Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reality. Show all posts

Thursday, March 28, 2019

The Objectivist Metaphysics ; a dedication to Reality as it is.

Because Objectivism is an integrated philosophy with a hierarchical structure, all other branches of Objectivism rest on Objectivist metaphysics. Metaphysics includes those basic facts about reality which one must understand before one can learn Epistemology, because one cannot attempt to study knowledge until one has established that there is a reality to know.

Objectivist metaphysics relies on three primary axioms which are (in order of primacy): Existence, Identity (and its corollary Causality), and Consciousness. These axioms can be summarized as follows:
Existence 
Something exists, including the things I perceive.
Identity (and Causality)
Everything is something specific and acts according to its nature.
Consciousness 
I am conscious of the things I perceive and my perceptions reflect reality.
The three axioms are also implicitly stated and affirmed by any statement made, which boil down to: "There is [Existence] something [Identity] that I am aware of [Consciousness]."

The Axioms

The Primacy of Existence

The Primacy of Existence premise says that reality is objective: the universe exists independently of the particular psychological states (beliefs, desires, etc.) of individual cognizers. This view was also held by Aristotle. Objectivism distinguishes The Primacy of Existence from the Primacy of Consciousness. The Primacy of Consciousness holds that consciousness is prior to existence. It is the view that one could, in principle, be conscious exclusively and entirely of one's self. Objectivism rejects this view: it holds that objects present themselves to consciousness in such a way that they must be genuinely "other," that is, non-identical to one's own consciousness. This axiom is the basis of the Objectivist refutation of both theism and idealism. Though Objectivism grants that some particular existents are mental (e.g., minds, thoughts, desires, intentions), it holds that, if what fundamentally exists is independent of any consciousness, then the universe as a whole is neither the creation of a divine consciousness nor itself mental. (This argument is laid out in Chapter 1 of Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand).

The Law of Identity

The Law of Identity states that everything that exists has an identity. In saying this, Objectivism is asserting more than the tautology of self-identity (i.e., "everything is identical to itself"). It is asserting that everything that exists has a specific nature, consisting of various properties or characteristics (as Rand wrote, "to be is to be something in particular"). Moreover, Objectivism holds that the properties and characteristics in question must exist each in a specific measure or degree; in this respect "identity" also means finitude. According to Objectivism, then, everything that exists has a specific finite nature. To have a specific, finite nature, is incompatible with having a self-contradictory nature. Therefore, the whole of reality is noncontradictory; though contradictions might exist in thought, there are no contradictions in the real world.

The Law of Causality

Each thing's specific nature determines how it acts. This principle is Objectivism's formulation of the Law of Causality; it is held to be a corollary of the Law of Identity (see above). Contemporary philosophers define the Law of Causality differently, e.g., as "Every event has a cause." Objectivism rejects this contemporary definition because it leads to paradoxes concerning free will and cosmology. A further implication of the Objectivist account of causality concerns explanation: since genuine explanation is causal, nature can only be explained in terms of nature (i.e., without reference to the supernatural).

The Axiom of Consciousness

This axiom states that consciousness is an irreducible primary. It cannot be analyzed in terms of other concepts and it is at the foundation of all knowledge. While we can study the faculty of consciousness, we cannot study what it means to be conscious as such. She writes that "consciousness is conscious," affirming both that the thinker is conscious and that he is conscious of something external to himself. She writes, "If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms" (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1015). One cannot be self-conscious without first being aware of something other than one's awareness. Rand's axioms of consciousness is different from Descartes' Cogito principle in that Descartes' Cogito is an a priori principle, while Rand's axiom of consciousness is a self-evidency only available in perception.

Mind and body

Objectivism rejects the mind-body dichotomy, viewing man as a single integrated being, with both the mental and physical realms having particular causal properties.


Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Metaphysics&oldid=9213"

Tuesday, October 30, 2018





Harry Binswanger | Logic; The Method of Reason









Atlas Shrugged has been aptly described as “a hymn to logic.” But today what one finds in logic textbooks are sterile, formalistic diversions from real-life issues. This course, in contrast, will focus on the most personally important — and most neglected — topic in logic: concepts. It is proper conceptualization, not facility with syllogisms, that makes the difference between clarity and confusion, rational and irrational functioning, adhering to reality and wandering through dreamland. Drawing on Ayn Rand’s revolutionary identifications in logic, these five classes focus on the proper formation, definition, maintenance, and use of concepts. Emphasis will be given to working on practical exercises. The course is based on the material in chapters six and seven of How We Know, with class exercises to practice applying the principles to concrete cases.


SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/



Saturday, September 8, 2018

Tara Smith | The Pursuit of Happiness Q&A











This is the Q&A session following Tara Smith's talk.

Historically, Americans have fiercely defended the idea that every man has a birthright to the pursuit of happiness. An individual's success in attaining happiness, however, depends on what he does with that right. 

"The Pursuit of Happiness—And Tools for Attaining It" probes three factors vitally necessary to achieve happiness. While numerous goods can contribute to a happy life, this lecture examines a handful: pride, productiveness (including discussion of the place of money and of greed), and unabashed selfishness. 

Smith, who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas—Austin and holder of the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism, delivered this talk in Chicago on April 17, 2012, as part of the Ayn Rand Center Speaker Series.



Thursday, September 6, 2018

Altruism is not kindness, good will and/or benevolence for each other




"Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime.
The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”"


--Ayn Rand, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,”, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 61
[Altruism: alter or altrui - ism i.e. "other"-ism]

Wednesday, September 5, 2018

Yaron Lectures: Inequality and the Denial of Free Will (AynRandCon 2016) rebutted



I want to start off this rebuttal of certain things mentioned in Yaron Brook's recently posted speech by saying I am not here rebutting the Philosophy of Objectivism. I am an Objectivist myself as I have mentioned several times in previous articles. Nor is what I say about Yaron Brook on any given subject means in anyway anything he says is the official view of the Ayn Rand Institute. Nor that I am critiquing any other lectures or speeches he has given on other topics on which both him and I see 100% eye to eye. For example his defense of Capitalism and defense of individual rights as the role of Governing.

The only person I am rebuking in anything he said is the individual human 5th Walking Ape called Yaron Brook. Also, it is specifically the subject of Evolutionary Psychology or our Sociobiological nature that these criticisms are about and not that he is defending free will. I like Yaron am someone that believes in free will and in fact has more than one article providing all the evidence for us being able to make choices, and take responsibility irregardless of people proving Evolutionary mechanisms for our psychological mapping.

Within his lecture in which he made statements about how being for economic equality is to be denying free will. He made several comments which much like Gregory before him showed he did not understand our sociobiological nature as the animal we are. He indeed claims that genetics and the environment we are in do not have any substantial impact on choices that we make. That basically next to nothing is baked into us as Gregory had previously said before him. This is incorrect as we have quite a lot that is baked into us and is part of human nature. This includes after affects from our tribalism of passed generations of our species.

This does not mean that tribalism or collectivism is how one should live now. It simply says we evolved in a time and place where we were that way. Prior to the type of modern day post-industrial societies that we live in now. I agree with Yarron 100% that the ideal way to live in the modern day is as much as a rational person as possible. That Reason AKA the facts of reality not faith or mysticism is our means of survival in a world that is not the one our instincts evolved in. You will nowhere in this article see a dispute with the ideal world being one in which not all, but, way more of the population follows reason and facts not their other instincts or "intuitions" or anything like that.

However, I do not wish to live in a world were everyone has all of a sudden become an Objectivist. I want a world where people use reason, where they believe in rational things not Woo Woo or pseudo-science bullshit. I want a world where more people have integrity, act and think honestly, understand and live justly with others in society. Where people do not think other humans are theirs to use for their own ends. They do not need to become Objectivists or even persay use Objectivism to realize the importance of these virtues. Do I wish most of the world lived by the virtues found in Objectivism?; Rationality, Integrity, Honesty, Proper Pride, be Just with others and treat all people as they deserve based on the content of their character. Absolutely! However, that is different from them needing to agree with Objectivism and take it on as their philosophy.

It sometimes seems that Yarron and SOME others at ARI (not all) need evolutionary psychology to be wrong in their mind in order for Objectivism to be defended. However, I have the complete opposite view; if Objectivism cannot be reconciled with facts found out about existence and the human animal passed Ms. Rands time of being on this planet than it is Objectivism that is wrong not psychology proven through the facts found about evolution. Luckily, no Evo-Psych discovery has ever shown Reason is not preferable to delusion quite the opposite. It shows that our evolved natures are prone to all kinds of missteps unless we ground what we know in the facts as understood in the light of the Reason part of our brain chemistry. Living in reality is the optimal way to survive.

Evo-Psych does not say existence does not exist outside of us and our minds take it in. In fact, once again if Yaron and others actually read people like Steven Pinker this is the entire reason we need to understand human nature via evolution. Due to that being how we really got here from the past and that our brain is indeed what we see the outside world with. We need to KNOW how the mind works, so, we can know how to harness our Reason, Rationality and our Will to self-regulate our actions better. How to be the Rational Animal in the most humane way possible for the agent trying to be Rational. In other words how to "take the reigns of what we have been given to be the Angels of our Better Natures."

We are not deterministic beings in any sense in which you could predict specifically what every single human agent is going to do in life simply based on the fact that we are understanding the agents/humans motors inside them. Evo-Psych is not determinism and never has claimed to be determinism as Gad Sadd had told Yaron in person when he was interviewed by him. Knowing the Ultimate Goals of us as a species through our passed like procreation. Or understanding how Kin Selection works doe not remove free will from peoples Minds. We still make choices, introspect and then change actions. We also do this by choice; we can choose to not do it and drift along in life just acting on instincts till we get into trouble as we hit a wall where our instincts harm not help us.

This is why so many people are irrational they are making the choice and reasons could be numerous not to think. This is the Objectivist definition of free will and not a single study has refuted that we can pick to think or not to think about x,y, or z and then to act on the thought or pick not to act on it. We also can work through things like therapy to not pay attention to intrusive thoughts that are bad and not volitional. The fact that therapy such as CBT work actually proves that the Objectivist definition is way closer than most traditional ideas of a human will that require some sort of Ghost in the Machine. Nothing I have said above would be something any Cognitive Psychologist would ever disagree with. This is because there is ample evidence of this ability in the human brain/mind.

As I said previously in an article Evo-Psych is descriptive not prescriptive. It does not say you need to nor should go on the evolved instincts you have obtained. It simply shows what is there, how it got there and what needs to be remembered when trying to be Rational in order to be humane. Like I said on my last critique of a speech by an ARI fellow on Philosophical matters me and Mr. Brook agree 100% we are both Objectivists, but, that does not mean everything that comes out of their mouth is something I will agree on. I agree with him on Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics of rational and ethically performed egoism, the political ideal being Capitalism and even on Aesthetics. Where we disagree is Application of this. Application can be wrong for a Philosophy while the main tenants itself are good, noble and completely in touch with reality. Errors of application can happen from ignorance/cognitive bias. This is what I feel is going on with certain topics by certain Objectivists.



Sunday, September 2, 2018

Confessions of a Climate Change Skeptic










There was a time when I was very much a believer in the idea that climate change was a major issue that needed to be tackled. That was before I actually looked into all the studies and not just some of them pre-picked by the UN or other groups whom had a vested interest in there being a catastrophe. I realized climate was not in the horrible state it was said to be and in fact the environment is much better in this era than it had been in our human past. We are living one of the Greenest forms of planet Earth that has ever existed.

Not only that, but, the vast majority of climate alterations is not even human caused. There is much more natural influence on the overall climate as part of Earths climate cycle than humans. Water Vapor is the most important greenhouse gas for alterations in Earths climate along with various sunspot and solar cycles. Man-Made CO2 pales in comparison to the effects of all the natural inputs on the Earths climate sensitivity. In fact, the Earth has been in a cooling phase since around 1998. Where it is either cooled or stayed the same with a complete stop in Global Warming overall. Even the Met Office in the UK had mentioned this at one point.

I not only find no climate catastrophe, but, find very little credible evidence for the climate changing by very much at all since around 2000. Not when you look at all the actual satellite minus the computer models biases. It shows clearly there is no issue and the globe is not changing the way it was thought to be within the broader scheme of things.

Which is a pity really because as we are in fact still in an Inter-glacial Period historically we should be pumping much more CO2 into our cooled down atmosphere to make it warmer than it is now. I say far from dissing the Oil Sands we should be looking for more of them all over the West. Dig, find that black gold and stop feeding the Saudi Arabians that support the likes of ISIS.

CO2 is a necessary element of life and it is NOT a pollutant it is food for this Earth and its organisms. Not only that, but, fossil fuels help make it so we can have all the wonderful things that help us survive. Including helping to run life saving medicines, schools and all of our homes. I love fossil fuels and I also think we should be using more Nuclear Energy too. Wind cannot sustain the infrastructure of a major city. We need actual fuel like fossil fuel and nuclear energy.

The point is the environment lobby really only looks at studies they do themselves or that proves them right. They never look at all the studies or all the research and see what is really out in the science. Only viewing studies to see they agree with you is not scientific and nor is it reasonable. I look at all kinds of sources for my information and go by what I find.

I do not just go by one or two sources. We are in a lot of ways in one of the most clean generations of this Earth and we are not in an apocalypse things are good right now. People are just too blinded with BS information, myths, lies and downright stupidity. To paraphrase John Stossel's old special name.

Relax the world is fine, the world is not ending and it is not as horrid as your worried wort negative thinking wants it too be. We are all too many of us seeing only the bad and often wrong stories. We do not see how we are living even for all the crap in one of the best times to be alive for so many reasons. Lighten up people and enjoy life. We only got one, so, live it while you can and quit worrying that the world is ending. It is not, it is just your primate wetware mind needing a boogeyman to fight.


Myles Power Fact Checks March Against Monsanto Claims











Saturday, September 1, 2018

Neuroscience supports the existence of Free Will and it is not a delusion nor an Illusion




There is a very dangerous myth that is out there surrounding free will and neuroscience of the human mind. There are people whom are spreading misinformation out there and unfortunately one of them is Sam Harris. Someone whom in so many other ways has always been so great at defending the reality of The Universe against the unreality of theistic mysticism. Yet, on and on in the passed decade he has slowly faded into insanity which includes denying the existence of the self and the will of that self.

The idea that the self is not real is not scientific at all. The self is the way of identifying all of the processes within your brain between your ears. The fact that the self is a natural thing that is your brain and not supernatural does not mean the self does not exist. The nonexistence of a literal soul does not mean there is no mind as your mind is the workings of your brain. Thus your brain is that which mystics call your soul and that is itself the humans individual mind.

Within the workings of your mind of course is cause and effect. It is a naturalistic and materialistic in the meaning of the word vs immaterial nonexistence of a supernatural soul or spirit. However, that does not all mean we have no free will at all. In fact, quite the opposite we have in a sense been determined by the very nature of our homo-sapien brains to be free in our wills. In this sense there is for sure determinism in our nature.

We do have evolved psychologies and many of our predispositions and tendencies certainly are coming from this evolved nature of our psychology. No doubt many of those very true sex based differences between males and females have came from these evolved differences. Our instincts that we do definitely have come from this very evolved nature. However, the existence of these evolved traits of our both divergent and shared human traits does not in anyway equal us not having self-regulation, self-control or a will of our own. The existence in us as in all material in this world of a cause and effect does not mean we are predetermined by these instincts and lower order natures as it were.

Yes, evolutionary psychology is more than likely the least incorrect view of psychology that humans would fall into. However, the fact that there is cause and effect. The fact that were are determined in this way does not make us deterministic creatures in the sense of hard determinism and predetermined to be x, y or z. We are in fact as I mentioned earlier determined to be free and science is showing that this very evolutionary psychology is what causes that sense we have known as free will. Of course, where else would a will come from, but, evolution we are evolved animals it could come nothing, but, evolution.

We can know free will exists very easily and this is an experiment done by Daniel Dennett in his lectures on free will. Which is that if someone throws a ball at someone that person can either move and not be hit or not move and be hit dead on. The fact that you can choose to move or choose not to move is in fact a very fundamental evidence of at least a decent enough sense of freedom to matter to anyone. The fact that people could stay at his lecture or leave or not even have came is also an evidence of free will.

There is measurable free will and it literally can be measured in experiments. We have a will, we have self-regulation and self-control. We also above all else can choose to think about a matter or not to think, and, then to act accordingly. It is this that is one of our main freedoms of will as the animal we are as a homosapien. As long as one can choose to think or choose not to think of the consequences and then act accordingly we have as free of a will as we as a species would ever want. Free will does not mean there is no causes and no effects. It does not mean there is no predispositions and no tendencies or pushes or pulls of primordial pre-modernity within our minds at all.

We have all kinds of subconsciousness within our minds no doubt and no one that has ever defended the existence of free will would say otherwise. This does not invalidate the idea of freedom of will which is based primarily on the reality that we are not predetermined entities where everyone man, woman and child will always act the same way and will make many different decisions in their lives. Neuroscience does not as some have said disprove free will in fact neuroscience is proving the existence of this aspect of human nature more and more over time. Despite what the really delusional anti-free will hard determinism myth preaches free will is alive and well.


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






Stuart Hayashi | Kin Selection and Evolutionary Psychology Do Not Refute Objectivist Ethics, Part 2 of 2









Stuart Hayashi | Kin Selection Is Real, But Evolutionary Psychology Does Not Refute Objectivist Ethics, Pt. 1 of 2










Keith Lockitch - Spacetime, Black Holes, and Gravitational Waves - OCON 2018









“More Things in Heaven and Earth”: Spacetime, Black Holes, and Gravitational Waves

The 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for the first-ever detection of gravitational waves, confirming a 100-year-old prediction of Einstein’s. The discovery, announced in 2015, launched a new era of gravitational wave astronomy, but also raises challenging philosophical questions about the nature of space, time and gravity. What are gravitational waves and how are they being used to study the universe? And is there an inherent conflict between General Relativity and key metaphysical principles?

SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
https://aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...

SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S YOUTUBE CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.

SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
https://ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...

EXPLORE ARI
http://www.AynRand.org 

FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
https://twitter.com/AynRandInst 

LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...

EXPLORE FREE COURSES ON ARI CAMPUS
https://campus.aynrand.org/

INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
http://objectivistconferences.com/ 

LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
http://aynrandcon.org/