mpp

I would be happy to bring the discussion back to the scientific denial of free will.

How can we have free will if they can run experiments in which they can predict that subjects will press a button in 10 seconds? Or that you can send someone a signal to move his fingers and he will do it but thinks he came up with it?

I understand this counter: Arriving at the conclusion that we lack free will through rational or logical means is intrinsically self-contradictory, as rationality and logic epistemologically presuppose the existence of free will.

I struggle with the second part though to fully understand: why do rationality and logic presuppose / imply free will?

Interesting article, what do you guys say?

Scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will

PHYS.ORG

---

Before epilepsy was understood to be a neurological condition, people believed it was caused by the moon, or by phlegm in the brain. They condemned seizures as evidence of witchcraft or demonic possession, ...

 Hey all,

thanks for answering in my thread!

Guyau, I agree with you, that arbitrary could be a stolen concept. But I am not saying that there at not non-arbitrary statements. I am asking, how we can achieve the same level of certainty about an abstraction as we have about an observation. There is a long way between arbitrary and certain. Something could be founded in evidence, hence not arbitrary but still just a hypothesis or theory. How can we ever say that our stories or interpretations are as true as something we observe with our eyes?

Brant, I am not sure I follow. Consciousness observes the physical so is still needed. Also I do not want to say that there are no interpretation, stories, abstractions at all possible. I am asking how we can be certain of the truth of these.

-m

Hello all,

I am currently doing a course in Radical Honesty (there are parallels imo to Objectivist ethics). One of the tenets of Radical Honesty is that only the noticings from your senses are true and real and everything your mind adds is a more or less arbitrary interpretation or story and cannot be considered THE truth.

This idea reminds me of sensualism. The idea that only the material from our senses is true.

Unfortunately I was unable to reconstruct a critique of sensualism.

How can we say that our abstractions (interpretations of sensual noticings, stories) are true?

In the basic Radical Honesty example it sure doesn't seem like we could. 

Example:

Noticing: Somebody frowns and walks out the room.

Story: I might interpret that person is angry at me.

Fact: I do not know why the person stormed out the room. All I know for sure (to be true) is that the person pulled there mouth down, something I imagined to be frowning, and walked out the room (something I imagined as storming out).

My attempt: I suppose in this situation I couldnt know for sure about the interpretation or story I make from my noticing. So I would just form a theory. At which point a theory becomes fact is probably the crux of all epistemology. I think the answer is when there is no contradicting evidence in my context? But still when is there enough evidence for it to assert it as fact?

To stick with the example, lets say I do a reality check and ask the person if they are angry with me and they tell me yes and start yelling at me. I suppose then I would know as truth above sensualism that they are angry with me. But even there you could ask questions such as: maybe they are angry with themselves and projecting it on me. Maybe they just want to pretend they are angry with me to achieve a certain eng (easier breakup, pity, etc.) so can I ever really know something about what I see?

I will always know for sure that the person yelled at me and made a frowning face at me. But can I be certain of the meaning / interpretation of that?

Thank you for reading and chiming in!

On 7/2/2017 at 0:32 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

mpp,

I'll bite a little bit.

Since, as a child, I learned that dictionaries usually have more than one definition per word, I will not argue over semantics. If you want to use "fundamental" to indicate position within a hierarchy and "essence" for a controlling characteristic of a whole, I can go along with that.

However, two comments where some warning signs appear that could lead to sloppy thinking.

1. Lower in a hierarchy does not necessarily indicate causality. It can mean causality within a causal chain (going back to an entity, as I understand Rand's ideas), but if I remember correctly from the last time I read ITOE (granted it was awhile ago), Rand claimed only entities could initiate causes or something to that effect. Yet there are plenty of hierarchies that do not involve ONLY whole entities.

So a hierarchy does not have to mean causality. A lower rock is not the cause of a rock sitting on top of it, but it is perfectly understandable (to me, at least) to say, if you want to remove the rocks and you don't want the pile to crash on your head, you better start at the top because the lower rocks are more fundamental gravity-wise. The lower rocks are literally more foundational in the hierarchy. In fact, imitating this is how buildings are able to stand.

2. I never understood why there had to be only ONE essence in a thing--only ONE controlling characteristic. Why can't there be several? And again, if I remember ITOE correctly, Rand herself made a claim that just isn't clear on this matter. In the Q&A (I'm going on memory), Rand was asked why "man" was defined as a "rational animal" rather than a "rational mammal" or "rational primate" (or something to that effect). I remember her response being about the nature of the genus, that mammal (or primate) was not essential enough, it was too specialized, whereas animal was (don't quote me  ). I recall thinking if that was the case, why not "rational life form"? Isn't life form more essential? Going the other way, a fish is an animal. If a fish, say a dolphin, developed rationality (which seems to be slowly evolving--but don't worry, we'll never see it  ), would it be defined as a man? Granted, a dolphin is a mammal, but it is not a primate. So, to my way of thinking, "rational primate" obeys the differentia and genus formula a lot better in terms of essences than "rational animal" does.

If this discussion goes anywhere, I will try to look up quotes. But I'm awfully busy right now...

Michael

Thanks for your reply!

1. This is a good point. As far as I understand it, Objectivism doesn't equate knowledge hierarchy with fundamentality. Fundamentality is one way of hierarchy, but there are others. Hierarchy means just what has to be learn first to understand something later. They do define fundamental as a root cause though -- this definition may be arbitrary, as you can use fundamental in any other way; e.g. in the building metaphor, as you point out, where the ground floor doesn't cause the upper floors. But I can't say I fully grasp the boundaries or purpose of the concept hierarchy. 

2. I guess essence would be linked to identity. So with several essences you would have several identities. According to rand, essence is contextual though, so in this sense you could have several essences; one in the context of limited knowledge, then more advanced, etc, etc. 

In selecting a genus, as I understand it, the genus should imply the largest number of characteristics which the concept has in common with the other things from which it is distinguished by the differentia. This makes sense in terms of cognition, as the genus will feed you more knowledge about the concept which you know from the other things in that genus. Genus should tell us what the concept means basically and how we can distinguish it from these things which have little or nothing in common with our concept. 

Here is Peikoff on Genus selection: 

Quote

 

Fundamentality how it applies to selection of genus. When you distinguish man from other things you want to do so as completely and significantly as possible, I.e. Via fundamental that’s from the aspect of the fundamental, well the same rule applies when you are concerned to unite man with other classes, which you do by means of genus, you still unites as completely and significantly as possible, I.e. You unite by fundamentals. If you define man you’d select as the genus the wider class which includes the greatest number of characteristics which man shares with other things in your knowledge. You’d select as your genus the wider class which includes the greatest number of characteristics which man shares with other things in you knowledge, therby that would be the one which includes the greatest number of his non-distinctive characteristics. Animal as the genus. You wouldn’t put man with skyscraper and airplane into category SOLID, because did kind of genus would defeat the cognitive purpose of the genus, it would not unite man significantly man with all the other knowledge you possess about animals and living organisms. Here just like with the differentia, the function of the definition, its cognitive purpose dictates the princeple of selecting a genus. 

How to choose a genus: make your genus where you can specific enough to convey real information, don’t define in terms of genera that are so broad that they are virtually empty, except in the cases where you must do that because they are no other. Say what type of thing, that will bring much more knowledge into your definition and unite it with much more that you know about things other than man. 

You shouldn’t define happy as the condition in which you achieved your values, condition is too vague and general, better to say the state of consciousness in which.. Or the emotional state or the positive or pleasurable state, the more specific you make your genus, the more fundamentally and significantly you connect the term in question with all the other knowledge of classes outside of it and that is your purpose in giving a genus. 

 

Before you apply rule, it’s not a law that always the more specific the genus the better, that doesn’t follow. Because the purpose of the genus is to integrate the definiendum, with the relevant knowledge that you possess of other classes and sometimes you will find that in a definition intended for a general audience, sometimes you will find a generalised genus does this perfectly well and that an overly specific genus is inappropriate because it’s concerned with a level of specialised knowledge outside of the laymen’s domain, there are technical, specialised definitions for a specific science and then there are general philosophic definitions of the same term within the framework of the laymen’s perspective. 

Example: amnesia: neurosis, mental doses and specify of loss of memory, but in specialist in psychiatry would classify amnesias as a sub category of mental disease on a level of detail that laymen would not, he would say amnesia is a dissociative reaction that such and such. He’ll have a more specific genus. That is not required nor appropriated for general philosophical discussion. Purpose of genius, the cognitive purpose, determines the level of specificity! That’s why man is rational animal and not rational mammal. 

Doesn’t mean that it’s arbitrary, but given the purpose of a philosophic definition of man, it is unneccearry to distinguish various subtypes of animal, we are not gonna do anything in our normal dealing with man with the information that is included in mammal as distinct from animal, on the other hand a biologist will so for him it would be a more appropriate genus, the level of specificity is determined by the level of knowledge assumed in the context in which you are giving the definition!!!!!!!!

How to find a genus if you have no clue as to where to look for one: name several of the concepts that you are differentiating the concept in question from. And then ask what is fundamentally in common among all of them, the one to be defined and the ones you’re trying to distinguish it from and in the normal case you’ll find that the ones you are trying to distinguish it from and the one to be defined have certain fundamental common denominator and that will be the genus. Man, dogs, horses, well what’s common to them all? They are all animals

Define capitalism, what are you trying to distinguish it from? Socialism, communism, welfare state, common denominator is therefore political system. Shoes, socks, slippers, ties, suits, etc: article of apparel, etc

 

On this question, here is a rough transcript from Schwartz from his course on Essentials: 

Quote

 

difference essential from fundamental: 

Fundamental names relationship between two things: a broader more general thing and a narrow more particular thing or things under which it is subsumed. e.g. man, the characteristic of rationality is fundamental and characteristic of speaking etc are derivative. why? Because the later are subsumed by the former. Fundamental names a relationship between two separate items of knowledge and it says that the narrow item of knowledge is a derivative of the broader. could be two characteristics of some entity e.g. with rationality and speaking or it could be two fields of study, let’s say ethics and politics where ethics is fundamental to politics. Ethics subsumes politics. principles of ethics explains and make possible the principles of politics. Or two scientific phanomena, gravity and movement of tides. Law of gravity is fundamental to and makes possible and explains and subsumes the movement of the tides. fundamental is the relationship between two items of knowledge on which one is subsumed by the other. 

Idea of fundamental pertains to hierarchy. 

essential pertains to a relationship between a concept and one of its characteristics. between the whole and one of its parts. it names the fact that with respect to man one of his characteristic makes him epistemologically what he is. One trait best distinguishes him man, the concept the whole, from all else. one trait condenses the whole concept man!!!!! it is not a relationship of one trait to another but the essential says in effect, because rationality is a fundamental, because rationality subsumes and includes all these other distinctive traits therefore it is an essential. therefore it is what makes man a unit of the concept man. 

 

The thought that fundamental is a relationship between cause and derivative while essence is a relationship between concept and one of the concept's characteristics might be a good starting point for an answer. 

Does the term essence always pertain to a concept, hence implying a fundamental, distinguishing characterizing that is similar among many units?

Or can we have an essence of a single existent?

e.g. What's the essence of man? Rational animal. What's the essence of that person? We wouldn't say rational animal, maybe we would say something about his beliefs, or gene distribution or upbringing...?

Can we even speak of essences of existents or is essence reserved for concepts only? How does the essence of man and the essence of that person relate? Essence makes the thing that which it is. But the concept "man" doesn't exist, so essence cannot make the concept what it is. Essence can only make man, as in that person, what he is. But how could we then say what makes him him is his rationality? 

I am confused between the relationship of essence, what is the essence of, when we speak of an essence of a concept and can there be an essence of something that isn't a concept?

Thank you. 

A fundamental is the root cause of a series of multi-level, branching effects. E.g. the patriarch and matriarch of a family line. Or rationality in man, it is the cause of many of man's distinguishing features, humor, culture, science. 

Essence is the things that makes the thing the which it is, that without which the thing wouldn't be what it is. The family line's essence is the founders' DNA, man's essence is rationality. 

In what way then are a fundamental and an essence different? Or how do they relate? 

We say an essence is a fundamental attribute; how is this definition not circular?

Thank you. 

Hello,

in terms of thinking, what is the relationship between the concepts Fundamentality, Essence, Principles and how do they differ from each other?

For instance, you can say: One must think in principles; one must think in fundamentals; one must think in essences. What is meant in each case, and how is each case different to the other?

Lastly, where is each case best used/applied?

THANK YOU

Thank you Korben! I've enjoyed Barbara's course and I'm about to acquire Peikoff's as well.

Anyone more ideas? Can be technical philosophical literature as well. 

Hello all,

I would like to study in depth the idea of thinking in (first) principles. I'll want to answer some questions, such as when do you know you've reached the highest abstraction in the context, what exactly makes a principle a principle, how do you find "the one in many", i.e. a recurring principle in many examples, how do you deduce/induce? a principle from facts.

Could you kindly point me to some material helpful in studying the above? I like Objectivism's focus on principles in this way, however, I don't mean to only study Objectivist sources -- I know some of the ancient Greeks were concerned with this topic as well. 

Please mention any and all you'd think would be contributive to my quest! 

THANK YOU.

I would like to open a bit of a discourse about the idea that we could backwards engineer how our brains process information to create an artificially intelligent machine. 

To start here is a quote by Harry Binswanger from his book How we know that seeks limits this possibility: 

Quote

"The nonbiological perspective stands markedly revealed in the common question: is it possible to develop a computer that can think? My answer is: before a computer could think, it would have to be able to understand ideas (concepts); before it could understand ideas, it would have to be able to perceive the world and to feel emotions, such as pleasure and pain, desire and fear; before it could perceive and feel emotions, it would have to be alive — i.e., be engaged in action to sustain itself. We can dismiss notions about a thinking computer until one is built that is alive — and then it wouldn’t be a computer but a living organism, a man-made one.”

I follow his "answer" up to the bolded segment. Then I ask, could we not break down perception and emotions into algorithms? Why should these two phenomena not be replicable without life? I assume there is an answer that consciousness cannot be reduced to matter, but I'm questioning whether it would have to be? Couldn't we just mimic the way consciousness does its thing, just as we are now mimicking how our eyes perceive and evaluate things; e.g. visual recognition software; my iPhone can tell me what is a beach, what is a dog, etc. 

So for the machine to be able to perceive and feel emotions we define an enormous amount of if-then statements and other fundamental principles about how our mind works and handles input as to mimic how we process information.

10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Another real problem I have is I don't like bullies.

So I waste my time looking at stuff like this.

Man, does that feel good.

Michael

I know the feeling of satisfaction watching things like this. check out www.reddit.com/r/justiceporn - sort from top.

3 hours ago, merjet said:

mpp, see here where Ayn Rand answers Gerald Goodman.

thanks for the link. this makes sense, if one is truly on the brink of death starving, even regardless of the reasons why one got there, say by one's own fault, i'd still consider it an emergency if one's only choice is to steal or die. in a situation like this, it seems natural that all morality would fly out the window and one's only choice could be to survive and not to be moral. (unless the survival would carry cost so high it would make the gained life unliveable.)

It can be argued that stealing is wrong, i.e. not in my self-interest, because I'll suffer consequences in form of guilt, not enjoying the stolen goods, etc.

However, what if I am literally starving? How can you argue then that stealing is wrong according to the moral standard of self interest? If I'm starving, stealing is in my self-interest and wouldn't it then have to be morally right?

Thank you. 

Hi all,

at work one of the co-workers is breaking rules and acting unethically to the degree of cheating people, both customers and colleagues. I confronted him and he replied: "I don't give a fuck, I'm here to make money. At the end of the day I don't care about customers or any of you."

In a staff meeting with the manager, I brought up the issue somewhat and gave this person the chance to speak for himself. He denied and misrepresented. I didn't say what he told me, I didn't say how he openly admitted to me in private that he screws people intentionally, knowingly. I didn't say how I caught him in the act of cheating or his attempts to do so.

I didn't say it because I didn't want to be a snitch. I didn't want to feel like a weak bitch ratting him out to the manager.

My question to you all: is this feeling justified? I'm torn because the manager has a wrong image of him because I made him report something which the manager appreciated and valued as an act of honesty, but in truth he was going to profit of something that wasn't his, he was going to steal, and I made him report the situation instead. I also know how he knowingly cheated people but I didn't address it for the above reason.

On the other hand, I think that this person will have to suffer the consequences of his actions for himself, and also I don't think the manager will do too much about my reporting, because it will just be a claim to him.

So what do you guys recommend me to do? I feel bad because of a misrepresentation but I also don't want to be a snitch.

Thank you!

Just for starters "snitch" is from a criminal's vocabulary and is used to control other criminals and castrate the victims directly and indirectly. Nowhere is this more true than in prison. You are not in prison so you have no need to think of yourself like that. The problem is how do you REPORT malfeasance? Your wishy-washy way of bringing the matter up made you the "weak bitch" you say you don't want to be. Now that SOB has your number and you've damaged your credibility. You may not get that back without going to a new job and getting a clean sheet to work off of.

There is the other problem of adequate documentation if you had been more forthcoming which may be why you weren't.

--Brant

The bit about the origin of "snitch" was useful, the rest is wrong. The thing is malfeasance doesn't exist in a vacuum, so when I finally brought it up yesterday, there was evidence to support my case. I'm glad I did it.

I also changed my stand on the snitch bit, I'll through anyone under the bus if he belongs there. I don't need to protect people or let justice run its own course, it's also not my task to solve problems if there are people whose job it is to do this for me. If no one spoke up in sight of injustice, injustice would be powerless and couldn't run its own course.

Still its an interesting question, how far this "crime reporter" role should reach. You can't expect me to report any kind of injustice I see. Live and let live? to what degree?

One certainly has to speak up, however, if one's own values or integrity are at stake!

Hi all,

at work one of the co-workers is breaking rules and acting unethically to the degree of cheating people, both customers and colleagues. I confronted him and he replied: "I don't give a fuck, I'm here to make money. At the end of the day I don't care about customers or any of you."

In a staff meeting with the manager, I brought up the issue somewhat and gave this person the chance to speak for himself. He denied and misrepresented. I didn't say what he told me, I didn't say how he openly admitted to me in private that he screws people intentionally, knowingly. I didn't say how I caught him in the act of cheating or his attempts to do so.

I didn't say it because I didn't want to be a snitch. I didn't want to feel like a weak bitch ratting him out to the manager.

My question to you all: is this feeling justified? I'm torn because the manager has a wrong image of him because I made him report something which the manager appreciated and valued as an act of honesty, but in truth he was going to profit of something that wasn't his, he was going to steal, and I made him report the situation instead. I also know how he knowingly cheated people but I didn't address it for the above reason.

On the other hand, I think that this person will have to suffer the consequences of his actions for himself, and also I don't think the manager will do too much about my reporting, because it will just be a claim to him.

So what do you guys recommend me to do? I feel bad because of a misrepresentation but I also don't want to be a snitch.

Thank you!

normally you could resolve such issues with the appeal to competitiveness in a free market, e.g. if one were to sell a bottle of water to a dehydrated person in the desert for 1 million dollars, you could just say someone else will sell it for 900,000, etc.

here it's more complicated because of patents, so it isn't as easy to come up with a competitive product, plus R&D expenses to develop one would probably not be justified as there aren't many people with the illnesses the pill is supposed to help cure.

the question you can ask: what is every company's goal? to make the maximum profit. so if this price increase leads to higher profits, we would have to say it is justified and good, even if it meant, hypothetically, that you make more money selling to the people that can afford the high prices than selling to everyone, fully recognising that those who can't buy it will die or suffer of bad health.

if the price increase yields lower profits because it diminishes demand, then of course it's bad. however the issue is additionally complicated by the fact that there are health insurances which would provide a stable demand for the medication.

thanks for contributing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/21/martin-shkreli-is-big-pharma-s-biggest-asshole.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html?_r=0

just google his name, there are dozens of articles like the above.

basically this kid bought the rights to a drug that was discovered to help HIV+ patients and increased its price per pill 5000%.

now everyone screams outrage and blames capitalism probably based on emotions of injustice a la poor HIV+ patients are getting exploited. clinton of course is riding this wave to the fullest, using it for her agenda.

what do saner minds say about the above? is it a free-market failure, are people now dying because of a greedy capitalist? or is there more to the story or a different perspective?

please share your thoughts.

thanks for everyone's input!

By value I mean that it would be useful in thinking better, for work, in reasoning, etc.

Thank you!

I promised to write on this, but the more I think about it, the more I want to do an article or something more serious.

Here are some random thoughts, though.

There are several meanings for the word "dignity" and there is no official Objectivist meaning to my knowledge. However, I do believe it is possible to describe the concept as I have seen it used by Rand.

Dignity refers to self-respect (or self-esteem, pride, etc.) plus a component of standing before others. A person with dignity does the equivalent of saying, "I love myself, but there's more. In relation to you, my life has worth, even if only moral worth and even if only by example. I am not your moral inferior."

It's funny, but this "you" can be a part of the same person. I believe Rand was referring to this when she used the term "personal dignity" in The Fountainhead. In other words, as she worked her slow path toward identifying "sanction of the victim," which would only come years later, she recognized that there was a part of the soul that could be corrupted with undeserved guilt. A person with personal dignity does not grant that part of himself or herself any validity and essentially tells it, "The rest of me is not morally inferior to you."

Essentially, I think the statement, "I am not morally inferior to you" reflects well the concept of dignity within an Objectivist frame. That conviction is what nobody can take from you--as in, "You can take everything I own, but you can't take my precious dignity." In other words, "I am a morally good human being, not a morally inferior one, and you can't make me believe differently." That, to me, is dignity.

But this needs elaboration and further discussion.

Michael

Hi thanks for following through!

I'd love to read your article on dignity.

As for your description of the concept, so you would differentiate dignity from self-respect by saying self-respect is the recognition of one's own value in one's own eyes while dignity is the recognition of one's value in relation to others?

Your description of seeing oneself as a morally good human being I would say fits better into self-respect than into dignity, as it is a judgement one passes about oneself in one's own court.

Ah Brant, we can do better than that. We are to support the premise that one has the right to one's life. It is a very important premise and as such it has to be backed.

All of capitalism is based on that premise. We have to have at least a few arguments supporting it.

Hello / if this should rather be in ethics, please move it.

my question:

how would you support the premise that my life is mine.

or phrased differently: I own my life, no one has a claim to my life, I have a right to my own life.

It seems self-evident enough but in philosophy you need to support such statements.

how would you give proof for this one?

thanks for all contributions.