• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jts

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Jerry Story
  • Description
    Saint Peter at Heaven's Gate told me to go to Hell. I followed advice and went to Hell. Then I was kicked out of Hell for making too much trouble. So I came back to Earth.
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

9,861 profile views
  1. There Are No Shortcuts

    Here is a greyhound dog who disagrees with the title of this thread. Now we return to the regular discussion.
  2. No Subconscious

    I was not quoting Rand. I wrote on a different Objectivist discussion place, not OL, as follows: [ Ayn Rand said x is not proof of x. ] x is a variable that can be replace by anything, like in algebra. They jumped on me. I thought that was cultish of them.
  3. No Subconscious

    What kind of Randroid Objectivist are you? Some years ago on a different Objectivist website (not OL) I wrote "Ayn Rand said x is not proof of x." I thought Ayn Rand probably would be the first to agree with that statement. But they all jumped on me.
  4. No Subconscious

    If there is no such thing as mind, then does that mean there is no such thing as life? You can dissect a plant or an animal but can you find life? There are biochemical processes but where is life? When people ask me how I am, I usually say the last time I checked I was still alive. Maybe I should change my answer.
  5. An Inconvenient Polar Bear

    Did you know that 78.9% of all statistics are made up?
  6. An older one. Seems he is saying "hunger" (so-called, with quotes) means don't eat.
  7. Another one from Loren Lockman about hunger.
  8. An Objectivist Riddle (ontology)

    Causes can be complexicated. A man walks home at night and trips over a tricycle and breaks a leg. What was the cause of the breaking of the leg? The tricycle? That was a factor. But ordinarily a leg does not break so easily. And why did he not see where he was going? He was deficient in vitamin D or something, causing his bones to be easily broken. Why deficient in vitamin D? Why did he not see where he was going? The yard light was not turned on. Why? Maybe he had vitamin A deficiency, causing night blindness. Why vitamin A deficiency? Maybe he had a fight with his boss and his mind was not on where he was going. What caused the fight with his boss? Why did he not get out in the sun and get vitamin D? Why did he not eat his veggies? Maybe he was stoned on drugs. Maybe he was too stoned to notice where he was going. Why was he on drugs? Maybe the reason why he tripped on the tricycle was he was drunk. Why was he drunk? Maybe the fight with his boss had something to do with his drinking. Maybe in addition to vitamin D deficiency he had other nutritional problems that contributed to causing weak bones and poor vision. His drugs can contribute to nutritional problems, which can contribute to more problems. Causes can go on and on and are more complexicated than what is dreamed in Objectivism.
  9. An Objectivist Riddle (ontology)

    When the lamb becomes lamb stew, we have the same number of carbon atoms, hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms, nitrogen atoms, etc minus whatever went off in steam and plus whatever was added to it. So we are talking chemistry and physics and we don't need ontology. Do we need ontology when we have chemistry and physics? Do we need metaphysics? Maybe the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) will tell us more about the nature of reality than philosophers will. Maybe it is the nature of knowledge that it must go thru stages. Stage 1: Religion. This is based on faith in authority. Stage 2: Philosophy. This is based on reason instead of faith. Stage 3: Science. This is based on the scientific method, an improvement over armchair reasoning. What we now call 'physics' was 'natural philosophy' before Newton. Psychology and sociology might be described as stage 2.5, half way between philosophy and science, a philosophy trying to become a science, and might in a hundred years become a science. Maybe philosophy should not be totally despised because maybe it is a necessary stage a field of knowledge must go thru to become a science. But after it becomes a science then we don't need the philosophy.
  10. An Objectivist Riddle (ontology)

    I'm going to say something that probably would get me kicked out of Objectivism Online or Harry Binswanger's List for not having a cultish attitude about Ayn Rand. Maybe Ayn Rand was simply a poor ontologist.
  11. Is having a favorite villain ethical?

    Jake the Snake the philosopher. Give a listen to his last line.
  12. Here is an example of how a great chess mind works. Tal was world chess champion 1960-61 and he was known for his tactical skill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tal One amusing anecdote frequently quoted from Tal's autobiography takes the form of a hypothetical conversation between Tal and a journalist (actually co-author Yakov Damsky). It offers a modest, self-deprecating view of his reputation for unerring calculation at the board: Journalist: It might be inconvenient to interrupt our profound discussion and change the subject slightly, but I would like to know whether extraneous, abstract thoughts ever enter your head while playing a game? Tal: Yes. For example, I will never forget my game with GM Vasiukov on a USSR Championship. We reached a very complicated position where I was intending to sacrifice a knight. The sacrifice was not obvious; there was a large number of possible variations; but when I began to study hard and work through them, I found to my horror that nothing would come of it. Ideas piled up one after another. I would transport a subtle reply by my opponent, which worked in one case, to another situation where it would naturally prove to be quite useless. As a result my head became filled with a completely chaotic pile of all sorts of moves, and the infamous "tree of variations", from which the chess trainers recommend that you cut off the small branches, in this case spread with unbelievable rapidity. And then suddenly, for some reason, I remembered the classic couplet by Korney Ivanović Chukovsky: "Oh, what a difficult job it was. To drag out of the marsh the hippopotamus".[26] I do not know from what associations the hippopotamus got into the chess board, but although the spectators were convinced that I was continuing to study the position, I, despite my humanitarian education, was trying at this time to work out: just how WOULD you drag a hippopotamus out of the marsh? I remember how jacks figured in my thoughts, as well as levers, helicopters, and even a rope ladder. After a lengthy consideration I admitted defeat as an engineer, and thought spitefully to myself: "Well, just let it drown!" And suddenly the hippopotamus disappeared. Went right off the chessboard just as he had come on ... of his own accord! And straightaway the position did not appear to be so complicated. Now I somehow realized that it was not possible to calculate all the variations, and that the knight sacrifice was, by its very nature, purely intuitive. And since it promised an interesting game, I could not refrain from making it. And the following day, it was with pleasure that I read in the paper how Mikhail Tal, after carefully thinking over the position for 40 minutes, made an accurately calculated piece sacrifice. — Mikhail Tal, The Life and Games of Mikhail Tal. There you have. That is the thought process of a great chess mind.
  13. The Country Music Concert Massacre in Las Vegas

    Question: Is there an exception to the statement that all mass shootings in the last 20 years involved one or more psychiatric drugs?