tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4846828771156434512..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Politics, Part 1Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80536655309950131002009-04-06T17:12:00.000-07:002009-04-06T17:12:00.000-07:00Anon:>I scored 0 on your test. Well that's prom...Anon:<BR/>>I scored 0 on your test. <BR/><BR/>Well <I>that's</I> promising at least.<BR/><BR/>>Why don't you make a test for anti-Rand cultists? I am sure you would score high.<BR/><BR/>Always with the Pee Wee Herman* argument, Anon! No doubt you were short of time again...;-)<BR/><BR/>Kelly:<BR/>>That last comment was quite a burn, here's hoping you recover soon.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Kelly, after years of having to face such devastating intellectual ripostes one learns to bounce back...;-)<BR/><BR/>*"I know you are, but what am I?"Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1793707334346033032009-04-06T16:12:00.000-07:002009-04-06T16:12:00.000-07:00It appears Anonymous has you Dan. That last commen...It appears Anonymous has you Dan. That last comment was quite a burn, here's hoping you recover soon.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09896872571230152941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70235160996931721302009-04-06T15:30:00.000-07:002009-04-06T15:30:00.000-07:00Dubious Dan,I'm "outta here" mainly for lack of ti...Dubious Dan,<BR/>I'm "outta here" mainly for lack of time. I scored 0 on your test. Why don't you make a test for anti-Rand cultists? I am sure you would score high.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35495981345753284692009-04-05T13:56:00.000-07:002009-04-05T13:56:00.000-07:00Well, seeing all you have left to reply with the P...Well, seeing all you have left to reply with the Pee Wee Herman argument I can understand why you're outta here. Never mind. If you have a moment, before you leave why not take our new <A HREF="http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2009/04/are-you-rand-cultist-take-our-simple.html" REL="nofollow">test?</A>Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23106551507554351962009-04-05T09:58:00.000-07:002009-04-05T09:58:00.000-07:00I asked Dubious Dan, "Why don't you say you were w...I asked Dubious Dan, "Why don't you say you were wrong to do so and let it go?" <BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan's reply shows his unwillingness to do so.<BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan:<I> Er...no. You seem to have trouble grasping this point .... </I><BR/><BR/>I got your point, which is to evade, muddle and be disingenuous. Got that now? Good. Be content with your booby prize. Bye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34888206231845857612009-03-31T13:03:00.000-07:002009-03-31T13:03:00.000-07:00Anon:>Okay, she misspoke. Hallelujah! So man do...Anon:<BR/>>Okay, she misspoke. <BR/><BR/>Hallelujah! So man <I>does</I> in fact have an innate set of values! If "calling the biological need for food and water or pain relief "innate values"" is fine with you, then we're on the same page. The camel's nose of innate values is firmly inside the Objectivism's tent...;-)<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately Rand's error - which, being not at all self-critical, she never spotted herself - is actually a widely cited one, the consequences of which has been one of the biggest confusions in Objectivism: the confusion over innate values. For example, Diana Hsieh's denial that homosexuality might be innate, or Rand's own denial of the existence of inborn talents.<BR/><BR/>But we can explore that in later posts.<BR/><BR/>>You did, too...The rest of the paragraph you choose to ignore is about what is not automatic.<BR/><BR/>Er...no. You seem to have trouble grasping this point, Anon, so let's get it clear. I have never argued that man <I>doesn't</I> have a set of what you would call "volitional" values <I>as well as</I> his "innate" (or "instinctive") ones. The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that there are automatic values doesn't affect that there are non-automatic ones too. In denying the former, Rand misspoke, and that is what I criticised her for. So the additional lines of Rand you cite implying possible volitional courses of action - even in charitably interpreting that they do necessarily imply this, which in fact they don't - are <I>irrelevant.</I> <BR/><BR/>Or to put it in a simple logical form: If I said Rand misspoke, and it turns out she did, then I didn't...;-)<BR/><BR/>Got that now? Good.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72949559199890051652009-03-31T09:05:00.000-07:002009-03-31T09:05:00.000-07:00Barnes: Why don't you just drop all the hairsplitt...Barnes: <I>Why don't you just drop all the hairsplitting and say she was wrong to say this, she misspoke, and let it go?</I><BR/><BR/>Okay, she misspoke. You did, too. You pluck two sentences, compare them to a distant parapraph, and behave like the rest of the paragraph they are in didn't exist. Why don't you say you were wrong to do so and let it go? <BR/><BR/>Barnes: <I>Oh, I know: it's because to assert some form of innate values is a very slippery slope for Objectivists...</I><BR/><BR/>You don't know. Calling the biological need for food and water or pain relief "innate values" is fine with me.<BR/><BR/>I wrote: "Of course, there are many courses of action for which there is no automatic pleasure/pain signal."<BR/><BR/>Barnes replied: <I> So what? Who ever said there aren't? This doesn't touch my argument in the least.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure it does. The rest of the paragraph you choose to ignore is about what is <B>not</B> automatic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-56201818853049382072009-03-30T12:52:00.000-07:002009-03-30T12:52:00.000-07:00Anon:>I'm glad to see you agree with Rand.Y...Anon:<BR/>>I'm glad to see you agree with Rand.<BR/><BR/>Yes I do with this passage, I've said so all along.<BR/><BR/>>Of course, there are many courses of action for which there is no automatic pleasure/pain signal.<BR/><BR/>So what? Who ever said there aren't? This doesn't touch my argument in the least.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14895767064213208552009-03-30T12:44:00.000-07:002009-03-30T12:44:00.000-07:00Anon:>If "judgments" is replaced by &...Anon:<BR/>>If "judgments" is replaced by "signals", it is what Rand said. Therefore, I see no point at all to your "argument."<BR/><BR/>Ok, I won't argue over terminology, so let's bend over backwards and rephrase it along your lines to make it "what Rand said".<BR/><I>Man has an automatic mechanism that makes value signals about courses of action.</I><BR/><BR/>And I agree, roughly. However, you keep forgetting she also says:<BR/><BR/>Rand:"Man has no automatic code of survival. He has no automatic course of action, <I>no automatic set of values."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see how you can keep denying what's written in black and white in front of you, but I suppose people can deny anything if they want. Why don't you just drop all the hairsplitting and say she was wrong to say this, she misspoke, and let it go?<BR/><BR/>Oh, I know: it's because to assert some form of innate values is a very slippery slope for Objectivists...Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-59268528785323914672009-03-30T05:13:00.000-07:002009-03-30T05:13:00.000-07:00Dubious Dan: The whole point is that an automatic ...Dubious Dan: <I>The whole point is that an automatic pleasure/pain signal IS an automatic valuation of a course of action. "Right" and "wrong" are value judgements, Anon! </I><BR/><BR/>I'm glad to see you agree with Rand. Of course, there are many courses of action for which there is no automatic pleasure/pain signal. You may or may not agree, and I won't presume either way.<BR/><BR/>Other than that and to use your words, it's hardly clear what you're running on about and you don't explain. Your post adds nothing new and is another attempt at muddling. Like I said, enjoy your booby prize.<BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan:<I> Here's my argument: <BR/>P1: "Right" and "wrong" are value judgments<BR/>P2: Man has an automatic mechanism of determining "right" and "wrong" courses of action.<BR/>C: Man has an automatic mechanism for making value judgments about courses of action.<BR/>What do you deny about this?</I><BR/><BR/>If "judgments" is replaced by "signals", it is what Rand said. Therefore, I see no point at all to your "argument."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19544985110610063802009-03-30T05:09:00.000-07:002009-03-30T05:09:00.000-07:00Xtra Laj: Could you please explain how Rand's clai...Xtra Laj: <I>Could you please explain how Rand's claims about pain/pleasure constitute anything approaching an acceptance of innate human behavior that would affect how human beings behave politically?</I><BR/><BR/>"Man cannot survive, as animals do, by the guidance of mere percepts. A sensation of hunger will tell him that he needs food (if he has learned to identify it as "hunger"), but it will not tell him how to obtain his food and it will not tell him what food is good for him or poisonous." - The Objectivist Ethics <BR/><BR/>Hunger and pain are both discomforts for Epicurus and others, and eating pleasureful.<BR/>http://philosophy.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_hedonism_of_epicurus<BR/>Some people believe it is politically acceptable or necessary to rob Peter in order to feed Paul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-73249026665385288292009-03-29T15:33:00.000-07:002009-03-29T15:33:00.000-07:00Anon,Here's my argument:P1: "Right" and "wrong" ar...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Here's my argument:<BR/><BR/>P1: "Right" and "wrong" are value judgments <BR/><BR/>P2: Man has an automatic mechanism of determining "right" and "wrong" courses of action.<BR/><BR/><I>C: Man has an automatic mechanism for making value judgments about courses of action.</I><BR/><BR/>What do you deny about this?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81771225932684228522009-03-29T13:55:00.000-07:002009-03-29T13:55:00.000-07:00Anon:>However, your allegation depends on muddl...Anon:<BR/>>However, your allegation depends on muddling that difference...My substantial point was the difference between the pain-pleasure mechanism and the senses...When philosophers use perception, or senses, they usually mean exteroception. <BR/><BR/>Anon, your "substantial point" is a distraction, and has been all along. The issue is, to restate it yet again, about <I>the existence or not of an innate mechanism that values courses of action</I>.( What we call it is irrelevant; equally irrelevant is pretending, as you do, that just because philosophers talk about a simple divide there necessarily is one in biological reality).<BR/><BR/>You simply won' t address this point about the automatic<I> valuation</I> of a course of action directly; from your peculiar, beside-the-point comments, such as saying I "confuse a signal with a course of action" I can only infer that you can't see the issue. <BR/><BR/>The whole point is that an automatic pleasure/pain signal IS an <I>automatic valuation of a course of action</I>. "Right" and "wrong" are <I>value judgements</I>, Anon! When you put your hand on a hot stove, you get an automatic pain signal that tells you this course of action is <I>wrong</I>. When you drink a glass of water on a hot day, you get an automatic pleasure signal valuing this course of action as <I>right</I>. Rand says this, and I agree with her. Therefore, man has an innate, automatic mechanism for <I>valuing a course of action.</I><BR/><BR/>The problem is she also says "Man has no automatic code of survival. He has no automatic course of action, <I>no automatic set of values.</I>" (my emphasis). Now, you reckon the following sentences influence meaning somehow: "His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life or endanger it..." etc. But all this is just caviling over what the word "senses" means. This is Rand's vagary, not mine. <I> Man still has an automatic set of values in the pleasure/pain mechanism</I>, regardless of to what degree it is interrelated it is with the functioning senses (eg: you need touch to feel the hot stove). You then tried to cavil over the word "value", introducing the point that elsewhere Rand calls a value "that which one acts to gain and/or keep." But this is irrelevant: once again "right" and "wrong" <I>are value judgements</I> Anon; if she uses these terms to describe the action of an automatic, non-volitional mechanism, and this contradicts what she says elsewhere about values being volitional, then this is hardly my problem. Indeed, it is my point!<BR/><BR/>Finally, Anon, Rand contradicts herself both frequently and fundamentally, a classic example at the heart of her system being her oxymoronic "contextual absolute". So her blunder over this is no mere exception, that we should be charitable over, but is instead a standard <I>modus operandi</I> verbalist double-talk and sloppy, uncritical thinking that should be consistently highlighted.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-75996391962269271712009-03-29T08:53:00.000-07:002009-03-29T08:53:00.000-07:00So Mr. Anonymous,Given that you raised this issue ...So Mr. Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Given that you raised this issue to claim that I had misclassified Rand as a philosopher who did not believe in innate human <I>motives</I> that could affect political behavior,<BR/><BR/>Could you please explain how Rand's claims about pain/pleasure constitute anything approaching an acceptance of innate human behavior that would affect how human beings behave politically?<BR/><BR/>As in, can you show the empirical distinction based on your claim that shows that I placed Rand in the wrong camp when contrasting her with Santayana and Adam Smith, to name two philosophers amongst many?<BR/><BR/>Thanks in advance.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5684986736552614122009-03-29T05:49:00.000-07:002009-03-29T05:49:00.000-07:00Barnes: It's not at all clear what you're on about...Barnes: <I>It's not at all clear what you're on about, other than we're being "uncharitable". How? Why? You don't explain.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you trying to be obtuse?<BR/><BR/>My substantial point was the difference between the pain-pleasure mechanism and the senses. That difference bears upon the two quotes from Rand that you allege are contradictory. However, your allegation depends on muddling that difference. The following is only one such attempt.<BR/><BR/>Barnes: <I>After all, it's man's senses that deliver pleasure or pain signals automatically, telling him what is "right" or "wrong" for him. "Senses" is just another word for the automatic evaluation mechanism she talked about earlier.</I><BR/><BR/>It is not. Pain is <I>internal</I> perception (interoception or proprioception). The senses of sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste are <I>external</I> perception (exteroception). When philosophers use <I>perception</I>, or <I>senses</I>, they usually mean exteroception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_perception<BR/>In the second quote Rand did not stipulate a special meaning of "his senses." If she meant what philosophers usually do, then there is no contradiction. If you believe her intent and the usual meaning do not matter and only your interpretation counts, then there is a contradiction. Enjoy your booby prize.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-22032590354817359542009-03-26T12:09:00.000-07:002009-03-26T12:09:00.000-07:00___________________________________A note about Re...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>A note about Red Grant. I stopped replying to this obnoxious, logic-challenged smear artist - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Laj is just making stuff up again. He has already proven his expertise at fabrication, so any more is excess. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/25/2009 06:35:00 PM <BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>This is Dubious Dan's modus operandi concerning Rand. Does he treat Karl Popper the same way? - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/25/2009 02:34:00 PM <BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>It is moronic because you completely made it up.<BR/><BR/>So far you have shown yourself to be a great example of "the pot calling the kettle black". - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/25/2009 02:32:00 PM <BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan the Flippant. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud <BR/><BR/>3/20/2009 10:48:00 PM <BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan the flippant reappears. - <BR/>Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/>3/20/2009 05:41:00 AM <BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>A note about Red Grant. I stopped replying to this obnoxious, logic-challenged smear artist - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>So far you have shown yourself to be a great example of "the pot calling the kettle black". - Anon defending Yaron the Fraud<BR/><BR/>3/25/2009 02:32:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>hypocrite - 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelingsRed Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14104774458941262892009-03-26T09:15:00.000-07:002009-03-26T09:15:00.000-07:00Anon:>What exactly is your point Anon?I meant y...Anon:<BR/>>What exactly is your point Anon?<BR/><BR/>I meant your <I>substantial</I> point rather than cavilling over kidney stones etc.<BR/><BR/>It's not at all clear what you're on about, other than we're being "uncharitable". How? Why? You don't explain. Simply citing other passages and saying that we're just haters doesn't make a counter argument, especially as they don't conflict with my criticism AFAICS.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30067947486779297882009-03-26T04:54:00.000-07:002009-03-26T04:54:00.000-07:00Barnes: Are you trying to argue that pain does no...Barnes: <I> Are you trying to argue that pain does not occur through these?</I><BR/><BR/>In what body part does being absurd give you pleasure?<BR/><BR/>Barnes: <I> If not, what in tarnation is your point? </I> <BR/><BR/>The conventional meaning of "touch" is a body touching something external, or one part touching another part. See a dictionary. The fact that pain may accompany it, like stepping on a tack, does not give you license to confound pain and touch.<BR/><BR/>Bye. I have far more important things to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23129617787178170852009-03-25T21:48:00.000-07:002009-03-25T21:48:00.000-07:00BTW Anon, "body organs" include eyes ears, nose, t...BTW Anon, "body organs" include eyes ears, nose, tongue etc!<BR/><BR/>Are you trying to argue that pain does not occur through these? If not, what in tarnation <I>is</I> your point?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-2846258162185312082009-03-25T21:42:00.000-07:002009-03-25T21:42:00.000-07:00What exactly is your point Anon?Can you state it c...What exactly is your point Anon?<BR/><BR/>Can you state it clearly?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66648454577205349222009-03-25T20:13:00.000-07:002009-03-25T20:13:00.000-07:00Barnes: Yep. We're now down to hairsplitting over ...Barnes: <I>Yep. We're now down to hairsplitting over what is "touch" and "skin" means. Anon, FYI skin is just one of many touch-sensitive forms of nerve-carrying human tissue! You're simply being pedantic.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, and you started the hairsplitting, trying to say all pain is delivered by the five senses in order to try to make a pedantic point against Rand. By the way, from Wikipedia: "The three types of pain receptors are cutaneous (skin), somatic (joints and bones) and visceral (body organs)." <I>Somatic</I> and <I>visceral</I> are far from touch.<BR/><BR/>Laj:<I> But what Anonymous is trying to avoid is admitting that there is a judgment attached to the "pain pleasure mechanism" which the pain-pleasure mechanism is useless without.</I><BR/><BR/>Laj is just making stuff up again. He has already proven his expertise at fabrication, so any more is excess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30349696765616449812009-03-25T19:09:00.000-07:002009-03-25T19:09:00.000-07:00Laj:>But what Anonymous is trying to avoid is a...Laj:<BR/>>But what Anonymous is trying to avoid is admitting that there is a judgment attached to the "pain pleasure mechanism" which the pain-pleasure mechanism is useless without.<BR/><BR/>Yep. We're now down to hairsplitting over what is "touch" and "skin" means. Anon, FYI skin is just one of many touch-sensitive forms of nerve-carrying human tissue! You're simply being pedantic. <BR/><BR/>I also agree, Laj, Anon seems confused as to which side of Rand he agrees with...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34521939944190391272009-03-25T18:35:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:35:00.000-07:00Laj: Therefore, Anonymous, in true Randian fashion...Laj: <I>Therefore, Anonymous, in true Randian fashion, is going to defend the claim that the "pain pleasure mechanism", which in his mind, is somehow not a source of judgments, does not tell you anything about how to avoid the pain. Of course the judgments we make on the basis of the sensations can be wrong or right. But what Anonymous is trying to avoid is admitting that there is a judgment attached to the "pain pleasure mechanism" which the pain-pleasure mechanism is useless without.</I><BR/><BR/>Laj is just making stuff up again. He has already proven his expertise at fabrication, so any more is excess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-81668142891894112782009-03-25T18:28:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:28:00.000-07:00Barnes: Well, that's just wrong, Anon. The kidney ...Barnes:<I> Well, that's just wrong, Anon. The kidney stones touch sensitive nerves as they pass thru the urethra, for example.</I><BR/><BR/>Touch usually means via the skin. The urethra is not skin. All pains are transmitted by nerves, but far from all are considered "by touch". You have a long way to go to prove your point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1916469465013933002009-03-25T18:12:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:12:00.000-07:00DB:"You keep conflating the automatic evaluation o...<I>DB:"You keep conflating the automatic evaluation of the course of action with the action itself."</I><BR/><BR/>Dan,<BR/><BR/>In fact, this is something that Scott Ryan showed that Objectivists in general do not comprehend. "The evidence of the senses" is ultimately intellectually apprehended as *judgments*. Objectivists think it is easy to separate the signals from the judgments that we make on the basis of them. In fact, the separation is far more difficult that Objectivists make out.<BR/><BR/>When we are saying "evidence of the senses" or "pain pleasure mechanism", we cannot think of these mechanisms apart from the judgments they give rise to. A sensation of pain cannot be wrong - it can only be a judgment about the cause/source of the sensation that is wrong.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, Anonymous, in true Randian fashion, is going to defend the claim that the "pain pleasure mechanism", which in his mind, is somehow not a source of judgments, does not tell you anything about how to avoid the pain. Of course the judgments we make on the basis of the sensations can be wrong or right. But what Anonymous is trying to avoid is admitting that there is a judgment attached to the "pain pleasure mechanism" which the pain-pleasure mechanism is useless without.<BR/><BR/>LajAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com