Jordan Miller

For the past several months something has bothered me. I felt as if something Stefan was saying was self-contradictory. I called into the show twice to try and figure out what it was. I figured it out. I have written an open letter to Stefan detailing my thoughts. you can read it and comment on it here if you like. Enjoy.

of course I am. but that doesn't mean that I'm right. Furthermore, that's not the issue. my issue with ontology is that it asserts that matter and energy are the whole story, but it is ultimately an assertion. we cannot say for certain that the world we observe isn't embedded in some larger multi-verse or super reality. It pretends to know something about ultimate reality. I want to make sure it is not the rational philosopher's opinion that we can know what ultimate reality is for certain. is that something the rational philosopher asserts and calls it ontology?

Ah, you're right, of course! Anything true by definition must be true. I was only considering the question of "what can we know for certain?" in terms of empiricism. But isn't it true that we're assuming matter and energy are real? What if we're all simulated in some matrix or in the mind of some devil? Is Descartes right to say we can't know for certain that what we perceive as reality is ultimate reality? Isn't the question of ontology about answering "What is ultimate reality?" If so isn't any ontological answer folly (being based on the assumption that energy is real)? Perhaps I'm mistaken on my definition of ontology. Perhaps it is answering the question of "What is real according to logic and evidence?" which is a different question than "What is ultimate reality?"

I think I understand now what you meant earlier by, I'm "referring to ontology." you're saying I'm describing ontology rather than metaphysics right? Metaphysics includes both how we think and what we think. while ontology describes what we think. Is this right? I think I get confused when people say things like Is this technically correct? I ask because if you really mean this precisely then you have a different epistemology than I do, but I suspect you would agree with me if I said we could add one word to make it more accurate. "Working from first principles is starting from what we know for most certain, the most basic principles and building on that." Would you agree that we can't know anything, (literally anything) at all for absolutely certain? Or are first principles actually certain, not in a relative sense (as certain as anything can be) but in an absolute sense? I think this is an important distinction because I take it as my underlying assumption to arrive at the conclusion that metaphysics ontology must grow out from epistemology, but if first principles are certain in an absolute sense then we could get epistemology from first principles. In other words, are first principles inside ontology? if so epistemology must determine what we consider to be first principles since it determines all of ontology. That's how I see it anyway.

mmm, I must still not understand what metaphysics is. I'm thinking metaphysics is a model of what the universe actually is fundamentally or ultimately Is that definition wrong? if its not a model (an idea in our heads) then would it be accurate to say metaphysics is the universe? If so how is that helpful? its like saying, a car is a car, there's no informational content. If it is a model, then is it a theoretical thing? or is it certain? if it is certain how can this be? (given the fact that we don't actually know what created (or if anything did create) the universe). If it is a theoretical model, is it not created by us according to our epistemology? So does not everything start with epistemology and metaphysics is only one model of our world like the model we have about the house we live in and the car we drive?

I recently watched the video on ayn rand part 2 where stef opens up with the basics of Objectivism. Metaphysics: what's out there? Reality. Epistemology: how do I know? Senses/reason. Ethics: how should I live? Rational self-interest. etc. My question is this: why must we start with metaphysics? Look, doesn't epistemology take care of it? Why not just start there and leave metaphysics out of it? If you have the right epistemology - you believe what you can see and what is true by definition - then you will look out at the world and say, "is this real? well I can't ever know for certain, but it seems to be real so I guess I'll go with it." No need to assume something you don't know - why assume reality is "real"? Recognizing our sense data could be controlled by the matrix or by a daemon but that we have no reason to believe this bars us from rationally believing in anything other than, "I'm experiencing something, I know not where it comes from, but it is my reality simply because I'm experiencing it." Metaphysics seems therefore to me, a redundant precursor. Any thoughts? PS. what is reality anyway? is it atoms? Well no, those are made up of still smaller constituents. Is it pure energy? Perhaps, but what is energy? Nobody knows. What about the entire universe? Can we know what environment it lives in? no. can we know if it is all that exists? no. We don't know Anything about ultimate reality. Absolutely nothing, and assuming we do is religious. Recognizing this, what can "reality" mean other than "What I'm experiencing"? Because philosophy (including natural philosophy) can say nothing about what reality really is we must use the word to mean, 'what we experience.' Choosing how to interpret that experience in the most rational way becomes therefore the base of rational philosophy in my eyes. To me it starts with epistemology. Should I have this view? am I wrong?

I haven't read any posts so far except your, delta45, so maybe this has been covered already but I think it might be useful to reflect on exactly what you want to save your NE from. what about religion causes you to want to shield her? if you know exactly those things then you can do your best to zoom in on those issues. For example, it doesn't really bother you what your wife believes; but it probably does bother you that she uses those beliefs to justify going back on her promise for an open and honest approach. you don't mind her independence of thought from you, but you do might her going behind your back (if indeed that is what happens). What I'm trying to say is, you probably really want to make moral behavior (including self discipline) paramount since religion has such a powerful effect to get people to break promises/moral behavior in order to bring about what they believe is some greater good. if you can teach your daughter that even if that were true its STILL not worth acting immorally/without integrity then even if she believes in religion she'll have her priorities straight.

you're perfectly right. This shirt is really saying, "The wearer's behaviors are monitored by him/her and are (according to their understanding and reasoning capacity) found to be in compliance with the moral and ethical guidelines layed down by the ethical code born of logic and philosophy known as UPB or Universally Preferable behavior. in other words his/her actions are deemed universally preferable rather than not preferable. He/she conducts himself/herself in accordance to or in compliance with that moral code."

Introduce people to the world changing philo-scientific model of ethics: http://www.zazzle.com/upb_compliant-235972497987813765 http://rlv.zcache.com/isapi/designall.dll?rlvnet=1&realview=113376009172340101&design=0f7af299-067d-441d-a749-312662417c1b&style=value_tshirt&size=a_l&color=white&pending=false&pdt=zazzle_shirt&max_dim=512

You can define choice as determinism, but then you're contradicting yourself saying that choice is the opposite of choice at the same time, hence the yelling at the moon and the smoking doctor metaphors. That helps, now I see what you're saying, and what stef is saying. What I'm saying is that both opinions are essentially the same - they just use different definitions of the word choice, therefore its a non-issue because any friction in the discussion is really just semantics. I say they're essetially the same because they both agree with this statement, "man will always do what he wants to most, all other things being equal." The determinist takes it one step further though. Its as if the determinist believe that for free will to exist choices must come from a deeper level than what we can observe, a deeper level than preference and choice. it must come from some unphysical-non-causal-realationship-space. That is where they go wrong; inserting that definition of choice. ps. if indeed that was the definition of free will our choices would by default be perfectly random therefore even with that definition there could be no "free will" as the determinist define it.

does that necessarily mean a system with a preferred state must have free will? And besides, isn't it a non issue? I mean isn't the most prefered and possible state always chosen? The way I see it... that is precisely what determinists really argue - that man will always choose what he wants to all things being equal. and in this they languish, saying their 'free will' is an illusion.

Can you blame him? he is wrestling with the hardest question phylosophy has ever tackled! he is in an impossible position: either we're just matter with this emergent property of mind - or we are a body with a non-physical, eternal essence backing it. in the first option gives no place for "free will" unless you define it as doing what you prefer, which incidentally is essentially determinism / causaliy. Stef finds the second option repugnant, as he should, trusting only evidence and reason, and it calls into question his atheistic views. Therefore what is he to do but become frustrated? I don't blame him - it's an impossible position. I mean honestly, you said Can you imagine how deterministic physics can give rise to consciousness? I can't! We haven't done it in the lab or ai, can it be done? It's an absolute conundrum. until we get some more data on the topic this question litterally has no answer.

I listened to the determinism discussion today. I couldn't help myself to comment on it. I'm not a determinist but I needed to comment. The issue is mere semantics. From what I gathered Stef has deduced that choice is an emergent property - humans are able to compare pleasure with pain and therefore have choice. The determinist didn't communicate his point well and that’s why I don't believe it was properly dealt with. The determinist's point of view is that all things behave according to physical law therefore man and his ability to feel pain or pleasure and make choices between the two are contained within a mechanistic universe. In other words the determinists deduce that a man cannot make a choice other than the one he prefers - he is predetermined to make it based upon every event that has transpired in the universe up to that moment. I don't know if Stef would agree or disagree with that statement, but I do feel like he was just looking at the other side of the coin. My hunch is that he (being an atheist) would more or less agree and therefore the entire issue is only one of misunderstood semantics.