Topic: Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand. - page 3. (Read 5976 times)

Cool story.

How do you falsify it?

Sigh. It's not black or white. My point is that the observer makes the "objective" reality bend literally to their perception, they don't create it outright. There are two planes in reality, that which is seen (by consciousness) and that which connects everything together. This connective reality has certain rules that are static and those which are not. The consciousness affects this subtle layer and it's sort of a dance to see what is actually created.

Bottom line is that I'm not qualified to explain this stuff. If you want to understand the plastic nature of reality, start with the holographic universe: http://thepiratebay.se/torrent/5957800/Michael_Talbot_-_The_Holographic_Universe_(Thinking_Allowed)

Yeah, but how is he going to do any of that if he can't even change the words he sees on the screen?

I have a standard response to anyone proposing that reality is subjective:

Show me that you can jump out of a window (or other suitably-high point) and choose not to fall.

That's it. All someone has to do is show me they can use the power of their mind to interpret gravity as not existing and I'll believe reality is subjective.

Alternately they can choose to walk into a busy highway and choose to let the cars pass through their bodies harmlessly.

Either way I'd appeals to strange quantum effects is just handwaving unless you can actually prove it in a repeatable and verifiable way. You know, science.

But you just said that I can, at least as far as I'm concerned (which is all that matters to me).

So if I can create my own reality, Why do I keep reading you disagreeing with me, when I would much rather read you agreeing with me? Is it perhaps, then, exactly what I said, that Quantum Mechanics does not apply to interpersonal relationships?

I'm not suggesting that we live in a fantasy land where we can make OTHER people do whatever YOU want them to do.You create your own reality only insofar as you have to deal with other conscious beings creating their own realities as well. This might be obtuse because its sort of like trying to explain water to a fish.

Check out the (book) holographic universe if you want to understand more about what I'm talking about. It's entertaining and extremely insightful.

Then why do you keep disagreeing with me? You should be agreeing with me, because I would very much like you to agree with me. And you would very much like me to agree with you. Yet, here we are, disagreeing.

+1

Consider classical physics...

and then, an analogy:

When a radioactive isotope decays, it essentially - to put it very simply - splits apart with great energy. These pieces fly off and can hit other atoms.  When these pieces hit other atoms, they can knock pieces off those atoms (e.g. a proton from one atom knocks off the proton of another atom).  Such phenomena can result in an atomic reconfiguration of an atom.  In other words, when one atom 'explodes' (really it's more like nuclear emission) another atom can suffer damage...and both are radically changed after the incident.

When people become angry, they can release their anger either upon themselves or upon the environment/others.  When a person loses control of their anger and 'explodes,' they cause damage to themselves and their relationships.  This damage, too, can cause radical changes.

So people:atoms, the interaction between atoms:interaction between humans, anger:radioactivity, etc...seriously the analogies are endless.  Why wouldn't they be?  Laws of systems distribute to all content therein, so it should come as no surprise that the laws governing the system containing physics and interpersonal relationships (the existence of this system is obvious) would result in an endless series of similarities between the two.  That's the fun thing about the Universe, you can study one thing and learn about everything.

I disagree. It affects everything, especially how we relate to others. You might not be able to make me into something else (to me), but you don't have to. If you believe that I am something else, then I am something else (to you).

I used to be an "objectivist" (not because of rand explicitly, but because of my experience/ education), but a few years ago started down a research path which led me to question everything and has since shaped my life into something I couldn't have imagined at that time.

Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships. Try as I might, no matter how hard I believe it, I cannot make you into anyone other than you. That is objective fact. Knowing that I cannot make you into anyone other than you, and you cannot make me into anyone other than me, we must work out a way to settle our differences based on those objective facts. There are several options. I could force you to accept my stance, but that doesn't help much since I've just browbeaten you into submission. You could do the same to me, but again that's not "working out our differences." So we debate. We attempt convince each other that our opinions are the right one.

Now, I'm not an adherent of Rand's philosophy, either. Rather, I prefer Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior. Click the link in the post above (Stefan's name) to go directly to that book. As I said, she started out with a good premise, but made some errors. He corrects them. If you're familiar with Objectivism, I suggest a perusal of that book may prove interesting.

Modern science has turned over the notion of an objective reality quite awhile ago (see the observer effect) or holographic theory (backed in both neuroscience and astrophysics). We create our own realities and certainly our own philosophies, to consider otherwise is hubris.

OK, do you understand the concept of "objective"?

Quite. Just not a subscriber.

...You're not familiar with Objectivism, are you?

Right, because there is such thing as a philosophical fact.

Yes, Rand had some pretty idiotic opinions. Thankfully, her philosophy was not based on opinion.

Thoughtful piece on Rand in the 20th century:

http://thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

What does one look to outside of self-interest? Should I look up to a higher power? A god? The man next to me? Should I be a slave to the nearest available whim? I certainly do see a fallacy in slavery and suicide.

To put anything above your own life is against the nature of life itself: Self-preservation. From self-preservation comes the ability to experience pleasure from helping and befriending others, this supposed "selflessness". It is by choice and happiness that comes the sustainment of all life. Not force and slavery.

If one has no incentive to preserve oneself, if one has no happiness, then why should they attempt to preserve the other? Preserve something they have no stake in? For your happiness? Then who is the "selfish" one now? The ones who clamor for the servitude of others are just as selfish as the ones who wish to live their lives by their will. All else is spooks and religious thinking: Life is selfish.

There can be no higher cause than the will of the individual being itself, even when that will sustains others.

Destroy a man's will and you destroy the man.

I think you should look up to an ideologie that doesnt promote self interest and greed. If you cant see the fallacy in that then well, we're done here.

What should we look up to then? It's not like the nations of Europe sacrificing their sovereignty to the Eurozone has helped or will help anybody in the long-term.

If America is the epiphany of self-interest, then Europe is the monument of self-sacrifice.