[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Wednesday, October 16 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve: "Objectivism is pro-happiness for the individual"

What do you think happiness comes from? Happiness/contentness/pleasure results from a life form identifying that one of its goals is being accomplished. Any particular life form may have all sorts of different goals, but all extant humans today are descendents of life forms who accomplished the goal of reproduction. Many of which felt pleasure/happiness due to reproduction. Those who felt more pleasure from reproducing tended to reproduce more.

Reproduction is a requirement for life to survive an individual's local critical failures. A la natural selection every species' individual's primary goal by mass majority is to successfully reproduce. Humans do not escape from this just because they have more memory and reasoning ability.

Yea there may be non-reproducing worker bees and warriors within a species. Never the less, such non-reproducing members must accomplish the goal of assisting their relatives in reproducing, otherwise they (or those relatives) cease to exist in future generations due to the competition consuming all of the limited food/energy.

Most humans do have the primary goal of reproduction whether they realize it rationally or not. A philosophy that hence recognizes reproduction as a primary cause of happiness would bring its followers more happiness after rationally realizing reproduction is their goal and putting their logical mental process to work in accomplishing it.

Reproduction is part of man's life, is it not? I mean the real man, the one found in reality that actually exists. "Objectivism is pro-happiness for the individual." Is it that bad of advise for a philosophy to suggest having children (or helping friends succeed in parenting) in order to bring oneself happiness?

A philosophy that helps people answer reproductive questions like: Whats the model man like whom we should sexually select for? What kind of sexual partner should I have? How many children should I have, and when in my life (yea, some people like warriors or workers might have reason to have children)? Beyond sex, what kind of relationships should I have with my sexual partners? What should my parent-child relationship be like? What are Rand's answers to these questions?



Post 21

Wednesday, October 16 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
About the Objectivists raising babies...
I'm an atheist. If the wrong person found this out in the wrong Middle East country, I'd get killed. So it can be said, at least for now, America's laws are 'better' because I can be that way freely. But. . .because of errors in the construction of our system (the same errors being taken advantage of to transform it today) it is unstable and can be transformed into a country where it is not safe to confess such things.
Now suppose we had a system impervious to being changed in any way to something that was ever anything but completely free. A person's mind is free and there would undoubtably be people who would not like that.
But when the statist says, "Donate money to the poor."
I would be able to respond without reprocusions, "Get a life."
And that would be the end of it.
The first question is: What does that system look like? or, How does that system function?
The second is: How can it be created it today?
People I grew up are spitting babies out one after the other. But having an insurmountable number of babies to outnumber (in voting presumably) the irrationally raised and planned for doesn't seem to be a good plan (if that is what is being said). The next generation would just be the next generation of people living in a corrupted system.
Not to be redundant but, the first question is: What does that system look like? or, How does that system function? The second is how can it be created it today?
If such a system were established, then rights would be impervious to voting and the next generation wouldn't need to outnumber statists.




Post 22

Wednesday, October 16 - 6:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Paul,

I think about how such a system could be created all the time.

Let me first explain my understanding of the current US government system.

Problem: The elite bankers & political class:
1. The privileged banks (Federal Reserve & its friends) get to print new money (stealing market purchasing power from existing savers of that money) and then use it to exchange for whatever they want.
2. They (the privileged banks) stay in power via swaying the masses to vote for their bought out political candidates through their media campaigns. Free market candidates aren't really able to compete against the money printers in spending for campaigns and swaying the masses of fools. See the smear campaign vs Ron Paul.
3. The elite bankers and political class aren't all really capable intelligent people, many of them just rise through the ranks due to their willingness to be puppets and maintain the existing system. Some fortunate random members of the dumb masses rise to the top.

Solution: Gold, silver, and bitcoin are excellent limited supply monies that prevent inflation abuse. Gold and silver are more vulnerable to theft and are harder to identify and transport than bitcoin. I'm really really really excited about bitcoin.

Problem: The horde of parasites:
1. Masses of people (parasites) who would rather redistribute wealth from the productive than work and trade themselves for greater prosperity. They outnumber the productive and beat the productive in majority wins voting
2. Parasites vote for wealth redistribution through income taxation, unnecessary regulation overhead jobs, and tort/responsibility swap lawsuits. DEA workers are an excellent example of unnecessary regulation overhead jobs.

Solution: I think voting for government representatives and policies should work more like a business. Voting power should be directly correlated with ownership of shares of the government. Then productive members of society run things rather than the horde of parasites.

=============

In order for such an entity to come into existence I've got the following plan:

1. Create a philosophy and governing methodology for a new city & city's citizens.
2. Either create a new city somewhere, or find cities that want to adopt #1.
3. Move to such a city, contribute to its growth.
4. Due to success of city, city expands locally and begins establishing new colonies.
5. As city's power increases, city become more independent of external control.

==============

"Now suppose we had a system impervious to being changed in any way to something that was ever anything but completely free."

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" (attributed to Edmund Burke)

Reality changes. Even if at one point producers begin enforcing a capitalist political system, they must continue to enforce restitution and retribution justices in order to maintain the system.

Now let me explain something I thought up about living here in reality. The thing is... you need control of resources in order to flourish. Such is called ownership.
1. Now lets say that a man is very productive and creates a lot of useful resources which are then controlled by him.
2. Now lets say that there are lots of poor men who are not very productive at all, in fact they are barely making it by. They have very very little saved resources. They are unable to hold jobs because they have low physical or mental performance that prevents them from being productive enough to make it worthwhile for someone to hire them.

The poor men have very little to nothing to lose in attempting to steal from the productive saver, and in many cases may have game theory expected gain from attempting to steal.

The productive saver has nothing to gain from interacting with the poor man. All he can do is try to make it the case that the poor man decides there would be a game theory expected loss resulting from attempting to steal from him.

Social freedom issues are not as much of a concern to me, because there isn't really all that much financial incentive in enforcing most government laws that encroach upon social freedom. The drug, gambling, and prostitution restrictions don't affect me that much. I guess one issue here is "anti-money laundering laws"... I think its a huge security risk for individuals and corporations to be forced to report their financial/trade transactions to exterior entities (out of sight out of mind). I don't think a government should be permitted to know the financial standing of it citizens. It should only know how many government voting shares each citizens owns.

So anyways, at an individual level, how do we make others expect that they'd have a net loss if they attempt to steal from us? We individually enforce restitution and in the case of lack of repayment we retaliate eye-for-an-eye.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 10/16, 6:53pm)




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, October 16 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

You say that "...happiness/contentness(sic)/pleasure results from a life form identifying that one of its goals is being accomplished." And you say that "most humans do have the primary goal of reproduction whether they realize it rationally or not."

You really believe that people have a primary goal that they don't even realize they have? Someone could watch my actions, and infer some of my goals, and people sometimes act to achieve goals they hold subconciously, but if I don't consciously have the goal of reproducing, and never attempt to reproduce, then how in the world can you say that I have reproduction as a primary goal? That makes no sense.
----------------

You said, "...non-reproducing members must accomplish the goal of assisting their relatives in reproducing, otherwise they (or those relatives) cease to exist in future generations due to the competition consuming all of the limited food/energy." Dean, I've got to say it. You've gone of the deep end on this reproduction stuff. You are talking about humans as if we were all a part of the Borg or something. I have a duty to help my brothers, nephews and nieces to make babies? That's wacky. And the reason I'm to be pressed into service as a breeder's assistant is to prevent, what, the genes of those relatives from not showing up in the future? Like that should be my primary goal? And somehow it is about competition consuming all the limited food/energy?
-----------------

I feel like someone else is using Dean's computer to write these posts I'm answering. There is no hint of Objectivism in those arguments. What have you done with the real Dean? (Now, in contrast, post #22, just above - that sounds like Dean.)



Post 24

Wednesday, October 16 - 9:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
People have goals they don't realize when they act by emotion rather than reason. For example maybe someone would look at another and feel like they'd like to have sex with 'em, and the other just might feel the same way back, and then wammo they do it and feel good while doing it... all without logical reason, all just by instinct. But yea I'd agree that some people don't have the primary goal of reproduction: it might be a lesser goal, or a non-goal. Genetic variation, nutrition/environment, parenting/teaching, and self-making all influence a person's goal hierarchy.

I didn't say it would be your duty to help others raise their children. I'm saying it would be virtuous to help your friends raise their children. I'm saying that to do so would bring most people happiness (deduced from natural selection pressures on pleasure triggers).



Post 25

Wednesday, October 16 - 10:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
I didn't say it would be your duty to help others raise their children. I'm saying it would be virtuous to help your friends raise their children.
What you said was, ... such non-reproducing members must accomplish the goal of assisting their relatives in reproducing... [empahsis mine]

"must" usually means "duty."
----------
...maybe someone would look at another and feel like they'd like to have sex with 'em, and the other just might feel the same way back, and then wammo they do it and feel good while doing it... all without logical reason, all just by instinct.
We don't have instincts. We have urges. We have hungers. We have feelings. We have emotions. We have automatic physiological reflexes. But we don't have instincts. Instincts are automatic or inborn knowledge and that just doesn't exist.

People know what they are doing when they carry out a series of actions that lead to and include having sex. That is, they know what actions they are taking. They know they are undoing buttons, unzipping, etc., and they have the option of examining the consequences and the various contexts of those actions... if they choose to. We always have bunches of signals coming in every second that are choice points. We can only act on our emotions by choosing to not let any thinking interfere - that's a required choice. What is accurate to say is that people often choose to follow emotions by avoiding and evading any contrary thoughts, and ignoring every small choice point... even though they know (at a deeper level) that they aren't being logical.



Post 26

Wednesday, October 16 - 11:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I made an if ... then ... statement with a premises that contains a goal and the conclusion contains the must. Do you disagree with the logic? Or do you not have the premise goal?

If one wants one's friends/relatives (and lots of your genes that you have in common with them) to continue to exist through the future, then one must do things to benefit their success and help in child rearing. Subsets of species that have good portions of their population that don't do this lose out in the competition of the survival of the fittest, and their genes that differentiate them cease to exist.

If you don't want that, then its not a must for you.

========

Urges, hungers, feelings, emotions, reflexes... how are those not automatic inborn or not by design? Do you deny that a human's DNA, which is a sequence of over 3 billion base pairs, each of which can be one of four symbols (4^3,000,000,000 possible combinations of symbols at that length) doesn't have any information? Do you claim that such information doesn't influence thoughts or behaviors... even though it is what builds the neural net and chemical receptor systems and sensory systems of the body and is contained by every cell and every cell including neurons use DNA to create proteins that control all sorts of ongoing processes in cells including neural connection weights and neural connection design?

I'd agree that humans are much less controlled by instincts and much more self made than other species... but to deny instinct in humans all together... you are trying to separate a thinking process from a physical real computing system. There is no soul that "exists" independently of the body. The human body, particularly the neural network, is a physical computational machine. Biological entities such as cellular organisms are machines -- just very complex ones. We do include practically random information generators. We can change ourselves, particularly us humans. But we still start from our initial design at conception... with all sorts of automatic/instinctual processes that we perform.

My months old child cries when he is very hungry. Do you deny that such a "reflex" is part of his design (his DNA)?

Most adult males can be completely sidetracked from whatever work/thoughts they were doing on the sight of a healthy naked woman. But they don't get sidetracked so easily on the sight of a flower (healthy naked plant genitals). Do you deny that such a "reflex" is part of a man's design (his DNA)?



Post 27

Wednesday, October 16 - 11:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

No, I do not have the goal of seeing this or that person's DNA continue on into the future - not even my relatives. That strikes me as a strange kind of tribalism. And I need to point out that you went beyond talking about it as a purely optional goal - you called it a virtue. How is my self-interest furthered by increasing the copies of DNA of my relatives offspring in the future?

You seem to be very focused on genes. We humans have moved to memes and to individual choices. Both of these run circles around genetic evolution. I support the ideas that I value, and I support friends, relatives, or even strangers, to the degree that we value the same core ideas (not genes). Fighting for people based upon genes seems almost racist. I could have relatives that I detest because of their character and ideas, and I could have considerable fondness for people whose genes are very different from mine, but who have character traits and ideas I admire.
----------------

I didn't deny reflexes, hungers, urges, sensations, emotions, or feelings.

And I didn't deny that our entire biological being is a product of DNA. But we have minds, we make choices, and we form concepts.

I did deny instincts in humans. Read that article by Branden on instincts and I'm sure you'll find that you are thinking of something else - not instincts.




Post 28

Thursday, October 17 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think "instinct" is abused as a deterministic rationalization for action without reason such as mindless sex.



Post 29

Thursday, October 17 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, I agree.



Post 30

Thursday, October 17 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
I think we're in the same camp here let's iron out a plan and start a city. I live in the midwest.




Post 31

Thursday, October 17 - 5:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

I don't mean to say that maybe instinctual behavior can be used as an excuse for behavior. Hm well I guess acting primarily by feeling and little by reason would be similar to acting under the influence of drugs or maybe more exactly like just admitting that oneself is more like an unreasoning animal who is unable to learn new self beneficial behaviors. It would imply that restraint would be an ongoing future requirement due to incompetence vs in a case where a person who acted by more reasoning we'd use restitution & retaliation.

=============

Re: Gene continence, racism

==== Human design, and the strive to create children who have the best design ====

=== Overview ===

The reason why I'm going on about living for gene replication/continence is as I've already said... that's what natural selection selects for. A la natural selection, living beings who feel happy via making reproduction happen will continue to exist through the generations, vs ones that feel dissatisfied about reproducing will not make it to the next generation. Humans are no different in this regard. Since this is such a critical aspect for an entity to survive generations, its highly selective. So it should be clear to you by now that in general life form individuals become more happy if they reproduce. Not that all life forms do become happy from reproduction... there are variations in what makes Every individual happy not just at onset but it changes through time, particularly for humans.

To deny that humans in general gain happiness in reproducing is to deny human nature at its most fundamental level, the level that we share with all life forms. Its true that we gain happiness in ways different than other species due to our particular nature: our reasoning and memory capabilities... but that doesn't mean that at the same time we don't have the more fundamental nature.

But now as for the more romantic realist reason for desiring gene continuance: Encoded our in DNA is the design for our bodies. The design was used to build our bodies from the single cell at conception to the complex multicellular multiorgan reasoning capable neural network systems that we eventually build up to as adults. The design does matter.

Racism by skin color is always such an exciting hate filled topic to debate! Now... isn't it clear that more melanin is better for environments with more UV radiation to protect from folate depletion (or something like that)? For everything in the human body, one could tinker with the design, increase bone density at the expense of flexibility and higher weight; increase brain neuron and connection count at the expense of higher nutritional and immunological and weight problems; increase metabolic rate of all cells to increase speed of everything, but then there are issues with feeding the higher metabolic rate: oxygen & glucose delivery, waste removal, other beneficial molecule delivery, nutrition/energy consumption increases, waste heat/overheating problems, increased demand for water for cooling... there’s just so many ways the design of the human body could be changed to be improved or broken.

Ayn Rand was so passionate about Roark making exceedingly well designed buildings that elegantly succinctly fulfill their owner's purpose. The designs for his buildings were created with expert knowledge and brainstorming and hard work thinking about how new and available materials can be used to make such incredible structures.

In our extant bodies, we can do the best we can with what we have. We can fill our memory full of ideas which are both consistent with reality and useful. We can maintain our health and create external mechanical and biological systems that enhance our DNA built bodies' capabilities. And we can work towards making children who have even better DNA, better designs than us. Doing so makes most humans happy a la natural selection.

=== The process of generating human's design: From random to reasoned generation ===

In the past with life forms of very little rational/computational ability... gene selection for the design of children was extremely primitive/simple. With asexual reproduction, one copied one self’s DNA (or RNA back in the time of RNA world) with a few random alterations and split into two cells. Children with beneficial changes to their design were more successful in gathering resources, maintaining their bodies, and reproducing. Children with critically harmful changes to their design failed to maintain their bodies or reproduce, and their designs were lost as their DNA was broken apart by the environment or predators.

Eventually the functionality for DNA recombination was developed, and then cells met, exchanged DNA, swapped portions of the DNA (genes), and then split new copies of the new combinations (sexual reproduction). Sexual reproduction also includes the random alterations in asexual reproduction.

With asexual reproduction, when different organisms create children with new distinct beneficial genes, there is never the chance that the children could combine their beneficial genes into one organism that has both design improvements. If you draw a "family tree" for the genes, its literally a tree. Sometimes branches can't survive their ecosystem, and all of their awesome designs that they had developed are lost. Its like throwing away a design that had some good features, but a few critical problems. Here with asexual reproduction nothing tries to integrate those good features into another design.

With sexual reproduction, two organisms with different beneficial genes can recombine their DNA to create a child that has both beneficial genes. The children of sexually reproducing parents can benefit from all of the newly discovered designs in the world. Verses asexual children can only benefit from design improvements traced through the many fewer generations of its chain of ancestors.

Now initially sexual partner selection was very primitive. Simple single cellular organisms once in a while would collide and be in the right stage of development and health in order to perform DNA recombination. It was practically random, just like the random changes that were made during asexual reproduction. Children with parents with more good gene designs who were made with better gene combinations were most successful in collection resources, maintaining their bodies, and reproducing. Harmful combinations and less competitive designs with fewer improvements resulted in less success in resource collection, maintenance, and reproduction.

Eventually designs for multicellular organisms with specialized multicell organs were created through the sexual natural selection process. Designs were generated for things like sensors for chemicals, orientation, pressure, and other sensors which enabled the organisms to collect more detailed information around their surroundings. Structures of networks of cells that have chemical and electrical sensors, stimulators, and alterable input responsiveness (memory) enabled information processing. Cells containing materials that shrink or expand due to electrical stimulus enabled movement controlled by the cellular processing network. Organisms with such features were then able to collect detailed information about potential sexual reproduction candidates and save their resources for child development with only mates that have maximized magnitudes for sensor input of hard coded images that indicate health. Such images were first developed through the process of random selection. Designs that created better comparison images resulted in organisms that were better at judging the health of potential mates. So now organisms with these features are able to reject spending resources on making children with potential sexually viable mates that have poor health (correlated with poor design). Instead now they can choose the best mates they can identify.

Now we have humans. Humans are capable of processing vast amounts of detailed information. We have humongous neural networks compared to our body size, and AFAIK no other species spends as high of a proportion of their energy and resources on processing information as we do. With our eyes we can see detailed images of potential mates' bodies. We can reason about features on the skin to determine all sorts of implications on how healthy the person is. We can watch potential mates' actions over time and determine their ability to collect resources and manage harmful situations. We can determine both ability and ambition. We can remember thousands of potential mates and compare them all and select the one with the most attractive overall features. And then mate with the one with the best features. And all of such features are highly correlated with design, which is encoded in each person's DNA. So now with humans, we can do better than select our mates by happen chance of collision in an aqueous solution. We can select our mates by evidence based reasoning in order to select the mate that would have DNA that would recombine with ours to result in maximum design function, efficiency, etc!

We've built digital computers to extend our brain's computational abilities. Now we have began designing new genes (via vast reality prediction algorithms to compare and select good designs) to build new biological systems to improve both external organisms and even our own DNA. Directly altering our own DNA and biological processes via reasoned design is the ultimate awesome ending of this story of generation of human design from random to reasoned.

=== Back to our discussion: racism, making babies, and optimal philosophy ===

In this I am not promoting racism. Its not like I'm saying "All people who have dark skin or brown eyes should be shot". I'm saying we should work towards creating humans with better designs. I'm saying there is variation of designs between every human, and some have better designs than others. Even those who do not have the best designs overall may very well have sub-components that are better than comparable components in the overall best. Determining which designs are best is not easy since reality is so complex its impossible to make perfect predictions of how well each design would do given impossible to predict future contexts. I'd like skin that can quickly adapt to guard itself and internal organs from electromagnetic radiation and even collect the energy for use, that’s more impermeable to punctures and biological & chemical attack, that has high bandwidth electromagnetic I/O for wearable brain computer interfaces.

Why might you encourage your daughter to take the successful self made businessman and high school athletic & academic record breaker... rather than the 35 year old man down
the street who lives with his mother, has a stray eye, has OCD, has clubbed feet, has nail fungus on all of his fingers, has skin rash, is completely bald, has weird lumps under his skin, etc. Or throw a lottery with men's names in a hat, and whichever one paper you grab is the one. Or have her take a blind-folded run on a busy sidewalk, and whatever man she bumps into first, choose him. No! You will think of everything about every man you have ever met and all of your life's experiences and predictions of the future, try to think of which man would be the most successful, and beg your daughter to choose him, and hope that he will chose her back. Do the features of such a man's body, his structure, his design, have any influence on your decision, and on his apparent efficiency, ability, and ambition?

Human design matters. I like the best designs for humans, just like the best designs for buildings or railroad bridges. Creating children using components of one's own design (genes) combined with the best other one can find and mate with is naturally selected for as a goal. Pleasure is the identification of matches of sensory input with goals. Mating with the best you can brings one happiness. Assisting those related with you in mating with the best brings one happiness. -- At least as a generality. Natural selection weeds out those who don't.

The most successful philosophy will be one that recognizes these facts, whether Objectivism is compatible with it or not... because these ideas are part of what makes us the best, what makes us human, and what makes us continue to exist. The efficient, capable, and ambitious flourish and the wasting, malfunctioning, and lazy cease to exist.

===
Cheers,
Dean



Post 32

Thursday, October 17 - 5:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Paul,

OK, lets work on step one: Create a philosophy and governing methodology for a new city & city's citizens.

For philosophy, I'm working on that. Objectivism is a great start. For government methodology, again Objectivism has a lot of great ideas although I don't think anyone ever tried to actually make something more practical. I'm kind of working on this too. I'm also thinking about how the city would interact with other city's and governments, and how its citizens can increase their liberty over time. Eventually it would hopefully become something like Hong Kong in China, a special administrative region.

How about this... I'll work independently for a while, and you work independently for a while... and then at some point in the future when we have something that we think seems good, we can share with each other and try to combine our ideas.

We can debate about aspects of the philosophy and how the city government should work here on RoR whenever we have questions or would like others input.

===

On a note for time, I'm actually not doing too well right now, I don't have much time to work on it. I'm busy making money to support my family, trying to start a new business, and then once in a while working on this when I feel the drive/have inspiration.

Cheers,
Dean

Edit: Oh, and a couple of thoughts one the "city"...

1. Well maybe instead of a city it should be an arbitration business. It would work something like: people would become members of the arbitration business and agree to its rules and methods of arbitration. Conflicts between two members would be arbitrated by the business, and conflicts between a member and an external entity would be represented and defended by the business. Such a business wouldn't need a location, and as membership grows it could become powerful enough to do an excellent job defending its members.
2. Maybe due to the potential "singularity" that may happen within the time span over which such a city could be established (~20 years maybe?) and powerful enough to really start being able to defend its citizens like we want... maybe the designs for the most efficient, capable, and ambitious life forms will be advancing so fast that it will render impotent the centralized governments ran by tricksters and mobs of parasites.

But even if #2 is the case, maybe our development of philosophy and government will be useful for future more advanced life forms. Err it could be fun making it before they get to it, even though they'd be able to figure it out way faster and efficiently than us. Maybe it will help us make better decisions along the way!
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 10/17, 6:15pm)




Post 33

Thursday, October 17 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

We disagree on the issue of genes. You have associated happiness with reproducing in ways I never would, and you have given genes a more important place the scheme of things for us humans than I ever would. You are giving genes a very high role in choosing a mate, and are making natural selection's expected results part of your personal goals. I think this is all off the track, counter to much of Objectivism and not the way to go.



Post 34

Friday, October 18 - 4:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean promotes a form of transhumanism which shares some traits of Objectivism, e.g. human-centered ethics, but amounts more to an open system philosophical movement aimed at "fundamentally transforming the human condition" through technologies like genetic engineering.



Post 35

Friday, October 18 - 8:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke, thanks so much in refreshing my mind of the term “Transhumanism”. I do think that is an excellent word that closely describes an aspect of my philosophy. Putting it together with the best part of Objectivism: I'll finally give my philosophy a proper descriptive title other than just “Deanism”: “Objective Transhumanism”!

I did an online search for the phrase “Objective Transhumanism” and I only came up with one hit: “http://site.alienlandscapes.biz/Articles/Objectivist_Transhumanism.html”. It was written by Laurence B. Winn (65 year old aerospace engineer). I think he has some different approaches to things than me, and maybe his meaning of the phrase is not quite the same as mine. Anyways, I don't think he would be bothered by my philosophy being called the same thing... maybe he agrees with me... I'll have to find out.

=========================

Here are some differences between my philosophy and Objectivism:

1. Compatibilism

I believe reality is causal and there are no occurrences of mass/energy disobeying conservation of mass & energy... reality continually changes through a process of reasoned transformations. From the entirety of our reality's perspective, from one moment to the next there are no true random events, the previous moment in time implies what will become next through reality's physical laws.

Never the less, since reality has so much stuff going on, its impossible for entities within reality to observe all of reality and then compute what will happen next, so for practical purposes there is random (non-predictable) events and extants.

This worldview is compatibilistic: Reality is deterministic and humans determine their own choices. Humans are a subset of reality. To deny that reality's process doesn't determine its next moments future also denies that a human can determine his choices.

The reason why we keep going back to the debate on whether reality is deterministic is: Steve disagrees with me on this point, and this point is a dependency for understanding where goals come from. Might I re-iterate here that my philosophy doesn't conclude that since reality is deterministic that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions.

Steve, please answer me this: Where do your goals come from? Why do you choose to work towards any goal in the first place? Why chose one over another, where does the preference come from? If there is no preference between two, then how does one of the two become selected?

Whether we ever come to agreement or not... thanks for the debate Steve. Its very much helped me develop my philosophy. I think we are still friends due to synergy of our goals.

2. Meta-ethic and transhuman focused ethics

My philosophy is meta-ethic. It doesn't prescribe what an entity's goals should be. But it does recognize as existing the various extant goals and ethical systems extant today and historically. It also describes an ethical system based on the goals that natural selection selects for (since it is the goal system that is approached and optimized via natural selection of which all life forms have in common). It also recognizes that each life form is unique, having a different goal system through both inherited design (intact gene transfer from parents) and dynamically self/environment altered/made (gene recombination, random DNA alterations, effects of environment on body build and current condition, and self directed alterations both structurally in the classical sense and in the information processing memory/computational machine design sense).

Furthermore it goes on to discover the collection of useful strategies that life forms with the highest capacity of sensory, computational/reasoning, memory, athletic, and other abilities would use to accomplish the primary naturally selected goals. Then people who do have the primary naturally selected goals as their primary goals will be more successful in attaining their goals since the philosophy has in it already discovered plans that help such goal attainment.

The purpose of recognizing and explaining other common ethical systems is to gain the ability to predict the behavior of their practitioners. Due to its meta-ethic, even people who are enemies due to goal conflicts would both benefit from the philosophy. They would be able to gain from understanding themselves and others and the current state of reality and physics, and then be able to perform many already discovered plans that help their goal attainment. This is an unfortunate side effect to the author: improving the goal attainment of people who's goals are in conflict with his.

In short this comes down to two differences between my philosophy and Objectivism. Objectivism tells you “You should live like a man since some men can live in this way verses animals live that way”. Objectivism then focuses on helping men live happy lives within their lifespan, given the inducted classification of the differentiation of men to animals. This is what Ed Thompson works on :). Verses my philosophy doesn't tell you what you should do. Instead my philosophy says “If you want this in this context, then the best plan/strategy we've found so far to attain the goal is this.” Then instead of just focusing on a man's lifespan, my philosophy recognizes that happiness results not just by being concerned about one's own lifespan, but in extending that concern through the continued generations of lifespans into the infinite future, to be more explicitly consistent with natural selection's goal selection and be useful not just for current humans but for our tranhuman future. The abilities and knowledge of humans today are vastly more efficient and capable than humans in Ayn Rand's lifespan.

Comparing my philosophy to Subjectivism, I agree that without first having a goal, there is no way to evaluate whether one goal/ethical system is better than another. Yet at the same time, we can compare goals/ethical systems to the goals/ethical systems that are developed by natural selection, and we can decide which ethical system is most consistent with what is being developed by natural selection. Objectivism is has the goal system for man as described by Rand and Ed Thompson. My philosophy encompasses Objectivism's goal system, but goes beyond this to also encompass the ethical systems of all life forms including transhumans. In Subjectivism, the practitioners conclude that goals and ethical systems are arbitrarily selected, that morality is chaotic and that men have all conflicting interests, where one man's goals/actions cannot be judged as better than another, and that there isn't really any way to say which one is the best. In Objectivism, the practitioners conclude that due to man's nature, men should live a particular way in order to be happy/successful, and that men who realize this in most real life scenarios have harmony of interest. In my philosophy, the practitioners identify design and information content imply a life form should live a particular way in various contexts in order to be happy/successful, and that some life forms hence have harmony of interest and some don't, but we all generally have design and information content that is generally selected by the process of natural selection and the processes of reality (self-determined yet also altered by environment).


Cheers,
Dean



Post 36

Monday, October 21 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,
I have thought of a better way since 1997 but for me I don't have any career to get started. In the mean time there are other things I've thought of because it is not like the saying goes, "Build it and they will come."
What I mean by that is a new governing methodology could be thought of as a new technology. With that in mind, imagine if the new technology were 'a better mouse trap'. An inventor would simply use material for the base of the trap and forge the gizmo comprising the trap mechanism and could proceed to market it to an inventor.
A new governing 'technology' however presupposes people to be governed.
How do you show a system works unless they are within the system in the first place?
There are few tried and failed ways to this.
1.) A democratic take over effort like the tea party. (Democratic take overs only word in the reverse effort to conquer a society - not the other way around.)
2. Local groups banning together. ('Banning together' fails to address what is the actual problem. In other words, assume some group of people self segregate themselves from the rest of the country and the rest of the country did, in fact, end. What would this new group do differently so politicians in their system did not eventually destroy them by the same means? This is not addressed by just 'banning together.' I've asked many people from these types of groups and there is no real answer.)
If I read you right Dean, this is also your goal.
What about persuading people to try a different governing method and, then, these people ban together?
This may sound like a good idea but it is actually not possible.
Consider this about theorizing.....
Einstein couldn't convince scientists gravity bending light until he predicted and explained why Mercury was appears where it does coming from behind the sun.....
College professors said flying was impossible until the Wright brothers did. Then, then, the same people -- the same people said, "Oh that works because of laws and principles of aerodynamics and aviation. Of course airplanes can fly; I knew it all the time!"
Experts said, "There is no use for a radio." Even after radio's success people asked, "Why would anyone want a T.V.?"
There are many other examples. Theory removed from any empirical reference isn't even truth. Reality needs to be point out and demonstrated while simultaneously being explained by theory.
But again how do you show a system works unless they are within the system in the first place? (There is a real catch 22 here.) The new product is the policy they live under. (Democratically voting a new system into law is a waste of time; democracy is the rule of the stupid. Democracy works out to do the opposite it takes rights away.)
I'm sure you've heard of the bell shaped curve graphed out of new ideas between innovators/early adaptors and late adaptors/laggards. The key difference between the innovators and the others -- even the early adaptors is the innovators (in this case the actual inventor) visualise an idea without a working model in sight (i.e. a governing idea). Again, that difference exists between the innovator (here the actual inventor) and all others, including the very, very, earliest of early first adaptors.
Again, there is no new system government if there is no governed. Without governed there is no working model to be viewed by the earliest of early adaptors; the same working, functioning model necessary for the next level of adaptation and acceptance by people who hate freedom and refuse to vote for it in the first place.
I think my next step needs to be an actual tangible project.




Post 37

Monday, October 21 - 1:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What would this new group do differently so politicians in their system did not eventually destroy them by the same means?
3 ways: 1. Voting power should be directly weighted by shares of ownership of a government. Government shouldn't be tied to some area of land where anybody who is born within its bounds automatically gets the same say as per-existing citizens. 2. Promotion of more distributed justice: individuals/businesses/sub-governments shouldn't rely on encapsulating governments to bring justice, otherwise the encapsulating governments will be powerful enough to victimize its constituents. From individuals up to the highest level of government we should promote the ethics of ensuring restitution and retribution. So for example, an individual shouldn't depend on his state to bring justice if his neighbor breaks his window and steals his TV. If the neighbor breaks your window and steals your TV, and the state doesn't help, then you break your neighbors window, take your tv back, and defecate on his welcome mat. Same goes for encapsulating government initiations of force against individuals, businesses, and more local governments. 3. Donations and charity are generally really bad. Resources should almost never be given to people who haven't earned it. If you give resources to leaches or parasites, they will multiply and eat you alive!

I argue that the economic downfall of the USA from 1900 to present is primarily due to the combo of #1 and #3, although #2 definitely is a factor. The ethics of Christianity significantly hinder the actualization of #3. On #2: consider what might have happened if the South won the Civil War?

I agree with your thoughts on inventors and early adopters. In history, generally such as what we are proposing was implemented by taking advantage of the frontier. For example, America's roots of capitalism and success was driven by early adopters who wanted to move to new lands and create a better life for themselves there. Unfortunately they didn't set up a system that would last.

On the subject of frontier, the Earth has been explored. People now live pretty much everywhere that is habitable, and its all controlled by modern governments, some places the governments are more powerful than others. Potentially we could try to establish the city somewhere like Chile (Sovereign Man). Or integrate into Singapore (Jim Rogers. One issue is that it seems like for more intelligent people to be very productive, they need to be in or near a major city (like Dallas, TX, that's where I currently live). So establishing a new city to our liking would probably grow faster if it was near a major city. But from the frontier perspective... there isn't much desirable land left on Earth. So now human kind is slowly switching from frontier/expansion mode to caged/balancing numbers mode.

=====

To give you some pointers on where to go, how about:
- Define what kind of money should be used, how banks should work, how defaults should be handled
- Define how incompetent people should be handled: who is responsible for their care? How should responsibility be transferred from one citizen to another? This should handle children, mentally & physically handicapped, and retirees. Should handle abuse, neglect, education, food, shelter, etc.
- Define how cases of force initiation should be handled. Who pays for the investigation? Who pays for the trial? What kind of methods should be used to determine extent of incapacitation, restitution, and retaliation? Who pays for the incapacitation, restitution, and retaliation services?
- If it is a government that has established land area control, how should land be used and ownership be allocated? What about land use disputes, like if most of the population wants a road that goes from A to B, but someone who's house is on the path doesn't want the road?

Cheers,
Dean



Post 38

Tuesday, October 22 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was just thinking... one requirement for ownership of the government/voting rights should be the vow: "The decisions I make in the role of government will be fully made by: my own mind based entirely on my long term interests, evidence I've personally witnessed, and logic I've personally performed. My decisions will not be influenced by ideas merely based on faith, hope, or what others have said."

Obama Movement<->Hope is just like Priest<->Faith.

Cheers,
Dean



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Thursday, October 24 - 4:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Paul,

Voting on government policy & representatives shouldn't be anonymous. Voters are the primary decision makers of government. Government deals with the use of force. If government initiates force, then the members of government should know who was responsible. Hence records of which members of the government voted what should be available to members.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.