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


Recommended Posts

Tony's still wrong.

:evil: 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

SL, That's part of the problem when using examples, and only examples, as the arguments. But there's even a deeper problem. Can a hatchling or chick build a nest by instinct? No it

I would think the reason a lot of discussions around instinctual behaviors and the like are center around infancy is due to the fact that infancy is the time with the least amount of experience, the i

TG, Now you are beginning to see it in all its glory. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And then the argument always boils down to: An instinct is an instinct unless it isn't. O

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony's still wrong.

 

:) 

Michael

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

Evidence, evidence, show me the instincts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Smile 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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). :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now