Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand.

[myrkul]

Quantum mechanics is not relevant to interpersonal relationships.

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).

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.

[1713520119]

1713520119

[lebing]

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.

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.

[myrkul]

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.

I'm not suggesting that we live in a fantasy land where we can make OTHER people do whatever YOU want them to do.

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?

[justusranvier]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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

[lebing]

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.

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)

[justusranvier]

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.

Cool story.

How do you falsify it?

[lebing]

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.

Cool story.

How do you falsify it?

It's a massive oversimplification on my part. This is a Rand thread. Like I said, I didn't want to push it so far off topic, so if you want to find out more, the link is there for you to torrent it for free.

[justusranvier]

It's a massive oversimplification on my part. This is a Rand thread. Like I said, I didn't want to push it so far off topic, so if you want to find out more, the link is there for you to torrent it for free.

I don't devote a lot of time to debunking "subjective reality" claims any more for the same reason that I don't investigate the precise technical details of every so-called free energy (perpetual motion) machine.

All the evidence available to me is consistent with reality being objective, and every claim to the contrary I'm aware of is either untestable or simply false. So at this point I consider the burden of proof to be on the subjectivists.

Empericism works reliably and consistently so I'm going to assume it to be a vaild approach until proven otherwise.

[the joint]

All the evidence available to me is consistent with reality being objective...

Says who?

[lebing]

It's a massive oversimplification on my part. This is a Rand thread. Like I said, I didn't want to push it so far off topic, so if you want to find out more, the link is there for you to torrent it for free.

I don't devote a lot of time to debunking "subjective reality" claims any more for the same reason that I don't investigate the precise technical details of every so-called free energy (perpetual motion) machine.

All the evidence available to me is consistent with reality being objective, and every claim to the contrary I'm aware of is either untestable or simply false. So at this point I consider the burden of proof to be on the subjectivists.

Empericism works reliably and consistently so I'm going to assume it to be a vaild approach until proven otherwise.

Who said anything about not using science? Like I said in my original post, its a scientific theory backed in both leaders in neuroscience and astrophysics. These are not conspiracy theories which are untestable.

[myrkul]

Who said anything about not using science? Like I said in my original post, its a scientific theory backed in both leaders in neuroscience and astrophysics. These are not conspiracy theories which are untestable.

Then test it. Let us know how it goes.

[lebing]

Who said anything about not using science? Like I said in my original post, its a scientific theory backed in both leaders in neuroscience and astrophysics. These are not conspiracy theories which are untestable.

Then test it. Let us know how it goes.

...



I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

[justusranvier]

Appeal to authority

[tiberiandusk]

Ayn Rand was a sociopath and I've noticed that it's mainly sociopaths who like her.

[myrkul]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

[lebing]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out

[myrkul]

I'm not an astrophysicist, nor a neuroscientist.

Then could you link me to some studies which have tested it? 'Cause until it's tested, it's not science.

This is a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.

The first one is a wikipedia article that "needs attention from an expert", and the second is a dead link.
I'll ask again. Could you link me to some studies which have tested it? (Note that "have" is past tense. I want to see results.)

[Atlas]

I will just say reality is interpreted and defined far beyond life and death; cliffs and gravity.

[alexanderanon]

In reference to no post in particular...

Baudrillard has some comments that pertain to Rand's "objective" metaphysics, notably that to analyze something one must first be able to step outside of it, and so that therefore questioning the existence of reality is impossible. But that's really the extent of Rand's "objectivism", where her big "O" Objectivism incorporated views from metaphysics thru ethics and politics. Her epistemology, in particular, advocates a contextualism that I think may satisfy some of the objective/subjective bickering on this thread.

In any case, she and her ideals are far from any proper ideal. Nietzsche once said he would "only worship a god that could dance". And while Nietzsche's Dionysus is at a Eurorave tripping on ecstasy, dancing with beautiful girls, and generally having the time of his life, little Miss Rand is fantasizing about this vague ideal of "productivity" and 60 hour work weeks and steady wealth accumulation that can only result in a consumerist, personality-less, prematurely aged tycoon of a wholly stoic and vapid demeanor (Atlas Shrugged the movie anyone...?)

I saw firsthand from my experiences in the Objectivist crowd how Rand's adamant literalism amid vague idealism resulted in a movement that loves to chant her mantras but rarely if ever practice as they preach, that is, DOING something productive if that is the so exalted ideal (..donate to ARI! Exchange dollars for rational virtue!). But then again, I don't see how someone could follow through on such an artificial ideology, in the same way true productivity was impossible in a Soviet bureaucratic, in its systemic rigidity.

Ultimately, I think Rand failed in providing a coherent philosophy because she was too left-brained to realize that neither coherence nor philosophy is the ideal. Living holistically demands paradigmatically more than a step by a step decision-making "guide" read detached from the real world. I don't believe her formulaic criticisms are necessary to dissuade an impressionable person from the "unethical dangers" she warns of: joining a nunnery, statist politics, living a life of mindless hedonism --- but merely an intuitive appreciation for interesting experiences and self-understanding.