Strictlylogical

Once it has done so, is it independent from or untethered from what the brain does? Does it “function” (complex chain of causality) absent any structure whatever? Are you advocating strong or weak emergence?

I find substance dualism and/or strong emergence as weird and spooky... and not consistent with my metaphysics. Much interesting science is interpreted using as a basis, metaphysics which is different from mine... which does not invalidate for me properly conducted science... only some of the interpretive conclusions therefrom. “Reductionism“ has always come across to me as a vague anti concept posing as a strawman. Dualism for me has always been mystical in one way or another, a ghost always pops up here or there, or the non-interacting interacts... or causeless causation is caused... I prefer weak emergence ... or a kind of attribute functionalism i.e. mind is what the brain does, and first person experience is just what it is like to be a person with such a brain so doing and being. Nothing supernatural, no violations of causality or identity.

You guys should be more explicit and specific about your actual disagreement so that bystanders can gain something from it ...

Agreed. Like almost everything spiritual: nature, nurture, and possibility of manipulation all factor in. I wonder if empathy is more complex than what most people casually think of it... in an analogy to the same way sensation - perception - cognition - evaluation - emotion works is complex. Since empathy is not supernatural revelation of another, it must start with sensation. Something parallel to perception is involved and then instead of conscious identification and conscious evaluation there a kind of subconscious “recognition” and “assessment” which leads to an emotion. That emotion tends to be an odd mixture of the feeling the other person is intuited as experiencing as well as a feeling of some regard for or standing with that person. We observe that some situations and persons evoke empathy or resonance in some others but not everyone. Empathy is individual and fallible. The premises one holds affects this lightning calculator too. Since the emotions potentially generated by it from sadness to anger to joy, I tend to see it less as a single emotion and more as a whole intuitive pathway of a process of “participating” with another on a non cognitive level. Like emotion however, it can’t be trusted as a final arbiter guiding action, but it certainly can be a useful capacity for gaining insight about others and therefore insight about the self... and it certainly plays a big part in the enjoyment of life! the above is speculation ... i suppose i should have done some research first

The kneeling, symbolic of a prayer to a new religion, or merely of self abnegation or supplication before any authority higher than the self... is very wrong, very disturbing in itself, but don't theses jokers realize that they are PERFORMING THE SAME ACTION... which the police officer took, which lead to the victim's death? Don't they know how bad the optics are that while showing solidarity with victims, they present a living image, a replay, and an visual homage of the officer at the moment he slowly killed his victim? If they are play acting here, they are playing out the tragedy in the role of the perpetrator... Creepy indeed!

What you say here seems correct.

Absolutely agree. That “some people are dangerous criminals” ... of course it’s true and the vast majority of police see that. What are you trying to say? That came from nowhere. Of course each individual is different. It would be an error to think all people of any group (or in general all people) are the same because it ignores the content of each person’s character which IS different. Your train of thought insofar as it is, does not follow from anything I’ve said. This discussion is going off the rails but I will just respond by saying that a cop must react to the facts and carry out his duties to the best of his abilities to act in accordance with objective principles of law enforcement to protect individual rights. I’m not sure what this is all about. The quote from Ayn Rand I posted is not a statement about free will of an individual contradicting the nature of that particular individual (such is impossible ... choice is free but cannot violate metaphysical identity). The quote from Ayn Rand I posted is not about ignoring any relevant factual aspect of a person in front of you. I understand her idea of justice to require a man to respond to others according to what they deserve... this in no way implies treating an innocent deserving individual less than what they deserve nor does it imply treating a criminal individual any better than they deserve. Ayn Rand’s point was about the errors of racism. It’s in The Virtue of Selfishness. It’s a good read. I recommend it, highly. but I am not here to explain it too you.

Not so. Was I do dense I misread your level of sarcasm? Your post was cryptic. Please speak plainly.

Nice sarcasm there... it's good to see your pointing out to us that racism (to quote one of my betters) "negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination" and is an error of the highest order and of the lowest most crudely primitive form.

Oh my... don’t fill me with false hopes like that. A living example to explode so many of the false narratives in identity politics and a sane voice to reject socialism and encourage right thinking (up to a point) ?? That really would be awesome!

Handcuffs should have been sufficient... leg restraints could also have been used? It's 2020 we should be able to design and manufacture more effective (and safe) restraint systems... rather than train our officer(s) with dangerous techniques (concentrating on the neck) which can easily go horribly wrong with permanent consequences.

Hmmm.. I wonder what the statistics are for securely handcuffed persons (handcuffed behind their back) actually being successful at attacking and injuring their captor(s) ... I don't doubt that a forceful effort at some kind of head-butt is often tried. I wonder about how often that kind of thing actually succeeds... and hence what the risk actually is to the captor(s), once the person is securely handcuffed behind the back.

A very delightful musical, from a distinct Objectivist perspective, in case any of you missed it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIs9xM7Sac8

I find it a little ironic that on the one hand I advocate for a system where there would be little to no public property, state media, public utilities of any kind. Where all is privately owned, traded, rented, sold and used in the free market. Yet I almost am tempted to treat the various media service platforms as coming within the public sphere, I almost conflate their private with public good and their private action with government action...but reason brings me back from the brink. My only consolation is the double negative... that since we live in a mixed economy there no doubt is favouritism and cronyism which needs to be reined in by force of regulation.

Thank you Michael.

I’m glad you don’t mind. In summary penis enlargers - moral if shown to be effective, immoral if claims fraudulent student loans - moral if no taxation was used to obtain wealth leant multilevel ... - although many fraudulent schemes have similar structure and description it is within the realm of possibility that time - real estate - responsibility - ownership might be woven into a complex structure and traded for value among voluntary individuals Asian and Russian brides - although slavery is wrong, agents who bring parties with potentially mutual interest together provide value... when they aren’t fraudsters Nigerian Princes - The one who contacted me, I ignored ... the next time one contacts me I’ll tell him I’ve already sent him the initial fee and he already sent me the riches ... then thank him profusely in my goodbyes and good riddances. Honestly though, it would be nice to have a forum to discuss things without hucksters or lefties harassing you all the time, but sometimes they leave crumbs for discussion.

Are TOS and ARI Imperfect? Likely yes. Are some individuals of these organizations doing good, I have to say yes (keeping in mind what “good” means). In particular I find Tara Smith’s work to be of the highest order. What’s your beef with these organizations? Are the effects of the flaws in their pronouncements on other individuals in society at large inimical to your flourishing or incrementally beneficial to your flourishing? Do you “wish” someone better qualified would step up to take their place in publicly disseminating and engaging the modern world in Rand’s ideas? Are you simply disappointed that they have nothing to offer you, your having already studied and understood the source material fully? Finally, are you simply angry with the sheer fact (alleged), independent of any consequences to you, that they get it wrong?

Hello All: Joined a while back but only started participating recently. I’m familiar with Objectivism and wish to explore the boundaries of it. I have no dogmatic loyalty to any person or body of work, but the systematic whole of the knowledge and conclusions I have independently arrived at of which I am certain (as a fallible finite consciousness) will be very well established personally, and sometimes they might be the same as the ideas of other recognizable personalities. The coincidence or departure of my convictions with or from anyone else’s does not have any cognitive or persuasive weight with regard to their objective correctness or incorrectness. The principle that ideas stand for themselves and not he/she who said it is something I will stand by, both for myself, and for others. Looking forward to good meaningful discussions with those interested! Strictlylogical

I’ll try not to be drawn into anything “personal” as my purpose is to explore ideas, as such. Whenever I stray into evaluating an idea by “who” said it (with the exception of having to do so to truly understand their meaning) rather what was said I, have failed myself. And certainly, indulgences of a “personal” nature can be financially detrimental if it’s the wrong kind of person. I’ve reread this thread and although there is a discernible level or “circus” here, it did not amount to a level that negates the interesting subject raised. Insofar as I can discuss interesting ideas amidst the noise, I will contribute to the discussion.

This is a very complex and interesting subject. I’m only qualified to speculate as I have not done the research but I suspect that the various civilizations that evolved independently all over the world slowly arrived at certain cultural norms of enrobement for a number of reasons. This slow formation of culture of course follows an evolution similar to that which generates the customs and teachings of religions over time as well. Culture and religion both tend to suppress behaviour which traditionally for whatever perceived reason have had some negative impact on the “tribe” or its members. Consequences of eating pork (primitively raised), premarital sex, and marriage of siblings come to mind. The Christian teachings are likely not unique or special in regards to nudity, but it is informed by the same causes. As you have hinted at, nudity has power and can have consequences. Especially if either or both the object or subject is a hormone drenched adolescent in his/her prime. It’s natural that in the primitive dawn of civilization those aspects embued with power when they could not be harnessed by those in charge we’re largely kept in check and under wraps. I hear you. As responsible persons rules against nudity and its power seem silly. In modern times with community safety (gun control ) and “safe spaces” being more popular than self defence, self responsibility, and individual freedoms ... it’s not such a mystery.

If we agree that a "mind" is what a brain "does" and not some third magical stuff appearing out of nowhere, then affecting the brain can be seen almost trivially to affect what it does, and hence the state of the mind "happening" in the brain. I am so glad Rand cut through the false dichotomy of brain/mind... corpse/ghost. We are, in our entirety and very naturally ... quite entirely natural.

I agree. I'm not sure about this. To be sure some psychologists have failed in rigorous scientific adherence, but that does not mean all have so failed. Certainly not I. As part of reality, it must be studied. From a third person view as well as from a first person view... although there is really only one "thing" to study, via two different channels.

Hi Peter: I can't tell which ideas are yours versus those which you are quoting. Just out of curiosity, do you think there is a conflict (of a philosophical nature) between our current knowledge of the natural word (including biology, chemistry, physics - QM) and the idea that consciousness is wholly natural? SL

Tim makes a few mistakes that only a non-artist would make (and that an engineer should not make), which ruined the movie a little for me. I still liked the documentary though. If one carefully looks at the stringed instrument, the floor, and the rug, although each appears to look somewhat realistic in isolation, they appear fake together. This, I suspect, is because Tim painted each of these in isolation of the others. A sense of realism is primarily conveyed through correct values and then colors and finally by their form and placement. A good artist knows that realism is all about light and how it bounces, filters, reflects, refracts etc. An orange on a green table will appear greenish where the light from the table bounces into the shadows on the orange, while the table will appear more orange in the areas where the light bounces from the orange to the table. For some reason, and I cannot recall exactly why or whether we know this explicitly from the documentary, Tim seems to have painted at least part of his work piecemeal, i.e. without having all the objects of the whole all present at the same time. You can get away with this for objects which have no effect on each other... no light bouncing from one to the other nor shading or causing ambient occlusion on the other etc., but you cannot get away with this for objects which are near to each other, or otherwise actually do affect each other's appearance. The stringed instrument does not appear either to reflect (in the semi-gloss of its surface) any of the red or burgundy coloring of the nearby rug or the dress, nor does it reflect the intense white of the floor tile which is conspicuously close to it. Moreover, an ambient lighting effect from that white floor tile, subtly brightening the part of that instrument closest to the stringed instrument should be very visible. Conclusion? Tim painted the instrument at a time during which the girl and possibly the rug, simply were not present. Why he missed the lighting from the floor tile, is hard to understand unless he simply did not have the floor properly prepared prior to painting the instrument (or never did?)... the trailer does not reveal any clues although I suspect the actual documentary would. The rug is the least problematic. Although I see a lack of any ambient lighting variation caused by the floor tile going from a pronounced white to black... The floor itself is quite fake looking near the rug. The white tile underneath the rug shows hardly any shadow, neither direct nor ambient, even though parts of the tile are obscured by the rug from half the light of the windows. Tim gets most of the work right, after all he simulated a mechanical camera and most of everything in the background was present at the same time. But, by taking multiple exposures of middle ground and front objects in isolation and putting them all back together, he loses realism in the floor, rug, and instrument. PS - Although entertaining, the documentary falls short of being some kind of revelation. Manual "color checking" is quite easy to do by holding up a brush... (or a color checker See http://drawmixpaint.com for techniques in realism.) but is only really required by beginners learning to see color.