GENIUS FORUMS

So DH, if you were to uncover the nature of the self would you discard all empirical/observational data and proceed through the exclusive use of definitions and A=A.

maestro wrote:

David Quinn wrote: Don't forget that what prevents people from immersing themselves in reality is their immersion in dreamworlds, which are always conceptual in nature. You need conceptual tools to dismantle these dreamworlds. Once they are dismantled, the tools are no longer needed.

I think it is lack of clear perception.

The lack of clear perception is caused by being trapped within the limitations of a dreamworld.

I also explained earlier that it is not really required to do formal logic if perception is clear,

I'm not sure what you mean by formal logic. If you mean academic logic, then yes, I agree it is largely unnecessary. But if you mean the logic involved in thinking clearly and being able to distinguish between true and false, then that is absolutely vital.

Of course, if your perception is already clear, then your mind will do this naturally. It also means that you would have engaged in a lot of this logical clearing out in the months and years beforehand.

I reproduce that post:

I think I have not covered the role of the thinking mind in this scheme well enough. First of all the thinking mind does not work like a computer, i.e. it does not work linearly on propositions to generate true false statements. What the thinking mind does is model the world based on observations (and ideas from others), and devise future actions based on the model. This is done by everybody's mind.

The mind does both. It both creates predictive models and makes black-and-white decisions about what is true and false.

For example, as indicated in your paragraph above, your mind has reached the black-and-white conclusion that the thinking mind does not work like a computer.

The role of logic is to check whether the model is consistent, and whether it is consistent with observations. It is also used to devise future action. The modelling process is not done through logic, in fact much of it is done subconsciously and through sudden insights. Which are nothing but products of the faster subconscious processing. This can be seen in physics for example where new models are generally flashes of sudden insight. Logic merely checks it for consistency. Also these sudden insights are produced when there is a contradiction in the existing model.

Thus when the observation process provides data, there is no need for you to sit with a pen and paper and try to apply logic to to the data. What is going to happen is that a lot of this data will be contradictory to your existing model. The mind may try to furiously fit the new data with the preexisting model, but this has to be avoided. New and clearer models will emerge on their own (through insights), which will be invalidated by further observations, and so on. Until a very clear picture emerges of the self and the world.

This exposition also shows that it is a good idea to not reject ideas contradictory to you out of hand but to listen to them carefully, they are the fodder for the mind to make a better model.

Your depiction of logic here is a caricature. There is more to logic than sitting down with a pen and paper and applying formal argument. Rather, it involves the more primal faculty of being able to identify what is true or real in the moment and pursuing its implications.

The thinking process reminds me of the dialectic process. Whereas the observation process reminds me of the third eye. The idea is that just as the two eyes provide observations about the outer world, the third eye does it for the inner world.

So long as this "third eye" has been through the crucible of the thinking process, and had all of its distortions eliminated, I don't have a problem with that.

-

The third eye is an observational module like the other eyes, it has nothing to do with thinking or modelling.

Also the mind is able to keep conflicting ideas and synthesize them, this would be a strict no no in formal logic.

maestro wrote:So DH, if you were to uncover the nature of the self would you discard all empirical/observational data and proceed through the exclusive use of definitions and A=A.

A=A is what enables us to form objective definitions, A=A is the recognition that reality exists, that reality is the bedrock of knowledge.
I would never discard science in the pursuit of truth.

There seems to be a strong whiff of Ayn Rand in the air ....

-

David Quinn wrote:There seems to be a strong whiff of Ayn Rand in the air ....

-

For sure, but I was banned from an Objectivist forum a few days ago, LOL.....btw, I hope it's a pleasant smell.

maestro wrote:The third eye is an observational module like the other eyes, it has nothing to do with thinking or modelling.

Your mental habits could still grab hold of the observational data and distort it before it reaches your awareness, no?

Also the mind is able to keep conflicting ideas and synthesize them, this would be a strict no no in formal logic.

Your formal logic doesn't seem to have much use, then. You're right to ditch it.

In any case, if two ideas are capable of being synthesized, then the conflict between them can only be an illusion at best.

-

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There seems to be a strong whiff of Ayn Rand in the air ....

-

For sure, but I was banned from an Objectivist forum a few days ago, LOL.....btw, I hope it's a pleasant smell.

Well, to be honest, I think she stinks in a lot of ways. What did you get banned for?

-

David Quinn wrote:

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There seems to be a strong whiff of Ayn Rand in the air ....

-

For sure, but I was banned from an Objectivist forum a few days ago, LOL.....btw, I hope it's a pleasant smell.

Well, to be honest, I think she stinks in a lot of ways. What did you get banned for?

-

Calling 9/11* an inside job and also accusing the members of sounding like neo-cons, ie, most of them thought the immoral invasion of Iraq was a cool idea+ they also thought that any negative discussion about Jews/Zionism was a horrible idea, and that I was evil, LOL.
From my POV, Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics is spot on, but Objectivist politics leave a lot to be desired.
*I think 9/11 was missiles not planes aka TV fakery.

DavidHenry wrote:Calling 9/11* an inside job and also accusing the members of sounding like neo-cons, ie, most of them thought the immoral invasion of Iraq was a cool idea+ they also thought that any negative discussion about Jews/Zionism was a horrible idea, and that I was evil, LOL.
From my POV, Objectivist epistemology and metaphysics is spot on, but Objectivist politics leave a lot to be desired.
*I think 9/11 was missiles not planes aka TV fakery.

I'm not really interested in the conspiracy stuff, and I'm not sure how it relates to philosophy and wisdom. You can start a thread on it if you like, but please remember what the purpose of this forum is.

As for Objective epistemology and metaphysics, I consider it anti-philosophical in that it complete dismisses all intellectual inquiry into the nature of reality by lazily concluding that there is nothing to investigate. "Existence exists and that is there all is to it", basically states the Objectivist creed. It passes over everything that philosophy stands for and embarks instead on a sociological/political crusade.

In other words, it is a form of idealism tailored for the unphilosophical.

-

David Quinn wrote:I'm not really interested in the conspiracy stuff, and I'm not sure how it relates to philosophy and wisdom. You can start a thread on it if you like, but please remember what the purpose of this forum is.

As for Objective epistemology and metaphysics, I consider it anti-philosophical in that it complete dismisses all intellectual inquiry into the nature of reality by lazily concluding that there is nothing to investigate. "Existence exists and that is there all is to it", basically states the Objectivist creed. It passes over everything that philosophy stands for and embarks instead on a sociological/political crusade.

In other words, it is a form of idealism tailored for the unphilosophical.

-

Do you like being considered a bum?.....that's how the Jew/Techno NWO regards you.
Existence exists simply states the basic truth that we know reality is real, ie, we aren't creating reality and we can't control it with our minds, for example, we can't dodge bullets.
My attitude towards genuine philosophers is that even if I don't always agree with them, they're still preferable to the idiots who "educate" the masses, but I'm making it plain and clear that I totally disagree with you wrt Objectivist epistemology/metaphysics.....but I wouldn't wish Objectivist politics on my worst enemy.

DavidHenry wrote:

David Quinn wrote:I'm not really interested in the conspiracy stuff, and I'm not sure how it relates to philosophy and wisdom. You can start a thread on it if you like, but please remember what the purpose of this forum is.

As for Objective epistemology and metaphysics, I consider it anti-philosophical in that it complete dismisses all intellectual inquiry into the nature of reality by lazily concluding that there is nothing to investigate. "Existence exists and that is there all is to it", basically states the Objectivist creed. It passes over everything that philosophy stands for and embarks instead on a sociological/political crusade.

In other words, it is a form of idealism tailored for the unphilosophical.

Do you like being considered a bum?.....that's how the Jew/Techno NWO regards you.

Nearly everyone considers me a bum already, regardless of who they are. So the Jew/Techno crowd don't particularly worry me.

Existence exists simply states the basic truth that we know reality is real, ie, we aren't creating reality and we can't control it with our minds, for example, we can't dodge bullets.

That's merely an article of faith, though, isn't it. An assumption.

I agree that it seems to be the case reality has been beyond our mental control up until now, but who is to say this won't change in the future? You might well wake up tomorrow and find that you can control everything at will. If that were to happen, your whole philosophy would go down the gurgler.

My attitude towards genuine philosophers is that even if I don't always agree with them, they're still preferable to the idiots who "educate" the masses, but I'm making it plain and clear that I totally disagree with you wrt Objectivist epistemology/metaphysics.....but I wouldn't wish Objectivist politics on my worst enemy.

But wasn't the laissez-faire capitalist philosophy that Rand espoused logically constructed from her metaphysics and epistemology?

-

The way I see it, we need to act and think based on what we know and also what we can reasonably expect to occur, so because I know I can’t dodge bullets, and I have no expectation that I’ll ever have the capability, it seems more than reasonable to accept that reality is real{EE}, and that my consciousness interacts with reality rather than forms or controls it.

Also, if I woke up tomorrow and something radical occurred, then I’d have no choice but to reconsider everything I knew, but we can only deal with the here and now, so hypotheticals of that nature have no bearing on the truth at hand, not to mention we have no valid reason to assume any such miraculous occurrence, but then again, as a mystic, you flirt with these ideas.

Rands notion of capitalism is within an Obj NWO, {granted she wouldn’t have objected to its immediate implementation}, and I don’t have a problem with that, ie, I have no problem with the idea of people being able to freely produce and sell goods and services as long as it was accompanied by some strict ethical guidelines.

I hold the view that there is such a thing as Objective ethics, and if people were properly educated and were all taught what both science and philosophy are at a basic level, we’d see radical changes to society, especially junk society, ie, I think most junk food and junk products would and should disappear and only a fool would go to the bother of manufacturing them despite the abundance of healthy and worthwhile foods and products on the shelves.

DQ wrote:

DH wrote:Existence exists simply states the basic truth that we know reality is real, ie, we aren't creating reality and we can't control it with our minds, for example, we can't dodge bullets.

That's merely an article of faith, though, isn't it. An assumption.

I agree that it seems to be the case reality has been beyond our mental control up until now, but who is to say this won't change in the future? You might well wake up tomorrow and find that you can control everything at will. If that were to happen, your whole philosophy would go down the gurgler.

"Merely" an article of faith? If I wake up tomorrow and find I can control everything at will, I'm still going to take it on faith that I can't dodge bullets. I'll test it by having the morning paper fetch itself, thank you very much.

DavidHenry wrote:I hold the view that there is such a thing as Objective ethics, and if people were properly educated and were all taught what both science and philosophy are at a basic level, we’d see radical changes to society, especially junk society, ie, I think most junk food and junk products would and should disappear and only a fool would go to the bother of manufacturing them despite the abundance of healthy and worthwhile foods and products on the shelves.

Dream on. Junk food is here for one reason only: it generates billions of dollars for its producers. Same with other junk products.

I share your view that people can and should receive better educations than they do. But the truth is, most people do not absorb or take to heart the educations they already receive. I want to say most people stop learning once they are out of school. Sadly, the truth is, most people stop learning while they are in school. And that's just speaking of that subset of the population that ever really started learning at some point in the fist place.

No, you'd be astounded by just how stupid most people really are. Most people don't know how to think, let alone what to think, or even that they should try to think. Most people think they are not real because they are not on TV. And a majority of the rest are busy planning to get on TV. A small minority are on TV, but the relentless trend to "reality" TV is a symptom of society's sick lack of primary ontological security.

The world has its collective head up its ass.

brokenhead wrote: No, you'd be astounded by just how stupid most people really are. Most people don't know how to think, let alone what to think, or even that they should try to think. Most people think they are not real because they are not on TV. .

I was just giving you an example of what Objective ethics looked like....I realize that no meaningful changes are about to occur thanks to the appalling way in which society currently operates.
We're living in a scientific/religious paradigm that encourages us to pursue technological salvation.
Btw, I'm very comfortable with your view that stupidity is widespread.

DavidHenry wrote:The way I see it, we need to act and think based on what we know and also what we can reasonably expect to occur, so because I know I can’t dodge bullets, and I have no expectation that I’ll ever have the capability, it seems more than reasonable to accept that reality is real{EE}, and that my consciousness interacts with reality rather than forms or controls it.

Also, if I woke up tomorrow and something radical occurred, then I’d have no choice but to reconsider everything I knew, but we can only deal with the here and now, so hypotheticals of that nature have no bearing on the truth at hand, not to mention we have no valid reason to assume any such miraculous occurrence, but then again, as a mystic, you flirt with these ideas.

Before going any further, let me just say that I don't appreciate being stuffed into one of Ayn Rand's limited categories. I reject her outlook, yes, but that doesn't make me a mystic.

The point of my raising the above example is that any philosopher worth his salt seeks the kind of knowledge which cannot be overturned by anything. Rand's views fail this test because they are vulnerable to being overturned by what might happen in the future. It is a shaky knowledge and therefore not worthy of being considered genuine philosophic knowledge - at least in my eyes.

Rands notion of capitalism is within an Obj NWO, {granted she wouldn’t have objected to its immediate implementation}, and I don’t have a problem with that, ie, I have no problem with the idea of people being able to freely produce and sell goods and services as long as it was accompanied by some strict ethical guidelines.

I hold the view that there is such a thing as Objective ethics, and if people were properly educated and were all taught what both science and philosophy are at a basic level, we’d see radical changes to society, especially junk society, ie, I think most junk food and junk products would and should disappear and only a fool would go to the bother of manufacturing them despite the abundance of healthy and worthwhile foods and products on the shelves.

While that is undoubtedly true, how does it tie in with the core of Rand's ethics, which is self-interest? I realize that she valued a noble form of self-interest, but nonetheless, her conception was still very materialistic in nature. It was all about producing material achievements and succeeding in the world of commerce and the like. And nothing feeds the commercial world more than an abundance of junk.

The John Galts of this world (as depicted in Atlas Shrugged) might not produce junk, but for every John Galt there are thousands of lesser men doing their best to survive in the world of commerce and who inevitably turn to junk as a result. John Galt sets the materialistic example and the rest of the human race buries the world in junk in order to keep up.

-

You might well wake up tomorrow and find that you can control everything at will.

David Quinn.

I deem this to be a statement that only a mystic could make/contemplate, now yes, I’ve been heavily influenced by Rand/Peikoff, but it’s still a mystical statement IMO, and if you’re going to use those types of comments during discussions, I can only assume that you have strong mystical leanings.

I’m happy to acknowledge you as a genuine philosopher, but I also take knowledge very seriously, and the way I operate at truthseeker type forums is to let it all hang out, if that makes me unpopular, I want to know ASAP, also, I never worry about being banned, granted, I haven’t deliberately been rude to you.

For whatever reason, QRS and co believe that Objectivism is unworthy, well fair enough, but obviously I think otherwise, bearing in mind I don’t subscribe to every aspect of Objectivist politics, but it does seem as though you don’t think that language and mathematics have an objective basis, ie, both you and Dan dispute the objective nature of definitions in objectivist terms.

In relation to Rand and capitalism/materialism, IMO, 2 mistakes are made by Objectivists, 1….they basically want to dump Objectivism on top of everybody and then label anyone who objects as “insert insult”, IMO, all radical changes need to be phased in to avoid complications from the clash with the old….2, AFAIK, neither Rand nor Peikoff thinks there’s any merit in trying to objectively value a products worth, and promoting or denouncing it based on the results relative to its value to mankind.

So from Rand’s POV, someone who legally creates a competitor to Coke and Pepsi is okay in her book, whereas I would scrap all junk products from commercial sale…I see no value in most junkfood, or junk food processes, ie, removing nutrients for the sake of a longer shelf life, that said, I’m someone who thinks that all members of society need to study science and philosophy for years, and I can’t imagine too many philosophers would think “Coke adds life”.

So I don’t object to you labelling Objectivism as materialistic, because it pretty much is, but that’s because they’ve stripped spirituality of any real meaning, and have focused on the constraints of religion and dubious thinking as it relates to satisfying self interest within the context of an atheist worldview, so naturally any objections to "living it up" is seen as religious oppression of some sort.

I’m someone who thinks there’s way too much of a focus on technology, and from an individuals POV, an obsession with becoming wealthy, ie, Riverside Mansion+Porsche, now don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t knock these goodies back if someone were kind enough to give them to me, but I’m certainly not going to work for it, nor am I going to steal for it.

DavidHenry wrote:

You might well wake up tomorrow and find that you can control everything at will.

I deem this to be a statement that only a mystic could make/contemplate, now yes, I’ve been heavily influenced by Rand/Peikoff, but it’s still a mystical statement IMO, and if you’re going to use those types of comments during discussions, I can only assume that you have strong mystical leanings.

As I say, the aim of those types of statements and thoughts is to tease out what is absolutely certain in life. Often this requires us to think outside the box and conduct thought experiments.

For example, it isn't difficult to recognize that one cannot be absolutely certain that one's entire life isn't just a dream of some kind, or a computer simulation, or something along those lines. Granted, I think the possibility is remote, but still I have no means of dismissing it altogether.

Taking this a bit further, let's suppose that the algorithms of this computer simulation that I live in were suddenly changed, allowing me to control everything that I perceive and experience at will - a bit like how one can control the dream environment during lucid dreaming. Before this sudden change, my perceived reality seemed incapable of bending to my will. After the change, I can bend everything to my will. A completely different world has arisen.

However, because I have made it my business to uncover what is absolutely certain and true in life, such a transformation wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to my philosophic knowledge and wisdom. While Rand's views would suddenly be rendered worthless, mine would continue to shine on brightly as though nothing had happened.

It is this deep level of certainty and truth which is the precursor to wisdom, and I would only give someone the lofty title of a "philosopher" if he were seriously devoting his time to exploring it. This is why I wouldn't dream of calling Rand a philosopher.

In relation to Rand and capitalism/materialism, IMO, 2 mistakes are made by Objectivists, 1….they basically want to dump Objectivism on top of everybody and then label anyone who objects as “insert insult”, IMO, all radical changes need to be phased in to avoid complications from the clash with the old….2, AFAIK, neither Rand nor Peikoff thinks there’s any merit in trying to objectively value a products worth, and promoting or denouncing it based on the results relative to its value to mankind.

So from Rand’s POV, someone who legally creates a competitor to Coke and Pepsi is okay in her book, whereas I would scrap all junk products from commercial sale…I see no value in most junkfood, or junk food processes, ie, removing nutrients for the sake of a longer shelf life, that said, I’m someone who thinks that all members of society need to study science and philosophy for years, and I can’t imagine too many philosophers would think “Coke adds life”.

So I don’t object to you labelling Objectivism as materialistic, because it pretty much is, but that’s because they’ve stripped spirituality of any real meaning, and have focused on the constraints of religion and dubious thinking as it relates to satisfying self interest within the context of an atheist worldview, so naturally any objections to "living it up" is seen as religious oppression of some sort.

I’m someone who thinks there’s way too much of a focus on technology, and from an individuals POV, an obsession with becoming wealthy, ie, Riverside Mansion+Porsche, now don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t knock these goodies back if someone were kind enough to give them to me, but I’m certainly not going to work for it, nor am I going to steal for it.

Fair enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to your views here.

-

David Quinn wrote:This is why I wouldn't dream of calling Rand a philosopher.

But you might be dreaming that Rand isn't a philosopher. Gotcha.

How in the world did you make that avatar? You are good (with photoshop).

There'll be more on this subject when I get some free time people.