Why wasn't Eddie Willers invited to Galt's Gulch?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony's still wrong.

 

He's in argument by repetition mode.

I get especially impressed when he quotes a passage by Rand as if it were new, one that I have read a thousand times and even quoted in my own posts, one he's even quoted several times, then paraphrases it.

 

At least he's starting to look at Wikipedia now.

That's not much looking, but it's a start.

I still have faith in him.

 

Michael

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony's still wrong.

 

 

Michael

Therefore, Michael's still right... Hmmm.

Evidence, evidence, show me the instincts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Quack.

 

[tmj]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

Fine with that, yes the mole. As with birds emerging from the dinosaurs, there didn't have to be a direct lineage.

The debate is whatever our animal roots, they had instinctual behavior we don't. 

You are still missing my point , I said your reasoning around evolution , applying the underlying principles to specific instances , was similar to your evasions on the topic of instinctual behavior .

Without a volitional conceptual coupled with a priori knowledge how do you explain things like sleep cycles, not being sexually attracted to the elderly and sick , and say division of labor (meaning that living cooperatively in groups eventually gave rise to the opportunity for division of labor to occur).

Can you point to the prime mover or movers that reasoned out surviving by living in groups was optimal as opposed to ? Without a priori knowledge and no examples to conceptualize, what other mechanisms could explain those and similar phenomenon? 

[anthony]

57 minutes ago, tmj said:

 

Without a volitional conceptual coupled with a priori knowledge how do you explain things like sleep cycles, not being sexually attracted to the elderly and sick , and say division of labor (meaning that living cooperatively in groups eventually gave rise to the opportunity for division of labor to occur).

 

Sleep cycles: Brain biology.

Not sexually attracted...: psychologically learned behavior.

Living in groups: Practically learned behavior.

Is that all?

Animals have herd instincts, early men must have found comfort, safety and efficiency in staying close in clans and sharing/specializing in tasks. There had to be the gatherers and the hunters.

 

[tmj]

Just doing a little introspection, trying to identify the pattern of psychological learning and my reasoning at thirteen, when at the poster store I chose the Farrah Fawcett one , even though the Kate Smith was right there.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

I thought you were a patriot.

And come to find out, you just an instinct-driven beast.

 

Michael

[tmj]

Wait, you’re sayin I can’t be both?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, tmj said:

Wait, you’re sayin I can’t be both?

T,

Once upon a time in America you could. Not anymore.

And, according to some, certainly not in Objectivism.

Michael

[anthony]

Guys: What has been creeping in, the most toxic sign of the times is collectivism. And that, seen equally in racism and a virulent 'anti-racism', is one effect of determinism. We are predetermined creatures. (As is implied and stated). "You couldn't help it". One is defined by one's group - victim or oppressor. Your knowledge and morals were set for you, they are automatic. Free will has been refuted by many neuroscientists and behaviorists... one can't choose otherwise!

The main rationalizations for pre-determinism:

a. One's blood-line, race, history - ancestral determinism

b. One's personal upbringing and background

c. Brain chemistry - "chemical predestination"

d. Automatic, innate knowledge/morality through 'our instincts'...

Taken together, these give many the excuse to avoid and evade taking moral responsibility for their actions.

1. Free will can only lead to "self-individuation" and individualism (in oneself and towards others).

2. Determinism must result in collectivist-tribalism. Then its logical outlets into power-politics and a new oppression we all can see.

Self-volition vs. determinism (and individualist v. collectivist) is the ideological battle of this period, threatening far worse to come down the road.

That's why the fact "man is a being of volitional consciousness" cannot be compromised one iota. A la Rand, and self-evident, a tiny bit of toxin in one's food makes a poisonous dish, right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Identifying human nature incorrectly is the worst threat of all, no matter where it comes from.

Aaaaaaannnd...

Tony is still wrong.

Michael

[anthony]

16 hours ago, tmj said:

Just doing a little introspection, trying to identify the pattern of psychological learning and my reasoning at thirteen, when at the poster store I chose the Farrah Fawcett one , even though..

If one wants to elicit the causes for one and others acting a certain way: Why did I/they do that? Introspection is useful. Observation is good. Reading the material. Another that's not acknowledged is empathy*. Applied together, one can eliminate one by one the non-instinctual causes, arriving at the conclusion - nothing is instinctual. All behaviors are easily explained by other causes. In the above case, probably something subconscious, maybe a much earlier preference for one kind of woman's image that you'd forgotten making.

I notice there was no response to: "Everything that is in the subconscious came by conscious means". No denials?

If the subconscious were explicitly acknowledged here, that would take care of most of what you guys call "instinctive". The rest, biological processes, inferences, self-automated values, learned behavior or muscular memory.

*The original definition for empathy: "The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation".

Clear that Rand was an excellent empath, how she came by her insights into human nature.

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Identifying human nature incorrectly is the worst threat of all,

 

Michael

Yup, and human nature is volitional.

(Funny, I didn't peg you for a Leftie, MSK).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Aaaaaaannnd...

Tony is still wrong.

Michael

[tmj]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

All behaviors are easily explained by other causes. In the above case, probably something subconscious, maybe a much earlier preference for one kind of woman's image that you'd forgotten making.

 

Yeah that sounds about right, prepubescent me decided I preferred blonds with erect nipples. Perfectly logically deduction.

Funny how a rational choice can produce such visceral yearnings.

What of the notion though, that the image jarred my libido and the rational choice I made was not acting out on it and physically interacting with the photo in the poster store?

[anthony]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

Yeah that sounds about right, prepubescent me decided I preferred blonds with erect nipples. Perfectly logically deduction.

Funny how a rational choice can produce such visceral yearnings.

What of the notion though, that the image jarred my libido and the rational choice I made was not acting out on it and physically interacting with the photo in the poster store?

Who said a thing about your libido? Or a "rational choice". I said "preference" of the subconscious type. Give you an example, at about 8yo I met an overseas cousin about the same age and felt she was the loveliest girl, ever. Had a crush as they say. She was sort of fiery and Latin looking, which I came to realize (many years later) was the look and nature which still attracted me. Quite clearly that first proper awareness of 'woman' set a kind of physical standard for those later. 'Instinctively' drawn to? No. Just feels like it. Plenty remains, but forgotten, in the subconscious from our very earliest sensory experiences and encounters back to birth. "Know thyself" I believe someone said.

[tmj]

Quite clearly I was speaking about pubescent males being attracted to provocative images of women. And the fact that generally teenage boys find younger adult females more sexually attractive than older females .

There are very good theories on why this is generally true , that both sexes have sexual preference for potential mates that exhibit characteristics of health and vitality, which is good for the species , because the healthy and virile are typically the most successful reproductively.

A thirteen year old male doesn’t have the ability to self analyze, lacking the experience, knowledge base and rational ‘maturity’.

So how do you explain these sexual impulses ? Do they belong in a separate category from ‘instinct ‘ , if so what term would best describe the category and how does it differ from the usage I’m applying to instinct?

[anthony]

Sexual Myths and Your Relationship

Myth #1: Sex is instinctual and should just occur naturally

by David Yarian, Ph.D.

Not so! Sex is learned behavior in humans, and a few of the other higher primates. Psychologist Leonore Tiefer makes this point in her eloquent book of essays entitled Sex is Not a Natural Act.

[anthony]

From here.

Quote

CHEMICAL VERSUS PSYCHOLOGICAL RESPONSES

Biologists consider instincts to be preprogrammed responses to external stimuli. Instincts are a part of preintellectual behavior that is not based on any prior learning or experience. Many biologists consider instinct to be a series of traceable fixed-action patterns triggered by a key stimulus. Pheromones, chemical signals detected by smell, for example, constitute a key stimulus for the release of some sex hormones. These hormones in turn provoke sexual behaviors.

The behavior of animals is often understood as instinctive. Their survival techniques and drive to court and reproduce are considered instincts. But biologists debate whether or not human beings are as governed by instincts as other species seem to be.

 

[anthony]

Listen to the psychology lecturer's findings on sex in under 35's, mostly joyless and perfunctory he reports.

Unsurprising: sexual activity is a human 'instinct', they've been taught; automatic - you aren't responsible for your instincts, are you?. And, biological (this is true, at least). But a self-less, disengaged therefore emotionless activity.

 

[tmj]

"But biologists debate whether or not human beings are as governed by instincts as other species seem to be. "

But humans have zero , zilch, nada, not one iota of instinctual behavior, biologists are commies.

[anthony]

26 minutes ago, tmj said:

"But biologists debate whether or not human beings are as governed by instincts as other species seem to be. "

But humans have zero , zilch, nada, not one iota of instinctual behavior, biologists are commies.

Biologists might seldom be commies, but see for yourself who have most avidly seized upon the notion of human instincts -  the skeptic-determinist -(yup) -Leftists.

[tmj]

43 minutes ago, anthony said:

Biologists might seldom be commies, but see for yourself who have most avidly seized upon the notion of human instincts -  the skeptic-determinist -(yup) -Leftists.

But humans have zero, zilch, nada , not one iota of instinctual behaviors, right ?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What on earth happened to the formatting?

Tony, what did you do?

Rely on instinct to embed a quote?

Maybe you should have used a bit more reason here.

  

Michael

[anthony]

Oops, must have been my fault. Fore-mating instincts evidently don't exist. Can it be cleaned up?