Are you equating sensory data and reason? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I am equating, because they are equal, any sensory data informed behavior with reason, however low-resolution you think it may be outside looking in.

What life sustaining actions are not characterized by the description I gave — Garrett Travers

You skipped again my response. If you are going to keep doing that, then there is no hope that you'll ever get around to addressing my point.

You have lost the argument about reason and survival. You persist in it only by skipping my rebuttals.

But, even more interesting is that you should recognize that reasoning includes accepting premises for sake of argument. So, in that vein, even if I granted P1 and P2 as true, they don't imply C.

If you think C is implied by anything, then what premises other than P1 and P2 do you adduce?

If you keep saying that you won't address that question until we have settled P1, which is a dead horse by now, then I take it that you wish to avoid facing that P1 and P2 do not entail C.

any sensory data informed behavior with reason, — Garrett Travers

I can't make this out. Can you rephrase?

Even more fundamentally, but along the same lines:

The Objectivist argument is:

1. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for rational human values.

3. Therefore, an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's rational values derived from reason.[/quote]

1 and 2 do not entail 3.

I encourage you to read the first chapter of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, just the first. If you still think she's useless, I'll never bother you about her again. — Garrett Travers

I read it and studied it. It's bunk.

You skipped again my response. If you are going to keep doing that, then there is no hope that you'll ever get around to addressing my point. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You must think you're talking to someone you're not. I don't do gish gallops, fallacies, or any other form of bullshit. If you want to argue with me, we will address the premises one at a time, until the two of us can establish validity, soundness, or unified dismissal. Othewrise, you will be dismissed as, how did you say? Risible.

You have lost the argument about reason and survival. You persist in it only by skipping my rebuttals. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's funny, science thinks this assertion is bullshit. So, let's just go back to the starting question and explore that, eh?

But, even more interesting is that you should recognize that reasoning includes accepting premises for sake of argument. So, in that way, even if I granted P1 and P2 as true, they don't imply C. — TonesInDeepFreeze

We aren't there yet, we'll have to see, won't we?

f you think C is implied by anything, then what premises other than P1 and P2 do you adduce? — TonesInDeepFreeze

We'll get there when we get there, dig?

If you keep saying that you won't address that question until we have settled P1, which is a dead horse by now, then I take it that you wish to avoid facing that P1 and P2 do not entail C. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, you should take it as, Garrett sees you're concerned about addressing premises individually, because he may just demonstrate to you that you're incorrect, and thereby embarrass this forceful display you've put on for everyone. You could, instead, look at it like we're all just a bunch of smart ass nerds online having fun with some intellectual stuff, irrespective of what happens. I suggest the latter, and I insist again that we finish up with P1 before moving on.

I read it and studied it. I think it's bunk. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Bet.

All this to say the brain controls everything? Am I following? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, as far as I know, this it what the evidence suggests. — Garrett Travers

To my eye it suggests a central hub of activity, a primary nexus or central station - but I don't see the element of control you'd like me to see.

I can't make this out. Can you rephrase? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Any behavior informed by sensory data, is in fact an example of reason.

To my eye it suggests a central hub of activity, a primary nexus or central station - but I don't see the element of control you'd like me to see. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, a central hub of control that uses sensory data to inform behaviors that leads to more sensory data and so on. The only time reason is not a part of this process, is when a value structure as been put in place that dismisses reason as valuable itself.

For example: Prayer, as opposed to active pursuit of knowledge to achieve whatever goal one has. This is actively diminishing one's ability to achieve goals derived from values, derived from concepts, derived from sensory data. It's anti-reason.

I don't do gish gallops, fallacies, or any other form of bullshit. — Garrett Travers

You claimed that I posted gish gallop. I detailed exactly how you are incorrect about that. Instead, you shifted to claiming that you don't post gish gallop.

If you want to argue with me, we will address the premises one at a time — Garrett Travers

I don't care whether you argue with me or not. I will post or not in reference to your posts, no matter how you feel about it.

Again, you say "one at a time", which for you boils down to ignoring my rebuttals.

But, even more interesting is that you should recognize that reasoning includes accepting premises for sake of argument. So, in that way, even if I granted P1 and P2 as true, they don't imply C.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

We aren't there yet, we'll have to see, won't we? — Garrett Travers

You don't understand logic and discourse. It is quite reasonable to say, "Even if we accept the premises, they don't entail the conclusion". This is especially reasonable when the question of the premises is a dead horse and an interlocutor wishes to move on to look at the argument's logical structure.

I'll say it again:

P1 and P2 do not entail C.

I am guessing that you are incapable of suppling added premises that would entail C.

Garrett sees you're concerned about addressing premises individually, because he may just demonstrate to you that you're incorrect, and thereby embarrass this forceful display you've put on for everyone. — Garrett Travers

Then Garrett suffers delusions.

I suggest the latter, and I insist again that we finish up with P1 before moving on. — Garrett Travers

I'm finished with P1 and P2.

Now I am interested in what premises one would add to derive C.

I'm finished with P1 and P2. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Precisely what I identified. Too concerned to address even a single premise. Come back when you're ready.

Any behavior informed by sensory data, is in fact an example of reason. — Garrett Travers

Well, I thought I was done with P1.

What does "informed" mean?

A baby has the sensory data of a shiny object. I don't take it that the baby uses reason and then makes a reasoned decision to smile in response.

When a hammer is tapped on my knee, I have sensory data, but I don't take it that it is a function of reason that I lift my leg in response.

When my finger touches fire, I have sensory data, but it's not reason by which I take my finger away.

Too concerned to address even a single premise. — Garrett Travers

I addressed it amply.

So, I take it that you can't adduce premises added to P1 and P2 that entail C.

Come back when you're ready. — Garrett Travers

I don't care to confine my posting based on imperatives uttered by you.

Bet. — Garrett Travers

Means what?

Thank you for steelmanning the position so far, I appreciate it. — Garrett Travers

No prob. My interest here is mostly in getting a clear picture of Randianism.

What does "informed" mean? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Informed, means the process by which the brain gathers data to allow the human to interact in the world that ensures and/or maximizes homeostasis. This is, in fact, the only process by which we have any means to ensure our survival as a species. It does not matter what bodily appendages we have that reaason can use, it's that reason uses it to do whatever it is has generated as a concept to inform behavior, predicated on a goal.

A baby has the sensory data of a shiny object. I don't take it that the baby uses reason and then make a reasoned decision to smile in response. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is, unfortunately, very true in the regard you are emphasizing. We are an altricial species and have about a 20 or so year rearing period. By about 12 and up, we start being able to generate concepts independently from our parent's interpolations. That being said, the reasoning process is in fact still unfolding even in an underdeveloped brain. But, it doesn't have all the systems, so it is operating on delimited functions; basically animal instinct.

When a hammer is tapped on my knee, I have sensory data, but I don't take it that it is a function of reason that I lift my leg in response. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's exactly what is going on. Data has informed your behavior to induce a removal of yourself from the recurrence of a homeostasis disrupting event, that could potentially kill you. It is reason. And thereafter, your behavior will be informed in association with that data, also reason. Not reason, would include you just doing what you did before, even though the data is there to confirm for you that that was some dumb shit.

Any questions on premise one you need me to clear up? If not, I'll need you to describe for me one of those life-sustaining behaviors that aren't included in the elaboration of reason here that I have just given. So, that we can finish up with P1.

No prob. My interest here is mostly in getting a clear picture of Randianism. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Anything you're disagreeing with so far that you'd like me to clear up?

Too bad, a real live Objectivist, in an open forum not under the auspices of Objectivists, and he won't face this:

The Objectivist argument is:

1. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for rational human values.

3. Therefore, an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's rational values derived from reason.

1 and 2 do not entail 3.

Anything you're disagreeing with so far that you'd like me to clear up? — Garrett Travers

I'm interested in the long game. And I want to review my Kindle highlights on Rand to make sure I haven't misrepresented her view.

At work today, so posting on the fly.




If you have anything to say about Paul Ryan, I'd be interested. I suppose you'll say his is a corrupted Randianism.

If you have anything to say about Paul Ryan, I'd be interested. I suppose you'll say his is a corrupted Randianism. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Paul Ryan is a statist who is paid a living through theft, to be a representative of a monopoly on force that violates human rights. One needn't not suppose, dear fellow, but assume it with confidence. To quote Rand on Reagan:

"I do not think of him. And the more I see, the less I think."

But, try to remember, that I am personally anti-political, to the bone.

Paul Ryan is a statist who is paid a living through theft, to be a representative of a monopoly on force that violates human rights. One needn't not suppose, dear fellow, but assume it with confidence. — Garrett Travers

There is something in Rand's work that attracts these conservative types. Smaller government and less welfare, more Freedom as in Free Trade.

There is something in Rand's work that attracts these conservative types. Smaller government and less welfare, more Freedom as in Free Trade. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Conservatives know that if they want to have market allies down the rode, they need to pander. That's where their big campaign money comes from. But, it's both parties that protect the corporate system, and it was liberal Presidents, Wilson and FDR, who instantiated that process, finally to be capped off by the conservative Nixon in 71. I think.... They're all scum Dirigists who say and do whatever power-pigs have to, so that they can keep their power. That's why when Ryan was pushed, he denounced Rand. You see?

If you really look closely, you'll notice that the only difference between the two parties, is what they want to do with your money, nothing else. There is no left/right conservative/liberal dichotamy, just the Capitol Class with all our labor, and all the people they pay the media to keep incensed with one another.

the process by which the brain gathers data to allow the human to interact in the world — Garrett Travers

Then that includes even automatic response such as knee jerk.

Of course, you can skip that point and declare yet again that you are right.

By about 12 and up, we start being able to generate concepts independently from our parent's interpolations. — Garrett Travers

That doesn't vitiate my point that many behaviors are not exercise of reason, unless 'reason' is taken in such a broad sense that it is robbed of particular meaning.

The fact that as people mature they use reason more and more does not support the claim that all behavior toward survival is based in reason.

It is of course obvious that the human species could not be what it is without reason. But it is overstatement to say that all behavior toward survival is based in reason.

It appears that the reason Objectivism makes this incorrect overstatement, this implausible reduction, is that it is needed to drive other conclusions about ethics and politics. But even granting the reductions, the conclusions don't follow.

When a hammer is tapped on my knee, I have sensory data, but I don't take it that it is a function of reason that I lift my leg in response.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's exactly what is going on. Data has informed your behavior to induce a removal of yourself from the recurrence of a homeostasis disrupting event, that could potentially kill you. It is reason. — Garrett Travers

You keep skipping my point that if that is reason, then all human behavior is reason in response to stimuli is reason. But that is not what people usually mean by 'reason'. And with your framework, even response in sleep to stimuli is exercise of reason. If a feather falls on my nose during sleep and I twitch my nose, then I don't know anyone who would say that is exercise of reason.

If any response to stimuli is exercise of reason, then your argument reduces to:

P1. if humans evolved with response to stimuli being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through response to stimuli that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.

And, again, even if P1 and P2 are true, then C is not entailed.

That being said, the reasoning process is in fact still unfolding even in an underdeveloped brain. But, it doesn't have all the systems, so it is operating on delimited functions. basical animal instinct. — Garrett Travers

And if you allow that there are animal instincts that contribute to survival, then we can see also that there are human animal instincts that contribute to survival. So reason is not the only means toward human survival, unless you think lower non-human animals are exercising reason too.

It's too bad you won't admit that "it's all reason" is an overstatement. You would be on better ground to stress the great importance of reason, and to devise arguments about ethics and politics with reason as an important prong, rather than falling into your own trap of saying it is only by reason that man survives.

There is no left/right conservative/liberal dichotamy, just the Capitol Class with all our labor, and all the people they pay the media to keep incensed with one another. — Garrett Travers

Are there any current American political figures, journalists, commentators, consultants, activists you admire?

So, that we can finish up with P1. — Garrett Travers

It is someone who has a poor grasp of logic who can't see that examination of the logic or illogic of an argument does not depend on examination of the truth or falsity of the premises. If the logical form is not valid, then the conclusion can be not entailed by the premises even if the premises are true.

So I am interested in what premises Objectivists would add to this to make it a valid argument:

1. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for rational human values.

3. Therefore, an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's rational values derived from reason.

Too bad there's not an Objectivist here to respond.

Then that includes even automatic response such as knee jerk.

Of course, you can skip that point and declare yet again that you are right. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, that is sensory data, that involves thought, and the sound response to a verified phenomenon. Not that jerking one's knee will save their life or anything.

That doesn't vitiate my point that many behaviors are not exercise of reason, unless 'reason' is taken in such a broad sense that it is robbed of particular meaning.

The fact that as people mature they use reason more and more does not support the claim that all behavior toward survival is based in reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

What's it based in, then? Non-reason? Reason is the process by which the brain integrates data and informs behavior in accordance with that data. Data is real, the propositions are sound, the behavior is logically informed. What else could it be? You're going to need to provide an alternative to what neuroscience tells us about the process.

It appears that the reason Objectivism makes this incorrect overstatement, this implausible reduction, is that it is needed to drive other conclusions about ethics and politics. But even granting the reductions, the conclusions don't follow. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This isn't an argument. This is just you talking. Calling an assertion a reduction deosn't make it one. For it to be a reduction, it would need to be less complex than: think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. Not accurately describing the process in accordance with science.

And if you allow that there are animal instincts that contribute to survival, then we can see also that there are human animal instincts that contribute to survival. So reason is not the only means toward human survival, unless you think lower non-human animals are exercising reason too. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I don't allow that. You are born with no animal instincts that could ensure your survival. You must develop beyond the confines of basic human instinct to live as a human on Earth. When instincts meet the ability for sensory data to be used in future behaviors, reason is possible. When that really happens specifically is still unclear.

It's too bad you won't admit that "it's all reason" is an overstatement. You would be on better ground to stress the great importance of reason, and to devise arguments about ethics and politics with reason as an important prong, rather than falling into your own trap of saying it is only by reason that man survives. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You've still not provided a single life-sustaining behavior, that falls outside of the confines of reason, that could ensure human survival. This is the last time I'm asking for what you'll need to dismiss premise 1, before I just stop responding.

Are there any current American political figures, journalists, commentators, consultants, activists you admire? — Joshs

I like Michael Malice and Yaron Brook. And even them I don't watch on a daily basis or anything. I regard politics as blatantly evil, and I regard people who involve themselves in it as either duped, or wannabe tyrants.

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

P1. Humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.

P2. It is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty.

C. Therefore, the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.



I put this in a form I'm more familiar with. I'm no logician, but it's clear that, as it stands, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.