RoR: Forum

Robert,

Ironically I feel a little more comfortable @ solopassion. Go figure.

As to MSK. My main issue about your emergency ethics scenario is as follows. First off you and your own happiness and survival is your first value. It makes a lot of people happy to help others who cannot help themselves so provided you're not bleeding yourself dry to do it, you still have a value.

The whole emergency ethics scenario is based around the idea that it's good to help people unable to help themselves, provided they are a value to you and you are not overtaxing your own resources to do so.

I've been over your scenario... lets be honest here, more times than I ever want to be over any scenario again.

Provided it's a large area of privately owned land it's the landowners responsibility (it may be his kid or if not it wandered onto his land) the rational amount of effort to exert in this scenario is alert the land owner and leave it at that. If the child is alone in a public park, depending on what type of park it is: if it's a full on wilderness perserve like yellowstone, the kid probably won't last long enough before being eaten himself for someone to discover him (just being honest) if he is discovered, you tell a park ranger YOUR JOB IS DONE! If it's a smaller "picnic park" type area it's probably a high traffic area the child may just be stray and his parents are looking for him, and if not there are probably lots of other people in the area... and thus there might be many more people in the area more prepared for the situation than you (I know I don't carry liquified food or baby formula around with me). The best course of action here would be simply to say "hey there's a baby over here" and leave it at that.

The level of dedication you've pretty consistantly been advocating seems a little sacrificial for someone who doesn't go out of his way to look for opportunities to bond with young children.

Again I'm dipping back into Rand here (not that there's anything wrong with that) but the whole scenario of emergency ethics is about weighing how much your actions would benefit someone else (and yourself) as compared to how much it would effect you negativly... a cost benefit analysis. For some people it's just not going to be worthwhile to take on a huge amount of responsibility that they are under no obligation to take just because the person who actually should have taken it defaulted.

There is my objection in as civil of terms as possible.

I hope I didn't re open a can of worms.

Also in general thanks to everyone for not going off on me for that moment of overexposure.

---Landon

Post 41

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 2:53pm

Hmmm... My experience is that Objectivists often tell people who criticize some aspect of Objectivism that they first should thoroughly study Rand's works (if not those of Peikoff as well) before they can come up with criticisms (isn't that snotty elitism, then?). Now a science study is vastly more difficult and extensive than a study of Objectivism, and yet those same Objectivists often think that the knowledge acquired from some popular science books is sufficient for presenting valid criticisms of science. If you don't know how big that gap is, you certainly don't know enough to criticize.

Post 42

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 2:58pm

And who is to determine what amount qualifies - this smacks of snotty elitism....

Other scientists will--- and do--- determine what qualifies. I've read enough science-minded books, review articles, textbooks, etc. to catch how scientists debate another's theories. Check out the debates between Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and E.O. Wilson. Check out the book "The Third Culture", the first half of the book. That's what I like about science, that when I propose a theory, it'll be under the scrutiny of peers; those peers the ones I will be paying attention to.

I won't be paying much attention to a plumber telling me what's wrong with my experiment on the neural correlates of volitional-emotional activity. Likewise, I am not qualified to tell him what's wrong with plumbing. I let them do their job, or else I have a stopped up toilet.

Post 43

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 3:29pm

Well, I am an artist, not a plumber - BUT - am rather well-read in numerous fields, out of intellectual curiosity, which includes much more than 'pop science articles'..... BUT, have no Degree behind the name, nor inclination to gain one[or two or three] - does that make discussion, then, moot, that the disagreements be left to the 'professionals'?

Post 44

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 3:56pm

Robert Malcolm asked: "does that make discussion, then, moot, that the disagreements be left to the 'professionals'?"

No, it doesn't. What's required is that you make an effort to educate yourself about the methodology of, and the issues debated in, science before making pronouncements such as Objectivists have certainly been known to make, wherein they sweep aside the views of informed scientists because of some perceived contradiction, real or imagined, with Objectivist philosophy. What's required is to at least apprise yourself of the basics, and to recognize what you do not know, what you haven't sufficient technical knowledge to assess.

Ellen

___

Post 45

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 4:10pm

Landon,

You wrote,

... the level of dedication you've pretty consistantly been advocating...

I suggest you take a look at my writing again and see if that statement holds true. (You will find it doesn't.) I admit that I had an emotional reaction at the start and advocated criminal prosecution for depraved indifference, but not long thereafter, I saw the difficulties in definition and withdrew that position. I haven't been advocating much of anything since, except a commitment to rationally examining the issue from any angle that appears worth looking at. I literally suspended judgment to think.

I'll find the posts if you are interested.

Since that time, what I really have been doing is investigating human nature (the true source of human ethics, which also includes metaphysics and epistemology) and mulling over the legal extent of the child's rights. Frankly, I have been asking more questions than postulating anything. Even NB sent me a letter about it, more or less raising the same issue, but from a slightly different angle.

I now hold to the question I raised in my previous post - which probably could be considered as advocating something: Why does anybody have to be sacrificed at all? To be clear, that includes both the adult and the child. Can you tell me why it is necessary to postulate a situation where sacrificing a child is morally or legally justified? We know from a lot of literature why sacrificing the individual is not justified and I am in agreement. Now why is it OK to sacrifice a kid?

Why is human sacrifice necessary in human society? Is the purpose of Objectivism to preach sacrifice?

I don't think so.

I trust that people of goodwill can see the difference between this question and altruism (which is based on self-sacrifice).

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread to become another long thing on this issue. I merely wanted to explain where my head is at right now, since you insinuate that it is in a different place. (I sincerely suggest you stop listening to smear mongers for your opinions and look at what I actually write, but that is your option. And I am always open to clarifying something vague and even being corrected if I am wrong. You are polite and I like that.)

Michael

Post 46

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 6:53pm

does that make discussion, then, moot, that the disagreements be left to the 'professionals'

No, it doesn't make the discussion moot if the discussion is in terms of the context of both discussers' knowledge. However, there is a certain point when someone's knowledge hits "the edge". In conversations with someone of advanced or expert knowledge in areas that I only know a little of, I strive to be aware of the discrepancy in knowledge. I have no problem telling the other person where the boundary of my education lies, that I am willing to consider their knowledge. I expect the same acknowledgement from the person I'm speaking with as well.

If it has to go into critique, then it must be known that critique is not one-sided. A plumber may critique my science. If that path is taken, the doors are open for me to critique the plumber's plumbing. But this only goes so far as the people are willing to learn from it. If I'm willing to consider but the other person is not, I will drop the discussion in favor of a richer intellectual endeavor. There is only so much time. :)

Post 47

Monday, April 10, 2006 - 8:24pm

Good! now I can get back to fixing the leak under the sink......;-)

Post 48

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 1:25am

Michael,

Your patronizing tone and dishonesty have become so transparent that I don't need to bother making an argument with you. It's not worth my time.

Ethan

Post 49

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 5:05pm

One final word since I brought it back up.

I made comments. I read the posts. I know what I read and why I said what I did.

I think the crowd mentality thing is a convenient scapegoat. I don't subscribe to a crowd mentality myself. I just follow my judgement. Sometimes I'm alone sometimes I'm not.

I'll leave it at that.

---Landon

Post 50

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 1:51pm

Jenna,

I don't know much about your field of study but I fail to see how a new piece of scientific knowledge can fail to integrate or contradict objectivism.

-Greg

Post 51

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 6:47pm

I don't know much about your field of study but I fail to see how a new piece of scientific knowledge can fail to integrate or contradict objectivism.

Well... given the physics discussion, that's one area where objectivism may have trouble. I don't know physics from a hole in the wall, but I'd say if QM is a problem, I'd hate to see how anything after QM might look like.

My specific field interest is cognitive and psychological neuroscience. That means that I study cognition, emotion, and behavior in terms of neuroscience, i.e. the materiality of the brain, while applying systems/complex/fuzzy thinking. I'm also interested in converging aesthetic study, linguistic study, and paleoanthropology with respect to neuroscience.

For linguistics: How language and thought relate to each other. How languages evolve and how that relates to how the brain/mind evolved. How both are still evolving. How the structure of sentences are a clue to thought process. How knowing several languages affect ways in which humans think, especially knowing an Eastern language versus a Western one. (I notice in me a subtle change in thought/emotional pattern when I speak Chinese vs. English). How language can be a window into thought processes, and hence, psychology, of a person.

For aesthetics: Emotional, psychological, and cognitive connection to color, shapes, a whole art piece. How art affects the brain. How individual differences in neurophysiology may affect cognitive, emotional, and psychological connection to an art piece. How neurophysiology affects art-making. How talent is established, versus nontalent; etc.

Behavior/psychology: How much does behavior tell about the brain processes. Is behavior always indicative of brain states, and how does volition appear to control what behavior is shown. Behavior that is *not* volitionally controlled. The interaction between emotion and volition. When does volition not control emotion. The presence of emotion in all activity. Differences/similarities in volitional or emotional ranges in differing humans (or groups of humans). Differences in individual behavior versus group behavior. How volition is affected by group dynamics. And since I was in a religious cult, I'm also interested in cognition, emotion, and psychology as it is picked up and/or acts in cultish behavior in individuals and groups.

Cognition: Concept-forming. Perception and its relationship to conception. Categorization. Network and blending theory of concept interaction and placement. How this relates to memory. How cognition is different in humans. How cognition is different in nonhumans. Neural correlates of cognition and the role of volition in cognition. Unconscious cognition, i.e. dreams and drugs. How cognition relates to language-- verbal, gestural. How cognition relates to behavior or psychological states, nonverbal & verbal. Subtle cognition such as cognitive biases, cognitive distortion.

Paleoanthropology: I'm interested in the evolution of humans. The differences in brains between species of Homo. Studying tools, clothes, settlements, art, etc. to gain insight into cognitive abilities, trends, and evolution. Basically, I'm intersted in evolution of mind that happened with evoluton of brain. A historical context would give deeper meaning into the current states of our brain/mind in comparison. This would tie into evolution of languages.

Systems thinking: How do all of the above tie together? Looking at things big picture, on geologic time scale as well as millisecond time scale. Studying interactions; from neuron-to-neuron to person-to-person to group-to-group. Seeing in-group behavior, cognitive trends, emotional trends. Seeing group-to-world interaction, individual-to-world interaction. Seeing the above in a multidimensional framework, i.e. networks, visuals, feedback systems, subsystems, etc. How interactions work and how they would exist/change dynamically and adaptively in complex systems such as the brain/mind, language, history, etc. How these systems can evolve. How categorization evolves. How systems blur boundaries.

This is what I'm into, what I sneakily look up on PubMed when I should be regurgitating history or philosophy. Currently, objectivism itself lends to my life through its pro-individualism, pro-thought, pro-reason, pro-reality, pro-"do your own work", pro-science, pro-progress, pro-personal-responsibility stance. I use these aspects/guidelines to do all of the above. The first field I went into, web design, was rather cutting edge and new. The second field, cognitive neuroscience, is the same. If objectivism is to survive in my life, it must integrate the edge of knowledge; it must survive my intellect and my education. It must survive evolution--- of knowledge, of our brains, of our world. A good test is to see if it can survive and evolve for as long as science has survived and evolved.

Post 52

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 7:31pm

Jenna, you wrote:

If objectivism is to survive in my life...

What a wonderfully selfish way to phrase a proper mental approach to philosophy!

An independent remark by an independent mind that thinks for itself.

Atta girl!

Michael

Post 53

Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 8:34pm

Independence and individuality, I've found, is like a weapon and a test. If someone is an individual, they would appreciate another individual. When I come across people from all areas, I see how others react to my individualism and I judge these reactions--- if they hate me, it means they're deep-down collectivists and need to do more thinking. What's worse than collectivism is if I ever meet someone who is a self-described individualist, yet actively dislikes me because I own my own mind. If someone enjoys my individualism, it'll be apparent.

I also test where I stand often, especially when I notice how I react to someone standing up for their life, their knowledge, their work; versus a group of people that imitate. I fall squarely within the individualist camp; in fact I think I'm radically individualist. It's given my mom quite a few gray hairs. And, yeah, I've been called selfish since I was 3... more times than I can count. :)

Post 54

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 2:32am

Hi Jenna,

QM is not a problem for Objectivism. THe problem tends to be that it's commonly explained in a way that is confusing to most people, including me. :-)

Post 55

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:59am

That is because it tends to be 'explained' as a Tao of Physcs instead of The Cosmic Code.[which is a MUCH better book on the subject, and was written by Heinz Pagels]
(Edited by robert malcom on 4/14, 6:01am)

Post 56

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:05am

Very interesting Jenna! Thanks.

Post 57

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:25am

THe problem tends to be that it's commonly explained in a way that is confusing to most people, including me.

Com'on you guys, if you fail to understand something, don't blame it on that "it is not explained well to you". Let's just admit that one can't master everything in the universe, can't we?!

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/14, 8:36am)

Post 58

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:35am

Hong's right.....I'm a bone-head :-)

Post 59

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:48am