Why does man need a code of values?

[bmacwilliam]

Darrell said:

"Do you know how to program a computer? Do you understand the distinction between a program and its data?"

More than I ever wanted to know.

Now what seems more 'tabula rasa' to you? A hard drive manufactured from scratch that happens to have a few random 1's and 0's here and there but maybe nothing that you'd call data; OR, a hard drive that has a fully operational operating system installed, but also nothing you'd call 'data'?

So the latter is tabula rasa? Absolute nonsense.

Furthermore, do you see what you've done - yet again? You've DEFINED data as THAT WHICH IS EXTERNAL TO THE PROGRAM!!!! Do you get it? It's called a F-A-L-L-A-C-Y.

Bob

Edited April 5, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Brant Gaede]

For me tabula rasa meant that when I was born I had no conceptual knowledge, not that my brain was empty. Exactly what was in my brain and why I do not know.

While I appreciate lessons in logic and fallacious reasoning, I get the distinct impression that Occam's Razor is being beat up around the head and shoulders here. I do enjoy, however, watching tigers chase their tails as long as it's not my tail they're chasing!

--Brant

[Laure]

Brant, you're absolutely right.

I have one thing to say to Bob Mac, Dragonfly, Daniel:

A tautology is not a fallacy.

[Victor Pross]

Brant, you're absolutely right.

I have one thing to say to Bob Mac, Dragonfly, Daniel:

A tautology is not a fallacy.

Laure,

I agree. The common fallacy is to equate tautology with circular reasoning. It’s not the same thing: circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology likens a thing to itself. Example: "audiable to the ear." Tautologies are not erroneous, but rather are inconsequentially true. Mind you, a veiled tautology can be used in equivocation.*

-Victor

NOTE FROM ADMINISTRATOR:

* Plagiarized from Gary McGath's review of Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer. The original passage reads as follows:

Also, he equates tautology with circular reasoning. But these are different; circular reasoning uses a premise to prove itself, while tautology equates a thing to itself. Tautologies are not fallacious, but rather are trivially true (though a disguised tautology can be used in equivocation).

OL extends its deepest apologies to Gary McGath.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Michael Stuart Kelly

[Dragonfly]

I have one thing to say to Bob Mac, Dragonfly, Daniel:

A tautology is not a fallacy.

To what statement of mine are you referring?

[Laure]

I have one thing to say to Bob Mac, Dragonfly, Daniel:

A tautology is not a fallacy.

To what statement of mine are you referring?

No particular statement; I had just gotten the impression somehow that you were in agreement with the other 2 regarding "analytic truths" being basically meaningless or illogical. If the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to cast it aside.

[bmacwilliam]

For me tabula rasa meant that when I was born I had no conceptual knowledge, not that my brain was empty. Exactly what was in my brain and why I do not know.

--Brant

I understand that. The problem is that Rand wanted to use the concept of tabula rasa to act as a foundation of man's more or less infinite ability to shape his own character. The 'self-made man' idea. I do not disagree that man has a certain degree of input into his own character development, but it's not 100%, probably more like 30-40%. Arguable, but there's data to support this.

Then again I've had 'discussions' where it all boiled down to the Objectivist defining character as "traits which are not inherited" in order to argue that character traits are not inherited. That is begging the question, just like Darrell's argument - that's my problem.

Darrell has argued that knowledge/data is not inherited all the while defining the knowledge/data as that which is 'external to the program' ie - not inherited.

Bob

Edited April 5, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Dragonfly]

No particular statement; I had just gotten the impression somehow that you were in agreement with the other 2 regarding "analytic truths" being basically meaningless or illogical. If the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to cast it aside.

I doubt that anyone of us thinks that analytic truths are meaningless or illogical and I'm amazed that anyone could think that I would defend such a viewpoint, I think my posts have been clear enough on that point. It's rather frustrating to be misunderstood so thoroughly! Analytic truths are logical par excellence. I gave an example of a mathematical statement as an analytic truth and I certainly don't think that mathematics is meaningless or illogical. However, analytic truths don't give us any information about the physical world that isn't already contained in the premises from which they are derived, so they are only interesting if they are not obvious, as in complex mathematical deductions. They are useless to prove the correctness of the premises themselves, that would be a case of circular reasoning, which is a bad thing.

[Darrell Hougen]

And there it is. Full circular argumentation - on cue, begging the question. You are clearly assuming that it is not possible, by your definition of "fact" to know a "fact" as you define it without observation. That is TEXTBOOK begging the question.

Your responses have been "that's not a fact", or "that's not data, that's programming", all the while defining implicitly or overtly "fact" and/or "knowledge" as that which MUST be observed - fallacious.

Actually, I'm not assuming, a priori, that knowledge is not inherited. But, I have seen no evidence that it is. For example, people could be born knowing that they have a heart and lungs or that knowledge could appear in the mind as part of the development of the phenotype that is a human being. Afterall, that information is present in the DNA already. So, what is to prevent that information from taking the form of knowledge? Perhaps certain heart and lung concept neurons could develop automatically and be triggered automatically at a certain age. At that point, a person would automatically become aware of the existence and "design" of his heart and lungs. However, I have seen no evidence that such is the case and you have not provided any.

So, to reiterate, I do not believe nor assume, a priori, that knowledge must result from observation only. However, knowledge is, by definition, the subject of thought, not the process of thought. And, I have seen no evidence that knowledge, per se, is ever inherited.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

Furthermore, do you see what you've done - yet again? You've DEFINED data as THAT WHICH IS EXTERNAL TO THE PROGRAM!!!! Do you get it? It's called a F-A-L-L-A-C-Y.

Actually, I haven't defined data at all. You're jumping ahead of me and trying to put words in my mouth. I never said the program couldn't operate on itself and treat itself as data, but I have seen no evidence that the human brain does that.

The same comment applies to the example of the disk containing the OS. Generally speaking, the OS is not designed to operate on itself. It does not automatically read itself in and start performing operations on itself. There are virus programs that automatically copy themselves and mail themselves to other people. But, a standard OS doesn't do that, though it could. So, a standard OS is much more like the human brain than whatever you are trying to imagine.

Darrell

[bmacwilliam]

And, I have seen no evidence that knowledge, per se, is ever inherited.

Darrell

"Darwin also believed babies are born able to recognise the facial expressions of others. His first child had suddenly assumed a melancholy expression in an experiment where the maid pretended to weep, even though the boy had apparently never before witnessed another person crying. This, Darwin thought, suggested that his son could not have learned that crying is linked to sadness and must have somehow inherited the knowledge. "

Bob

Edited April 6, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[bmacwilliam]

As I see it, whether you admit that inherited knowledge exists or not depends a great deal on whether or not you believe in evolution and whether or not you have a grasp of what evolution says genes are.

As Matt Ridley put it:

“That is what genes are: parts of an information system that collects facts about the world in the past and incorporates them into good design for the future through natural selection” (Ridley 2003: 194).

Now, we can quibble all day about what 'information', 'facts' or 'knowledge' is, but the "Randian" viewpoint if I may call it that, essentially denies that there is a path of information flow from the environment to the organism via the genome and not via "senses". For some strange reason, only individual willful-type interaction with the environment is good enough to be a source of information. Whereas anybody that has even a cursory understanding of evolution knows that a huge amount of information passes through the genome too. From where? From the environment (where else?) to the genome, and on to successive generations via a simple survival/reproduction mechanism. This is reality. One that Rand denied, or just avoided perhaps - not sure. What I'm confused about is how she could really miss this obvious error and refuse to acknowledge it, and chose just to say she didn't understand evolution.

To admit that our genome contains an enormous amount of 'facts' about how to self-replicate a conscious human being but deny that our genes could possibly contain any other 'fact' is a rather remarkable position to take. Now I do understand the argument against 'instinct' (which is a somewhat obsolete term in biology these days) qualifying as real 'knowledge'. After all, how could anybody 'know' something they'd never experienced before. Seems impossible doesn't it? No, it doesn't after you realize that each and every cell in your body (except sex cells perhaps) has the information to rebuild a replica of you from scratch. The truth is your body has stored experience from more or less the very beginning of life on this planet.

Animals and people are born with an enormous amount of innate information. Even if you deny this by wiggling around with definitions of facts or knowledge. Rand's core concept of tabula rasa is nothing short of absurd.

Bob

Edited April 6, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[Darrell Hougen]

And, I have seen no evidence that knowledge, per se, is ever inherited.

"Darwin also believed babies are born able to recognise the facial expressions of others. His first child had suddenly assumed a melancholy expression in an experiment where the maid pretended to weep, even though the boy had apparently never before witnessed another person crying. This, Darwin thought, suggested that his son could not have learned that crying is linked to sadness and must have somehow inherited the knowledge. "

Thank you.

I realized after I made that statement that I had probably overstated my case. I remembered that infants seem to have some face recognition capability, though I didn't think of it in terms of facial expressions. I guess that emotional empathy, to some extent, is innate. When you see someone that is unhappy, you automatically feel the same way, allowing you to understand that the other person is unhappy. The same is probably true of hearing crying or laughter.

Perhaps Rand also overstated her case. But it is clear that inherited or automatic knowledge is very limited, judging by the difficulty of constructing such cases. Also, you should see this article for a little perspective:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010707/bob16.asp

Darrell

[bmacwilliam]

Ok, let me take a little step back and be clear. I am not intending that specific knowledge about a specific fact can be coded into genetics and decoded in successive generations.

In reality our genomes contain genetic information to build physical structures (like teeth say) and behaviour structures (like migratory and other so-called instincts) and the two are no different in any meaningful way. Does the bird really 'know' which way is south? Well he flies that way without learning it and so do all of his relatives. The information 'exists' somehow.

My point is that our nature is relatively 'fixed' in this way and we are anything but a blank slate. Hopefully that's a little clearer.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

For me tabula rasa meant that when I was born I had no conceptual knowledge, not that my brain was empty. Exactly what was in my brain and why I do not know.

--Brant

I understand that. The problem is that Rand wanted to use the concept of tabula rasa to act as a foundation of man's more or less infinite ability to shape his own character. The 'self-made man' idea.

Bob

I've always had my basic personality and character--at least as far back as I can remember (2 1/2). Frankly, they are immutable on that level. (I cannot say how much the environment prior to that age molded me.) I've done a lot of construction, demolition and reconstruction off of that. I'm not aware of Rand arguing for anything other than that except implicitly. She over-emphasized the role of sheer brain power, which to some extent was a good thing because too many under-emphasize that. The parents of identical twins sometimes have reported how they were aware of each having its own, different personality almost from birth. Since they are genetically the same the implication is that womb experiences played a role or that there is a certain amount of play within the genetic structure.

My Lab pup likes to pick sticks up and carry them on our walks with great purpose and focus. He's a bird dog. I didn't teach him to do this. He's "at work" and projects a certain kind of nobility while doing this. I'm convinced he is hardwired for this activity. To suppose humans don't have a lot of hardwiring too is too great a leap of faith for me to accept.

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

My point is that our nature is relatively 'fixed' in this way and we are anything but a blank slate. Hopefully that's a little clearer.

I guess that what you view as "relatively fixed," I view as almost unconstrained. While it is true that we all inherit certain perceptual, motor, and emotional mechanisms, it is amazing to me the variety of behavior that humans exhibit. A person can be a physicist or a farmer, a musician or a businessman, a priest or a stock broker. And, individuals sometimes make radical changes in their own lives. I was watching a show recently about people that lived unusual lives and there was a woman that had gone from being a Sunday school teacher to being a porn star. To me, the slate looks almost blank. Perhaps its just a question of perception.

Darrell

[Daniel Barnes]

Dragonfly:

>I doubt that anyone of us thinks that analytic truths are meaningless or illogical and I'm amazed that anyone could think that I would defend such a viewpoint....It's rather frustrating to be misunderstood so thoroughly!

Logging in briefly from a wireless hotspot on a slightly chilly Parisian morning...

What Dragonfly said!

[Laure]

Pross Klepto-Plagiarism Alert:

I Googled "Volition means that man is the initiator", from one of Victor's posts, and found it on another website that was quoting from George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God". My copy is packed away for my impending house move, but maybe somebody engaged in the "Pross-Hunt" can check their copy against Victor's post on this thread containing that phrase.

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Laure. Duly edited.)

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #39 of this Thread

"Man’s ability to conceptualize—mentally to abstract, isolate and integrate observed particulars—enables him in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences his actions. Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action. And, I hasten to add, volition does not violate the principle of causality. Volition does not mean that man’s thoughts and actions are uncaused. It means: in regard to some thoughts and actions (excluding such things as reflex actions), man acts as a primary causal agent. [Now, in this case, my approach in this regard differs from MSK’s]

Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a give manner—he requires a code of values—a system of principles—to direct his choices. Man’s volitional nature necessitates that he chose to think and act in order to survive."

Quote attributed elsewhere to George Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God

"Man's ability to conceptualize - mentally to abstract, isolate, and integrate observed particulars - enables him to think in terms of principles, to project the long-range consequences of his actions, and to be aware of his own cognitive processes and psychological states. It is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of his needs, capacities and the external world; and it is through conceptual thought that man gains knowledge of how to exercise his capacities in the external world in order to satisfy his needs.

Volition means that man is the initiator of thought and action, that he has the capacity to generate and sustain a thought process and a physical movement. It should be mentioned that volition, properly considered, does not violate the principle of causality. Volition does not mean that man's thoughts and actions are uncaused; it means, instead, that with regard to some thoughts and actions (excluding such things as reflex actions), man acts as a primary causal agent; man is the cause. Volition entails a man's freedom to choose among existing alternatives, his choice not being determined by factors beyond his control.

Because man is free to choose his actions, because he is not biologically programmed to act in a given manner, he requires a code of values - a system of principles - to direct his choices. Man's volitional nature necessitates that he choose to think and act in order to survive."

---------------------

Since the above post is a typed copy from the book, it may contain inaccuracies, and the poster did not give a page reference (though he did reference the book and author).

Good job, Laure.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. Some of this material also was used by Pross here.)

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #110 of This Thread

"The skeptic holds to the view that we should “suspend judgment” about everything. Such a position, to say the least, is hard to live by: How, for example, can we go about our lives while refusing to accept the validity of inductive inferences? Hume, (the disconcerting philosopher) who first purported the impossibility of justifying induction, found that when he left his philosophical study, he was unable to prevent himself from believing in the procedure! (There were those moments when he thought this irrational of himself and took to drink.) This conflict of "practical action" and “theoretical belief” has bothered generations of thinkers familiar with Hume's skeptical writings..."

Max More, Pan-critical Rationalism - Copyright 1994

"The skeptic reacts to this situation by holding that since nothing can be supported rationally, we should (try to) suspend judgment about everything. Such a position is hard to live by: How, for example, can we go about our lives while refusing to accept the validity of inductive inferences? David Hume, the disturbing philosopher who first demonstrated the impossibility of justifying induction, found that when he left his philosophical study, he was unable to prevent himself from believing in the procedure that, in his reflective moments, he believed to be irrational. This conflict of practical action and theoretical belief has bothered generations of thinkers familiar with Hume's skeptical writings."

-----------------------

--Dan Edge

Note from MSK: Thank you Dan. Duly edited. There is another section that should be mentioned.

Victor Pross, Post #110 of This Thread

Here’s an illustration to indicate the gap between the debaters:

Victor was human and he died.

MSK was human and he died.

Darrell was human and he died.

[and so on...]

*Observed past regularities will always continue into the future.*

Therefore, the next human being will die--as all humans must die.

Now an Objectivist cannot deny the conclusion if we accept the truth of the premises.

Max More, Pan-critical Rationalism - Copyright 1994

We can make the inference deductively valid by adding a premise:

Alice was human and she died.

Bob was human and he died.

Chris was human and he died.

[and so on...]

Observed past regularities will always continue into the future.

Therefore, the next human I observe will die.

Now we cannot deny the conclusion if we accept the truth of the premises.

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #130 of This Thread

"The “practical” can be defined as "that which reaches or fosters a desired result." Historically, a dichotomy between morality and practicality (which has is-ought implications) has been sermonized by dozens of philosophers. This argument is ingrained in the age-old dichotomy between concepts and percepts, which has been closed by the Objectivist theory of concept-formation, and this has fueled the is-ought split, but not this alone. But Objectivism defines a practical set of virtues which are, by definition, the behavior patterns required to achieve values that support individual human life."

Luke Setzer, Summary of OPAR

"Practical can be defined as "that which reaches or fosters a desired result." Historically, a dichotomy between morality and practicality has been preached. This argument is rooted in the age-old dichotomy between concepts and percepts, which has recently been closed by the Objectivist theory of concept-formation. Objectivism defines a practical set of virtues which are, by definition, the behavior patterns required to achieve values that support individual human life."

------------------

Michael, you may have to delete every single one of Victor Pross's posts (or at least edit them so that they have no content) in order to eliminate the scourge of plagiarism he left here.

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Quote attributed elsewhere to George Smith, Atheism: the Case Against God

[snip]

Since the above post is a typed copy from the book, it may contain inaccuracies, and the poster did not give a page reference (though he did reference the book and author).

Good job, Laure.

--Dan Edge

Oh. My. God. He snitched from George??!! That really takes the cake. (I'm cracking up already anticipating Ghs-style witticisms upon his hearing of this.)

Back in awhile with the page reference.

Ellen

___

Edited June 26, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[bmacwilliam]

Also,

How long before he gets the "Let's just be friends speech". I'd bet even money that it's happened already.

Angie in the photography-thread-that-used-to-be-the-gushy/lovey-thread:

"As for the big plans with me and Victor, nothing big is planned. Taking things one step at a time. "

Previously Victor Wrote :

"I'm gonna marry this girl one day."

Hmm.... He's toast. Such a shocker.

Bob

Edited June 26, 2007 by Bob_Mac

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross, Post #145 of This Thread

"The three laws of logic may be stated in different ways, depending on whether they refer to things, classes or propositions. Here is the formulation from a standard text on logic by Lionel Ruby’s Logic: An Introduction.

1.The Law of Identity: for things, the law asserts that “A is A,” or “anything is itself.” For propositions: “If a proposition is true, then it is true.”

2. The Law of the Excluded Middle: For things: “Anything is either A or not A.” For propositions: “A proposition is true, then it is true.”

3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: “Nothing can be both A and not-A.” For propositions: “A proposition, P, cannot be both true and false.” "

"Battlegear", post on Faith Based Knowledge

"The three laws of logic may be stated in different ways, depending on whether they refer to things, classes or propositions. Here is the forumluation from a standard text on logic:

1. The Law of Identity: For things, the law asserts that "A is A," or "anything is itself," For propositions: "If a proposition is true, then it is true."

2. The Law of Excluded Middle: For things "Anything is either A or not -A" For propositions "A proposition, such as P, is eiher true or false."

3. The Law of Contradiction: For things: "Nothing can be both A and not-A." For propositions:"A propositions, P cannot be both true and false.""

-----------------

--Dan Edge

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited.)

[dan_edge]

This is another recycled plagiarism that I remembered from one of the other busts.

----------------

Victor Pross, Post #147 of This Thread

"What is morality?

A morality—any morality—is a set of rules of conduct to guide the actions of an individual human being. THIS—and only this—is what all possible moralities have in common. As Rand put it: “A code of values to guide man’s choices and actions.”

Rand asked, Why should there be any morality at all? (This is a question that has been put to Daniel who has failed to answer it). Rand’s question is a normative question, so let’s rearticulate it in a factual provisos: What would happen to a man who practiced no morality? (This echoes Rand’s “immortal robot”).

A man who practiced no morality would be a man whose behavior was guided by no rules at all."

"Ayn Marx", Post on Google Group Study of Religion

"What is a morality?

A morality- any morality- is a set of rules to guide the actions of an

individual human being. This I suggest is the only thing all possible

moralities have in common. Given this, let's ask what I take to be a

normative question, why should there be any morality at all? Attempting

to re-phrase this in factual terms; what we may ask would happen if

humanity practiced no morality?

A man who practiced no morality would be a man whose behavior was

guided by no rules at all."

Victor Pross, Post #147 of This Thread

"Rand outlined the basic structure of her ethical system, and I want to summarize it while standing on one logical foot:

A, Living beings, and only living beings, have values (goals).

B, Man, being volitional, must choose his values.

C, Values may be means to an end, but must lead to some ultimate end. (An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would be meaningless).

D, Life is an ultimate end, the only ‘end in itself.’

E, Therefore, the only meaningful of justifiable values a man can choose—objectively—are those which serve to sustain his life. Man cannot survive by any random means."

"Ayn Marx", Post on Google Group Study of Religion

"1: Living beings, and only living beings, have values, goals.

2: Man, being volitional, must choose his values.

3: Values-goals- may be a means to an end, but must lead to some

ultimate end . An infinite chain of means leading to no final end would

, I suggest , be meaningless and impossible.

4: Life is an ultimate end, and furthermore I want to claim, it is the

only possible ultimate end, the only 'end in itself'.

5: Therefore the only meaningful or justifiable values we can choose

are those which serve to sustain life"

-----------------

--Dan Edge

Note from MSK: Thank you, Dan. Duly edited. The site referenced for "Ayn Marx" is the first that comes up on a Google search, but it is a site in Arabic from Morocco (post contents in English, though). The same group and discussion, with identical posts, is copied for domains in other countries, so it is most likely that while the plagiarism came from "Ayn Marx," the actual site used for copying was another. For another reference, here is the one for USA. Others countries are given here. The other place this same material was used by Pross was here.

LATER NOTE (July 12, 2007): Apparently "Ayn Marx" was also plagiarizing. Her posts on other forums are from Ronald E. Merrill's The Ideas of Ayn Rand (see here).