RobinReborn

The problem with "Objectivism holds" is it doesn't hold anything. It's other people telling you their ideas telling you it's "Objectivism," including Ayn Rand. Here's the current classical sequence: Peikoff holds that Rand holds that Objectivism holds. It's only a sequence of authorities. Now that Rand is dead he can ball it up to Rand-Objectivism. After studying Rand a lifetime he's the world-class authority on the catechism. The irony is he's not professionally qualified to be a philosopher, only the teacher of the catechism. That's because he's inside it looking out, not outside it looking in. When you run any philosophy between you and reality, reality becomes opaque. This does not mean there's not great value in the philosophy. It's up to interested all and sundry to jump into the Objectivism bucket and root around for it. Just remember the bucket has no brain--that's not it's job. It has no job. It has no authority. It put not one thing into itself, not even the label. So don't forget to breathe the oxygen of reason.

--Brant

I believe in rationality, but I think there needs to be some basic premises that Objectivists agree upon or it's a string of arbitrary assertions connected by reason. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's basically the same as being a rationalist and not all rationalists are Objectivists. Here's a Rand quote (note she uses the word holds just as I did).

"My Philosophy, Objectivsm, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church"

I'd assume that most Objectivists would agree with the first three, but not necessarily the last one.

Objectivism holds that an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness. How exactly an individual does this varies from person to person because people have different values.

Yes, people do have different values, but not all values are consistent with Objectivism. You can choose between being a musician specializing in works of certain Romantic composers or a guitarist who expresses himself in "wild, primeval feelings, orgiastic joy." You can choose between being an industrialist or "the driver of a hotrod car" ("The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964, pb 31).

The best way to choose values in accordance with Objectivism is to read the words of Ayn Rand.

Thanks! I think choosing values has a lot to do with who you are as an individual and reading Ayn Rand can only help so much.

I'm not sure what you mean by grok.

Google is your friend.

If you disagree with my interpretation of Objectivism, let me know. If you value having a sovereign mind more than following Objectivism, that's fine but I think following Objectivism (while still questioning it) will help you achieve your goals. And what's the value of having a sovereign mind or volition if you don't use it to pursue your values?

I don't agree or disagree with your interpretation of Objectivism.

I disregard it.

If that stings, I suggest you check a premise or two about your own motivations.

You will find no flock to be gathered here.

Only independent minds who stand for their own thinking. We all just happen to like Rand's works, or were impacted by them, but there are a lot of different disagreements and applications. There is no "Objectivism holds (yada yada yada)."

There is no preaching.

That's one of the main reasons people come to OL.

Michael

I'm not trying to gather a flock or preach. I am asking a question based on my understanding of Objetivism.

Objectivism holds...

I have a real problem groking this...

It's not the notion of looking into the Objectivist canon and finding arguments, stipulations, axioms, examples, etc.

It's the false authority of Mr. or Ms. "Objectivism Holds" in the presupposition and the false transfer of authority to the person starting a statement that way, however partial that may be, that makes it hard for me to grok.

I hold my own mind to be sovereign. I already have enough trouble with my genes, history, social environment and reality in general.

The volition left over is mine and mine alone.

I don't need to bow to any other authority.

Michael

I'm not sure what you mean by grok.

If you disagree with my interpretation of Objectivism, let me know. If you value having a sovereign mind more than following Objectivism, that's fine but I think following Objectivism (while still questioning it) will help you achieve your goals. And what's the value of having a sovereign mind or volition if you don't use it to pursue your values?

@Brant, a vague answer is in the question. Really it's motivation to explore how we choose our values and an invitation for anybody to share their ideas or personal experience.

I am not from Georgia.

Objectivism holds that an individual uses rationality to achieve happiness. How exactly an individual does this varies from person to person because people have different values. Happiness can be relatively easy to achieve if your values match up with what people consider to be needs ie food, clothing and shelter. If your values are to be rich and/or famous you'll have a harder time achieving them and might spend your entire life unhappy. If you have too many values, you might find that pursuing one limits your ability to pursue another.

What is the rational and conscious way of choosing your values?

My issue is that people have often been skeptical of new technologies (often because they were afraid of them). So why should AI be an exception?

I read Kurzweil with a healthy amount of skepticism ( here's an example of his predictions accuracy being analyzed http://lesswrong.com/lw/gbi/assessing_kurzweil_the_results/). However, the basic principle remains, our technology is becoming more efficient very quickly. It's doing things that our ancestors couldn't have imagined. This is especially true since the fall of communism, now that technological progress is less focused on building weapons.

I also don't buy these objections of 'we don't understand the human brain'. Artificial Intelligence doesn't need to imitate the human brain just like artificial flight (helicopters) doesn't need natural flight (birds).

Ray Kurzweil thinks we will be able to upload our brains to something like the cloud before too long.

Michael

He has been saying that for 30 years. Upload our brains has been 30 years in the future for the past 50 years and one hundred years from now it will still be 30 years in the future. Kurztweill is a brilliant inventor but he should not give up his Day Job to become a prognosticator.

Do you have any sort of citation for that? I don't believe everything Kurzweil says, but his predictions have a decent track record.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

I have... nothing there supports your claim that brain uploading is always 30 years in the future. Kurzweil has made falsifiable predictions in his book, The Singularity is Near. Have you read it?

Ray Kurzweil thinks we will be able to upload our brains to something like the cloud before too long.

Michael

He has been saying that for 30 years. Upload our brains has been 30 years in the future for the past 50 years and one hundred years from now it will still be 30 years in the future. Kurztweill is a brilliant inventor but he should not give up his Day Job to become a prognosticator.

Do you have any sort of citation for that? I don't believe everything Kurzweil says, but his predictions have a decent track record.

@tmj AI can be defined as intelligence that exists in a non-biological object (otherwise several animals could be considered AI). AI is a tool created by humans which mimic the brain's abilities.

@Reidy I haven't read those books but I have read some work skeptical of the possibility of AI. None of it convinces me that AI is impossible, just that current programming techniques aren't equivalent to human intelligence and can't yet replicate certain human behavior. But AI has clearly been progressing quickly, first it beat the best human at chess, then it beat the best human at Jeopardy. What's next and what could possibly stop that trend?

@Baal Five years isn't that long and computation continues to grow in power and decrease in price. Not sure why you think there's some critical difference between Silicon and biological substances (which are carbon based, and Silicon is chemically similar to Carbon).

Have any of you given serious thought to Artificial Intelligence?

It wasn't a significant issue during Ayn Rand's life and I'm not aware of any Objectivists have written about it.

There are lots of intriguing questions like will AI be conscious or will it destroy humanity and would that be a good thing?

Please share your thoughts.

Seems like a waste of time. I've enjoyed reading Ayn Rand's books but I can't keep track of all the different organizations which claim affinity with her philosophy. Yaron Brook seems like a good guy who will probably be named Peikoff's successor. Then maybe there will be more unity in the Objectivist movement.

Michael, thanks for the welcome. Not entirely sure how to read into your post but by no means was I intending on attacking Nathaniel Branden (I read that that's basically "against the rules").

Judith, I've read both of those books and don't recall anything like that. I do recall both of them being somewhat negative towards Peikoff and implying he was subservient to Rand. But's disqualified for the same reasons others disqualified Branden. He wasn't an engineer.

OK... so I posted this two days before Branden's death.

Can anybody explain that coincidence?

He's not NB, even allowing that Rand may have changed minor details for confidentiality. Mr. X was in therapy, and he suffered what appears to be chronic depression. Branden in his twenties had no romantic failures behind him. He was married to his first serious partner and - well, you know the rest. Those major features eliminate him. Mr. X was probably someone in the inner circle, though, given that she was willing to spend time with him. I've heard that they were all Branden's patients at one time or another. I've never heard of any of them being an engineer, and I don't know how old they were when they met her (NB was nineteen and making a career in psychology; those count as minor details). For that matter Mr. X may have been a woman.

I don't see that it's a coincidence. She was writing an accurate-enough account of someone she'd known.

The Collective was small. Who could this person been besides Branden?

Where did you hear that 'they were all Branden's patients at one time or another.' from?

I posted this on reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Objectivism/comments/2nxxkn/art_and_moral_treason_a_cryptic_message_to/

Nobody can explain it.

You must have high standards for anger.

Not sure why you're so suspicious, people change with age and can grow more cynical. There's a Barbara Branden video on Youtube where she talks about how dissappointed she was that Atlas Shrugged got negative reviews and/or was ignored. The Romantic Manifesto (as well as a hit piece by Murray Rothbard) document Rand's taste in art/music.

As for the Donahue interview and Ayn 'getting angry', I'm not sure what standards you are using but I'm pretty sure there aren't many guests on Donahue that have gotten more upset than Ayn Rand. Given the audience that watches Donahue it would have been more rational to address the woman who questioned Ayn in a more calm manner.

I've come to question some of the things in Passion of Ayn Rand, but I think it's mainly true. Ayn worked very hard to try to create an intellectual framework for capitalism and did a pretty good job of it. But she had too much confidence that people would have a positive reaction to it (just like Dagny had too much confidence). I think she became more cynical after the Branden breakup.