bmacwilliam

Michael, I'll hopefully have time to elaborate fully but here's a short version. First of all I agree there are worst things for young minds, but that's not the point really. I do agree that fundamentalist religions are big trouble. Why do I think Objectivism is dangerous to younger folks? The ideas themselves (though I disagree with many) I must admit are not particularly dangerous in and of themselves, but there's more to the story - much more. When young, discontented, malleable minds find Objectivism they tend to embrace much more than the ideas, they embrace the leader (Rand) lock, stock and barrel , and will usually emulate the behaviour and attitudes etc. of the leader and her followers and herein lies the danger. Rand, in my opinion, was an angry venemous narcissist who did a good job of convincing her avid followers that this behaviour was justified and indirectly (or perhaps even directly) admirable qualities. To me, she's like an intelligent angry teenager that never grew up. For someone who does not have a well developed personality and who is angry and discontented there is a danger in finding justification in being this way (angry, narcissistic, condescending) and developing further anti-social behaviours. I'm not talking about suicide, just the danger of becoming an (or more of an) angry, complaining, condescending underacheiver in my opinion is greatly enhanced by exposure to Objectivism at an young age. I just don't think it's healthy. Bob

"But yes, she did forge a coherent philosophical system that is easily understood by common " I quite emphatically disagree with the word "coherent". I will elaborate in another thread in the chewing on ideas section. "At the very worst you could get out of Rand, she raises the right questions." Yes, I agree with this. However, I do think some of her conclusions are more than wrong, and lean toward dangerous, especially for younger, more influencable folks. Bob

OK, I'll start a thread in Chewing on Ideas section. Bob

IMHO, Weight Watchers is a decent program. However, in my experience (and the science supports this more and more) you'll end up with a better result and an easier road getting there if you go higher protein. Staying within the points limits is fine, but keep the protein high. Below is an abstract (very recent) that illustrates why this is so important - LBM (lean body mass) preservation and satiety. Below is almost exactly what the WW program will do for you in terms of energy restriction, so this study is highly applicable. Higher Protein Intake Preserves Lean Mass and Satiety with Weight Loss in Pre-obese and Obese Women. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Feb;15(2):421-9. Leidy HJ, Carnell NS, Mattes RD, Campbell WW. Purdue University, 700 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. hleidy@purdue.edu. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of dietary protein and obesity classification on energy-restriction-induced changes in weight, body composition, appetite, mood, and cardiovascular and kidney health. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Forty-six women, ages 28 to 80, BMI 26 to 37 kg/m(2), followed a 12-week 750-kcal/d energy-deficit diet containing higher protein (HP, 30% protein) or normal protein (NP, 18% protein) and were retrospectively subgrouped according to obesity classification [pre-obese (POB), BMI = 26 to 29.9 kg/m(2); obese (OB), BMI = 30 to 37 kg/m(2)). RESULTS: All subjects lost weight, fat mass, and lean body mass (LBM; p < 0.001). With comparable weight loss, LBM losses were less in HP vs. NP (-1.5 +/- 0.3 vs. -2.8 +/- 0.5 kg; p < 0.05) and POB vs. OB (-1.2 +/- 0.3 vs. -2.9 +/- 0.4 kg; p < 0.005). The main effects of protein and obesity on LBM changes were independent and additive; POB-HP lost less LBM vs. OB-NP (p < 0.05). The energy-restriction-induced decline in satiety was less pronounced in HP vs. NP (p < 0.005). Perceived pleasure increased with HP and decreased with NP (p < 0.05). Lipid-lipoprotein profile and blood pressure improved and kidney function minimally changed with energy restriction (p < 0.05), independently of protein intake. DISCUSSION: Consuming a higher-protein diet and accomplishing weight loss before becoming obese help women preserve LBM. Use of a higher-protein diet also improves perceptions of satiety and pleasure during energy restriction.

I have come to a conclusion, which in a technical sense makes no difference to examination of the arguments, but I am convinced that Rand was primarily politically motivated and that her ethics were simply a ill-conceived reverse engineering type of effort that actually started from the premise that "Laissez-faire Capitalism must be good, so I'll find a way to justify it." After that, the ethics were just clumsily jammed together. Of course, just in the LF Capitalist argument alone there's big problems. I can't blame her for trying, but I conclude that her motivation is just a hatred of where she came from, so she assumed the opposite must be the ideal. Bob

Do you want to go there? That's a serious question, because I'll go there. Now, this is out of the scope of the current physics context of course, but I'll go there if you want to discuss it further. Bob

"is, in essence, a statement of the primacy of existence." No, that's not what I'm saying. "But that is the Objectivist view and the view that I have been arguing for since the beginning. " In word it seems, but not in practice. This is the source of my frustration. I have seen many Objectivists argue that a model/theory must be wrong (like QM) because it defies the law of identity or causality or some other nonsense. In essense they say that the world can't be that way because it contradicts my 'perfect and immutable' philosophy. That in my opinion is completely backwards. "Or, is philosophy simply not that fundamental?" Objectivism certainly isn't. There are so many holes, problems and contradictions that all we have to do is take a cursory look at reality to know that Objectivism is in violation of reality. In word, reason and reality shape Objectivism. In practice, rhetoric and Rand define it, with very little honest self-critique of its problems. Objectivism SAYS reality first, but that's clearly not the case. Bob P.S. Not sure if this matters, but my first quote: "In reality our philosophical systems are dictated by reality and not vice versa," The word "are" should really have been "Should"

Paul, In response to your last post, I more or less agree. What is often missed is that we have a 'natural' or 'built-in" philosophy or common sense that helps us understand things but can also lead to error. Building an immutable philosophical system and essentially forcing reality to conform is bass-ackwards. In reality our philosophical systems are dictated by reality and not vice versa. Objectivism seems to pay lip-service to this idea, but in practice its adherents violate this all the time, including Rand herself. The whole idea that science or progress has to be rooted in an overt philosophical model or foundation is only partially and weakly true. Science, observation, and reality can and should be used to change philosophical ideas just as much or perhaps more than philosophy affects science. Philosophy is simply not as fundamental as some would have us believe. Fundamental physics research is just as much Philosophical research as scientific. Bob

Yep, while it's true that women have the stereotype of being more critical/insecure with their bodies, I don't think men are far off these days. I see a lot of men who are very conscious of body image - in a big way. There's a good deal of pressure for men to look good too it seems. Bob

About the bulking up thing... Very few women (but not zero) ever and I mean EVER have to worry about putting on too much muscle. Women simply do not have the hormonal environment to build bulk like men. Maybe one in a thousand - maybe. However, often exercise can increase appetite and often the "bulking" perceived is simply nothing more than eating too much and gaining weight. Maybe the average woman can gain something like 5 or 10 pounds of muscle mass in a couple years of training. Generally, this makes them look much better (youthful) in my opinion, certainly not bulky. Bulking up is a much overblown fear IMHO. Bob

Thanks for the info Stephen - much appreciated. There's enough reading there to keep me busy for the next few months in my non-existent (but logically valid) spare time :-) Bob

Dragonfly: "But that is such a narrow-minded idea that I feel I have to scream." Well, at least I'm not the only one. And Michael, I tend to agree with what you've written: "So I see no reason to try to force pure mathematics into the "derived from sensory data" mold." Yes, but in my opinion, the problem is deeper than that. Incidentally, I read a book last summer called 'How the mind Works' by Stephen Pinker. Interesting stuff along the lines of what you're talking about - all about learning and human nature/evolution etc. Very thought-provoking. Bob

Well, with that post, I agree with mostly everything you said. I agree that the bottom line is intensity and progression. The rest is just details. People who fail to progress usually are missing in one of these two. More advanced folks tend to need higher volume and that's my problem with the Jones/Darden/Mentzer camp. Pump anybody full of enough drugs and any program will pack on strength and mass including sitting in front of the tube all day. "which strikes me as extremely rationalistic rather than grounded in empirical scientific evidence" Agreed, totally. "I do know that the Darden program has been very successful for people wishing to lose weight without recourse to aerobics, for example." Sure, I get into contest shape with very little cardio. It's all about thermodynamics. Diet is critical, cardio is optional for weight loss (but healthy). In fact, Darden's approach wouldn't be half bad for a dieter but in my opinion it's less than optimal for packing on muscle. Bob

Exactly. And to put a slightly different spin on it, neither a "brain" nor a computer "calculates" any more so than does an abacus. RCR I could agree with that perhaps, but that's not the point I'm disputing. The sentence BEFORE the quote you included was: "However, you are attempting to invert the process by claiming that mathematical reasoning is valid, a priori, i.e., in the absence of anything that exists. I'm saying that you're putting the cart before the horse." This is wrong. Mathematical reasoning is defined by it's own terms ALONE - not external. Asking for the reality link to validate it is nonsensical. Just like asking what being "IT" means when you're not playing tag. The question is "illegal". There is no cart and no horse required. Here's another way of looking at it: The only way we can attach meaning to the word "mathematics" is by its definition - it's rules - it's abstract framework. So while asking "How does math correspond to reality?" is an EXCELLENT question - science progresses on these questions all the time. BUT, the statement "Math is invalid or wrong or worthless unless it corresponds to reality." Is very different. It's either a personal value judgement, or a nonsensical statement/question, because it's definition, its nature, its framework if you will is separate from reality. Bob

I have to disagree with Darrell on this, and I am sure AR would disagree also. It is true that Ayn Rand defined logic as “the art of non-contradictory identification” rather than “the art of non-contradictory assertion.” But this is only because she wished to emphasize the proper usage of logic—that it is supposed to be applied to experience in order to arrive at the truth and not engaged in as an end in itself. The fact remains that a conclusion can be perfectly logical and yet wrong because it is based upon false premises. That is, if logical consistency leads to a conclusion known to be false, at least one of the premises must be wrong. And this is just what Rand meant, I think. Mathematics is of course another matter, and my forthcoming essay on hypercomplex numbers will, I hope, show this. Aha... I see - good post. "But this is only because she wished to emphasize the proper usage of logic—that it is supposed to be applied to experience in order to arrive at the truth and not engaged in as an end in itself" This makes sense in a value-judgment context, but no more. Just like saying "I don't like chocolate". True perhaps, but in a narrow sense and with limited applicability. Defining logic with the word "art" is more than a small warning sign I'd say. Bob

"First, I'm not supporting a realist position. you are. The Platonic realist states that ideal forms exist independent of observation which is exactly what you're claiming." Yes, I think I misused that term for sure. I don't know off hand what "ist" or "ism" your empirical logic/math connection implies, perhaps is doesn't matter. Maybe Objectivist is most appropriate. However, I am most certainly not a realist in the Platonic sense. I mentioned nothing about "ideals" and the idea always sounded silly to me. Maybe I could be considered a 'critical realist' I guess (or at least some of that stuff makes sense to me), but that's very different than Plato's ideas about ideals and Gods and whatnot.. "Next, your definition of logic is one possible definition, but is not the most useful definition." I think it's the only definition that makes any sense at all. And remember, an argument about definitions as far as I have ever seen is always fruitless. Can't get a common ground to proceed. Your definition is useless to me because, as I have explained, it's nonsensical. Like starting a conversation with " OK, assume you walk 4km north of the north pole then...." It's not a valid definition. In order to argue anything, there must be SOME common ground upon which to proceed. You must not have understood what I wrote though. You avoided my direct criticism regarding your math/logic to reality link. "So, I'm not stating that purely abstract, formal reasoning is not possible, simply that it is meaningless if there is no connection to reality. " Well, that's somewhat different than your original statement about logical conclusions: "arrive at a logical conclusion means to make a prediction about the existence of some piece of evidence." Nonetheless, my point is that testing the validity of logic and by extension Mathematics by an external connection to reality is a nonsensical thing to do. You have not attempted to discuss this. I don't know how Godel fits into this, but I'll think about it... Bob

Oh man...Can't seem to avoid stepping in it around here. Darden's ideas are applicable only in a very narrow context. I don't think they're very well grounded in evidence. In fact, a very recent meta-analysis (an important one in my opinion at Arizona State) of a very large number of studies concluded very much in direct opposition. The problem is that for NATURALS, training effectively depends a great deal on training status. The overly simplistic approach of those in the Jones camp is largely abandoned by the elite in any sport, including bodybuilding (if that can be called a sport) and never was it mainstream, because it was sub-optimal. "the late Objectivist bodybuilding champ Mike Mentzer" was a complete nutcase. But more importantly, he did tons of drugs including stimulants and lots of steroids among others (and I won't mention that whole urine-drinking thing). No conclusions can be drawn when these powerful drugs are confounding results. Viator was REgaining and most likely on drugs too - two things that would make training style of little consequence. Most bodybuilders trained more like Arnold during their development (Mentzer and Viator included). Even Yates, one of the more recent successes touted to train in a Jones style, doesn't really train like that. Inevitably, the training volume is higher when scrutinized. The problem is that for beginners and steroid users, any program works. I do not think that it's a coincidence that these concepts also allow for maximum throughput in a fitness facility. For naturals, especially advanced naturals, his programs are not appropriate. In beginners, the intensity is too high for optimal gains and increases risk for a REDUCTION in benefit and is therefore also not advised. The core ideas about working hard and adding weight to the bar are good ones, and in my opinion is really the only reason why some people show results. Now, I will say that some of the Nautilus machines are good. But Darden's training ideas, like himself are just relics of the past, with no real lasting value in my opinion. FWIW, I am a competitive natural bodybuilder (drug tested events only) - not that that means I'm right, but I do study this stuff a great deal and I coach many BB'ers as well. I have had two regional wins (one got me a pro card as a heavyweight). I have had a second place national finish (back when I was a light-heavyweight) and I beat the winner three months earlier. Oh well, such is life in the whacky world of bodybuilding. I may give a national title another go, now that I'm a little bigger, but it's usually in August and family vacations with the wife and kids are a higher priority. Bob

I guess I can expand this thought a little more... Darrell's position on logic, and mathemetics it seems too, demands a connection to reality and lives or dies, means something or means nothing on this basis. I reject this, and I knew I read about it some time ago and I found a reference. Stephen Yarnop at MIT wrote (discussing Carnap's ideas): "How can an external deployment of 'there are X's' mean anything when by definition it floats free of the rules whence alone meaning comes?" There's more to this argument of course, but that's the crux of it. So, for example the question of whether logic, numbers, and other mathematical concepts exists, or your downstream extension of this concept where their validity is judged externally (agreement with observation) is an INVALID position. It is an IMPOSSIBLE question. Now, I do understand the argument against this where the analytic/synthetic distinction is fuzzy then the distinction between or ontological/empirical is also called into question perhaps. However, it seems that the internal/external distinction is sharper and the argument against is weak. Essentially, the rules of the mathematical framework for example, are special in the sense that they more bullet-proof analytic. In a sense they are the only reason why the question of say "Do numbers exist?" has any meaning at all in even a linguistic sense. So, that's just a long-winded explanation of why I view Darrell's view on logic and math, not just wrong, but misguided in the broadest sense because I have concluded that the question itself is non-sensical. Logic is valid period as a result of it's rules, so is mathematics. It's validity relies solely on internal criteria. Therefore I cannot argue/discuss questions that I fundamentally view as invalid. I like the analogy of playing tag - it's funny but accurate. What would children say about discussing the concept of who is really "IT" external to the game of tag? They'd say the question was stupid. The questions of whether or not mathematical reasoning is subject to external scrutiny is the same damn question. Bob P.S. - I also wanted to add that maybe on the surface it looks like there is something unscientific about logic and mathematics if they are held 'above' or separate from external questions or connections. I do not believe this to true at all. The reason is that the framework itself - the rules - can be modified and tested in light of observations and in fact this is precisely how new scientific models progress.

That is begging the question, as you start with demanding correspondence to reality, which is not a condition for logical consistency.To be logically consistent means to be consistent with evidence or observation. Essentially, to arrive at a logical conclusion means to make a prediction about the existence of some piece of evidence. If that evidence exists, then the conclusion is confirmed, otherwise it must be rejected and the process of reasoning must be checked or modified. It may be that some concept used in the reasoning process was not thoroughly understood, for example. What you are talking about is the way that logic is often described in mathematics, the process of starting with a set of assumptions and applying rules to deduce a conclusion. However, the mathematical version of logic is just an abstraction of the process of reasoning about reality. Moreover, it is only reasonable and its conclusions are only meaningful insofar as they can be related back to actual facts of reality. It is no accident that mathematics deals with numbers and quantities and geometric shapes, because those are things that either exist or are similar to things that actually exist, e.g., a circular object. However, you are attempting to invert the process by claiming that mathematical reasoning is valid, a priori, i.e., in the absence of anything that exists. I'm saying that you're putting the cart before the horse. Darrell This is a big problem here. This is not logic. Logic is by definition formal and abstract. Logic is the abstract rules that governs thought and reasoning. The connection to evidence or existence or anything is purely incidental. The pure realist position I can't support. I don't think it's possible to have an intelligent discussion with such widely divergent definitions of logic. Personally I think this approach is a clear example of thinking too small and using our natural, but limiting cognitive bias to limit thought. This is not to say that logic can't predict anything, and if a prediction turns out to be false then sure, maybe the logic is wrong, but logic is separate from evidence. I remember reading stuff on this by Putnam?? I think and I just don't buy it. I mean, by this definition, don't we have to dismiss all non-euclidean geometry? "However, you are attempting to invert the process by claiming that mathematical reasoning is valid, a priori, i.e., in the absence of anything that exists. " It MOST CERTAINLY IS valid. This dismissal of abstraction is not even worth arguing about to me. Logic includes both real and abstract concepts. Bob

No, I don't think so. Giving space immutable qualities like length, depth, width etc. (and hence volume) is not appropriate. The 'main' property of space in the classical sense might be volume (not area), but space isn't classical. Relativity unwound all of the classical notions of length, time, space, and velocity. Matter and space (space-time more correctly) are connected so that one doesn't mean anything without the other it seems. Bob

Fine, but there are some problems. Not the least of which is the obvious extension of what your saying and that is to STATE them also requires their use and as a result renders them circular and useless. Regardless, I could take as an axiom under your definition as " Something exists" - fine. Now, the statement 'Existence exists independent of consciousness' whether true or false, is NOT axiomatic in your "hard" sense at all. Neither is identity, as I contend the whole concept as utilized usually is a fallacy. "That things exist outside of one's own consciousness is a self evident fact. The knowledge that things exist apart from consciousness comes from an honest assessment of the content of one's own consciousness and of one's perceptions." And to be clear, we could argue this until the cows come home, but that's not my point - I tend to agree with the assertion. My point is that the statement is not axiomatic, it is not self-evident. And realize that as soon as you bring 'honesty' into it, you're arguing from intimidation - Rand's favourite passtime as far as I can tell, but not pertinent to the point at hand. Bob

I don't have any major objections to what you're saying here, other than your use of the word 'specific' could be troublesome. But Darell doesn't use it this way. It makes more sense for you to direct your comments to him. Darell : "The identity axiom implies that every property of a system is finite. It implies that causality cannot be violated." This is the thought-pollution I speak of. This frustrates me because it's so obviously wrong. I get at least some satisfaction when Dragonfly skewers it. To me the moral of the story is that while we need some type of epistemological framework to learn and discover things, QM teaches us at a minimum that the epistemological, metaphysical and/or logical framework itself is up for modification. I believe epistemology is built on a coherentism-like framework, not on immutable axioms. EVERYTHING is held to scrutiny and we DO NOT need immutable axioms to progress. In fact this will KILL progress. The changeable 'coherent' platform is what we have to employ to progress. Theories of the mind/learning that hold these types of ideas make sense to me. Obectivist axioms do not. Bob

Seems to me you have to use it for everything, lest you end up stealing concepts. There is no "logic", for example, without a process of observation (based upon the concept of identity) preceding it. If there was some form of consciousness somewhere that lived in a complete vacuum and was aware of nothing, save for itself, for example, then its "logic" would be quite different than we understand it. That consciousness could not make logical inferences or deductions about "married bachelors" or "black swans", it would have to know about men and swans first (among other things). Or to approach it another way, we can not make "logical" inferences or deductions about unicorns, since they don't exist. It is neither reasonable nor unreasonable, logical nor unlogical to suggest that unicorns eat rocks, or that all unicorns are white. Seems to me, that you can not postulate any sort of "logic" without first having an awareness of actual things (even in the most general way) to be logicized about. RCR I understand what you're saying and in one sense I agree, but we're talking about different things I think. The concept of identity (as used usually and the object of my objection, but different than MSK's view of it) is an empty tautology. It places no restriction on anything and tells us nothing. It's circular in it's reasoning and cannot be used a basis or reason for anything. In a sense, it's a one-word fallacy. To say something is what it is, but isn't what it isn't, is useless. It is not used in your sense of "awareness" when used as the basis for causality as an example. In this example, it's used as if it means something that it doesn't. Bob

"The idea that a particle or particles could exist in a compound state may be counterintuitive, but that is a more philosophically satisfying position than the assertion that the the state is indeterminant. " I'm not trying to connect a possible three state logic scheme to metaphysical indeterminance. I'm simply stating that the Bell's theorem issue should have us examining our logic too. If I recall, your idea of compound state has some recent experimental basis. This idea has some backing I think. "definite state described by a linear combination of wavefunctions. " Not sure what this means. "it is also the interaction of the particle pair with the detectors on either side that cause the wavefunction collapse." I gotta look into this more, but I don't think it's that simple. But again, I'm not totally sure about this. Must dust off some books. "Then I would throw out locality. According to the, "No Communication Theorem," a non-local interpretation does not violate causality. The other two cannot be escaped." I just think that's hasty, and your last statement is too confident. I don't think the evidence supports such an assertion - yet. Bob

Frustration, certainly. Hurt feelings? Hardly. Michael says you're intelligent. Maybe, but I don't see anything in the last posts that support that. Dragonfly "countered" nothing. Maybe this is what you got that from - he said: "QM doesn't in any way invalidate logic, it can only exist thanks to a rigorous application of logic" and so on. I DID NOT say that QM invalidates logic, and I don't think Dragonfly was asserting this either. I asserted that there could be a logic problem associated with Bell's inequality and it's application to QM. Something could be wrong in the chain of reasoning, including incomplete logic. The fact that Bell's inequality is experimentally violated is a really weird thing, and is not easily explained. So if I wasn't clear then, what I'm saying is that the logic involved should be re-examined, and in fact Dragonfly AGREED (checking premises comment). This is the second time I've explained it and yet you still assert he used identity to "counter" me. In reality, he did not use "identity" and he AGREED with me. "I couldn't agree more." So, WTF? "That principle underlies any honest thought process, but it takes a philosophic mind to grasp consciously." That is as arrogant as it is wrong. That doesn't hurt my feelings, it's just dumb. I post here because I enjoy discussing and learning. My problem is I can't help poking at the daft remarks. Bob