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? 

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

RR,

Which part? That is before he decided to run for president and had to stop doing the show?

I haven't watched that many episodes, but they've all been with Trump. Everything I've heard about the show has been with Trump. In fact, he's one of the producers if I'm not mistaken. He partly owned the show. So how can an owner be excluded? Do you have a link to share or quote?

I'm wrong here.

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You claimed that I (or Jonathan, I don't know which) is the "only intellectual person I've heard speak positively of Trump's products."

Yet you are not familiar with those products or with people who talk about them except negatively (and I bet most of those have second-hand opinions, too). Hell, if you want intellectual comment on Trump's real estate aesthetics, both good and bad, it's been all over the mainstream news outlets for decades. Google is your friend.

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...

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I would have to dig, but I have very little doubt many popular culture intellectuals say great things about Trump's TV show when they they talk about reality TV. I might even look into this just to be able to point people in the direction.

And you don't think intellectuals have favorably discussed his books like The Art of the Deal? Good God!

They probably have, but that's beside the point.  Wynand was also very good at making deals (Roark, not so much).

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Do you know what you sound like?

Early critics of Ayn Rand.

How so?  

On 2/5/2016 at 0:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

EDIT: It occurred to me it might seem like I'm getting on your case because you don't like Trump. I don't care about that--look at how many don't like Trump on OL. I am a bit of a stickler for correct identification, though. There is no shame in saying, "The people I trust don't like Trump and I am not familiar with his stuff, so I will go with them for now." I do have a problem with stating such people's opinions as fact and not having any first-hand knowledge of what they are talking about. As the saying goes when folks disagree, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

Michael

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.

Reborn, I don't think you don't fully understand what I am arguing (so your chasing strawmen). Lets define our terms:

By "intelligence" I mean the capacity and capabilities of the human brain as such. Using technology and tools does not make you "more intelligent" any more than using a lever or tow-truck to move a refrigerator makes your "more strong". It simply makes you more productive and effective at a specific task.

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.

We, with current technology, do not yet have "full" AI. That is, a machine with the same reasoning capacity as a fully grown human being. It is not a matter of making a "faster computer" because human brains are not "faster computers". That is overly simplistic.

I agree.

And yes it can be banned. We have effectively banned many harmful technologies from CFC byproducts (cloroflourocarbons), to many different types of weapons to pharmaceuticals. AI research is capital intensive, complex and requires large teams of people, it can't simply be "made in a garage". It can be effectively banned and prevented from causing harm before it inevitably does.

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.

Can you guys (you know who you are), um, take your little quarrel to another thread? This thread is about the problems of objectivist outreach efforts, lets keep it on topic folks. Thanks.

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.

.

Peter, even if the number of physical laws in the universe is finite and even if the number of kinds of chemical elements is limited, there is no limit in principle to the number of things men can invent using them. There is no limit to what men can create with Carbon, for example. But for the circumstance that the species man will cease.* Still, for man: “So many days have not yet broken.” –Rig Veda

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.

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?

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 sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

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.

I'm sorry RR, you admonishing Peter for not sourcing and then do not provide a source for what you cite as the "Flynn Effect" and cite unsourced studies...

Mighty impressive young man...

A...

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.

Brant wrote: btw, your post is accidentally albeit implicitly racist, for you attribute to blacks what is attributable to most people who are slow and difficult to change.

end quote

Of course, if you are slow, it is harder to learn. Yet, you may be falling into the Social Justice Warrior trap, Brant. The letter was anecdotal but it was implicitly rational. Consider statistics. If we examined 1000 Americans of East Indian origin and 1000 Americans of English origin and 45 percent of the East Indians score high in math and Americans of English origin score 35 percent and it tests that way for 100 years, would you come to any conclusions? You might say the East Indians are still under the influence of their previous, mathematical culture, but what if they thought of themselves as American as they come?

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.

Statistically, the IQ’s of blacks is dependent upon how much of their genetic structure is Negroid. THEN on top of that, factor in the culture and family life they embrace. Nature and nurture are tied together to the outcome but some folks will never get Calculus or Ayn Rand’s novels. As Sherlock Holmes said, in The Sign of the Four, ch. 6 (1890): How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?

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?