Elon and Epistemology

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Elon and Epistemology

Elon Musk made a fantastic compilation of clips from public appearances where he kept being needled and responded harshly. 

So why shouldn't this be in Ethics or Politics?

Why Epistemology?

The more I mulled it over, the more I saw pure epistemology coming through at the fundamental level--perception versus reality. Or to elaborate, perception without verification as a habit versus observing reality for real. 

 

When you watch the video, outside of enjoying the conflicts, look deeper.

When someone needled Elon, they did so with words connected to a political agenda that was disconnected from reality. When he responded, he not only got stubborn and hostile, he connected their words to observable reality.

That is about as Randian as it gets.

Both sides may use the same word, but they mean different things. One uses cognitive mush and a threat subtext as a word's referent. Musk rejects it and uses observable reality as his referent.

In short, you get to see the disrobing of two different concepts represented by the same word, and the dismantling of the word when used as a weapon of propaganda and intimidation.

Musk exposes the con. As an individual at that. No collective framing with him.

 

If you want to see how to do it, it's there. Several examples.

And if you want to see anything else Elon Musk is doing in reality, there's plenty of that out there, too.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following story about Elon Musk and Bill Gates is from a recent interview between Scott Adams and Naval Ravikant (see here for the full interview).

The Musk-Gates story is not Elon and Epistemology per se, as given in the title of this thread, but in one sense it is pure epistemology.

This time, instead of connecting abstractions and concepts and words to referents in reality, Elon takes mental visions and abstractions and so on and turns them into reality. This is the way epistemology is supposed to work when it is used as a tool. This is also pure Ayn Rand.

As an added bonus, this story shows Elon as a Randian hero more than any living person I know of. Ayn Rand herself could have written him.

Enjoy...

 

TEXT (NAVAL)

There was a story that I read about @elonmusk that really affected me, which was when he was talking to Bill Gates, and Bill Gates had just taken out some huge short on Tesla. It was like a billion dollar short or something.

And, Elon was like, “Why would you do that? Why would you short Tesla?” And Bill goes, “Well, you know, I talked to my financial advisors and I looked at the math and there’s no way it’s overvalued. And so I’m going to make money on the short.”

And Elon goes, “What do you care about making money? I thought you were into electric cars and climate change and saving the world. What are you doing trying to save a few bucks and betting against Tesla?”. And he just walked away in disgust.

And I think he never talked to Bill Gates after that. And that’s when I realized, like, Elon’s a purist. He means what he says. The money is a tool for him to get what he’s trying to do. And so I take him at face value, which is the crazy thing, because a lot of people who set these audacious goals to inspire people, you kind of know they don’t really mean it.

Elon, I take at face value. So I really do think he intends to get to Mars. I don’t think he’s joking about that. And I think he means to get there within a defined window of time. And I don’t think it’s just like an inspirational, faraway goal. I think he’s very, very concretely going to do whatever it takes.

Because Elon doesn’t want to go down in history as the electric car guy or even the guy who saved America guy. He wants to go down as a guy who got humanity to the stars. Again, I’ll give him more credit than that. I don’t even think he wants to go down as the “I got humanity to the stars” guy.

He’s just like, “I want to get to the stars, and so I have to make it happen in this lifetime. The only way that I get to experience the science fiction world in my head is if I get to the stars.” And so that’s so inspirational. I think that drives everything.

So I think the government was just a thing that got in his way.

END TEXT (NAVAL)

 

Man, that's inspiring.

Even Scott Adams, who is often too cute as master manipulator, is just listening in awe with a smile on his face.

 

Michael

[thommarc9s]

Thank you very much for sharing your insights,  Michael .

Overcoming the preference for appearance is more difficult than it appears for most people. 

Evolution hardwires most animals, including humans, to choose perception over reality, and does not readily reward those who choose reason. Rather, higher order thought/reason isn't apparent,  but requires mental-work, and the ability and willingness to interpret reality according to scientific fact amd the laws of logic.

[thommarc9s]

As for Scott Adam's being a "master manipulator" , what do you mean by that @Michael Stuart Kelly?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

Scott is a trained hypnotist and a public persuader.

He says so himself.

 

But he also teaches his techniques as he goes along.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

T,

The problem comes when words or propositions replace reality in people's minds. 

There is plenty reality in people minds in the form of abstractions with referents that don't even need words or propositions: images, sounds, schema, even emotions.

Many in O-Land pretend these do not exist so long as a proposition can be made that fits whatever criteria they call reason at the time.

I am reminded of Rand's "ostensive definition" for existence. She swung her arm around and said, "I mean this."  

In my understanding, words should be connected to reality in some form other than words. Then, when one uses words according to logic, reason and so forth, they are talking about reality, not just word games.

Too many people in O-Land leave reality behind as they try to square syllogisms, align with what Rand has said before, cave to peer pressure and so on. To me, it's far easier. Find what reality the words you use refer to, then, once that is clear, it doesn't matter what anyone says. You know what you are talking about.

This is the way I see Elon proceeding.

Science and logic are built on top of that, not the other way around.

 

As to the left, they have become so mucked up in their minds, they no longer need reality. Words alone do the job for them. Thus, men can become women by saying the word, rigged trade can become free trade by calling it that, people can be racists by calling them racists. and so on.

Michael

[anthony]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

T,

The problem comes when words or propositions replace reality in people's minds. 

There is plenty reality in people minds in the form of abstractions with referents that don't even need words or propositions: images, sounds, schema, even emotions.

Many in O-Land pretend these do not exist so long as a proposition can be made that fits whatever criteria they call reason at the time.

I am reminded of Rand's "ostensive definition" for existence. She swung her arm around and said, "I mean this."  

In my understanding, words should be connected to reality in some form other than words. Then, when one uses words according to logic, reason and so forth, they are talking about reality, not just word games.

Too many people in O-Land leave reality behind as they try to square syllogisms, align with what Rand has said before, cave to peer pressure and so on. To me, it's far easier. Find what reality the words you use refer to, then, once that is clear, it doesn't matter what anyone says. You know what you are talking about.

This is the way I see Elon proceeding.

Science and logic are built on top of that, not the other way around.

 

As to the left, they have become so mucked up in their minds, they no longer need reality. Words alone do the job for them. Thus, men can become women by saying the word, rigged trade can become free trade by calling it that, people can be racists by calling them racists. and so on.

Michael

Michael, this is, simply, tops. We know the old term for placing 'reason' above reality: rationalism. Rand *could* appear to some in such a manner, since most lack comprehension of the enormous grasp she had upon metaphysical reality - seemingly, without leaving her desk! So in wanting to emulate her intellectual feats, one's reasoning may become detached from ('transcend'), the very source, "reality". 

Not new to anyone  here, one induces and derives propositions/principles/conceptions *from* reality -- and implements/applies those *back* to existence, completing the circle, so to speak. ("Without induction, I would not have a philosophy").

For the Left specifically, rationalism - and intrinsicism - will be their downfall every time. You could not design a "perfect system" like Marxian-Socialism without delving exclusively into your mind outside reality: i.e., I decree this is how mankind 'should' exist, in harmony, therefore men might have to be ordered to submit to it, for their own good. There's the Leftist total contradiction to, and attack on, the identity of human nature/man's nature - "autonomous and self-directing", the free-willed rational animals.