Jonathan David Leavitt
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by Jonathan David Leavitt
-
-
Comte's doctrine of altruism is based on his regarding the whole of humanity as the "Grand-Être" ("Great Being"), and there is clearly the tendency to worship and deify the Great Being.
Imo there is enough evidence indicating that Rand "considered "man" and "man's life" to be sacred" (L. A. Rollins)
Rollins also quotes (on p. 19) Max Stirner who said "Our atheists are pious people."
I must say that I am surprised so soon after joining an Objectivist forum website to encounter zealous advocates of altruism. Perhaps I should have a look at some Christian websites to see if there are advocates of crucifixion and/or sin.
-
If anyone is interested in one scientific basis for empathy that I find fascinating, here is a Wikipedia article: Mirror neuron.
I have become interested in empathic reactions as part of my Internet marketing studies.There is a load of people now putting systems together based on mirror neuron research. For example, Buyology by Martin Lindstrom.
Ethically (in terms of a chosen behavior value), I believe it is a plus to encourage empathy in ourselves as a form of exercising and honing what we already come with. This is also something that is good for our species in terms of both survival and reproduction. And what is good for the species is generally good for the individual member (with some exceptions).
Where this gets screwed up in philosophy is that the altruistic principle implies that we automatically owe the reaction of empathy (and/or the acts deriving from this) to others just because we exist. And what is the reason? From what I have read so far, it almost always boils down to a command from God or "just because."
To use this kind of language, and using human nature as a basis, we owe it to ourselves to strive for realizing our innate potential (when positive, of course). And mirror neurons are innate. This does not mean that we owe that potential--or the striving--to anyone else.
But philosophical altruism says we do. That's really messed up, too.
I believe my thinking on this puts it in just about the most selfish frame possible, even though other people benefit. They benefit is a result of an individual's selfish interest in his own mental/emotional development, not as a debt they are collecting on.
Michael
Well formulated!
-
No, where one stops, in the sense meant, isn't where one feels satisfied, it's where one can demonstrate a guaranteed-true conclusion..
Ellen
It seems to me that demonstration of a guaranteed-true conclusion is impossible using induction. Is that, then, the problem?
And deduction is radically parasitic on induction. There is no premise whose truth does not rely on prior induction.
Interesting point. Does that mean, then, that all logical proofs are based on ideas derived from inductive generalizations? I would think so.
-
No, where one stops, in the sense meant, isn't where one feels satisfied, it's where one can demonstrate a guaranteed-true conclusion..
Ellen
It seems to me that demonstration of a guaranteed-true conclusion is impossible using induction. Is that, then, the problem?
-
There is no doubt that man has a hard-wired tendency to murder his fellow man, yet using reason he can create moral theories to set limits on that destructive tendency. Could he not make use of a moral theory to set limits on the most destrucive forms of altruism, even if that altruism were a hard-wired tendency?
-
I am confused. Are you asserting that Rand's false statement that no woman is qualified to be President validates the the proposition that all of her statements are false, including, "A is A"?
No. What makes you think that ridiculous assertion about women presidents follows from the logical law of identity?
I was asserting two things.
1. How to negate a universally quantified formula in first order logic. Produce a counter example
2. Modus Tolens. if P implies Q and Q is false then so is P.
In the case of a scientific theory if a prediction is show to be false empirically and the reason for the falsity is not explained by the theory (for example a boundary condition is violated) then at least on of the assumptions underlying the theory is false. Rand said it herself. Remember all the business about "check your premises"? That was Modus Tolens, Rand style.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Got it. I looked up modus tollens.
The statement about Rand can be falsified. It is IMO a common logical error made by Rand haters.
Restating it:
.If any of Rand's assertions are false, they all are false.
Rand asserted that A is A.
But the Law of Identity is true.
Therefore not all of Rand's statements are false
If I am correct, the foregoing was an example of both modus tollens and falsification.
-
2. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are false to validate the proposition that all of her statements are false."
All it takes is on.
One negative instance negates a universally quantified proposition. One fact contrary to a prediction without out any thing in the theory to explain the divergence brings a theory down. That is why the anomalous precession of the planet Mercury indicates Newton's gravitational theory is in error. There is no closer planet to the sun to explain the anomaly. (there is also another reason: According to Newton's theory, gravitational interaction is instantaneous which means information can be transferred at greater than light speed).
Ba'al Chatzaf
I am confused. Are you asserting that Rand's false statement that no woman is qualified to be President validates the the proposition that all of her statements are false, including, "A is A"?
-
1000 whim-worshiping hippies move to an island. Mostly these are the poor whim-worshiping hippies who claim to have shrugged before they ever accomplished anything. They are the ones who don't mind leaving their life behind because there was nothing to leave behind. They go there imagining all of the luxuries of the modern world, from wall-mart, to Amazon. They expect to work in the field of software, but they'll settle for janitorial work. They don't care much, because they're sure the island will quickly become the most advanced nation on the planet.
Everyone shows up, and realizes they not only have no food, but nobody knows the first thing about farming. They all assumed someone else would take care of that sort of thing so they could focus on the world of ideas!
They begin to starve. They try to order some food online, but nobody delivers to whim-worshiping hippie Island. Who would have imagined it would be so hard to get food on a remote island? Everyone is so hungry.
There's only one whim-worshiping hippie woman on the island. The 999 males each claim to be her John Galt, and spend days debating with her over whether it would be morally permissible for her to not sleep with them. When she firmly says no, they stomp off complaining that she's not really Dagny Taggart after all, and who let such a whim-worshipper onto their island? They think they beat her in the argument and it was just petty of her not to admit it. And to top it off, they're feeling weak from hunger!
The killing starts over a minor disagreement on the nature of concept formation. When a few of the saner people decide they have to arrest the killer, debate begins over whether anarcho-capitalism would work and whether if the killer decides to opt-out of the system, whether anyone can actually punish him. The killer sneaks away while the debate continues. Nobody ever notices.
The group starts splintering along ideological lines. Each breaks off in an attempt to make their own utopian nation. The splinter groups re-splinter as people find new areas of disagreement. Soon almost everyone has excommunicated everyone else, and they refuse to speak to the others for fear of sanctioning evil. The starvation continues. The skinny ones start dying off.
Widespread violence begins when each person decides that everyone else is irrational, and you can't deal with irrational men through persuasion. They fight for every scrap of food. The few people who are still on speaking terms debate whether the others have actually forfeited their rights by abdicating reason. When they can't agree, they splinter as well, infuriated by the irrationality of the others. Everyone is so very hungry!
Cannibalism soon breaks out. Crazed whim-worshiping hippiess run naked through the woods mumbling "Emergency situations! It's a life boat scenario! I can do anything I want!".
Finally the rest of the world finds out the horror of whim-worshiping hippies Island. It had only been three weeks, and the ground is littered with corpses. A few survivors are picked up and taken away from the nightmare world. When asked if they had anything to share about the experience, each says "Well....I guess I was wrong. Objectivism just doesn't work in practice".
This is the same story with the word Objectivist removed. So far I am sticking to my guns about Rand herself being the only Objectivist in history. I was going to substitute "libertarian" for "Objectivist," but the result was too painful, so I used Rand's term for libertarians, "whim-worshiping hippies."
Interestingly, with that change made, the story sounds less like satire of Objectivism and more like journalism.
-
...] the failure of philosophers to offer a solution to what has been called 'the problem of induction.' Induction is the process of inferring generalizations from particular instances. [....] The primary process of gaining knowledge that goes beyond perceptual data is induction. Generalization -- the inference from some members of a class to all -- is the essence of human cognition.
Rand, according to Peikoff, appears to be asserting that philosophers have failed to solve a problem. Just because she said that, and Peikoff quoted it, however, doesn't mean that a problem exists.
However, if one believes the generalization, which I consider erroneous,
"Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are true to validate the proposition that all of her statements are true."
Then the "problem" exists.
-
Prof. M: The question is: when does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that in the province of the issue of induction?
One decides based on the context. IMO it doesn't matter if one or more black swans exist, but the discussion and validation of Rand's ideas does matter on this forum, and to me.
There seem to be three positions:
1. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are true to validate the proposition that all of her statements are true." (Could this be the ARI position? Was it the position alleged to have been held by the original NBI?)
2. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are false to validate the proposition that all of her statements are false."
3. "Enough of Ayn Rand's statements are true to validate the proposition that all of her statements deserve consideration, or at least a second look." (My position.)
All of these assertions rely on an inductive process, but where one stops relies on one's personal context.
-
to validate induction is to validate reason and vice versa
What cognitive tool does one use to validate reason? It can't be reason, obviously, because reason is what is being validated.
-
Post removed: redundant.
-
How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?
Concepts are constructed from perceptions. The construction of concepts is not a form of inference. It is the integration of perceptions.
Ba'al Chatzaf
Well, denying the validity of just enumerative induction, rather than induction in general is a whole lot more reasonable. Not that any sane person or any scientist in the last three millenia has ever used the method. But yes, we can all agree it is invalid.
According to AR:
The process of forming and applying concepts contains the essential pattern of two fundamental methods of cognition: induction and deduction.The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction. The process of subsuming new instances under a known concept is, in essence, a process of deduction.
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 28.
Is her definition of induction different from yours?
In what way is inference bypassed in the construction of concepts from perceptions?
-
Jonathan,
I suggest Robert Cialdini's work on influence as a start to understanding this. Specifically the part about social proof.
Then there are the mirror neurons.
Monkey see, monkey do has more neuroscience meat to it than meets the eye.
Michael
Thanks for the Cialdini tip. I just googled the dude:
Social Proof - People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments.Primate-see-primate-do, of course, could not be "knowledge" (or it would be an instinct) so it must be some kind of neural phenomenon which manifests as desire. I can buy that.
-
Yes I saw your review, Ted. Thanks very much! This book will be put on my short list of ones to buy and read.
Okay great, thanks! What about the problems pointed out by McCaskey about the history Harriman outlines? Based on your reading of the reviews by McCaskey and Travis Norsen and your knowledge of science, philosophy and Objectivism do you agree with their criticism?
I understand all of the controversy surrounding the historical flaws regarding David Harriman's book Logical Leap. However, I am more interested in how it rates as a book on induction and if it is sound as far as its author wanting to integrate scientific investigation utilizing induction ala the Objectivist method.
From the description the book looks like it is well written. If its not credible anyone know of a good book on the subject that is something Objectivists can appreciate?
Despite some problems, Harriman does a good job overall. If I were to review the book on Amazon, I would rate it four out of five stars.
The weakest part is probably Chapter One, which (as I understand it) is essentially a transcript of Peikoff's lectures on induction. In my judgment, the effort to link induction in science to Rand's theory of concept formation is unnecessary and (largely) unconvincing.
Harriman has a number of other things to say about induction and the history of science later in the book. Whether all of this is also a rehash of Peikoff I cannot say, but some of it is very interesting and suggestive.
Ghs
I myself hold that concept formation simply is induction in the widest sense, with induction of scientific laws as a special case.
How could concepts be formed without induction? Unless, of course, they are a gift of God, or totally meaningless?
-
For you guru-wannabees out there, pay attention!
The sound is crap in the video below, but look how social proof works.
First you soften people up with familiarity and persistence, then they start joining in. After a dork (like the fat guy) gets on board, it's all over.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Apparently, this was spontaneous, but you can easily get the ball rolling with a ringer or two.
Now, if I can only figure out how to do this with Rachmaninoff...
Michael
Hmmm… So fear of looking dorky by participating evaporates when the Dork-in-Chief takes a social risk? Or what?
-
Photobucket is a good place to store images. Then you can just drop the link in here using the "insert image" icon.
Thanks, Rich. I already belong to Flickr, and it seems to work. If I have any trouble with it, I'll switch to Photibucket.
-
...are immoral, or so I've learnt[sic. learned] here as they are the initiation of force.
So, have any of you ever gone down to a picket line and told the men and women there this and that they should go back to work?
If so, how did they respond?
Steven:
1) your time and your work are yours to either trade, donate or hold back;
2) striking is not an initiation of force because there is no force employed by not working. As someone who claims to have read Atlas Shrugged, you seem to have missed the part about the men of the mind going on strike...;
3) you appear to elect to consistently and consciously choose to confuse people who have been influenced by Ayn's ideas, the philosophy of Objectivism and subsequent enhancements of open objectivist thought and the closed system, true believer Objectivists of the Lord of Nimrodery, Leonard "I will tell you what to believe" Peikoff;
That is not what this forum is about. This is the only place that I have ever posted because of its intellectual openness. It would be interesting to see if you have the courage to understand that and to, as a consequence of understanding, respect it.
In answer to your other picket line nonsense, my father was an original organizer of the NY Fire Department union in the 1930's when you were followed home from meetings and sometimes run off the road or worse. I have been in politics since I was about ten years old in the 1950's. I have stood shoulder to shoulder on picket lines when the cause was just.
I have also fought against picket lines when the Communists were using the unions to bring down the US. You know the old communist union slogan, "If you can't open their minds, open their heads."
So do not make the mistake that you seem to make that being a follower of Ayn's ideas makes a person naive as to the realities of the union movement and the obscenity it has become in America. Similar to the obscenity capitalism has become by getting in bed with the centralized government...there is your socialism of the right and the left.
As I said in another post, your socialism has ALWAYS ended in the gas chamber, the gulag or the bloody rice paddy. Refute that if you would like to try.
Adam
Bravo!
-
...are immoral, or so I've learnt here as they are the initiation of force.
So, have any of you ever gone down to a picket line and told the men and women there this and that they should go back to work?
If so, how did they respond?
Ayn Rand wrote:
.Organized labor has been much more sensitive to the danger of government power and much more aware of ideological issues. Its spokesmen have fought the government in proper, morally confident terms whenever they saw a threat to their rights. (To name a few examples of such occasions: the attempt at labor conscription in World War II, the issue of U.S. contributions to the Soviet-dominated International Labor Organization, President Kennedy’s attempt to impose guidelines in the steel crisis of 1962.) Labor’s concern was aroused only in defense of its rights; still, whoever defends his own rights defends the rights of all. But labor was pursuing a contradictory policy, which could not be maintained for long. In many issues—notably in its support of welfare-state legislation—labor violated the rights of others and fertilized the growth of the government’s power. And, today, labor is in line to become the next major victim of advancing statism.It was business, not labor, that initiated the policy of government intervention in the economy (as long ago as the nineteenth century)—and business was the first victim. Labor adopted the same policy and will meet the same fate. He who lives by a legalized sword, will perish by a legalized sword.
“The Moratorium on Brains,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 3, 2.
Refusal to work is initiation of force?
Of course, SEIU thugs beating up those who disagree with them certainly is initiation of force.
-
From reciprocity to unconditional altruism through signalling benefits.
Lotem A, Fishman MA, Stone L.
Department of Zoology, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel. lotem@post.tau.ac.il
Abstract
Cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals is commonly explained by the potential for future reciprocity or by the risk of being punished by group members. However, unconditional altruism is more difficult to explain. We demonstrate that unconditional altruism can evolve as a costly signal of individual quality (i.e. a handicap) as a consequence of reciprocal altruism. This is because the emergent correlation between altruism and individual quality in reciprocity games can facilitate the use of altruism as a quality indicator in a much wider context, outside the reciprocity game, thus affecting its further evolution through signalling benefits. Our model, based on multitype evolutionary game theory shows that, when the additive signalling benefit of donating help exceeds the cost for only some individuals (of high-quality state) but not for others (of low-quality state), the population possesses an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) profile wherein high-quality individuals cooperate unconditionally while low-quality individuals defect or play tit-for-tat (TfT). Hence, as predicted by Zahavi's handicap model, signalling benefits of altruistic acts can establish a stable generosity by high-quality individuals that no longer depends on the probability of future reciprocation or punishment.
IMO, altruism has three distinct meanings:
Rand:
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”
“Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
Biologists: (see above)
The General Public:
Definitions of altruism on the Web:the quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Altruism (pronounced: ) is selfless concern for the welfare of others. It is a traditional virtue in many cultures, and a core aspect of various religious traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many others. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)
Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; – opposed to egoism or selfishness
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/altruism
altruistically - in an altruistic manner; "he acted selflessly when he helped the old lady in distress"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
altruistically - Regardful of others; beneficent; unselfish; -- opposed to egoistic or selfish
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/altruistically
Social behaviour and value orientation in which individuals give primary consideration to the interests and welfare of other individuals, members of groups or the community as a whole. ...
bitbucket.icaap.org/dict.pl
is “the primary regard for or devotion to the interest of patients/clients, thus assuming the fiduciary responsibility of placing the needs of the patient/client ahead of the physical therapist's self interest. [29]
www.wcpt.org/node/29562
Also: altruistic behavior non-beneficial or disadvantageous behavior to an individual that serves to benefit others of a species
pin.primate.wisc.edu/factsheets/glossary
from Alter, other. A quality opposed to Egoism. Actions tending to do good to others, regardless of self.
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glos.htm
A behavior that costs the doer and benefits others. Anthropology 60 Teaching Assistants are the only true altruists known to exist.
web.missouri.edu/~flinnm/courses/mah/glossary.htm
Acting for the sake of other people's interests. There are two forms. Ethical altruism: people should act with other people's interests in mind, and learn this through experience. ...
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm
Altruistic actions are those performed for the sake of others. Altruism is the hypothesis that morality involves acting for the sake of others.
www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
Unselfishness.
zainar.com/glossary.html
is a term that refers to doing good deeds and service work for others out of the goodness of one's own heart.
www.iamuniversity.ch/moodle/mod/glossary/view.php
I am bringing these various meanings to the attention of all readers out of the goodness of my own selfish heart, but as a post-Randian thinker I'll be goddamned if I'm being altruistic.
—JDL
-
Okay, I posted the "communist" image to Flickr, but I restricted access because many of my Flickr friends are altruist collectivist mystics (I.e., "Democrats") can any of you OL-ers see it, ir are you blocked too?
-
-
Jonathan,
Sometimes dynamic pages also are a problem.
Also, there are certain kinds of dynamic (and a few static) links that the forum program refused to embed since malicious code can get through those ways.
This stuff happens when there are several technologies used for the same thing.
That's why the best option is usually to download the picture and upload to a place you are sure is stable before embedding it in a post.
Michael
I thought Twitpic was stable. Perhaps I should use Flickr.
-
Precisely Michael.
"Induction," whether Ayn addressed it sufficiently, or, at all, exists, whether we call it that, or, not. It is axiomatic.
Anyone who has had to solve a problem "in the field," without the availability of books or sources and must discover how to solve a problem knows that "X," or inductive reasoning exists.
The fact that Ayn's nimrod intellectual heir cannot induce or deduce a solution to a non-existent problem speaks volumes about why the closed system Objectivist "movement" has suffered from intellectual constipation for decades.
Time for a high colonic.
Let us begin.
Adam
Adam, at this point I cannot resist asserting that LP's prospects for eternal glory from having solved the Problem of Induction are growing DIMmer and DIMmer.
Kennedy Assassination goes unnoticed
in News
Posted
If I am not mistaken the Warren Commission reached their "Oswald the Lone Assasin" conclusion by inductive generalization, which, according to Karl Popper, is a myth.