Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism [Re: Rhizoid]
    #7221955 - 07/25/07 12:00 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

My point is that existence ultimately depends on verification, which depends on conscious observers.




So you keep saying, but you have yet to demonstrate that this is the case. Look, there were no verifiers for the first X billions of years of the evolution of the universe -- at least according to pretty much every scientist I have ever heard of. Nonetheless (according to all available scientific evidence) the universe existed.

Quote:

And you seem to conflate "hypothetical existence" with "verified existence".




Incorrect. There is nothing hypothetical about the existence of nebulae and galaxies billions of years before humans arrived on the scene to speculate about what those little lights in the sky might be.

Quote:

Occam's razor says that entities that are not necessary to explain phenomena should be shaved off. In this case neither of the axioms is necessary.




Sigh. We are talking about philosophies here. A philosophy by definition must contain a metaphysics or it is not a philosophy.

Quote:

Neither of them contributes to any explanation of why any particular object exists or doesn't exist.




Nor do either of them have to answer "why" in order to serve as a foundational axiom of a philosophy.

Quote:

Hume's and Buddha's metaphysics don't suck IMO, since they manage to avoid getting entangled in meaningless word games.




And how does noting that existence does not depend on consciousness qualify as a meaningless word game? How much more straightforward and unambiguous can a statement be?

Quote:

I don't know which scientists you are referring to, but most physicists believe in either the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen Interpretation states that the existence of quantum phenomena is ill-defined in the absence of observation, i.e. existence depends on the presence of an observer.




Are you sure about that interpretation? Because that would necessarily mean scientists who adhere to this interpretation say that before we humans became capable of observing quantum phenomena, there either was no universe or there were no quantum phenomena. I have never come across a scientist who believes either point of view. Not saying there are none, mind you, just that they are pretty rare specimens. I know a lot of scientists.

Quote:

The Many-Worlds Interpretation assumes an infinite number of possible worlds, one of which we experience as the real world due to its correlation with our observations, i.e. the reality of our world depends on our presence as observers here.




Your interpretation there is wrong. The (unverifiable) assumption that there are other universes apart from the one we inhabit does not automatically mean that any of those universes (including our own) are generated from, sustained by, or altered by our (or anyone else's) consciousness. It is entirely possible that none of these hypothetical universes have yet reached the stage where conscious entities even exist within them, just as our own universe a billion years or so had not reached that stage.

From your comments so far, it is apparent that you adhere to the Primacy of Consciousness model of metaphysics, which explains your dislike of Rand's metaphysics. Fair enough. There is a fundamental divide between the various philosophies based on the two opposing fundamental axioms, so I find it understandable a proponent of one would disagree with proponents of the other. A Mystic is never going to agree with a Realist.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 1 month, 18 days
Re: Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism [Re: Phred]
    #7222581 - 07/25/07 02:57 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Rhizoid said:
Occam's razor says that entities that are not necessary to explain phenomena should be shaved off. In this case neither of the axioms is necessary.




Sigh. We are talking about philosophies here. A philosophy by definition must contain a metaphysics or it is not a philosophy.



I thought metaphysics was all about what things exists, and what is meant by that. Why do you dismiss metaphysics that don't fit into the two categories (1) consciousness depends on the physical world but not the other way around, and (2) the physical world depends on consciousness but not the other way around?

I agree that those two categories are mutually exclusive, but there are two more possible categories in this categorization scheme that you seem to ignore: (3) consciousness does not depend on the physical world and the physical world does not depend on consciousness, and (4) consciousness and the physical world depend on each other. The first of these is easily disproved, and the second is what fits with observations after we leave the word-games behind us IMHO.

Quote:

Quote:

Neither of them contributes to any explanation of why any particular object exists or doesn't exist.




Nor do either of them have to answer "why" in order to serve as a foundational axiom of a philosophy.



And that is exactly why I think meaningless metaphysics suck, and why Occam's razor is relevant here.

Quote:

And how does noting that existence does not depend on consciousness qualify as a meaningless word game? How much more straightforward and unambiguous can a statement be?



It's meaningless because it removes all meaning from the word "existence".

Quote:

Quote:

...The Copenhagen Interpretation...



Are you sure about that interpretation? Because that would necessarily mean scientists who adhere to this interpretation say that before we humans became capable of observing quantum phenomena, there either was no universe or there were no quantum phenomena. I have never come across a scientist who believes either point of view. Not saying there are none, mind you, just that they are pretty rare specimens. I know a lot of scientists.



I think the Copenhagen metaphysics explicitly limits itself to quantum phenomena, so it can be "grafted" together with any other metaphysical view for macroscopic phenomena. But yes, it means that the existence of lots of prehistoric (and historic!) quantum phenomena is not well-defined until an observation is made today.

Scientists have made experiments (look for "delayed choice quantum erasure") that show how a measurement today affects which one of several possible histories of a particle that was true yesterday. And I really mean affect, not just detect: the fact whether a photon traveled a particular path in the past depends on choices that the observer makes later, during observation.

Quote:

Quote:

The Many-Worlds Interpretation...



Your interpretation there is wrong. The (unverifiable) assumption that there are other universes apart from the one we inhabit does not automatically mean that any of those universes (including our own) are generated from, sustained by, or altered by our (or anyone else's) consciousness. It is entirely possible that none of these hypothetical universes have yet reached the stage where conscious entities even exist within them, just as our own universe a billion years or so had not reached that stage.



That's why I am saying that each potential world, including all its history, exists for those conscious beings that evolve in that world. The existence of each world is relative, not absolute. That includes our world, but since we take our own presence for granted for obvious reasons, we normally leave out any qualification when we say "existence".

Quote:

From your comments so far, it is apparent that you adhere to the Primacy of Consciousness model of metaphysics, which explains your dislike of Rand's metaphysics. Fair enough. There is a fundamental divide between the various philosophies based on the two opposing fundamental axioms, so I find it understandable a proponent of one would disagree with proponents of the other. A Mystic is never going to agree with a Realist.



No, you got that wrong. See my comment above about the four different ways to categorize metaphysics according to what depends on what. Primacy of consciousness belongs firmly in category (2) and that's certainly not my position.

But I agree that we're probably not going to agree here, and perhaps the latest turns of our discussion should be picked up again sometime in another thread...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineTrepiodge
MemeticProcreator


Registered: 07/13/07
Posts: 104
Loc: Old Dominion
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism [Re: Phred]
    #7224285 - 07/25/07 10:09 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Phred, can you comment on the idea that by the act of observing, one participates in the alteration of what one is observing. In other words, that no matter how 'objective' one may wish to be in discerning the nature of the universe, the act of observation creates an undeniable change.

If my eyes catch light waves and my nervous system interprets the waves, isn't my system of observation 1)altering the course and/or nature of the waves and hence altering the nature of the reality I am attempting to observe and objectively categorize and 2)being somewhat selective in which frequencies it catches and interprets and 3)relying on assumptions that the interpretations of the waves' representation of nature is accurate even though comparisons (for objectivity's sake) are done against similarly subjective observations and 4) subject to signal loss or alteration when sampling and processing for categorization and 5)relying on subjective categorization of discrete 'components' of reality. (The same concepts could of course, be applied to any instrument which is employed in attempts to observe nature).

Do we or do we not inadvertently (or purposefully) create subjective conditions in order to observe and build models of the universe? Since we are limited in our tools of observation, our tools alter the reality we attempt to observe, and our models are limited by our choices of what to observe and categorize, is it not (to a certain extent) a leap of faith to claim objectivity? Isn't it best to admit that what we have, even in the most rigorous scientific or philosophical system, is but an approximation of what we hope is an objective model of a perceivable reality?


--------------------
fuck, Fuck, FUCK and DOUBLE FUCK!!!

Edited by Trepiodge (07/25/07 10:24 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism [Re: Trepiodge]
    #7225225 - 07/26/07 06:22 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Trepiodge:

I agree with Rhizoid that we have strayed from the original purpose of this thread into a more generalized discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of the two opposing metaphysics -- Primacy of Consciousness vs Primacy of Existence. As such, further discussion along these lines would not really be a critique of Rand's philosophy, especially since her metaphysics is not even her own discovery but essentially Aristotelian.

I wouldn't mind pursuing it further in a new thread, but my time is very tight over the next five days so a thread continuing things may have to do without my commentary for a while.

However, just to give you a taste, I don't agree that by merely observing (and doing nothing more than observing), I (or you or anyone else) necessarily alter that which is observed. I can stand out under the night sky and observe a faint star. That star is changed not a whit by my observation of it. It won't shine any brighter due to my observation, nor will it burn out any sooner, nor will its orbital path change, etc. That star is completely indifferent to my observation, and will behave identically whether I look at it or look at the star next to it. It makes no difference to the star whether the human whose face is turned towards it has his eyes open or closed, or even has no eyes at all.

See you in the new thread.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLeft Nut City
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/27/01
Posts: 2,360
Re: Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism [Re: Trepiodge]
    #7240723 - 07/30/07 06:03 PM (16 years, 7 months ago)

Ayn Rand's affair with Nathaniel Branden kind of tarnished her luster if you ask me.  Not so much that she was fucking him but that both Ayn and Nathaniel had permission from their respective spouses to fool around.

I forget where I read it, but apparently Rand and Branden convinced their spouses, "Since we are the most intellectual people we know it only makes sense we have an affair"!!!

Then when the younger Nathaniel tired of her wilting flower he dumped her for some fresh pussy.    She had a GODDAMN HISSY FIT!!!!!  Non-emotional intellectual, indeed..

:stonedjerk:

I attended a few Ayn Rand meetings in the DC area years ago and it seemed to me that most members spent way too much time either:

A) trying to prove how smart they were.

B) trying to show how successful they were in $$.


A boring ass pack of faggots if I ever saw one.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Ayn Rand: The Roots of War Prosgeopax 1,084 6 01/28/05 09:07 PM
by Swami
* Ayn Rand in Playboy
( 1 2 3 4 all )
SkorpivoMusterion 5,282 64 11/06/05 04:21 PM
by crunchytoast
* Ayn Rand: The Destroyer Of Christianity
( 1 2 all )
RationalEgo 1,740 25 09/30/09 10:14 AM
by Noteworthy
* Objectivism - The Libertarians? Albatross Evolving 887 5 11/03/04 08:48 PM
by Frog
* Objectivism?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
WhiteRabbitt 5,599 65 12/14/04 03:40 PM
by Phred
* Objectivism.. Here We Go Again!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Ped 11,240 129 03/21/06 10:37 PM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* objectivism on free will Deviate 779 3 12/16/05 05:33 AM
by Seuss
* Objectivism: What a load of..
( 1 2 3 all )
buttonion 6,007 52 05/19/03 09:19 AM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
2,969 topic views. 1 members, 8 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.025 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.