• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Strictlylogical

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Colin Gallant
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

346 profile views
  1. In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.
  2. In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.
  3. When looked at in terms of progress, and how USA is doing well for itself, the stats could be useful and informative. BUT the funny thing is, if it's deaths/case then the stats mean little to nothing AS a comparison to totally different countries. Comorbidity includes things which factor hugely into the risk of death per case, e.g. heart conditions, diabetes, high blood pressure, and others which are causatively linked with obesity. Obesity is linked with, to put it colorfully, a population possessing an abundance of means accompanied by a dearth of self-discipline... so a large portion of the population are statistically at "risk" for obesity... and those risks manifest themselves in the actual levels of obesity. ALL things otherwise considered being equal... (capacity and quality of medical goods and services) IF some foreign population statistically has either a lower level of abundance or a greater level of self-discipline... or both... then obesity will be lower there... and hence the rate of deaths/case will be vastly different. Aside from this... statistics of the outcomes in the collective.. are no justification or validation for any system, or for any response. Just as wealth is not properly any justification for capitalism, death rates, AS SUCH, are no indication of proper government action. Sure a population can "do well" in some particular aspect... and so survival per case is a measure of some import, but it surely is not a measure of "proper government". Short term prevention of death might correlate strongly with dictatorship and tyranny.
  4. This went right over my head... can you let me in on the joke?
  5. Social media, mainstream media, and the concentration of power in big data are creating a crazy left-wing suppression of anything ... well sane. "Aunt Jemima" is no more. The syrup itself will not change and will be just as delicious, but it will be sold under a new logo and name. (By the way, if sales TANK, this might turn out to be a perfect example of how brand name recognition actually... duh... IS important) Now buying Aunt Jemima in the past never meant I endorsed the so-called racial stereo type... if anything I liked the idea of a friendly smiling person providing me with trusted delicious syrup... and that was that. I certainly don't care about the color, religion or occupation of The Quaker guy on my oatmeal box, the cream of wheat fellow, or Uncle Ben (these also may change... with the exception of possibly the white guy in the funny hat)... they do NOT represent to me or any consumer ANYTHING about politics, religion, or socioeconomics... they stand for what they appear to be... a familiar friendly face identifying a product I know, trust, and love... beckoning me to purchase or consume. If anything, these faces (with one exception) increased visibility of smiling benevolent people of color in the pantries and tables of the homes of mainstream suburban white families. And now, they will disappear... to be replaced by what? (white smiling faces? or better yet the mug of a strong white woman who wouldn't stoop to "serve" you your syrup but is nonetheless humble enough to agree to glare at you from the bottle?) In any case, the products will not change, the syrup, the oatmeal, the cream of wheat, and the rice, will all be just as yummy, and the quality (assuming the "progressives" have not infiltrated the processing plants) should be just as good, but the absence of the friendly face I knew will be all too apparent... as will the knowledge that the "producers" are pandering to imagined problems screeched about in the Twitverse of clown world. The wallet is a very powerful tool, you trade for what is a higher value, but you also support individual players or actions within a complex interrelated economy, and affect, as with each purchase being a vote, the way the world is shaped one transaction at a time. So is it in your interest to taste the same quality of foodstuff you know and once were comforted by... or do you give a different producer a try.. one who has not become part of the circus? I think there are good arguments for both, but in the end it has to take into account the long term... and having a meal that tastes 5% better tomorrow, might not be worth losing your chance to vote with your wallet to live in a better world long range...
  6. I have been having an ongoing "disagreement" with a friend of mine, quite well read in Objectivism. He is of the view that it is "incomplete". Like myself, he also has recently become interested in psychology and the subconscious, Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell (and Jordan Peterson) and their ideas, and what insights about the human condition they might have. But he has begun to view Objectivism with some distain, because of it's incompleteness and "arrogance". I note its flaws, but point out that Objectivism is NOT a theory of everything. It is philosophy, not a special science, such as neuroscience or psychology, and should not be expected to encompass them, on the contrary it should only form a foundation for them. Those parts of the philosophy which did not stray (improperly) into armchair science, are IMHO correct, as a foundational philosophy. I tend to think he asks too much of the science of sofia... but I understand why he does. Somewhere along the way, the distinction between the actual core philosophy, and its application has been lost and muddled.
  7. Thank you Michael, and perhaps I am getting too tangled up in terminology, particularly what we mean by "knowledge" and "to know". Certainly, human mind/brains at birth are not empty of everything... I'm wondering if there is more validity in restricting the definitions of "knowledge" and "to know" to explicit consciously held ideas or if there is more validity in expanding the concept to include the other psychological... I don't know... "contents" I listed above (urges, wills, subconscious stuff). IF the latter is more accurate, how important then is it to hold the distinction between knowledge and intuition? Is it that the hard distinction is some kind of false boundary which is more problematic than useful?
  8. I have not studied this in detail, but I would assume that Rand would have known enough basic psychology to know that certain urges and capacities are "nature" rather than nurture. I am hesitant to get into what she thought when she used the term "tabula rasa" as it pertains to knowledge, but for our thinking today in view of what we know about psychology: Is it safe to say at least that explicit knowledge, i.e. consciously held ideas, originate from experience and hence at birth, a human is a "tabula rasa" of ideas and knowledge? [This is not to say there are not innate urges, autonomous reactions, and default emotions... perhaps even a whole Jungian subconscious full of wills and tendencies] Reworded conversely: Is the claim that "knowledge", for the purposes of the study of its attainment i.e. for the purposes of philosophy, consists of explicit or consciously held ideas, too narrow, and should it contain other "knowledges" (such as urges, feelings, subconscious wills, and tendencies)? EDIT: And to clarify, I use the term "philosophy" here to denote the field dealing with the techniques of Sophia, and not to (technically) include the special sciences such as physics, biology, or psychology.
  9. How is implying something false about other people... sardonic?
  10. Going to call strawman... The genuine first person experience aspect of consciousness cannot be proved by third person perception but that is not problematic. We being humans introspectively know that first person experience. In fact it is no more a philosophical conundrum that we, as humans, can never really know “what it is like to be a bat“. What the experience of being a bat is, IS wholly out of reach of our perception and hence knowledge... but no sane philosopher would conclude that because we cannot prove it by third person perception and science, nor measure it, that “what it is like to be a bat” (experienced from its perspective) is not a fact of the universe... perfectly accessible to a bat. So too, human consciousness as a first person experience is perfectly accessible to human beings. No one here denies the existence of consciousness merely because it cannot be measured directly from third person inquiry.
  11. Why characterize consciousness as “emergent” at all? What beyond “attribute” “property” or “action” does the concept “emergence” bring to the table? What metaphysically does it identify?
  12. Once it has done so, is it independent from or untethered from what the brain does? Does it “function” (complex chain of causality) absent any structure whatever? Are you advocating strong or weak emergence?
  13. I find substance dualism and/or strong emergence as weird and spooky... and not consistent with my metaphysics. Much interesting science is interpreted using as a basis, metaphysics which is different from mine... which does not invalidate for me properly conducted science... only some of the interpretive conclusions therefrom. “Reductionism“ has always come across to me as a vague anti concept posing as a strawman. Dualism for me has always been mystical in one way or another, a ghost always pops up here or there, or the non-interacting interacts... or causeless causation is caused... I prefer weak emergence ... or a kind of attribute functionalism i.e. mind is what the brain does, and first person experience is just what it is like to be a person with such a brain so doing and being. Nothing supernatural, no violations of causality or identity.
  14. You guys should be more explicit and specific about your actual disagreement so that bystanders can gain something from it ...
  15. Agreed. Like almost everything spiritual: nature, nurture, and possibility of manipulation all factor in. I wonder if empathy is more complex than what most people casually think of it... in an analogy to the same way sensation - perception - cognition - evaluation - emotion works is complex. Since empathy is not supernatural revelation of another, it must start with sensation. Something parallel to perception is involved and then instead of conscious identification and conscious evaluation there a kind of subconscious “recognition” and “assessment” which leads to an emotion. That emotion tends to be an odd mixture of the feeling the other person is intuited as experiencing as well as a feeling of some regard for or standing with that person. We observe that some situations and persons evoke empathy or resonance in some others but not everyone. Empathy is individual and fallible. The premises one holds affects this lightning calculator too. Since the emotions potentially generated by it from sadness to anger to joy, I tend to see it less as a single emotion and more as a whole intuitive pathway of a process of “participating” with another on a non cognitive level. Like emotion however, it can’t be trusted as a final arbiter guiding action, but it certainly can be a useful capacity for gaining insight about others and therefore insight about the self... and it certainly plays a big part in the enjoyment of life! the above is speculation ... i suppose i should have done some research first