UncleJim

This is true. But it is also true that that which is knowable physically exists and therefore can be known to exist. The issue is - by what method? To say that we are able to "deal" with something of which we have no knowledge is to beg for intelligence. Any principle (mathematical or otherwise) coming from such a basis can be challenged. This is what I call "a fancy math trick." Its no better than religious dogma. This is much like any religious text. They also make claims which cannot be validated. In order for any religion to influence ones behavior one must first believe in what it says. But to act properly one must know what the consequences of ones acts are prior to performing the act. Since the consequences are determined by: what one is and; where one lives; then, one cannot simply make this up (i.e., act religiously) and expected to be considered a properly functioning living organism. But to make such a claim REQUIRES that ALL possible forms of measurement have been attempted. And there is simply no evidence that this is so! Sure; of course! But what we do know; is what we do know. This cannot be denied. We can act based on what we do know. We can make predictions of the consequences of our actions based on what we do know them to be. In other words: We can act properly as an individual human-beings. For example: For one to convince ones grandchildren to blow themselves into millions of tiny bloody bits of meat and bone is not a proper human act. It violates what we know about what being a human-being means and how they must act to be considered a properly functioning human-being.

Under Objectivism reality is the final arbiter. If you are looking at a red apple then that is what you are looking at. In other words: The thing determines what can be said about it.

But Nature does have its symmetries and its associated conserved quantities and invariants. This is how one can account for a changeable Herikletian River. The population of water molecules change but the symmetries stay put. This has been of the the Original and Still Unsolved problems of philosophy. The problem of the Many and the One. The problem of the Changeable and the Constant. It has been kicking around for at least 3000 years and there still is no final resolution. Ba'al Chatzaf I don't see the problem. The purpose of philosophy is not to make the truth but to describe what it is.

Wrong! You cannot determine both the position and momentum of an object with arbitrary precision. Google <Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle> Also lookup the subject on wikipedia. By and large I have found Objectivists to be pretty lame in physics and mathematics. I don't know why, but it is the case. Ba'al Chatzaf Assuming a particular measurement is not precise. How could you possibly know that? This requires that you know what the value is prior to making the measurement which is intended to give you THAT value. Of course if you are unable to measure something without screwing up the measurement of it then you won't know what the value ought to have been. The solution is to not screw-up the measurement. The uncertainty principle fails by its own definition. How can you possibly know when you have failed to do something unless you are able to accurately know that. Fancy math tricks don't prove that people have a naturally limited ability to accurately investigate natural occurrences. They only prove that fancy mathematicians think they are really cute.

A more accurate way of telling whether something is alive is to look, listen, smell, feel and prod. That is why we have senses. Ba'al Chatzaf See the blue highlight above. That's what I said! Your origional question was: "What does "Sense of Life" mean. And assuming it is meaningful, can it be determined objectively to the extent that there will be agreement among independent witnesses as to what it is?" "Agreement" has nothing at all to do with determining whether or not someone knows what they are talking about.

The baby (if it is alive) will piss in your hand. The rock won't. In addition to which the baby is 70 percent water and the rock is not. Next question? Ba'al Chatzaf I didn't ask a question. I made a statement. See the blue highlight above. Do you agree with that statement or not?

Wrong. I am correct on the physics. You can also look it up. Ba'al Chatzaf That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the physics is correct. You have taken the same position that religionists take with respect to what is written in the bible. They say since it's written in the bible then it is correct. You said "Our understanding of the cosmos is limited to the degree of precision our observations can achieve." This simply cannot be a true statement. Our understanding of the cosmos has no limit because there is no limit on the degree of precision our observation can achieve. This is implying that some type of intelligent external force is purposefully limiting the degree of precision of our observations. There is no evidence which will support that assertion.

About 10^15 times Planck Length. Also about 10^15 time Planck Time. Rather crude. Ba'al Chatzaf Since your observations; by your own acknowledgment are "rather crude", then I would be well advised to pay little; if any, attention to what you have to say. Right?

All of the above exist. They are -physical- processes. The interaction of particles and fields. A human mind (functioning of a brain) is a dynamic collection of Brain Farts. The mind (i.e. brain functions) of an imbecile can be objectively observed. It does not have to be "properly" functioning at all. Ba'al ChatzaF Are you saying an imbecile can "properly" acknowledge the existence of his (or another's) mind function?

Try this experiment. Pick-up a rock in one arm; then pick-up a baby in the other arm. The difference is life. How do we know that that difference exists? We sense its existence. The existence of Life is independent of consciousness. What you may instead be asking is "what emotion is naturally associated with knowing that life exists?." Or it may have to do with "is another acting properly with respect to what life is."

I prefer to refer to "human existence" rather than to "human life." This is because the concept denoted with the word 'life' applies to all living organisms.

There is a distinction between what ones life is and what ones existence is. In this instance, Galt was acting emotionally - not rationally. In other words: He was acting religiously rather than intelligently. To exterminate ones own life to the benefit of another's means to act altruistically. Rand's writings; in this regard, are contrary to the principles of Objectivism which she is singularly responsible for the development of.

Objectivist ethics is the recognition that ones life is ones standard of value. This is saying that one uses it to determine what next to do. When ones actions benefit ones life one is considered to be an ethical actor. Under Objectivism it is never ethical to act against ones own life. Does this deny that suicide can be considered rational? No! An ethical actor only performs rationally determined actions. When an ethical actor rationally looks at ones own existence and observes that ones own existence will eventually stop existing that person can properly decide to end it earlier than what natural circumstance might otherwise provide for. But WHY IN THE HELL would an otherwise rational actor decide to kill ones-self? When he is experiencing such in unnatural pain the cause of which has removed happiness from his proper living existence. This person can rationally decide to regain control over his happiness. It is the happiness he experiences when he begins to understand he has regained control of his existence. He will not be happy he is about to die but he can be happy that he has properly approached the issues and has made a rational decision based on all available data. Are Muslim suicide bombers acting rationally? No! This is because the existence of their life is not being physically threatened. Well then why are they doing that? Because they believe their life is under the control of their God rather than their reality.

Was Ayn Rand a moral actor? That is determined by the consequences of her actions on her own life. Not on the lives of those who she knew. We all to easily design the resultants of our actions at the privilege of the desires of others. This is altruism. Sure she fucked around. And she did so at the exclusion of the desire of her marriage partner and the marriage partner of her fuckee. Is this an example of an immoral act? Notice: That is determined by the affect of that act one her own life; not on the lives of those others (including the life of the fuckee). She acted selfishly - but did she benefit from the results of those actions? Well..... Does she have children? No! Then; fundamentally, she failed at being a properly functioning human-being.

To achieve "moral perfection"; or any other goal, one must have a standard to compare it against. To achieve any goal and thereby experience the consequence resulting from its achievement one must actually do something based on what the standard is. When one is acting in accordance with a particular standard, one is considered to be a properly functioning (i.e., a virtuous) human-being. The principles of ethics are derived by observing how a virtuous person acts. Ethics explains the proper actions of individuals. A properly acting individual performs those actions which naturally results in his remaining a properly acting individual. Fundamentally this requires that his actions support the continued existence of his life. This argument makes the continued existence of ones own life the standard of ethical behavior. When two or more ethical persons engage one another, observation of how they act is recorded under the concept of morality. Morality describes those actions individuals engage in which (in some way) affect the proper existence of others while not threatening ones own existence. This argument makes the continued existence of ones own life the standard of moral behavior. Morality is the application of individual ethics to society. Acting in reality; whether ethically or morally, produces natural consequences. The natural consequences of acting ethically are termed "selfish." The natural consequences of acting morally are termed "capitalistic." The natural resultant of acting selfishly is called a benefit where the natural resultant of acting capitalistically is called profit. Profit is; then, the additional benefit one is able to enjoy by result of acting properly in a social setting. The attainment of "moral perfection" is a goal set by the requirements of ones own life when one is functioning in a social setting. The measurement of how well ones actions address the requirements of ones own life is called - happiness. To be happy one must not only know that one exists but one must understand why.

Hi Jeff May I play with this question a little? I do sort of see that there could be an issue here. One interpretation of the view that man is an end in himself might be that we could all make different choices, equally valid for each of us. Thus you might choose to be a captain of industry, and I might choose to be a contemplative hermit. Each of our choices would be our own and so equally valid. Our lives are our own. Another view (maybe connected with the objectivist virtue of "Productiveness", and the objectivist theory of aesthetics) might be that there are certain things that "objectively" (or in search of "man qua man") we all "ought" to be aiming at, and that individual choices not to aim at them would not be valid. (Does the contemplative and non-heroic and arguably non-productive hermit fit into the objectivist schema?) If we accept the requirement to earn one's own living and thus not to live on the efforts of others, is there then a further objectivist imperative to be (economically) "productive"? Or, if we each earn our own living, have we the right to do as we choose? This has puzzled me for some time. I'll be most grateful for thoughts. Best regards Adrian We all have one thing in common - we are alive. This separates us from everything else. This difference has a name - life. To act properly means to act in accordance with what makes us different. Which means to act in that way which our life requires. Not in that way which others would like us to act. Notice how since others are different in the same way as we are this requires that their actions are like our actions.

You said "Our understanding of the cosmos is limited to the degree of precision our observations can achieve." At what level of precision does your above observation exist?

Not a testable hypothesis. Interesting theology, but it is not science. Ba'al Chatzaf Is it even a theory?

As insignificant as treating human illness an an unbalance of humours. That bogus theory has lead to the deaths of millions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism My straw man is about what is true. There is no substantial stand alone mind. It does not exist. What is in our heads are brains, nerves and glands. Treating mental illness is equivalent to driving out evil spirits by drilling holes in the skull. How many people have suffered and wasted away in "mental" hospitals because of this bogus notion? Psychiatrists and psychologists are the modern version of shamans and "medicine men". The welfare of the human race will be promoted when we finally get rid of the notion of mind (res cogitens). In the world there is only matter and motion. Res extensa. Burying Descartes bogus notion is long overdue. The human race may achieve happiness and contentment when it becomes thoroughly materialistic. Man does live by bread alone (in a manner of speaking). We are our flesh and that is all we are. Ba'al Chatzaf Is there: breathing, running, sitting, digestion, etc.? No! These do not exist in reality. They are functions of real things. They are epistemological existents. Which means they are 'intellectual' resultants of the relationship existing between what reality is and what a human mind is. So is mind. Mind is a function of the human brain. The human brain is physically and electrochemically different from other brains. The functioning which exists specifically because of that difference is called - the mind function. An interesting aspect of the mind function is that it must be properly operating for its existence to be properly acknowledged.

I have a granddaughter in a Montessori school. She will be 5 years old in May 2008. She has been in the Montessori system since she was 1 year old. The Montessori system does it differently. It allows students to experience reality rather than telling them what it believes students need to know.

See the highlight above: Isn't this a contradiction? Is this an example of conscious reasoning? How is it possible for "conscious reasoning" to be other than what it is? Or for its product [a valid conclusion] to be other than what it is?

Notice how life is not a choice available to man. This is because it already exists. The only choice man has, in this regard, is whether he will choose to act to its benefit or not.

Actually "thinking" does show up as increased blood flow or metabolism at certain sites in the brain, if I am not mistaken. It is physically impossible for any activity attributed to "the mind" to not occur in the brain. When it became obvious that the human brain functions significantly differently from any other brain that created a need for a new word to designate that fact. That word is - mind.

Just talk or write. The data will get to my brain which does my thinking. My brain does, in fact, what you claim you mind does. At least my brain shows up on a PET Scan or an MRI or an X-ray and it can be observed by third parties. Can you say the same thing about your mind? Ba'al Chatzaf Does you're thinking show up on a scan? No! Then you're brain does not think - Right? Sure your brain does specific kinds of things. Some of these are explained as being done by its mind function.

Its a "granted" right; not a natural right. That's why it has a different name - power.