Dean Gores' Old RoR Bet

[Jonathan]

Who among the people criticizing is concerned with whether his/her views are consistent with Objectivism?

I think that Mikee in particular is very concerned about it. He seems to think that my laughing at overconfidence is an attack on self-esteem, and proof that I'm opposed to and/or envious of aspirations and achievement. That type of twisted reaction is a very Objectivisty/worry/conform mindset. As is the misidentification of my opposition to Objectivist aesthetic snobbery as a form of snobbery.

Anyway, when does charity to youthful excess expire? At what age?

The mocking with which you started this thread was over something Dean said some years ago.

Right. But he still has the same attitude! Is he therefore still engaging in youthful excess? At what age will it be okay to mock his overconfidence?

My view is that during the past decade, way too much charity has been granted to youthful excesses in O-land. I think It perpetuates their toddlerhood, and renders them pretty useless out there in the real world of ideas.

Again, so what regarding the persons responding to you here?

I don't understand the question. We were talking about Dean being eligible for a degree of charity due to his youthfulness. I disagree, and I think that such charity extends toddlerhood. Which means that I think charity would extend Dean's toddlerhood, as well as that of anyone else his age. The statement has no bearing on anyone else responding to me here, other than to let them know that I don't share their sense of leniency in this case.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

You appear to be reading motives into my posts which aren't actually there. I haven't rated Merlin's overall knowledge of Kant, or disqualified any of his sources of feedback as inadequate. I've simply stated that Merlin's article on Kant had enough of a trace of Rand's influence that I suspected that he hadn't had formal education on Kant or direct, non-Objectivist, expert feedback. Nothing more.

Maybe I am reading in motives. I'll ask directly: Were you attempting to discredit what Merlin said in the article?

(Incidentally, I haven't read the article myself, hence have no evaluation of whatever argument it presents.)

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Who among the people criticizing is concerned with whether his/her views are consistent with Objectivism?

I think that Mikee in particular is very concerned about it. He seems to think that my laughing at overconfidence is an attack on self-esteem, and proof that I'm opposed to and/or envious of aspirations and achievement. That type of twisted reaction is a very Objectivisty/worry/conform mindset. As is the misidentification of my opposition to Objectivist aesthetic snobbery as a form of snobbery.

But you didn't limit your replies to specifying Mikee, and actually I don't agree with your assessment even in his case. He's no representative of an "Objectivisty/worry/conform mindset." It's just that you in particular are a sort who irritates his sort.

Anyway, when does charity to youthful excess expire? At what age?

The mocking with which you started this thread was over something Dean said some years ago.

Right. But he still has the same attitude! Is he therefore still engaging in youthful excess? At what age will it be okay to mock his overconfidence?

Jonathan, is the issue attitude, or the specific bet which the thread started being about?

If it's attitude, how would you know if he's overconfident? He's a bright person, there are areas at which he looks to me to be quite competent. I wouldn't be surprised if he accomplishes some major achievements - though unraveling the mysteries of the universe, I don't expect.

My view is that during the past decade, way too much charity has been granted to youthful excesses in O-land. I think It perpetuates their toddlerhood, and renders them pretty useless out there in the real world of ideas.

Again, so what regarding the persons responding to you here?

I

I don't understand the question. We were talking about Dean being eligible for a degree of charity due to his youthfulness. I disagree, and I think that such charity extends toddlerhood. Which means that I think charity would extend Dean's toddlerhood, as well as that of anyone else his age. The statement has no bearing on anyone else responding to me here, other than to let them know that I don't share their sense of leniency in this case.

Your statement specifically referenced "youthful excesses in O-land," thus again making the issue generalized O-land behavior, not this particular example of this particular person and those responding on this thread, thus my "so what [...]?" What bearing does the amount of charity granted to youthful excesses in O-land during the past decade have on these circumstances?

Ellen

[deanwins]

Solving the first two "mysteries" has been non-achievable due to problems people have with the definition of life. Until I came around, AFAIK life was never satisfactorily defined. See my explanation/definition of life.

1 "Create any object that is self-replicating that is not already alive."

Self replication can easily be solved with polymers and computer programs, but due to the problem of "not already alive" being nonsense, the statement is nonsense.

2 Create any living thing from a non-living thing.

Again this is nonsense... Everything within our reality is "living". Some things "live" longer than others.

3 Understand what the nature of mind truly is.

We are dynamic massive general-purpose-intelligent life forms. Dynamic: we can change ourselves. Massive: as in having a huge neural/sensory/actuary network. General purpose: part of our dynamic nature: we can develop new algorithms and even create external tools to conceivably accomplish any realistically achievable goal. Life forms: parts of us continue to exist through reality's changes. Our "mind" is the stream of relationships between parts of reality that is our body. See my explanation/definition of information. We "think" and "feel" exactly the information both sensory and reasoned (deduction, induction, etc algorithms) that exists as we are/change.

4 The ability to create an artificial intelligence.

I've made primitive replicating computer programs and various more specialized automation algorithms. The former is more of general intelligence, although extrememly primitive. I'm guessing you want to see general artificial intelligence that is as capable as humans. That is still in the works...

5 The ability to agree on a definition of consciousness or intelligence or what "self-aware" means.

"Consciousness" is having live information about reality. For example in humans, such information exists comes in live through sensory systems, where one form of real event in reality is encoded/deduced into neural signals. Intelligence: capable of learning and planning. Self aware: having live information about some aspect of one's own state.

Also of interest, my answers to the questions on where our reality "came from", and what is "time"?

Whether you come to accept the above into your worldview (and hence we come to agree on these topics) is not so much in my control, although potentially we could both gain from discussing these ideas.

-Dean

[Jonathan]

Who among the people criticizing is concerned with whether his/her views are consistent with Objectivism?

I think that Mikee in particular is very concerned about it. He seems to think that my laughing at overconfidence is an attack on self-esteem, and proof that I'm opposed to and/or envious of aspirations and achievement. That type of twisted reaction is a very Objectivisty/worry/conform mindset. As is the misidentification of my opposition to Objectivist aesthetic snobbery as a form of snobbery.

But you didn't limit your replies to specifying Mikee, and actually I don't agree with your assessment even in his case. He's no representative of an "Objectivisty/worry/conform mindset." It's just that you in particular are a sort who irritates his sort.

I've never encountered anyone outside of Objectivist circles who would get it twisted around in their head that mocking someone's overconfidence is an attack on self-esteem and achievement. That's strictly an Objectivist thing. And I think the same is true of calling a snob-buster a snob. I've never encountered that in the outside, non-Objectivist world. It's so Objectivist.

I'm reminded of Matt Damon's title character in Good Will Hunting giving the snobby Econ student an intellectual thrashing. No one in that situation, or observing it, would call Will a snob, other than an Objectivist.

Anyway, when does charity to youthful excess expire? At what age?

The mocking with which you started this thread was over something Dean said some years ago.

Right. But he still has the same attitude! Is he therefore still engaging in youthful excess? At what age will it be okay to mock his overconfidence?

Jonathan, is the issue attitude, or the specific bet which the thread started being about?

I think it's some of both. I don't necessarily think that the attitude is Dean's only attitude, but it's also not limited to the mysteries of the universe stuff. I think that it's like a lot of people who very competent in one area who falsely assume that they'd be just as competent in any other area. They end up saying really silly shit, and don't have the knowledge to critically grasp their actual ineptitude, but just sort of Pygmalion-like fall in love with their creations, no matter how ugly. Kind of Dunning-Kruger but with the twist that they are actually competent in one limited, specialized area.

If it's attitude, how would you know if he's overconfident? He's a bright person, there are areas at which he looks to me to be quite competent. I wouldn't be surprised if he accomplishes some major achievements - though unraveling the mysteries of the universe, I don't expect.

I've seen him opine outside his area of expertise. From what I've seen, he lacks the ability to recognize when he lacks ability.

More later,

J

[Brant Gaede]

What are the tone and purpose? Specifically. Why not name them if they're not a mystery? Please do explain my motives.

Power lusts. Envy. Resentment of childhood traumas. Destroy OL. Compensate for moral and intellectual inadequacies.

Benevolence for carriers of truth. Justice. Desire for a true Objectivism. Can't stand nonsense.

--Brant

Uh, I'm just throwing things against the wall

I like the "Destroy OL" one.

Destroy it by stimulating interest, passion and discussions? Destroy it by attracting new members? Destroy it by getting people to say what's on their minds?

I didn't know.

--Brant

[Mikee]

"Dean is not being mocked for any virtues, but for his disconnection from reality on the issue of solving the mysteries of the universe."

I didn't ask about Dean's relative confidence compared to anyone else's. I asked about your practicing blatantly contradictory double standards in your judgments of others' confidence.

First, the part you mock, Dean's supposed overreaching, is exactly the thing I admire about him. I attempted to explain Dean's "bragging on himself" in an earlier post not directed at you and I won't repeat myself. Suffice it to say, you are not the desired goal of any attempt Dean might make to find like minded peers. As far as any comparison of self confidence between yourself and Dean, there is no comparison. You don't have any. You wouldn't feel the need to attack others if you did. Any more detail than that and I would have to engage in the psychologicalizing you seem so desperate to avoid anyone doing. Gee, why is that I wonder? Oops, there I went again.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Whether you come to accept the above into your worldview (and hence we come to agree on these topics) is not so much in my control, although potentially we could both gain from discussing these ideas.

-Dean

Dean,

Just letting you know that I'd be very interested in discussing these ideas, but I can't get into them right now.

I'm feeling frustrated because there are three threads going - the one on Julian Jaynes (currently quiet, but it's a recent thread), the one on Dan Lewis' book, and the one you re-opened re "free will" - which I'd like to dig into. However, I have some projects underway around the house which need to be attended to now, plus there's material I'm assisting my husband with (re the climate dispute, in which he's heavily involved), so I can't dig into OL threads now. I hope to have "surfaced" by about the second week of February.

I recommend starting a separate thread with a copy of your post #104, so the subject matter doesn't get entwined with the personality/behavioral issues on this thread.

I'm glad that you've joined OL and hope you stay around. There's a lot of material in the OL archives which you'd probably find of interest, and there are a number of people here with some scientific background.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

I just now saw this post:

You appear to be reading motives into my posts which aren't actually there. I haven't rated Merlin's overall knowledge of Kant, or disqualified any of his sources of feedback as inadequate. I've simply stated that Merlin's article on Kant had enough of a trace of Rand's influence that I suspected that he hadn't had formal education on Kant or direct, non-Objectivist, expert feedback. Nothing more.

Maybe I am reading in motives. I'll ask directly: Were you attempting to discredit what Merlin said in the article?

(Incidentally, I haven't read the article myself, hence have no evaluation of whatever argument it presents.)

Ellen

No, I wasn't trying to discredit the article. My motives were only what I identified them to be from the beginning.

J

[merjet]

I just now saw this post:

You appear to be reading motives into my posts which aren't actually there. I haven't rated Merlin's overall knowledge of Kant, or disqualified any of his sources of feedback as inadequate. I've simply stated that Merlin's article on Kant had enough of a trace of Rand's influence that I suspected that he hadn't had formal education on Kant or direct, non-Objectivist, expert feedback. Nothing more.

Maybe I am reading in motives. I'll ask directly: Were you attempting to discredit what Merlin said in the article?

(Incidentally, I haven't read the article myself, hence have no evaluation of whatever argument it presents.)

Ellen

No, I wasn't trying to discredit the article. My motives were only what I identified them to be from the beginning.

Jonathan again tries to rewrite history. Nothing more? He also wrote, "you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens" (link). That is not trying to discredit the article?

[Brant Gaede]

Jonathan again tries to rewrite history. Nothing more? He also wrote, "you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens" (link). That is not trying to discredit the article?

[Jonathan:] I wasn't trying to discredit the article. My motives were only what I identified them to be from the beginning.

Be reasonable, see it my way.

--Brant

surrender, the art of compromise from the perspective of the other guy

after we establish what lousy human beings you/we all are, we can all get into the hot tub (except me; I'll throw in the electric heater)

[Jonathan]

I just now saw this post:

You appear to be reading motives into my posts which aren't actually there. I haven't rated Merlin's overall knowledge of Kant, or disqualified any of his sources of feedback as inadequate. I've simply stated that Merlin's article on Kant had enough of a trace of Rand's influence that I suspected that he hadn't had formal education on Kant or direct, non-Objectivist, expert feedback. Nothing more.

Maybe I am reading in motives. I'll ask directly: Were you attempting to discredit what Merlin said in the article?

(Incidentally, I haven't read the article myself, hence have no evaluation of whatever argument it presents.)

Ellen

No, I wasn't trying to discredit the article. My motives were only what I identified them to be from the beginning.

Jonathan again tries to rewrite history. Nothing more? He also wrote, "you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens" (link). That is not trying to discredit the article?

Let's try it with visuals.

In the above, A is the original, B is a very distorted version of A, and C has a bit of disortion -- just enough to recognize that it's the same kind as in B. To recognize the fact that C's small amount of distortion is similar in kind but not in degree to B's large amount of distortion is not an act of "discrediting" C. C isn't a bad interpretation of A. Over all it's pretty accurate.

Understand?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

If what you depict visually, post above, is what you were trying to convey in what you wrote (quoted by Merlin), I think you need to improve your presentation.

I wouldn't guess that "you also don't seem to realize yet how badly Objectivists have misunderstood and misrepresented Kant, and how your own view of him is still being distorted by looking at him through a Randian lens" wasn't meant as intended to discredit the article.

Especially not after your initial post inquiring about Merlin's background on Kant and providing non-exhaustive choices as the alternatives - here. Studying Kant's "work formally -- in a formal academic setting, with the opportunity to question and receive feedback and guidance from non-Objectivist professors about your interpretations and understanding of his ideas" or studying Kant's work "on your own, casually, and without feedback from non-Objectivist experts" are hardly the only options, and that "causally" in the second option you provide already implies a less-than-well-informed preparation level.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think anyone realizes how much Kant distorted Kant by looking at his work through his Kantian lens.

--Brant

it's distortions--turtles?--all the way down

(even I'm confused)