Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[Xray]

[quote name='Selene' date='16 November 2009 - 08:37 PM' timestamp='1258425472' ally

Ms. Xray:

So, objectively, to live in a country that has no Guantánamo, public health insurance and no death penalty is better.

Excellent at least you recognize that there is an objective standard. You finally abandoned your fixed intransigent beliefs in subjectivity. You finally made a distinction based on what is objectively better for people.

I knew I could win you over.

Adam

preening with his new convert

No Selene, sorry to dampen your preening, but there is NO objective standard, easily evidenced in simple facts like e. g. my standards of value differing from yours. I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

A standard is something which is chosen, agreed upon etc., like e. g. driving on the left or right, blowing your nose with a handkerchief, marrying only a virgin, etc., or developing your own personal standard of ethical values.

So while one can note as an objective fact that there exists a wide gamut of different standars of value, the standards themselves are not "objective"; they can't be because they are the result of individuals subjectively attributing value to this or that.

For example, a person can within natural capacity decide to end his/her life. This alone reduces Rand's claim that "one's life is the ultimate standard of value" to a personal credo which may be shared by many, but by no means all.

So, objectively, to live in a country that has no Guantánamo, public health insurance and no death penalty is better.

There is no objectively better. I said that I value these things. There are enough others who don't.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Our culture is objectively better than your culture.

Same old illusion of "objective" value you succumb to time and again. And everyone "should" of course value what you subjectively prefer.

For example, I personally prefer to live in a country where there is public health insurance, no death penalty, and no Guantánamo.

Values are subjective. Therefore what a person considers as "better" depends on his/her personal values.

Ms. Xray:

So, objectively, to live in a country that has no Guantánamo, public health insurance and no death penalty is better.

Excellent at least you recognize that there is an objective standard. You finally abandoned your fixed intransigent beliefs in subjectivity. You finally made a distinction based on what is objectively better for people.

I knew I could win you over.

Adam

preening with his new convert

No Selene, there is NO objective standard, easily evidenced in simple facts like e. g. my standards of value differing from yours. I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.

A standard is something which is chosen, agreed upon etc. like e. g. driving on the left or right, blowing you nose with a handkerchief, marrying only a virgin, etc.

So while one can note as an objective fact that a wide gamut and different standars of valae exist, the standrds themselves are not "objective" they can be becuse hey are the result of individuals subjectively attributing value to this or that.

for example, a person can within natural capacity decide to end his/her life. This alone reduces Rand's claim that "one's life is the ultimate standard of value" to a personal credo which may be shared by many, but by no means all.

Ms. Xray:

Ahh. Ok, now I understand. Therefore, when a child in your class has 108 degree temperature, we need not use that as a standard of anything but a subjective choice.

Excellent.

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Ahh. Ok, now I understand. Therefore, when a child in your class has 108 degree temperature, we need not use that as a standard of anything but a subjective choice.

Excellent.

Adam

No, you don't understand. For again, you are confusing things. The standard measuring scales for temperature differ in the US and Europe. You use Fahrenheit, we use the Celsius scale.

Fever itself is a specific reaction of the body, so whatever standard of measuring you use, it can be determined whether a person has elevated temperature or not. It is not a matter of subjective choice.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Almost 400 replies in this thread, yet so many completely off topic. Geez!

It is not that off-topic as it may appear, since the illusion of objective value permeates Rand's whole oeuvre and will therefore show up time and again, whatever aspect of her work is being discussed.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The only person with any need to explain it is Xray herself. She made it up. She picked some scattered words from Ayn Rand words and mangled them.

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32&pid=83231&st=0entry83231 post # 3)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4294&st=40 (post # 51)

(Still waiting btw for your reply to my # 54 post addressed to you on that thread).

Repeating nonsense while adding more ("identity by difference") is typical for Xray.

You can do a simple test to see the "entity identity by difference" principle at work: put some objects in a bag, e. g. a pencil, a crayon, a paintbrush, a ball-point pen, a fountain pen. Now try to pick with your hands one specific object from the bag without looking, e. g. the pencil. Your hands feel the various objects in the bag and you can only identify the entity 'pencil' by differentiating it from the other objects. I play similar games with my pupils often, to school their mental integration of sensory input.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

Ahh. Ok, now I understand. Therefore, when a child in your class has 108 degree temperature, we need not use that as a standard of anything but a subjective choice.

Excellent.

Adam

No, you don't understand. For again, you are confusing things. The standard measuring scales for temperature differ in the US and Europe. You use Fahrenheit, we use the Celsius scale.

Fever itself is a specific reaction of the body, so whatever standard of measuring you use, it can be determined whether a person has elevated temperature or not. It is not a matter of subjective choice.

Ms. Xray:

I specifically used Fahrenheit to test you and you failed again.

"Fever itself is a specific reaction of the body..." < that is ridiculous and purely your subjective identification that makes you believe it.

When are you going to realize that there are no standards, all standards are the result of your choice of what a standard is.

At least practice what you preach on alternate Tuesdays.

Adam

[Xray]

I specifically used Fahrenheit to test you and you failed again.

Would you explain where?

When are you going to realize that there are no standards, all standards are the result of your choice of what a standard is.

Huh? Where did I state or imply that "all standards are the result of my choice of what a standard is"??

Edited November 17, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I specifically used Fahrenheit to test you and you failed again.

Would you explain where?

When are you going to realize that there are no standards, all standards are the result of your choice of what a standard is.

Huh? Where did I state or imply that "all standards are the result of my choice of what a standard is"??

Ms. Xray:

Don't you find it interesting that you are constantly "surprised" by having a statement alluded to you that you may or may not have actually said or wrote?

Adam

[merjet]

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32&pid=83231&st=0entry83231 post # 3)

No, you didn't. You did not explain how knowledge of axioms precedes all sensory input. But I look forward to your trying to explain it.

You can do a simple test to see the "entity identity by difference" principle at work: put some objects in a bag, e. g. a pencil, a crayon, a paintbrush, a ball-point pen, a fountain pen. Now try to pick with your hands one specific object from the bag without looking, e. g. the pencil. Your hands feel the various objects in the bag and you can only identify the entity 'pencil' by differentiating it from the other objects.

Hogwash. I identify a pencil by its shape, what it is made of, and how one can write with it. Whatever else is in the bag is completely irrelevant. It may as well be thumb tacks and golf balls. So much for "identity by difference."

Edited November 17, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Selene]

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivi...t=0entry83231 post # 3)

No, you didn't. You did not explain how knowledge of axioms precedes all sensory input. But I look forward to your trying to explain it.

You can do a simple test to see the "entity identity by difference" principle at work: put some objects in a bag, e. g. a pencil, a crayon, a paintbrush, a ball-point pen, a fountain pen. Now try to pick with your hands one specific object from the bag without looking, e. g. the pencil. Your hands feel the various objects in the bag and you can only identify the entity 'pencil' by differentiating it from the other objects.

Hogwash. I identify a pencil by its shape, what it is made of, and how one can write with it. Whatever else is in the bag is completely irrelevant. It may as well be thumb tacks and golf balls. So much for "identity by difference."

I have a bag with baby rattlesnakes without any rattles yet, and therefore their poison is much more toxic, and in with the baby rattlesnakes is a rubber pencil ...please reach in the bag Ms. Xray...

Adam

Edited November 17, 2009 by Selene

[Alfonso Jones]

I specifically used Fahrenheit to test you and you failed again.

Would you explain where?

When are you going to realize that there are no standards, all standards are the result of your choice of what a standard is.

Huh? Where did I state or imply that "all standards are the result of my choice of what a standard is"??

Ms. Xray:

Don't you find it interesting that you are constantly "surprised" by having a statement alluded to you that you may or may not have actually said or wrote?

Adam

Adam -

You're going to blow Xray's cover! Not only does she not read other people's posts before thinking she is "responding" to them and "refuting" them, you're documenting that she apparently doesn't even read her own. Perhaps what we're actually dealing with in the case of "Xray" is an automatic typewriter or some software program which generates sporadically grammatically correct posts frequently having no connection with meaning or reality.

It's hard to come up with a benevolent explanation of the posting pattern...

Bill P

[jeffrey smith]

You can do a simple test to see the "entity identity by difference" principle at work: put some objects in a bag, e. g. a pencil, a crayon, a paintbrush, a ball-point pen, a fountain pen. Now try to pick with your hands one specific object from the bag without looking, e. g. the pencil. Your hands feel the various objects in the bag and you can only identify the entity 'pencil' by differentiating it from the other objects.

Hogwash. I identify a pencil by its shape, what it is made of, and how one can write with it. Whatever else is in the bag is completely irrelevant. It may as well be thumb tacks and golf balls. So much for "identity by difference."

Merlin--

actually, on this particular point (and only this particular point) she's right. Only she's using extremely cumbersome language which rather obscures the meaning.

When you identify the pencil as a pencil, you are at the same identifying it at the same time as not other things--not a pen (same purpose, different materials in its construction), not wood shavings from a neighbor's fence (some of the same material, but not all, possibly a different shape and certainly a different purpose), not an oral thermometer (same shape, but different materials and purpose). The act of identifying it as a pencil includes the act of differentiating it from other things.

[Selene]

You can do a simple test to see the "entity identity by difference" principle at work: put some objects in a bag, e. g. a pencil, a crayon, a paintbrush, a ball-point pen, a fountain pen. Now try to pick with your hands one specific object from the bag without looking, e. g. the pencil. Your hands feel the various objects in the bag and you can only identify the entity 'pencil' by differentiating it from the other objects.

Hogwash. I identify a pencil by its shape, what it is made of, and how one can write with it. Whatever else is in the bag is completely irrelevant. It may as well be thumb tacks and golf balls. So much for "identity by difference."

Merlin--

actually, on this particular point (and only this particular point) she's right. Only she's using extremely cumbersome language which rather obscures the meaning.

When you identify the pencil as a pencil, you are at the same identifying it at the same time as not other things--not a pen (same purpose, different materials in its construction), not wood shavings from a neighbor's fence (some of the same material, but not all, possibly a different shape and certainly a different purpose), not an oral thermometer (same shape, but different materials and purpose). The act of identifying it as a pencil includes the act of differentiating it from other things.

Jeff:

I thought that point would be raised. However, now let me modify the contents of the bag into clickable mechanical pencils and "pen" pencils that are novelty items, but do write. Then let me make them in various lengths and thicknesses and mix them together...

Adam

[tjohnson]

The act of identifying (abstracting) is accomplished by noticing similarities while ignoring differences. Each pencil is a unique individual but we ignore these differences, both perceptually and conceptually, to arrive at the thing we refer to as 'pencil'.

[merjet]

Merlin--

actually, on this particular point (and only this particular point) she's right. Only she's using extremely cumbersome language which rather obscures the meaning.

When you identify the pencil as a pencil, you are at the same identifying it at the same time as not other things--not a pen (same purpose, different materials in its construction), not wood shavings from a neighbor's fence (some of the same material, but not all, possibly a different shape and certainly a different purpose), not an oral thermometer (same shape, but different materials and purpose). The act of identifying it as a pencil includes the act of differentiating it from other things.

No, Jeffrey, both you and Xray have it backwards. Both of you appeal to identifying a pencil by its differences from other things, i.e. what it is not. I described identifying a pencil by what it is.

Your paragraph about identifying a pencil affirms my position. You said "same purpose", "same materials", and "same shape." These are about what a pencil is, not what a pencil is not. What a pencil is not is zillions of things. One could spend years saying what a pencil isn't or showing things that aren't pencils. What a pencil is can be shown or described in a few minutes or even less.

[Xray]

The act of identifying (abstracting) is accomplished by noticing similarities while ignoring differences. Each pencil is a unique individual but we ignore these differences, both perceptually and conceptually, to arrive at the thing we refer to as 'pencil'.

You are talking about the audiovisual language symbol "pencil" labeling a category.

But when it comes to identifying a pencil out of a group of other objects, it is accomplished by differentiation.

How does one arrive at e.g. identifying a person only by hearing his/her voice?

Only by differentiating the specific qualities of their voice from other voices. By ignoring the similarities (all have voices) while focusing on difference.

Recently I played a game with the kids "Who is is it?" One child was blindfolded, the others sat down on chairs in a circle. The blindfolded child was then led to one kid of the group and asked to find out who it is by by touching his/her head.

The task of identifying can only be accomplished sucessfully if the element (or elements) differentiating the specific entity from other entities have been isolated. So while all have noses, head hair, etc it is the specific shape of the head, nose, length of hair, hairstyle, etc which is perceived sensorily by the touch and this information is then mentally integrated until the child can arrive at the conclusion ("This is Noah").

So it is exactly the other way round: the similarities (all have noses etc.) are ignored while difference is establised, and only this differentiation allows definite identification.

Merlin--

actually, on this particular point (and only this particular point) she's right. Only she's using extremely cumbersome language which rather obscures the meaning.

When you identify the pencil as a pencil, you are at the same identifying it at the same time as not other things--not a pen (same purpose, different materials in its construction), not wood shavings from a neighbor's fence (some of the same material, but not all, possibly a different shape and certainly a different purpose), not an oral thermometer (same shape, but different materials and purpose). The act of identifying it as a pencil includes the act of differentiating it from other things.

No, Jeffrey, both you and Xray have it backwards. Both of you appeal to identifying a pencil by its differences from other things, i.e. what it is not. I described identifying a pencil by what it is.

Your paragraph about identifying a pencil affirms my position. You said "same purpose", "same materials", and "same shape." These are about what a pencil is, not what a pencil is not. What a pencil is not is zillions of things. One could spend years saying what a pencil isn't or showing things that aren't pencils. What a pencil is can be shown or described in a few minutes or even less.

No Merlin, we don't have it backwards.

Excerpt from my post at Epistemology (we can continue the discussion over there):

Example of how entity identity is established as a result of mentally integrating sensory perceptions:

Imagine that you are blindfolded, transported and left inside a strange building in total darkness with no lighting available. You want to know your environment. Survival depends on it. How do you go about the task?

Suppose you hold an arm out with fingers extended. The tips of your fingers come in contact with an object. Via sensations, the first thing you notice is that the object is rough. At this juncture, you have information by one percept (sensory perception), i.e., objective perceptual identity.

You apply some pressure and find the object is also rigid. Mind integrates the percepts, rough and rigid, to arrive at a concept (conceived idea) of the entity, i.e. objective identity.

Suppose you wander about and lose track of the discovered existent. You begin to search by the same method of fingers extended. The tip of your fingers encounter an object. You notice the object is rough. Is it the same entity as touched before? Suppose you apply pressure and find not rigidity, but yielding softness.

Mind integrates these percepts and comes up with a conceptual identity of rough and soft.

Voilà! A different conceptual identity, hence, a different entity.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

The act of identifying (abstracting) is accomplished by noticing similarities while ignoring differences. Each pencil is a unique individual but we ignore these differences, both perceptually and conceptually, to arrive at the thing we refer to as 'pencil'.

You are talking about the audiovisual language symbol "pencil" labeling a category.

But when it comes to identifying a pencil out of a group of other objects, it is accomplished by differentiation.

How does one arrive at e.g. identifying a person only by hearing his/her voice?

Only by differentiating the specific qualities of their voice from other voices. By ignoring the similarities (all have voices) while focusing on difference.

Recently I played a game with the kids "Who is is it?" One child was blindfolded, the others sat down on chairs in a circle. The blindfolded child was then led to one kid of the group and asked to find out who it is by by touching his/her head.

The task of identifying can only be accomplished sucessfully if the element (or elements) differentiating the specific entity from other entities have been isolated. So while all have noses, head hair, etc it is the specific shape of the head, nose, length of hair, hairstyle, etc which is perceived sensorily by the touch and this information is then mentally integrated until the child can arrive at the conclusion ("This is Noah").

So it is exactly the other way round: the similarities (all have noses etc.) are ignored while difference is establised, and only this differentiation allows definite identification.

Ms. Xray:

So apparently, your public education system permits:

1) BDSM techniques into their classrooms;

2) Discriminates against an one unsuspecting child and forces the individual child to the trauma of being objectified; and

3) Encourages impermissible touching between and amongst sexes;

The red sections that are un-underlined or assertions and unsupported assumptions that Ms. Xray assumes the reader will accept as somehow being valid.

The green is why many of Ms. Xray's educationally enslaved children have stuttering problems.

The blue is just hilarious in its repetition.

You know Ms. Xray, you really are starting to sound just like Joseph Goebbels. Is he a distant relative by some chance?

Adam

[Xray]

Hogwash. I identify a pencil by its shape, what it is made of, and how one can write with it. Whatever else is in the bag is completely irrelevant. It may as well be thumb tacks and golf balls. So much for "identity by difference."

Is the pencil, thumb tack and golf balls all the same? Is the pencil shaped like a golf ball? Is the pencil made of the same material as the thumb tacks? Are the dimensions the same for all the objects? Of course not. Each has a different set of characteristics. You provide an excellent example of identity by difference, then scoff at and deny what your own experience tells you is true.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

So apparently, your public education system permits:

1) BDSM techniques into their classrooms;

2) Discriminates against an one unsuspecting child and forces the individual child to the trauma of being objectified; and

3) Encourages impermissible touching between and amongst sexes;

The red sections that are un-underlined or assertions and unsupported assumptions that Ms. Xray assumes the reader will accept as somehow being valid.

The green is why many of Ms. Xray's educationally enslaved children have stuttering problems.

The blue is just hilarious in its repetition.

You know Ms. Xray, you really are starting to sound just like Joseph Goebbels. Is he a distant relative by some chance?

Adam

No child is "unsuspecting" or "educationally enslaved". I ask them "Who wants to try and find this out?, and virtually all are eager to be chosen. Often, when the lesson is over, those who didn't get their turn yet say: "But I wanted to try it too!" so I decide to repeat it the next day so they can try it out as well.

Also, I ask every child if they allow their head being touched, if not, this is respected. No "impermissible touching" whatsoever occurs.

The children have no "trauma being objectified", on the contrary, I have made the experience that they feel proud at being identified as a unique personality.

Schooling the children's mental integration of sensory perceptions is teaching 101, and your rant against such basics is just plain absurd.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I have a bag with baby rattlesnakes without any rattles yet, and therefore their poison is much more toxic, and in with the baby rattlesnakes is a rubber pencil ...please reach in the bag Ms. Xray...

I happen to believe that identification is by difference, but if you don't, then the rubber pencil and snakes are all the same. How about you reach in and prove identity is by similarity?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=32&pid=83231&st=0entry83231 post # 3)

No, you didn't. You did not explain how knowledge of axioms precedes all sensory input. But I look forward to your trying to explain it.

Look again. Since it's Rand's idea which you apparently accept, why don't you explain it?

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge." (Rand)

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivi...t=0entry83231 post # 3)

No, you didn't. You did not explain how knowledge of axioms precedes all sensory input. But I look forward to your trying to explain it.

Look again. Since it's Rand's idea which you apparently accept, why don't you explain it?

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge." (Rand)

Ms. Xray:

"Per Rand, an axiom is "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not.

An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." (Rand)"

From that same post that you so conveniently provided. Care to re-read it again?

Adam

I learned to track prey from a full blooded Cherokee Ms. Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Merlin--

actually, on this particular point (and only this particular point) she's right. Only she's using extremely cumbersome language which rather obscures the meaning.

When you identify the pencil as a pencil, you are at the same identifying it at the same time as not other things--not a pen (same purpose, different materials in its construction), not wood shavings from a neighbor's fence (some of the same material, but not all, possibly a different shape and certainly a different purpose), not an oral thermometer (same shape, but different materials and purpose). The act of identifying it as a pencil includes the act of differentiating it from other things.

No, Jeffrey, both you and Xray have it backwards. Both of you appeal to identifying a pencil by its differences from other things, i.e. what it is not. I described identifying a pencil by what it is.

Your paragraph about identifying a pencil affirms my position. You said "same purpose", "same materials", and "same shape." These are about what a pencil is, not what a pencil is not. What a pencil is not is zillions of things. One could spend years saying what a pencil isn't or showing things that aren't pencils. What a pencil is can be shown or described in a few minutes or even less.

Merlin--

It's neither forwards nor backwards, but simultaneous. The moment you say "this is a pencil", you are saying by implication that it is not all the zillion of things that are not a pencil. The moment you say what one of the "ten thousand things" is, you are also saying that it not any of the other nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine things. That you are doing this by implication does not mean you are not doing it.

I seem to recall a quote from Rand making the same point.

And sometimes the cataphatic approach yields result that the apophatic approach does not. For instance, if I identify a post as being by X-Ray, I immediately know that it not worth paying attention to.

Jeffrey S.

[BaalChatzaf]

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge." (Rand)

I thought an axiom, in the philosophical sense, was a judgment whose denial would require the assumption of the judgment. Which implies that a denial implies a contradiction (an assertion of the form p & -p).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Damn!

Jeff throws one up from the cheap seats and scores! Swish! Nothing but net!

I am not familiar with the cataphatic and apophatic application, but the Xray line was exquisite.

Adam

thought you would like the dolphin