L W HALL

If you haven't already done so you might want to do a search for the "Hockey Stick Model" on which a lot of the claims about global warming were based.

Later evidence was presented that indicates their were some basic flaws in the math used to compute graphs for the predictions.

Here is a link to one article from 2004 put out by "Technology Review" in which this is discussed. I haven't looked for anything new in a while so I am not sure if there are new twists to this or not.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/0...uller101504.asp

L W

Michael,

Sounds good to me, the ability(or lack there of) to communicate thoughts effectiviely is probably one of the greatest hindrances to man's progress and cause untold amounts of problems.

I remember hearing a story of how Archimedes upon finalizing his law of buoyancy while stting in the tub was so excited he ran through the streets naked shouting "Eureka". After calming down he realized the next greatest task was trying to explain it to others.

I look forward to your posts.

L W

Remember, the goal of writing is to persuade, not to offend; once you insult or put off your opponent, objector, or disbeliever, you will never persuade him of anything, no matter how "obviously wrong" he is or how clearly right you are. The degree and power of pride in the human heart must never be underestimated. Many people are unwilling to hear objections of any kind, and view disagreement as a sign of contempt for their intellect. The use of understatement allows you to show a kind of respect for your reader's understanding. You have to object to his belief, but you are sympathetic with his position and see how he might have come to believe it; therefore, you humbly offer to steer him right, or at least to offer what you think is a more accurate view. Even those who agree with you already will be more persuaded because the modest thinker is always preferable to the flaming bigot. Compare these statements and consider what effect each would have on you if you read them in a persuasive article:  

Anyone who says this water is safe to drink is either stupid or foolish. The stuff is poisoned with coliform bacteria. Don't those idiots know that?  

My opponents think this water is drinkable, but I'm not sure I would drink it. Perhaps they are not aware of the dangerous bacterial count . . . [and so on, explaining the basis for your opinion].

This is not only an excellent example of not only how to get your point across in writing, but how to go about doing the same in everyday discussions whether they be on the message boards or face-to-face.

I have long held and shared with others that as soon as you attack another person(their ideas inclusive) verbally they in most cases immediately start thinking what kind of a SOB you are and formulating a response rather than listen to whatever else you have to say with anything approaching an open mind.

This is why all too often discussions dissolve into pissing matches.

One of my all time favorites

How to clean your toilet

1. Put both lids of the toilet up and add 1/8 cup of pet

shampoo to the water in the bowl.

2. Pick up the cat and soothe him while you carry him

towards the bathroom.

3. In one smooth movement, put the cat in the toilet and

close both lids. You may need to stand on the lid.

4. The cat will self agitate and make ample suds. Never mind

the noises that come from the toilet, the cat is actually enjoying this.

5. Flush the toilet three or four times.

This provides a "power-wash" and rinse".

6. Have someone open the front door of your home. Be sure

that there are no people between the bathroom and the front door.

7. Stand behind the toilet as far as you can,

and quickly lift both lids.

8. The cat will rocket out of the toilet, streak through the

bathroom, and run outside where he will dry himself off.

9. Both the commode and the cat will be sparkling clean.

Sincerely,

The Dog

Two things.

1) when I was a wee fellow I found a cock-a-roach in the yard that was white and since I did not remember seeing one before I placed him in a mason jar and started feeding him. After a couple of days he turned dark and so my conclusion which I held for many years was he was starving and had lost his color due to lack of food. For some reason it didn't occur to me that there might have been plenty of food in the yard where I found him because I had always thought of cock-a-roaches as inside critters.

2) In the late seventies I was a manager for Pizza Hut in North Carolina and one day I came in the back door unexpectedly. My cooks(three teenage boys) didn't hear me and they were having a jolly old time putting bugs they had caught outside on the pizzas before slipping them in the oven. Bon Appetit!

Needless to say all three lost their jobs, although I did relent and give one kid his back at a later time when he came and talked to me.

L W

My reading is limited to mainly at night, but I guess it would be correct to say it was all at the same time although the most time is spent concentrating on OPAR, I find that it's best if I don't try to overload myself on the ideas presented in it and so I switch back and forth among the other books when I felt I have read enough for one night in OPAR.

Probably kind of strange, but then you have to consider the source.

I am now reading:

OPAR

Atlas Shrugged

Les Miserables (unabridged version)

Case for a Creator

I am going to try this, maybe I won't get bogged down in my own thoughts.

It seems we have argued from the original point of whether or not the nonconscious(possibly nonhuman) can have intention. So far it doesn't seem there is a big problem with intention having an underlying idea of volition behind it or maybe to put it in a more philosophical way 'intention presupposes volition'. I myself have no problem with letting the idea of nonhuman animals having volition on the perceptual level stand as a tacit agreement for the time being to keep the discussion more on track.

It seems that the place where Michael and Dargonfly stand- 'existence exists' aside for the moment- is whether the nonbiological can possess volition and at a deeper level is life as we usually understand it the strict domain of the biological.

Of course I understand that nobody else may necessarily agree with my assessment so far, but I am trying to keep my own perspective on which way the discussion is going and posted this to see if I am on track.

It would also seem that Marsha (if I understand her) doesn't believe the nonconscious can possess anything more than what humans endow them with and the ability of selection by machines does not imply intention on their part.

Kat seems to think the idea is not worthy of a B-grade movie

L W

Michael,

Here's one problem I have with the Doggie example; can an animal that is hungry make a volitional choice not to eat on it's own? I know that one can be trained not to eat untill told so, but that seems more a case of the master's will overriding the animal's through training.

With the Doggie in effect saying "no thanks" to the hotdog I can't see how we can really know that maybe he was not hungry at the time and simply passed on the meal.

Now I also know that it is very rare( maybe never, I don't have enough info to know for sure)) to see a dog pass up a hotdog, but I think we have to leave open the possibility that it could happen and although it may sound like nitpicking it would seem like you would need some controlled experiments to confirm or deny it.

Part of my doubt comes from a discussion on another forum along the same lines I was involved in a few months back and there were some real strong arguments made against animals having volition. To be honest, for me I am still somewhat unsure, but tend toward the not having.

L W

I would like to add a congratulations in here for surpassing the 100 mark also, and I would like to add that the overall feeling I get from this board is courtesy from others even if there is disagreement. It is enjoyable in contrast to some boards I frequent.

I like an old saying which goes "in order to disagree I don't have to be disagreeable".

Marsha,

I hesitated to use the word non-conscious and instead started to use nonhuman in respect to the volition idea. I had an idea it might not be the best choice of words and I agree with your assessment of volition as a human trait.

In respect to Dragonfly's use of the term "living beings" in relation to intention I would have to narrow the scope down to 'human beings' for my previous contention to be a more stable. In doing so I would then have to argue that non-humans could not have intention whether they were living or not as that would infer volition also.

L W

so I think there's enough room to bestow intention on non-conscious entities.

If you used the last definition in your post I would have to agree, but to me 'intention' seems to carry a underlying meaning of volition in respect to the ability to have an intention or not toward something or some act, which I do not belive you could say of a non-conscious entity.

Thanks for the answer Robert,

.................................................

Jody, I like your question and hopefully there will be some good responses to it because it immediately made me start thinking exactly where would we as a group in general consider or agree(if possible) on such a basic premise.

I also took the liberty of looking up a definition of Science and posting the one I believe may fit in the right context of how you mean it, since making sure we are all in agreement with meaning is essential I think. If this is not a good definition for you please post your own.

1. study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment ( often used before a noun )

L W

Peikoff has a major problem which requires that any new knowledge found by science will not have any impact upon philosophy. He maintains that Objectivism is both a philosophy for living life and it is a closed system. If both are true, then there must not be any impact of science upon philosophy, most especially none with regard to determining what issues philosophy needs to consider in order to serve its purpose of giving us cognitive tools and general principles for living our lives.

Anytime someone starts trying to tell me that their particular philosophy or ideas are complete in and of themselves- and that is my understanding of what he(Peikoff) means by a closed system- I have flashbacks of being handed "The Good book" and told that everything I needed was right in there and then chastised for questioning it.

* if I am wrong in his meaning I would appreciate a better understanding.

Thanks Michael,

You will find that we have mutual interests in applying objectivist principles to matters dealing with addiction as well. I have read the articles in the addiction forum along with what you wrote on ROR a while back and find them very insightful.

I have checked into this site off and on over the last couple of months but for some reason I thought I had already registered and had just misplaced my password.

As I was perusing the site last night I had this really great brainstorm; why don't I look at the membership list to see if I was on there. Well 'duh' I wasn't so I registered.

I look forward to my association with this site and the membership.

L W

Hello Kat, Michael, everyone,

I am a 55 yr old male who has within the last yr or so become interested in the philosophy of Rand.

I have always had an interest in what made us tick and how we interact with the others and the world at large, but it was often sporadic in nature between raising a family, working and indulging in what was my favorite pastime for many years-drinking.

Although most of my pursuit has been to the esoteric side of theology and related fields of the mystics, I have always questioned the why and wherefore of how a system can be understood in a logical sense.

I was just a little familiar with some of Rand's writings from years ago as I had never actually investigated it and so when I came acroos someone posting some of her thoughts on another board a little over a year ago I was kind of surprised at how many of the ideas meshed with things I had already been wrestling with.

So through a winding course which took in ARI, ROR, SOLO, The Autonomist and now registering here I will say the journey is still in full swing and I am enjoying it immensely.

Thanks to everyone who make these sites possible through their work and effort.

L W