From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Objectivism, premises, conclusions, and Geodel's work
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:43:27 GMT

Comment:

On Geodel's work:
It DOES imply that logic is not enough to prove everything, thus anyone
functioning logically cannot be expected to be able to do anything.
Reason is the use of logic and other tools such as analogy, experience, and
conjecture.  Reason is probably complete yet inconsistent.
Couple these two with the fact that humans are neither logical nor rational
all of the time and you come up with the fact that Objectivism cannot hope
that it will function with a reasonably efficient society.  Note: for humans
at least part of reality is subjective: aesthetics and such.  While this
does partially discredit the theory of an objective universe (unless you
think "love", "hate" and everything else is just a bunch of chemicals bobbing
in your brain), it does not make Objectivism any since
subjective likes and dislikes are not the concern of Objectivism.

On Ayn turning us all into Turing machines:
Well, computers are the best emotionless perceivers of reality that we know
of.  But I believe Ayn was talking about "rational" rather than "logical"
thought.  It is possible to act illogically in a "rational" system since
things other than logical deduction are brought into play.

However I think one of the fundamental flaws of this system is that if we
humans come to emulate it, the "cold machine" personality will be viewed as
best, and intellectual pursuits will be favored, to the detriment of the human
"soul".  Unfortunately it is hard to teach that selfishness and objective
logical thought are the basis of society without creating selfish, logical
and emotionless people.  Society becomes what it values.

I also think that capitalism is irrelevant to the notion of Objectivism: it
is merely an extent of the philosophy into economics.  If economics manages
to disappear, Objectivism need not disappear with it.

On premises of Objectivism:

merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) writes:
>#In article <lewchuk.726183011@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:

>#   1.  An objective reality exists.
>This is a big leap of faith. I am willing to say it does exist, but
>the ability of humans to fully know this objective reality I strongly
>doubt. You are doomed to a subjective view of `truth', although
>it is noble and correct(IMHO) to strive to know objective reality
>more closely(as close as humanly possible).

># 4. Subjective reality functions best when it is as closely tied to
># objective reality as possible.  That is, a person (sentient) must be able to
>#    capture as much of objective reality as possible from subjective reality.
>#    That is, the closer subjective reality is to objective reality, the larger
>#    the intersection of the set of logical conclusions drawn from objective
>#    reality and the conclusions drawn from subjective reality is.

>Too much emphasis on function not enough on form. We are striving
>to do the impossible, the important thing is the struggle not
>the results. No one result should be considered superior if
>compared to other results reached in earnest.

I don't follow here.  It sounds like "if you really give it a good try,
what you think is reality should be taken as reality".  The point is that
results are useful only in the context to which they correspond with
objective reality.  Science does not care "how hard you try".  It is theorems
that actually work that are approved.  Reality does not care how hard you
try (if objective reality exists).  

The feeling that "it is noble and "correct" (good) to strive to know objective
reality" is in general the point made.  That is why "A=A" is so important:
not as mathematical/logical trivia, but as a fundamental assumption that there
is something out there (reality) which is not affected by subjective
perception.  That is, no matter how hard I want my junk mail to go away, it
will not fly off by itself because it IS junk mail and it does NOT have the
property of flying off by itself.

Also, the other point is: you can only trust your actions to the extent that
you know reality.  If you don't know reality, you can only do so much.  That's
not "good" or "bad", just a fact.  But if you eliminate self-delusion and tune
yourself into reality, you will be able to do more effectively.  The point is
not whether your perception is flawed or not, just that an objective reality
implies that you can only perform efficiency to the degree that your subjective
reality and objective reality agree.

>#  6.  The fundamental objective is to act in a way which best suits your
>#       intent.  That is, the "goal" is to perform what you want to do in as
>#       good a way as possible given the information that you have.

>Ah, but was is "Good"? (What is "Red"?)

Qualitatives seem to be immaterial to Objectivism.  Thus, as long as you
have a system of perception consistent with reality, definitions do not matter.

I believe one of the Objectivist statements of "good" is "the most freedom
for everyone while sacrificing as little as possible maintaining that freedom".

>Objectivism attempts to provide an Epistemology whatever else it is.

So?  It works on "useful" and "useless", not "good" and "evil", and thus
must be judged according to its applicability, not its moral fibre (unless
you have a moral code opposed to efficiency and practicality).

>This basis of knowledge is thought to have it's roots in Cognition.
>Cognitive Science was not yet born when Objectivism was formulated.
>I offer that it is crtically flawed in the light of what already
>know from this still infant science.

In what way?  All we've gone thru is:
1)  An objective reality exists and functions according to a set of laws
2)  Subjective reality is therefore useful to the degree that it matches
    objective reality: the closer the match, the more efficient you are at
    doing what you wish.

>Hint: "You are NOT born as a "Blank Slate". >-sjm

"Tabula Rasa" is irrelevant to this discussion.  Whether we are or are not
preprogrammed with certain traits, we do reason and function logically.  This
is not about personal preference -- it is about rational decision making.  If
cognitive science has proven that rationality is not possible in humans, then
I'd be willing to look at the result.

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA