RobinReborn

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is one of those things that non-scientists use (without understanding) to try and limit the certainty of whomever they're debating with. It's a principle whose applications are pretty limited in scope.

Ask them whether they value rationality over Ayn Rand. If Rationality contradicts Ayn Rand, do they still believe Ayn Rand?

I'm wrong here. You don't think Trump can influence journalists by paying them? Either way it's second hand unless you have a thorough understand of architecture. Somehow I got on a mailing list for a Trump real estate selling program and it was clearly a pyramid scheme. BTW I started my reply before I read Jonathan's... They probably have, but that's beside the point. Wynand was also very good at making deals (Roark, not so much). How so? It's not that I don't like Trump, it's that I think he's like Gail Wynand. I would hope that it's pretty clear that most of what I've said here has been opinions and questions. I have limited knowledge of Trump but what I do know matches my interpretation of Gail Wynand pretty well. A very accomplished man without integrity (he's contradicted his previous positions several times).

Imagine if people who dealt illegal drugs actually cared about their customers

Do they actually rerun the apprentice? Do the DVDs sell in significant amounts? Part of the 14 years of success that the show has had have been without Trump. The show was created by Mark Burnett and has many international versions which are also successful. This is another example of Trump being able to do something well that's already been done by other people. This is nothing to scoff at, but puts him more in the Wynand category than the Roark category. I have read about Trump, skimmed his book and watched some videos, mostly of him in the Republican debates. If I were to have studied him more thoroughly, then I would have no reason to start this discussion because I'd be very confident in my assessment of him. You are the only intellectual person I've heard speak positively of Trump's products. I don't have enough time to read every work out there, I make my judgement of them and go on with my life. My judgment isn't perfect but it's good enough for me to have confidence in it. And asserting my judgment to intelligent people is the easiest way to figure out if I'm wrong, much easier than watching hours of television.

I've never watched the apprentice, but somehow I don't trust Trump's judgement on what is excellent. I'm not trying to say Trump's a bad person, I don't think Wynand was a bad person either. They're both intelligent people who have produced valuable things. But they fail to live up the their potential. Ayn Rand said Wynand was the man who could be great but wasn't. Here's a quote "Wynand is a prime mover who has gone wrong by making one crucial mistake, the mistake made by so many great men- that of placing his goal within others, of seeking greatness in power over others [this is particularly relevant given the apprentice, his attempts to become president and his vast political contributions] (which is a form of spiritual collectivism). A man who should have been a Roark. Wynand destroyed himself by living his life as a secondhander. Wynand is the man who makes the Tooheys possible since the Tooheys are impotent by themselves."

OK, so Trump is smart enough to figure out how to make money from other's creativity, sounds like what Wynand did with Toohey.

The biggest Skyscraper that Roark built was built for Wynand... (it may have been the only one, I don't remember if the Enright Building was a skyscaper or not or if I'm missing some other building, Roark wanted to build but he was willing to build personal houses and gas stations, Trump probably isn't). I don't know much about celebrity so I can't really comment on that. What Trump products do you like? I've barely watched his TV products but I don't know anybody that claims they are high brow or have any sort of longevity. I can't comment on his buildings, but I don't think he deserves that much credit for them given that it was his father who helped him get into the real estate industry. I don't see Wynand's products are inferior, I see them as reflections of what people already want. Roark builds things that are original. Wynand tells (stupid) people what they want to hear. That's what I think Trump is doing with his egregious statements (only his are deliberately going against political correctness), the fact that he's flip flopped on a few issues (like abortion) make him look more like Wynand to me. It's not clear to me that Trump is creative, he's able to make deals but it's not clear to me that anything he's done couldn't be done by somebody else (in this respect he's like the minor character John Erik Snyte).

I think it's premature to assume he'll win the nomination. And he's kinda screwed if he doesn't because he's given up on being a Senator and put everything into running for President (he will be attacked for the number of votes he's missed). Maybe he'll end up being picked to be VP.

I think he is...

It's not entirely clear what the proper course of action is without all the details. If you value the company and plan to work their for a long time, consider the ramifications of not 'snitching' on him. Is he in a higher position in the company or more well liked then you? I can't quite understand why you wouldn't tell somebody about what he's been doing unless you're afraid of some form of retaliation.

If you spend less time lifting refrigerators you have more time to think. Technologies make humans more intelligent by letting giving us more time and making us think less about things that technology can do for us. I agree. What would you limit to ban AI? If you look into examples of major botnets, viruses, etc many of them have been created by individuals. Even if it did require a large team and rare resources there's not an effective way of banning it just like there isn't an effective way of banning nuclear weapons.

If developing more technology does not make humans more intelligent, then humans aren't that intelligent are we? AI is used in many domains right now and that enables humans to become more intelligent. There may be a point at which humans reach a maximum intelligence and nothing can enhance it further. At that point you have to ask whether you value intelligence or humanity more. Depending on how you define AI it is responsible for a significant amount of economic growth... Super powerful AI can be developed on any computer, it hasn't yet basically because of luck. Again, there is no way to ban it.

AI will not be like any technology before it, there will be lots of technologies before AI comes into existence and humans will have influence over these technologies. AI will be developed by humans and only be let to run out of control if humans aren't smart enough to control it. As AI grows more intelligent, so will humans. I don't see any way of banning technology which doesn't exist and can be created on any computer.

I don't follow your argument. 1) Humans have used tools for their entire history. Our basic means of survival before tools wasn't that different from how chimpanzees survive now. Most tools allow humans to think less about something (and think more about something else). 2) Initially AI would have some sort of dependency on humans, depending on how it is programmed this dependency would be modified. Humans still maintain control over many advanced technologies. 3) AI may want to destroy us. But it may also be superior to us (more rational). There is no effective way to ban it.

The "little quarrel" is precisely on topic. Fragile poseurs demanding respect, banning informed, potent dissent, squealing about criticism, and retreating to their safe spaces is one of the primary reasons that Objectivism has "problems" (which is putting it mildly) with outreach efforts. J Well put.

Lotteries could be the best way of funding an Objectivist government.

How can you derive infinite from the finite? There is a limit to what can be created with carbon, there's only so much mass in the universe and there are only so many ways to arrange it. Granted the number of ways is astronomically large, but that's not the same as infinite.

Their most practical use is for purchasing illegal goods and services. They do have desirable features in some respects, but they are completely volatile in terms of exchange rates.

In part because Israel has provided the USA with useful intelligence, the destalinization speech of Khrushchev was given to the USA by the Mossad. Israel has more in common with the USA than any other nation in the middle east.

Sure, if we wanted to be petty and make a "point." I just wish folks that I respect on OL who happen to still adhere to certain cultural and religious observances that I also respect them. A... Why should I respect irrationality? Logic trumps tradition and if I want to make a point I shouldn't let respect of ancient traditions get in my way.

I'm willing to give anyone my sources if they're authentically interested. But it seems like you're more interested in taking jabs at my character. Lose the victim hood crap and don't assume that the "reader" that Michael refers to who is just visiting can get the most out of your post. A... Lose the superiority narrative. The reader who is visiting is seeing you as a condescending bully who isn't contributing anything, I'm not a victim because I don't take you seriously.

There's no admonishment, just asking him to give me his sources. I'm willing to give anyone my sources if they're authentically interested. But it seems like you're more interested in taking jabs at my character. And FYI, I'm not the only one to mention the Flynn Effect in this thread. I would hope it would be common knowledge among people in this community.

What statistics are we considering? You give no citations. If you look into IQ data you'll find that it's not stable over time. One hundred years ago, askenazi jews were a standard deviation below average, now they're a standard deviation above. You find that trend in many populations, it's called the Flynn Effect. It is dependent on many things. Recent studies have shown that a student's motivation affects how well they do on tests. Furthermore, if minorities are told before they take a test that the test isn't culturally biased they'll do better. This finding has been replicated dozens of times in the past decade or so, it's called "Stereotype Threat"

Coming year? Shouldn't we acknowledge the Gregorian Calendar as more rational than the Hebrew Calendar as it more accurately reflects the relative position of the earth in its orbit?