JennaW

I've had this done too. Instead of whipping it back, I look the crap up, debate its validity to *my* life (because after all, they're telling me who I am, right?), and wait for them to come up with another one. It's ridiculous. I had no idea there were so many -isms. There's probably one for every neuron we have, judging by the flood here and there and everywhere. Insanity. I call it name-calling. That's it. Name-calling so you can attack the other person somehow. Push them into some category so they can be ripped down. Whatever, I'm better than that. I refuse to engage in destructive discourse. I want to make the world a better place, not worse.

I'm doing that, right now. On my own, step by step; I drag it through rigorous testing and explaining and comparing to reality. Regardless of the hubbub. Ultimately, it's for me. I do it this way because I do not want someone else to tell me what to think. I'm not on strike, but I've had wayyy too many people tell me what I should be thinking, if not, then to argue me into what they think I should think. I'm done. I'm doing it on my own. I own my own mind. I think the best teachers and thinkers are the ones who teach others to think for themselves. A reasonable teacher will lead by example, as Barbara says. A teacher, in love with life, at ease with being human, will teach the same. As a student, the last thing I'd be attracted to is to be expected to follow; I'd much more enjoy it if individuality and independent were taught in mind and heart so that I could use it to lead others to the same conclusion. The last thing I want are those teachers who want me to think their thoughts. (see above's explanation) Two cents from a student; I hope this helps?

By the way, I'm not at either extreme. I've been "called" both determinist and indeterminist. Basically, I'm neither, or both. I've integrated them during my studies. For me, what other people are trying to prove is up to them. I'm still going to learn my thing, and do my research, regardless of who do/don't want to see the results. And I'll drag a hairy topic, like consciousness into the research setting. It's just that fascinating.

I enjoy abstract thought, imagination, thought wanderings, etc. Half the time I get a good idea from it relating to my science stuff. And I have no problem with letting emotions come to the surface. It's human, it's part of our physiology. It's natural, and so good if one can balance feeling and thinking to their capacity so that they integrate. No need to call it anything other than human, and I celebrate what's good in humans. I'm not sure what you mean by representational. As in, represents anything to do with humans, like emotion? Or, represents an object in reality? Or, represents concepts that humans can understand? Or all of these? I'm asking because I'm not sure. I think there is nothing wrong with daydreaming, abstract thought, and feeling. Nothing would happen if none of these things happened. I seek not to contradict myself and reality... even if it means contradicting Oism at times. Without daydreaming I would not have made the connections I did to come up with my thesis. I think abstract thought, daydreaming, thought wandering, etc. is a good thing; it keeps me human as long as I know what it is and what I'm doing. Abstract thought is what some fields do to make things happen. This (i.e. 'death premise', 'anti-conceptual') is inhuman. It shows no knowledge of physiology, the brain, how it works, how humans work. I reject it, given my education, life, current knowledge of Rand's words, and knowledge of abstract thought.

I have no favorite... I have lots of favorites. I have intellectual crushes on Einstein, Feynman, Gould, Hawking, Ramon y Cajal, Gazzaniga, Kandel, Russell, etc. Currently I'm reading through the Nobel Prize lectures (all of them in all categories); also I want to read all books of and by Feynman, all books by Gould, I have two of Hawking's books, selected writings of Russell, and Einstein's Ideas and Opinions. I want to read all books by all these people-- and more. I know of Carl Sagan, Jared Diamond, etc. also. They're on the list I also hunt down good science writing on the internet. I read scienceblogs.com for opinions and info from a variety of science fields; or find, through the scientist internet grapevine, stuff like this physicist's writing called "Quantum interrogation" at a group physicist blog called Cosmic Variance. Note: Some scientists do have a sense of humor. Most of the time it's dry, sarcastic, or wry, or all three. I know what in their writings to take literally, and what not to. I discovered this humor during my science education. Before that, I never had a sense of humor. [-( Honestly, given my passed-out-naked-on-the-pavement talent in physics and math, I probably wouldn't be able to understand Einstein's paper, or Feynman's, which is why I'm a glorified biologist. *grin* Then you get "articles" like this where it's debated whether biologists are biologists because they can't do math: "Why, physicists ask, do biologists seem unable to utilize such simple concepts as the Riemannian-Christoffel curvature tensor or Galois fields in their work?" Ok, I'm a geek.

That just made me happy. :D/

Ask another neuroscientist. Don't take one neuroscientist's word for it; this one (in my opinion) got his mind in a rut towards a deterministic line of thinking. Also, consider that he may have done research that convinced him of something. What is his background? In addition, what other fields does he look into? In a broader sense, what is consciousness? It seems like "conscious" in this thread talks as if it's a monolithic structure, where you either have it or not. In that case, I would suggest Oliver Sack's book "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" (really, a man did that) which I learned about in neuroscience class. Or, Antonio Damasio's book "The Feeling of What Happens" talks about consciousness as well. Consciousness isn't just off/on. Its many layered and integrated; in some ways, when we dream, we are still "conscious". Yet, some would say that's unconsciousness. Or, when I was waking up from anesthesia, I was conscious at times and could hear and know where my body was... but to others, I was passed out. What you guys are talking about is what is the higher levels of conscousness.. the decision making part. We're so used to this part on a daily second-to-second basis (for some) that it's hard to imagine life without it. But consciousness is more complicated (small epileptic seizures-- mentally unconscious, but still able to move around in an environment like normal), and more astute neuroscientists have understood the nonlinear dynamic systems part of the deal.

My first Bachelor's was basically in modern art. Technically, it was a double major in Media, in Photography and Digital Art (Computer Arts). However, the whole of my undergraduate education was in modern art and often we toed the line of postmodernism and all the art I've written on or made would have been considered "modern art". The classes I had went from critique to media theory to culture studies to electronic art to video production to film history, etc. It was an interesting experience, and looking back, it was a rich one. To me, there is a distinction between modern art and what I call fine art. To me, fine art is what Michaelangelo did. Modern art is Dali. I like both. So, having had some experience of what it's like to be in it, to think constantly about being expressive, creative, questioning, and challenging, it's fascinating to come across art critique by Rand, who obviously did not study modern art, yet felt fine enough to say some virtiolic things about it-- most of which I think is her opinion. No, modern art isn't aesthetic; that isn't its aim. Modern art goes over my head sometimes, and no, I don't think it's comprehensive right away, all the time. Yes, that pisses me off when I look and look and still don't get it. Yes, it sucks that I have to read a placquard to understand. But this doesn't happen all the time. At least half the time, I can get a message from a piece of modern art. Some, if done well, can and do portray what modern art usually does: tell a message. Question. Challenge convention. Ask us to analyze our lives and reactions and thoughts; what we are doing, why? To me, those are valid questions. No, my classmates didn't do the "I feel this color" crap; we talked about *how* to compose, express, and use colors, media, subject matter, balance, etc. We said, "It looks like this person is trying to say...." or "I'm not sure about putting that over there, it makes the composition unbalanced", etc. I don't know if anyone here has an art degree, but that's what I did in my classes; that's what I did to critique all sorts of media, from video all the way to photography. That's what I did to graduate. That kind of attitude about art, from any artist, isn't going to help him/her. Yes, it does get really ridiculous. But this sentiment wasn't true in my education. Those people who say these things-- and where is this quote from, by the way-- are having their art discussed in art classes by art students. We may not like what we see, but we get over that to find the message. It's called proactive critical thinking. Also, could this quote be said as well of Objectivism from some Oists out there? I've seen it expressed in different ways. What's the difference? Representation of reality according to whom? People like different pieces for differing, individual reasons. I like what I like and I can understand why I like something. It might not be what someone else can see (or hear). I have a friend who loves blurry motion in his taste; he just loves motion-- he's on the move all the time, he's got a Choppered BMW cruiser that's blue, he's intellectually active, in literature (writer) and science (pre-veterinary)-- he likes art that depicts motion. He likes power. He likes activity of life. And he likes Jackson Pollock because he sees that. I understand it, even if I don't *personally* like it. I like fine detail, controlled precision, layers of discovery, a balanced portray of color, and depiction of something I can recognize, even if its form is played with. There is much depth in the field of modern art, more depth in any field that one outside may not realize. Yes, I can critique Jackson Pollock, drawing on my education, but ultimately, it's going to be my opinion that I think his art doesn't say anything. It just doesn't say anything TO ME. Her attacks (or any attacks from anyone) on matters that she (they) did not honestly study-- deeply and with wisdom-- such as modern art or neuroscience, in my case-- is irrelevant to me. She did not get a modern art education. Does she know what goes on? Or is she outside looking in? It makes me sad that while she had her opinion, that a few unfortunate people (nameless to me) can't separate her opinion from their opinion. It's like her opinion becomes their opinion. Or her opinion becomes their fact. My values are my own. I suppose that it's a "damnation" to have a modern art education and a myopic soul would not hesitate to judge my entire life on my first Bachelor's... but get this: I'm also 5-7 classes away from my second Bachelor's, one in Physiology emphasizing in neuroscience. I find that people just *love* to critique either field that I've studied/am studying, without actually having *done the work*. Yes, some artists are "obsessed with their work", but you know... some scientists seclude themselves in their labs, "obsessed about their work". That said, because some are so willing to crucify a field without really, really understanding what goes on in it makes them less trustworthy to me. BUT, I do respect Rand's philosophical thought and what she studied in history, as well as her wisdom in having been a writer. I know a little bit of how hard it is to write; my mom published two books. However, I do keep Rand in context; I've come across science-themed fiction books written by non-scientists and I do sometimes find errors, vaguaries, or at the least, using the wrong name for something. I just have to keep my head on my shoulders and realize the author's context.

Thanks! I'll be doing MCAT stuff all day today, but I'll be relaxing by checking out the other stuff here, too. Thank you, and everyone for welcoming me

Wow! You guys *like* what I write-- not that I think I suck or anything-- but I just have this attitude that goes like: "Hell, I've got a logical idea/response-- I don't know everything-- but let's just see where this opinion takes me! In any case, I'll learn something! Maybe I'll teach someone something too in the process!" After that, I await for the fire and brimstone (just kidding). Really, after that, it's out there; I move on, and I just make sure that in 20 years it's not going to come bite me in the a** when I have to meet people or when I become famous. My 3 months of "independently studying Oism" journey has been eye-opening, and it has most especially honed my mind in a lot of ways that *some* Oists may not like. I find that funny. It has made me able to call myself a "Jennaist". It can, if one uses it wisely and with the whole of being human. There is clarity in dichotomies, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate for the entirety of life. There is clarity with insight and wisdom, but how can one achieve those by hasty and automated judgement? There is clarity that comes with compassion, knowing, and understanding; as well as well thought out anger, sadness, and pride. There is clarity in Objectivism, but there is clarity in life itself. Yes, we can know life... but how many *really* know life? I know this whole paragraph sounds strange and hippity-dippity, but I don't know how else to describe it-- clarity from acute, sharp, yet gentle, widened thinking. Okay, here's my long (feel free to skip over it if it's boring to you, I'm fine with that [insert grin]) AS/Galt's Speech story: A lot of people say it changed their life for the better, so I think that's cool; I do love it when a person chooses to live and love their life. The question is *how* they've done it, and the results on themselves and others. I've met people from all kinds of results, in person and not. Since I am a science geek, I do notice trends; the results cover a rainbow of ranges. I also noticed results battling other results, and vice versa. It got *ugly* at times-- I read fast and deep, and in the past 3 months, I have read a TON of argumentation. That's my data-- the words, the semantics, the rhetoric, the meanings, the cause and effect. Note: I did *not* look at the people-- I still have *very little* clue who said what, and I don't really care. It sounds harsh, but I'm just not into that. So I correlated, pondered, compared, contrasted, and drew conclusions from the data. In the middle of all that, I got so disenchanted I was about to leave. At the end, I saw within the data that life truly is what one makes of it. I digested AS within the context of *my* life, and I looked at my own response. The book is *fiction*. That's reality. It had its beautiful parts. It had powerful (but robotic) characters. They're ideals-- somewhat Platonic sounding-- in that they were some other type of reality. That was what bothered me about this. I could already imagine lots of people running ragged trying to *be* one of these characters. That bothered me, and it still does; what could prove it is that some people will still lose track of reality despite the book's message. And healthier minded ones will not. It was enigmatic-- dramatic, well-paced-- and Galt's Speech was something I was already on the way to thinking-- in general. So, no, AS didn't change my life. *I* was changing my life. Rand agreed with me on some general things. Now, I read her words for contextualized affirmation mostly; I understand the basic axioms. That said, Rand had great descriptions of people. She could really make an emotional statement w/o stating it. She had great descriptions of passion and setting. She could describe people very well; it was something I noticed in the way she switched tone, word choice, description. But, one must be careful of being drawn in too much with rhetoric, semantics, tone, and wording. Our brains respond to words, no doubt about that; we respond to tone, to our language's sentence structure. As well as I found understanding in her words, I also had to understand linguistic power and to separate it from who I am. In essence, distance myself and not be personally bound up; to appreciate it as a work, as a product. [i say this as someone who has submitted pieces and critiqued pieces as part of my education. Creative writing was one of those classes, as was a year-long writing course. I'm not a professional writer, but I do hope to be.] I call this critical thinking, of as much content as I can reach. Critical thinking is effort, it's proactive. If that's what she means, then the vibe of necessitating agreement with one person/group/organization or another blasts critical thinking out of the water. If arguing with mathmeticians on math when one isn't a mathmetician-- by quoting philosophers-- where's the critical thinking there? Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it make an argument stronger if the arguer actually studied the field they're having problems with? Me, I'd hesitate to even think of critiquing someone else's field if I have never really been there. If I *have to* agree with Rand or Peikoff or anyone else on everything, that is not critical thinking. And I just have to ask to those who've been around Oism much longer than me: Is it just me that this vibe is floating around? If so, why, given that Rand said philosophy was a guideline? My answer: Re: Rand's response-- Ehhh. I've read so many discussions on Rand's actions that now they're irrelevant to me. It's like reading a 50/50 (or 30/30/30) split down the middle of a hypothesis. For every claim, there's a counterclaim. I lost interest in her personal life rather quickly. Eventually, I'm just going to read her words, unpack them, drag them through the firey coals of my brain to my heart's content to test their validity in my life and according to today's reality and current knowledge. I'm not swallowing anything hook, line, and sinker. On thinking: I'm more specific in my description of what I think she means by "thinking". I've had many discussions with friends about thought, and I've (so far) come to the conclusion that, for me, "thinking" involves not going for Paris Hilton or Britney Spears but to aim towards Einstein, Voltaire, Darwin, Thomas Huxley, B. Russell, [insert role models], etc. In essence, thinking to aim for growth, maturity, and wisdom-- yet keeping in mind one's humanity. I go by "admiration and integration, not imitation". I think that's more realistic and achievable. But that's my conclusion, for my life. I say the same thing... when I hear a college girl's main goal this weekend is to get completely smashed. I do not say that when I'm reading my neuro textbook, or talking with friends, or reading science literature. It's appropriate in context. Personally, if it's vague, it's interpretable. If it's interpretable, I can think my own way through it. And if there is a rigid, singular, do or die, "right way" of thinking along a certain line, that's not thinking. That's following. I prefer using my brain, not just my spinal cord. I've also met some cool ones who are more integrated in the middle ranges, and yes, some others who are kosher enough to put my orthodox Jewish aunt to shame (yes, I have an ortho Jewish aunt; she converted). The good thing about choice is that one can choose who uplifts and who doesn't. What some don't realize is that heaven/hell is binary system, too. Also, this is my thesis: binary systems in human thought. I'll have fun with it. I like this place... lots of good, juicy conversation!

I didn't know it by name either, until about a month ago when I was looking up words like "data", "statistics", "probability", and "certainty". Funny thing is, is that instead of AP Calculus in high school, I went for Discrete Math (which covered rudimentary basics). We dealt a lot with number sets (through our own data gathering or through given numbers), and how they correlate. I agree. It just sounds like whoever's using it got cotton for a brain-- when, in fact, one probably has to use their logic skills at a higher level to do this. Well, at least, I did. And what's *really* funny here is that appliances work off fuzzy logic. An argument against fuzzy logic is as well an argument against some basic household appliances. It's usually a position where *some* people talk about certain fields as if they knew exactly what they were talking about... despite the fact that those in the specified fields have bled out the ears working on their field to come up with a new contribution to humanity's progress; while those who want to argue against such fields end up quoting people who are *also* not in the field. It's baffling. I'm *still* waiting for someone to quote an actual peer-reviewed neuroscientist-- *any* neuroscientist. Hasn't happened yet. And it's not as if Google Scholar doesn't exist, either! Information and knowledge is so available! Also wrong conclusions and snap judgements based on little knowledge is just as bad as those preachers walking around. I'm glad to find folks who can and will learn, and who can and will teach me-- all with due respect for life, for reals. Thank you! One of the coolest things that drew me here was Dragonfly (I think) who was describing math at RoR-- and how he?she? was so unafraid to critique Peikoff. Just that fact-- that someone can say "Hey, lookit, I'm using my brain actively and unabashedly-- this guy's wrong!" really perks my ears up. And your writings-- really putting thing to the test-- like what the philosophy really says-- instead of just accepting things within a narrow mindframe and things that need more explanation with our current knowledge. I applaud any efforts to *really* critical think-- not just to *say* it-- but to *do* it. So thank you! And I have learned from you.

I think she meant more choosing "higher levels of thinking" rather than just mentally swallowing every idea that passes one's way. I.e. critical thinking rather than being a sheep. At least, that what I *hope* she meant. At the base level, every human that's alive right now is "thinking"-- what to eat, where to go, go to sleep now?, etc. Also to use the word "focus" isn't an accurate phrase either, as different people do have different levels of focus depending on their neurotransmitter/brain blood flow activity. Focus is affected by the attentional areas in the brain. Most people *can* focus in general, but, I can't say that it's true for everyone at a fully-loaded level. Do you mean fuzzy thinking as in fuzzy logic? In any case, Rand was no neuroscientist. Gotta keep her in context.