• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Strictlylogical

  1. I'm sure some of you have been updated by YouTube's algorithm on Maricopa county goings on over the last weeks/months, but in case not, I have found this channel informative: Good premises!
  2. With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kangaroo impeachments... I’m starting to feel like Ayn Rand’s overwhelming focus on altruism was slightly misguided, in the sense that it is not the evil (out there) as such, it is a misdirection and a weapon used by the naked will to power and domination by the tyrannically inclined, targeting our weaknesses to obtain obedience. But that will to power the tyrannical powers of the psyche seem now to have been unleashed in the powerful and in the sheeple. The absolute monarch, the oligarchs, the totalitarian they do not hold altruism or community or equality as principles, but as tools of control. When there are few evil doers we protect ourselves from the ideas they try to use against us, but once the evil doers become prevalent or the majority we few must protect ourselves from them not just their ideas. The primary external evil is no longer the internal moral failing of the individual, even though it may have been its primary agitator and may have derived its primary power from it in the form of a population who has fallen to and the joined the ranks of the enemies of freedom. We see the will to power using against us everything we hold dear, peace, harmony, family, our own sense of empathy and benevolence both as threat and as alms. Granted, Ayn Rand knew of these dynamics and warned us all that this might happen, but the overwhelming focus of warnings against altruism seem out of balance now. That was primarily a preventative, and not enough people listened. In her lifetime perhaps it was best to try to stem the philosophical tide toward oblivion, to warn the culture running for the edge of the cliff, but now that it or a large part has careened over, what message or warning or exhortation can be made to those few sane left, perhaps clinging to the edge of the cliff and straining with the dark insane evil mass of suffering still dangling from their feel by some sharp claw, what kind of advice can be given to them who still wish to save themselves? I begin to feel that a philosophical rejection of Altruism is insufficient now that what it focused on to avoid has come to pass... the power hungry disdain all such ideas, the masses form a new mob of the power hungry, and freedom lovers have no fight with their own ideas as they do with existential threats to their freedoms, their values, their very lives. philosophy perhaps has run its course? sigh Just starting to feel something...
  3. Thank you for the compliment. I think you are right, “the entirety” does explain the acts of consciousness... (although we know not of the how and the details) but that is no less and no more than what a brain is and does. I begin to think the “quantitative” invocation of “more” in our minds when we ponder the imponderable concept of“mind”, is a psychological intuition. A feeling simply born of an amazement which arises due to an erroneous implicit assumption: an assumption that a living brain being and doing “should” amount to less... less than what a living brain eminently and evidently, undeniably and indentically, actually does amount to... a conscious complex natural system.
  4. You use the words “magic” and “miracle” to designate consciousness. Why? I assume you take “mind” to be natural and not supernatural... now surely that one is a mystery in nature born of our lack of knowledge but there is no need to invoke shades of mysticism to color our amazement and wonder. We still have much to learn and reality is a stunning thing to get to know. Newness does not quite invoke “miracle” or “magic”, causation has been making firsts since the beginning of time, like the first supernova or the first heavy elements. True all new things had not literally existed prior, in all their glory, but the potentials exhibited or possessed by the natures of the constituent things that eventually would come together to form those new things were always there “inherent” in the identity of those constituent things. I take well your observation that we have much to learn about the nature of consciousness, my main point is that it is not supernatural. Given enough time, higher order complexities exhibiting consciousness may be the most natural and ubiquitous outcome in the universe. But I speculate.
  5. I understand your fear of such a presumption, I have encountered others who implicitly hold a false dichotomy (bordering on mystical) between mind and ... let us call it "nature". Without going too much into a discussion, I am of the view that mind is what a brain does and is. There is no mystical stuff which is somehow more than the sum of the parts and "emerges" like a infant ghost from the womb of brain to somehow stand outside and beyond reality... mind is, is of, and is by, the natural complex system functioning in reality, which is the human nervous system and brain. Conceptualization and the formation of mental concepts are tied to reality through perception and causation. My pointing out reification is NOT to cleave the universe in twain, inside and outside, mind and matter... consciousness IS embedded here, in natural reality, minds are functioning complex natural system, they are capable of forming and holding concepts (which means brains structured and functioning in certain complex and repeatable ways) which correspond, in noncontradictory and useful ways, to reality due to their origins being caused in and by reality. We observe that reality is not some arbitrary chaos, existents have identity, and behave lawfully, but "the laws" we deduce are not edicts written in some intrinsic fabric of space-time, imposed upon compliant and eager actors who might otherwise have been free to do anything... such would be fanciful projections of our own psyches. Things simply are what they are, specifically, and behave accordingly, simply because they cannot be what they are not, and cannot do what is not in accordance with what they are. The claim that somehow all things (shoes and ships - and sealing wax - cabbages and kings) including everything which is not part of a mind, are "made" of concepts such as "numbers", "magnitudes", "principles" (mental contents which we use to understand and think about everything), is quite simply erroneous, and confuses and/or conflates the referents of conceptualization with the concepts themselves.
  6. I'm not sure about making "a lot more" sense. Conceptually, it is equally incorrect to claim that the universe, i.e. each and every entity which exists, is made of "number", "magnitudes", and "scientific concepts" or "scientific principles". Reification of conceptual content as external entities is the error. Principles, quantity, magnitude, are concepts by which we conceive of, understand, and predict what we observe about entities in existence, they do not literally make up entities. Things are no more "scientific principles" than they are "numbers".
  7. I unsubscribed from ARI some time ago... but if I got that in my email, I mean really... W T F ? After that "performance" does Yaron expect an award? I can see him tottering on chair-backs with a wide smile before going up to the stage to accept his award... oh yes "Life is Beautiful"...apparently pretending is wonderful... exhortations to completely ignore the overarching political and socioeconomic upheavals in America... the dire divisions and the threats from China, the Radical Left, and Big Tech?.... well "It's the New Objectivist way!!" (Neo-Objectivist? ...that is no Objectivist) again W T F ?
  8. Glad to hear people of influence or accomplishment are actually open to the ideas discussed here. I understand and respect their privacy. Rand discussed a great many things... she identified single State corruption, a swamp on a small scale... but without an inking of the technology of today could she even have in her wildest dreams thought of such a global elitist oligarchy attempting to enslave the entire world as it is today? Had she ever thought these petty technocrat busy bodies in government, big tech and the media would ever be so bold as to proclaim to all, their ideal two class system... the government-media-tech-illuminati and the quaking yet trusting sheeple whom they "tend"? The "elimination" of "property" for some while those in power keep to themselves the "right" duty and privilege to consume, alter, share, redefine, rent, mortgage, pawn, sell, exchange, transfer, give away or destroy all things, or to exclude others from doing so... There are those who would say it has been so for many decades, others would say always, but for it to be in naked sight and as brazen as it is now... it disgusts me.
  9. Ok I'm a bit clueless here.. you've said "be involved" more than once. Can you divulge the nature and/or extent of your "involvement" in this phase of history?
  10. I'm not a member of scribed but... Links to past president's websites are kept here: Some digging on that site gets you to here, a direct (hopefully permanent) link of the PDF document: This link should be spread far and wide!
  11. In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.
  12. In the wake of the "achievement" of your "idea" in the OP, if only for consistency, you yourself should do what you suggest.
  13. 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.
  14. This went right over my head... can you let me in on the joke?
  15. 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...
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. How is implying something false about other people... sardonic?
  20. 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.
  21. 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?
  22. 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?
  23. 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.
  24. You guys should be more explicit and specific about your actual disagreement so that bystanders can gain something from it ...
  25. 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