John Sambrook

GNU Emacs is a powerful editor for text. I have been using it daily since about 1985. 2016 - 1985 = 31 years In this editor, you can connect two different processes: A Zippy the Pinhead quote generator and an artificial psychotherapist modeled after work done by Joseph Weizenbaum. When you let the processes run, the psychotherapist, named DOCTOR, seems to be analyzing what ZIPPY says. It's funny to watch. It is also an example of two deterministic processes (neither has "free will") interacting in a text-based exchange. The exchanges between ZIPPY and the DOCTOR can seem intelligent at times, but ultimately, following them becomes boring. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/ibm/library/lol/pinhead.html

I think that what you have written is correct, neeeel. I am currently enjoying the following audio book, which goes into this subject in useful ways: https://www.audible.com/pd/Consciousness-and-the-Brain-Part-1-Audiobook/B00HU7VWI0

Harris earned a BA in Philosophy from Stanford in 2000, and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA in 2009. He has also researched and written books on philosophy. You may disagree with his conclusions, of course. What criteria properly determines whether someone is, or is not, a philosopher?

I expect that the thoughts that "come up" are those that survive an unconscious selection process, based on the various factors known to the individual. For example, if I tell someone he is going to be hung at dawn, and the threat is credible, it's likely that the thoughts that come up for him will be in some way related to the threat of his being hung at dawn. (Hence the saying, "Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging." [1]) It may be that there are many thoughts competing for attention at an unconscious level and that some kind of filtering process beyond our conscious control ultimately decides what thoughts appear in consciousness. Sam Harris has material, including a book and a YouTube video on "The Illusion of Free Will." [2] One of my friends has also written an essay on Sam's arguments on the topic of free will. [3] [1] http://thinkexist.com/quotation/nothing-focuses-the-mind-like-a-hanging/761668.html [2] [3] https://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Response-Sam-Harris-ebook/dp/B00869S35Q#nav-subnav

Is thinking an action? I would say that it is. How do we know that Kant's advice, "The will (the intention) of an actor is what decides whether it's moral or not.", is correct? He was human and therefore also fallible. So how do we know with certainty that his advice actually came out correct, even if he started with the intention of producing something perfect?

Yes, this is my conclusion after a bit more reading and thinking. I would say this - if we just talk about "the argument from morality" we are not specifying the identity of the morality we are using. For example, my morality remains largely based on the Objectivist Ethics. I'm not going to debate the rightness or wrongness of that at this time. But if someone else is assuming a duty-based (deontological, as I've now learned) morality in their application of the argument from morality on me, I can see how we are going to be talking past each other. Finally, I currently see UPB as a morality based on the idea that logical consistency is a duty, similar, to Kant's view that people had a duty to observe his CI. I advocate logical consistency, of course, but not as an end-in-itself, but as a means to another end, which is my own happiness in the time I have left before I'm no longer able to maintain homeostasis. I'm grateful for the many contributions on this thread. I can see that, in the past, when someone has asked the question "Why be moral?" my ultimate answer was "Because being moral serves my life."

As I understand it, the Argument from Morality is that, one should refrain from actions that are immoral, simply because they are immoral. The Argument from Effect, to my knowledge, is that one should refrain from actions because those actions will create negative consequences, either for the actor or for some group of others. But isn't the Argument from Morality an instance, or a form of, the Argument from Effect? Presumably, the question "Why be moral?" is asked in order to understand the benefits - the consequences - the effects - of being moral. So, is there a real difference between the two?

Hello EI - This is a most helpful response. Thank you.

Thank you, RY. Why is this action immoral, as against being an aesthetic preference on the part of the parents?

In podcast #70, "How to control a human soul," Stef describes a situation where the parents of a small child work to create a fundamental contradiction in the child's mind. His example in this case is asserting the existence of a "Golden Apple." Would UPB consider the parent's actions moral or immoral?

Hi DS - Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, opening a store next to someone else is not initiating force. I think I was trying to focus more on why Objectivists consider the use of force immoral. Within that context, the immorality is the result of force effectively overriding a person's use of reason, which is their essential means of survival. Since the standard of value in the O'ist Ethics is man's life, actions which undermine or destroy a person's ability to live are considered to be immoral. If I missed your point, which is entirely possible, please clarify. As regards your second point, and UPB in general, one justification / defense of it is "You have to use UPB to argue against it, so it cannot be false." I am not saying that this is an error or failing in UPB. Rather, I'm trying to check my understanding of it by trying to relate it to other philosophical systems. Rand would say, I think, that this is pointing to what she identified as the "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept" [1]: The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends. Stef has spoken about "self-exploding" statements in many of his podcasts. They often seem to come down to this fallacy, to the best of my knowledge. 1. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept,_fallacy_of.html

I appreciate the advice, EI. I've read "On Truth" in the past, but will read it again. And I'm reading the UPB book now. I should probably be taking notes, but I haven't done that so far. Hi RC - Good to catch up with you again, as well. The issues you raise are good ones, in my view. I will try to give some answers, but don't know that I can do as complete a job as I would like in this reply. Maybe it will be something we discuss in more back and forth. Rand's standard of value is often quoted as "Man's life qua man." From what I have read, she means literal survival as a human being, and not some kind of life that she happens to think is appropriate to human beings. She set out to prove, objectively, what human survival requires, and in her analysis, man's essential means of survival is reason, or rationality. So, to my knowledge, her standard does not vary on a per-person basis, nor is it subjective in nature. I realize this is probably difficult to accept, and I'm not saying that my claims prove it in any way. I'm only reporting on my interpretation of her work based on what I have read about it. Does this standard give license to harming others? To answer, I think we'd need clarity on what actually harms someone else. For example, if you run a successful music store, and I open a music store next to yours and begin to compete with you for customers, have I harmed you? I would say no, because I have undermined your ability to use reason (your "essential means of survival") to improve your condition. I have created additional challenges for you, and maybe I have cut into your income, but I don't think Rand would say that I have harmed you. On the other hand, if I used force to compete with you, say, by locking you in my basement, then I have undermined your ability to use reason to achieve your values in life. You can reach any conclusions you wish, while you are chained up, but you are powerless to act on them unless you can escape from the prison I've created for you. Well, perhaps that is at least a start on your useful questions. I'll catch up with you again soon. Hi WT - I appreciate this. Sadly, I think I'm too much of a UPB novice to be able to say anything of substance on it right now. It's an interesting book, and one that is going to take me some time to really comprehend, I think. Hi TH - Your comment makes sense to me, although there is a part of it that I have to think more about. It's in this sentence: "If you want ethics to be objective then they need to be universally applied or they are just subjective." I'm not disagreeing with you, but it's something I have to think about more carefully. Speaking for myself, what it means to be objective is a big topic, and it's something that Dr. Peikoff (Rand's heir and student of 30 years) gave a whole host of detailed lectures on. Sorry, but I can't say anything more substantial right now. All of this has given me a lot to think about.....

In Objectivism, Rand defined morality (and ethics, as its synonym) as [1]: "What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code. The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values? Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?" Further on in [1], she defines the standard of value for the Objectivist ethics as: "The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man." I am reading about UPB right now, and wondering, what is its standard of value? Is it logical consistency - what an Objectivist might call non-contradictory identification? The Objectivist Ethics, especially if one considers follow-on books like "Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Peikoff, covers a lot of ground. The UPB book, itself, seems small by comparison. And yet we have Stef's 10 years or so of podcasting, where he (seems to) cover his ethics in detail. So I'm wondering, what is the "Standard of Value" for UPB, and where is the "FDR Ethics" spelled out. I'm assuming it's Stef's podcasts, but perhaps that's wrong. Thoughts? 1. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html

Not voting - not giving my sanction to a system with which I disagree.

Thank you for clarifying your post. I did not find the game funny, but I respect your response. I'm hopeful that you will continue to invent web games and not be discouraged.

Thank you, George. I'm going to look that one up.

Thank you for an interesting post. As I read it, I found myself wondering about this sentence: "Reflecting on the experience, i now think it is hard to criticize people for their choices." It occurred to me that perhaps we shouldn't be criticizing people for their choices, even if we disagree with them. Perhaps we should be engaging them in ways that cause them to re-evaluate their choices, without taking actions that put them on the defensive or otherwise evoke emotions that interfere with communication. I do think it's right to hold people - myself included - accountable for the decisions they make.

GitHub also provides for static hosting: https://pages.github.com/

I have read Atlas a few times. Every read brings new insights. Even when broken up into three movies, there is far too much material - valuable material - in Atlas to communicate it in that amount of time. The unabridged audiobook suggestion is a good alternative, I think.

Religious people don't bother me much, except when they spread irrationality to others. I don't invest much - if any - time anymore in discussions with them.

I appreciate the clarifications. They are helpful. My take away is that Block doesn't necessarily value Caplan's pen more than his own; what he values is the effects that result from the trade as a whole. To say (as Block does) that it's the pen itself that he values more is to drop important context. Sorry if this seems pedantic; the difference seems important to me.

At about 2:10 into the video, Walter Block cites an example about a proposed trade of pens between himself and Bryan Caplan. He claims that if the trade is made, then it "must be" that there is something about Caplan's pen that he values more than his own pen, and vice-versa. He then claims that is is undeniably true. But in fact, it could be that neither Block nor Caplan give a rat's rear-end about the pens themselves, and in fact, wish to conduct a trade for some other reason. For example, Block might want to learn something about Caplan as a negotiator, or Block may value his pen far above Caplan's and still be willing to trade it away, with the hope that this will somehow lead to the fulfillment of some other objective that Block holds but has not disclosed. So, I didn't find Block's example regarding the pen trade compelling. Thoughts?

Thank you for starting this thread. I'm currently closing on a condominium purchase here in Seattle, Washington. Like you, I have been wondering about how home prices will move over time. Generally speaking, I think it's all pretty much a rigged game these days. Not putting all of one's eggs in a single basket seems wise. I regret that I don't have anything more substantial to say at this time. Best, John

I agree with you, when you write that a blanket stroke of equality is not healthy or doable. People, in general, do not seem to think deeply about these issues. I think Ayn Rand once said or wrote "There is nothing quite so naive as cynicism." I like that quote very much and have had it confirmed for me on different occasions. I like the audio lectures that are available from estore.aynrand.org. I have found them to be a great value for the money. People seem to drop the context when discussing issues that concern them, such as justice, or egalitarianism, etc. It's a bit disappointing, and I've generally gotten to the point where I don't feel the need to jump in deeply on every such discussion. Life is precious and short, and I am becoming more and more mindful of how I choose to invest my time.

I think that's a worthwhile video. Thank you for posting it. If you discuss feminism with other women, I'd be interested in how your viewpoint is received.