Being an objectivist should feel like having superpowers

[Jules Troy]

I got sideswiped by a semi truck and lived! Walked away with a few bruises. My super powers must have saved mehhhh.

Talk about having an appreciation for just waking up every day happy to be breathing after that little scuffle.

[Brant Gaede]

Getting swept under the trailer side is a big danger. The rear has the "Jayne Mansfield" bar.

--Brant

[Marcus]

I got sideswiped by a semi truck and lived! Walked away with a few bruises. My super powers must have saved mehhhh.

Talk about having an appreciation for just waking up every day happy to be breathing after that little scuffle.

lol

Does it feel like having superpowers, or does it look like having superpowers? Does Superman feel indestructible, or does he feel, I don't know, normal? I mean, being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound is a natural state for him, so to him there's nothing particularly special about it.

He would surely notice that he is different from the others. He would be reminded of this fact everyday. Power is the ability to do what others cannot.

I wonder if Marcus's idea has a tie in to an adrenaline rush.

--Brant

I'm refering to a general way of being, of operating consistently.

This guy (not objectivist) has a set a lofty goal, and commits to it daily. He started 4 years ago, and has logged over 5,000 hours to his 10,000 hour goal. Playing golf (at a high level) is a highly valuable skill. He is to the point now where he drew with Phil Mickelson (famous pro golfer) and beat him the following day (by one stroke).

[anthony]

Any difference from the man who beats everyone else in a pie-eating contest?

(Oh, and wins money too.)

[Marcus]

^ Do you know any competitive pie-eaters who're worth 100's of millions of dollars? I don't.

[anthony]

So is it the pie-eating abilities(superpowers) or the money that should be admired?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Marcus,

Since you are into this stuff, I think you should really look into Peter Diamandis, Singularity University, Ray Kurzweil, etc.

These guys are doing the superpowers thing for real.

Many of them are into Rand. They just don't say it.

Google them or I'll get you some links later.

Michael

[Marcus]

Marcus,

Since you are into this stuff, I think you should really look into Peter Diamandis, Singularity University, Ray Kurzweil, etc.

These guys are doing the superpowers thing for real.

Many of them are into Rand. They just don't say it.

Google them or I'll get you some links later.

Michael

I'm no fan of the singularity (I'll explain in another thread at some point). The idea that we should just "pass off" all our problems to artificial intelligence and advanced technology is not only foolhardy and dangerous but extremely lazy, and takes a dim view of man's efficacy.

So is it the pie-eating abilities(superpowers) or the money that should be admired?

I admire his ability to learn a difficult skill and commit to it long range. A skill that is highly valued by the market and worth millions of dollars at higher levels, like basketball. Pie-eating does not fulfill that criteria.

[Selene]

I admire his ability to learn a difficult skill and commit to it long range. A skill that is highly valued by the market and worth millions of dollars at higher levels, like basketball. Pie-eating does not fulfill that criteria.

Correct. Like the Coney Island Hot Dog Eating Contest...a one trick pony does not have longevity....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm no fan of the singularity (I'll explain in another thread at some point).

Marcus,

I did not say "the singularity." I said Singularity University.

The theory of "the singularity" is merely one of the things Kurzweil (and a few others) writes about at times when discussing artificial intelligence. And this is a tiny, tiny part.

Look into their projects.

You want superpowers, you will find plenty there.

I was going to mention a few, give some videos, links, etc., but I don't feel like dealing with puffed up know-it-all misidentification. So I'll just mention one. (Not for you because I don't think you want to know. I just get excited by this stuff and OL readers are reading.)

Richard Branson, who hangs out with the same crowd, is going to be doing space tourism soon--probably this year will be the first blast-off. Private enterprise. This project came directly from something Diamandis did.

Here is an epistemological system I use and I highly recommend it. Cognitive before normative. This means you identify correctly before you judge, rather than judge right out of the gate, then later look for justification when called on it when you screw up (like you just did).

People generally prefer to judge first because, to them, that saves a lot of time and effort. But I say I don't see how anyone can judge anything correctly without first identifying it correctly.

So if you are not interested in the Singularity University and the people I mentioned, I have no problem with that. But to judge this negatively (and even call those folks "lazy"! ) as if all this were "the singularity," then say you will write about it later like you know all about it is pretty lame in the identification department.

Elbow grease in identifying correctly is the path to success. Judging without knowing is the path to somewhere else.

Michael

[Marcus]

The theory of "the singularity" is merely one of the things Kurzweil (and a few others) writes about at times when discussing artificial intelligence. And this is a tiny, tiny part.

No, actually (that is, the future "singularity" event) it is the central focus and goal of his writing. Everything he does and writes about refers ultimately to that goal. He's sort of a transcendental materialist.

Look into their projects.

I have. Some I like (such as the medical innovations he proposes, life extension, 3d printing technologies and others). Others I vehemently oppose (AI).

Here is an epistemological system I use and I highly recommend it. Cognitive before normative. This means you identify correctly before you judge, rather than judge right out of the gate, then later look for justification when called on it when you screw up (like you just did).

There was no false identification. I did not judge "out of the gate" at all. I was already aware of his position and arguments. I simply disagree with (many of) them. For reasons I will probably elaborate on in another thread.

So if you are not interested in the Singularity University and the people I mentioned, I have no problem with that. But to judge this negatively (and even call those folks "lazy"! ) as if all this were "the singularity," then say you will write about it later like you know all about it is pretty lame in the identification department.

You forget to mention that you also made an assumption (i.e. pre-judgement): The assumption that I did'nt know their arguments or what I was talking about. That assumption is actually wrong.

What makes them "lazy" in my view is 1) They are waiting for some indeterminate, future, "transcendental" event to solve their perceived problems 2) They neglect to find creative ways to solve issues, today, as they are and instead "pass it off" to some future, machine super intelligence because they have effectively "given up" on human efficacy. A dangerous, lazy idea.

If the world is knowable, and man is equipped to survive and solve problems then can he not solve a problem as simple as hunger? Or is he ultimately helpless and needs intelligent robots to do it for him?

Most of the problems of today are epistemological and political, not metaphysical.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Talk about coincidence!

Dayaamm!

I was just looking to get a gist of Douglas Hofstadter as the book by him, Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking, arrived a couple of days ago. I got it following one of the rabbit holes I tend to go down (believe it or not, this particular incursion into cognitive science, neuroscience and epistemology is driven by my renewed interest in writing song lyrics and poetry ).

So I was looking at some lectures by Hofstadter and chose this one from 2011, probably because it said "singularity" in the title and I had recently posted here. (Also, unlike other lectures I looked at, this was well under an hour--just a little over a half an hour, so I could maybe save some time. )

That literally happened just now.

Douglas R. Hofstadter - Singularity Summit at Stanford

(Where in hell do these coincidences come from. )

Now that is a critique of "the singularity." With Kurzweil himself sitting right there on stage beside him. (Not that I am interested in discussing that particular theory--that's not the reason I offered my suggestions.)

Notice this is not a few simple opinions thrown about on a forum as if the issue were to be trounced in two words by a Randian hero or something. Or worse, catch-up ball gleaned from Wikipedia.

I really like Hofstadter's comment at the end of the lecture when he noticed that the survey he took of scientists about this issue came up preponderantly negative (not all)--and almost all of the negative scientists had not read the books. Hofstadter found that frustrating and not a good reflection on the field.

Anyway, if any reader is interested in this particular idea (I mean the singularity, not the other stuff like space travel, nanotechnology and so forth) from a critical thinking perspective, that video in my opinion is a good starting point. Not any garbage about laziness, pooh pooh dismissals, and so on.

The fact is, I myself have not read any Kurzweil's books yet, which is why I don't comment on them, or even artificial intelligence in general. I have only seen Kurzweil give talks and be interviewed--to me as a former professional musician, when I think of him, I still see the image of a keyboard synthesizer and sampler in my mind. But I am so impressed with what Hofstadter said just now, I am going to get a few of his recent books and check the reasoning behind these ideas out for myself.

It's actually a comfort to know there are some specific reasonable caveats I can later refer to without having to plow through this out of the gate dismissal stuff. On the contrary, the caveats come from an expert who takes the issues Kurzweil raises seriously and speaks from openly declared deep respect even as he takes apart Kurzweil's "hand waving" and exposes a few outright errors.

I don't expect to write about this until I have read it, though.

As for Hofstadter, now I have to go watch another lecture if I want to get a gist of his views on analogy. Or maybe I'll just read the damn book.

Michael

[Marcus]

^ Never heard of him. I'll check him out. In any case, calling my viewpoint "garbage" is a bizarre claim, as you just admitted to not reading Kurzweils books or taking an examined look at his position. I have. I've read his essays( such as accelerated returns), viewed his talks and excerpts from his books. I'm informed enough to create an opinion.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Marcus,

I'm not going to bicker with you.

Go do your own homework. I'm busy with mine.

We'll talk about this after there is something other than vanity to talk about.

But later, when you go back read your own opinions pre-homework, you might reappraise your understanding of "bizarre."

Michael

[Marcus]

Mike, my opinion stands until reason to change it. If and or when you or anyone else gives me a reason (via good arguments), I'll change my stance. Doubtful though it is. The whole concept (AI) is abhorrent to me.

Now about those superpowers....

[BaalChatzaf]

Mike, my opinion stands until reason to change it. If and or when you or anyone else gives me a reason (via good arguments), I'll change my stance. Doubtful though it is. The whole concept (AI) is abhorrent to me.

Now about those superpowers....

Reason you say. What about new facts that you have learned which contradicts some of your prior conclusions?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Marcus writes:

The whole concept (AI) is abhorrent to me.

I see technology as morally neutral. And while it can't make people good, it certainly doesn't make them evil either.

Greg

[moralist]

Marcus writes:

I'm no fan of the singularity (I'll explain in another thread at some point). The idea that we should just "pass off" all our problems to artificial intelligence and advanced technology is not only foolhardy and dangerous but extremely lazy, and takes a dim view of man's efficacy.

I think I may see your point, Marcus...

To offer a simple example. If I use $3 calculator enough, there is the possibility that I can lose the ability to perform mathematical calculations myself. It is also possible for those who grow up dependent on calculators might never develop the understanding necessary to do math calculations themselves. While this is not a moral issue, it does open the potential to encourage laziness... unless the person employs the "artificial intelligence" of a calculator as a useful tool to accomplish other more complex intellectual tasks.

Understanding this, I often calculate longhand when time is not a factor if only to remind myself how it's done.

Greg

[Selene]

Marcus writes:

I'm no fan of the singularity (I'll explain in another thread at some point). The idea that we should just "pass off" all our problems to artificial intelligence and advanced technology is not only foolhardy and dangerous but extremely lazy, and takes a dim view of man's efficacy.

I think I may see your point, Marcus...

To offer a simple example. If I use $3 calculator enough, there is the possibility that I can lose the ability to perform mathematical calculations myself. It is also possible for those who grow up dependent on calculators might never develop the understanding necessary to do math calculations themselves. While this is not a moral issue, it does open the potential to encourage laziness... unless the person employs the "artificial intelligence" of a calculator as a useful tool to accomplish other more complex intellectual tasks.

Understanding this, I often calculate longhand when time is not a factor if only to remind myself how it's done.

Greg

Agreed.

I will check my work with a calculator, however, I always do my calculations long hand...

How many folks under thirty (30) that you know can "do" long division today?

A...

[Brant Gaede]

4/2 = 2

?

--Brant

if this is right I'll try 44/11

555/10

etc.

start small, end up smaller; that's division

as usual, I'm in over my head

[Selene]

4/2 = 2

?

--Brant

if this is right I'll try 44/11

555/10

etc.

start small, end up smaller; that's division

as usual, I'm in over my head

Lol...is that measurable?

How about dividing 34,678.74 by 1,236.99?

[BaalChatzaf]

Lol...is that measurable?

How about dividing 34,678.74 by 1,236.99?

280.348

[Brant Gaede]

27.23 -- without a calculator

28.03 with

I made a multiplication mistake verifying 7 when it should have been 8.

--Brant

but Bob bombed

[BaalChatzaf]

As for Hofstadter, now I have to go watch another lecture if I want to get a gist of his views on analogy. Or maybe I'll just read the damn book.

Michael

Analogy and metaphor were kinds of conceptual thinking which Rand gave very little attention to. But creativity virtually demands analogy and metaphor.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Lol...is that measurable?

How about dividing 34,678.74 by 1,236.99?

280.348

280.348 x 1236.99 = 346,787.67 (edit: corrected)

your answer is wrong by a factor of ten

Edited April 13, 2014 by Brant Gaede