directed toward the pessemism
evident in "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> 's comment. I see no reason for
'immortality' to be boring at all.
ala...@mindspring.com
> <ala...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > John Dunne was a blathering collectivist idiot.
> > > Every man is an island unto himself until he's filled
> > > with the lies and bullshit like this that tell him he's
> > > not and that to be as such is to be sore wounded and
> > > to have the greatest cause to wail and lament.
>
> > John Dunne was a man in a time when collectivism hadn't been
invented
> > yet. What are you talking about? Has homophobia set in? Must you
> > remain so separate that no one can accuse you of liking another
man?
> > What about the collective if it includes members of the opposite
> > sex--want to join in now?
>
> Collectivism involves sacrificing yourself to a group, this is evil.
there is always the possibility of sacrifice. This has been the place
of men, most often. If you had said that maintaining the ways of the
group, is more important than any individual's thoughts or needs,
then, I would have agreed, this is evil. There are times when
self-sacrifice is required--and these times are based on
connectedness.
I know of one religious doctrine that justifies violence only when
the threat is personal and immediate--the major exception to this is
when the good of the group is threatened, then, the protectors must
act. In this case, the group is tightly defined because of aggression.
..'No
> man is an island' is a phrase always used in the same breath as a
> suggestion for coercion and force, it's no co-incidence.
Individualism is
> nothing to do with the idiocy of Buddhism and Taoism and the retreat
from
> society, an individual can CHOOSE to associate voluntarily with
anyone,
> including the opposite sex. But he or she should not live for or
> sacrifice themselves to the collective.
legislation of sacrifice than in the recognition that sacrifice may be
necessary? If the boundaries of involvement between individuals were
lowered, wouldn't there be more motivation to share both the wealth
and the problems we face as a larger unit? Again, Dunne did not have
the collective in mind, he seems to have been aware of alienation and
competition, though.
> > > Being an island entire unto yourself doesn't preclude
> > > the possibility or even the likelihood that you will
> > > CHOOSE to be a social being. It's usually more fun
> > > and interesting. But that, in turn does not imply
> > > that you cannot flourish on your own.
>
> > I've just read some stories recently of experiments in social
> > deprivation--they tend to argue that flourishing on your own is
> > difficult if not impossible.
>
> See above. Collectivism is best represented by the old USSR,
> individualism is best represented by the USA earlier in its history.
> Consider that it was the *former* in which men kept to themselves
and
> reduced their associations with others and the *latter* in which
> individuals voluntarily associated with men of all types. Why do
you
> think this is?
Now we agree, I won't agree that the quality of life has been
derogated by attempts to legislate individuality away in recent U.S.
history in the interest of some perceived social boon. I don't think
that a return to voluntary association will occur just by undoing
legislation. The mass culture depends too much on economic
considerations that are eliminating even the family as a source of
connections. It already is a Brave New World, and alienation,
atomization, and newthink are the watchwords--don't blame this on
Dunne or on me--I am currently paying for my own individuality through
unemployment. The workplace is a different kind of "mass society," and
it certainly has nothing to do with connectedness.
Demon Buddha
"Marvin B. Edwards" wrote:
> Why not just put some of your genetic code in a frozen jar and bury it in
> the arctic ice someplace?
Whack off in a jar and bury it in the snow. That's pretty cute. :)
> If you meant to refer to actual people, then what kind of life would you
> want for them?
Who knows? He may want things you'd think wonderful or they may be
deplorable. The point is it is for him to choose in some measure.
Just because you or even the rest of the world disagrees, it does
not necessarily follow that it gives you any good cause to stop him
through the application of force, though it might.
> Would it be possible for your direct
> descendents to prosper if they are exceptional but surrounded by slaves? Or
> would it be better if they were in a civilization that shared and sought
> prosperity for each other?
The answer depends on what you mean by "seeking prosperity for
each other". If you mean that they allow each person equal
opportunity to prosper by the virtues of their talents, skills,
and labors, then I agree. If you mean they attempt to provide
for equality of outcome, as is the case with our great socialist
welfare state, then you are on another planet.
I personally wish good things for most people. If you can make
it big through your abilities as they may be applied in an
ethical manner, i.e. you're not robbing and beating anyone for it,
then that is wonderful. If you are unwilling to apply yourself
in any legitimately constructive manner, that's OK too. Just
don't expect ME or anyone else to provide your sustenance.
Demon Buddha
ala...@mindspring.com wrote:
> You're allowed--I've checked with the Thought Comissar and Dunne is
> not currently protected by the Social Organization Council.
Heee heee heee... I like it. Unfortunately, it's almost
coming to that.
Demon Buddha
ala...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Demon Buddha <os...@netlabs.net> wrote in message
> news:37E06789...@netlabs.net...
> >
> >
> > ala...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> > > And I thought "No man is an island, entire unto himself."
> >
> > John Dunne was a blathering collectivist idiot.
> > Every man is an island unto himself until he's filled
> > with the lies and bullshit like this that tell him he's
> > not and that to be as such is to be sore wounded and
> > to have the greatest cause to wail and lament.
> John Dunne was a man in a time when collectivism hadn't been invented
> yet. What are you talking about? Has homophobia set in?
I didn't see this part before. How in blazes do you infer
from my statements anything relating to homosexuals? Or
are you using "homo" as "man"? I ask because all I ever
hear "homophobia" referring to is fear of homosexuals.
Anyhow, for you to say that collectivism hadn't yet been
"invented" flies in the face of reality. Collectivism
is as old as the hills. Many anciant cultures were
collectivist. The Egyptians, Jews, Romans, the Catholic
Church... for heaven's sake d00d, history is fraught with
examples of forced collectivism.
And just to set the record straight, I have no beef with
the idea per sé. I DO have a problem with little pricks
like Caesar, to Pope, Lenin, you-name-it, who force folks
under threat of death and maiming torture into slavery.
One choice is no choice.
> Must you
> remain so separate that no one can accuse you of liking another man?
Where in hell does THIS come from? I said, nor did I imply,
nothing of this nature. I like plenty of men. Are you
intimating somehting sexual here? Are you feeling OK?
> What about the collective if it includes members of the opposite
> sex--want to join in now?
D00d, PLEASE take those meds. I am unable to understand
anything you're saying here. I'm serious, too. No offense
intended... your context is on another planet.
Demon Buddha
Robert Chapman wrote:
> Collectivism involves sacrificing yourself to a group, this is evil. 'No
> man is an island' is a phrase always used in the same breath as a
> suggestion for coercion and force, it's no co-incidence. Individualism is
> nothing to do with the idiocy of Buddhism and Taoism and the retreat from
> society, an individual can CHOOSE to associate voluntarily with anyone,
> including the opposite sex. But he or she should not live for or
> sacrifice themselves to the collective.
Well put. However, I don't find Buddhism to be idiocy, in
and of itself. But I will agree that anywhere that coercion
or any other brand of force is used to get the individual
to acquiesce to collectivist demands sucks, and I do see
this even in some Buddhist sects. It's all over the place
as far as I can see. Fear is the driving force behind this,
AFAICS. I don't much care for cowards.
> > I've just read some stories recently of experiments in social
> > deprivation--they tend to argue that flourishing on your own is
> > difficult if not impossible.
This is pure crap. By what standard is this measured?
Just because a person's behavior doesn't appear as you
might think it should, it does not follow that they are
somehow harmed by this condition or that. The truth lies
within the person himself. If they are happy as they
are, then they are OK. If you expose them to something
new and they decide they like that better, then fine,
but don't go declaring them damaged goods within the
vacuum of your personal point of view.
>
> See above. Collectivism is best represented by the old USSR,
> individualism is best represented by the USA earlier in its history.
> Consider that it was the *former* in which men kept to themselves and
> reduced their associations with others and the *latter* in which
> individuals voluntarily associated with men of all types. Why do you
> think this is?
Good point. The one form fostered fear and terror while the
other fostered what I may state is the natural average
tendency to be social creatures. It's fun to hang with
folks when you're not living in morbid fear and suspicion,
always wondering who it is that might turn you in to the
secret police because you offered some opinion or had a
slip of the tongue. You should not have to fear for your
life because of such things. You did in Russia.
Robert Chapman
<dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Fair enough but your comment about 'rigid dogma' and even more so the
> > situation of being 'entirely consumed' is interesting. You are
> > suggesting blind belief to a philosophy?
>
> Many of the 'objectivists' I have met are extremely dogmatic and
> 'ridged' in their adherence to 'certainty' and the belief that whatever
> Rand wrote may as well have been written by a 'god,' treating 'Atlas
> Shrugged' as 'innerrant' like 'fundamentalist christians' treat the
> 'bible.' I tend to think of them as 'Randians' rather then 'Objectivists.'
It is unfortunate that I have to agree with you completely. Many accept
irrationally a philosophy devoted to reason. They have no idea what it
really is. It's sad to say that on the few occasions I have visited
alt.philosophy.objectivism I have yet to find anyone who understands
Objectivism at all, instead I've seen statement after statement in total
error, principles warped, belief in God, etc. This seems to me something
of an American problem, America is unusually religious and nationalistic
and this causes great harm to the power of reason (holding God, the nation
or the Founding fathers as an absolute good) and leads to what you
describe where you have the substitute of 'worshipping' Ayn Rand.
> I agree, that is why I will not characterize myself as 'objectivist.'
> You may be the exception to the rule, but as I say above, I have found
Well I'm certainly not alone at all. Talk to people who understand
Objectivism and you might be willing to be called an Objectivist.
> most of the 'ojectivists' I have met personally to be not only arrogant
> and highly dogmatic but annoying in the extreme. I like much of what
> Rand wrote and agree with most of it, but I am not about to accept any
> point of view I encounter as being *THE* one true point of view which is
> certain and unchangable through time. Human knowlege changes and grows
Rand would not have asked that you agree on faith.
> incrementally over time, nothing is 'certain,' only 'so supported by the
> preponderance evidence that it has not currently been proven to be
> false.' I am very deeply skeptical and pragmatic, I don't believe
> anything is 'true,' only useful/funtional or not useful/funtional at
In this case you have reason not to call yourself an objectivist. Do you
believe nothing metaphysical is true?
We can't saw that the law of identity is true?
You can't say you have a consciousness?
We can't say that existence exists?
> this time. I accept evolutionism, for example, because it is the
> current best explaination for the development of processes of life and
> has proven itself useful in the pursuit of further knowlege and
> development of technologies. I do not accept it as some kind of
> 'eternal and unchanging TRUTH,' but only as our best, current
> explaination of things.
Evolution is easily proven (analysis of bacteria for example shows it
occuring), why would you not accept it if the proof is there?
Do you accept Newtonian physics, the equation v=d/t for instance?
> Is 'society' in 'collapse' or is it just in a period of upheval and
> discord as it evolves into a different sort of 'society?'
No it is in utter collapse, it is best compared to Imperial Rome in the
early 200s. Society completely mirrors philosophy (with a significant
time lag) and philosophy is in utter collapse, society is holding on only
due to old momentums. Fear, violence, irrationality, religion,
totalitarianism, all are going to keep increasing.
> I think the 'insanity of Columbine High school' is more a result of the
> kind of 'soul' and personality crushing collectivist and statist
> indoctrination so-called 'schools' perpetrate on children and call
> 'education.' 'Irrationality' is perpetrated by this kind of
> indoctrination *purposefully* as it serves the ends of the collectivist
> state to have 'schools' produce cattle rather then humans capable of
> using their rationality.
Exactly true, I couldn't agree more. However I'm going a little further
than this. Modern philosophy states that the universe is unintelligible,
reason is useless and man is helpless. Post Modernism is the latest
version of this, with such ideas as, in art, the universe is meaningless
so why not just play around with nonsense? This is an indication of the
way philosophy has embraced *amorality*, just pick any morality, they're
all equal. The filtering down to the man on the street of this
destruction of morality is what turns the sheep of the school system,
created as you say by collectivism, into Columbine killers.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > As long as the immortality is definitely in quotation marks I agree.
> > You could still be hit by a bus!
>
> Sure :), but if I have had my personality ('mind') downloaded into a
> 'computer' it can then be implanted into a new clone body.
Well there is some truth to this, humans will not always look as we do, it
would be thousands of years away though.
> So long as any form of the State is accepted, that seems a plausable
> danger. I do see a great potential for the application of technology
> for the independance and freedom of individual humans.
The key word is 'potential'. Whether the potential is used for freedom or
tyranny depends on the philosophy applied so it doesn't look good.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > I am speaking of rational happiness, it has to be genuine.
>
> What do you mean by 'genuine?' How can a person's emotional states and
> the physiological events that cause them be juged in terms of 'genuine'
> or 'not genuine.' If a person reports that they are experiencing a
> state of consciousness they perceive as 'happy,' how is anyone to judge
> if it is 'genuine' happiness? By what standard is the consciousness
> event in their brain to be judged? Are we to assume they are lieing?
> But then how would we know? Are we to take samples of neurotransmitters
> from their brains and examine them for the amount of 'happiness' chemicals?
By rational happiness I mean non-contradictory. This is the standard.
A person who feels 'happy' killing others is not rationally happy, he is
motivated first by self-hatred, then this self-hatred is projected
externally into hatred for others and builds up to the acceptance of, and
need for, killing.
The key is to understand happiness. As all emotions it is the body's
reaction to events based on your own beliefs. If you believe that things
that are anti-life are good then doing them will produce the feeling of
happiness. But this will be contradictory. If your beliefs are all
pro-life and you resolve your mental contradictions then your happiness
should all be rational. Does this get across the distinction fully?
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Oh they'll certainly choose it yes, but people are used to being
> > irrational, making decisions on whim and emotion instead of using
> > reason.
>
> I agree that people tend to be irrational and that a greater amount of
> rationality should be promoted from all quarters. I think, though, that
> we are in a 'millenial phase' and as public unrest caused by the
> irrational fears promoted by the statists and religionists peters out
> the 'voice of reason' will be heard more. An effort must be made by
Take a look at the relationship of philosophy to history and you might
change your mind.
> those in the scientific community to be more vociferous and
Those in the scientific community are half the problem, they've taken the
ideas of the philosophers and are not going to fully defend reason so long
as the philosophers don't. Any watering down of the need for reason is an
attack on it.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Well that applies if instead of morality you refer to the 'morality
> > held by most people'.
>
> Is there a difference? What is 'morality' appart from arbitrary rules
> of conduct left over from our stone age past? The only 'moral' I come
> close to seeing as a valid principle of conduct is 'do no harm.' (where
> harm is defined as actual physical injury)
Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest contribution.
Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need morality? Answer - to
know how to make decisions, to know how to live. Morality relates to the
*individual* and is determined by reality - the nature of man. Man is
different to other animals because of his faculty of reason. He is
therefore able to objectively derive morals from the basis of life as the
standard of value. The first and most basic moral which man needs to live
and apply reason is freedom, man can then objectively derive using reason
a system where freedom from the application of force is assured and
protected. To be able to use his reason and have freedom man must have
the right to property (of all kinds, including his own body). All other
valid rights can be derived objectively from the right to property. How
does this sound?
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > What I was more saying is that immortality will not solve the problems
> > in people's heads, it won't cure the problems that lead to
> > unhappiness, crime, etc. A near immortal society could have far more
> > problems then we have today.
>
> I agree, but I do not see that as a reason to oppose the development of
Neither do I. The only way to oppose it anyway is to use government force
which is wrong and even that will not stop it. I am in favour of the
application of reason to man's environment to master it and better his
situation, so of course I welcome this. Energy should be focused on the
real problem which is philosophy.
> it. Risk is a good thing, it helps both the individual and humanity as
> a whole survive and evolve. If humanity continues to embrace the
> irrational and ultimately destroys itself then we deserve to fail and
> make room for some other entity to evolve in our place before the sun dies.
I would object to the 'we'. I don't personally deserve to fail, I'm not
responsible for the errors of others.
Rob
Dr. Necrophage
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Fair enough but your comment about 'rigid dogma' and even more so
> > > the situation of being 'entirely consumed' is interesting. You
> > > are suggesting blind belief to a philosophy?
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Many of the 'objectivists' I have met are extremely dogmatic and
> > 'ridged' in their adherence to 'certainty' and the belief that
> > whatever Rand wrote may as well have been written by a 'god,'
> > treating 'Atlas Shrugged' as 'innerrant' like 'fundamentalist
> > christians' treat the 'bible.' I tend to think of them as
> > 'Randians' rather then 'Objectivists.'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> It is unfortunate that I have to agree with you completely. Many
> accept irrationally a philosophy devoted to reason. They have no idea
> what it really is. It's sad to say that on the few occasions I have
> visited alt.philosophy.objectivism I have yet to find anyone who
> understands Objectivism at all, instead I've seen statement after
> statement in total error, principles warped, belief in God, etc. This
> seems to me something of an American problem, America is unusually
> religious and nationalistic and this causes great harm to the power of
> reason (holding God, the nation or the Founding fathers as an absolute
> good) and leads to what you describe where you have the substitute of
> 'worshipping' Ayn Rand.
I agree with your observations about 'Americans,' it seems to me the
great majority of them do not understand 'freedom' of 'Reason' at all.
I chalk this up to the abomninable farce that passes for 'education'
that children are subjected to here. A serious form of 'doublespeak'
infects the minds of those who survive the 'american educational'
system. 'Liberty' for them becomes 'obedience to authority.' This
problem results in the 'American' tendency to 'deify' human
personalities. Many foolishy still accept the 'god' concept and often
those who don't turn their favorite human personality or the State into
an 'Infallable Authority' figure to take the place of the 'god' thingy.
I find this tendency of authority 'whoreship'(as I call it)
reprehensible and irritating in the extreme.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I agree, that is why I will not characterize myself as
> > 'objectivist.' You may be the exception to the rule, but as I say
> > above, I have found
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Well I'm certainly not alone at all. Talk to people who understand
> Objectivism and you might be willing to be called an Objectivist.
I am willing to entertain a reasonable and logical disscussion on
the matter. Can this happen in a calm/dispassionate manner, *please*? I
have been put off exploring the subject to greater depth then I have due
to the fact that I am sick and tired of being called names by so-called
'objectivists.' When I have tried to ask what appear to me to be
reasonable questions, I have gotten 'how dare you question the GREAT AND
POWERFUL AYN RAND?!' and/or 'Just who do you think you are , you lowly
worm, you are unfit even to kiss her feet you irrational boob." kind of
responses.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > most of the 'ojectivists' I have met personally to be not only
> > arrogant and highly dogmatic but annoying in the extreme. I like
> > much of what Rand wrote and agree with most of it, but I am not
> > about to accept any point of view I encounter as being *THE* one
> > true point of view which is certain and unchangable through time.
> > Human knowlege changes and grows
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Rand would not have asked that you agree on faith.
Good, cause I try *very* hard not to have any 'faith' at all.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > incrementally over time, nothing is 'certain,' only 'so supported by
> > the preponderance evidence that it has not currently been proven to
> > be false.' I am very deeply skeptical and pragmatic, I don't
> > believe anything is 'true,' only useful/funtional or not
> > useful/funtional at
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> In this case you have reason not to call yourself an objectivist. Do
> you believe nothing metaphysical is true?
Just how, exactly, do you define 'metaphysical?' My first reaction is
'no.' If you mean to include 'mathematics' or 'physics' as
'metaphysical' concepts (as Fuller does), then 'maybe,' but only so long
as they are grounded in empirical experimentally validated reality.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> We can't saw that the law of identity is true?
The law of identity is true in those logical systems that are founded on
it being true. In physical, empirically experienced reality, however,
no one thing can be 'identical' to another thing. At most things can be
isomorphic; even clones occupy a different set of spaciotemporal
coordinates from each other and that means they cannot be 'identical.'
Physical things are often not identical with 'themselves' from one
spaciotemporal 'moment' to the next if only due to the processes of
erosion or decay, etc.
> You can't say you have a consciousness?
I think that 'consciousness' is an epiphenomenon of the complex
electrochemical events that occur inside a living brain. 'I' am a
product of the brain's attempt to correlate and organise and use
efficiently (as possible, given the limitations of orgainic chemistry)
the huge amount of data it acquires through the senses. 'I' think of
'my' consciousness as my brain's 'operating system.'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> We can't say that existence exists?
If, by this is meant that there is a 'real physical reality' which we
are all a part of and which forms the foundation from which we
derive all of our experiences, then I think there is such a thing, yes.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > this time. I accept evolutionism, for example, because it is the
> > current best explaination for the development of processes of life
> > and has proven itself useful in the pursuit of further knowlege and
> > development of technologies. I do not accept it as some kind of
> > 'eternal and unchanging TRUTH,' but only as our best, current
> > explaination of things.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Evolution is easily proven (analysis of bacteria for example shows it
> occuring), why would you not accept it if the proof is there?
I do accept it as the most likely and best explaination we currently
have at this time for how biological processes operate and function over
time. I accept the proof for it, I only meant to say that since we are
not currently in possesion of *all possible* information reguarding this
and other issues to say we know anything with *certainty* seems to me to
be reaching a bit. We may have a high degree of confidence that a
particular scientific model currently in use contitutes 'the facts,' but
untill we are in possesion of *total knowlege* to say x is 'certain'
seems to me to be a bit arrogant. People were *certain* in the 1700's
that rocks could not possibly fall out of the sky (after all there are
no rocks in the sky are there?), but furthor information destroied that
'certainty,' the same with the germ 'theory' of disease, etc.
We can be 'highly confident' in the veracity of a scientific model, even
say that the 'probability of it being incorrect approaches zero,' but to
say 'x' or 'y' are *certain* and/or 'absolutely' true is not quite
right.
> Do you accept Newtonian physics, the equation v=d/t for instance?
Newtonian physics still works for some things, but has largely been
replaced (or 'updated') by Einstienian physics, at least for things on
our scale and greater, and completely abandoned in regards to things on
the 'atomic scale' and replaced by 'quantum phsyics.' When a
unification theory is finally developed (string theory possibly) then it
may replace all of them. It's not that I doubt the abiltiy of science
to come to conclusions that are accurate, perhaps even what may as
well be called the 'truth' for conveinient purposes, it is that our
models of what is 'really going' on must remain able to change and
evolve as we acquire more information.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Is 'society' in 'collapse' or is it just in a period of upheval and
> > discord as it evolves into a different sort of 'society?'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> No it is in utter collapse, it is best compared to Imperial Rome in
> the early 200s. Society completely mirrors philosophy (with a
> significant time lag) and philosophy is in utter collapse, society is
> holding on only due to old momentums. Fear, violence, irrationality,
> religion, totalitarianism, all are going to keep increasing.
Sadly, I do see what you mean. I try to keep a bit of an optomistica
attitude, though, and hope humans will be able to 'wake up' out of this
situation before it is too late.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I think the 'insanity of Columbine High school' is more a result of
> > the kind of 'soul' and personality crushing collectivist and statist
> > indoctrination so-called 'schools' perpetrate on children and call
> > 'education.' 'Irrationality' is perpetrated by this kind of
> > indoctrination *purposefully* as it serves the ends of the
> > collectivist state to have 'schools' produce cattle rather then
> > humans capable of using their rationality.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Exactly true, I couldn't agree more. However I'm going a little
> further than this. Modern philosophy states that the universe is
> unintelligible, reason is useless and man is helpless.
I most definately reject this position, humans are not 'helpless' and
reason is the best and most effective tool we have.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Post Modernism is the latest version of this, with such ideas as, in
> art, the universe is meaningless so why not just play around with
> nonsense?
Does the word 'meaning' apply to the 'universe?' How? It simply *is.*
How can what we call 'rocks' or 'stars,' etc. have a 'meaning?' Do we
not bring valuations and 'meanings' to the 'stuff' of the universe? I
think that we can derive certain scientifically verifiable 'principles'
from the 'stuff' we observe, but does that constitute 'meaning?'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> This is an indication of the way philosophy has embraced *amorality*,
> just pick any morality, they're all equal.
I agree that this is wrong on the basis that some 'moralities' do work
better then others in the context of being either life promoting or life
negating.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> The filtering down to the man on the street of this destruction of
> morality is what turns the sheep of the school system, created as you
> say by collectivism, into Columbine killers.
I think this is possibly part of the problem, I think too, that this
process of indoctrination and the methods used to perpetuate it have the
tendency to drive some of the more intelligent children completely
insane. The level of cognative dissonance produced by the inculcation
of the 'doublespeak' I mention earlier and other factors is probably
enough to unbalance anyone who bothers to try and actuall think for
themselves. (luckily I was privately schooled, but I did for a short
time have to attend one of these 'mental slaughterhouses' and for that
period of time I actually became extremely physically sick as well as
mentally distressed.)
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > As long as the immortality is definitely in quotation marks I
> > > agree. You could still be hit by a bus!
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Sure :), but if I have had my personality ('mind') downloaded into a
> > 'computer' it can then be implanted into a new clone body.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Well there is some truth to this, humans will not always look as we
> do, it would be thousands of years away though.
You're probably correct, but these kind of things have a tendencey to
happen more quickly then we imagine they will.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > So long as any form of the State is accepted, that seems a plausable
> > danger. I do see a great potential for the application of
> > technology for the independance and freedom of individual humans.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> The key word is 'potential'. Whether the potential is used for
> freedom or tyranny depends on the philosophy applied so it doesn't
> look good.
You're probably correct, but I do try to keep a positive attitude about
such things.
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > I am speaking of rational happiness, it has to be genuine.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > What do you mean by 'genuine?' How can a person's emotional states
> > and the physiological events that cause them be juged in terms of
> > 'genuine' or 'not genuine.' If a person reports that they are
> > experiencing a state of consciousness they perceive as 'happy,' how
> > is anyone to judge if it is 'genuine' happiness? By what standard
> > is the consciousness event in their brain to be judged? Are we to
> > assume they are lieing? But then how would we know? Are we to take
> > samples of neurotransmitters from their brains and examine them for
> > the amount of 'happiness' chemicals?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> By rational happiness I mean non-contradictory. This is the standard.
Hmm...
> A person who feels 'happy' killing others is not rationally happy, he
> is motivated first by self-hatred, then this self-hatred is projected
> externally into hatred for others and builds up to the acceptance of,
> and need for, killing.
Ok.
> The key is to understand happiness. As all emotions it is the body's
> reaction to events based on your own beliefs. If you believe that
> things that are anti-life are good then doing them will produce the
> feeling of happiness. But this will be contradictory. If your
> beliefs are all pro-life and you resolve your mental contradictions
> then your happiness should all be rational. Does this get across the
> distinction fully?
So you did not mean 'genuine' in the sense of a 'genuine Coca Cola?'
Ok, I think I understand: while they may be having a 'real' feeling of
happiness, they got it from doing something that should not cause a
'rational' person to feel happy, therefore it is not a 'rational
happiness.' Did I get the gist?
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Oh they'll certainly choose it yes, but people are used to being
> > > irrational, making decisions on whim and emotion instead of using
> > > reason.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I agree that people tend to be irrational and that a greater amount
> > of rationality should be promoted from all quarters. I think,
> > though, that we are in a 'millenial phase' and as public unrest
> > caused by the irrational fears promoted by the statists and
> > religionists peters out the 'voice of reason' will be heard more.
> > An effort must be made by
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Take a look at the relationship of philosophy to history and you might
> change your mind.
I have seen what you mean, I am just trying to not fall into the trap of
succumbing to pessimism and then feeling that everything's just a waste
of time because 'we're all doomed,' etc. That kind of nihilism is more
destructive then any other, it's more insideousthen simple 'amorality,'
because it renders people who have the abilty to act against it impotent
by making them think that they shouldn't bother to act as they cannot
actually accomplish any change in the situation. I speakis of another
variety of the idea that humans are at the mercy of 'forces beyond their
controll'
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > those in the scientific community to be more vociferous and
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Those in the scientific community are half the problem, they've taken
> the ideas of the philosophers and are not going to fully defend reason
> so long as the philosophers don't. Any watering down of the need for
> reason is an attack on it.
I agree. I do also think that they are our only hope in this issue, if
scientists cannot be made to realize what is going on and act on it,
then what chance do people with no ability to think rationally or for
themselves have? I hope that if the 'scientific community' won't get
off its collectivist ass, then perhaps individual scientists will step
forward. Thats one reason I like Richard Dawkins so much, he has taken
up the challenge of attacking the religionists/creationists directly,
instead of the kind of dammaging 'appeasement' policy endorced by S. J.
Gould.
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Well that applies if instead of morality you refer to the
> > > 'morality held by most people'.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Is there a difference? What is 'morality' appart from arbitrary
> > rules of conduct left over from our stone age past? The only
> > 'moral' I come close to seeing as a valid principle of conduct is
> > 'do no harm.' (where harm is defined as actual physical injury)
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest
> contribution. Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need
> morality? Answer - to know how to make decisions, to know how to live.
> Morality relates to the *individual* and is determined by reality -
> the nature of man. Man is different to other animals because of his
> faculty of reason. He is therefore able to objectively derive morals
> from the basis of life as the standard of value. The first and most
> basic moral which man needs to live and apply reason is freedom, man
> can then objectively derive using reason a system where freedom from
> the application of force is assured and protected. To be able to use
> his reason and have freedom man must have the right to property (of
> all kinds, including his own body). All other valid rights can be
> derived objectively from the right to property. How does this sound?
I do like how it sounds and I agree with this fundamental formulation of
the issue. I will say, though, that I think once you get past this
point perfectly rational people may 'objectively' draw different
conclusions and/or different 'rights' from this foundation and the only
way to really decide which is 'correct' is to put the principles into
action. The proof lies in the experimental examination and living out
of the principles derived by reason ('the pudding' in other words).
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > What I was more saying is that immortality will not solve the
> > > problems in people's heads, it won't cure the problems that lead
> > > to unhappiness, crime, etc. A near immortal society could have
> > > far more problems then we have today.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I agree, but I do not see that as a reason to oppose the development
> > of
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Neither do I. The only way to oppose it anyway is to use government
> force which is wrong and even that will not stop it. I am in favour
> of the application of reason to man's environment to master it and
> better his situation, so of course I welcome this. Energy should be
> focused on the real problem which is philosophy.
I agree, though perhaps the issue is deeper then 'philosophy.' Perhaps
it lies in the 'instincts' and processes we still have from our
evolutionary past. 'Reason' is a very new phenomenon evolutionarily
speaking, perhaps our neurobiology needs to be altered in some way to
promote it and preserve it.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > it. Risk is a good thing, it helps both the individual and humanity
> > as a whole survive and evolve. If humanity continues to embrace the
> > irrational and ultimately destroys itself then we deserve to fail
> > and make room for some other entity to evolve in our place before
> > the sun dies.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I would object to the 'we'. I don't personally deserve to fail, I'm
> not responsible for the errors of others.
I agree, I was just thinking along the lines of 'we are all in the same
boat,' If we cannot stop the rest of the passengers and crew fron
scuttling the boat and destroying the life rafts, we may not be 'at
fault,' but we may sink with them none the less. Now, I am not opposed
the doing whatever is necessary to ensure my survival, i.e. taking a
life raft and 'going overboard' *before* all hell breaks loose. I just
haven't found one yet.
spacejan
>> >> away as we see fit to. The ability to kill onself is
>> >> the most important power an individual has, it is
>> >> this which firmly established his ownership of his
>> >> existence.
Hello Dr. Necrophage,
From a certain viewpoint, perhaps your statement is true.
I had a suicidal friend who had read that principle in a book
and she found it greatly significant. We argued about it, because
it just gives me the horrors, whereas she found it validated her
existence. It was very important to her.
I have to say she was very depressed. This was in the
period when I became her very own private samaritan phone line.
I was depressed myself and could have done without it.
If there is a philosophy , at the heart of which
LIES this as truth, then can't we see the philosophy as a whole
as ultimately, deeply flawed? There is hatred for life in it.
It is saying that the most important power we have is the
ultimate power to kill ourselves.
This "most important power" we have, is one that all sane
people would naturally hope never to exercise or have to
contemplate using in their whole lives. It is one most of us would
prefer to have no use for. You don't think your view might be
distorted?
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of suicide,
the truth which I recognise, is that it is a most terrible thing
if a living creature chooses death. If Life is so bad that
suicide is the preferred option, _something_ is very wrong.
I would not view the power to take my own life as any true freedom,
even if it is the ultimate power.
The freedom I value is the freedom to remove the wrong,
not myself.
I would advise you to pick another paradigm, but I don't
suppose you want my advices..
Dr. Necrophage wrote in message <7rogin$khd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <bert-15099...@d53.pm.sonic.net>,
> be...@sonic.net (Bert Clanton) wrote:
>"Marvin B. Edwards" <m...@cstone.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote
>> > [My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and not for the
>> > interests or ends of another entity. ]
>
snipped>
>I 'owe' nothing to the dead. I 'owe' no 'sacrifice' to any entity
>living or dead or not yet existing. If I *choose* to care about the
>'future generations' it will be to ensure that my genetic code is
>carried on in a suitable environment and that ultimately serves my
>interests and not those of the possible 'future' generations. I mayt
>choose to do any number of things, but they all ultimately serve my
>benefit and only incidentally the benefit of others. I 'owe' nothing to
>anyone or anything.
>
That is true of a recorded message or my car. It has nothing to do
with being human or with life. Dr. Necrophage, I think you are
kind of cute, so I'm telling you these things cos I like you, OK?
But do you realise you make a night out with the Grim Reaper
sound like good fun? I can't see how you could possibly
expect to find life good with that attitude. Don't you want to enjoy life?
How are you ever going to find any friends? Or somebody's lips kissing
your neck very slowly and softly. Wouldn't you like that?
You are such a bright boy, I shouldn't have to worry about you by now.
You don't have to tell me that you are entitled to your view. I know. But
you might get a better view standing somewhere else. Its worth
considering. Where can your beliefs lead you? Suppose
everybody thought like you, then where would we be?
This reminds me, when my friend was suicidal, (and I am
pleased to say she is a lot better, though still depressed.), it
was a time when a lot of people I knew were having mental
health problems, one way or another. It was almost as if
it was catching, like a contagion of some sort. Or, like
seeing nervous breakdowns go off in some sort of chain
reaction. I had one myself. Dealing with her had a very negative
effect on my energy.
I accept that you are entitled to your viewpoint.
But I can't see why you would expect it to be taken seriously
when it bears so little resemblance to reality. What do you mean
by this word "owe"? You seem to have used it to disconnect
yourself from everything else, and place yourself in a vacuum.
You are a self-contained world, not touching, and untouched
by anything else. I thought you were a man of science - what is
this impossibility you are talking about? If your view does not
describe reality, is it anything more than a state of mind?
Did you ever stop to think you could be even crazier than
Peace Crusader? You don't want to end up in a padded cell
next door to him, drooling all over Dr. Sinister's nice white
coat, do you?
How do you *choose* to care...? You sound as if you are talking
about controlling or suppressing human nature itself. Surely you
would not choose a philosophy which has no room for love? What
happened to you?
I know I'm not as bright as all that <> but I've got to tell you, the only
way I can get what you said above to make sense to me is if you are
a robot or an android of some sort. When your chip is activated,
it would seem like your life did start spontaneously, without any
connections.
You might view everything as separate instead of connected. If we
assume you are an android made by non-humans, there is no reason
you should have human perceptions like time and space. You wouldn't
_feel_ human emotions so if you 'care' about someone or something,
you would have to *choose* to, because it couldn't come naturally,
could it? I can only put the "owe" limitation down to the vocab. chip -
probably somebody was trying to cut costs.
Obviously, you are not a non-human android or you wouldn't
be posting on alt. philosophy. debate, (huh??).
Alright. Obviously, you are not a non-human android because...: )
So what have you got to be so miserable about?
later
Jan
>
>be...@sonic.net (Bert Clanton) wrote:
>> Right on.
>>
>> Actually, his real task is to grasp the fact that if everyone lived by
>> the philosophy that he advocates, he, or his descendants, would be
>> living in a disintegrating dog-eat-dog society, in an environment well
>> on its way to being unable to sustain them.
>
>If it serves my interests to cooperate with others and to assist in
>keeping the 'environment' such that any possible descendant of mine have
>a place within which to carry on my genetic code, then I will do what I
>deem necessary to accomplish that. If my self interests are served by
>cooperating with others I will do so. I do not 'owe' anyone any amount
>of my time or effort or property.
>
>be...@sonic.net (Bert Clanton) wrote:
>> But then what did his descendants ever do for him?
>
>Nothing. They are imaginary and will most likely never exist as I
>choose not to contribute to the overabundance of humans on this planet.
Dr. Necrophage
> >> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it
> >> away as we see fit to. The ability to kill
> >> onself is the most important power an individual has,
> >> it is this which firmly established his ownership of
> >> his existence.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Hello Dr. Necrophage,
Hi.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> From a certain viewpoint, perhaps your statement is
> true. I had a suicidal friend who had read that principle
> in a book and she found it greatly significant. We argued
> about it, because it just gives me the horrors, whereas
> she found it validated her existence. It was very
> important to her. I have to say she was very depressed.
> This was in the period when I became her very own
> private samaritan phone line. I was depressed myself and
> could have done without it. If there is a philosophy , at
> the heart of which LIES this as truth, then can't we see
> the philosophy as a whole as ultimately, deeply flawed?
I am not sure if there is a philosophy with this principle
at its heart, but it is one out of many principles that
are present in Nietzsche's philosophy. The issue is in
fact, though, not one of 'life' or 'death' or even the
'right' or 'wrong' nature of suicide, but a principle of
*control*, of the power one has to exercise control over
one's body, mind, and therefore entire destiny. It is a
recognition of the fact that the individual has the final
and absolute say over how she disposes of her her own mind
and her body. Nietszche puts it this way: (paraphrase) I
may not have had any control over how I came to exist in the
world, but I can control how I exit it, if I so choose.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> There is hatred for life in it. It is saying that the
> most important power we have is the ultimate power to
> kill ourselves. This "most important power" we have, is
> one that all sane people would naturally hope never to
> exercise or have to contemplate using in their whole
> lives. It is one most of us would prefer to have no use
> for. You don't think your view might be distorted?
I just think you misunderstood me. That I have that power,
is a sign I have control over myself and my life, I may
never choose or desire to exercise that power, but it's
presence is a confirmation of my own power over my life.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Regardless of the rights or wrongs of suicide, the truth
> which I recognise, is that it is a most terrible thing if
> a living creature chooses death. If Life is so bad that
> suicide is the preferred option, _something_ is very
> wrong. I would not view the power to take my own life as
> any true freedom, even if it is the ultimate power.
> The freedom I value is the freedom to remove the wrong,
> not myself. I would advise you to pick another paradigm,
> but I don't suppose you want my advices..
No need for you to bash yourself for voiceing your opinion,
its perfectly alright, I don't mind listening to other
people's advice if it is meant in a good spirit. I may not
agree or act on it, but I won't just shut out what seems to
me to be a reasonable attempt at communication.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@disinfo.net> wrote
> >> > [My task is to live (or not) for my own ends and
> not for the interests or ends of another entity. ]
>
> < snipped >
>
> >I 'owe' nothing to the dead. I 'owe' no 'sacrifice'
> to any entity living or dead or not yet existing. If I
> *choose* to care about the 'future generations' it will
> be to ensure that my genetic code is carried on in a
> suitable environment and that ultimately serves my
> interests and not those of the possible 'future'
> generations. I may choose to do any number of things,
> but they all ultimately serve my benefit and only
> incidentally the benefit of others. I 'owe' nothing to
> anyone or anything.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> That is true of a recorded message or my car. It has
> nothing to do with being human or with life.
But it does. There is a very basic principle of self
ownership and self determination involved here. To 'owe'
someone something is to be beholden to them for a specific
reason. Being born a human being does not automatically put
one into debt to abstractions such as 'society' or
'government,' or to any other entity. Real debt is only
accumulated from voluntary agreements and contractual
relationaships with other individual human beings.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Dr. Necrophage, I think you are kind of cute, so I'm
> telling you these things cos I like you, OK?
< blushes > ok...
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> But do you realise you make a night out with the Grim
> Reaper sound like good fun? I can't see how you could
> possibly expect to find life good with that attitude.
> Don't you want to enjoy life?
I do alright for myself. I like life and I like freedom
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> How are you ever going to find any friends?
I have a bunch of friends, some of whom I have very spirited
philosophical debates with.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Or somebody's lips kissing your neck very slowly and
> softly. Wouldn't you like that?
Yes, I do like that on occasion, but it's not something I
like enough to sacrifice my principles for.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> You are such a bright boy, I shouldn't have to worry
> about you by now. You don't have to tell me that you are
> entitled to your view. I know. But you might get a
> better view standing somewhere else.
I've been elsewhere, I didn't start here in my life and I do
try to keep eveolving.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Its worth considering. Where can your beliefs lead you?
> Suppose everybody thought like you, then where would we
> be?
Well, I do think we would live in a more rational, more free
situation. Perhaps a bit more 'action packed' but
ultimately more free.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> This reminds me, when my friend was suicidal, (and I am
> pleased to say she is a lot better, though still
> depressed.), it was a time when a lot of people I knew
> were having mental health problems, one way or another.
> It was almost as if it was catching, like a contagion of
> some sort. Or, like seeing nervous breakdowns go off in
> some sort of chain reaction. I had one myself. Dealing
> with her had a very negative effect on my energy.
> I accept that you are entitled to your viewpoint.
Gee, thanks.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> But I can't see why you would expect it to be taken
> seriously when it bears so little resemblance to reality.
Who's 'reality' are we speaking of here? One's viewpoint
does tend to cloud one's perceptions occasionally, but I do
try and look at things in as 'objective' and operational
manner as I can. I just will not accept anyone else's
dogma about 'reality' and try to rely on my own reason and
my own experience.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> What do you mean by this word "owe"?
Any concept where I am 'obliged' or 'obligated' to do
anything or provide property(money) for anyone else's
benefit simply for the mere fact that I was born in a
certain place and born a certain species. That's what I was
on about with Marv' when I was usinf the term in that way.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> You seem to have used it to disconnect yourself from
> everything else, and place yourself in a vacuum. You are
> a self-contained world, not touching, and untouched by
> anything else.
I only wish I was that mentally serene. The point is one of
self determination and self control, I have the power to
choose my relationships with others and to establish them
according to ground rules that are mutally agreeable to
every party. Any 'obligations' or connections are strictly
voluntary.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I thought you were a man of science - what is this
> impossibility you are talking about?
What 'impossibility?' I don't recall this and don't see it
in the post.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> If your view does not describe reality, is it anything
> more than a state of mind?
I do think my point of view 'describes' reality - as I see
at any rate and I fully accept reason and science as the
proper tools to effectively establish 'what's going on.'
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Did you ever stop to think you could be even crazier than
> Peace Crusader? You don't want to end up in a padded cell
> next door to him, drooling all over Dr. Sinister's nice
> white coat, do you?
Maddness does not have to result in an incapacity to
function effectively, or to be civil. There is a joke I
like:
A man's car blows out a tire in front of an insane asylum.
When he tries to put on the spare he accidentally drops the
lug nuts and they fall down a sewer drain where he cannot
retrieve them. At a loss as to what to do he curses and
stares at the car for a while.
"Just take one lug nut off each of the other tires and use
them untill you can replace them." A voice says from behind
him.
He turns to see a patient from the asylum leaning over its
fence watching him.
"Thanks...say, that's a good idea, what are you doing in
there?"
"Just because I'm crazy, it doesn't mean I'm stupid."
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> How do you *choose* to care...?
By using my reason and deciding if it is in my interest or
desire to care.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> You sound as if you are talking about controlling or
> suppressing human nature itself.
definately not, I see giving reason primary control as fully
expressing just what makes me human.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Surely you would not choose a philosophy which has no
> room for love?
Only so long as 'love' remains very firmly under 'will.'
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> What happened to you?
lots of stuff...oh, you mean to make me all cynical and
mean? Nothing in particular.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I know I'm not as bright as all that
You seem to be doing ok.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
<> but I've got to tell you, the only way I can get what
> you said above to make sense to me is if you are a robot
> or an android of some sort. When your chip is activated,
> it would seem like your life did start spontaneously,
> without any connections. You might view everything as
> separate instead of connected. If we assume you are an
> android made by non-humans, there is no reason you should
> have human perceptions like time and space. You wouldn't
> _feel_ human emotions so if you 'care' about someone or
> something, you would have to *choose* to, because it
> couldn't come naturally, could it?
Experiencing emotional brain states is one thing, sure they
arise like anyone elses, but having *control* of them and
submitting them to rational analysis before acting on them
in any way is the position I try to operate from.
"spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> I can only put the "owe" limitation down to the vocab.
> chip - probably somebody was trying to cut costs.
> Obviously, you are not a non-human android or you
> wouldn't be posting on alt. philosophy. debate, (huh??).
> Alright. Obviously, you are not a non-human android
> because...: )
> So what have you got to be so miserable about?
I don't think I'm 'miserable' at all. A little surly at
times, maybe, but not 'miserable.'
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Demon Buddha
Robert Chapman wrote:
>
> In article <7rr0k0$ecf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. Necrophage:
> > Many of the 'objectivists' I have met are extremely dogmatic and
> > 'ridged' in their adherence to 'certainty' and the belief that whatever
> > Rand wrote may as well have been written by a 'god,' treating 'Atlas
> > Shrugged' as 'innerrant' like 'fundamentalist christians' treat the
> > 'bible.' I tend to think of them as 'Randians' rather then 'Objectivists.'
>
> It is unfortunate that I have to agree with you completely. Many accept
> irrationally a philosophy devoted to reason.
There's a cute little bit of irony for you. I accept the tenets
of Rand as far as my reason tells me they can be accepted. I've
only read Atlas and Anthem, so am probably ignorant on some of
the finer points of the formal philosophy. However, to read
Atlas and accept that reason is a complete epistemological
device begs the question of what, precisely, defines reason.
I don't know how she defined it, so unfortunately I cannot
comment intelligently. MY definition of reason has always
been linked closely to formal logic and empirical method.
If so narrow a definition was indeed Rand's definition, then
I'd have to say she was out of her mind in this respect. I
have lived far too many experiences where this narrow definition
of reason was wholly lacking in sufficiency for rendering a
meaningful understanding of some given event.
For me, reason is a VERY powerful tool which enables one to learn
and understand certain classes of objects, events, relationships,
etc. I also think that this accounts for an extremely broad
body of possibilities, but NOT ALL. Rand rants against what
she has termed as "mystics". I cannot agree fully with the
opinion. I DO fully agree that mystics (priests, saddhus etc.)
who have had what we may conversationally term "corrupt agendas"
have used mystical mumbo jumbo to trick people into doing their
bidding. THey have either used fear or hope or both to commit
their fraud. This does NOT prove that mystical experience is
not valid; that it has no basis in reality.
I DO agree with Rand that many people overly rely on mysticism
and attribute mystical causes to things and events that do not
merit it. This is, as far as I can see, largely due to the fact
that it's a lot easier to live this way than to use your brain in
a structured and disciplined manner. It's a lot easier for a
doctor to say your cancer is an act of God, oh well... than to
engage in a proper medical analysis of the particular form of
cancer and then take steps to treat it.
> They have no idea what it
> really is. It's sad to say that on the few occasions I have visited
> alt.philosophy.objectivism I have yet to find anyone who understands
> Objectivism at all, instead I've seen statement after statement in total
> error, principles warped, belief in God, etc. This seems to me something
> of an American problem, America is unusually religious and nationalistic
> and this causes great harm to the power of reason (holding God, the nation
> or the Founding fathers as an absolute good) and leads to what you
> describe where you have the substitute of 'worshipping' Ayn Rand.
For me the problem is not that they are religious, it is that
the form of religion is so twisted and corrupt as to utterly
amaze me. As for nationalism, I see no problem there at all.
Nationalism doesn't have to become a fascistic abberation.
Maintaining a strong sense of national identity CAN be a good
thing. Unfortunately, there appears to exist a seemingly endless
supply of do-gooder jerkoffs (Hitler was a prime example) who
think they know the better, gentler way and are prepared to
slaughter countless numbers of people in order to have it as
they see fit.
>
> > I agree, that is why I will not characterize myself as 'objectivist.'
> > You may be the exception to the rule, but as I say above, I have found
>
> Well I'm certainly not alone at all. Talk to people who understand
> Objectivism and you might be willing to be called an Objectivist.
Perhaps you could expound a bit and educate this largely ignorant
soul? Ooops... I said "soul"... have I sinned? Ooops I said "sin"...
I believe I understand the higher concepts, but I don't know some
of the findamental definitions. As I said, I'm not sure what
Rand meant by "reason". Perhaps you could expound?
>
> > most of the 'ojectivists' I have met personally to be not only arrogant
> > and highly dogmatic but annoying in the extreme. I like much of what
> > Rand wrote and agree with most of it, but I am not about to accept any
> > point of view I encounter as being *THE* one true point of view which is
> > certain and unchangable through time. Human knowlege changes and grows
>
> Rand would not have asked that you agree on faith.
I don't think there is ONE true point of view. Anyone that
asserts that there is is no better than the inquisitor who
burns you at the stake for holding beliefs not in line with
those of the church.
>
> > incrementally over time, nothing is 'certain,' only 'so supported by the
> > preponderance evidence that it has not currently been proven to be
> > false.' I am very deeply skeptical and pragmatic, I don't believe
> > anything is 'true,' only useful/funtional or not useful/funtional at
>
> In this case you have reason not to call yourself an objectivist. Do you
> believe nothing metaphysical is true?
True by what standard? These are the things I feel I'm in
ignorance of.
>
> We can't saw that the law of identity is true?
A=A?
> You can't say you have a consciousness?
> We can't say that existence exists?
Sure. At least *I* can. These appear to all be very fundamental
concepts, rooted in physical reality. Well enough. I'm not
sure there are too many people that would argue that the train
bearing down on you will make you go <splat> if you don't get out
of the way. But as you begin to build more abstract concepts,
it appears that you can become widely divorced from that very
primitive and seemingly unarguable physical truth (like <splat>)
where the very nature of abstraction appears to bring you to
a place where objective truth disappears into a fog of opinion.
Look at particle physics. The great abstraction that is,
ironically in my opinion, being called the "grand unifying
theory" is in hot debate. Why? Because it is far from our
hard wired senses. Some physicists like super string theory,
and others like vanilla. Who's right? The proof doesn't exist.
And by what standard is that proof determined? How do you know
that your standard of proof is correct? Reason? Maybe.
It's hard to argue <splat>, but easier to argue which wine is
"better".
>
>
> Evolution is easily proven (analysis of bacteria for example shows it
> occuring), why would you not accept it if the proof is there?
Because I find it nearly impossible to believe that it
can account for something which is very mysterious: life.
I believe in the value of reason. The proof if it's power
is all around us. To not see it it so be blind or wilfully
stoopid. But reason does NOT explain WHY the sky is blue
or what is the findamental nature of life itself. It can
only address the physical in that regard. It cannot explain
the SUBJECTIVE aspect. And for reason to fail to recognize
the subjective would be, well, unreasonable. It is there;
we experience it all the time; reason has not viable
explanation that I've ever seen. It is mystical;
transcendental... and I see absolutely not conflict between
the two. Different aspects of the same coin.
>
> Do you accept Newtonian physics, the equation v=d/t for instance?
If my senses are to be trusted, then I sure do.
>
> > Is 'society' in 'collapse' or is it just in a period of upheval and
> > discord as it evolves into a different sort of 'society?'
>
> No it is in utter collapse, it is best compared to Imperial Rome in the
> early 200s. Society completely mirrors philosophy (with a significant
> time lag) and philosophy is in utter collapse, society is holding on only
> due to old momentums. Fear, violence, irrationality, religion,
> totalitarianism, all are going to keep increasing.
Agreed. The scary part though, is that we have developed the
instrumentality by which unprecedented destruction may be
visited upon many, if not all of us, with effects that could
last for a very long time.
>
> > I think the 'insanity of Columbine High school' is more a result of the
> > kind of 'soul' and personality crushing collectivist and statist
> > indoctrination so-called 'schools' perpetrate on children and call
> > 'education.' 'Irrationality' is perpetrated by this kind of
> > indoctrination *purposefully* as it serves the ends of the collectivist
> > state to have 'schools' produce cattle rather then humans capable of
> > using their rationality.
>
> Exactly true, I couldn't agree more.
Yessir. The true horror of it all is the candy coating that it
is given. It appears so innocent; so RIGHT to so many people.
That is what really scares me because the mass of medicrity is
a machine that is almost impossible to defeat.
> However I'm going a little further
> than this. Modern philosophy states that the universe is unintelligible,
In a manner of speaking I agree with this. This is the element
of mystery, the element of the subjective. That this "modern
philosophy" as you call it (I call it modern bullshit) fails to
consider the flip side of the coin, that there is indeed an
aspect of the world around us that is wholly intelligible, and
that we are possessed of the ability to build and employ a well
structured, well defined, complete (more or less :) ) and
internally consistent system of reason (or whatever you'd like to
call it) smacks of unforgivable stupidity or pure mal intent.
I believe our senses exist for a very good reason and that they
are well designed and offer truth to our being. That is, they
are a good thing. To believe that our sense were designed to leave
us helpless and stranded in a hostile and wholly unknowable universe
is to believe is pure, unmitigated evil.
> reason is useless and man is helpless. Post Modernism is the latest
> version of this, with such ideas as, in art, the universe is meaningless
> so why not just play around with nonsense? This is an indication of the
> way philosophy has embraced *amorality*, just pick any morality, they're
> all equal. The filtering down to the man on the street of this
> destruction of morality is what turns the sheep of the school system,
> created as you say by collectivism, into Columbine killers.
Could well be. But another problem I have is with the concept
of "morality", at least as it is used today. I consider myself
"amoral". Morality has come to mean a code of ethics that is
imposed upon the individual from without because that which is
within is inherently evil. That's so Christian/Muslim. Dunno
if Jews think this way. Though the roots come from Judaism I
see it possible that the POV of inherently evil humans may have
resulted from an error in understanding the Hebrew text, or a
purposeful reinterpretation designed to crush peoples' self image.
People, it seems to me, are largely disposed to peaceful living.
I believe that the mechanism for good living is born into us and
that our choice to live like wretches occurs mostly as a result
of the bullshit ideas that we are fed throughout our lives. If
that mechanism for living well can be called moral, then I suppose
I am a moral being.
>
> > So long as any form of the State is accepted, that seems a plausable
> > danger. I do see a great potential for the application of technology
> > for the independance and freedom of individual humans.
>
> The key word is 'potential'. Whether the potential is used for freedom or
> tyranny depends on the philosophy applied so it doesn't look good.
Precisely. Technology cuts both ways.
> > I agree that people tend to be irrational and that a greater amount of
> > rationality should be promoted from all quarters. I think, though, that
> > we are in a 'millenial phase' and as public unrest caused by the
> > irrational fears promoted by the statists and religionists peters out
> > the 'voice of reason' will be heard more. An effort must be made by
>
> Take a look at the relationship of philosophy to history and you might
> change your mind.
Care to elaborate?
> > Is there a difference? What is 'morality' appart from arbitrary rules
> > of conduct left over from our stone age past? The only 'moral' I come
> > close to seeing as a valid principle of conduct is 'do no harm.' (where
> > harm is defined as actual physical injury)
>
> Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest contribution.
> Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need morality? Answer - to
> know how to make decisions, to know how to live. Morality relates to the
> *individual* and is determined by reality - the nature of man. Man is
> different to other animals because of his faculty of reason.
Hmmm... Who's to say animals have no reason? It may not be the
same flavor as human reasoning, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
exist. Perhaps this is nothing more than a question of semantics.
> He is
> therefore able to objectively derive morals from the basis of life as the
> standard of value. The first and most basic moral which man needs to live
> and apply reason is freedom, man can then objectively derive using reason
> a system where freedom from the application of force is assured and
> protected. To be able to use his reason and have freedom man must have
> the right to property (of all kinds, including his own body). All other
> valid rights can be derived objectively from the right to property. How
> does this sound?
Fine, to me. Apparently there are those who find it objectionable.
Small but dangerous people who lack the sense of self value and
who are utterly devoid of autonomy.
>
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > What I was more saying is that immortality will not solve the problems
> > > in people's heads, it won't cure the problems that lead to
> > > unhappiness, crime, etc. A near immortal society could have far more
> > > problems then we have today.
> >
> > I agree, but I do not see that as a reason to oppose the development of
>
> Neither do I. The only way to oppose it anyway is to use government force
> which is wrong and even that will not stop it. I am in favour of the
> application of reason to man's environment to master it and better his
> situation, so of course I welcome this. Energy should be focused on the
> real problem which is philosophy.
>
> > it. Risk is a good thing, it helps both the individual and humanity as
> > a whole survive and evolve. If humanity continues to embrace the
> > irrational and ultimately destroys itself then we deserve to fail and
> > make room for some other entity to evolve in our place before the sun dies.
>
> I would object to the 'we'. I don't personally deserve to fail, I'm not
> responsible for the errors of others.
Right. Another collectivist ploy: we all share in the guilt. Fooey.
Robert Chapman
<dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree with your observations about 'Americans,' it seems to me the
> great majority of them do not understand 'freedom' of 'Reason' at all.
> I chalk this up to the abomninable farce that passes for 'education'
> that children are subjected to here. A serious form of 'doublespeak'
Well the state certainly doesn't *want* them to understand reason or freedom.
> infects the minds of those who survive the 'american educational'
> system. 'Liberty' for them becomes 'obedience to authority.' This
> problem results in the 'American' tendency to 'deify' human
> personalities. Many foolishy still accept the 'god' concept and often
> those who don't turn their favorite human personality or the State into
> an 'Infallable Authority' figure to take the place of the 'god' thingy.
> I find this tendency of authority 'whoreship'(as I call it)
> reprehensible and irritating in the extreme.
>
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Well I'm certainly not alone at all. Talk to people who understand
> > Objectivism and you might be willing to be called an Objectivist.
>
> I am willing to entertain a reasonable and logical disscussion on
> the matter. Can this happen in a calm/dispassionate manner, *please*? I
I promise to keep my insults and ad hominems to a reasonable level.
> have been put off exploring the subject to greater depth then I have due
> to the fact that I am sick and tired of being called names by so-called
> 'objectivists.' When I have tried to ask what appear to me to be
> reasonable questions, I have gotten 'how dare you question the GREAT AND
> POWERFUL AYN RAND?!' and/or 'Just who do you think you are , you lowly
> worm, you are unfit even to kiss her feet you irrational boob." kind of
> responses.
! I'm interested, what sort of questions caused them to panic and become
defensive?
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Rand would not have asked that you agree on faith.
>
> Good, cause I try *very* hard not to have any 'faith' at all.
She was actually quite public in saying that if you don't understand it
don't accept it. It's a philosophy of reason not faith. Every phony
Objectivist is not just a bad advertisement but contributes false
information to those around them.
> Just how, exactly, do you define 'metaphysical?' My first reaction is
> 'no.' If you mean to include 'mathematics' or 'physics' as
> 'metaphysical' concepts (as Fuller does), then 'maybe,' but only so long
> as they are grounded in empirical experimentally validated reality.
Metaphysics as in the study of the nature of existence, the very first
questions of philosophy. The first is is existence real or an illusion?
Objectivism says that existence exists - that existence is real, it is
what it is and it is made up of real entities that all have an
identity/nature (a particular distinctive way of acting, whether it's an
electron, a tree or a light wave), Aristotle's A=A and A<>non-A. To add
to this, man has consciousness through which he can discover this real
reality.
So there are 3 axioms of metaphysics -
existence exists (A=A)
everything in reality has an identity
man receives info on existence/reality through his consciousness
Shortened - existence, identity and consciousness. They are all
corollaries of each other. Every piece of Objectivism derives from these
3 axioms, nothing else is manufactured, just derived. They are axiomatic
because they are self-evident, it is *impossible* to survive without
accepting them (notice there are no practicing solipsists alive!). This
point is absolutely crucial to why these axioms are not arbitrary.
So Objectivism holds these as absolutely true. Would you agree with
this, given that you agree that there is a real objective physical
reality?
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Evolution is easily proven (analysis of bacteria for example shows it
> > occuring), why would you not accept it if the proof is there?
>
> I do accept it as the most likely and best explaination we currently
> have at this time for how biological processes operate and function over
> time. I accept the proof for it, I only meant to say that since we are
> not currently in possesion of *all possible* information reguarding this
> and other issues to say we know anything with *certainty* seems to me to
> be reaching a bit. We may have a high degree of confidence that a
> particular scientific model currently in use contitutes 'the facts,' but
> untill we are in possesion of *total knowlege* to say x is 'certain'
'Total knowledge' if I interpret it correctly is something that could be
lifetimes away, to totally understand a chair would be to know everything
inside the atoms it is made up of and there may be smaller particles we
are not yet aware of. In order to function then we have to hold knowledge
as *conceptually correct*.
Our knowledge of chairs at this point is conceptually correct, no
scientist is going to later discover that chairs are actually flying
animals, our knowledge of their atomic composition is also conceptually
correct, it will not later be determined that chairs are all made 100% of
sodium chloride. I would hold that since the scientific technique was
correctly identified in the Scientific Revolution, very little has been
proven wrong in science, rather the old information was conceptually
correct but more information was added. The example I am fond of is
Einstein's physics. It did not prove Newton wrong, Newton was
conceptually correct about everything he said, rather Einstein added
information about the extremes, and as we know Newton had not tested
these.
Another example comes to mind. Let's say you were to read a recipe that
states that placing a mixture in the oven, setting the dial to 170 degrees
C and waiting 30 minutes will bake the cake. Now if you do this and your
oven is broken the mixture will not turn out baked. Would the reaction be
to throw your hands up in the air and say the knowledge in this recipe is
all false and must be replaced? Rather it was conceptually correct as it
did just not allow for the different context of a broken oven. The same
with the rest of science. Our knowledge of chairs was not false before we
found out they were made up of atoms. I see no way our knowledge of
chairs can EVER be shown conceptually incorrect, likewise the same with
Newton's laws of gravity.
> seems to me to be a bit arrogant. People were *certain* in the 1700's
Scientists were not *scientifically* certain, that I think is the
important point.
> that rocks could not possibly fall out of the sky (after all there are
> no rocks in the sky are there?), but furthor information destroied that
Actually then, they were right. Rocks don't just 'fall out of the sky',
it's a lot more complex than that.
> 'certainty,' the same with the germ 'theory' of disease, etc.
>
> We can be 'highly confident' in the veracity of a scientific model, even
I think you have to highlight the difference between a scientific
model/theory and hard scientific knowledge. That medicine states that
blood is pumped through your body by your heart is a certain fact.
You are refering to the theories but not the 99% of science which is hard
unchanging scientific fact.
> say that the 'probability of it being incorrect approaches zero,' but to
> say 'x' or 'y' are *certain* and/or 'absolutely' true is not quite
> right.
>
> > Do you accept Newtonian physics, the equation v=d/t for instance?
>
> Newtonian physics still works for some things, but has largely been
> replaced (or 'updated') by Einstienian physics, at least for things on
> our scale and greater, and completely abandoned in regards to things on
> the 'atomic scale' and replaced by 'quantum phsyics.' When a
This is a very complex can of worms. It's something I've been looking
into in the last few months. To put it bluntly I think quantum physics is
wrong (even the famous quantum physicist Schroedinger on receiving his
Nobel prize knew this, stating simply (and certainly without any trace of
humour) at his moment of glory that he wished he had never heard of
quantum physics!).
The reason is that it abandons causality (all the quantum physicists were
firm followers of Kantian philosophy so were not reluctant to do so) and
this is something that we *know* does not happen in the universe,
everything has an identity.
A number of scientists have been trying to explain the equations of
Einstein (we have to since we can prove they are correct) in a way that
maintains the causality that applies everywhere else, in other words to
correct what *must* be a false interpretation due to missing knowledge.
The man who may have done this just recently is the physicist Louis
Little, I have read his work on the net and it's very convincing, he has a
very rational, causal, ingenious explanation (fully backed up with
mathematics) for the occurences that led the qps to reject causality.
Little's theory may not be completely correct in it's description of the
basic elements of the physical world (further information is required) but
it is the only possible explanation I have seen and some variant of it
will have to prove to be the truth. I think it's the most exciting
development physics has seen in a long time.
> unification theory is finally developed (string theory possibly) then it
> may replace all of them. It's not that I doubt the abiltiy of science
> to come to conclusions that are accurate, perhaps even what may as
> well be called the 'truth' for conveinient purposes, it is that our
> models of what is 'really going' on must remain able to change and
> evolve as we acquire more information.
>
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Exactly true, I couldn't agree more. However I'm going a little
> > further than this. Modern philosophy states that the universe is
> > unintelligible, reason is useless and man is helpless.
>
> I most definately reject this position, humans are not 'helpless' and
> reason is the best and most effective tool we have.
>
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Post Modernism is the latest version of this, with such ideas as, in
> > art, the universe is meaningless so why not just play around with
> > nonsense?
>
> Does the word 'meaning' apply to the 'universe?' How? It simply *is.*
Agreed.
> How can what we call 'rocks' or 'stars,' etc. have a 'meaning?' Do we
> not bring valuations and 'meanings' to the 'stuff' of the universe? I
> think that we can derive certain scientifically verifiable 'principles'
> from the 'stuff' we observe, but does that constitute 'meaning?'
Postmodernists would not appreciate your questions! These philosophies
are all the same, they work by not defining anything precisely. The word
'meaning' can have whatever meaning you want to give it and they certainly
don't want to derive it either! They just start by picking things out of
thin air.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > This is an indication of the way philosophy has embraced *amorality*,
> > just pick any morality, they're all equal.
>
> I agree that this is wrong on the basis that some 'moralities' do work
> better then others in the context of being either life promoting or life
> negating.
>
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > The filtering down to the man on the street of this destruction of
> > morality is what turns the sheep of the school system, created as you
> > say by collectivism, into Columbine killers.
>
> I think this is possibly part of the problem, I think too, that this
It's a big stew though isn't it. There are a lot of ingredients.
> process of indoctrination and the methods used to perpetuate it have the
> tendency to drive some of the more intelligent children completely
> insane. The level of cognative dissonance produced by the inculcation
> of the 'doublespeak' I mention earlier and other factors is probably
I think a later more reasoned age will look on current schooling the way
we look on the worst aspects of the Middle Ages.
> enough to unbalance anyone who bothers to try and actuall think for
> themselves. (luckily I was privately schooled, but I did for a short
> time have to attend one of these 'mental slaughterhouses' and for that
> period of time I actually became extremely physically sick as well as
> mentally distressed.)
I swapped from a religious school to a state school. It's was like the
choice of do you want to be governed by Mussolini or Mobutu?
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Well there is some truth to this, humans will not always look as we
> > do, it would be thousands of years away though.
>
> You're probably correct, but these kind of things have a tendencey to
> happen more quickly then we imagine they will.
My position is that the first gigantic step will take place much sooner
than we think (30 years) and the last final step much later than we think
(1000s years). I'm open to anyone with a fully up-to-date understanding
of nanotechnology though who can better pick the timeframes.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > By rational happiness I mean non-contradictory. This is the standard.
>
> Hmm...
>
> > A person who feels 'happy' killing others is not rationally happy, he
> > is motivated first by self-hatred, then this self-hatred is projected
> > externally into hatred for others and builds up to the acceptance of,
> > and need for, killing.
>
> Ok.
>
> > The key is to understand happiness. As all emotions it is the body's
> > reaction to events based on your own beliefs. If you believe that
> > things that are anti-life are good then doing them will produce the
> > feeling of happiness. But this will be contradictory. If your
> > beliefs are all pro-life and you resolve your mental contradictions
> > then your happiness should all be rational. Does this get across the
> > distinction fully?
>
> So you did not mean 'genuine' in the sense of a 'genuine Coca Cola?'
Genuine was not the best choice of word.
> Ok, I think I understand: while they may be having a 'real' feeling of
> happiness, they got it from doing something that should not cause a
> 'rational' person to feel happy, therefore it is not a 'rational
> happiness.' Did I get the gist?
Not so much that it would not cause a rational person to feel happy,
rather that for anyone (rational or not) there will be a negating
influence on one's life as a result of the action that led to the emotion
- in other words a contradiction. If the action is acting against your
life in some way then any happiness derived is at least partially false.
A rational person can organise their thinking so that happiness only comes
from life affirming actions.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Take a look at the relationship of philosophy to history and you might
> > change your mind.
>
> I have seen what you mean, I am just trying to not fall into the trap of
> succumbing to pessimism and then feeling that everything's just a waste
> of time because 'we're all doomed,' etc. That kind of nihilism is more
> destructive then any other, it's more insideousthen simple 'amorality,'
> because it renders people who have the abilty to act against it impotent
> by making them think that they shouldn't bother to act as they cannot
> actually accomplish any change in the situation. I speakis of another
> variety of the idea that humans are at the mercy of 'forces beyond their
> controll'
In terms of a world view, we *don't* have any control at all. I don't see
this as a reason to give up though. The way I see it, as long as I have
control over my own actions I have reason to be personally optimistic
since I can see them leading to the attainment of my goals.
I've fed my brain with the thought that the actions of the rest of the
world are unrelated to my own position so long as I am able to act
according to my own choices, so I can be pessimistic (where appropriate
and realistic only of course, not as a general rule) about aspects of the
world without *any* effect on my own frame of mind, my subconscious knows
they are two separate issues. No my magic wand will not turn China into
a free country but so what? Not being able to change the values and views
of the world's people is about as much reason to become nihilistic as is
not being able to make every day of the year warm, sunny and 24 degrees
C.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Those in the scientific community are half the problem, they've taken
> > the ideas of the philosophers and are not going to fully defend reason
> > so long as the philosophers don't. Any watering down of the need for
> > reason is an attack on it.
>
> I agree. I do also think that they are our only hope in this issue, if
> scientists cannot be made to realize what is going on and act on it,
> then what chance do people with no ability to think rationally or for
> themselves have? I hope that if the 'scientific community' won't get
It's just that the philosophers set what the scientists think. As I said
above it was because of the acceptance of Kant (and the others that
furthered his ideas) that Bohr, Schroedinger and co so readily abandoned
causality when interpreting their results (and also because they were so
infected with the nihilism of their time). To the degree that science has
rejected reason, it has been caused by philosophy.
I do see another saving mechanism though. Private education. Education
(of all types) is the direct way of communicating philosophy (indirect
means lead to the fusing of contradictory ideas) and private education
means philosophies can compete on a fair playing field.
> off its collectivist ass, then perhaps individual scientists will step
> forward. Thats one reason I like Richard Dawkins so much, he has taken
> up the challenge of attacking the religionists/creationists directly,
He's fantastic isn't he! Very few people have his level of ability in
explaining concepts simply, precisely and persuasively. He's worthy of a
lot of respect.
> instead of the kind of dammaging 'appeasement' policy endorced by S. J.
> Gould.
Gould is rather suspect IMO for the above and other reasons. The man has
fantastic charisma and intelligence (I had the pleasure of attending a
graduation speech he delivered) but I think this may partially disguise
errors in his ideas.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest
> > contribution. Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need
> > morality? Answer - to know how to make decisions, to know how to live.
> > Morality relates to the *individual* and is determined by reality -
> > the nature of man. Man is different to other animals because of his
> > faculty of reason. He is therefore able to objectively derive morals
> > from the basis of life as the standard of value. The first and most
> > basic moral which man needs to live and apply reason is freedom, man
> > can then objectively derive using reason a system where freedom from
> > the application of force is assured and protected. To be able to use
> > his reason and have freedom man must have the right to property (of
> > all kinds, including his own body). All other valid rights can be
> > derived objectively from the right to property. How does this sound?
>
> I do like how it sounds and I agree with this fundamental formulation of
> the issue. I will say, though, that I think once you get past this
> point perfectly rational people may 'objectively' draw different
> conclusions and/or different 'rights' from this foundation and the only
> way to really decide which is 'correct' is to put the principles into
> action. The proof lies in the experimental examination and living out
> of the principles derived by reason ('the pudding' in other words).
How could a rational person challenge the right of copyright for
instance? Man has the right to property so that he may further his life
by the use of reason. Copyright protects a man's right to the fruits of
his use of reason. It must therefore be a valid form of property right.
Real Objectivists agree on the derivations of everything substantive, the
areas of disagreement, and certainly yes there is disagreement, come down
to very minor issues. If you can think of important areas that you think
may cause divergence I would be interested to know.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Neither do I. The only way to oppose it anyway is to use government
> > force which is wrong and even that will not stop it. I am in favour
> > of the application of reason to man's environment to master it and
> > better his situation, so of course I welcome this. Energy should be
> > focused on the real problem which is philosophy.
>
> I agree, though perhaps the issue is deeper then 'philosophy.' Perhaps
> it lies in the 'instincts' and processes we still have from our
> evolutionary past. 'Reason' is a very new phenomenon evolutionarily
> speaking, perhaps our neurobiology needs to be altered in some way to
> promote it and preserve it.
I have some illegal mushrooms that may do the job.
Seriously, I don't think anything needs changing. A child who is taught
to reason from an early age has no problems at all. It's just that if
reason is not nurtured then it collapses which is what we see all around
us in society.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > I would object to the 'we'. I don't personally deserve to fail, I'm
> > not responsible for the errors of others.
>
> I agree, I was just thinking along the lines of 'we are all in the same
> boat,' If we cannot stop the rest of the passengers and crew fron
> scuttling the boat and destroying the life rafts, we may not be 'at
> fault,' but we may sink with them none the less. Now, I am not opposed
> the doing whatever is necessary to ensure my survival, i.e. taking a
> life raft and 'going overboard' *before* all hell breaks loose. I just
> haven't found one yet.
All we need is to create one better ship to row to once we get the life boat...
Rob
Robert Chapman
> If there is a philosophy , at the heart of which
> LIES this as truth, then can't we see the philosophy as a whole
> as ultimately, deeply flawed? There is hatred for life in it.
It's simply a recognition of an undeniable fact. You have control over
your own body, your own actions. That someone has the freedom to kill
themselves is undeniable, if a person commits suicide you can't stop them
because it's not your mind controlling their body. You can persuade, you
can make laws but ultimately a person is dictator of their own body, it's
their mind directing their actions.
This recognition is quite different to advocating suicide as a value.
> It is saying that the most important power we have is the
> ultimate power to kill ourselves.
The most important, in fact the *only*, power you have is to control your
own actions.
> This "most important power" we have, is one that all sane
> people would naturally hope never to exercise or have to
> contemplate using in their whole lives. It is one most of us would
> prefer to have no use for. You don't think your view might be distorted?
>
> Regardless of the rights or wrongs of suicide,
> the truth which I recognise, is that it is a most terrible thing
> if a living creature chooses death. If Life is so bad that
> suicide is the preferred option, _something_ is very wrong.
> I would not view the power to take my own life as any true freedom,
You are mistaking the difference between a freedom and a value. That you
are free to do something does not make it a value.
Rob
Robert Chapman
> "spacejan"<spac...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Or somebody's lips kissing your neck very slowly and
> > softly. Wouldn't you like that?
>
> Yes, I do like that on occasion, but it's not something I
> like enough to sacrifice my principles for.
You are right, you should only sacrifice your principles if they are
willing to go a little further.
Rob
Robert J. Kolker
Robert Chapman wrote:
> correct but more information was added. The example I am fond of is
> Einstein's physics. It did not prove Newton wrong, Newton was
> conceptually correct about everything he said, rather Einstein added
> information about the extremes, and as we know Newton had not tested
> these.
General Relativity completely rejects Newton's notion of absolute
space and time. In Einstein's theory, gravity is NOT a force, but
the geodisical motion of a body not subject to force in a curved
space time manifold. It was Newton's theory that was incorrect, and
radically so. However, his theory produced a good first approximation
of motion in a gravitational field, since space-time far enough away from
the sun is nearly flat.
By the way, Newton postulated that gravity acts instantaneously
at a distance. He was not fond of this assumption, but it fit the
facts.
Bob Kolker
Demon Buddha
spacejan wrote:
>
> >> Ours wil be the power to give life and to take it
> >> >> away as we see fit to. The ability to kill onself is
> >> >> the most important power an individual has, it is
> >> >> this which firmly established his ownership of his
> >> >> existence.
>
> Hello Dr. Necrophage,
>
> If there is a philosophy , at the heart of which
> LIES this as truth, then can't we see the philosophy as a whole
> as ultimately, deeply flawed? There is hatred for life in it.
Depends upon context. If you off yourself for reasons that
are grounded in self hatred or hatred for life, then I agree
that there is something "wrong" there. But if, OTOH, you
have been captured and are about to be horribly tortured,
either by an enemy or perhaps some incurable disease, then
that cyanide capsule you have would seem to me to be a very
valid path to trod.
What I *think* Dr. Death was trying to express (and please
correct me if I'm wrong) is that we all possess the right
to end our lives when we choose and that criminalization is
is not only wrong, but purely idiotic.
In fact, suicide is NOT illegal. Failed attempts are; after
all, what are they going to do, jail the cadaver?
ael...@my-deja.com
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> < snip>
> > > "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > > > The only gift for which you must pray to all possible gods is
the
> > > > fact you're mortal.
>
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Provide empirical, experimentally validated evidence for the
> > > existence of a 'god' thingy.
>
> ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I am. You are. Thus, God is.
> >
> > All evidence is of God.
>
> Then 'god' is an unnecessary additonal complication, worthless to any
> reasoned examination of empirical reality. If 'god' is the universe
> and the universe 'god,' there is no need for the 'god' concept, the
> universe is sufficient.
Not quite. The universe implies something that is dead, and thus it is
has problematic connotations. God is the correct concept, for it is
omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. It is all of consciousness.
>
> > > "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > > > The time will come, and all your earthly sufferings
> > > > will reach the end. That's the basic fact of human being as
such.
>
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > Just what sufferings are those?
>
> ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > The limitatons imposed by physical reality and the disappointment
and
> > pain they cause.
>
> Many of those 'limitations' can already be overcome with the proper
> drugs, and I see no reason why we will not be able to
> genetically/technologically 'breed out' all of those things if we so
> choose. 'Dissapointment' ought to spur one on to greater attempts of
> success, if not, then the person is lacking in abiltiy to deal with
> their own life in an effective manner and is of no consequence in any
> case.
You misunderstood me. By limitations of physical reality I mean
problems such as having to drive to work as opposed to teleport, losing
things, unecssary death in warfare, and all of the basic physical
limitations that prevent all of us from living in palaces and having
everything we could ever possibly want and more.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> wrote:
> > > > It's unbearable - to live eternally being the same person. It's
> > > > deadly boring.
>
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > And you would know this how? At the point of technology we are
> > > speaking of here we may be able to sellect what personality we
wish
> > > to have and alter our consciousness through chemical, electronic,
or
> > > surgical brain change as we see fit.
>
> ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > We have long been able to do that, and it certainly doesn't require
> > any complicated technological devices. The human brain, being a
> > neural network, is too put it simply, a knowledge sponge. Learning
> > itself alters personality, and it happens all the time.
>
> I agree with you here, but my comment was directed toward the
pessemism
> evident in "gavelis" <gav...@takas.lt> 's comment. I see no reason
for
> 'immortality' to be boring at all.
Immortality is life, and it is literally all there is.
>
> --
> Dr. Necrophage
>
> 'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
> it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
>
Dr. Necrophage
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I am willing to entertain a reasonable and logical disscussion on
> > the matter. Can this happen in a calm/dispassionate manner,
> > *please*? I
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I promise to keep my insults and ad hominems to a reasonable level.
Thanks.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > have been put off exploring the subject to greater depth then I have
> > due to the fact that I am sick and tired of being called names by
> > so-called 'objectivists.' When I have tried to ask what appear to
> > me to be reasonable questions, I have gotten 'how dare you question
> > the GREAT AND POWERFUL AYN RAND?!' and/or 'Just who do you think you
> > are, you lowly worm, you are unfit even to kiss her feet you
> > irrational boob." kind of responses.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> ! I'm interested, what sort of questions caused them to panic and
> become defensive?
Basically the question I had were the same ones I asked you about just
what is meant by 'certainty' and certain epistemological questions I
have about the whole Aristotilian (as it appears to me ) basis behind
it. Just what do you mean by 'identity' in the context of real existing
things? If everything is but a matrix of atoms and electomagnetic
feilds what beyond statements of chemical composition or (in the case of
organic organisms) genetic make up, etc. can 'identity' really be? The
*words* we use for things cannot constitute their real *identity* since
different human organisms use the words they learn from the culure they
are raised in. The real thing we *call* a 'chair' and the *words* (or
mathematics) we use to lable or describe it are not the *same* thing.
The shapes a 'thing' has are incidental, even atoms can be manipulated
by chemical reactions. Where is this 'identity?' Aristotle proposed a
kind of 'essence' to things in a very Platonic manner, but instead of
placing the 'real' outside of things, Aristiotle put them inside of
things, like 'souls.' I don't see how anything even like this can be
examined under laboratory conditions. No 'identities' for things are
seen under the Electron microscope, just molecules and atoms. Where is
the 'identity' of a thing located?
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Just how, exactly, do you define 'metaphysical?' My first reaction
> > is 'no.' If you mean to include 'mathematics' or 'physics' as
> > 'metaphysical' concepts (as Fuller does), then 'maybe,' but only so
> > long as they are grounded in empirical experimentally validated
> > reality.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Metaphysics as in the study of the nature of existence, the very first
> questions of philosophy. The first is is existence real or an
> illusion? Objectivism says that existence exists - that existence is
> real, it is what it is and it is made up of real entities that all
> have an identity/nature (a particular distinctive way of acting,
> whether it's an electron, a tree or a light wave),
This goes to my question above. What does 'distinctive way of acting '
*mean?* If 'trees' are composed of 'electrons' and 'light waves' of
photons how is 'identity' the right concept here? If 'X' particle
behaves in 'y' manner under conditions 'T,' are is not its behaviors
conditioned by the circumstsances they are observed under?
How does 'particular distinctive way of acting' amount to 'identity?' I
do not think that the behavior of particles is the same under all
circumstances, in fact many particles decay or transform over time to
become other particles, where is the 'identity?' If all you mean to say
is that observations of the behavior 'y' of particle 'X' are consistent
under all circumstances 'T (T1,T2,T3...),' how does this establish
'identity' in the Aristolilian sense, as the same particle may have any
number of other behaviors 'z, a, b, ...)' up to and including the
its 'decay' or transformation into another particle under different
circumstances?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Aristotle's A=A and > A<>non-A. To add to this, man has
> consciousness through which he can discover this real reality.
But while we do interact with a 'real reality' all we *know* about it
is our memories of the sense impressions that occured in that
interaction. Before 'we' know anything it takes time for it to route
through the brain and be catagorized and identified before appearing in
our consciousness. In this process as well as by the limited nature of
our sensory organs, information about the event is lost. Our memories
of events are also faulty and very much subject to the manipulation of
our expectations, desires, emotions and other factors. I think that the
Scientific Method and logic and repeated experiment are tools we have
developed over time to eliminate as much of the above distortions as
possible and come as close as possible to overcomming the limitations of
our senses so as to increase the efficacy and reliablity of the knowlege
we have about 'real reality.' I think that 'real reality' may be
approached very closely by means of the proper scientific models, but I
do not think we can really *experience* 'real reality' in some kind of
'pure' unaltered form or be able to 'describe' it even if we did.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> So there are 3 axioms of metaphysics -
> existence exists (A=A)
> everything in reality has an identity
> man receives info on existence/reality through his consciousness
>
> Shortened - existence, identity and consciousness. They are all
> corollaries of each other. Every piece of Objectivism derives from
> these 3 axioms, nothing else is manufactured, just derived. They are
> axiomatic because they are self-evident, it is *impossible* to survive
> without accepting them (notice there are no practicing solipsists
> alive!). This point is absolutely crucial to why these axioms are not
> arbitrary.
I'm not a solipsist. I do, however still have a bone to pick with
'identity.'
> So Objectivism holds these as absolutely true. Would you agree with
> this, given that you agree that there is a real objective physical
> reality?
As I say above, I have certain 'quibbles' with the specifics about
'identity.' I also question if 'real reality' is 'axiomatic' in this
way. I tend to look at 'real reality' as a dynamic 'fluid' system, a
'chaotic' one if you will (as per 'chaos mathematics') with the 'laws'
and other 'fundemental' forces being it's 'strange attractors.' The
events which occur within 'real reality' may be bounded by certain
'facts,' but I don't see that any of the specific outcomes are
predeterminable through the application of axiomatic logic. If we could
figure out *all* of the variables and 'laws' existant at the start of
the entire proccess we may come close, but I do not see how we can get
to that point. I think this also applies to your (and others) feelings
about quantum physics being 'not right' somehow. We appear to be
'missing something.' I am not willing to ascribe 'certainty,' much less
'absolute certainty, to any a priori axiomatic system, as I do not think
we are in possession of sufficient information at this time to do
anything of the kind. I stick with 'highly probable, etc.'
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I do accept it as the most likely and best explaination we currently
> > have at this time for how biological processes operate and function
> > over time. I accept the proof for it, I only meant to say that
> > since we are not currently in possesion of *all possible*
> > information reguarding this and other issues to say we know anything
> > with *certainty* seems to me to be reaching a bit. We may have a
> > high degree of confidence that a particular scientific model
> > currently in use contitutes 'the facts,' but untill we are in
> > possesion of *total knowlege* to say x is 'certain'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> 'Total knowledge' if I interpret it correctly is something that could
> be lifetimes away, to totally understand a chair would be to know
> everything inside the atoms it is made up of and there may be smaller
> particles we are not yet aware of. In order to function then we have
> to hold knowledge as *conceptually correct*.
How is this any different from the concept that our models are
incomplete, but *usefull* at this time and subject to change or
disposal when futher/better information is aquired?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Our knowledge of chairs at this point is conceptually correct, no
> scientist is going to later discover that chairs are actually flying
> animals, our knowledge of their atomic composition is also
> conceptually correct, it will not later be determined that chairs are
> all made 100% of sodium chloride. I would hold that since the
> scientific technique was correctly identified in the Scientific
> Revolution, very little has been proven wrong in science, rather the
> old information was conceptually correct but more information was
> added. The example I am fond of is Einstein's physics. It did not
> prove Newton wrong, Newton was conceptually correct about everything
> he said, rather Einstein added information about the extremes, and as
> we know Newton had not tested these.
I really have to side with Bob Kolker's comment about this. 'Gravity'
in Einstein and Newton are very different things. That light has a
speed is also something Einstein differs from Newton in.
An analogy here is the Heliocentric cosmology vs the Ptolomeic Earth
centered cosmology. Both 'work,' both fit and were derived from the
same 'facts,' but one has been proven wrong, thrown out and replaced by
the other. Heliocentrism is not a 'development' of the Ptolemeic
cosmology, but a refutation and replacement of it. I look at the
Newtownian Einsteinian physics issue in much the same way. There is a
paradigm shift here as in the paradigm shift between Heliocentrism and
the Ptolomeic cosmologies.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Another example comes to mind. Let's say you were to read a recipe
> that states that placing a mixture in the oven, setting the dial to
> 170 degrees C and waiting 30 minutes will bake the cake. Now if you
> do this and your oven is broken the mixture will not turn out baked.
> Would the reaction be to throw your hands up in the air and say the
> knowledge in this recipe is all false and must be replaced? Rather it
> was conceptually correct as it did just not allow for the different
> context of a broken oven. The same with the rest of science. Our
> knowledge of chairs was not false before we found out they were made
> up of atoms. I see no way our knowledge of chairs can EVER be shown
> conceptually incorrect, likewise the same wit Newton's laws of
> gravity.
Was then the Ptolomeic Cosomology 'conceptually correct?' Was the
medieval concept of the 'bodily humours' conceptually correct? Each
theory fit the circumstances and 'facts' as those who proposed them
understood them. We cannot say our current medicine or our current
cosmologies are 'developments' from these ideas, can we? Were not
these concepts totally overthrown by new scientific paradigms?
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > We can be 'highly confident' in the veracity of a scientific model,
> > even
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I think you have to highlight the difference between a scientific
> model/theory and hard scientific knowledge. That medicine states that
> blood is pumped through your body by your heart is a certain fact.
>
> You are refering to the theories but not the 99% of science which is
> hard unchanging scientific fact.
That may be true, but are not the more important issues currently under
debate in that 1%? We may be able to ignore that large percentage of
things we have very good and regular knowlege about, but if we come to
that 1% (which I actually feel is a much larger % given especially lots
of the latest astonomical discoveries that discomfort some of the
knowlege we thought 'certain' in that relm.) with the pre set idea that
we already know what to expect of it, how are we to actually *learn*
anything?
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Newtonian physics still works for some things, but has largely been
> > replaced (or 'updated') by Einstienian physics, at least for things
> > on our scale and greater, and completely abandoned in regards to
> > things on the 'atomic scale' and replaced by 'quantum phsyics.'
> > When a
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> This is a very complex can of worms. It's something I've been looking
> into in the last few months. To put it bluntly I think quantum
> physics is wrong (even the famous quantum physicist Schroedinger on
> receiving his Nobel prize knew this, stating simply (and certainly
> without any trace of humour) at his moment of glory that he wished he
> had never heard of quantum physics!).
But how can it be 'wrong' if it works? Does it matter if it's 'wrong'
so long as we can still build atomic bombs and TV sets using it?
Anyway, under the concept you outline above is this not simply a case fo
a 'conceptually correct' idea where we simply are not in possetion of
all of the facts?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> The reason is that it abandons causality (all the quantum physicists
> were firm followers of Kantian philosophy so were not reluctant to do
> so) and this is something that we *know* does not happen in the
> universe,everything has an identity.
If the factual evidence that it actually works violates an axiomatic
principle, are we not then to see if perhaps it is our axioms that are
'wrong' or 'incorrect' and change them to fit the circumstances as they
actually occur?
Is not a theory to be derived from the evidence, not evidence derived
according to a theory?
If some event is observed to occur, yet it violates our current theory,
are we not to change the theory to accomodate the event? And if it
means abandoning one theory and creating another in which the new
discovery fits are we not to do that as well?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> A number of scientists have been trying to explain the equations of
> Einstein (we have to since we can prove they are correct) in a way
> that maintains the causality that applies everywhere else, in other
> words to correct what *must* be a false interpretation due to missing
> knowledge.
>
> The man who may have done this just recently is the physicist Louis
> Little, I have read his work on the net and it's very convincing, he
> has a very rational, causal, ingenious explanation (fully backed up
> with mathematics) for the occurences that led the qps to reject
> causality. Little's theory may not be completely correct in it's
> description of the basic elements of the physical world (further
> information is required) but it is the only possible explanation I
> have seen and some variant of it will have to prove to be the truth.
> I think it's the most exciting development physics has seen in a long
> time.
I'll look up Little's work, I've just purchased Greene's 'The Elegant
Universe' which is an exploration of the 'string theory' attempt at a
'unified physics' theory. I think it likely at some point that both
Einstein and Quantum Physics will be thrown out by a better overall
physics that accomodates the practical facts of the universe as we
observe them.
<snip>
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Post Modernism is the latest version of this, with such ideas as,
> > > in art, the universe is meaningless so why not just play around
> > > with nonsense?
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Does the word 'meaning' apply to the 'universe?' How? It simply
*is.*
>
> Agreed.
Ok.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > How can what we call 'rocks' or 'stars,' etc. have a 'meaning?' Do
> > we not bring valuations and 'meanings' to the 'stuff' of the
> > universe? I think that we can derive certain scientifically
> > verifiable 'principles' from the 'stuff' we observe, but does that
> > constitute 'meaning?'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Postmodernists would not appreciate your questions! These
> philosophies are all the same, they work by not defining anything
> precisely. The word 'meaning' can have whatever meaning you want to
> give it and they certainly don't want to derive it either! They just
> start by picking things out of thin air.
I'm not quite sure what you're on about here. I think that the word
'meaning' applies to things humans create or do ('words,' symbols,
'art,' etc. all have 'meanings' assigned to them more or less
arbitrarily according to human caprice), but that the term does not
apply to the actual physical stuff of the universe which simply exists.
There is no 'meaning' in a sunset other then the 'meaning' applied to
it by human feelings and consciousness. A certain class of human
endevors (namely science) is devoted to observing that stuff and seeing
how it works and deriving principles from those observations so as to
further that understanding, to that end those who engage in 'Science'
have developed a specialized language of termonology that requires
precise definitions so that others my easily utilize the knowlege
gained from experimental observation. Since mathematics has proven
rigorous and effective at accomplishing this task, it is the best and
most used language used in scientific discourse. 'Meaning' does not
seem to apply to anything science does.
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > You're probably correct, but these kind of things have a tendencey
> > to happen more quickly then we imagine they will.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> My position is that the first gigantic step will take place much
> sooner than we think (30 years) and the last final step much later
> than we think (1000s years). I'm open to anyone with a fully
> up-to-date understanding of nanotechnology though who can better pick
> the timeframes.
I am too, there are a couple of sites (don't recall them at the moment)
on the web that are nice, but most of it is speculative and about a year
behind at best.
<snip>
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Take a look at the relationship of philosophy to history and you
> > > might change your mind.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I have seen what you mean, I am just trying to not fall into the
> > trap of succumbing to pessimism and then feeling that everything's
> > just a waste of time because 'we're all doomed,' etc. That kind of
> > nihilism is more destructive then any other, it's more insideousthen
> > simple 'amorality,' because it renders people who have the abilty to
> > act against it impotent by making them think that they shouldn't
> > bother to act as they cannot actually accomplish any change in the
> > situation. I think of it as of another variety of the idea that
> > humans are at the mercy of 'forces beyond their controll'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> In terms of a world view, we *don't* have any control at all. I don't
> see this as a reason to give up though. The way I see it, as long as
> I have control over my own actions I have reason to be personally
> optimistic since I can see them leading to the attainment of my goals.
>
> I've fed my brain with the thought that the actions of the rest of the
> world are unrelated to my own position so long as I am able to act
> according to my own choices, so I can be pessimistic (where
> appropriate and realistic only of course, not as a general rule) about
> aspects of the world without *any* effect on my own frame of mind, my
> subconscious knows they are two separate issues. No my magic wand
> will not turn China into a free country but so what? Not being able
> to change the values and views of the world's people is about as much
> reason to become nihilistic as is not being able to make every day of
> the year warm, sunny and 24 degrees C.
Ok, this pretty much approximates to my views of such things as well.
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Those in the scientific community are half the problem, they've
> > > taken the ideas of the philosophers and are not going to fully
> > > defend reason so long as the philosophers don't. Any watering
> > > down of the need for reason is an attack on it.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I agree. I do also think that they are our only hope in this issue,
> > if scientists cannot be made to realize what is going on and act on
> > it, then what chance do people with no ability to think rationally
> > or for themselves have? I hope that if the 'scientific community'
> > won't get
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> It's just that the philosophers set what the scientists think. As I
> said above it was because of the acceptance of Kant (and the others
> that furthered his ideas) that Bohr, Schroedinger and co so readily
> abandoned causality when interpreting their results (and also because
> they were so infected with the nihilism of their time). To the degree
> that science has rejected reason, it has been caused by philosophy.
Is anything really this cut and dried, though. Your argument sounds
plausible, but the situation seems more complex to me then one simply of
ideology. If science has 'rejected reason' as thoroughly as you seem to
suggest, how is it that we are still able to send rockets to Mars and
build jet aircraft?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I do see another saving mechanism though. Private education.
> Education (of all types) is the direct way of communicating philosophy
> (indirect means lead to the fusing of contradictory ideas) and private
> education means philosophies can compete on a fair playing field.
I agree entirely, there needs to be a very radical increase in the
number of nonreligious private educational institutions, though. This
'voucher' buisness in the US is kind of scary, as much as I dislike the
'public indoctrination centers,' shipping lots of students into
religious schools will only make matters worse IMHO.
<snip>
> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest
> > > contribution. Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need
> > > morality? Answer - to know how to make decisions, to know how to
> > > live. Morality relates to the *individual* and is determined by
> > > reality - the nature of man. Man is different to other animals
> > > because of his faculty of reason. He is therefore able to
> > > objectively derive morals from the basis of life as the standard
> > > of value. The first and most basic moral which man needs to live
> > > and apply reason is freedom, man can then objectively derive using
> > > reason a system where freedom from the application of force is
> > > assured and protected. To be able to use his reason and have
> > > freedom man must have the right to property(of all kinds,
> > > including his own body). All other valid rights can be derived
> > > objectively from the right to property. How does this sound?
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I do like how it sounds and I agree with this fundamental
> > formulation of the issue. I will say, though, that I think once you
> > get past this point perfectly rational people may 'objectively' draw
> > different conclusions and/or different 'rights' from this foundation
> > and the only way to really decide which is 'correct' is to put the
> > principles into action. The proof lies in the experimental
> > examination and living out of the principles derived by reason ('the
> > pudding' in other words).
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> How could a rational person challenge the right of copyright for
> instance? Man has the right to property so that he may further his
> life by the use of reason. Copyright protects a man's right to the
> fruits of his use of reason. It must therefore be a valid form of
> property right.
Sure, there are going to be some basic agreements, I do not doubt that.
> Real Objectivists agree on the derivations of everything substantive,
> the areas of disagreement, and certainly yes there is disagreement,
> come down to very minor issues. If you can think of important areas
> that you think may cause divergence I would be interested to know.
Well, one of my disagreements is the need for and the overall
'legitimacy' of the State. Is a so-called 'government' a necessary
thing, or is it simply an archaic tool of oppression, and force used to
keep one group of individuals in power over another. I am very much the
anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) and as such I do not think that
'government' has a rational or 'legitimate' role in the affairs of free
beings. No use of force, other then that to preserve ones life or (in
some cases property) is 'legitimate.' 'Government' is entirely a
creature of force.
<snip>
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I have some illegal mushrooms that may do the job.
Heh. :)
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Seriously, I don't think anything needs changing. A child who is
> taught to reason from an early age has no problems at all. It's just
> that if reason is not nurtured then it collapses which is what we see
> all around us in society.
Oh, I agree entirely.
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage
> > > I am. You are. Thus, God is.
> > >
> > > All evidence is of God.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Then 'god' is an unnecessary additonal complication,
> > worthless to any reasoned examination of empirical
> > reality. If 'god' is the universe and the universe
> > 'god,' there is no need for the 'god' concept, the
> > universe is sufficient.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Not quite. The universe implies something that is
> dead
Why? It is obviously a dynamic system, how does 'dead'
apply?
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> , and thus it is has problematic connotations. God is
> the correct concept, for it is omniscient, omnipresent,
> and omnipotent. It is all of consciousness.
Where is the evidence for this? What do you mean by
'consciousness' and how can it apply to anything with the
'attributes' you list? Are any of these 'attributes even
logically possible? How, exactly?
< snip >
> > ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > The limitatons imposed by physical reality and the
> disappointment and pain they cause.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Many of those 'limitations' can already be overcome
> > with the proper drugs, and I see no reason why we will
> > not be able to genetically/technologically 'breed out'
> > all of those things if we so choose. 'Dissapointment'
> > ought to spur one on to greater attempts of success, if
> > not, then the person is lacking in abiltiy to deal with
> > their own life in an effective manner and is of no
> > consequence in any case.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> You misunderstood me. By limitations of physical
> reality I mean problems such as having to drive to work
> as opposed to teleport,
How is that 'painful?' or the source of sufficient
'suffering?' to warrent any notice?
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> losing things,
See above.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> unecssary death in warfare,
Such things may, in fact be solved bt either the
'immortality' of the people involved (no 'deaths' for war to
cause) or by other technological advancements.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> and all of the basic physical limitations that prevent
> all of us from living in palaces and having everything we
> could ever possibly want and more.
In a future where nanotechnology is in full swing this too
may be solved.
<snip>
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I agree with you here, but my comment was directed
> > toward the pessemism evident in "gavelis"
> > <gav...@takas.lt> 's comment. I see no reason for
> > 'immortality' to be boring at all.
ael...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Immortality is life, and it is literally all there is.
Your point?
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
spacejan
Dr. Necrophage wrote in message <7s5tao$rhr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>I cut things up a little bit to save space/bandwidth
>
><snip>
>
>
>Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > have been put off exploring the subject to greater depth then I have
>> > due to the fact that I am sick and tired of being called names by
>> > so-called 'objectivists.' When I have tried to ask what appear to
>> > me to be reasonable questions, I have gotten 'how dare you question
>> > the GREAT AND POWERFUL AYN RAND?!' and/or 'Just who do you think you
>> > are, you lowly worm, you are unfit even to kiss her feet you
>> > irrational boob." kind of responses.
Doctor N, its even worse for me! I get taken for her all the time!
And I don't even believe there is any such thing as objectivity. I mean-
nothing can be wholly objective or wholly subjective.
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> ! I'm interested, what sort of questions caused them to panic and
>> become defensive?
>
>Basically the question I had were the same ones I asked you about just
>what is meant by 'certainty' and certain epistemological questions I
>have about the whole Aristotilian (as it appears to me ) basis behind
>it. Just what do you mean by 'identity' in the context of real existing
>things? If everything is but a matrix of atoms and electomagnetic
>feilds what beyond statements of chemical composition or (in the case of
>organic organisms) genetic make up, etc. can 'identity' really be? The
>*words* we use for things cannot constitute their real *identity* since
>different human organisms use the words they learn from the culure they
>are raised in. The real thing we *call* a 'chair' and the *words* (or
>mathematics) we use to lable or describe it are not the *same* thing.
>
>The shapes a 'thing' has are incidental, even atoms can be manipulated
>by chemical reactions. Where is this 'identity?' Aristotle proposed a
>kind of 'essence' to things in a very Platonic manner, but instead of
>placing the 'real' outside of things, Aristiotle put them inside of
>things, like 'souls.'
I don't see how anything even like this can be
>examined under laboratory conditions. No 'identities' for things are
>seen under the Electron microscope, just molecules and atoms. Where is
>the 'identity' of a thing located?
>
>
><snip>
>
>Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > Just how, exactly, do you define 'metaphysical?' My first reaction
>> > is 'no.' If you mean to include 'mathematics' or 'physics' as
>> > 'metaphysical' concepts (as Fuller does), then 'maybe,' but only so
>> > long as they are grounded in empirical experimentally validated
>> > reality.
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> Metaphysics as in the study of the nature of existence, the very first
>> questions of philosophy. The first is is existence real or an
>> illusion? Objectivism says that existence exists - that existence is
>> real, it is what it is and it is made up of real entities that all
>> have an identity/nature (a particular distinctive way of acting,
>> whether it's an electron, a tree or a light wave),
>
>*mean?* If 'trees' are composed of 'electrons' and 'light waves' of
>photons how is 'identity' the right concept here? If 'X' particle
>behaves in 'y' manner under conditions 'T,' are is not its behaviors
>conditioned by the circumstsances they are observed under?
conditioned Y behaviour however tightly controlled T is. This is
essential freedom - unless of course, X decides to commit suicide -
in which case, it's Goodbye Vienna...Decay. < smiles brightly>
>How does 'particular distinctive way of acting' amount to 'identity?' I
>do not think that the behavior of particles is the same under all
>circumstances, in fact many particles decay or transform over time to
>become other particles, where is the 'identity?' If all you mean to say
>is that observations of the behavior 'y' of particle 'X' are consistent
>under all circumstances 'T (T1,T2,T3...),' how does this establish
>'identity' in the Aristolilian sense, as the same particle may have any
>number of other behaviors 'z, a, b, ...)' up to and including the
>its 'decay' or transformation into another particle under different
>circumstances?
Perhaps if all behaviours of X manifest in some way the essential
nature of X....? <smiles brightly, crosses fingers>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> Aristotle's A=A and > A<>non-A. To add to this, man has
>> consciousness through which he can discover this real reality.
>
>But while we do interact with a 'real reality' all we *know* about it
>is our memories of the sense impressions that occured in that
>interaction. Before 'we' know anything it takes time for it to route
>through the brain and be catagorized and identified before appearing in
>our consciousness. In this process as well as by the limited nature of
>our sensory organs, information about the event is lost. Our memories
>of events are also faulty and very much subject to the manipulation of
>our expectations, desires, emotions and other factors.
>Scientific Method and logic and repeated experiment are tools we have
>developed over time to eliminate as much of the above distortions as
>possible and come as close as possible to overcomming the limitations of
>our senses so as to increase the efficacy and reliablity of the knowlege
>we have about 'real reality.' I think that 'real reality' may be
>approached very closely by means of the proper scientific models, but I
>do not think we can really *experience* 'real reality' in some kind of
>'pure' unaltered form or be able to 'describe' it even if we did.
>
rely -only- upon scientific method, you are in time going to drift
further and further from the "truth", because you can't prevent
yourself from influencing the results of your experiments, and
building upon the results of contaminated experiments. In any event,
I don't believe it is possible.... scientists are human too :-)
Did I ever tell you I once read a whole book by Paul Feyerabend?
Course, that was in the days when I could still read books...:-)
>> So there are 3 axioms of metaphysics -
>> existence exists (A=A)
>> everything in reality has an identity
>> man receives info on existence/reality through his consciousness
>>
>> Shortened - existence, identity and consciousness. They are all
>> corollaries of each other. Every piece of Objectivism derives from
>> these 3 axioms, nothing else is manufactured, just derived. They are
>> axiomatic because they are self-evident, it is *impossible* to survive
>> without accepting them (notice there are no practicing solipsists
>> alive!). This point is absolutely crucial to why these axioms are not
>> arbitrary.
>
>
>>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> 'Total knowledge' if I interpret it correctly is something that could
>> be lifetimes away, to totally understand a chair would be to know
>> everything inside the atoms it is made up of and there may be smaller
>> particles we are not yet aware of. In order to function then we have
>> to hold knowledge as *conceptually correct*.
>
>How is this any different from the concept that our models are
>incomplete, but *usefull* at this time and subject to change or
>disposal when futher/better information is aquired?
think of "total knowledge" as an achievable or desirable goal.
(If it is, Rob, I certainly hope it is more than lifetimes away....
I don't want to have to be a non-weak strong riveter...)
Even if you were a God, infinite knowledge is to be desired
above total knowledge, assuming of course, you are a creator
God. And think like me...(lol)
And for us,I think we should think of knowledge as a life-form, which
we have created, and which we should naturally hope is an
_infinite_ life-form, because it is essentially part of who we are
and how we grow and change.
We don't want knowledge, or ourselves, totalled. We have created
multitudes of life-forms of which we are part and which are
part of us, whether we like them or not. I think I finally worked out
that whether or not you believe in God, you can't kill God, without
killing yourself. The life process itself is _continuous_. No tea
stand on your own two feet. But the God-concept is unkillable
Dr. Necrophage, you remember me telling you about my daughter
starting uni? ( We call her "Saffy" because she does her homework
and likes cardigans.) I have lavished 19 years of love on that child,
and I certainly didn't raise her to lug heavy boxes around. So she left
all of that to me. <whispers> ( I suppose a neck-rub is out of
the question?)
Oops! Sorry - I'm hogging the conversation - please carry on Rob,
this is really interesting.
snipped>
the case of old concepts being overthrown by the new, but of being
assimilated into the new understanding, and evolving with it.
have greatly underestimated the endurance and adaptability of the
Ptolemeic Cosmology. It seems to me that what was once
knowledge, can never cease to be knowledge.
It may become lost knowledge,it may be condensed in symbols,
seek in anyway they can, not only to search for knowledge, but to preserve
and pass on important knowledge. This is Nature. This is Life. Everything
gets re-cycled, one way or another.
The ways in which knowledge is passed down to us over long periods
of time is very interesting. Religions...So many... I got round to thinking
about superstitions at last, that's what I wanted you to remind me Rob...
Recalling early memories, and thinking of them afresh...I know there has
been a lot of speculation on this point Dr. Necrophage, and it has really
given me a great deal of trouble...apart from the creator-god problem, I had
the truth doesn't matter. But nobody believes that.The Truth Concept
world which isn't true to Nature, that would set up a contradiction
in Nature, and that is impossible, isn't it? I know you can say
there is no absolute truth, but don't you think fuzzy truth is
enough to spot an untruth, and that's useful knowledge too?
Not that you fool me for a minute - I know what a dedicated man of
science you are: )
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> The reason is that it abandons causality (all the quantum physicists
>> were firm followers of Kantian philosophy so were not reluctant to do
>> so) and this is something that we *know* does not happen in the
>> universe,everything has an identity.
>
>If the factual evidence that it actually works violates an axiomatic
>principle, are we not then to see if perhaps it is our axioms that are
>'wrong' or 'incorrect' and change them to fit the circumstances as they
>actually occur?
at in a different way. The main problem I had, when I became an agnostic <grins>
>
>according to a theory?
material? The theory is _created_ from other stuff, and if it is a successful theory,
>
>If some event is observed to occur, yet it violates our current theory,
>are we not to change the theory to accomodate the event? And if it
>means abandoning one theory and creating another in which the new
>discovery fits are we not to do that as well?
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> A number of scientists have been trying to explain the equations of
>> Einstein (we have to since we can prove they are correct) in a way
>> that maintains the causality that applies everywhere else, in other
>> words to correct what *must* be a false interpretation due to missing
>> knowledge.
>>
>> The man who may have done this just recently is the physicist Louis
>> Little, I have read his work on the net and it's very convincing, he
>> has a very rational, causal, ingenious explanation (fully backed up
>> with mathematics) for the occurences that led the qps to reject
>> causality. Little's theory may not be completely correct in it's
>> description of the basic elements of the physical world (further
>> information is required) but it is the only possible explanation I
>> have seen and some variant of it will have to prove to be the truth.
>> I think it's the most exciting development physics has seen in a long
>> time.
>I'll look up Little's work, I've just purchased Greene's 'The Elegant
>Universe' which is an exploration of the 'string theory' attempt at a
>'unified physics' theory. I think it likely at some point that both
>Einstein and Quantum Physics will be thrown out by a better overall
>physics that accomodates the practical facts of the universe as we
>observe them.
>
><snip>
>
>> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> > > Post Modernism is the latest version of this, with such ideas as,
>> > > in art, the universe is meaningless so why not just play around
>> > > with nonsense?
>
>Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > Does the word 'meaning' apply to the 'universe?' How? It simply
>*is.*
>>
>> Agreed.
>
>
>> > How can what we call 'rocks' or 'stars,' etc. have a 'meaning?' Do
>> > we not bring valuations and 'meanings' to the 'stuff' of the
>> > universe? I think that we can derive certain scientifically
>> > verifiable 'principles' from the 'stuff' we observe, but does that
>> > constitute 'meaning?'
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> Postmodernists would not appreciate your questions! These
>> philosophies are all the same, they work by not defining anything
>> precisely. The word 'meaning' can have whatever meaning you want to
>> give it and they certainly don't want to derive it either! They just
>> start by picking things out of thin air.
>
>I'm not quite sure what you're on about here. I think that the word
>'meaning' applies to things humans create or do ('words,' symbols,
>'art,' etc. all have 'meanings' assigned to them more or less
>arbitrarily according to human caprice), but that the term does not
>apply to the actual physical stuff of the universe which simply exists.
To exist is to mean something.
>
>it by human feelings and consciousness.
A certain class of human
>endevors (namely science) is devoted to observing that stuff and seeing
>how it works and deriving principles from those observations so as to
>further that understanding, to that end those who engage in 'Science'
>have developed a specialized language of termonology that requires
>precise definitions so that others my easily utilize the knowlege
>gained from experimental observation. Since mathematics has proven
>rigorous and effective at accomplishing this task, it is the best and
>most used language used in scientific discourse. 'Meaning' does not
>seem to apply to anything science does.
>> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> > > Those in the scientific community are half the problem, they've
>> > > taken the ideas of the philosophers and are not going to fully
>> > > defend reason so long as the philosophers don't. Any watering
>> > > down of the need for reason is an attack on it.
>
>Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > I agree. I do also think that they are our only hope in this issue,
>> > if scientists cannot be made to realize what is going on and act on
>> > it, then what chance do people with no ability to think rationally
>> > or for themselves have? I hope that if the 'scientific community'
>> > won't get
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> It's just that the philosophers set what the scientists think. As I
>> said above it was because of the acceptance of Kant (and the others
>> that furthered his ideas) that Bohr, Schroedinger and co so readily
>> abandoned causality when interpreting their results (and also because
>> they were so infected with the nihilism of their time). To the degree
>> that science has rejected reason, it has been caused by philosophy.
>
snipped.>
>> I do see another saving mechanism though. Private education.
>> Education (of all types) is the direct way of communicating philosophy
>> (indirect means lead to the fusing of contradictory ideas) and private
>> education means philosophies can compete on a fair playing field.
>I agree entirely, there needs to be a very radical increase in the
>number of nonreligious private educational institutions, though. This
>'voucher' buisness in the US is kind of scary, as much as I dislike the
>'public indoctrination centers,' shipping lots of students into
>religious schools will only make matters worse IMHO.
>
>> > rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> > > Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest
>> > > contribution. Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need
>> > > morality? Answer - to know how to make decisions, to know how to
>> > > live. Morality relates to the *individual* and is determined by
>> > > reality - the nature of man. Man is different to other animals
>> > > because of his faculty of reason. He is therefore able to
>> > > objectively derive morals from the basis of life as the standard
>> > > of value. The first and most basic moral which man needs to live
>> > > and apply reason is freedom, man can then objectively derive using
>> > > reason a system where freedom from the application of force is
>> > > assured and protected. To be able to use his reason and have
>> > > freedom man must have the right to property(of all kinds,
>> > > including his own body). All other valid rights can be derived
>> > > objectively from the right to property. How does this sound?
>
>> > I do like how it sounds and I agree with this fundamental
>> > formulation of the issue. I will say, though, that I think once you
>> > get past this point perfectly rational people may 'objectively' draw
>> > different conclusions and/or different 'rights' from this foundation
>> > and the only way to really decide which is 'correct' is to put the
>> > principles into action. The proof lies in the experimental
>> > examination and living out of the principles derived by reason ('the
>> > pudding' in other words).
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> How could a rational person challenge the right of copyright for
>> instance? Man has the right to property so that he may further his
>> life by the use of reason. Copyright protects a man's right to the
>> fruits of his use of reason. It must therefore be a valid form of
>> property right.
>Sure, there are going to be some basic agreements, I do not doubt that.
>
>> Real Objectivists agree on the derivations of everything substantive,
>> the areas of disagreement, and certainly yes there is disagreement,
>> come down to very minor issues. If you can think of important areas
>> that you think may cause divergence I would be interested to know.
>Well, one of my disagreements is the need for and the overall
>'legitimacy' of the State. Is a so-called 'government' a necessary
>thing, or is it simply an archaic tool of oppression, and force used to
>keep one group of individuals in power over another. I am very much the
>anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) and as such I do not think that
>'government' has a rational or 'legitimate' role in the affairs of free
>beings. No use of force, other then that to preserve ones life or (in
>some cases property) is 'legitimate.' 'Government' is entirely a
>creature of force.
><snip>
>
>Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > I agree, though perhaps the issue is deeper then 'philosophy.'
>> > Perhaps it lies in the 'instincts' and processes we still have from
>> > our evolutionary past. 'Reason' is a very new phenomenon
>> > evolutionarily speaking, perhaps our neurobiology needs to be
>> > altered in some way to promote it and preserve it.
>
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> I have some illegal mushrooms that may do the job.
>
>Heh. :)
>rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
>> Seriously, I don't think anything needs changing. A child who is
>> taught to reason from an early age has no problems at all. It's just
>> that if reason is not nurtured then it collapses which is what we see
>> all around us in society.
>
>Oh, I agree entirely.
>
><snip>
>--
>Dr. Necrophage
>
>'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
> it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Robert Chapman
<os...@netlabs.net> wrote:
> Robert Chapman wrote:
> >
> > It is unfortunate that I have to agree with you completely. Many accept
> > irrationally a philosophy devoted to reason.
>
> There's a cute little bit of irony for you. I accept the tenets
> of Rand as far as my reason tells me they can be accepted. I've
> only read Atlas and Anthem, so am probably ignorant on some of
> the finer points of the formal philosophy. However, to read
> Atlas and accept that reason is a complete epistemological
> device begs the question of what, precisely, defines reason.
The nature of fiction is that it's not going to provide precise
dictionary-like definitions. Her non-fiction is far better if you want to
know her philosophy. Anthem can easily be completely misinterpreted,
Atlas to a lesser degree but neither are completely explicit.
> I don't know how she defined it, so unfortunately I cannot
> comment intelligently. MY definition of reason has always
> been linked closely to formal logic and empirical method.
> If so narrow a definition was indeed Rand's definition, then
> I'd have to say she was out of her mind in this respect. I
The definition isn't that narrow. Reason is the faculty that identifies
and integrates the material from man's senses. It transforms sensory data
into concepts. So any logical conceptual identification of an aspect of
reality is an application of reason.
> have lived far too many experiences where this narrow definition
> of reason was wholly lacking in sufficiency for rendering a
> meaningful understanding of some given event.
>
> For me, reason is a VERY powerful tool which enables one to learn
> and understand certain classes of objects, events, relationships,
> etc. I also think that this accounts for an extremely broad
> body of possibilities, but NOT ALL. Rand rants against what
> she has termed as "mystics". I cannot agree fully with the
> opinion. I DO fully agree that mystics (priests, saddhus etc.)
> who have had what we may conversationally term "corrupt agendas"
> have used mystical mumbo jumbo to trick people into doing their
Essentially all religion is mumbo jumbo, since they are all arbitrary and
therefore require faith - belief without evidence.
> bidding. THey have either used fear or hope or both to commit
> their fraud. This does NOT prove that mystical experience is
> not valid; that it has no basis in reality.
Well on what basis would you hold that it *does* have a basis in reality?
> I DO agree with Rand that many people overly rely on mysticism
> and attribute mystical causes to things and events that do not
> merit it. This is, as far as I can see, largely due to the fact
> that it's a lot easier to live this way than to use your brain in
> a structured and disciplined manner. It's a lot easier for a
> doctor to say your cancer is an act of God, oh well... than to
> engage in a proper medical analysis of the particular form of
> cancer and then take steps to treat it.
Right. Religion is largely an avoidance of having to think, to use
reason. It's an illusion so that reality can to some degree be ignored.
> > They have no idea what it
> > really is. It's sad to say that on the few occasions I have visited
> > alt.philosophy.objectivism I have yet to find anyone who understands
> > Objectivism at all, instead I've seen statement after statement in total
> > error, principles warped, belief in God, etc. This seems to me something
> > of an American problem, America is unusually religious and nationalistic
> > and this causes great harm to the power of reason (holding God, the nation
> > or the Founding fathers as an absolute good) and leads to what you
> > describe where you have the substitute of 'worshipping' Ayn Rand.
>
> For me the problem is not that they are religious, it is that
> the form of religion is so twisted and corrupt as to utterly
All religions are philosophically corrupt. Even the nicest, mildest form
of religion can be shown up as evil. Trace them back to their core
beliefs and there's always something nasty lurking.
> amaze me. As for nationalism, I see no problem there at all.
> Nationalism doesn't have to become a fascistic abberation.
> Maintaining a strong sense of national identity CAN be a good
I think a definition of national identity is required. If you mean simply
individuals who share real common values then fine, but nationalism refers
to a type of collectivism of the group. Defining people according to the
group not only distorts reality but leads to all kinds of other ills.
> thing. Unfortunately, there appears to exist a seemingly endless
> supply of do-gooder jerkoffs (Hitler was a prime example) who
I've never heard Hitler called a do-gooder before!
> think they know the better, gentler way and are prepared to
> slaughter countless numbers of people in order to have it as
> they see fit.
> >
> > Well I'm certainly not alone at all. Talk to people who understand
> > Objectivism and you might be willing to be called an Objectivist.
>
> Perhaps you could expound a bit and educate this largely ignorant
> soul? Ooops... I said "soul"... have I sinned? Ooops I said "sin"...
I'm OK with the word soul, as long as it equates with the word
consciousness and you take away any arbitrary ideas of the supernatural
that normally get tagged on. I also have no quarrel with the phrase
'Jesus Christ!' if you trip over on the sidewalk, as long as it's not a
genuine appeal.
> > Rand would not have asked that you agree on faith.
>
> I don't think there is ONE true point of view. Anyone that
> asserts that there is is no better than the inquisitor who
> burns you at the stake for holding beliefs not in line with
> those of the church.
What if you assert there is one true *reality*, rather than one true point
of view?
Meaning that the computer screen you are reading this line on definitely
exists, independent of human perception of it, despite anyone's claims to
the contrary.
> > We can't saw that the law of identity is true?
>
> A=A?
Yes.
> > You can't say you have a consciousness?
> > We can't say that existence exists?
>
> Sure. At least *I* can. These appear to all be very fundamental
> concepts, rooted in physical reality. Well enough. I'm not
> sure there are too many people that would argue that the train
> bearing down on you will make you go <splat> if you don't get out
> of the way. But as you begin to build more abstract concepts,
> it appears that you can become widely divorced from that very
> primitive and seemingly unarguable physical truth (like <splat>)
> where the very nature of abstraction appears to bring you to
> a place where objective truth disappears into a fog of opinion.
Depends on if you build your concepts rationally. The process you
describe has to have had an arbitrary added at some point, this is the
mark of modern philosophy but not of Objectivism.
> Look at particle physics. The great abstraction that is,
> ironically in my opinion, being called the "grand unifying
> theory" is in hot debate. Why? Because it is far from our
> hard wired senses. Some physicists like super string theory,
> and others like vanilla. Who's right? The proof doesn't exist.
> And by what standard is that proof determined? How do you know
> that your standard of proof is correct? Reason? Maybe.
Reality is the arbiter when it comes to proof. *Hard verifiable evidence*
is how reality makes it's view known. As you say the proof doesn't exist
here, so it's hard to criticise what is merely a hypothesis. What is
going on here is that reason is being applied to observations to try to
deduce a theory. But science requires evidence from reality before it can
become properly scientific. It is not possible to say any grand unifying
theory is correct simply by an appeal to reason, reality is the arbiter
and it has yet to make it's case on the matter.
> It's hard to argue <splat>, but easier to argue which wine is
"better".
Well the 'better' is subjective, not because reality or consciousness is
subjective but because individuals judging have differing senses of
taste.
> > Evolution is easily proven (analysis of bacteria for example shows it
> > occuring), why would you not accept it if the proof is there?
>
> Because I find it nearly impossible to believe that it
> can account for something which is very mysterious: life.
Evolution doesn't. The theory of how life started is abiogenesis. It has
given us a fairly good understanding of how given certain conditions life
will form from non-life. Lab experiments have shown different stages but
of course never in totality. Still, I predict we'll be creating life from
non-life within a generation.
> I believe in the value of reason. The proof if it's power
> is all around us. To not see it it so be blind or wilfully
> stoopid. But reason does NOT explain WHY the sky is blue
> or what is the findamental nature of life itself. It can
Essentially, after reading further below, your reference to the subjective
comes down simply to the old question of why we are here and why is the
universe here. Would that be fair to say?
Well I would say the universe is what it is. It exists, there's nothing
else. To say what's the meaning of the universe is to drop the context
inherent in the idea of 'meaning'. I think the word only means anything
GIVEN the existence of *man*, and thus the universe.
So asking this question is equivalent to pondering 1/0. Just how many
zeros are there in 1? Or why is life valuable? Because the word value
means nothing without the concept of life. So all these questions are
invalid.
Reason however IS devoted to studying the fundamental nature of life
itself - this gigantic quest is also known as the science of biology. And
in fact we may discover what makes the sky blue as well. As long as
science continues we are always going to be discovering more about the
universe. However the question of why the universe exists can never be
answered and nor will it ever make a valid question.
> only address the physical in that regard. It cannot explain
> the SUBJECTIVE aspect. And for reason to fail to recognize
> the subjective would be, well, unreasonable. It is there;
> we experience it all the time; reason has not viable
> explanation that I've ever seen. It is mystical;
I'd be interested to know how you define mystical in this context.
> transcendental... and I see absolutely not conflict between
> the two. Different aspects of the same coin.
>
> > Exactly true, I couldn't agree more.
>
> Yessir. The true horror of it all is the candy coating that it
> is given. It appears so innocent; so RIGHT to so many people.
> That is what really scares me because the mass of medicrity is
> a machine that is almost impossible to defeat.
And the idea of democracy has conditioned people to think that the
majority view is always correct, moral and best in any issue so there's no
reason to change.
> > reason is useless and man is helpless. Post Modernism is the latest
> > version of this, with such ideas as, in art, the universe is meaningless
> > so why not just play around with nonsense? This is an indication of the
> > way philosophy has embraced *amorality*, just pick any morality, they're
> > all equal. The filtering down to the man on the street of this
> > destruction of morality is what turns the sheep of the school system,
> > created as you say by collectivism, into Columbine killers.
>
> Could well be. But another problem I have is with the concept
> of "morality", at least as it is used today. I consider myself
> "amoral". Morality has come to mean a code of ethics that is
I would say that the mob view of morality is irrelevant. Which is not to
say morality is irrelevant. Morality is necessary so you can have general
principles to make decisions.
> imposed upon the individual from without because that which is
> within is inherently evil. That's so Christian/Muslim. Dunno
> if Jews think this way. Though the roots come from Judaism I
> see it possible that the POV of inherently evil humans may have
> resulted from an error in understanding the Hebrew text, or a
> purposeful reinterpretation designed to crush peoples' self image.
>
> People, it seems to me, are largely disposed to peaceful living.
> I believe that the mechanism for good living is born into us and
> that our choice to live like wretches occurs mostly as a result
> of the bullshit ideas that we are fed throughout our lives. If
> that mechanism for living well can be called moral, then I suppose
> I am a moral being.
>
> > Take a look at the relationship of philosophy to history and you might
> > change your mind.
>
> Care to elaborate?
Well it's a huge subject. Some of the best places to analyse it are
Christian philosophy compared to Christian history.
the 12th century Renaissance to see the effect of philosophy's
introduction of reason.
the effect of Enlightenment philosophy on creating the Industrial Revolution.
comparison of the philosophy behind the founding of the USA (John Locke)
compared to the result of it's glorious beginnings.
I think one of the most interesting periods is the long gradual history of
the abandoning of reason starting from Immanual Kant, leading in politics
to militarism and WW1, in music to atonality, in painting to abstract art,
in science to quantum physics, to Freudian psychology, etc. Various
histories of philosophy and of art provide many clues and can at times be
quite explicit.
To give another example, if the philosophers say that life on earth is
evil and nasty people believe it, witness the Dark Ages where no average
person on the street would feel guiltless about achieving earthly
happiness. Look at the change in history as soon as people began (due to
the prodding of philosphers) to take their happiness as their moral goal -
around the Enlightenment.
> > Here's where Ayn Rand has provided what is IMO her greatest contribution.
> > Greatly simplified: she asks *why* does man need morality? Answer - to
> > know how to make decisions, to know how to live. Morality relates to the
> > *individual* and is determined by reality - the nature of man. Man is
> > different to other animals because of his faculty of reason.
>
> Hmmm... Who's to say animals have no reason? It may not be the
> same flavor as human reasoning, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
> exist. Perhaps this is nothing more than a question of semantics.
Well it's quite important. Objectivism identifies three types of
consciousness.
Sensation - the *automatic* reaction of a sense organ to outside stimuli.
This is as far as plants get.
Perception - the ability to retain sensations. This gives the ability to
identify entities. This is as far as all animals, bar humans, get.
Conception - the integration of multiple perceptual concretes through
identification of a common unity / definition. This is a process of
abstraction. It leads to identifying relationships, differences and
similarities, making deductions and combining created concepts with new
perceptual data. Conception is not automatic as sensation and perception
are. And conceptualising is really a synonym for reason. Only humans
have this faculty and it's our tool of survival.
Rob
Robert Chapman
<dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I cut things up a little bit to save space/bandwidth
So will I.
<snip>
> Basically the question I had were the same ones I asked you about just
> what is meant by 'certainty' and certain epistemological questions I
> have about the whole Aristotilian (as it appears to me ) basis behind
> it. Just what do you mean by 'identity' in the context of real existing
> things? If everything is but a matrix of atoms and electomagnetic
> feilds what beyond statements of chemical composition or (in the case of
> organic organisms) genetic make up, etc. can 'identity' really be? The
A recognition that CO2 has different characteristics to C and O2.
Different combinations of the basic elements of the universe act in
different identifiable ways.
> *words* we use for things cannot constitute their real *identity* since
> different human organisms use the words they learn from the culure they
> are raised in. The real thing we *call* a 'chair' and the *words* (or
> mathematics) we use to lable or describe it are not the *same* thing.
Right. Identity is absolutely nothing to do with labels since reality
exists independent of us.
> The shapes a 'thing' has are incidental, even atoms can be manipulated
> by chemical reactions. Where is this 'identity?' Aristotle proposed a
> kind of 'essence' to things in a very Platonic manner, but instead of
> placing the 'real' outside of things, Aristiotle put them inside of
> things, like 'souls.' I don't see how anything even like this can be
> examined under laboratory conditions. No 'identities' for things are
> seen under the Electron microscope, just molecules and atoms. Where is
> the 'identity' of a thing located?
Well first of all it's not a Platonic concept (or related to Aristotle's
imaginary 'essence'), it's not some characteristic that has a separate
kind of existence to the object. Identity refers to things having
specific characteristics. There are many things an atom of carbon can do
that an atom of argon cannot. Argon cannot act like carbon. Identity is
a recognition of this, a recognition that everything in reality is
something definable. There is an order to reality, it is not an
indefinable mess and this order is related to entities of all kinds.
If objects *didn't* have identity all events in the universe would appear
miraculous. We wouldn't have been able to manipulate them to form houses,
space shuttles and cameras. How would we have built a wooden house if
wood didn't have certain fixed characteristics. These characteristics are
it's identity. We may not have an absolutely full knowledge of wood but
it's identity is independent of our knowledge since the universe exists
independent of our consciousness. Does this get the idea across?
Identity as a word can mean so many things that it takes some time to
narrow it's definition.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Metaphysics as in the study of the nature of existence, the very first
> > questions of philosophy. The first is is existence real or an
> > illusion? Objectivism says that existence exists - that existence is
> > real, it is what it is and it is made up of real entities that all
> > have an identity/nature (a particular distinctive way of acting,
> > whether it's an electron, a tree or a light wave),
>
> This goes to my question above. What does 'distinctive way of acting '
> *mean?* If 'trees' are composed of 'electrons' and 'light waves' of
> photons how is 'identity' the right concept here? If 'X' particle
> behaves in 'y' manner under conditions 'T,' are is not its behaviors
> conditioned by the circumstsances they are observed under?
>
> How does 'particular distinctive way of acting' amount to 'identity?' I
> do not think that the behavior of particles is the same under all
> circumstances, in fact many particles decay or transform over time to
> become other particles, where is the 'identity?' If all you mean to say
There's an identity in the way that an electron will never suddenly become
a carbon atom. A car will never turn straight into an aeroplane. The
fact that wood changes form when burned is due to the identity of it's
constituent particles. The point is that entities have definite
characteristics (which are there independent of our recognition of them).
I'll accept this. I would say though that experiencing reality without
relation to our consciousness is an irrelevant, impossible wish. As
pointless as wondering what it's like to be a racoon. We have our
consciousness to interpret reality and that's it. And there's no-one
alive who doesn't have to practically accept this.
> I'm not a solipsist. I do, however still have a bone to pick with
> 'identity.'
You accept identity every day of your life when you put a telephone to
your ear rather than look blankly at it not knowing what to do with it or
whether to flee in panic. It's impossible not to accept the Objectivist
sense of identity in your practical life.
> > So Objectivism holds these as absolutely true. Would you agree with
> > this, given that you agree that there is a real objective physical
> > reality?
>
> As I say above, I have certain 'quibbles' with the specifics about
> 'identity.' I also question if 'real reality' is 'axiomatic' in this
> way. I tend to look at 'real reality' as a dynamic 'fluid' system, a
> 'chaotic' one if you will (as per 'chaos mathematics') with the 'laws'
> and other 'fundemental' forces being it's 'strange attractors.' The
> events which occur within 'real reality' may be bounded by certain
> 'facts,' but I don't see that any of the specific outcomes are
> predeterminable through the application of axiomatic logic. If we could
I don't understand what you're trying to say with this sentence.
> figure out *all* of the variables and 'laws' existant at the start of
> the entire proccess we may come close, but I do not see how we can get
> to that point. I think this also applies to your (and others) feelings
> about quantum physics being 'not right' somehow. We appear to be
To take the most famous example of all, do you think a cat can be dead and
alive at the exact same time?
If you accept that A=A and A<>nonA then you have to reject the Kantian
view of reality in the cat example and quantum physics along with it.
> 'missing something.' I am not willing to ascribe 'certainty,' much less
> 'absolute certainty, to any a priori axiomatic system, as I do not think
> we are in possession of sufficient information at this time to do
> anything of the kind. I stick with 'highly probable, etc.'
>
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > 'Total knowledge' if I interpret it correctly is something that could
> > be lifetimes away, to totally understand a chair would be to know
> > everything inside the atoms it is made up of and there may be smaller
> > particles we are not yet aware of. In order to function then we have
> > to hold knowledge as *conceptually correct*.
>
> How is this any different from the concept that our models are
> incomplete, but *usefull* at this time and subject to change or
> disposal when futher/better information is aquired?
Well the word 'useful' is completely open to equivocation. Conceptually
correct refers to a determination of the truth in a subject and
communicates the extent of this truth (conceptual, but not necessarily
absolute). 'Useful' and 'better information' and 'models incomplete' (in
what sense? you could ask) is neither here nor there.
I'll start a new thread on the question of physics so that this post
doesn't get too long.
<snip comments to other post>
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > I think you have to highlight the difference between a scientific
> > model/theory and hard scientific knowledge. That medicine states that
> > blood is pumped through your body by your heart is a certain fact.
> >
> > You are refering to the theories but not the 99% of science which is
> > hard unchanging scientific fact.
>
> That may be true, but are not the more important issues currently under
> debate in that 1%? We may be able to ignore that large percentage of
Of course, why would we debate that which we already have full proof
of?!! The fully proved ideas are the ones that are the result of science,
hypotheses are simply science's work in progress. To reasonably criticise
science involves criticising what has been proven, not pointing out when
someone has stated a hypotheses that proves to be wrong.
> things we have very good and regular knowlege about, but if we come to
> that 1% (which I actually feel is a much larger % given especially lots
> of the latest astonomical discoveries that discomfort some of the
> knowlege we thought 'certain' in that relm.) with the pre set idea that
> we already know what to expect of it, how are we to actually *learn*
> anything?
When did I suggest that? Our knowledge should always be derived from
verifiable evidence.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > Postmodernists would not appreciate your questions! These
> > philosophies are all the same, they work by not defining anything
> > precisely. The word 'meaning' can have whatever meaning you want to
> > give it and they certainly don't want to derive it either! They just
> > start by picking things out of thin air.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're on about here.
Just saying that they don't define meaning because it would take their
theory apart.
> I think that the word
> 'meaning' applies to things humans create or do ('words,' symbols,
> 'art,' etc. all have 'meanings' assigned to them more or less
> arbitrarily according to human caprice), but that the term does not
> apply to the actual physical stuff of the universe which simply exists.
> There is no 'meaning' in a sunset other then the 'meaning' applied to
> it by human feelings and consciousness. A certain class of human
> endevors (namely science) is devoted to observing that stuff and seeing
> how it works and deriving principles from those observations so as to
> further that understanding, to that end those who engage in 'Science'
> have developed a specialized language of termonology that requires
> precise definitions so that others my easily utilize the knowlege
> gained from experimental observation. Since mathematics has proven
> rigorous and effective at accomplishing this task, it is the best and
> most used language used in scientific discourse. 'Meaning' does not
> seem to apply to anything science does.
You're right, but this leads to saying science does has meaning in the
sense of how it affects people.
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > I do see another saving mechanism though. Private education.
> > Education (of all types) is the direct way of communicating philosophy
> > (indirect means lead to the fusing of contradictory ideas) and private
> > education means philosophies can compete on a fair playing field.
>
> I agree entirely, there needs to be a very radical increase in the
> number of nonreligious private educational institutions, though. This
I mean private as in really private. Real freedom in education. No
government involvement at all. Current 'private' schools are anything but
private.
> 'voucher' buisness in the US is kind of scary, as much as I dislike the
> 'public indoctrination centers,' shipping lots of students into
> religious schools will only make matters worse IMHO.
It equates to do you want cyanide or hemlock?
> rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > How could a rational person challenge the right of copyright for
> > instance? Man has the right to property so that he may further his
> > life by the use of reason. Copyright protects a man's right to the
> > fruits of his use of reason. It must therefore be a valid form of
> > property right.
>
> Sure, there are going to be some basic agreements, I do not doubt that.
>
> > Real Objectivists agree on the derivations of everything substantive,
> > the areas of disagreement, and certainly yes there is disagreement,
> > come down to very minor issues. If you can think of important areas
> > that you think may cause divergence I would be interested to know.
>
> Well, one of my disagreements is the need for and the overall
> 'legitimacy' of the State. Is a so-called 'government' a necessary
> thing, or is it simply an archaic tool of oppression, and force used to
> keep one group of individuals in power over another. I am very much the
Right now it is.
> anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) and as such I do not think that
> 'government' has a rational or 'legitimate' role in the affairs of free
> beings. No use of force, other then that to preserve ones life or (in
> some cases property) is 'legitimate.' 'Government' is entirely a
> creature of force.
Right, governent is the legitimized use of force. Objectivism holds that
government should only exist to protect individual rights from violations,
nothing more. That it is man's rational creation of a method to ensure
and protect his freedom. So that gives you a police force, justice system
and defence (to protect individual rights from foreign attack).
BTW funding of the government would be voluntary, based on individual
self-interest in protecting one's own rights. There's also been talk of a
government-run lottery as a form of financing.
Rob
Robert Chapman
<os...@netlabs.net> wrote:
> Robert Chapman wrote:
>
> > So there are 3 axioms of metaphysics -
> > existence exists (A=A)
> > everything in reality has an identity
> > man receives info on existence/reality through his consciousness
>
> I see #1 and #3, but #2 is not obvious to me. Perhaps
> I do not understand the precise definition of indentity.
> Are you say that all things have a label? Or do you mean
> that all things are themselves (reflexive quality)? If
> the former, I would really appreciate the reasoning behind
> the assertion. If the latter, then I'm clear, and in
> full agreement. Please forgive me if I've been a dolt.
Hopefully my reply to Dr Necro will answer your question. Reply to that
post if you like.
Rob
Daniel Hugh Nexon
> The definition isn't that narrow. Reason is the faculty that identifies
> and integrates the material from man's senses. It transforms sensory data
> into concepts. So any logical conceptual identification of an aspect of
> reality is an application of reason.
This definition is so broad as to be virtually meaningless: reason is the
ability to abstract from sense-experience to generalizations? It does
exclude concepts like "pure reason," however, which begs the question of
"why?"
Furthermore, defining reason as "logic" is pretty close to a tautology;
and uneccesary to the first part of your definition. Identification and
integration of sense-experience need not be consistent, logical, or many
of the other proposed synonyms for reason.
I think you need to do more to answer "Demon Bhudda's" question.
> Essentially all religion is mumbo jumbo, since they are all arbitrary and
> therefore require faith - belief without evidence.
While I'm all in favor of reason, it is also the case that it cannot be
justified in-of-itself in non-circular, i.e. irrational, terms. Thus, to
embrace reason (in any defintional form) requires an act of faith.
> Meaning that the computer screen you are reading this line on definitely
> exists, independent of human perception of it, despite anyone's claims to
> the contrary.
Who claims this, besides certain 'sophists' and college sophomores on
drugs? After all, even so-called "postmodernists" don't deny that
*existance* is independent of human perception.
> Reality is the arbiter when it comes to proof. *Hard verifiable evidence*
> is how reality makes it's view known.
Popper demonstrated that no theory can be verified. What do you mean by
"hard verifiable evidence?"
> the effect of Enlightenment philosophy on creating the Industrial Revolution.
> comparison of the philosophy behind the founding of the USA (John Locke)
Nitpick. It is very easy to overemphasize the importance of Locke among a
constelltion of other theorists.
>
> I think one of the most interesting periods is the long gradual history of
> the abandoning of reason starting from Immanual Kant....
This is the standard objectivist line, but I've never understood the logic
(and I've waded through Rand on this). I've also always thought this
argument stunk of radical idealism.....
> To give another example, if the philosophers say that life on earth is
> evil and nasty people believe it, witness the Dark Ages where no average
> person on the street would feel guiltless about achieving earthly
> happiness. Look at the change in history as soon as people began (due to
> the prodding of philosphers) to take their happiness as their moral goal -
> around the Enlightenment.
The idea that individual happiness is a moral goal traces at least as far
back at Epicurus, not to mention Aristotle and Plato (although the meaning
here is rather different). I'm not sure why you date this at the
Enlightenment or why you think this is a central message of "Enlightenment
morality," most of which did not privilidge individual happiness as the
most important moral goal.
> Conception - the integration of multiple perceptual concretes through
> identification of a common unity / definition. This is a process of
> abstraction. It leads to identifying relationships, differences and
> similarities, making deductions and combining created concepts with new
> perceptual data. Conception is not automatic as sensation and perception
> are. And conceptualising is really a synonym for reason. Only humans
> have this faculty and it's our tool of survival.
There is no reason to believe many non-human animals do not possess this
quality.... although I certainly don't doubt my dog's capacity for
conception is more limited than mine.
Why is this schema unique to objectivism?
Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
"Evolution is to allegory as statues are to birdshit. It is a convenient
platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas." --Steve Jones, NYRB,
July 17, 1997, p. 39
Dr. Necrophage
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I cut things up a little bit to save space/bandwidth
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:3
> So will I.
Ok, I did it again.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Basically the question I had were the same ones I
> > asked you about just what is meant by 'certainty' and
> > certain epistemological questions I have about the > >
whole Aristotilian (as it appears to me ) basis behind
> > it. Just what do you mean by 'identity' in the
> > context of real existing things? If everything is but
a > > matrix of atoms and electomagnetic feilds what
beyond > > statements of chemical composition or (in the
case of
> > organic organisms) genetic make up, etc. can
'identity' > > really be?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> A recognition that CO2 has different characteristics
> to C and O2. Different combinations of the basic
elements > of the universe act in different identifiable
ways.
Well, if the concept is limited in this way, that makes
sense, I can agree with this.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > *words* we use for things cannot constitute their
> > real *identity* since different human organisms use
the > > words they learn from the culure they are raised
in. > > The real thing we *call* a 'chair' and the
*words* (or > > mathematics) we use to lable or describe
it are not
> > the *same* thing.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Right. Identity is absolutely nothing to do with
> labels since reality exists independent of us.
Ok.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > The shapes a 'thing' has are incidental, even atoms
> > can be manipulated by chemical reactions. Where is >
> this 'identity?' Aristotle proposed a kind of > >
'essence' to things in a very Platonic manner, but > >
instead of placing the 'real' outside of things, > >
Aristiotle put them inside of things, like 'souls.' I > >
don't see how anything even like this can be examined > >
under laboratory conditions. No 'identities' for > >
things are seen under the Electron microscope, just > >
molecules and atoms. Where is the 'identity' of a > >
thing located?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Well first of all it's not a Platonic concept (or
> related to Aristotle's imaginary 'essence'), it's not >
some characteristic that has a separate kind of existence
> to the object. Identity refers to things having specific
> characteristics. There are many things an atom of carbon
> can do that an atom of argon cannot. Argon cannot act
> like carbon. Identity is a recognition of this, a >
recognition that everything in reality is something >
definable. There is an order to reality, it is not an >
indefinable mess and this order is related to entities of
> all kinds. If objects *didn't* have identity all events
> in the universe would appear miraculous. We wouldn't >
have been able to manipulate them to form houses, space >
shuttles and cameras. How would we have built a wooden >
house if wood didn't have certain fixed characteristics. >
These characteristics are it's identity. We may not have
> an absolutely full knowledge of wood but it's identity
> is independent of our knowledge since the universe exists
> independent of our consciousness. Does this get the idea
> across? Identity as a word can mean so many things that
> it takes some time to narrow it's definition.
Thank you for taking that time. This is about the best
explaination I have gotten of the concept from an person
calling themselves 'objectivist' and I can agree with all
of the points you made.
< snip >
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Aristotle's A=A and > A<>non-A. To add to this,
> > > man has consciousness through which he can discover
> > > this real reality.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > But while we do interact with a 'real reality' all
> > we *know* about it is our memories of the sense > >
impressions that occured in that interaction. Before > >
'we' know anything it takes time for it to route > >
through the brain and be catagorized and identified > >
before appearing in our consciousness. In this process >
> as well as by the limited nature of our sensory organs,
> > information about the event is lost. Our memories of
> > events are also faulty and very much subject to the >
> manipulation of our expectations, desires, emotions and
> > other factors. I think that the Scientific Method and
> > logic and repeated experiment are tools we have > >
developed over time to eliminate as much of the above > >
distortions as possible and come as close as possible > >
to overcomming the limitations of our senses so as to > >
increase the efficacy and reliablity of the knowlege
> > we have about 'real reality.' I think that 'real
> > reality' may be approached very closely by means of
the > > proper scientific models, but I do not think we
can > > really *experience* 'real reality' in some kind of
> > 'pure' unaltered form or be able to 'describe' it even
> > if we did.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I'll accept this. I would say though that experiencing
> reality without relation to our consciousness is an >
irrelevant, impossible wish. As pointless as wondering >
what it's like to be a racoon.
This issue has been a bone of contention between myself and
an 'objectivist' person of my aquaintence. He insists that
there is no mediation of information from events in 'real
realiy' and what we percieve (he basically states that its
not 'what we see is what we get,' but that 'what we see is
all there *is* to get.')
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> We have our consciousness to interpret reality and
that's > it. And there's no-one alive who doesn't have to
> practically accept this.
I agree.
< snip >
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > figure out *all* of the variables and 'laws'
> > existant at the start of the entire proccess we may >
> come close, but I do not see how we can get to that > >
point. I think this also applies to your (and others) > >
feelings about quantum physics being 'not right' > >
somehow. We appear to be
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> To take the most famous example of all, do you think a
> cat can be dead and alive at the exact same time?
I thought that the idea was that we cannot *predict* with
certainty whether the cat would be alive or dead. That we
cannot find out just what 'state' the cat is in (alive or
dead) untill we actually open the box and look. I don't
see anyu problem with the idea that our models cannot
necessarily predict events with certainty. Probablistic
models seem to *work* well enough (we can make TV's, etc),
I do not doubt, though that perhaps our knowlege is
currently incomplete and that a Unified theory may be found
(perhaps Superstrings). I do not se any reason to reject
in an a priori manner any probablistic model of physics,
especially if it produces results.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > 'Total knowledge' if I interpret it correctly is
> > > something that could be lifetimes away, to totally
> > > understand a chair would be to know everything inside
> > > the atoms it is made up of and there may be smaller
> > > particles we are not yet aware of. In order to > >
> function then we have to hold knowledge as > > >
*conceptually correct*.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > How is this any different from the concept that our
> > models are incomplete, but *usefull* at this time and
> > subject to change or disposal when futher/better > >
information is aquired?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Well the word 'useful' is completely open to
> equivocation. Conceptually correct refers to a >
determination of the truth in a subject and communicates >
the extent of this truth (conceptual, but not necessarily
> absolute). 'Useful' and 'better information' and
> 'models incomplete' (in what sense? you could ask) is >
neither here nor there.
Well, I (try to)use the term 'useful' in a very
operational manner. If we can produce 'x' effect by using
theory 't,' then it's 'useful.' If another theory 't1'
comes along that produces the same results, but does so
more efficiently, then we are justified in abandoning 't'
and using 't1' instead. I don't think the term 'truth' is
either helpfull or explanitory in science. I don't see how
we can say a 'rock' for instance is 'true' or 'false,' it
simply *is.* Our scientific observations can tell us lots
of facts about the 'rock' and those facts can be used as
the foundation for theoretical models of to what uses the
'rock' may be put (if it contains certain elements usefull
in certain industries, etc.). The definition of 'truth'
becomes an issue here. *Statements* about a 'rock' may be
either 'true' or 'false,'(i.e. If I *say* it is 'blue,'or
on fire or some such,) but the 'rock' itself simply exists
or does not exist, with whatever features we *observe* it
to have. 'True' or 'false' do not seem to apply to the
'rock' itself.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> I'll start a new thread on the question of physics so
> that this post doesn't get too long.
Sounds good to me.
< snip >
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > things we have very good and regular knowlege about,
> > but if we come to that 1% (which I actually feel is a
> > much larger % given especially lots of the latest > >
astonomical discoveries that discomfort some of the > >
knowlege we thought 'certain' in that relm.) with the > >
pre set idea that we already know what to expect of it, >
> how are we to actually *learn* anything?
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> When did I suggest that? Our knowledge should always
> be derived from verifiable evidence.
Well, it seemed to me that your statements about quantum
physics were based on a presupposition about how things
*should* or *must* work. I took this to mean that since
'causal' events under it do not operate as they 'should'
operate that this 'should' was a statement implying that QP
cannot be right and therefore 'should not' work. But it
does work, and does appear to be based on observation as
much as on 'theory.' If I am incorrect about this
assesment, I appologize.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Postmodernists would not appreciate your
> > > questions! These philosophies are all the same,
they > > > work by not defining anything precisely. The
word > > > 'meaning' can have whatever meaning you want to
give > > > it and they certainly don't want to derive it
either! > > > They just start by picking things out of
thin air.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > I'm not quite sure what you're on about here.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Just saying that they don't define meaning because it
> would take their theory apart.
Ok.
Dr. Necrophage wrote some stuff about 'meaning.'
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> You're right, but this leads to saying science does
> has meaning in the sense of how it affects people.
Ok, in that regard, people cab ascribe a 'meaning' to
science in the same way they do to other human activities.
< snip >
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> > > Real Objectivists agree on the derivations of
> > > everything substantive, the areas of disagreement,
> > > and certainly yes there is disagreement, come down to
> > > very minor issues. If you can think of important >
> > areas that you think may cause divergence I would be >
> > interested to know.
Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Well, one of my disagreements is the need for and
> > the overall 'legitimacy' of the State. Is a so-called
> > 'government' a necessary thing, or is it simply an
> > archaic tool of oppression, and force used to
> > keep one group of individuals in power over another.
> > I am very much the
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Right now it is.
Dr. Necrophage:
> > anarchist (anarcho-capitalist) and as such I do not
> > think that 'government' has a rational or 'legitimate'
> > role in the affairs of free beings. No use of force,
> > other then that to preserve ones life or (in some cases
> > property) is 'legitimate.' 'Government' is entirely a
> > creature of force.
rob...@ihug.co.nz (Robert Chapman) wrote:
> Right, governent is the legitimized use of force.
> Objectivism holds that government should only exist to
> protect individual rights from violations, nothing more.
> That it is man's rational creation of a method to ensure
> and protect his freedom. So that gives you a police
> force, justice system and defence (to protect individual
> rights from foreign attack). BTW funding of the >
government would be voluntary, based on individual >
self-interest in protecting one's own rights. There's >
also been talk of a government-run lottery as a form of >
financing.
I feel that all of the 'government' activities you mention
could easily be provided by private business concerns,
especially under a system of really free market economics.
I don't see the position you mention as being too far from
this. There are many solid anarcho-capitalist arguments in
support of the protection of freedom and security under a
system of private enterprise. I do not have Economist
David Friedman's URL handy, but his book The Machinery of
Freedom, as well as his site ( try looking it up by
searching on the book +/or his name -there are a lot of
David Friedman's out there to slog through) he has a lot of
interesting information about this subject that I do not
feel fully competent to relate in this format.
Dr. Necrophage
Robert Chapman
<Pine.GSO.4.10.990923...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Daniel
Hugh Nexon <dh...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Robert Chapman wrote:
>
> > The definition isn't that narrow. Reason is the faculty that identifies
> > and integrates the material from man's senses. It transforms sensory data
> > into concepts. So any logical conceptual identification of an aspect of
> > reality is an application of reason.
>
> This definition is so broad as to be virtually meaningless: reason is the
> ability to abstract from sense-experience to generalizations? It does
> exclude concepts like "pure reason," however, which begs the question of
"why?"
First define pure reason exactly then I'll let you know why.
> Furthermore, defining reason as "logic" is pretty close to a tautology;
> and uneccesary to the first part of your definition. Identification and
> integration of sense-experience need not be consistent, logical, or many
> of the other proposed synonyms for reason.
>
> I think you need to do more to answer "Demon Bhudda's" question.
OK it was only a brief description, I should say that reason is man's tool
to identify and deal with reality, so it involves a process of always
linking your knowledge back to reality and testing it
(scientifically/logically) against reality. If you are determining
concepts that are supposed to be true then you must have knowledge that
they conform to reality. Reason involves this process of determining
concepts based on verifiable knowledge of reality. How's that?
> > Essentially all religion is mumbo jumbo, since they are all arbitrary and
> > therefore require faith - belief without evidence.
>
> While I'm all in favor of reason, it is also the case that it cannot be
> justified in-of-itself in non-circular, i.e. irrational, terms. Thus, to
> embrace reason (in any defintional form) requires an act of faith.
Not at all. The proof is all around us. The aeroplane, the Internet,
etc. Who needs faith when you have the train and the vaccination for
smallpox as proof? The evidence of reality is behind reason and reality
is the only true arbiter of anything. The only way to have a problem
justifying reason is if you try to consider it in a void, independent of
reality, which of course makes it a nonsense question.
> > Meaning that the computer screen you are reading this line on definitely
> > exists, independent of human perception of it, despite anyone's claims to
> > the contrary.
>
> Who claims this, besides certain 'sophists' and college sophomores on
> drugs? After all, even so-called "postmodernists" don't deny that
> *existance* is independent of human perception.
I've heard the argument countless times. It's the view of Buddhists,
Hegelians, Kantians, quantum physics, etc. There are many views that
either your computer screen isn't there or it exists in some other
completely different form, etc.
> > Reality is the arbiter when it comes to proof. *Hard verifiable evidence*
> > is how reality makes it's view known.
>
> Popper demonstrated that no theory can be verified. What do you mean by
> "hard verifiable evidence?"
This argument of Popper's belongs with solipsism in the realms of
silliness. Reality can give you hard verifiable evidence that -
steel bridges are stronger than cardboard bridges
fridges slow down the growth of bacteria in food
a man cannot fall from a height of 1km onto rocks and survive
if you keep heating water it will boil
steel is a better building material than iron
a man cannot fly completely unaided
Mt Everest is the highest mountain in the world
if a person's arm is chopped off they will bleed
All are obviously provable by verifiable evidence from reality. If anyone
is inclined to disagree they can try the last one as an experiment in the
comfort of their own home.
> > the effect of Enlightenment philosophy on creating the Industrial
Revolution.
> > comparison of the philosophy behind the founding of the USA (John Locke)
>
> Nitpick. It is very easy to overemphasize the importance of Locke among a
> constelltion of other theorists.
Just being brief. The topic is extremely complex.
> > I think one of the most interesting periods is the long gradual history of
> > the abandoning of reason starting from Immanual Kant....
>
> This is the standard objectivist line, but I've never understood the logic
> (and I've waded through Rand on this). I've also always thought this
> argument stunk of radical idealism.....
Well I came to the same conclusion as Rand before I had heard of
Objectivism. Just the histories of philosophy and art over this period
are reasonably explicit.
Why do you say radical idealism?
> > To give another example, if the philosophers say that life on earth is
> > evil and nasty people believe it, witness the Dark Ages where no average
> > person on the street would feel guiltless about achieving earthly
> > happiness. Look at the change in history as soon as people began (due to
> > the prodding of philosphers) to take their happiness as their moral goal -
> > around the Enlightenment.
>
> The idea that individual happiness is a moral goal traces at least as far
> back at Epicurus, not to mention Aristotle and Plato (although the meaning
> here is rather different). I'm not sure why you date this at the
> Enlightenment or why you think this is a central message of "Enlightenment
> morality," most of which did not privilidge individual happiness as the
> most important moral goal.
I don't say it was the central message, it was just at this point that the
religious ideas of a life of suffering as a virtue were finally pushed
aside and the universe came to be seen as understandable and happiness
moral. I'm also talking about the views of the average man not of the
philosopher.
I'll give a different example. If you study Chinese history it's
remarkable to see how much the Chinese have been the victim of unshakeable
ugly traditions and cultural beliefs. The binding of womens' feet would
be a good example, the freedom-destroying heirachy of authority amongst
various family members and concubines another, there were *thousands* of
imprisoning routines for living that had to be followed.
You may well ask WHY has China had a history of being imprisoned in a way
that is so different to the rest of the world. The answer is to be found
rooted in Chinese philosophy. The most famous Chinese philospher is Kong
Zi - also known as Confucius. Let's look at one of philosophy's crucial
questions - how did Confucius define man? What did he give as man's
crucial difference to the other animals? He stated that man is defined by
*ritual*. That's where he gains all sense of value. Through rituals
(rituals from before 1000B.C. incidentally). To abandon ritual would
essentially be suicide or a return to barbarism. Without going into any
more depth I think that says it all. Philosophy and ideas are what cause
history to turn in different directions.
> > Conception - the integration of multiple perceptual concretes through
> > identification of a common unity / definition. This is a process of
> > abstraction. It leads to identifying relationships, differences and
> > similarities, making deductions and combining created concepts with new
> > perceptual data. Conception is not automatic as sensation and perception
> > are. And conceptualising is really a synonym for reason. Only humans
> > have this faculty and it's our tool of survival.
>
> There is no reason to believe many non-human animals do not possess this
> quality.... although I certainly don't doubt my dog's capacity for
> conception is more limited than mine.
There is no animal that has ever been shown to solve conceptual problems.
> Why is this schema unique to objectivism?
It's not.
Rob
Daniel Hugh Nexon
> <Pine.GSO.4.10.990923...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Daniel
> Hugh Nexon <dh...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > This definition is so broad as to be virtually meaningless: reason is the
> > ability to abstract from sense-experience to generalizations? It does
> > exclude concepts like "pure reason," however, which begs the question of
> "why?"
>
> First define pure reason exactly then I'll let you know why.
Sure, but I'm more interested in why this definition of reason has any
real content besides excluding deduction from assumptions generated
purely in the mind.
> > Furthermore, defining reason as "logic" is pretty close to a tautology;
> > and uneccesary to the first part of your definition. Identification and
> > integration of sense-experience need not be consistent, logical, or many
> > of the other proposed synonyms for reason.
> >
> > I think you need to do more to answer "Demon Bhudda's" question.
>
> OK it was only a brief description, I should say that reason is man's tool
> to identify and deal with reality, so it involves a process of always
> linking your knowledge back to reality and testing it
> (scientifically/logically) against reality. If you are determining
> concepts that are supposed to be true then you must have knowledge that
> they conform to reality.
Why? Someone who adopts an instrumental approach to analytical claims may
not care if the content of the analytical concept has any "real"
properties. This is the usual defense, for example, of the "economic man"
assumption in economics.
This, among other reasons, is why defining reason as scientific testing
begs a number of questions -- defining terms through the use of extremely
contested ones isn't all that helpful. If 'reason' is developing
conceptual generalizations from sense-experience and then 'testing' them
via some undefined criteria very little is excluded from the concept.
All this excludes is some forms of reason which focus upon strict
deductions from axioms held in the mind....
> Reason involves this process of determining
> concepts based on verifiable knowledge of reality. How's that?
Paradoxically, it may be both underspecified *and* too restrictive.
Underspecified, because it uses some extremely ambiguous terms and does
not actually define the term. What you've said is that "reason" as a class
"involves" (but is not exclusively composed of) a process of "reasoning,"
and that reasoning is "determining concepts based on verifiable knowledge
of reality." However, what constitutes "verifiable knowledge" and
"reality" (for example) should be subject to rational inquiry, so clearly
you haven't defined reason; rather, you've defined one possible
epistemological stance which may or may not be 'rational.'
> > > Essentially all religion is mumbo jumbo, since they are all arbitrary and
> > > therefore require faith - belief without evidence.
> >
> > While I'm all in favor of reason, it is also the case that it cannot be
> > justified in-of-itself in non-circular, i.e. irrational, terms. Thus, to
> > embrace reason (in any defintional form) requires an act of faith.
>
> Not at all. The proof is all around us. The aeroplane, the Internet,
> etc. Who needs faith when you have the train and the vaccination for
> smallpox as proof?
Why should I care if we have aeroplanes, the internet, trains, and
smallpox vaccinations?
You've just defended reason by appealing to reason: that's, by definition,
a ciricular argument.
The evidence of reality is behind reason and reality
> is the only true arbiter of anything. The only way to have a problem
> justifying reason is if you try to consider it in a void, independent of
> reality, which of course makes it a nonsense question.
?
> > Who claims this, besides certain 'sophists' and college sophomores on
> > drugs? After all, even so-called "postmodernists" don't deny that
> > *existance* is independent of human perception.
>
> I've heard the argument countless times. It's the view of Buddhists,
> Hegelians, Kantians, quantum physics, etc. There are many views that
> either your computer screen isn't there or it exists in some other
> completely different form, etc.
That's not the argument. These are not claims that existance is
independent of human perception, but (in no particular order) that what
that thing is is (1) not independent of human sense-experience, or (2)
dependent upon intersubjective frameworks (e.g. language), or (3) not
adequately known through sense-experience alone, etc. Thus, Kant does not
argue that "reality" does not exist independently of human concepts, but
that we cannot access that reality without prior categories.
> > Popper demonstrated that no theory can be verified. What do you mean by
> > "hard verifiable evidence?"
>
> This argument of Popper's belongs with solipsism in the realms of
> silliness. Reality can give you hard verifiable evidence that -
>
> steel bridges are stronger than cardboard bridges
> fridges slow down the growth of bacteria in food
> a man cannot fall from a height of 1km onto rocks and survive
> if you keep heating water it will boil
> steel is a better building material than iron
> a man cannot fly completely unaided
> Mt Everest is the highest mountain in the world
> if a person's arm is chopped off they will bleed
All of which are theories whose probability of being true remains constant
each time you observe a confirming data point; to paraphrase Hume, this is
why the belief that it will be true the next time requires a leap of
faith.
> > > I think one of the most interesting periods is the long gradual history of
> > > the abandoning of reason starting from Immanual Kant....
> >
> > This is the standard objectivist line, but I've never understood the logic
> > (and I've waded through Rand on this). I've also always thought this
> > argument stunk of radical idealism.....
>
> Well I came to the same conclusion as Rand before I had heard of
> Objectivism. Just the histories of philosophy and art over this period
> are reasonably explicit.
? I'm not following you ?
>
> Why do you say radical idealism?
The idea that what philosophers think, i.e. that they're "ideas" is
causally central to human history.
> > The idea that individual happiness is a moral goal traces at least as far
> > back at Epicurus, not to mention Aristotle and Plato (although the meaning
> > here is rather different). I'm not sure why you date this at the
> > Enlightenment or why you think this is a central message of "Enlightenment
> > morality," most of which did not privilidge individual happiness as the
> > most important moral goal.
>
> I don't say it was the central message, it was just at this point that the
> religious ideas of a life of suffering as a virtue were finally pushed
> aside and the universe came to be seen as understandable and happiness
> moral. I'm also talking about the views of the average man not of the
> philosopher.
Well, I'm not sure how widespread these views were in the Enlightenment,
frankly. Or now. Nor is it clear to me that Christianity turned suffering
into a virtue for many actors in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance; and
you also have to deal with the close relationship between ascetism and the
development of regular linear time (not to mention accounting and
capitalism).
> > I'll give a different example. If you study Chinese history it's
> remarkable to see how much the Chinese have been the victim of unshakeable
> ugly traditions and cultural beliefs. The binding of womens' feet would
> be a good example, the freedom-destroying heirachy of authority amongst
> various family members and concubines another, there were *thousands* of
> imprisoning routines for living that had to be followed.
You sound like JS Mill; anyway, I wouldn't reduce Chinese history to some
form of backwards oriental despotism.
BTW, women in the US inflict all sorts of heinous acts on their bodies...
> You may well ask WHY has China had a history of being imprisoned in a way
> that is so different to the rest of the world. The answer is to be found
> rooted in Chinese philosophy.
Why not say that the answer is rooted in what elements *produced* Chinese
philosophy.
> The most famous Chinese philospher is Kong
> Zi - also known as Confucius.
What about Mohism? Legalism? Taoism? Why single out Confucious just
because he is most 'famous' in the "west"? What about the Chinese
rationalism which produced -- for a proponderence of human history -- the
most advanced (technologically) societies in the world?
> Let's look at one of philosophy's crucial
> questions - how did Confucius define man? What did he give as man's
> crucial difference to the other animals? He stated that man is defined by
> *ritual*. That's where he gains all sense of value.
Sort of. Think about what gives man the capacity for ritual.
> Through rituals
> (rituals from before 1000B.C. incidentally).
Be extremely careful about this. Confucian doctrine is later, and Chinese
history is *far* from uniform both in terms of trajectory and culture.
> To abandon ritual would
> essentially be suicide or a return to barbarism.
Sure. Just like we'd consider people who stopped showering to be declining
into barbarism. Do not underestimate the plethora of rituals we take for
granted.
> Without going into any
> more depth I think that says it all. Philosophy and ideas are what cause
> history to turn in different directions.
Which is highly "idealist" and creates *real* tensions with objectivist
epistemologies.
> > quality.... although I certainly don't doubt my dog's capacity for
> > conception is more limited than mine.
>
> There is no animal that has ever been shown to solve conceptual problems.
I'm not sure what you mean by "conceptual problems." Besides, given that
non-human animals don't speak humanlish, how would we know?
Ken Wood
Daniel Hugh Nexon <dh...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.10.991012...@bonjour.cc.columbia.edu...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Robert Chapman wrote:
> > <Pine.GSO.4.10.990923...@aloha.cc.columbia.edu>, Daniel
> > Hugh Nexon <dh...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> > He stated that man is defined by
> > *ritual*. That's where he gains all sense of value.
>
> Sort of. Think about what gives man the capacity for ritual.
>
<SNIP>
What does give mankind his/her capacity for ritual? It is merely that we
are social beings by evolutionary mandate and find comfort and security in
the 'known'... thus tend to be 'creatures of habit'?
As I've often found myself attracted to 'ritual' in various forms while yet
maintaining [to myself, anyway] my independence of such... I find therein a
dichotomy of terms which are somewhat at odds with one another.
I'd like to know more of your thoughts on the subject, as well as those of
others who may care to chime in.
> Regards, Dan | Columbia Political Science | www.columbia.edu/~dhn2
> "Evolution is to allegory as statues are to birdshit. It is a convenient
> platform upon which to deposit badly digested ideas." --Steve Jones, NYRB,
> July 17, 1997, p. 39
>
TIA,
Ken 'Woody' Wood
<<<>>> [USA Ret., up&down]
To have really lived, you must have almost died.
To those who have fought for it, freedom
has a flavor the protected will never know.
- found anonymously scrawled on a bunker outside of Khe Sahn, RVN
Neither laziness nor complacency are conducive to longevity.
- krw
Tom Gossman
>are social beings by evolutionary mandate and find comfort and security in
>the 'known'... thus tend to be 'creatures of habit'?
>
that we find confusing and those in which we don't want to make decisions.
For example, when someone dies, we have a ritual. When we want to worship
our Supreme Being, we have a ritual. When I don't want to evaluate the
merit of various excuses from my students for missing class or missing
assignments, I set up rules and a procedure (ritual.) Of course, the need
for ritual seems also to arise from our desire to preserve TRADITION!
which, possibly, also is motivated by our desire not to have to make
decisions.
Ken Wood
Tom Gossman <Xgos...@wmich.edu> wrote in message
news:8E673AF6Dgos...@enews.newsguy.com...
> >What does give mankind his/her capacity for ritual? It is merely that we
> >are social beings by evolutionary mandate and find comfort and security
in
> >the 'known'... thus tend to be 'creatures of habit'?
> >
> In part, it seems that resort to ritual is a human response to situations
> that we find confusing and those in which we don't want to make decisions.
> For example, when someone dies, we have a ritual.
I don't disagree but would add I have held the thought that we are
reaffirming ourselves as being yet amongst the living [while at the same
time grieving our loss, in order to 'get over it' and move on] and
reaffirming the social-bonds that exist amongst those of us who still do
live. A comfortability factor [enhancing the perception of safety,
security, and belongingness needs [on at least two 'separate' levels].... a
la A. Maslow].
>When we want to worship
> our Supreme Being, we have a ritual.
In the face of such awsome power as exists within our universe to adversely,
or otherwise, affect our lives, the recognition that there is temporal
strength in numbers, thus the created notion that *we* are doing something
about that arranged in a manner in which diverse individuals can find
consensus... 'easily', thus another comfortability factor. Comfortability
in this sense defined as the alleviation of fear as in apprehension
[foreboding].
>When I don't want to evaluate the
> merit of various excuses from my students for missing class or missing
> assignments, I set up rules and a procedure (ritual.)
Achieving yet another comfortability factor for yourself which you percieve
as being 'more' efficient relative to the instance of your own time, place
and circumstance [albeit it's probably not percieved as being so
'comfortable' to your students! Still, it may 'realize' the benefit of
challenging them to accept more responsibility for themselves and their own
actions and promote a certain degree of efficiency in removing from them the
option of 'wasting time' in making up excuses, eh? 8^)].
Of course, the need
> for ritual seems also to arise from our desire to preserve TRADITION!
Tradition just reeks of the 'known' and 'acceptable'... rendering a more
comfortable state-of-mind.
> which, possibly, also is motivated by our desire not to have to make
> decisions.
>
I'm not so sure whether this is promoted moreso by intellectual laziness or
incipient fear-of-failure. I suspect both, by varying degree, and probably
ignorance as well [ NOT to say stupidity] rendering a certain
incomprehensability on the part of the subject to make a decision. This
latter, I would think must also be largely dependent upon the sum of
'experience' held, or 'owned', by the individual a given point in time,
place, and circumstance [notwithstanding the inherent faculties of the
persona in question]. If a person 'feels' competent to do so, they would
normally make a decision with alacrity [having processed the information
rendering it in more or less time dependent upon the complexity of the issue
involved and the perception of ramifications of a successful outcome].
Thus, it seems to me, that the human beings as social beings capacity for
ritual is manifest of, or as, a survivability factor which has evolved in
the species... as well as promoting, or perpetuating, a certain
susceptability to 'influence' [As in, for only one case, "We need to do this
FOR the children."].
Anthropologically, it seems to me that this characteristic capacity has
existed for as long as we can currently know of it.
Make sense?
Ken Wood
Steven Wright
Gossman <Xgos...@wmich.edu> writes
>>What does give mankind his/her capacity for ritual? It is merely that we
>>are social beings by evolutionary mandate and find comfort and security in
>>the 'known'... thus tend to be 'creatures of habit'?
>>
>In part, it seems that resort to ritual is a human response to situations
>that we find confusing and those in which we don't want to make decisions.
>our Supreme Being, we have a ritual. When I don't want to evaluate the
>decisions.
>
Most people have desire for some sense of stability, and one of the purposes
of ritual seems to be to support this. I think that another possible explanation
is that it simplifies a complex action into ritual proceedures which are well
practiced and well known.
--
Steven Wright
"Attitudes are contagious"
#492