UncleJim

I have yet another Parable involving a watch. Wm. Paley first proposed a parable involving a time piece in order to show that that universe is Designed by an Intelligent Being. I propose a Parable wherein I show that our knowledge of the world is incomplete and will probably remain so. Furthermore we are compelled to resort to hypotheses which are never fully certain or provable in order to deal with the world:

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.

My Parable of the Watch.

You are handed a timepiece with visible display. Here are the ground rules: you cannot open up the timepiece to see what is inside. You can only look at the display. You are allowed to subject the timepiece to various and sundry conditions: thermal, electromagnetic, mechanical. You can bang the thing about. You can X-ray it. You can subject it to other electrical and magnetic influences. You can put it in a fast plane or a spaceship to see what effect motion and acceleration has on the thing. The only thing you cannot do is open it up.

You will probably want to predict what effect various experiments will have on the timepiece. But to do that you must know how it works. But you can't open it up (that is a condition of this Gedanken). What can you do? You can formulate hypotheses about how it -might- work, then test your hypothesis by subjecting the timepiece to various conditions and forces and reading what it says. You can even construct a companion timepiece (whose insides you DO know about) just to see if your version behaves the same as the given timepiece. But you will never know for sure what the insides are. You will not knows if and when you can find conditions that falsify your best current hypothesis about how the insides function.

That is the Parable.

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.

Now the Actuality:

Here is what the Parable refers to: The timepiece is the cosmos, the physical universe. Our best instruments are fifteen orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length so at best we have only a crude notion of what is happening in the very small. Our best telescopes can only get back to about 300,000 million years of the Big Bang. Any earlier than that, the cosmos is opaque to our instruments. Any application of energy to the small things of the world jiggles them about so an exact reading of all pertinent observables is impossible. For example we cannot measure -both- position and momentum with arbitrary precision no matter how fine our instruments are. The very act of measurement disrupts what we measure.

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!

The Parable is a simple way of showing what the limitations of our knowledge of the cosmos are and are likely to remain and why we are positively compelled to make guesses (hypotheses) about the underlying works. These hypotheses are testable, but they are NOT certain. We just cannot get inside reality at the most basic level. We are, as it were, in a kind of fog in which we can discern fuzzy outlines of What is Out There. The fuzziness is quantum indeterminacy. At best we make guesses (hypotheses and theories) and test them by looking at the fuzzy things as best we can.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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.

Problem of Universals: Redux

A while ago I posted a question about how Objectivist epistemology dealt with what I referred to as the perceptual problem of universals. By that, I mean commonalities that can be seen with our senses, such as redness. I looked into this further and then found out that conceptualist solutions to the problem of universals are all attacked from the perspective of perceptual properties. To quote as an example, "Even if concepts may be conventional and arbitrary in many ways, they can only be connected to reality if they are based on some abstract features that are really in the objects. Thus, as soon as Rand allows that the terms for features "abstracted" from experience refer to features that are really there, then she has let in some form of Aristotelian realism, whether she wants to or not" (http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm). This is the primary criticism of conceptualism in general, that things having the same properties must have some essence behind it, otherwise conceptualism boils down to the human mind imposing some subjective order on metaphysically undifferentiated 'stuff.'

I then did more research, and found out that Objectivist epistemology does provide a way out of this. As for pointing me to it, I want to thank Dr. Carolyn Ray.

First, lets go back to the color example. As we know, color is the mode of our sensory system's perception of different wavelengths of light reflected off objects. And lets take red apples as the particulars. However, these apples may be a different shade of red! Indeed, there are multiple different shades of red! Do they each have their own essence? And if all those different essences of shades of red are different, why do we call them red? Essences within essences? Conceptualism hence does not assert there is no metaphysical differentiation, indeed it would subscribe to a "snowflake hypothesis" that every particular is metaphysically unique. In the case of red things, they are different shades, or somehow their reflective properties are very very subtly different, hence giving them what is technically a unique color. So hence, the mind is not imposing unnatural differences; rather it is ignoring natural differences.

And here we come to how Objectivist epistemology solves the perceptual problem of universals: the role of relative measurement. All measuring is relative, for example we can see orange is more similar to red than it is to blue. Since every particular is metaphysically unique, there do not have to be any metaphysically identical features within the members of a class. Indeed, if one took every single red apple in the world, I doubt you would find one with metaphysically identical reflective properties (which would imply each molecule or cell in the skin be arranged identically). Does that mean they cannot be called red? Hence, we never notice with our senses anything that is truly identical in every, possibly any, concrete aspect. What is noticed is relative similarity in the sense of "p1 is more like p2 than p3." As Carolyn Ray says, "Sameness is not in things either; the concept refers to the fact that, with respect to some dimension, no distinction can be made using some given measuring instrument" (http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/carolynray/diss/03.html).

Hence, Objectivist epistemology does account for perceptual commonalities. The Friesian's rebuttal is not valid.

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.

If a fish is a fish and never begets anything but a fish...... how come we are here????

There ARE no fixed entities or identities in nature, that is an idea contrary to ALL of science!

A 'fixed' identity which is immutable, is an invention of subjective mind, but is not a real intrinsic aspect of the objective material world.

A body in free fall does not move according to it's identity, but according to the metric of spacetime.

Quantum entanglement also shows that the outcomes of such experiments CAN NOT be based on some local hidden variable theory (which assumes a 'fixed' identity for such local particles).

Nature intrinsically does not have an objective form of identity. It all takes place in the mind and is subjective.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

Or is it merely a subjective judgment on the way someone lives, thinks, expresses him/her self?

Ba'al Chatzaf

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."

Christopher, Rand agreed with you. She said that there are circumstances in which suicide can be justified, circumstances outside of one's control, such as a painful terminal illness or the agony of a concentration camp, for instance, where a truly human life is impossible.

Barbara

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.

It is not life as in the physical mechanical perpetuation of our existence which is our highest value, but in fact a particular kind of life, a good life or Aristotlean Eudaemonic life that is our highest value. To value your existence over everything else in life would quickly lead you down the path of sabatoge, manupulation, and general pejorative behavior toward everything and everyone. Of course the physical mechanical perpetuation of our existence is a requirement toward leading a good life, and as such is one of our highest values, but it is the good life that existence makes possible which should be your absolute highest value - as is explicitly demonstrated by Rand when she had Galt threaten to kill himself to keep Dagny from being tortured.

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.

I always had a somewhat hard time accepting what I envisioned the Objectivist ethics to be because of my stance on suicide and euthanasia. I have always believed that people have the right to take their own life or to be assisted in doing so, but even more fundamentally, that it is sometimes the moral thing to do. The way that I have seen the Objectivist ethics for a long time is that man's life as the standard of morality is the same thing as man's survivial being the standard of value. However, I have come to see that these things are different and lead to different results. If man's survival is the standard of value, for example, then any action that he takes which is against his survival is immoral ( and therefore suicide or asking for euthanasia are immoral). However, if man's life is the standard of value, then man may commit suicide in cases where he sees his values under attack if he hates seeing them under attack enough for it to make his life not worth living. For example, if man's life is your standard of value then seeing yourself be wasted away by some painful illness or watching good people die as the result of living in some horrible land ruled by a totalitarian government may be truly unnacceptable. Choosing to die under such circumstances may represent a stance that is for one's life, but not neccessarliy for one's survival. Just some thoughts that I have had lately that I thought might be able to help anybody else who was under the delusion that the Objectivist ethics represented any kind of survivalist system. ;) By the way, I'm not saying or implying by any of the above that any "survivalist Objectivists" actually believe that suicide or euthanasia are immoral; I'm just saying that it might lead to that conclusion and that there is an alternative to that stance which is Objectivist.

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.

Man is an end in himself is the recognized Objectivist position. This means that man's (singular) job is to exist for his own sake and it is not his obligation to work for any greater good. So when it is said that man's life is the standard, it's singular. It's saying that you measure a man's morality based on his life's achievement, not looking at the common good to justify his existence. (I think my explanation is jumbled, I may come back and try to reword it later.)

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.

I analogize looking inside the watch (this is a parable, not a literal discussion) to knowing the cosmos down to Planck Length. We are 15 orders of magnitude removed from Planck Length even with our best and fanciest instruments. In short we do not get to see reality down to the ground floor. This is essentially the analogy of the watch whose insides we cannot see.

Our understanding of the cosmos is limited to the degree of precision our observations can achieve.

In a way, we see through the fog dimly, able to discern only fuzzy outlines of what is Out There. This is not to say we don't know anything. It is to say we only know things to a limited degree. Given the order of magnitude of our imprecision, it is unlikely that we will know physical reality down to ground level. So we make do with what we do know, which isn't all that bad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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?

God is a sub-atomic particle?

--Brant

Not a testable hypothesis. Interesting theology, but it is not science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is it even a theory?

Whether you claim to have a mind or not means zilch in the big scheme of human history. It is merely an insignificant irritation on the websites you frequent due to your repetition, but forgotten as soon as you stop posting. This argument will not survive you, nor does it convince anyone as far as I have seen.

Your steed is a strawman and your lance is semantics, not ideas, with this windmill powered by oversimplification.

Michael

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.

Yep, Dewey is a monster.

He basically sees children as tools for the mass. His philosophy is utter poison. He seems to deny individual selves, or individuals as thinkers and creators. His ideas do not account for innovation or novelty, merely constant repetition of Veblenist habits and routines.

Montessori is the best alternative to Dewey.

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.

You say, "Our conscious reasoning is no less valid if it is based on a deterministic substrate." OK, fine, but won't you also have to endorse "Our conscious reasoning is no less invalid if it is based on a deterministic substrate"? After all, our conscious reasoning is not always valid.

Robert Campbell

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?

This is a thought experiment that was presented to me by the good folks at objectivionline a few weeks back. Let's assume that Johny Q. has chosen Death as is starting point, let's also assume Johny Q will be taking out someone who loves his life before doing so, what will be the ethical status of his choice relative only to him? To the John Galt he kills?

These were the asumptions at the forum -

1. He has no reason to kill Galt, no psychological motive and no percieved value is gained. He killed for the same reason Camus' Stranger killed the arab, because the Sun was bright.

2. Values and virtues depend on one's choice between life and death in Objectivism. Assuming one chooses death the values hierarchy becomes things that result in physical death and the virtues become acquiring these values.

The conclusion reached by me and some others on the OO.net IRC chat was that we ran into some nteresting relativistic aspects of Egoism. The life/death choice can not be judged itself as there is no vantage point to do so, we have a case of 2 contradicting yet valid trajecteries where Johny Q. did nothing wrong (the man is not a lost value if one rejects life as a premise) yet John Galt's death relative to him and those he knows is a tragedy.

Now if you want, feed the "antidogmatist yet domgatic in spite of himself" troll and discuss.

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.

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.

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.

Go to post 61. It denies your claim that I made reference to the mind as being an object.

You said "It so happens that I do not have a mind." I really wish you had not said that! How can I now communicate with you?

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.

I understand that, but state governments advance the argument that they have a constitutional "right" to enforce the protection of the general welfare - particularly children which was the point that I was attempting to advance.

Adam

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