From: merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt)
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: Objectivism, premises, conclusions, and Geodel's work
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:57:59 GMT
	<MERRITT.93Jan4125207@macro.bu.edu> <lewchuk.726183011@therien>
	<MERRITT.93Jan5105601@macro.bu.edu> <lewchuk.726277407@therien>
Organization: Boston University Physics Department
In-reply-to: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA's message of 5 Jan 93 23:43:27 GMT

In article <lewchuk.726277407@therien> lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk) writes:


 $  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.

Ok, to come up with "useful" and "un-useful" is an equivalent cognitve process
to deciding "good" and "bad".

You are not free of subjectivness on that basis either.

$
$   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.

Exactly. But the basis for rational thought is cognition. If any other
non-human inteligence is self-aware it is rational although it may
or may not act rationally(as you humans do, or do not).

$   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.

Correct. We should not be slaves to logic. 
Here she makes no allowences for our interaction with
self-aware intelligences that are far more logical than humans
however. 


$   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.

Economics will not disappear. It will be around a lot longer than
Objectivism. Economics encompasses human behavior, even in any
state on nature. To Apply objectivist principles on a grand scale
you will in effect alter that state of nature, but Economics will
remain.

   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).  

How hard you try is a function of your method of perception. If you pick
and choose what elements of the objective reality are relevant and which
ones are not you are putting a slant on the true reality. "Reality is
Reality" you are doomed to have only a glimpse. Your actions may
influence your personal reality to great extent but there will
be times when reality acts as it will, no matter what your free will
allows you to think or do. You have limited control over reality.
The sum of human intelligence has pitifully little control over
the objective reality.


$   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
  
Right. Another way to say this is that the basis of action may be good
or bad, and I contend it is one or the other you just cannot prove
that a specific action is indeed absolutly "good" or "bad".

$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 efficiently to the degree that your subjective
$reality and objective reality agree.

Some conclusions you reach(about reality itslef) will be wrong, in the 
absolute sense of wrongness if you deny the existence or ingore the existence
of an `ideal objective' reality.

---

   >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).

It IS useful to realize that a material object is the sum of it's 
constitiuents. It IS useful to understand that matter and energy
only interchange forms. The human ability to observe much of
what reality with the basic un-enhanced sensory inputs
is serverly limited.

   >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.

Is not the starting point of Objectivism that I exist and I
am getting input from the `objective reality'. That act
of self awareness is cognition, no?

$   In what way?  All we've gone thru is:
$   1)  An objective reality exists and functions according to a set of laws

The laws of physics are part of that set.

$   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.

You are doomed to a woefully limited view of the true `objective
reality' to claim anything else is self-delusion.


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


$"Tabula Rasa" is irrelevant to this discussion.  Whether we are or are not


It is mentioned in The Epistomology of Objectivism. Do you have the book?
It is relevant.


   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.

Consider this;

I submit that I could subject a set of humans to a Turing test. If I
then gave the results to another set of humans giving them the bias 
that there were some non-human element in the sample they would
disqualify some true humans as humans. non-Or I could create a neural-network
with feedback and use my human results to teach the network to
mimmic human response if I then insert this into the data and give
it to the evaluators of the Turing test would they pick the computer as
the non-human?

The fact is we are at the point were poetry written by computers
is note detectable as non-human poetry. Further the play in a
chess match of a computer(a very good program and computer)
cannot be distinguished form that of a human.

The only way humans know anything is to start with a conscious
subjective observation, then proceed as objectivly as possible.

You can `know' that you are self-aware, at this stage of the game
based of scientific facts you must assume that other humans are,
this is an empiricism. The other point is this; If there are
Artificial or Extraterrestrial intelligences their act of cognition
alters the objective reality for themsleves and for us and
we have no handle on that.



-sjm
--
Sean J. Merritt		         | "Every revolt is a cry of innocence    
Dept of Physics Boston University|  and an appeal to the essence of being."
merritt@macro.bu.edu             | Albert Camus, The Rebel