If I'm not an Objectivist, what am I?

Ed, "conclusively-justified true belief" is when the defeasor arguments have themselves been defeated, as I stated in the previous post. I learned this lesson first here, and then from other sources, easier to understand, but saying the same thing.

Post 41

Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 4:35pm

Curtis,

(Re #37)

Try thinking of "Bayesianism" as a sort of mental martial art... and try to imagine that the definition of 'virtue' used as a technical term by Objectivism isn't the entire meaning of the word. The twelve virtues described on the link aren't supposed to be the /only/ twelve virtues, but are meant as ways to help you improve your rational thinking. Nothing New Agey about it, any more than learning how to apply Jujutsu for self-defense is New Agey.

Ed,

(Re #38)

> but this statement above implies a primacy of
> consciousness,

No, only that it can be difficult for a questioner to dissociate themself from a set of questions in a topic close to their heart enough to have a /truly/ objective questionnaire rather than a questionnaire they only /think/ is objective. There are some well-practiced methods to help remove unconscious questioner bias, and it would be well worth your while to read up on them - you can probably find it somewhere under 'statistics', depending on where you look.

> Another appeal to omniscience as the standard of
> knowledge?

You raise this point at least three times... and I think it comes from one or more misconceptions you may be under about Bayesian theory. I'm not really sure whether I'm the best to explain it to an Objectivist in Objectivist terms, since, as has been demonstrated, I understand Objectivism less well than I thought I did.

Hm, let's try a parallel, to give you an idea of the /level/ of mistake you're making. Your misunderstanding of Bayesianism is approximately the same magnitude as if I were to suggest (which I'm not) that since Objectivism says the universe is objective, then everything has an objective value in and of itself. It's a completely understandable mistake to be made, but it's still a mistake that makes those who understand the topic better grit their teeth in frustration.

>>> The difference between your view and the Objectivist one
>>> is made clear here. Daniel, can you tell me how would
>>> you get natural evidence (the only kind humans have) of
>>> the supernatural?

>> Pick a particular supernatural claim, and I can give
>> a better answer.

> God exists. Now, how would you use science to prove that?

"I wouldn't - science doesn't prove, it just disproves." Ahem.

Not to be snarky, but which God are you referring to, and more importantly, what attributes is that God claimed to possess? Zeus? Vishnu? The Great Manitou? Or, most likely, the God of Abraham? Specific claims are generally made about such gods - in particular, in how they interact with the universe and mortals. Such claims are what makes a particular God-hypothesis testable; http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ is an investigation of one power claimed to be held by God.

> This "frequency distribution" theory is not a good theory
> of knowledge

And here is rather firm evidence that you /don't/ understand Bayesian theory, which is specifically and emphatically /not/ about frequencies. I've offered a link to an introduction on Bayesian theory, and I'll offer it again: http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes . If you're not willing to read even that, then there isn't much more I can do to help you learn and understand Bayesianism.

> Another way to say this is that you can't integrate your
> knowledge (including estimates of when the sun burns out,
> etc), you just have to count things as if the human mind
> were an abacus.

That's kind of the /opposite/ of the point I was making, which, I'll try to rephrase, is that /if/ the only information you have is the number of times the sun has risen, then that formula applies. If you have more information, then the /full/ Bayesian theory (described in the above link) applies, and tells you how strongly you should believe a particular proposition given a given amount of evidence.

> This makes truth into a popularity contest; even if it's
> a contest among scholars.

The scientific consensus on a topic is, in general, the best source of information on that subject; http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-change-summary-position-part-ii.html (and the related posts in that blog) describe why better than I could myself.

> How about if I compare how sure I am about this to
> whether a pencil will drop when I let go of it -- is that
> a good standard?

Maybe. Here, I'll let go of a pencil myself...

... now isn't that interesting - it didn't drop at all.

Can you imagine why that might be? :)

> Please use your hands to type out what the Bayesian
> probability is that you exist.

Your challenge contains insufficient data to complete. Like value-judgements in Objectivism, Bayesian probability isn't an absolute number; Bayesian probabilities about the same premises vary from individual to individual. I can't tell you what some sort of 'absolute' Bayesian probability on my existence is; the best I could do would be to suggest what a /particular person's/ Bayesian probability for my existence would be.

Post 42

Sunday, December 27, 2009 - 8:12pm

Daniel,

> This "frequency distribution" theory is not a good theory
> of knowledge

And here is rather firm evidence that you /don't/ understand Bayesian theory, which is specifically and emphatically /not/ about frequencies ...

That's b.s..

I understand Bayes' theorem, but you brought up the example of the sun rising, and you qualified it so that it became mere counting (frequency) -- yet now you pretend as if you did not say what you did. You're mentioning your example alongside of Bayes' theorem, and then an attack on your example is made into an attack on Bayes' theorem. That** is shifty.

You're being dishonest.

Ed

**Known as the "Bait-n-Switch", this kind of a deception is common in retail where customers are lured into the store based on marketing for a particular item, only to discover that it is another (usually a familiar) item, in disguise. Another version is to advertise for something new even if you do not have it, and then to switch the hoodwinked customers onto the product that you do happen to carry (after fraudulently getting them to invest their time and energy to come into the store).
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/28, 5:23am)

Post 43

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 1:00am

I have no idea what "Bayesianism" is. I've been reading the posts between you and Ed, and trying to steer clear of looking up the definition because I'm not good at math, and I don't comprehend the purpose of that particular argument between you.

Try thinking of "Bayesianism" as a sort of mental martial art... and try to imagine that the definition of 'virtue' used as a technical term by Objectivism isn't the entire meaning of the word. The twelve virtues described on the link aren't supposed to be the /only/ twelve virtues, but are meant as ways to help you improve your rational thinking. Nothing New Agey about it, any more than learning how to apply Jujutsu for self-defense is New Agey.

The definition of virtue that I quoted is the entire meaning of the word. It is that which is used to gain or to keep a value. If you value Bayesianism, you will find the proper virtue to help you keep it (or gain it.) Those 12 "virtues" are nothing more than dogma, the way they were written; pop-culture-ish and certainly nothing to live by. It might be good to remember them when necessary, but they are not, properly speaking, sub-virtues of the virtue called "reason", at least not in my book. I was laughing at them more than appreciating them, and contain more than a few fallacies, not the least of which, as I said, is that using any one of them at the wrong time is no virtue. Using reason at all times is virtue. It is the only thing guaranteed to keep or gain something of value, even if you have to back up your reason with defensive force. But it was reason, and not necessarily one of those dogmatic "12 virtues" that you used before using force. You need not even ever use any of those "12 virtues." There's about 6 or 7 I wouldn't even consider using.

Post 44

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 6:12am

Ed (Re #42),

I'm occasionally be an idiot, but I do my absolute best to be honest. Even from a purely short-term self-interest point-of-view, whatever benefits might accrue from lying to gain some points in an online discussion are far outweight by the benefits of having a reputation for honesty.

That said, I think I've figured out where I happened to be an idiot. I mistook your use of the word 'frequency' as referring to a particular variant interpretation of the Bayesian equation, in which the results are seen as a prediction-frequncy rather than a level of belief; rather than, as I now see, simply referring to the 'frequency' of the inputs to Laplace's equation rather than the outputs. My mistake, and I apologize for it.

Curtis (Re #43),

As I said a few posts ago, I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, only to explain as well as I can (in my admittedly clumsy-worded way) my own beliefs so that you can /understand/ them even while disagreeing with them, and, mirror-wise, learn of yours.

That said... are you saying that when someone else uses the word 'virtue' with a definition other than the one you use, that they are wrong? Or, put another way, that your dictionary is the only correct one, and that it is impossible for the word 'virtue' to be used to refer to anything other than what you have defined it as meaning?

And, just out of curiosity, for the Twelve Virtues essay, which /are/ the 6 or 7 you "wouldn't even consider using", and what /would/ you consider doing with the remainder?

Post 45

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 8:14am

As I stated earlier, Objectivism rests on the Correspondence Theory of Truth. I stated a couple of pieces of that theory, one of them in Rand's own words, the other in Aristotle's.

Another piece of it has to do with definitions and the way they "correspond" to truth. But what is truth according to "correspondence"?

a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). link Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So, the truth of a definition lies in what portion of reality you wish to ascribe to the word, and what characteristics of reality you wish to ascribe. "Red" and "orb" and "juicy" all refer to an apple, or to many other things, but in this case we will choose "apple." These "characteristic relations (to be specified" Rand called "the nature of the units subsumed under a concept." Many different "natures" can be subsumed; as with apple we have three that I've listed. Rand also wrote this:

The units of a concept were differentiated�by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s)�from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a Conceptual Common Denominator. A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated.

You and I are using different CCDs. We get to these, she said, this way:

Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: �X is: one or more of the things which it is.� The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset.

The absolute essence of a concept will contain the largest reduction in the pattern. As an example, when asked what was the essence of the concept "man", Plato said "featherless, upright biped." This describes our newest ancient relative, ardipithecus, whose brain was half the size of ours and who lived 4.5 million years ago.

Aristotle, on the other hand, reduced the pattern until he got "rational animal" (as we modern English speakers translate it.)

Now, you can take the reduction in the pattern of CCDs to get to the concept that

"'Value' is that which one acts to gain and keep, 'virtue' is the action by which one gains and keeps it." link

Or you can go for a rigid, unbending, dogmatic list of things someone calls virtues. Because that list resembles "virtue ethics", I probably would not stop to think of anything on the list, which is why I would not use them. I wouldn't give the list anymore time of day than I already did. Virtue ethics are not virtuous, and cannot be called "ethics" when they are predetermined outside of a context. Nothing on that list is contextual to what may happen to me tomorrow when I leave the house. I may have to violate every one of them in order to remain virtuous--if by virtuous I mean gaining and/or keeping something of value.

Post 46

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 8:44am

Curtis,

Am I understanding you right, in that your objection to the Twelve Virtues is primarily in that they are meant to apply to the particular circumstances of making one's mental map more closely correspond to reality, rather than being universal enough to apply in all circumstances? Or is part of your objection that you are interpreting the list as implying that those are the /only/ twelve virtues, rather than twelve of a larger list? Or have I missed the main thrust of your point entirely?

Post 47

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 9:41am

I think you missed my point entirely. Virtue ethics are not

primarily [ ] meant to apply to the particular circumstances of making one's mental map more closely correspond to reality [nor are they] universal enough to apply in all circumstances.

It is the "relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified)" that makes it more closely resemble reality, each to his own mental capabilities to extract those specifications. If you can see such a relational property to some portion of reality in one or more of those listed virtues, then by all means apply your capacity to observe that rational relationship, and use the specified virtue.

As for implying those 12 are exhaustive, I would never do. The list of virtues is totally inexhaustible, because what one applies to a portion of reality for the purpose of acting to gain or keep a value ought not be limited. The only limitation is on whether or not one initiates force to accomplish that act of gaining or keeping.

Someone in another forum entirely somewhere else on the internet asked, "Is there a better standard for morality than the line from the Wiccan Rede 'An ye harm none, do as ye will'?" While I do not advocate the Wiccan religion, that dictum sounds pretty objective to me.

Post 48

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 10:13am

Curtis,

Maybe I'm just having a slow day, but I'm /sure/ I'm not properly understanding your last post. Do you think you might be able to rephrase "relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified)", and your related comment, into something a little closer to everyday English? 'Relational property' simply isn't being parsed by my mind into anything coherent at all.

Post 49

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 10:41am

A "relational property" might be that an apple is "round" when discussing the predicates of fruit. That said, Plato was not wrong to say man was "featherless, upright, and biped," but he missed the reductive pattern that got to the "portion of reality that was specified" to be man's essence.

Those 12 virtues of yours apply to the "portion of reality that is specified" only when they properly match the characteristic relation involved between the value to be gained or kept, and the action necessary to gain or keep it. Otherwise, they are worthless. Or just fun to discuss. But being fun to discuss doesn't make them "relationally characteristic" of any portion of reality. As I said, tomorrow I might have to violate every one of them.

(Edited by Curtis Edward Clark on 12/28, 10:46am)

Post 50

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 3:21pm

Mr. Boese:
Are you beginning to understand that to be an Objectivist you must think like one? To think like one you must use the Correspondence Theory of Truth; and this theory, when used to reduce the pattern of "distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units" will get you to the metaphysical essence of the relation to reality. It is by this method that Ayn Rand is able to say:

I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason.

The concepts of capitalism and egoism are "one or more of the things of which [reason] is". (See "Truth" in the Lexicon.) But in the pattern of reducing the given existents by a pattern of correspondence with specified characteristic relationships to some portion of reality, she reduced one to the next to the last. It was in this way that she reduced her philosophy to its basics:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-interest
Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. �Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed� or �Wishing won�t make it so.� 2. �You can't eat your cake and have it, too.� 3. �Man is an end in himself.� 4. �Give me liberty or give me death.� http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivism.html

You consistently find defeasor arguments for everything we say. We in turn tell you what ought to be arguments that defeat your arguments. But until you accept that you are not an Objectivist because you don't think like one, and until you stop trying to defeat our arguments and listen to what we tell you, perhaps proving you have listened by giving your own attempt at Objectivist thinking rather than what you are used to, only then will you begin to understand. Only then will you begin to stop offering arguments to our explanations of the things you ask us to explain.

Obviously we are trying to help you understand. But your need to defeat what we say to you is not consistent with the Correspondence Theory of Truth as it pertains to Objective Reality. Utilitarianism, if that is what you are, is not objective.

Post 51

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 8:39pm

Curtis,

Just a quick reply before I get to sleep.

I've recently unchecked the 'Objectivist' tag in my profile. (I might add 'vulgar empiricist', if I can decide which box to put it...)

The four numbered items you describe in post #50 are, it seems, the short version of the same items at ImportanceOfPhilosophy.com. I seem to agree, at least in general principle, with the way IOP.com describes metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. However, I seem to disagree, at least in part, that what IOP.com describes for item #4, politics, is necessarily always the best way of going about things to achieve the goals of item #3, ethics.

Until this point, I have been trying to describe rationales that would be accepted by the other forumites here, that would explain how my divergent opinions in the political sphere are, in fact, just as rational as the viewpoint described in IOP.com, and also able to be derived from the other three philosophical layers. But, since the opinion of the forumites here seems to be fairly universal that it's impossible for my political opinions to be compatible with Objectivism, there is no more need for me to try to demonstrate any such compatibility.

I happen to think that the Bayesian approach I'm currently using is the best form of rational thinking I've yet come across (and I expect to refine my understanding and application thereof in the future). You, presumably, happen to think that the version of Objectivism you currently believe in is, mirror-wise, the best form of rational thinking you've yet to come across. You seem unwilling in learning more about Bayesian logic, so it would probably be futile for me to try to force you to learn what you're uninterested in, so I'll just leave the links I posted above to yudkowsky.net stand as a way for you to start learning about it if you ever wish to.

About all that leaves as a possible purpose for this thread is for me to learn more about Objectivism - that is, to expand on what I've already learned about Objectivism from IOP.com. I think I understand the version of Objectivism described there reasonably well - enough that I've been able to explain various aspects of it to others. Just remember, though, that /understanding/ is not the same as /agreeing/.

That's about all that comes to my mind just now - hopefully, I'll be able to be more coherent come the morrow.

Post 52

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 8:45pm

"...so it would probably be futile for me to try to force you to learn what you're uninterested in."

Probably...

Post 53

Monday, December 28, 2009 - 8:51pm

Am I to take it Mr. Boese posts here out of charity?

Post 54

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 1:03am

One last link in the thread for me. You are correct that politics isn't always the best way to achieve the goals of ethics, at least in the private or commercial spheres. But politics is listed 4th because it comes 4th in the hierarchy of philosophy; in other words, political science ought to be based on ethical concerns and in fact, political science is. But modern politics (leaving out the "science") is not based much on ethical concerns.

IOP is the means by which the owner(s) of this and that web sites explains mostly in his their own words what Objectivism is. It's a good website, and I often quote it in that other forum I mentioned. But as said once before, it is best sometimes to get it directly from Ayn Rand's own mouth and pen, at the Lexicon, or in any of her books. The IOP, as correct as I think it is, is still simply a simple overview, not a comprehensive compendium of Objectivism.

You asked me above to put one of my explanations "into something a little closer to everyday English." That is what the IOP does, because not everyone can read Rand and see "everyday English." Some see ivory tower when that is so far from the truth.

Have you read Atlas Shrugged? It is a game-changing experience. You either go away from it thinking, "Wow, I don't know what I just read, but it makes sense"; or you think, "Wow, I didn't know anyone could straighten out all the world's mess and show it to me as it really is"; OR you go away from it hating it, but still changed forever. Rand's detractors who have read the book do not dismiss it lightly. It was a game changer for them also, but it pushed them further away than they already were because it showed them the light, and they didn't like getting out of the darkness of the Platonic cave.

Post 55

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 4:53am

Daniel,

Please read something I wrote (about Bayesian Reasoning) several years ago:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0000.shtml

Make sure and read up to and through post 10.

Ed

p.s. Interestingly, there was another Daniel back then, whose surname also started with "B." What's even more interesting is that he had the same philosophy as you. What's super-especially interesting is that this ole' Daniel's writing style included odd forms of *exclamation* such as the kind of exclamation that you /yourself/ are fond of using. Daniel B., are you related to this other Daniel B. (who has the same philosophy and posting habits as you do)?

Post 56

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 8:09am

Could it be . . .

. . . Satan?

Well, now that you've found the DNA evidence, Ed, can we put to rest the fact that, as I have been saying since the very day Mr. D. E. Evil showed up, if it walks like a troll . . .

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/29, 8:15am)

Post 57

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 10:23am

Ted (#53),

Er... what? Charity? The closest to that being my reason here would be something along the lines of "I'm posting here to try to induce you other forumites to write posts that will help me learn." Which doesn't really sound all that charitable at all, but purely out of rational self-interest, no?

Curtis (#54),

I think you mistook my point. I agree with IOP's general idea that politics is a means to the end of ethics... what I disagree with are that the means described in IOP being the best/only/etc means in all situations.

Yes, I have, shall we say, waded, through Atlas Shrugged. Which is one of the reasons I've preferred to try to learn about Objectivism through words and phrasings other than Rand's. It's possible to teach Christianity's principles without directly quoting from the Bible; to teach Adam Smith's economics without directly quoting from "Wealth of Nations"; therefore, it should be possible to teach the principles of Objectivism without directly quoting Rand.

Ed (#55),

That looks like a fascinating thread, which I plan to read in full when I've got a few more minutes.

I find it amusing that I am, once again, accused of not really existing. I assure you that I am quite familiar with modern techniques of anonymity, pseudonymity, cryptography, steganography, and related subjects; and that if I wanted to hide my identity on this forum, I would do so in such a fashion that you would never be able to make the link between whatever pseudonym I choose to use and my real identity. For another, Mr. Barnes' profile displays an email address from New Zealand, a country I have never visited.

Ted (#56),

If you wish to make a formal accusation of me being a troll, please do so, rather than shilly-shallying about with insinuation and innuendo, offer whatever evidence you feel supports your position, and allow me to offer evidence in my defense... you know, like grown-up people do when one person feels another has violated their community's rules and norms. If you do not wish to do so, then I will feel quite happy at giving your unjustified name-calling exactly as much attention as I feel it deserves.

To any and all,

Other than that, I think the central question of this thread has been answered: If I'm not an Objectivist (and it seems I'm not), then I am, it seems, a Bayesian empiricist.

Thanks to this thread, I have learned some things about myself, and some other things about Objectivism and Objectivists, so I feel this thread has been worthwhile. I would suggest that if anyone wants to continue discussing any of the points raised in this thread, that they start a new thread dedicated to those topics.

Post 58

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 12:44pm

I thought Ed was explicit enough.

Both Daniel Barnes and Daniel Boese make the same Bayesian arguments, use the same smileys, have the same ">" method of beginning quotes, use the same *methods* of indicating emphasis, have the same wordy and evasive style, and any rational consideration of the chances of those coincidences would lead one to conclude they also wear the same underwear.

Post 59

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 - 9:42pm