Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zar · 01-12-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
Gurdur, I am flattered you take so much time to make an extensive analysis of all my posts.

Make me think I must be unto something then

No, to the contrary, posts like this make me think you are onto absolutely nothing. Why do you need to use tactics like this?

99Percent · 01-12-2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues
Yeah, I thought so too. Until I realized it was self-referential.

You'd be using unreliable data to try to understand the nature of your unreliable sensory system. You'd be chasing your own tail.

I used to have that doubt too until I realized that reality is logically persistent. That is, it continously confirms the memory of past perceptions. This is very different from for example dreams and hallucinations, where what you once see is not repeated again, and in fact they are very easily forgotten as compared to reality.

Also different senses confirm the perception of the other senses. For example when you reach out and touch a physical object that your eyes are seeing. This confirmation of perception of the different senses make up a global cohesive whole of reality that is then understoood by higher processes of the brain and long term memory.

Quote:

I believe there is an 'objective reality', I just don't think it's primarily accessible through our senses. We can come to some good rough approximations, yes, and better and better approximations would come with more rigorous analysis. But it'd never get to the point of perfection. Not with the inaccuracies built into the system.

There is no need to get to that point of perfect perception. In the true absolute sense you will never be able to perceive reality wholly no matter how hard you try because there are more atoms in the universe than there are in your brain. But the approximation you have is more than enough to make reality objective for you to survive and be happy as a human rational being which is the one of the tenets of objectivism.

RED DAVE · 01-12-2003, 06:20 PM

Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 3rd Principle of Objectivism:

Quote:

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively 10. required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual � and no group � has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.

3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;

That's a pretty weird thing to say for a romantic. As a principle of knowledge it's incomplete: inspiration of the creative and discovery sort, have their origin in nonrational thought. Prisig's Zen in the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance contains an extended discussion of this.

In this statement, we get the hyper-rationalism that's both amusing and annoying in Rand in her crew. As the surrealists said: existence lies elsewhere. And please, Randists, don't start in about me glorifying the irrational, etc. Rationality has it's place. Paraphrasing Einstein: the mind is a terrific tool, but it's totally devoid of character.

RED DAVE

elwoodblues · 01-12-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

I used to have that doubt too until I realized that reality is logically persistent. That is, it continously confirms the memory of past perceptions. This is very different from for example dreams and hallucinations, where what you once see is not repeated again, and in fact they are very easily forgotten as compared to reality.

Not really. Many of the things I'm referring to DO repeat, and the inconsistencies get reinforced. That's exactly what makes them dangerous. No matter how many times you look at certain illusions, they still screw with your head. And visual illusion is just the most basic form of this; the more important, fundamental instances are intrinsically very tough to pin down.

Quote:

There is no need to get to that point of perfect perception.

I agree, yeah, you get to a point of diminishing returns. But acknowledging, and remembering, that there is this gulf between perception and reality can, in itself, be rewarding.

99Percent · 01-12-2003, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elwoodblues
Not really. Many of the things I'm referring to DO repeat, and the inconsistencies get reinforced.

Examples?

Quote:

That's exactly what makes them dangerous. No matter how many times you look at certain illusions, they still screw with your head.

But in the end you do realize this anyway. So where is the difference? Its when it ceases to be logically consistent when you realize that its not real anymore. Its in fact no longer true.

Quote:

And visual illusion is just the most basic form of this; the more important, fundamental instances are intrinsically very tough to pin down.

Again, examples would be useful.

RED DAVE · 01-12-2003, 09:43 PM

Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 4th Principle of Objectivism:

Quote:

1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual � and no group � has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.

4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;

Would that it were so. The sheer arrogance of this remark is overwhelming. In order to derive such a code of ethics, one whould have to take into account: (a) the entire range of human behaviors (head hunting to discovering quantum physics and all points in between), plus (b) get an agreement on what constitutes the nature of reality.

The first is empirically impossible and would, inevitably, involve choices, which involves a basis for such choices, which involves values.

The second requires a consensus as to what constitutes the nature of reality, which is, ultimately, a value judgement.

So, one more time, we find that Objectivist principles are an attempt to avoid values. But, since value judgements are inevitable, what we see is an attempty to slip a set of values in, surreptitiously.

RED DAVE

tk · 01-18-2003, 01:29 AM

Science is nothing more than a leaf on the tree of philosophy. For, while science is constrained forever to a narrow definition of "truth", in philosophy one has the freedom to use a wider notion of "truth".

Oh well...

Is RED DAVE stumped at the 5th principle of Randism? It's simple actually. "Good" is an artificial concept, not a naturally occurring substance. When a hero rescues a victim, when a warrior kills a dictator, when a slave flees the oppression of his masters, people look on these acts and think to themselves, "hey, I like that". When a group of people agree that they like a particular act, the act is deemed "good".

People in diverse regions don't like the exact same things, which is why we currently have so many ideas of what is "good", and why the hero of one culture may be the villain of another.

This observation also partly explains why some people's notions of "good" contain contradictions -- e.g. Rand herself preached freedom yet praised corporate power. The reason is that some people don't quite know what they really like.

In other words, "good" is not a discovered concept, rather it's a defined concept.

elwoodblues · 01-18-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Examples?

You're asking for specific examples of cognitive habits that by definition slip through the cracks. That's kinda tough, but I'll try.

One more obvious one is confirmation bias. I'm aware of it, I try to compensate for it, but I still find myself falling for it occassionally. I don't think I'll ever kill it completely, but I'm trying to be aware of it, and hopefully able to minimize it's effects to some extent.

If you think you've conquered the trap of confirming evidence... I'll bet dollars to donuts you haven't.

That's one example of the kind of mental habit I'm referring to. I'll throw some thought at the subject today, try to nail down a few more. But that gives you some idea what I'm talking about.

Oresta · 01-18-2003, 06:41 PM

RED DAVE:

Quote:

...if nothng else, I invite people to submit favorite Stupid Ayn Rand Tricks, Quotes or Stories.

My favorite Stupid Ayn story:

Back in the 50s a friend of mine was in New York. He saw an ad announcing that Ayn Rand would be at someone's apartment to meet with her readers. During the meeting a fan mentioned the event in [i]Fountainhead{/i] wherein a woman is raped and becomes the lover of the rapist-protagonist. "What kind of woman," the fan asked, "would want to be raped?"
"I would," replied the randy Rand.

RED DAVE · 01-18-2003, 06:46 PM

Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 5th Principle of Objectivism:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A;
2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality;
3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected;
4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality;
5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;
6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others;
7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships;
8. That no individual � and no group � has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others;
9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use;
10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being;

Boy is that puerile. Let me make the following observations:

a) Considering how obsessively concerned Rand was with her notion of the "needs of society" (see her testimony before the House Unamerican Activites Committee), this statement is hypocritical from the start.

b) What is "objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being" is a social, that is a subjective, construct. What is "objectively required" by one society or a portion thereof: i.e., a car, a five-room house, etc., would be considered virtually unthinkable in another portion of the same society or another society.

c) What is really "objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being" is a relative small amount of food, water, clothing in cold climates and shelter of some sort. Anything beyond that is gravy.

I can see Ayn Rand now, living in a cave (with Nathaniel Brandon, of course), chowing down on a haunch of objectively required mammoth meat, scratching and discussing philosophy!

RED DAVE

01-18-2003, 06:46 PM	#210
RED DAVE Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 10,532	Nathaniel Branden's 5th Principle of Objectivism Discussing Nathaniel Branden's 5th Principle of Objectivism: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions � that existence exists, that A is A; 2. That reason, the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the various senses, is fully competent, in principle, to understand the facts of reality; 3. That any form of irrationalism, supernaturalism, or mysticism, any claim to a nonsensory, nonrational form of knowledge, is to be rejected; 4. That a rational code of ethics is possible and is derivable from an appropriate assessment of the nature of human beings as well as the nature of reality; 5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being; 6. That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others; 7. That the principles of justice and respect for individuality autonomy, and personal rights must replace the principle of sacrifice in human relationships; 8. That no individual � and no group � has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others; 9. That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use; 10. That the organizing principle of a moral society is respect for individual rights and that the sole appropriate function of government is to act as guardian and protector of individual rights. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. That the standard of the good is not God or the alleged needs of society but rather "Man's life," that which is objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being; Boy is that puerile. Let me make the following observations: a) Considering how obsessively concerned Rand was with her notion of the "needs of society" (see her testimony before the House Unamerican Activites Committee), this statement is hypocritical from the start. b) What is "objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being" is a social, that is a subjective, construct. What is "objectively required" by one society or a portion thereof: i.e., a car, a five-room house, etc., would be considered virtually unthinkable in another portion of the same society or another society. c) What is really "objectively required for man's or woman's life, survival, and well-being" is a relative small amount of food, water, clothing in cold climates and shelter of some sort. Anything beyond that is gravy. I can see Ayn Rand now, living in a cave (with Nathaniel Brandon, of course), chowing down on a haunch of objectively required mammoth meat, scratching and discussing philosophy! RED DAVE

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-18-2003, 01:29 AM	#207
tk Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 158	Science is nothing more than a leaf on the tree of philosophy. For, while science is constrained forever to a narrow definition of "truth", in philosophy one has the freedom to use a wider notion of "truth". Oh well... Is RED DAVE stumped at the 5th principle of Randism? It's simple actually. "Good" is an artificial concept, not a naturally occurring substance. When a hero rescues a victim, when a warrior kills a dictator, when a slave flees the oppression of his masters, people look on these acts and think to themselves, "hey, I like that". When a group of people agree that they like a particular act, the act is deemed "good". People in diverse regions don't like the exact same things, which is why we currently have so many ideas of what is "good", and why the hero of one culture may be the villain of another. This observation also partly explains why some people's notions of "good" contain contradictions -- e.g. Rand herself preached freedom yet praised corporate power. The reason is that some people don't quite know what they really like. In other words, "good" is not a discovered concept, rather it's a defined concept.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.