‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 > 
 
   
 

Too much thinking

 
SaulDeOhio
 
Avatar
 
 
SaulDeOhio
Total Posts:  642
Joined  24-08-2007
 
 
 
19 October 2007 02:35
 
eucaryote - 18 October 2007 11:40 PM

I don’t think you will get many takers for the idea that the natural world has no intrinsic value.

That the natural world has intrinsic value is a positive statement, and the burden of proof is on those who make it. Rand simply showed that it makes no sense, like a belief in God, the whole concept is empty of meaning. Value is a human concept, a relationship between a consciousness capable of choosing its values and the thing that is of value. To say something has intrinsic value is like saying a car had a collision. What did it collide with? Nothing? That would make no sense.

 
 
Traces Elk
 
Avatar
 
 
Traces Elk
Total Posts:  5639
Joined  27-09-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2007 06:57
 
SaulDeOhio - 19 October 2007 06:35 AM

To say something has intrinsic value is like saying a car had a collision. What did it collide with? Nothing? That would make no sense.

I know I’m notoriously bad at this, but let me see if I can help.

A tornado is part of nature, isn’t it, Saul? I think a tornado has intrinsic value. Its “value” is that it can knock down your house. So you see, even though someone might not want to say what it was the car collided with, the paint is still somewhat scratched, and the metal is still somewhat dented, and it takes some of society’s resources to get it repaired, or even just to tow it to the scrap heap. Or doesn’t the Objectivist system of value allow for red ink? I think you could become a very wealthy man if you could but patent a method for eliminating tornadoes from terrestrial meteorology.

Or would that be too much thinking for you?

[ Edited: 19 October 2007 07:07 by Traces Elk]
 
 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
19 October 2007 10:50
 
SaulDeOhio - 19 October 2007 06:35 AM

Value is a human concept…

Saul,

This primary assumption Rand and you make is WRONG! This is incredible hubris. Even non-sentient creatures have values. Does a tree intrinsically value it’s water supply? Does a flower intrinsically value a bee? Or the bee the flower? In as much as all life is on a mission to complete, extend, and procreate, (it’s) life, one could only conclude that any “thing” that furthered this mission was intrinsically valuable.

The word intrinsic defined as “belonging naturally”......

[quote author=“SaulDeOhio”] consciousness capable of choosing its values….

You don’t know that only human life is conscious. You don’t even know, (no one even agrees on), what consciousness is, much less where it “resides”. Rand had no right or reason to arbitrarily deny consciousness to the balance of the biotic world or to exalt human consciousness to have special properties that make it the sole determinant of value in the world.

So sorry to have to pester you with these thoughts of such an intellectual lightweight such as myself. For the objectivists, just as with all of the religious, a peer is someone who agrees with you. For Saul, and Rand, the rest of us are just heathens, incapable of understanding their advanced experience.

 
 
JGL57
 
Avatar
 
 
JGL57
Total Posts:  89
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
01 November 2007 13:22
 

eucaryote - When I was a mere child my father once advised me “If you lie down with Objectavists you’ll get up with fleas.”

I now pass this wonderfully erudite advice on to you.

 
Under New Management
 
Avatar
 
 
Under New Management
Total Posts:  56
Joined  05-10-2007
 
 
 
02 November 2007 10:53
 

........a peer is someone who agrees with you?????

What?  You can be a peer of someone and not at all share the same opinion.

Definition please:

a person of the same status or ability as another specified person.  To become equal or share the same rank.

I just had a bit of a work break and took the oportunity to read through this thread.  Super fun for me.

Hey Saul, am I allowed to ask what you studied in college?  You’re extremely intellegent.  Too smart for me.

BTW, I read Molecules of Emotions by Candice Pert.  Interesting, but I don’t think I’d acknowledge her contribution as anything worth referencing.

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
02 November 2007 11:16
 
Under New Management - 02 November 2007 02:53 PM

........a peer is someone who agrees with you?????

What?  You can be a peer of someone and not at all share the same opinion.

Definition please:

a person of the same status or ability as another specified person.  To become equal or share the same rank.

I just had a bit of a work break and took the oportunity to read through this thread.  Super fun for me.

Hey Saul, am I allowed to ask what you studied in college?  You’re extremely intellegent.  Too smart for me.

BTW, I read Molecules of Emotions by Candice Pert.  Interesting, but I don’t think I’d acknowledge her contribution as anything worth referencing.

Hello Newbie,

Saul only seeks or values reviews from people who share his views. Anyone who disagrees, like myself, is not a peer. We are heathens to Saul, insufficiently enlightened. This is common in cults, to only seek feedback from those share their beliefs.

Candace Perts “contribution not worth referencing”? That’s just a useless comment, disingenuous in debate. Unlike Ayn Rand, Pert’s work is incredibly relevant and pertinent.

[quote author =“Wikipedia”]
Candace Beebe Pert (b. June 26, 1946) is a neuroscientist who discovered the opiate receptor, the cellular bonding site for endorphins in the brain. In 1974 she earned a Ph.D. in pharmacology from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in the laboratory of Solomon Snyder. Previously, she had completed her undergraduate studies, in biology, cum laude, in 1970, from Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Dr. Pert conducted a National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral Fellowship with the Department of Pharmacology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine from 1974-1975. She did research at the National Institutes of Health from 1975–1987. Pert is the author of Molecules of Emotion. She appeared as one of the experts in Bill Moyers 1993 PBS video production, “Healing and the Mind”, and in the controversial 2004 film What the #$*! Do We Know!?.

After 1975, Dr. Pert held a variety of research positions with the National Institutes of Health, and until 1987, served as Chief of the Section on Brain Biochemistry of the Clinical Neuroscience Branch of the NIMH. She then founded and directed a private biotech laboratory. Dr. Pert was a Research Professorship in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics at Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Currently, she is with R.A.P.I.D. Pharmaceuticals, and the nonprofit Institute for New Medicine.

Dr. Pert is an internationally recognized pharmacologist who has published over 250 scientific articles on peptides and their receptors and the role of these neuropeptides in the immune system. Her earliest work as a researcher involved the discovery of opiate receptors and the actions of receptors. She has an international reputation in the field of neuropeptide and receptor pharmacology, and chemical neuroanatomy. Dr. Pert has also lectured worldwide on these and other subjects, including her theories on emotions and mind-body communication. Her recent popular book, “Molecules of Emotion, Why You Feel the Way You Feel”, (Scribner, September 1997) expounds on her research and theories. She was recently featured in “Washingtonian” magazine (Dec. 2001) as one of Washington’s fifty “Best and Brightest” individuals. She holds a number of patents for modified peptides in the treatment of psoriasis, Alzheimer’s disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, stroke and head trauma. One of these, peptide T, had been considered for the treatment of AIDS and neuroAIDS. According to the National Institutes of Health (USA), this medicine “does not cure or prevent HIV infection or AIDS and does not reduce the risk of passing the virus to other people” [1].

[ Edited: 02 November 2007 11:20 by eucaryote]
 
 
Under New Management
 
Avatar
 
 
Under New Management
Total Posts:  56
Joined  05-10-2007
 
 
 
02 November 2007 11:51
 

Sorry Eucaryote, but my comment about Candice Pert was merely my opinion.  You can by all means disagree with me but to call my opinion/comment “useless” is just flat impolite.  And aren’t you being a hypocrite here.  Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean that I a wrong.  It’s not like I said Candice Pert was a man.   

To state that she is an “internationally recognized pharmacologist who’s published over 250 scientific articles” explains nothing.  Who cares that she is internationally recognized, so is Charles Manson.  Who care that she’s an author, so was Hitler.

A more relevant question would be is she recognized and respected by her peers.  I don’t know the answer to that. I do know however that she was in that kooky movie “What the Bleep,” which was reemed over the coals for it’s scientific inaccuracies.

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
02 November 2007 18:05
 
Under New Management - 02 November 2007 03:51 PM

Sorry Eucaryote, but my comment about Candice Pert was merely my opinion.  You can by all means disagree with me but to call my opinion/comment “useless” is just flat impolite.  And aren’t you being a hypocrite here.  Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean that I a wrong.  It’s not like I said Candice Pert was a man.   

To state that she is an “internationally recognized pharmacologist who’s published over 250 scientific articles” explains nothing.  Who cares that she is internationally recognized, so is Charles Manson.  Who care that she’s an author, so was Hitler.

A more relevant question would be is she recognized and respected by her peers.  I don’t know the answer to that. I do know however that she was in that kooky movie “What the Bleep,” which was reemed over the coals for it’s scientific inaccuracies.

Well, Sorry to you as well. It seemed a useless comment to me as you didn’t follow it up with any reasoning as to why you thought that way or how it was relevant to the topic. Useless wasn’t meant to be impolite, just accurate. You weren’t offering any thing to really disagree with.

The point to publishing her bona fides is to establish scientific credibility on the subject at hand. Your comments comparing manson and hitler, (interesting choices), are just stupid. I don’t think either had any scientific credibility on this subject.

I never saw the movie, but I do know that she has been criticized for “going woo-woo”. Some of that criticism may be warranted, but it does not change the import of the basic science that she has done.

 
 
Under New Management
 
Avatar
 
 
Under New Management
Total Posts:  56
Joined  05-10-2007
 
 
 
02 November 2007 20:40
 

Hey there eucaryote, what kind of dog is that?  It’s huge.  Anyway, here is a little more info on your girl Pert. 

http://www.candacepert.com/blog/2006/12/god-as-field-interfacing-spiritual.htm
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/05/candace_perts_m.html

There is no need to defend her she’s done some great stuff, but face it, she’s out there.

BTW, I never compared her to Manson.  I just think it’s cheezy when she, and many others, market themselves as ‘internationally recognized’ when she was clearly rejected by the scientific community. 

Moving along, on the subject of thinking too much, purely speaking, you don’t think.  Thinking happens.  To state “I think” implies volition.  Just as it would be incorrect to state “I digest” or “I circulate my blood.”  Digestion happens, circulation happens, thinking happens.

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
03 November 2007 18:20
 

Yes, I have read the criticisms of Pert. I don’t see how her discoveries were “rejected”. Her discoveries as to the role of “the molecules of emotion” is what is important. I would also reference Peter Kramer in this regard, he wrote “Listening to Prozac.”

To say I think doesn’t necessarily imply volition, like you say, it happens. I suppose that it is true that it is not thinking that takes volition. One does have some control over what one thinks, and we are what we think, eh?

 
 
Under New Management
 
Avatar
 
 
Under New Management
Total Posts:  56
Joined  05-10-2007
 
 
 
03 November 2007 18:41
 

One does have some control over what one thinks,

                                          Some more than others.

and we are what we think, eh?

                        This reminds me of my favorite quote:

Be careful of your thoughts as they become words,
words become action,
actions become habit
and habit becomes destiny.

 
eucaryote
 
Avatar
 
 
eucaryote
Total Posts:  3497
Joined  20-08-2006
 
 
 
03 November 2007 20:35
 

The problem with thinking is it takes one away from being here now.
The problem with being here now it that it takes one away from thinking…..

 
 
JGL57
 
Avatar
 
 
JGL57
Total Posts:  89
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
04 November 2007 08:25
 
eucaryote - 04 November 2007 01:35 AM

The problem with thinking is it takes one away from being here now.
The problem with being here now it that it takes one away from thinking…..

That’s why various meditators follow the Middle Way and meditate a small portion of their waking hours per year, and think in some fashion the rest of the time.

 
Pat_Adducci
 
Avatar
 
 
Pat_Adducci
Total Posts:  461
Joined  16-12-2006
 
 
 
04 November 2007 10:28
 

Thanks for those links about Candace Pert.
I loved reading her book ‘Molecules of Emotion’ and I bought a CD set of her talking about ‘Your body is your subconscious mind’. I find that phrase, just in itself, is a useful reminder. The entire human organism is a collection of receiving and messaging systems.
However, this CD set wasn’t limited to her description of how these systems are working. It also included some ‘scientifically designed’ healing music, and guided meditation. The guided meditation was nice and relaxing, but I couldn’t get over my irritation with her for tossing around claims which are supposed to be associated with science, but totally unsubstantiated.
And yet….I found her blog entry very interesting, and I want to read more of how she’s thinking about God and spirituality.
I will also read the skeptical blog.

The question of what we are in relation to thought is one of my favorite questions. We can’t answer from within thought - in other words, we can’t ‘figure it out’.
 
When I was involved in Tibetan Buddhism I read a poem about awakening that contained these lines:
“I discovered non-thought in the midst of thought.”
This became like a koan for me, even after I left Tibetan Buddhism. Gradually I came to the experience of awareness encompassing but not entangled with thought/emotion/sensation. Very nice.
Just as Candace Pert says in the book title, very Go(o)d.

 
Under New Management
 
Avatar
 
 
Under New Management
Total Posts:  56
Joined  05-10-2007
 
 
 
04 November 2007 13:48
 

Thinking does not take us away from the here and the now, but rather thinking about past and furture. 

I read a book a few years ago where the author mentioned observing two ducks in a fight.  After the fight, which never last long, he said the ducks seperate and float in opposite directions.  The ducks then vigorously flap their wings to release excess energy bulit up during the fight, then carry on as if the fight never happened.  If the duck had the mind of a human he’d probabbly swim off and think, “I can’t belive what that other duck did.  What does he think, that he owns the whole pond?  How inconsiderate.  Next time, I’ll be ready for that jerk.”  And so on. 

Remaining present allows for a coherent path of thinking.  Authentic listening, instead of waiting to speak, allows for intellectual honesty and is the appropriate criteria for seeking truth.

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 >