Armed Chinese Troops in Texas

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I will agree to read some books on neuroscience if you agree to read some books on chess. Both are equally relevant to this topic.

It's been years, but I used to read quite a lot of them.

I used to have a good position in the São Paulo Chess Club. (Not grandmaster level, but pretty good.)

Anyway, I hold that the brain is relevant to human nature. You can have your brainless human nature for your own thinking.

That's just not good enough for me to adopt any political ideas other than superficially.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Consider a theory of individual rights. Now, give me one -- just one -- example of a discovery in neuroscience per se that would either refute or confirm such a theory.

Which theory of individual rights? The one that starts with we are endowed with them by God? That obviously doesn't have anything to do with neuroscience. I, too, could ask you irrelevant questions, ask for just one example of something that has little to do with the issue, and pretend this proves something. But I don't have to prove that science trumps philosophy or vice-versa. My thing isn't winning and argument. It's probing ideas and getting to the truth. That's my only agenda. Knowledge is cumulative. Michael

Not all knowledge is cumulative, but ignorance and error certainly are.

Did you not understand my example of individual rights? Apparently not. I could easily give you a few hundred more examples, if you like. Do you know what the purpose of an example is?

I will make it easy for you: Name one -- just one -- fundamental principle in ethics or political philosophy that would be either confirmed or refuted by a discovery in neuroscience per se.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stop with the psychobabble. The only "threat" I feel here is a threat to my sanity.

Hell, I thought you were playing who is superior to who and what is superior to what. There's obviously winner and losers in that game, no?

I don't play that when discussing ideas, but I imagine those who do feel threats.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

I will agree to read some books on neuroscience if you agree to read some books on chess. Both are equally relevant to this topic.

It's been years, but I used to read quite a lot of them. I used to have a good position in the São Paulo Chess Club. (Not grandmaster level, but pretty good.) Anyway, I hold that the brain is relevant to human nature. You can have your brainless human nature for your own thinking. That's just not good enough for me to adopt any political ideas other than superficially. Michael

Sure the brain is relevant to human nature. So is the digestive system. But I doubt if you could ground a theory of ethics in a study of constipation.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

This exchange is obviously going nowhere. There is only one way to settle this: When you feel that you have have learned what you need to know about neuroscience, then present an abstract of the ethical and/or political theory that you believe follows from this knowledge. Then we can examine that theory on its own merits.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. So let's see some pudding.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I will agree to read some books on neuroscience if you agree to read some books on chess. Both are equally relevant to this topic.

It's been years, but I used to read quite a lot of them. I used to have a good position in the São Paulo Chess Club. (Not grandmaster level, but pretty good.) Anyway, I hold that the brain is relevant to human nature. You can have your brainless human nature for your own thinking. That's just not good enough for me to adopt any political ideas other than superficially. Michael

Sure the brain is relevant to human nature. So is the digestive system. But I doubt if you could ground a theory of ethics in a study of constipation.

Ghs

You don't want to go there, George. Trust me.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

You never knew before that using your mind can improve your mental skills and ability? Seriously? I thought "use it or lose it" was common knowledge.

Ghs

I'm talking about physical brain changes, not just improving mental ability.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia. But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

You never knew before that using your mind can improve your mental skills and ability? Seriously? I thought "use it or lose it" was common knowledge. Ghs

I'm talking about physical brain changes, not just improving mental ability. --Brant

Yeah, I know. As an interactionist, I have always assumed that mental changes have physical correlates.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Name one -- just one -- fundamental principle in ethics or political philosophy that would be either confirmed or refuted by a discovery in neuroscience per se.

It doesn't work that way like in a contest. but I'll try to give you something so you will settle down.

btw - You missed point about individual rights. How do you confirm or refute a principle from the outside which is hotly disputed from the inside? That is, I am sticking to your exclusionary knowledge model here (which I vehemently oppose and never use).

If the very philosophy people discussing rights (i.e., without science) cannot full agree on the origin and nature of rights, which one of those people's ideas do you think "outside excluded knowledge" of science should use as the truth in order to confirm or refute it?

It's all BS when you think like that. It's like a mental masturbation game.

Here's an item I consider pertinent: authority. (Hey! It seems like I have mentioned that? I wonder if it was ignored?)

Why should children be dependent on the political authority of adults? I'm speaking of individual rights. And what is the cut-off point where they can exercise their rights as adults? Do you think age or brain development is a better guide?

People with lack of correct mental development are incapable of exercising their rights and understanding them, regardless of their age.

There's one issue right there.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see a butt-load of issues. But I just can't see how to fit them into the frame of the philosophy trumps science game without getting tangled up into nonessential issues.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Are you for or against the Randian ideal of a limited government?

George,

I am obviously for it. However, I don't see any "ideal" anywhere. Not in consistency.

When Rand is solely talking about principles, she seems to promote an "ideal." But when push comes to shove and real danger arises, she generally has reacted with statements and attitudes that reflect human nature as it is--and she normally has been quite nasty about it. (For example, her justification for the conquest of America by European immigrants against the "savages.")

This has resulted in inconsistencies and given both Objectivists and libertarians heartburn for decades.

Let's say I am for fleshing out Rand's idea (not "ideal") of limited government with solid premises drawn from all areas where good observations about human nature can be drawn, demonstrated and repeated: i.e., history, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience.

I am absolutely against devising any sort of government or social organization, limited, totalitarian, anarchistic, whatever, where demonstrable human nature is ignored.

Michael

No political philosopher in history has ignored human nature. You don't need to know neuroscience to understand human nature. But we have been down this road before. If you want to believe that reading some books on the brain gives you superior insights into human nature, be my guest. Perhaps we should call for a new Constitutional Convention and permit only neuroscientists to be delegates. Given their superior knowledge of human nature, they would surely come up with a better document than those guys in 1787, who knew virtually nothing about the physical brain.

If I sounds like I am growing impatient, that's because I am. I will therefore stop here.

Ghs

Well it's nice to know you can improve yourself mentally by the way you forcefully use your brain. There's a physiological reason London cab drivers have good memories. Before they can be cabbies they have to know everything there is to know about London streets and destinations. Their brains change. Studying a foreign language may help prevent dementia.

But I'm not refuting you, George. We now have two subjects on one thread.

--Brant

(I'm going to trash my collection of Libertarian Reviews soon--anyone want any?)

Do you have early (pre-magazine) issues of LR -- the newsetter and, later, the newspaper format? If so I would very much like to get those.

Ghs

I have the two formats and maybe every issue ever published. Regardless, I have a lot. Also something called "Frontlines." I already asked you before if you wanted them but you didn't see my post, probably because the way you access and use OL.

I may have something else you want, but I forget what I similarly offered you--I don't know--two weeks ago? If I remember I'll let you know. Anyway they are free to you. Send me your current mailing address at my full name dot aol.com.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Name one -- just one -- fundamental principle in ethics or political philosophy that would be either confirmed or refuted by a discovery in neuroscience per se.

It doesn't work that way like in a contest. but I'll try to give you something so you will settle down. btw - You missed point about individual rights. How do you confirm or refute a principle from the outside which is hotly disputed from the inside? That is, I am sticking to your exclusionary knowledge model here (which I vehemently oppose and never use). If the very philosophy people discussing rights (i.e., without science) cannot full agree on the origin and nature of rights, which one of those people's ideas do you think "outside excluded knowledge" of science should use as the truth in order to confirm or refute it? It's all BS when you think like that. It's like a mental masturbation game. Here's an item I consider pertinent: authority. (Hey! It seems like I have mentioned that? I wonder if it was ignored?) Why should children be dependent on the political authority of adults? I'm speaking of individual rights. And what is the cut-off point where they can exercise their rights as adults? Do you think age or brain development is a better guide? People with lack of correct mental development are incapable of exercising their rights and understanding them, regardless of their age. There's one issue right there. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see a butt-load of issues. But I just can't see how to fit them into the frame of the philosophy trumps science game without getting tangled up into nonessential issues. Michael

See my "Childrens' Rights in Political Philosophy," in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.This article cites well over 100 sources, but nothing on neuroscience.

I haven't a clue what you mean by an "exclusionary model" of knowledge. I have never defended any such thing.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is only one way to settle this: When you feel that you have have learned what you need to know about neuroscience, then present an abstract of the ethical and/or political theory that you believe follows from this knowledge. Then we can examine that theory on its own merits.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. So let's see some pudding.

George,

Actually I am planning a book on this where I can build my arguments from the ground up, source them correctly, probe the alternatives available, etc.

I agree that a discussion will be far more fruitful when I release it.

One comment on the digestive tract quip. Believe it or not, it appears that we have a great deal of memory there. According to one neuroscientist (Lipton), he holds that memory is in cell linings, not in their core.

We don't process abstractions with our digestive tracts, but should an ethical concern arise concerning memory, like the ownership of the memories in the digestive tract by the person, I can see some serious issues arising. For example, when it becomes possible to erase such memories with technology, say, by putting a certain chemical in food.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I haven't a clue what you mean by an "exclusionary model" of knowledge. I have never defended any such thing.

You keep doing it when you say, xxxx science might have some limited value, but the real deal will be in philosophy.

That's exclusionary.

You just wrote something like that. Want an exact quote?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

See my "Childrens' Rights in Political Philosophy," in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.This article cites well over 100 sources, but nothing on neuroscience.

George,

Actually your books are on my reading list.

I have to get to them before I can discuss what is in them with any kind of intelligence.

But I still don't see why 100 sources in philosophy allows the validity of anyone to refuse to look at new knowledge, but make claims about its relevance.

Michael

[anthony]

>Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that the USA has profited from involvement abroad? >It is the same old "it's for the oil" argument. So show us the oil - perhaps 'looted' from Iraq, for instance. You are using "USA" as a collective, as though it is a single collective entity with a single self-interest. The "USA" consists of a national government, multiple state and local governments, and several hundred million individuals. There is no necessary commonality between the government and the individuals living under its rule. Most Americans have suffered greatly as a result of the U.S. government's involvement abroad. In addition to the thousands of soldiers who have fought in these cruel and stupid wars, some who have paid the ultimate price for absolutely nothing, these wars will end of costing Americans trillions of dollars. They have already been a huge contributing factor toward devastating the U.S. economy. So, in response to your first point above, most Americans have not profited at all from our involvement abroad; instead, they have suffered major and sometimes catastrophic losses. The government, on the other hand, has profited enormously from these wars. It has helped the government to expand its powers both internationally and domestically, and has provided its justification for slowly transforming the U.S. into a militarized police state. That may be a bad thing for us, but if you're a government official who wishes to greatly expand the power of government and to get Americans to submit to its authoritarian rule, it's a very good thing indeed. The many "defense" contractors have also profited handsomely from these wars. They are getting rich. The rest of us are paying. Regarding your frequently repeated argument against the "no war for oil" thesis, this has been refuted many times. The purpose of these wars has not been to actually steal the oil directly, which would be quite impossible. Instead, it is to set up new military bases in the middle east so as to establish military control over the oil producing regions. It is all about expanding the U.S. empire. Once a U.S. military presence is established in an area, it almost never goes away. We still have troops stationed in Japan and Germany, 66 years after the end of WW2. We still have troops stationed in South Korea, years after the end of the Korean War. Like all government programs, once established, they are almost impossible to get rid of. >Nope, the US has - largely - been a victim of its "I am my brother's keeper" mindset. This whole idea that the U.S. government is fighting all of these wars out of an altruistic desire to help other countries at our own expense is ridiculous. These wars are all about extending U.S. government hegemony over all of the regions where the wars are being fought, even as these wars have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. >And yes - it would be "so bad". Actions should be initiated by principle, not forced by "economic decline." Actually, it would be good, both for us and for the rest of the world, and especially for the many countries who are suffering mayhem, death, and destruction at the hands of the U.S. government and its endless bombing campaigns. And yes, it would be better if the withdrawal were done based on a principled rejection of violence and the murdering of innocent people. But if it's done due to our impending economic decline, it will still be a good thing anyway. Martin

Zounds! Wrong on all counts.

Well, I definitely will do some rethinking on the subject.

I take your point of the separation of government and citizenry, but if it were 'sold' to the citizens that the US was doing what was 'best' for the world and democracy, it STILL amounts to altruism playing a large part.

Making involvement in other nations palatable, so to speak.

I can't help noticing that your bitterness about the USA's excursions abroad approach my own, concerning my country.

I have to take that into account here, since I know only too well how it can affect one's perspective.

Some useful input, though, for which I thank you.

Tony

[Brant Gaede]

Here's what I have, George:

2 issues of SIL 1972 (Roy Childs' reviews in both)

Books for Libertarians and Libertarian Review through Nov 1981 starting in 1972: seems to be a complete set

Frontlines, maybe all issues

R Childs' Rand obit in the only issue of Inquiry I saved

American Libertarian August 1989 only--contains a lot on Branden--only if you want it

"Update on the Libertarian Movement," April 1982 Rand obit plus two more Rand articles including one by Roy, one issue only, April 1982

"Society Without Coercion" by Jarret B. Wollstein--only if you want it

Unfortunately, I'm 99% sure I threw away all my L.F. book reviews years ago

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I haven't a clue what you mean by an "exclusionary model" of knowledge. I have never defended any such thing.

You keep doing it when you say, xxxx science might have some limited value, but the real deal will be in philosophy. That's exclusionary. You just wrote something like that. Want an exact quote? Michael

What I said was that scientific knowledge, assuming it is relevant, must be interpreted and understood in philosophic terms before it can be applied to philosophical problems. There is nothing "exclusionary" about this. It is essentially no different than what Mises said about economics and empirical data, viz., that empirical data (including predictions) can neither confirm nor refute an economic theory, because raw data must first be filtered through an economic theory before it has any significance for the discipline.

In other words, the same empirical data can be interpreted and understood in different ways, depending on one's theoretical framework. This is a matter of understanding methodology. It has nothing to do with exclusion, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It has nothing to do with exclusion, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

In my meaning of the term (and the way I see you arguing), It means claiming the ability to judge knowledge without actually knowing anything about it--and, of course, judging it per se.

For me, my crystal ball has always been on the blink, so I don't do that.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

See my "Childrens' Rights in Political Philosophy," in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies.This article cites well over 100 sources, but nothing on neuroscience.

George, Actually your books are on my reading list. I have to get to them before I can discuss what is in them with any kind of intelligence. But I still don't see why 100 sources in philosophy allows the validity of anyone to refuse to look at new knowledge, but make claims about its relevance. Michael

Again, I have no problem with new knowledge, provided it is relevant knowledge. Philosophers have discussed in exhaustive detail the issues pertaining to when a child reaches the "age of reason," and should therefore enjoy the same rights and freedoms as adults. What do you suppose neuroscience could possibly add to this? Are you proposing some kind of brain scan to settle the issue? Even if this were feasible, it would only serve as a test -- say, a better version of a verbal or written test. It still would have nothing fundamental to do with the issue of children's' rights.

Now you would probably say, once again, that I am being "exclusionary." Well, I also exclude geology, botany, and a host of other disciplines as well. If you cannot even specify what kind of neuroscientific knowledge could possibly be relevant to the subject of children's' rights -- e.g., What responsibilities should parents have toward their children? Do children have a right to an education? At what point should the state intervene in parent/child relationships? -- then there is simply no reason why you should be taken seriously. Period. End of story.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

You're pretty good debating strawmen.

I'm impressed.

That's not the end of the story by a long shot.

At any rate, I will stay within my frame (we build on former knowledge) in discussing this, and not be goaded into yours.(i.e., philosophy trumps science).

I just don't find your frame productive or effective for my own quest for truth.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

It has nothing to do with exclusion, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.

In my meaning of the term (and the way I see you arguing), It means claiming the ability to judge knowledge without actually knowing anything about it--and, of course, judging it per se. For me, my crystal ball has always been on the blink, so I don't do that. Michael

Do you feel a pressing need to study astrology or basketball before concluding that they are not relevant to a given disciplline? Show me the relevance of neuroscience to the fundamental problems of ethics. What can it tell us about the meaning of terms like value, moral, and immoral? What can it tell us about the relationship between facts and values? What can it tell us about the distinction between teleological and deontological ethics? What can it tell us about an ultimate standard of value?

So answer some of these questions. Be specific. So far all I have gotten is bluff and bluster.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, You're pretty good debating strawmen. I'm impressed. That's not the end of the story by a long shot. At any rate, I will stay within my frame (we build on former knowledge) in discussing this, and not be goaded into yours.(i.e., philosophy trumps science). Michael

Philosophy does not trump science. It only trumps your capacity to understand basic issues of methodology.

Ghs.

[Libertarian Muslim]

A good point Martin. And now for some very uncomfortable questions. If an American economic decline so big would stop the US continuing down the same road and would stop it intervening, then is it such a bad thing for the world? No doubt it would put a lot of Americans in economic hardship, but are they not responsible for their own government's actions as it is a democracy? Is their apathy and lack of attention to their government's behavior an excuse for not stopping their government or should they wear that responsibility as they have benefited from their government's actions economically whilst it was profitable to do so. Let's make it easier and put in the context of another nation because sometimes it's hard not to be biased.. If it had been the Soviet Union doing the same thing with interventionism and an economic decline was the only way to stop them, then is that so bad?

Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that the USA has profited from involvement abroad?

It is the same old "it's for the oil" argument. So show us the oil - perhaps 'looted' from Iraq, for instance.

Nope, the US has - largely - been a victim of its "I am my brother's keeper" mindset.

And yes - it would be "so bad". Actions should be initiated by principle, not forced by "economic decline."

It would be so bad for whom? I agree with you that it should be initiated by principle and not forced by economic decline, but the US has continued on this path for the last 50 or so years so why should the victims of such interventionism have to wait until Americans who are largely apathetic and generally care not about how the US Government's behavior effects the rest of the world? If it hasn't really happened for 50 years, what precedence is there in that 50 years that would indicate that such change would happen without Americans suffering immense hardship?

It seems that the only thing that Americans care about is hardship in their own lives and that it would require immense hardship in the lives of Americans to get them to actually pay attention to what their government is doing both at home and abroad because it would effect them and they'd want something done about it..

If Americans were more judicious in ensuring that their government's behavior around the world was appropriate and did not adversely and unjustly effect others then it would be another story, but that is not the case.

If that's the only way to stop the US from intervening in the rest of the world's affairs then perhaps that is what the US needs. At least the victims of such interventionism wouldn't have to suffer any longer and the most suffering would be on those who have become complacent and neglected their obligations as citizens who should be controlling what their government does.

And to your other point, yes, the US has benefited greatly from interventionism.. The Military Industrial Complex gets a whole lot of money out of it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Show me the relevance of neuroscience to the fundamental problems of ethics. What can it tell us about the meaning of terms like value, moral, and immoral? What can it tell us about the relationship between facts and values? What can it tell us about the distinction between teleological and deontological ethics? What can it tell us about an ultimate standard of value?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Um... I've already showed you some relevant stuff, say about human nature. So let's just start with what I already gave you--the lizard brain idea. In certain philosophy circles, the root of values is survival, and the mechanism is pleasure-pain. (Did someone say Ayn Rand?)

Ole' lizard says the survival part is true for him, but it doesn't always follow for the neocortex. And lizard doesn't mind pain at all if it perceives survival is at stake.

(I could give you the technical stuff, but right now, I believe you would not even look at it. For that reason, I will keep it to a layman's way of saying it.)

So we have some thinking to do on what human values actually are. These are serious issues in my world in developing a code of values to guide my choices.

I predict you will ignore this, though, and happily go about trouncing some other strawman you make up in your quest to defend philosophy against science.

That's a start. I want to see what you will do with it before wasting my time with more--or even repeating what I have already said. After all, if everything I present will go into the same "the ancients already dealt with that, so any new knowledge means jack" sinkhole, why bother? Like we agreed earlier, it is far better to wait for my book (or series or whatever form it takes).

As far as the difference between teleological and deontological ethics is concerned, I need to read more on the classical (and/or academic) ethics literature that uses this kind of terminology before I can see if and where neuroscience and behavior science are applicable.

I prefer not to make evaluations about stuff when I don't know it well enough to comment. But, hey, that's me...

And yeah, I've looked this stuff up in the past. It has bored me to tears the times I've done so, but I have studied it some. I know I'm going to have to deal with it within my plans, so it's on the list. But right now, I'm not comfortable with my level of understanding to discuss it meaningfully, and especially not within the refute or die gunfight frame you like to use.

(Besides, I'm more accustomed to thinking in terms of free will and dogma. I admit to hankering after Ken Wilber for this stuff, though. I like holons and his other top-down force ideas and how they affect morals better than than the idea of a Christian God carving out commandments in stone.)

Ya' think philosophy will trump science if ya' put a big word on it? Dunno... but it sure impresses the natives...

Makes ya' look real fine and lunrd...

So answer some of these questions. Be specific. So far all I have gotten is bluff and bluster.

Heh.

That's BS and you know it.

Your strawman-obliterating abilities are sharp, though. I have to give you that.

Go forth St. George! Kill the straw dragons that threaten all of us!

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Let's just start with what I already gave you--the lizard brain idea. In certain philosophy circles, the root of values is survival, and the mechanism is pleasure-pain. (Did someone say Ayn Rand?) Ole' lizard says the survival part is true for him, but it doesn't always follow for the neocortex. And lizard doesn't mind pain at all if it perceives survival is at stake.

This is fine, but what does it tell us that has not been known for thousands of years? It's like telling us that neuroscience has discovered that two plus two equals four.

Ghs