Welcome thread for our own Claude Shannon

Claude,

I wanted to say hi and to welcome you to the Dissent forum here on the time-honored RoR website!

Maybe we can talk about my EvNS theory (evolution via natural selection) here if you are interested. Or perhaps you could invite me to consider arguments proposing religion or even God herself as the genesis of morality in general, or of objective value in particular ...

Ed

Post 1

Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 4:28pm

I've limited Mr. Kolker to the Dissent group as well, although still unmoderated at this point. He seems to be a clear dissenter, but I didn't notice any major incivility.

Post 2

Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 4:53pm

Bob!

I'm sorry that I didn't create a new thread to welcome you, too. It seems like an inversion of morality. I mean, Claude's the bigger troll -- and he gets the kudos!

But actually, there's rhyme to my reason here. You see, there's this space between extremes. It's where you pick and choose and use tenets or methods from both sides, but remain uncategorizable yourself -- where it's "safe". You do that, Bob (references upon request).

And here's Rand (CUI, "The Anatomy of Compromise") on THAT kind of a thing ...

The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

Post 3

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 12:33am

I hadn't thought of Bob Kolker as much of a dissenter, although he does appear to disagree with several of Objectivism's basic tenets. That's probably why Claude Shannon views him so sympathetically, even to the point of addressing him as "Dr." Kolker, which is ironic, because Kolker's disagreement with Shannon is even more radical than mine. At least I agree that we possess consciousness, even if I don't think it exists independently of a body, whereas Kolker doesn't even believe that. You'd think that Shannon would have gone after Kolker's "materialism" with a vengeance, but apparently any enemy of Rand's is a friend of Shannon's, so visceral is his hatred for Objectivism!

- Bill

Post 4

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 3:00am

Why the scare quotes around the word materialism? I believe everything that exists is physical. Consciousness is a function of or effect of brain work which is a physical processes. After all, what are we made of? The same stuff (basically) as stone, air and water. In fact we are mostly water. There is nothing in us or about us that is not the result of atoms or subatomic particles interacting? As the late Carl Sagan said billyuns and billyuns of times: we are made of Star Stuff.

Kaire Demokritus!

Bob Kolker

Post 5

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 5:08am

Bob,

Consciousness is a function of or effect of brain work which is a physical processes..

Pssst! Bob! To say that something is an effect of something else is to say that something exists separately from that cause (though not independently).

You see. That's the danger of continually repeating the same trite phrases over and over. Eventually you may accidentally stumble over the truth.

Post 6

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 6:15am

And physical causes produce what? Physical effects.

Everything that exists is physical.

And that is the truth. There are no souls, gods, ghosts, spirits or other non-physical entities. We are made of the same sort of stuff as shit and we obey the same physical laws as shit.

Demokritus was right modulo his version 1.0 theory of atoms.

Bob Kolker

Post 7

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 1:34pm

Bob,

And physical causes produce what? Physical effects.

Everything that exists is physical.

Therefore, consciousness is physical.

Perhaps you should look for work as a spokesman for excedrin.

Post 8

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 2:31pm

Dennis,

There are 2 ways to interpret that (both true and both so appropriate that they're funny).

;-)

Ed

Post 9

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 3:10pm

Thanks, Ed. I am glad someone caught the double entendre.

I do think Bob�s theory goes a long way toward explaining the connection between excessive worry (i.e., thinking��clunk, clunk�) and migraines�.

Post 10

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 3:30pm

Reply to 7.

Consciousness is a subset of the physical processes performed by our brains and sense organs. Our head is filled with three pounds of jelly-like goo that performs some rather complicated electro chemical processes.

I sing the body electric. We are bags of mostly water (and some other chemical compounds) that do some complicate chemistry. Everything about us is physical and when we die, we rot and stink.

Bob Kolker

Post 11

Saturday, April 5, 2008 - 8:17pm

Our head is filled with three pounds of jelly-like goo that performs some rather complicated electro chemical processes.

Well, here's what I have to say about that...

Post 12

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 5:56am

Bill Dwyer wrote:

I hadn't thought of Bob Kolker as much of a dissenter,

I second that.

Post 13

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 4:02pm

Bill & Merlin,

The Islamic folk like to send their kids to schools where they can be turned into proper murderers. The solution is straightforward: bomb the schools, especially during school hours.

Is that not indicative of the kind of thought/language worthy of the classification of: dissent? Or, if it is, would you then say that -- while crude -- it's not indicative of Bob Kolker's character?

At a loss,

Ed

Post 14

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 4:19pm

Bob Kolker wrote, "And physical causes produce what? Physical effects.

Everything that exists is physical.

And that is the truth. There are no souls, gods, ghosts, spirits or other non-physical entities."

There are no separate, non-physical ENTITIES -- no DISEMBODIED souls or spirits. That doesn't mean that there are no non-physical ATTRIBUTES of entities -- no EMBODIED souls or spirits. There are no disembodied quantities -- no such thing as 'pure 5' or 'pure 500' existing in the real world. These abstract quantities exist only in someone's mind. In the real world, there is only 5 dollars or 500 dollars -- 5 objects or 500 objects, etc.

Since you're a mathematician, on what grounds do you recognize the existence of an abstract quantity that exists only in someone's mind, if there are no minds, to begin with -- if everything that exists is physical?

You wouldn't say that there is no experience of vision, would you -- that all that exists are one's physical eyes? Then why say that there is no mind -- that all that exists is the physical brain?

Granted, the mind is simply the subjective aspect of brain function, just as vision is the subjective aspect of ocular function, which doesn't mean that one doesn't have conscious control over one's mental or visual acuity. But the exercise of control over one's mental acuity is simultaneously the exercise of control over brain activity, just as the exercise of control over one's visual acuity is simultaneously the exercise of control over one's ocular function. The mind does not exist independently of the brain, any more than vision exists independently of the eyes.

- Bill

Post 15

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 4:52pm

Bill & Merlin,

The Islamic folk like to send their kids to schools where they can be turned into proper murderers. The solution is straightforward: bomb the schools, especially during school hours.
Is that not indicative of the kind of thought/language worthy of the classification of: dissent? Or, if it is, would you then say that -- while crude -- it's not indicative of Bob Kolker's character?

At a loss,

Ed

Doesn't differ much from some ARI folks.

Post 16

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 5:15pm

William Dwyer -- off-topic, but I didn't know where else to discuss this. You asked a while back for me to give my impressions of OPAR once I finished reading it.

The bottom line is that I got about 30 pages or so into it, and abandoned it. I just didn't want to wade through any more of what I considered a boring and unreadable mess. The first few pages laying out the central principles of Objectivism were interesting and thought-provoking: that reality is real, that our senses (augmented by instruments such as microscopes, particle colliders, etc.) give reliable information about the real world, etc. It's not that I disagreed with any of these major premises, and it's not that most of the people in this country don't hold delusional beliefs that would be dispelled by reading and grasping these ideas. Rather, it seemed to be belaboring the implications of these evident points in an unentertaining and cludgy manner, and I just couldn't bear any more. Life beckoned.

I would be interested to hear how other people reacted to this tome. Did anyone here find it a pleasant and enlightening read throughout? Please, no hate mail for me being honest about my reaction -- Peikoff is no Ayn Rand, who presented these principles in a far more entertaining and accessible form. I have some problems with aspects of Ayn Rand's technical literary abilities, but she had a hell of a story to tell in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and she made those stories into fascinating books, IMO. Peikoff -- not so much so.

Post 17

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 7:22pm

Jim,

You need to read more than 30 pages. Come on! Read the whole book. Then tell me what you think. You can't judge a book by its cover, and you can't judge a 460 page book by the first 30 pages, especially when the remainder covers different material. For what it's worth, I'd say OPAR is eminently clear and readable.

But thanks for your "first" impressions! :-)

- Bill

Post 18

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 8:02pm

reply to post 14.

The number 5 is strictly in your head, as patterns of neural excitations. There is no 5 Out There. It is all In Here. You may have fingers on your left hand Out There, but the 5 is an artifact of brain activity. Pure number is strictly branial. Not that there is anything wrong with being purely branial, mind you.

Bob Kolker

Post 19

Sunday, April 6, 2008 - 9:33pm