RichardY

"That there is no is from an ought". - So someone might say to me you ought to walk down the stairs. To which my reply could be, but my leg is broken, I can hobble I can't walk. The converse is true; that often repeated David Hume quote - "You can not derive an ought from an is." I think I know what you might be getting at, if you read 1984 it's the last thing Winston Smith considers before room 101. ------------------------------ In any hour and issue of his life, man is free to think or to evade that effort. Thinking requires a state of full, focused awareness. The act of focusing one’s consciousness is volitional. Man can focus his mind to a full, active, purposefully directed awareness of reality—or he can unfocus it and let himself drift in a semiconscious daze, merely reacting to any chance stimulus of the immediate moment, at the mercy of his undirected sensory-perceptual mechanism and of any random, associational connections it might happen to make. When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions. But in the sense of the word applicable to man—in the sense of a consciousness which is aware of reality and able to deal with it, a consciousness able to direct the actions and provide for the survival of a human being—an unfocused mind is not conscious. Psychologically, the choice “to think or not” is the choice “to focus or not.” Existentially, the choice “to focus or not” is the choice “to be conscious or not.” Metaphysically, the choice “to be conscious or not” is the choice of life or death. ---------- Ayn Rand Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?” --------- Ayn Rand Galt Speech

I found "Brave New World" more disturbing in a urbane way, though I think 1984 is a much better written book, and better on the explanation and plot of things. Heart of Darkness was a bit thin, the movie Apocalyse Now based on the Heart of Darkness is better. Yeah definitely worth reading 1984 it'll give you some answers to what you're thinking about. The difference between Inductive(associative memory) and deductive(executive, effortful thinking, purposeful) reasoning. Deductive reasoning involves certainty, though it might be in error, where as inductive reasoning is more arbritary(not focused). "Thinking fast and slow" & "The Art of the Argument" touch on the two systems. --------------------------- In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error—but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary. I want to note here parenthetically that the words expressing an arbitrary claim may perhaps be judged as true or false in some other cognitive context (if and when they are no longer put forth as arbitrary), but this is irrelevant to the present issue, because it changes the epistemological situation. For instance, if a savage utters “Two plus two equals four” as a memorized lesson which he doesn’t understand or see any reason for, then in that context it is arbitrary and the savage did not utter truth or falsehood (it’s just like the parrot example). In this sort of situation, the utterance is only sounds; in a cognitive context, when the speaker does know the meaning and the reasons, the same sounds may be used to utter a true proposition. It is inexact to describe this situation by saying, “The same idea is arbitrary in one case and true in another.” The exact description would be: in the one case the verbiage does not express an idea at all, it is merely noise unconnected to reality; to the rational man, the words do express an idea: they are conceptual symbols denoting facts. - Arbritary Ayn Rand Lexicon --------------------------- Objectivism tends to emphasis deductive reasoning, but it seems to neglect the inductive imho.

@MoleYou ever read or listen to the book 1984? I listened to it recently on Audible. With all the political stuff going on in the background I thought I'd give it a listen. It's much better than "Brave New World" or "Heart of Darkness" which I also recently listened to. The book should be a prerequsite for psychology imho(& limited knowledge..). The later half leading upto when the protagonist Winston Smith gets captured is better than the first half. I can explain some of the reasoning, but don't want to spoil the story? With Rand I would say she would consider a man, only a man, as long as he thinks. This is different from using associative memory.

Well your saying colour is a percept. The medical article I referenced says that it is not. Would be like looking at a colour chart with shading like on Corel draw, photoshop etc, where the colours blur into one given a high enough resolution. A percept would be a unit. Colour is a sensation, some people have a condition synesthia; where they associate colours with numbers.

It can if your vision fragments the spectrum of light. I wear glasses, and I had the effect happen during an eye test. Not Colourblind, though my father is.

Doing business? or looking for shortcuts? In a few of his videos he mentioned doing progamming from a fairly early age, being given leave by one of the his tutors to do so. I remember him mentioning a manager teaching him something about business and attitude, pretty vague. I'd imagine if you put in the hours you'd eventually become competent at something, if not necessarily a genius, of course factoring in genetics as well. Personally thought in some of his earlier videos he sounded a bit like a double glazing salesman. I'd imagine being extroverted would be a huge asset in terms of doing businesss. Due to the fact extroverts tend to be more motivated to seek stimulus.

What would you define health as conceptually, as an ideal standard? ...Science? ...Wealth? Base hunger, that's about it. Always interested in increasing awareness if possible. Though consciousness would be the real trick. Currently getting some long term camping kit together for a trip to Norway. Tend to not like people in general. Staying in a Salvation Army shelter, that's pretty base... Still got some Kroner left from last time I was in Norway. I think many are High in conscientiousness, which I'm not, though they are more individualistic for the most part, might be because the Black Death would have tended to wipe out the less conscientious, which from reading some history a while a go hit Norway hard. My surname means the "bay with soil" in Norwegian. Anyway in terms of temperment, fairly close, apart from the low conscientiousness. Probably wander around for a bit, staying power would be useful.

Some people are colourblind so that blue and green appear the same. Unconscious Color Priming Occurs at Stimulus- Not Percept-Dependent Levels of Processing. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Unconscious-color-priming-occurs-at-stimulus-not-of-Breitmeyer-Ro/9ab13f71efbfe881233f3363cbf48a629557848d

It would be unfair to say Ayn Rands "ideas" as such. She herself said that Objectivism was an update of Aristotlianism. As well as that Objectivism was "a complete philosophy". More it would be akin to Classical Liberalism. Left Libertarians (Communism). Right Libertarians (Anarcho-Capitalism). A mixture of both; Voluntarism. (based on morality). With the distinction it is defined independent of the state, and I would say independent of a collective human nature. A criticism Ayn Rand leveled at Anarchism. What's stopping a small group of people systematically exploiting a large group with less in group preference and more individualistic nature? Answer Morality......But if people can't keep to the small things, how should the big things be any different. Let alone the cognitive strain of having to process ones own actions. Morality is at least in part, IQ dependent. All the above 3 are Idealistic. Where as Objectivism (Amoral) is not. "Complete".

Idealism.

@Boss Yeah maybe the person is a psychopath, in which case, probably not going to get very far with appeals to emotion. Though how someone can function with no emotion, perhaps thats not correct,... maybe numbed or non apparent emotion, speculating. I don't agree with the collective sense "we", but thought of that sometimes referenced speech from the Merchant of Venice.

No it's not, it's a statement. With implied ultimatum. As soon as an interaction reaches that point it's not an argument. At best negotiation could bring about a favourable or neutral resolution. But it's not like a deal, where the participants can walk away. I say feeling is a requiste for truth. On a base empirical level. Unless someone takes revelation as a given, in which case no need to post. Your first two sentences contradict one another, else why bother posting. The whole "tell me more" that stefan sometimes says. (curiosity). Not the "would you like to know more" ala "Starship Troopers" or Wikipedia.

Would the pursuit of truth be considered a good?

"Specifically, what exists is irreducible" - So you would say now that information exists. What also exists? Particles come before the diamond? A diamond could be presumably reduced to individual carbon atoms. Which although it were to be reduced, it would no longer be a diamond. I guess it would be fair to say that. Although if something can be reduced, reducible by what?

Above all study something you'd enjoy, and can hold your interest. Unless you need the degree for something particular like medicine. Remember you've got 3 years plus studying it. With your interests spread all over the place, how conscientious are you? If you're doing something that requires high attention to detail & broad knowledge, I'd imagine doing Economics, Law, Biology, Neuroscience, maybe a bad idea. Why not do a professional certification instead?

Anyone who believes that cr*p in the MSM any more must be so throughly indoctrinated or dumb. What would be the point in talking to them. "Re-invent himself as non-violent". Yeah what would really be good is some mass rape, riots & murd*r yeah!!! Personally I think as collectivists both the right and the left are deranged. Well that's the thing, avoid saying or doing anything with subtance be vague, forms, abstractions. Plenty of content to fill the forms with later, have the framework before the concrete is poured. Like the Movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." Talk about "morality", but unless you know the person how do you know they aren't BSing you, cashing in on others misery. "If you're going to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." But if one group gains complete control of the power of the centralised state numbers won't matter. Most of the time there aren't people standing in your way, but ideas. Open borders for some but not others. Personally I couldn't care what others do, but NIMBY (Not in my Backyard) which being the UK, Europe for now, if you want to learn a language is rather small. Still not in that hellhole that is S.Africa. Still plenty of time to educate myself on various subjects. Given modern technology that is availble a person can do almost anything, if they are focused enough. Even if that achievement is small.

Groups such as? I think, that you think they give the forum too much credit. Probably hardly even register on their radar, an insect. Advocate for violence? I've never advocated for such a thing, with the proviso that an animal does not cede that right, in which case how can a violent act be commited. As Stefan said. Mass child rape is effectively an act of war. An agitator, so what. What has HE done that is violent???????

Big Brother. Can't really be violent with words as you can always choose not to associate in an ideal world or with enough consciousness. Can be aggressive with words but not violent. Unless, you betray someones trust at the same time. Here drink this lemonade (not lemonade).

Yeah "Big Brother" is watching you. Would like to post whatever, try to balence out my thoughts. But I understand that FDR has got to cover their backs, could pull the forum all together. Have 1 post pending, but as I state in the pending post this stuff has been on my mind recently only to have it strengthened.

I'm reminded of one of the first passages of Beyond Good & Evil. Replace Stoics; With "Libertarians". Replace "Nature"; With The "NAP". In all how are the modern day Libertarians, necessarily any different from the Stoics? The concept of Libertarian only exists, because there is the concept of the state. Without the state, what are they. Nothing. What has the guy done that is violent? All the "Far Right" parties say they're pro democracy. But I'm sure nothing short of a military takeover at this point, is going to make any difference. Maybe if there was a crash of the economy venuzula style and the cities went berserk, no idea ,speculating. Thinking more along the lines of the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas as "D-Fens". There's a scene on youtube "not economically viable" where a guy protesting outside a bank gets arrested and says "don't forget me" to D-Fens. Or like the fastfood burger scene. D-Fens: "I don't want to be your buddy rick ("virtuous"), I just want my breakfast.". Rick: "Well hey, I'm really sorry." D-Fens "Well I'm really sorry too" (Pulls out a machine gun).

This is the problem I have with Libertarians and their "sacred" NAP. A is A and BS technicalities. I'll take the high and morally superior road!!!! And the nasty state and the individuals that influence it, are just going to "see sense". Pretty obvious that many Libertarians are complicit, with the state of affairs as it stands. To anyone who is not blind and can see the evidence, for historical child rape over decades. And what do they choose to focus on, virtually one out of a very small number of guys who actually reported on it, disgusting. Decades...Decades... oh and the tral could collapse so let's blame it on the guy actually bringing it to light in the first place. Play on the guilt and call him a fraudster, when it's obvious they were looking for whatever dirt they could get him on. Organ harvesters are morally superior.

Far left = Orc. (More "Evolved.", like rats) Far Right = Merchant of Venice. Scarface (Less evolved, more selectively chosen). Normies somewhere in the middle.

Personally I still think he was singled out, the mortgage fraud a technicality. As I said I don't trust the authorities in general after wide spread covering up of child rape and murder for decades. If there is any solution, I think it involves shifting incentives to a local level, narrowing the balance of power. I'm pretty sure the Saudi's tried to buyout Tommy Robinson. After nearly being murdered, the fact that he would be doing any of this for money or attention is beyond belief.

Yeah I don't have faith in either. With the Sharia courts in the UK, being a challenge not addressed by the current courts. Plus little faith in the police as well. Mostly I wouldn't careless, but being a part of a fairly interconnected society. I find it lame that I could be literally ripped apart by the same society I grew up in and within my own lifetime, more annoyance at how messed up things are. At least with the USA you can sod off to the wilderness somewhere with relative ease Yeah that would make sense. As Tommy has been doing it for years, I'd imagine he'd be extremely careful.

@jgw2001 Still seems arbritary/evil to me, one of the papers I heard that reported on the names isn't being charged. I mean the guy could die in prison. unless they isolate him. After covering up child r.ape and m.urder for so long, I think a lot of people's trust in the authorities and media is non-existant.