‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 > 
 
   
 

A Thought Experiment…

 
SaulOhio
 
Avatar
 
 
SaulOhio
Total Posts:  895
Joined  07-09-2006
 
 
 
15 June 2007 14:32
 
[quote author=“eucaryote”][quote author=“SaulOhio”]Absolutes in science

Saul,

You’re just being obstinate. You know what I mean. Science by definition is always ready to change based on new evidence or old evidence in a new perspective, like newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics.

Now give us a list of moral absolutes that can be demostrated to be true absolutes on which all agree by virtue of physical evidence and/or mathematical proof.

How about an economic one? Government price controls set to below the market price always result in shortages. 4000 years of history has confirmed this, with no exceptions. Ever.

Here’s a moral one: The standard of morality is human life.

 
 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
15 June 2007 16:52
 

[quote author=“SaulOhio”]
Here’s a moral one: The standard of morality is human life.

I see. So you are pro life, right? How about stem cell research? How about condom use and other birth control?

Ever heard of the Harvard Moral Sense Test

You might take it. You’ll find yourself placed in some morally ambiguous situations involving human life. You can read a discussion of their results in Dawkins Book.

Here’s another.

You find yourself on a planet teeming with diverse life, a garden of eden. In front of you is human who is a composite personality of Adolf Hitler and Joeseph Stalin with his finger on the button of a doomsday machine which will selectively destroy every living creature but human life will be unscathed and won’t care because they live on nuclear powered soylent brown machines that process their waste into nutrients.
You find yourself holding the latch of a cage which holds the Tasmanian Devil. You know that if you release the latch, Taz will tear the human Adolf to pieces killing him and saving the creatures. The humans continue to graze on soylent brown oblivious to the fate of the creatures.
What do you do?

 
 
SaulOhio
 
Avatar
 
 
SaulOhio
Total Posts:  895
Joined  07-09-2006
 
 
 
16 June 2007 00:30
 

[quote author=“eucaryote”][quote author=“SaulOhio”]
Here’s a moral one: The standard of morality is human life.

I see. So you are pro life, right? How about stem cell research? How about condom use and other birth control?

There is something about Objectivism and everything I have been saying that you want to refuse to believe. Nothing else can explain how you can take one thing I say and run with it, creating interpretations that do not follow. A sperm cell or an embryo are POTENTIAL human lives, not actual ones. You take what I said, that human life is the standard of morality, label that “pro-life”, then package-deal it with everything the “pro-life” movement believes. Nice trick. It lets you automatically conclude that I believe things associated with the people who call themselves by that label. Let me give you a clue: Political labels often don’t mean much.

Here is the basic Objectivist position statement on abortion:
Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life

Like I said, there is something about Objectivism that touches an emotional nerve with you, that you don’t want to believe it, despite any evidence I might present. Thats the only possible explanation of why you ALWAYS distort the meaning of anything I say. You just don’t WANT to believe it, despite any evidence. And you accuse ME of religious faith.
LOL

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
16 June 2007 04:37
 

[quote author=“eucaryote”] Nhoj, thanks for recognizing my interest in this point. Yes, I understand what you are saying. Substituting experience for consciousness, however produces two phenomena instead of one.

Not if consciousness is only one type of an experience. Besides, it’s too late. Either word implies the existence of two phenomena; something that is the experience and something that is having the experience. “Consciousness” is something to experience. Something is being conscious. It’s a do thing. If something didn’t experience it, how would anyone know it was there?

What they refer to as mind, I refer to as intellect. I identify it as a brain function not necessary to cognition. You asked about the eureka moment. It most often comes when we are not thinking does it not? So you can have cognition without thought.

We come to the same conclusion from two directions. I say we need to break up that list (experience, consciousness and cognition) into separate components instead of seeking one big clumsy explanation.
The simple organism you describe is a nervous system that has a departmentalized cognition of its sensory input and a reasoning that is so broken down into local actions that any overall reason could only be observed in the resulting action.

I suggest that the entire organism is responsive to input. Individual cells within the organism are in constant communication with each other and the environment by other means than the nervous system. If one puts one’s hand over the candle flame, “it” is reflexively pulled away. No thought required. The pseudo plasmodium, uses what sensory input it has to (re)cognize it environment and reason it’s way through the maze. Call it what you will.

Let’s call it direct physical experience. Or maybe animal experience. At any given moment, it’s the first thing that happens to us. Signal pathways are direct. All the jobs necessary for generating the reaction are departmentalized. Information is traveling in a parallel configuration. All these jobs will happen whether they are experienced or not. They are available to be experienced if we’re not too busy elsewhere. It’s hard to miss the candle flame.
Here’s the first chance to ask about free will. Do we make these choices, or do they just feel like choices?
The preponderance of evidence says no we do not make choices at this level. They have been made for us by our genetic past. 
If we do have this kind experience, it would be almost instantaneously after the animal was stimulated, maybe a fraction of a microsecond later. Perhaps a generalized bodily feeling, and not at all like mental experience. Snap, and it’s over- on to next moment.

For Saul and Ayn Rand, experience must also be studied by the “mind” before any action can take place. They consider that all “reasoning” is done in this “mind” thing and that this mind thing lives in the brain.

Apparently, that isn’t necessary for the vast majority of stimulus/reaction events that make up our lives.
There is a limit to the animal level of cognition. Perhaps competition drove to us to develop better management and co-ordination of stimulus. That started with a manager; a locus where selected stimulus would be collected and examined as a whole. Our eyeballs and optic nerves were already doing a great job of steering the appropriate optical information to the appropriate department of the nervous system. That information then had to be gather up again to be coalesced into a unified sense of vision. Add sound and you get an internal cinematic presentation that can perceive threats, find mates and hunt for food by initiating reactions to an accumulation of sensory cues that may not by themselves trigger a direct reaction from the nervous system. We can do this in a millisecond or so. But only if we have the time and aren’t pre-empted by a direct response. The sensory input that led to the animal’s reaction is still being coalesced into metal experience after the animal has already reacted. This “mind” thing reacts to a world created from the photons and pressure waves that arrived at our receptors a millisecond ago. Body and mind are separated by time into two kinds of experience.

Do we experience the mind thing? My days of high-end home theater installation suggest yes, and preferably with popcorn, to give the animal level a reason to sit still through the parts of the movie that are beyond its cognition (like plot, if any). Action and jiggling can be enjoyed even after the mind thing has been incapacitated by toxins.
Of course, such a manager would also be a gradual accumulation of genetically established stimulus/reaction patterns. Any mental life would also be an ongoing series of default states chasing after reality as fast as it can.

This is a second opportunity to ask about free will. The evidence gets more ambiguous here.
Obviously, the defaults would occur without free choice. The mind thing may invest a hundred milliseconds of processing time to develop more elaborate perceptual abilities and greater analyzing capacity, but that too in time would accumulated prerecorded responses. Unless that period of pioneering new responses could be called free choice. If that period is ongoing, than the second answer is dynamic- sometimes no, sometimes yes, if you have the time.
But then, the processes that determine those new choices are pre-established, so I would not call this a case of free will.
Even if they involve very complex sensory cues like warner bros cartoons.

Here’s where all the alarms always go off-
For some reason, we humans went for a second tier of management. The mind thing grew a mind thing. Once the body and mind were done with it, sense input would be filter and coalesced once again to perceive cues for action that are beyond the cognitive abilities of the original mind thing. We invest as much as ¾ of a second to create an inner and independent sense of time in which we could assemble more extensive sequences of thoughts. Multitudes of stimuli could initiate actions far in the future. Including delaying gratification. Speech becomes talking.
I call this conscious experience. It is separated from the body and the now aptly named unconscious mind by time.
Consciousness is one of three opportunities for experience. It is twice removed from our genetic past. Much of our animal perceptions and mental perceptions have been shaved off in all the filtering.
The world consciousness perceives is built from pieces of the unconscious world and not from the original perceptions of the animal’s sensory experience. It can make choices about things that none of our pre-conscious evolutionary ancestors could have perceived.
Would I call that free will? Big time.

Those higher creatures with nervous systems, like us seem to always want to focus on experience, consciousness, and cognition strictly as a function of sensory input that is filtered by the nervous system. This is a kind of nervous system hubris that we have.

Are you considering hubris of the nervous system as more real than the experience of the nervous system?
shit. I’ve made a novel.

I apologize for taking part in hijacking the thread.

Don’t. I didn’t expect to get much mileage out of it. It’s a goat sent into a minefield. An exploration in brevity.
The real malarkey rarely leaves my computer.

Cheers!

 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15809
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
16 June 2007 08:03
 

[quote author=“Nhoj Morley”][quote author=“eucaryote”] Nhoj, thanks for recognizing my interest in this point. Yes, I understand what you are saying. Substituting experience for consciousness, however produces two phenomena instead of one.

Not if consciousness is only one type of an experience. Besides, it’s too late. Either word implies the existence of two phenomena; something that is the experience and something that is having the experience. “Consciousness” is something to experience. Something is being conscious. It’s a do thing. If something didn’t experience it, how would anyone know it was there?

But there is another view: check, for example, Franklin Merrell Wolf’s book The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object

[quote author=“Nhoj Morley”]
Here’s where all the alarms always go off-
For some reason, we humans went for a second tier of management. The mind thing grew a mind thing. Once the body and mind were done with it, sense input would be filter and coalesced once again to perceive cues for action that are beyond the cognitive abilities of the original mind thing. We invest as much as ¾ of a second to create an inner and independent sense of time in which we could assemble more extensive sequences of thoughts. Multitudes of stimuli could initiate actions far in the future. Including delaying gratification. Speech becomes talking.
I call this conscious experience. It is separated from the body and the now aptly named unconscious mind by time.
Consciousness is one of three opportunities for experience. It is twice removed from our genetic past. Much of our animal perceptions and mental perceptions have been shaved off in all the filtering.
The world consciousness perceives is built from pieces of the unconscious world and not from the original perceptions of the animal’s sensory experience. It can make choices about things that none of our pre-conscious evolutionary ancestors could have perceived.
Would I call that free will? Big time.

 

A quote from Cicero (so, has to be read in terms of what an ancient Roman philosopher would have meant rather than as how we might read it today).  Background information: Pherekydes was a contemporary of Thales and reputed as the teacher of Phthagoras.  He was described by Aristotle as the transitional figure between mythical thinking and philosophical thinking. 

“It takes great intellect to withdraw the mind from the senses and divert thought from habit.  For my part, I think that there must have been many [to have achieved this] in so many centuries, but as far as the literary records go, it was Pherekydes of Syros who first said that the souls of men are eternal.” 

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
16 June 2007 10:52
 

[quote author=“eucaryote”]
Now give us a list of moral absolutes that can be demostrated to be true absolutes on which all agree by virtue of physical evidence and/or mathematical proof.

[quote author=“SaulOhio”][quote author=“eucaryote”][quote author=“SaulOhio”]
Here’s a moral one: The standard of morality is human life.

I see. So you are pro life, right? How about stem cell research? How about condom use and other birth control?

A sperm cell or an embryo are POTENTIAL human lives, not actual ones.

Saul,

I asked for a moral absolute that we would ALL agree was true on the basis of physical evidence or mathematical proof.

You said, “The standard of morality is human life”.

Well, I suggest this is not an absolute standard, as many people consider that preborn infants, embryo’s and the like are “human life” in the same absolute sense that you do and are deserving of absolute protection. There is no proof based on physical evidence or mathematics that can refute their claim.

You take what you declared was absolute and made it relative by immediately equivicating and rationalizing what you are willing to see as human life, taking a more relative approach to it than absolute pro life postion.

Actually, yours is the weaker postion to be in to claim absolute moral standard of human life than pure pro life catholics. After all, human gametes and embryo’s are undeniably human life, which was all that you specified.
Saul, let’s at least respect the clear meaning of words like absolute and relative.

 
 
M is for Malapert
 
Avatar
 
 
M is for Malapert
Total Posts:  1606
Joined  23-09-2006
 
 
 
16 June 2007 12:49
 

[quote author=“eucaryote”][quote author=“M is for Malapert”]P.S. You do realize that made_maka is Malapert, yes?  Right.  You were just teasin’.

No, I didn’t know that. You mean that person aka a black and white carrion eating bird?! Changing your name again?

Oh, you can still call me Magpie, or MM, or whatever.  As long as it starts with M.

I haven’t CHANGED my name exactly.  I was M is for Malapert on Usenet for years’n'years.  I can’t remember why I didn’t use that when first signing up here; probably thought you couldn’t use spaces.

[Compliment deleted, but thanks!)

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
17 June 2007 03:32
 

[quote author=“burt”]

But there is another view: check, for example, Franklin Merrell Wolf’s book The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object.


The desire to see the soul as eternal is the best reason to believe in an eternal God, or believe that one is God. Otherwise, what would be the point?

I think I read you, Burt.
Personally, I have become completely ambivalent about the eternal soul or its future itinerary. I have nothing to say about it. Yet I keep typing things that set off the soul alarm over and over.

My model requires an object and I’m stuck with it. If I want to describe a three level process going on in the brain, and describe how their operation can be observed in personal experience, I must evoke the dreaded soul thing to be the variable that is common to all three. I’d rather avoid it but others have quickly made it clear that I can’t.
I try to give it only the attributes that are necessary to make my case and no more. If it’s there at all, it is probably as temporary and fleeting as our lives. It may have no more substance to it than consciousness. I don’t want to propose an afterlife for it or a moral code for it to live by.
If sharing what I’ve learned from my personal experience (of failing sight) demands making a logical argument for the existence of an eternal soul, I am so, so screwed.

It’s no better describing it to those who believe such things, especially new-agers, because I am constantly undermining and contradicting their concepts of soul. I see no reason for an ether. Whether our spirits go quantum tunneling on weekends is beyond me.
Even the Cicero quote is inconsistent with my take.
I’d rather stick to science, so here I am trying to learn how to hash this all out. I’ll sit over the dunk tank as many times as it takes. Might be fun to watch.

 
 
SaulOhio
 
Avatar
 
 
SaulOhio
Total Posts:  895
Joined  07-09-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 04:39
 

Please read this whole post before you begin to answer it. There are objections I know you will want to raise to some of what I say, and I will be answering some of those objections in later parts of this same post.
[quote author=“eucaryote”]
Saul,

I asked for a moral absolute that we would ALL agree was true on the basis of physical evidence or mathematical proof.

People don’t have to agree on something for it to be an absolute. Some people disagree with the absolute that the Earth isn’t flat. The laws of thermodynamics are absolute, but there are people who keep trying to build perpetual motion machines. Deep time is a proven absolute, but there are still young-Earth creationists. An absolute doesn’t require everyone’s agreement to be absolute. What it need is to be true.

You said, “The standard of morality is human life”.

Well, I suggest this is not an absolute standard, as many people consider that preborn infants, embryo’s and the like are “human life” in the same absolute sense that you do and are deserving of absolute protection. There is no proof based on physical evidence or mathematics that can refute their claim.

You take what you declared was absolute and made it relative by immediately equivicating and rationalizing what you are willing to see as human life, taking a more relative approach to it than absolute pro life postion.

Actually, yours is the weaker postion to be in to claim absolute moral standard of human life than pure pro life catholics. After all, human gametes and embryo’s are undeniably human life, which was all that you specified.

Well I should have provided some context for what I mean by human life. As Ayn Rand put it, the standard for morality is the life of man qua man. It is the capacity for reason that gives human life value. It is the full experience of being able to know you are alive and appreciate it that makes life worth living. Its not a mathematical proof, but an inductive one, based on that experience of being able to enjoy life.

Much of the problem you have with accepting life as an absolute standard, or any of the ideas I present, is that you don’t seem to see ideas hierarchically. You seem to take each idea I present as an isolated unit, without integrating it with the other ideas I have argued for. You have to learn to count before you learn to add, you have to learn the rest of basic arithmetic before you can learn algebra, and you need to learn algebra before you go on to calculus. Its almost as if I am telling you about the pythagorean theorem and you are trying to use it to prove that 4 doesn’t come after 3 when you count.

Another problem is these arbitrary moral scenarios. They have little to do with reality. This Hitler/Stalin clone of yours is unrealistic, you have to imagine some bizarre situation that almost doesn’t make sense.

It reminds me of an episode of Star Gate Atlantis. A scientist from Earth is talking to these alien humans (Their ancestors were transported from Earth to another galaxy a million years ago), and using one of the classic moral “thought experiments”. You are at the switch for some railroad tracks, and there is a train headed for ten people on the tracks. You can save them by switching the train to the other tracks, but the problem is there is a baby on the other tracks. One of the aliens asks why not just warn the people on the tracks? Can’t they hear or see the train coming? Who would just stand there on railroad tracks, not keeping an eye open for a coming train? The other asks who would abandon a baby in such a vulnerable spot? The point is that the thought experiment has little to do with reality. A situation like that is so unlikely to happen that its not worth thinking about. Morality should be about living in the real world, so we need to formulate moral principles using experience of the real world.

A good example that would illustrate what I mean by the life of man qua man is the Terri Schaivo case. This woman was in a permanent vegetative state. Her cerebral cortex was dead, but her body was still living. Her heart beat on its own, she breathed, her cells metabolized. She was still human, in a strict biological sense, but the person that was Terri Schaivo was, for all moral intents and purposes, dead. She could not laugh, cry, think, plan, or initiate any kind of purposeful action. She could not choose her values or act to achieve them. This is why the judge allowed her feeding tube to be removed.

The Christian “pro-lifers” you mentioned, however, didn’t have any rational case for keeping her alive. Their beliefs in an imortal soul imbued into an embryo at fertilization, which remains till you take your last breath, is arbitrary. There is no need to disprove it, just like a belief in God. Their belief that Terri Schaivo was still conscious was based on faith and emotion.

Saul, let’s at least respect the clear meaning of words like absolute and relative.

Even relative things are absolute from the correct perspective. An absolute is a fact of reality, something that is. Whatever that fact is, it is not contingent on anything, or any contingent conditions have been met. Its there, its real, and its a bad idea to deny it (though some people do). It is even possible to be mistaken about an absolute. Our beliefs and knowledge do not, in themselves change reality.

For instance, if you measure the distance between two objects, you could say their positions and distance are relative to each other. However, it remains true, in an absolute sense, that they have that distance between them, at that moment.

The imprecision of our measurements is often taken as a proof that things aren’t absolute. But this is only evidence that our measurement isn’t perfect, not that the thing we measure is not absolute. The distance between two objects may be 3.572946315326 meters, but our measuring stick gives us a distance of 3.573M. The actual distance is still an absolute, though we may not know it to the last decimal place that means anything.

 
 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 10:07
 

Sorry that you had to type all that Saul because I’m afraid that you get no cigar.

This kind of contradictory “reasoning” seems to run through objectivism. You really want to have your cake and eat it too.

All you are saying is that an absolute moral standard is absolute except when it’s relative.

All you are doing is trying to reduce your dissonance, by ignoring the clear meaning of words. The dissonce you are experiencing is caused by your trying to hold two contradictory thoughts in your head. Contradictions between what you have convinced yourself of and what is clearly true.

Absolute means absolute.

As in definite, certain, unconditional, categorical, unquestionable, incontrovertible, undoubted, unequivocal, decisive, conclusive, confirmed, infallible, unlimited, unrestricted, unrestrained, unbounded, boundless, infinite, ultimate, total, unconditional, complete, total, utter, perfect, pure, decided, undivided, unqualified, unadulterated, unalloyed, unmodified, unreserved, undiluted, consummate, unmitigated

The value of pi, though irrational, is absolute as is the speed of light in a vaccum. Absolutes are apparent in the world and exist in the same state regardless of the observer. Any observer MUST verify the same state.

There are no moral absolutes. Ayn Rand was wrong. There is no agreement possible as to the absolute definition or value of human life. There are any number of mitigating and ambiguous circumstances and perspectives.

[quote author=“Saul/Rand”]It is the capacity for reason that gives human life value.

Yes, we have been over this before. This is just your and Rand’s opinion.
There is no absolute truth in it and it can’t be used to prove the converse. That there is no value or self value in life that does not “reason” just as humans do. Neither can it be used to contend that humans are the only creatures capable of reason or that all humans are capable of reason. Many clearly are not. That by itself, doesn’t make them less valuable.

I realize that believers like yourself generally start swallowing small pieces of BS before you move on to entire patties. I know that you are proud of the tolerance that you’ve built up to the stuff but you’ll have to pardon the rest of us if we just pass.

 
 
SaulOhio
 
Avatar
 
 
SaulOhio
Total Posts:  895
Joined  07-09-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 11:43
 

[quote author=“eucaryote”]
All you are doing is trying to reduce your dissonance, by ignoring the clear meaning of words. The dissonce you are experiencing is caused by your trying to hold two contradictory thoughts in your head. Contradictions between what you have convinced yourself of and what is clearly true.

Ayn Rand herself said that there are no contradictions. If you find one, then one of your premises is wrong. It is your understanding of Ayn Rand’s ideas that is wrong. It may be my explanations that are lacking, being somewhat brief summaries rather than full explanations given the limited scope of this forum and my limited time. I strongly recommend getting it from the primary source.

The value of pi, though irrational, is absolute as is the speed of light in a vaccum. Absolutes are apparent in the world and exist in the same state regardless of the observer. Any observer MUST verify the same state.

There is an element of subjectivity to this explanation. Absolute reality exists independant of any specific observer. It doesn’t matter what any particular observer sees. What matters is what actually is.

There is some confusion caused by the fact that in morality, the observer is the same thing as that being observed. That doesn’t change the fact that the observer, a human being, is something that exists in reality, with a specific nature. The fact that gravity is an attractive force proportional to the mass of the objects and inverse proportion to the distance between them is an absolute that is a consequence of the nature of objects with mass. Moral absolutes are a consequence of the fact that human beings are capable of the use of reason, and depend on its use for survival.

Maybe thats the absolute I should have presentes, that human beings depend on the use of reason to survive. Some may depend on other people’s use of reason instead of their own (Rand called them second handers), but they still depend on it.

 
 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 12:14
 

[quote author=“SaulOhio”]
Ayn Rand herself said that there are no contradictions. If you find one, then one of your premises is wrong. It is your understanding of Ayn Rand’s ideas that is wrong.

How convienent for Ayn Rand. The rightness of her thinking is another absolute benchmark by which the thoughts of all others are to be judged.

The value of pi, though irrational, is absolute as is the speed of light in a vaccum. Absolutes are apparent in the world and exist in the same state regardless of the observer. Any observer MUST verify the same state.

[quote author=“SaulOhio”]There is an element of subjectivity to this explanation.

No there is not. There is subjectivity in the observation. That’s how we calculate experimental error by comparing observation with absolutes, where they exist.

[quote author=“SaulOhio”]Moral absolutes are a consequence of the fact that human beings are capable of the use of reason, and depend on its use for survival.

There is no such thing as a moral absolute that is a consequence of anything regardless of what AnyRand thinks. The idea that what you call reason is useful to survival of a species remains to be seen. Certainly many creatures that specialize in other methods, are excellent, proven survivalists.
[quote author=“SaulOhio”]Some may depend on other people’s use of reason instead of their own (Rand called them second handers), but they still depend on it.

How entirely ethical of Ayn Rand to allow moral significance to the lives people without her (no doubt superior), reasoning capabilities.

 
 
SaulOhio
 
Avatar
 
 
SaulOhio
Total Posts:  895
Joined  07-09-2006
 
 
 
17 June 2007 13:42
 

[quote author=“eucaryote”]
There is no such thing as a moral absolute that is a consequence of anything regardless of what AnyRand thinks. The idea that what you call reason is useful to survival of a species remains to be seen. Certainly many creatures that specialize in other methods, are excellent, proven survivalists.

Those creatures all have means other than reason. I am talking about humans. We don’t have sharp claws, exceptionally sharp senses, great speed, very great strength, or other survival traits of other animals. Without our intellect, we wouldn’t stand a chance. Physically, we are a pretty pathetic species. To make up for it, we use tools and machines, make weapons, alter our environment. We could not do these things without the use of reason. So many of the things we do to survive, agriculture, architecture, engineering, writing, all these things depend on reason.

[quote author=“SaulOhio”]Some may depend on other people’s use of reason instead of their own (Rand called them second handers), but they still depend on it.

How entirely ethical of Ayn Rand to allow moral significance to the lives people without her (no doubt superior), reasoning capabilities.

Your sarcasm is pointless and confused. Its not how much intelligence you have, its how you use it. Or refuse to use it. I can tell you haven’t read “The Fountainhead”.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5591
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
20 June 2007 03:09
 

See my post as Guest, immediately following this one.

[ Edited: 20 June 2007 03:45 by ]
 
 
Anonymous
 
Avatar
 
 
Anonymous
Total Posts:  2890
Joined  02-12-2004
 
 
 
20 June 2007 03:36
 

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]

Salty probably just slipped

No. I love everybody. That just means that no individual gets very much at one time.

Gotta go away for a day or two. Back with that jaundiced view after the weekend.

Cripes. I go away for a couple of days and the forum is washed up on the rocks.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]I just added a post to the thread by locating my posts in it via my member profile. Clicking on the link to a post in this thread was successful, and thereafter, I was able to add this post.

I think the forum is having problems with its database software, and that the paranoia of some who have posted in the Forum Requests area is unwarranted.

From the Forum Requests area:

[quote author=“SaulOhio”]On the “A Thought Experiment…” thread, there are 11 pages of posts listed, and I keep getting reply notifications, but when I try to open the last page of the thread, clicking on the number 11 under “Go To Page”, i get “No posts exist for this topic”.

When i follow the link in the reply notification e-mail, I get “The topic or post you requested does not exist”.

The thread still lists 11 pages, but the last one I can open is 10.

Saul’s confusion is pointless and sarcastic. More than all others, I would expect Saul to be using “rationality”, but here he only bleats pitifully that “mashina nye rabotayet”. Where’s your objectivity, Saul?

So it’s not how much intelligence you have, but how you use it? So use it already, bubeleh.

rolleyes

 
‹ First  < 8 9 10 11 >