There are a lot of problems with this science fiction scenario about transmitting all the information about the human brain on a laser beam, to be reconstructed at a remote part of the galaxy by a process similar to 3D printing. Nevertheless, it's intriguing (but flawed) and relevant to the mind/body dichotomy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUUl3YPDcAE

Sam

Dean: I can't seem to be able to embed this video. Do you paste the URL to the Embed "Paste your embedded code below" or to "Source"? Neither one seems to work.

Dean. I did as you said on the RoR editor. We're mis communicating somehow.

Sam

No. I thought you meant that it was optional to use YouTube or RoR editor. Thanks for clarifying.

Sam

Love the idea :)

Most of the people I meet in every day life have but a fleeting interest in philosophy - not to mention have never heard of objectivism or Ayn Rand (she's not that big a name here across the pond - mostly Western Europe).

To bring down my appreciation for Rand's work to a daily level I use the book-titles of Atlas Shrugged:

- Non-Contradiction: there are no contradictions - if you find one check your premises - (at least) one is certainly false

- Either-Or: if you found the correct premise(s) you have to make a choice - live with the contradiction or remove the false premise(s)

- A is A: a contradiction is a contradiction or a value is a value

I've been using these very simple rules for every topic from the most mundane ('why didn't I like my dinner today') to the most philosophical ('why do I still live'), without having to delve into the deep end of a philosophical debate. And it's easier to 'rebut' arguments that arise from the problem/decision at hand instead of the finer points of a philosophical discussion where most people start tuning out.

Some of them find value in these simple rules and start living by them - basically living 'objectivist' lives :)

And best of all: it works in just about every area of my life - mental, physical, emotional, ethical, philosophical, ... of course you have to be able to face the consequences of such a 'simple' take on life and everything in it ;)

Bring on the 'glamor' :D

Thanx Steve :)

Truth be told philosophy is not my arena. I studied English Literature and can go on for hours about the 15 different meanings of 'supper' or 'evening' in a given context or book. I recently read Gil Adamson's 'The Outlander' and still can't get enough of her sparkling use of language. So I do know what it's like to go into the nitty-gritty of an idea where very few are able or even willing to follow. That's OK - would be boring (and crowded in 'the widows' world) if everyone did.

Philosophy is a sort of hate-love: I love the ideas and clarity it brings to my life - understanding the world around me. However I easily lose patience with the nitty-gritty of philosophical academia. So you could say that 'simplified' approach was born out of laziness ;) Hence my appreciation of Joe's article - it (sort of) validates my laziness :D (just kidding ;)

How do I use it? Any way that suits a given situation - that's the beauty: those three steps fit just about any problem you meet inside yourself or in the world around you.

From the mundane ...

got a bad case of diarrhea the other day - false premise was not bad food, but too much food (which was quite good, but simply too much) - false choice 'I want it anyway because it is so good' - that night A was not A: my body rejected it and I did not enjoy that good food

to the philosophical ...

why the heck am I still here? the false premise is not physical existence - that's a given - I'm here. The false premise is 'did I choose to be in this physical body - did I take responsibility for it's existence'? If I chose can I unmake that choice now? If I did not choose this life, can I choose now to end it?

Based on your preferred premise and the choice you make, you'll find a very simple answer to your life on earth. My psychiatrist was quite perplexed at mine when I was sixteen ;)

Though at that time I did not have the same understanding of my choice, or it's underlying premises, that I do now. Not to mention Ayn Rand's words to express it.

That's where the 'love' part of philosophy comes back in. When I first read only the title of 'The Virtue of Selfishness' I went out and bought all her books without even knowing what it was all about. OK - that's not a rational choice, but it paid off anyway :)

So Ayn Rand's premise that selfishness is a virtue and her choice to use it as a title in spite of it's loaded subtext worked: A is A - she sold me on her books and her ideas (not all of it - but I let others worry about the nitty-gritty).

Try using those three steps with anything that comes along - a discussion in this board that annoys you (you already did that beautifully on another thread), a customer who creates one big mess after the other (and does not want to hear my answer to those messes), a spouse or child that causes you untold grief (and you got no clue why because you love the bastard - right), whatever it is: find the false premise, make an honest choice and live with the result.

And no - it will not make all my problems disappear - I'll still choose the good food. It will however make it easier to accept the diarrhea ;)

(Edited by Vera S. Doerr on 3/07, 1:49pm)

(Edited by Vera S. Doerr on 3/07, 1:55pm)

There's many ways to find the words that allow each individual to make sense of their own self and the world around it - and I agree that's leaning more towards psychology than philosophy.

Difference to me is: psychology requires much more honesty with yourself - you have to be able to really see yourself, reflect your thoughts, feel your emotions clearly. Very few people can do that, especially at intense (positive and negative) times. Philosophy offers more structure - is 'easier' to apply as it always works, even if you can't / don't want to see yourself. All you have to do is follow that logic and it will guide you to the next step.

As for keeping your energy, your excitement: I'd agree with keeping it - however I'd question the benefit of living it.

True it's stimulating, productive, just plain fun. But the expense is extreme - not just to keep it up all the time, but to defend it against a world that is built on consuming energy, consuming creativity ... anywhere it can get it - especially from those who can create it and are almost addicted to the excitement of creation. So what's the premise of keeping up such a high energy level - of not losing that creativity when it is consumed by others?

Which brings me back to Joe's article: I think that's one reason why such 'clear-cut' philosophies are hardest to live in actual life - they require a lot of energy, creativity, excitement, to create such a valued life every day - and a lot of it goes down the drain. Such philosophy allows no excuses - no 'defaulting' - no breather - for yourself or the world around you. So we face another false choice: fight or flight? Which premise is wrong? I'd put my money on the constancy of the contradiction ... if it's always like that - well pooh world ...

So toughen up world - the tough are coming out of hiding ... occasionally :D

maybe it was the opposite of the sense of giving up, or giving in to something that would have meant her life was less.

Valerie's letter in V for Vendetta calls it 'the last inch' - I'd put that under 'being yourself no matter what' - ties in to the 'defending your energy, creativity, being, at all cost even total destruction'

Devers Brandon (whithout having read the book - simply from your description) I'd put more in the category of upholding the excitement to create, to be active, alive - it's fading fast in my life, so I do understand how important it is. However I also think it's important to understand what that excitement to create can lead to - e.g. feeding moochers ... that's the real sad story, that the few people who still have it are simply seen as the next meal-ticket.

Symbolic statements = fully agree

That's why I picked up nature photography!

@Steve: no need to feel sorry - if my creation is just feeding the masses, then it is better off fading away - it's not worth the neverending battle of defending it my whole life ... I have no doubt that it will come back in a hurry if 'the masses' get extinguished in Dean's war tomorrow ;) again another favorite from Atlas: when the lights do eventually go out in NY and it is 'time to go back' :)

enjoy your sailing trip - and do let Obama know how grateful you are to him that he got you out of here earlier :D

@Dean: as a hermit you become self-sufficient by inclination - no need to wait for the necessity of some fools too stupid to live their own lives ;) however it does help surviving those fools, no matter how your reached that self-sufficiency :)

sorry Dean - didn't mean to make you responsible for a war - was just referencing your post - my apologies ... as for the war itself: it's the human maggots when they find out there's no more meat on the carcass of humanity ... wolves can hunt and fight and grow stronger from it, caribou can run and hide and still multiply, the human maggots will simply eat every last remaining carcass of it's species and then starve ... or is that just wishful thinking on my part :D

oh right: definitely wishful thinking - Dean and the other one's prepared will survive of course :) what will humanity look like when the carcass has died off and the 'New Renaissance' returns?