Summer Conferences --- High Points and Insights

I don't endorse anything Diana Mertz Hsieh has to say about NB. First she banishes him and Barbara from her blog then she attacks them. I think she's a coward.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 7/20, 9:59am)

Post 21

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:31am

Forgive me, Phil, for participating in this (hopefully brief) �hijacking� of your thread, but I cannot allow this ridiculous attack on Dr. Branden to go unanswered.

A quote from the Wikipedia:

Anomalous cognition is a general term describing a transfer of information to a subject through currently unknown means�. The term anomalous cognition is used by parapsychologists to reference awareness of information without having to specify or theorize a particular means by which that information was transferred.

This does not specify the exact mode of information transfer or whether it does or does not involve energy of some kind. Obviously, since the mode of transfer is presently unknown, it would not be possible to measure it.

In the 1970s, I attended a few of Dr. Branden�s intensives on �Self-Esteem and the Art of Being.� In one exercise, he often asked participants to sit with someone they did not know and to say nothing, just look at the other person�s eyes for several minutes. Following this, participants were asked to share their thoughts with their partner.

The person with whom I was paired was astonished when I told him he had been separated from his family for an extended period at a young age, and that this had been exceedingly painful for him. He was dumbfounded that someone could know something so important about his past without being told. He shared the information with the rest of the group. Similar stories were recounted with equal amazement by other participants.

It was clear from the exercise that we are constantly receiving all kinds of information from those around us, if we choose to tune in and attend to it. Messages do not always have to be put into words. Obviously this does not amount to �proof�� in any measurable scientific sense, but for me to pretend that the information was not there, in his eyes, would constitute an act of evasion.

Dr. Branden strongly believes in the powers of awareness to enrich and transform our lives. It is a sad commentary on many so-called �Objectivists� that they would prefer to shrink their capacity to know than risk being labeled a �mystic.�

The fact that we cannot establish something in a scientific laboratory today (and I agree that as yet we cannot) does not mean that we must wait until that day comes before opening our eyes and ears to the evidence that is all around us.

Post 22

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 12:38am

Nice post, Dennis. I took those Intensives at that time too. I didn't consider it anything other than perception. This is like "instinct." All "instinct" is is behavior not yet explained (I got that from something NB wrote or said decades ago.) All you have is anecdotes. I have stories that are wondrous (and true), but I cannot tell you scientifically why things I experienced happened. To give it a name explains nothing.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 7/20, 10:02am)

Post 23

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:00am

Adam: "Has Nathaniel Branden expanded his interests to include the foundations of measurement, and come up with a major breakthrough? If not, where do his claims of "evidence" come from?"

I have no idea. I simply posted his message. You'd have to ask him for the answers to your questions, and if you did, I'm imagine he'd be happy to respond.

Barbara

Post 24

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 1:48am

Dennis,

As any intelligent reader of detective stories could tell you, much of that narrative could have been deduced from data perceived by means of normal ordinary everyday perception.

Epistemology 101: Existence is identity. The identity of an existent consists of the values of its attributes. Knowledge is identification. The identification of the values of attributes is called measurement. The identity of an existent cannot be known without measurement. Where there is no measurement, there is no knowledge and no evidence.

Post 25

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:42am

Dennis said he looked into a man's eyes and knew he had been separated from his family for an extended period and it was painful. LOL.

Asserting some vague generalization is just an arbitrary guess and not a power, even if you get an accurate "hit." Your just talking out your ass. Psychics and astrologers do it for a living.

What kid has not been separated from his family. Extended period could be a weekend for some people. Kids cry when their let off at kindergarten for the first time, for the extended period of six hours!

Can you bend spoons too?

I have to stop now because my ass is "telling me" I should take it to "a small room in my house" that has "white fixtures" and wait there for "something" to happen.

Post 26

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 9:51am

Dennis,

I like Dr. Branden, but I can't buy this bit about "anomalous perception". Richard Dawkins has a tremendous, withering critique of this sort of stuff in "Unweaving the Rainbow". In order for these kinds of claims to have any sort of validity, repeatability under controlled, scientific conditions must be demonstrated. Needless to say, nothing like this has been demonstrated scientifically.

I find a great deal of value in Dr. Branden's work, particularly The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem and The Psychology of Romantic Love, however I cannot support claims of anomalous perception.

Jim

Post 27

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:19am

I'm dubious of "anomalous perception" et al. But, to be very clear, I was present at the Nathaniel Branden interview at the TOC conference and he was very absolute that his views had nothing to do with the supernatural.

It took a lot of guts for Dr. Branden to say what he said in front of a group of Objectivists.

Post 28

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 10:21am

Speaking of "anomalous perception," did anyone catch that episode of South Park where they ripped on "Crossing Over with John Edwards? They totally exposed his racket. Hillarious.

Post 29

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:20am

He's one who should be nailed to a wall and flogged... for his vicious charlatonism

Post 30

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 11:48am

I also attended the interview where Dr. Branden discussed his views on this topic. He by no means offered firm conclusions, only describing incidents that he found baffling in conventional terms.

Let me add that Branden's discussion of this topic was only part of a wide-ranging interview. Let me also add that very few in the TOC audience (certainly myself included) appeared willing to buy into any form of supernaturalism or ESP.

Post 31

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 7:34pm

""The more industrious members who went to a conference and took notes would summarize one or two lectures apiece." ..I'm still waiting for something more detailed than one adjective or one sentence... [#13]

After another 24 hours of posts on what Nathaniel Branden does or does not believe, my expectations are now lower still:

Now I'm waiting for ANYONE to simply return to the topic of this thread.

Post 32

Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 8:23pm

Phil,

In his final Lecture on Objectivity, David Kelley listed his seven questions to ask yourself in order to be objective:

1. What am I doing? (Try to characterize the thinking process I'm engaged in.)

2. Is that a fact? (How certain am I of my evidence?)

3. Where have I seen this before? (How can I compare something I'm evaluating to something I already know?)

4. Is that the real reason? (Are there alternative explanations or am I rationalizing?)

5. What would I take as evidence I'm wrong?

6. Does anything mean more to me than the truth?

7. Can I be objective right now?

Phil, I apologize for the direction this thread has gone and hopefully this begins to set it right.

Jim

Post 33

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 2:30am

Brant, Adam, James....

I profoundly resent any implication that the experience I described was the least bit "mystical" in any way, shape or form.

However, in deference to Phil, I am sending my responses telepathically.

Post 34

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 6:54am

Thank you, Jim. This was the kind of response I was asking for when I started the thread ... and I wish David's list of careful and introspective thinking rules were applied more often by the more heated "flaming" posters on this list and in real life in and outside of Oism who totally condemn or totally whitewash someone or some group on numerous threads (whether it be Rand or libertarians or one of the Brandens or all politicians or all conservatives or all liberals or all religious people or all atheists or whatever) by relying solely on their non-objective emotions (defined as emotional reactions without having gone through these steps or any thorough validation process)which they have become comfortable with in their intellectual Barcaloungers and reluctant to actively and rigorously inspect over time.

[ It's just as much of a mistake to be an *emotionalist* who doesn't use reason and objectivity and integrate his emotions to it as it is to be a *cerebralist* who doesn't use or integrate his emotions. ]

I hope Kelley applied these points to a wide range of common lack of objectivity concretes, such as the non-objective journalism you can see every day in the press, such as people who take sides based on who their friends are rather than the facts, etc.

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 7/21, 6:58am)

Post 35

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 7:36am

Phil,

I liked this quote from Jose Ortega y Gasset from Bill Perry's lecture:

"Whether he is an originalist or a plagiarist, man is the novelist of himself."

Jim

Post 36

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 9:02am

More tidbits from the Kelley lectures:

- Objectivity requires the active search for new evidence.

- It is one thing to want truth on my side, it is another to want to be on the side of the truth.

Jim

Post 37

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 9:19am

That second quote would have been better if reversed - it is one thing to want to be on the side of truth, and another to want truth on one's side...
(Edited by robert malcom on 7/21, 9:21am)

Post 38

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 10:59am

I thought this years' TOC summer seminar was one of the better ones I've attended.

Stephen Hicks did a 2-part lecture on Neitzsche, much of it comparing Neitzsche's ideas to Rand's.

I especially liked the symposium on the philosophy of science. Glenn Fletcher did a 2-part lecture covering such subjects as induction, theory-ladeness, theory and observation, the ideas of Karl Popper, realism vs instrumentalism, scientific explanation, interpretations of QM, and the ideas of Thomas Kuhn. Since Glenn is a SOLO member, I won't "steal any more of his thunder" than that.

Tibor Machan did a lecture titled "Philosophy, Physics, and Common Sense." I stop there, since Tibor is a SOLO member, too.

Christopher Robinson did a lecture about the discovery of 3 planets. I did not attend that one.

Like Jim Heaps-Nelson said earlier, Lyman Hazelton lectured on chaos and randomness. I will sketch a few points.
- He described chaos as "not random and not predictable." He went a little more into the character of randomness, but I don't recall all the details. He did not mention this, but I would recommend Richard von Mises' book Probability, Statistics and Truth for a solid understanding of randomness.
- He described how the strong version of causality challenges the validity of inductive inference and free will.
- He addressed trying to base free will in quantum indeterminacy, ala Penrose. He thought this was wrong because its scale is too small vis-a-vis neurons and their interactions.
- He explained chaos with the aid of a double pendulum. There are numerous webpages about it, such as here:
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html
- He gave heart beats and "dark current" neural activity as examples of chaotic phenomena within us on a much larger scale than the quantum level.

In the Q&A much of the discussion revolved around the question of whether unpredictability is an epistemological or a metaphysical distinction. The Bohr-Einstein debates about QM were not mentioned, but that was the basic issue there, too.

Post 39

Thursday, July 21, 2005 - 11:28am