Am I now to take selfishness as sign of strength? — Agent Smith
Objectivism explicitly mentions the difference between humans an animals, as part of the explanation of the Objectivist notion of reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
And? That was decades ago. We've learned thing about the nature of human cognitive computation that have emerged in the past 2 years alone. — Garrett Travers
Rand defines altruism and selfishness in a very specific way. — ZzzoneiroCosm
What you're claiming undermines important planks in the Objectivist platform. — TonesInDeepFreeze
If you wish to dissent from Objectivism, that's fine with me. But your particular dissent is misguided. People don't regard a bug smelling something and turning to it as reason. Then you say that science does. I asked for a reference. — TonesInDeepFreeze
An act is selfish if it is predicated on one's own reason as his/her means of survival. — Garrett Travers
Merely responding to stimuli is not enough to constitute concept formation.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Okay. Cool. — Garrett Travers
To survive? — Garrett Travers
I thought the Objectivist view is of survival with enjoyment of exercise of rational values. I can use reason to survive, but that is not in and of itself ethical, even for an Objectivist, I don't think. — TonesInDeepFreeze
The concept is not key in any way that I didn't directly imply using other descriptors. — Garrett Travers
Objectivism disagreeing with science isn't a thing. If science indicates that it is 'possible' on some level, then Objectivism incorporates as much. — Garrett Travers
No, you just won't actually integrate what I'm saying to you, nothing more. — Garrett Travers
I'm not dissenting. I'm saying that if one of the standard measurments for reasoning capacities is memory, and if it can be shown that animals and bugs use stimuli to inform future behaviors in some manner, then some level of reasoning is occurring in them. None of this contradicts anything. I did not say science did anything other than this, at all. — Garrett Travers
If I automatically gasp for air, that's not organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Essentiality is more than just necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I thought the Objectivist view is of survival with enjoyment of exercise of rational values. I can use reason to survive, but that is not in and of itself ethical, even for an Objectivist, I don't think.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
No, what's ethical is that ethical conceptualization is also a product of reason. To produce ethics that standardize the behaviors of others is unethical, because it violates the ethical source, which is individual reason, the same place we develop our cognitive framework for all other behavior in the world. If individual humans are the source of reason, and reason is the source of behavioral framework upon which they live, and among those frameworks is ethics, then any ethical standard must be predicated on its own source. — Garrett Travers
Please cite where Objectivism incorporates the view that a bug smelling food and turning to it is "organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You keep saying "science". I asked twice for a reference. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Raising the notion of possibility gets into a sticky place with Objectivism, as Objectivism rejects as arbitrary making claims on the basis that they are possible. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Essentiality is more than just necessity.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
I explained it as more. — Garrett Travers
All of that, even without disputing it or not, does not vitiate my point. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Yes, you conflated necessity and sufficiency, then made clearly incorrect arguments about them (you skipped my demonstration of that). But you didn't deploy the notion of essentiality. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Raising the notion of possibility gets into a sticky place with Objectivism, as Objectivism rejects as arbitrary making claims on the basis that they are possible.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
I haven't made any claims in association with this comment. — Garrett Travers
Sufficiency and necessity were conflated with what? — Garrett Travers
If I automatically gasp for air, that's not organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
It's also not a suvival mechanism that sustains your life. — Garrett Travers
You said that science holds as possible that certain low level responses involve reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze
It may preserve your life in a certain individual situation, but that is not a mechanism you live by. — Garrett Travers
Breathing is a mechanism you need to live. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Please cite where Objectivism incorporates the view that a bug smelling food and turning to it is "organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
Strawman. — Garrett Travers
Not at all. You claimed that Objectivism will incorporate whatever science comes up with. And you claimed that science supports the view that lower creatures use reason,. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Breathing is a mechanism you need to live.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
And? it is not sufficient to sustain your life. How you accrue resources and meet your needs is through reason. — Garrett Travers
You just claimed you didn't see why it was ethical — Garrett Travers
then I explained it. — Garrett Travers
Neither reason nor non-reason means are sufficient.
Both reason and non-reason means are necessary. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.