IRC log started Fri May 31 21:59 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that all channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Pankaj Saxena and Tom Wright. Logs may not be redistributed in any form without the prior consent of the channel owners. Tonight's discussion is on Identification and Evaluation, and will be moderated by Tom Miovas. As usual, the discussion will be conducted in keyword-protected mode. If you see someone off-channel whom you think would like to join the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message me or Wright. Okay, Tom. Channel's all yours. Ok, first of all, I hope most of you read the essay sent out with the invitation to this discussion. And, I will add to that essay, as I had an insight this morning that brought it all together much more sucintly. If you can answer the question (using teleological measurements): Is peanut butter equivilent to mans' life, then you can demostrate that evaluation *is* a subset of cognition. Question: What is involved in making an identification? Anybody? Differentiation & Integration Perception Integrating a perception to previously formed concepts? Perception. Deduction. Glenn: That's concept formation, but it is close...a clue is the principle of equivelency. Hello, everyone. I'm so glad to have finally made one of your discussions. Welcome Jay...we are in progress. Ok, what does it mean to measure something? Perception shows you that something *has* an identity. Classifying the entity into some priorly formed concept is a process of deduction. Subetai: What about before conceptualization...don't you have to identify before forming a concept? Subetai: How so? (for the deduction) To derive a qualitative relationship between that thing and some unit of measurement. Subetai: That's closer...give an examlpe. example Gilles: If you have a priorly formed concept (say chair) and you need to determine if a new entity you observe is a chair or not, you're using deduction. What is the relationship between "identify" and "Identical"? Subetai: Is not forming a new concept also an identification? Tom: "Identify" generally means to determine what something *is*. Glenn: Sure. Glenn: yes, that's my point...identification must precede concept formation. Subetai: How do you define deduction? Subetai: Ok, but **how** is that accomplished? Gilles: Reasoning from the general to the specific. Subetai: I don't think we are at deduction, yet...it's easier than that. Tom: Yeah. The deduction part is a bit off-topic. I was answering Gilles' question. TomM: To identify is to determine the nature of something. "Identical" means exactly the same in some respect. Go on. Sorry. Betsy: yes, that's what I was looking for...can you give an example? TomM: I identify the fact that I am sitting at my computer. CAn anyone give a simple example of what Betsy said was identification? Betsy: How? TomMiovas: I tasted my drink, and because I know what coke tastes like, I identify it as coke. You perceive something. Then you analyze the perception and integrate it with previously held knowledge, in order to identify what you have perceived. TomM: By looking at where I am, what I see and touch, and connecting it to my other knowledge. Jim: So, name that process in terms similar to concept formation. Tom: To identify an object as a chair. Subetai: You are running a few steps ahead. TomM: Perception and Integration. What I am looking for is: to identify means to show that something is *identical to* some standard. TomM: I'm afraid I can't buy that idea! For instance, you have a red piece of cloth...to decide if some other thing is red, you hold the red cloth up to it to see if it matches. Betsy: you are thinking a little ahead...but are on the right track. How do you know the first cloth is red? Anyone have a disagrement with my example? I don't think so, Tom. To identify means to establish the identity of something, i.e., it's unique nature. TomMiovas: Well, yes, as in my example, I identify it as coke because it has the common characteristics unique to coke. However, I identify my cat as Viktor simply because he is unlike other cats in certain respects. TomM: In IToE Rand showed why you need 2 units to perceive difference and _3_ units to identify similarity. Gilles: That is what you must decide...pick it as the sample, and call it something. Betsy: Ok, but I am not talking about concept formation, or differentiation and integration per se right now...the exact number is not really relevant. Jim: Sure...but to identify means that the thing being measured is, in some respects, identical to the standard...that's where "identify" comes from. TomMiovas: In other words, identification also applies to unique cases, not just members of groups. A unit in a concept is not necessarily identical to any other unit in that concept. It isn't even identical to the concept itself, because a concept is defined in essential and limited terms. Sorry, I got disconnected. GlobalChat is a pain! Subetai: Unique, yes, but in order to move beyond that uniquness and move to wider knowledge, what must be done? jim: You identify you cat because you compare him to your memory of him...if he matches that memory, he is your cat...same principle is involved. you=your Am I still on the channel? Jim: yes Tom: It's "identical" that comes from "identity." Identical means to have the same identity. Subetai: We are about to discuss concept formation...but let's get to the idea of a unit, first...what is it? Yeah. "Identity" is the root. "Identical" is derived. Things have identity...to identify means to note that it is identical to some standard...that's the first step...like *this* red is identical to *that* red. A unit is an existent viewed in a certain way, as an element of a set of entities sharing common characterstics. The point is that one starts of at the very simple stage of noting that this *is* that very particularly. Ok, let's move on...how does concept formation both utilize this principle *and* enhance it? look, here's the point...this "A" is identical to this other "A". It is strictly perceptually known at first. Anyone get that? Tom: Well, it uses the process to establish that things share similar characterstics, then retains only some of the characterstics as "essential", thus creating an open ended set. There is about an 18 sec lag on the channel. Tom: To see that the "A"'s are identical, you would have to know the identity of each one first. Subetai: Ok, now how does measurement ommision enhance the principle of equivalency? Tom: It widens "equivalency" from "identical" to "identical and/or similar". We have a serious lag. Gilles: No, it's totally perceptual...look, literally! A A Gilles: I think Tom is saying that by showing something is identical to a unit, it gains the identity of the unit Gilles: You could pick each of them up (if they were cut-outs) and place one over the other...see? they are identical. Gilles: Your perceptual mechanism is your fist means of measuring. Do to time constraints and lag, i'll answer my own question: measurement ommission enhances the principle of equivalency because once you ommit measuerments, anything that has that unit type of measurement can be considered to be identical to the standard Better connection...i think my client had probs... You guys get my msg about that? Ok, to reiterate: Concept formation expands the principle of equivalency because measurements are ommitted...so, anything that has measurements in terms of the unit/standard is considered identical to that standard. Tom: Okay. Such as: A dog is equivalent to a cat under the concept "animal" since each differes only measureably regarding the units of consciousness and loco-motion. Everyone get that point about concepts and what they do regarding identification? Tom: I did. i think we perceive the red cloth to be red as a sort of pavolovian conditioning Gilles: Type /dcc chat testhal TomM: I think you have it backwards. We start -- perceptually -- with perceptions of differences and then notice similarities (with respect to perceived differences). Betsy: Presumably that's why Rand said it takes three perceived objects to make an identification Ok, with that said, realize that concepts greatly expand the *range* of things that can be considered to be identical. Who is still with us? Tom: It alwys does. Betsy: For the purposes of this discussion...consider that you have already differentiated... Ok, so let's assume we have already differentiated...have our standard, and now want to find other things like it. Ok, identification means basically finding something that identically matches the standard chosen for such a purpose...concepts expand this ability greatly. TomM: I disagree. We perceive differences with our senses and infer similarities by contrast. Betsy: Get off that kick...we are past differentiation at this point...moving on... TomMiovas: Before I lagged the first time, I commented that I can identify my can as Viktor because of his unique characteristics, not because I have other Victors to campare him to. He is a single entity which I identify as unique. Did you address this issue? my can = my cat. Jim: yes, i said you identify him by comparing the cat in front of you to your memorized stadard of what "Victor" is. Jim_N: In other words Viktor is _different_ than other units and that's how you identify him. Ok, when a standard is chosen to identify things, we form wider and wider concepts encompassing all of them evanetually under the concept "entity" or "existent", forrect? TomM: How did he identify Viktor the FIRST time? BetsyS: Right, but not by forming a concept of him. I'm not considering him as a unit of a class (such as I do when I consider him as a cat), but as a unique entity: my cat Viktor. Betsy: You do not identify this red thing as being this other red thing by differences. this A is identical to this other A (and implicitly, we are differentiating the A from the other perceived things on the screen). TomM: You do identify THIS THING as being different than THAT thing. Betsy: I am talking about identification here, not differentiation. TomM: My point is the ONLY way to identify is by differentiating. We're talking two different things here. Betsy and Jim are talking about identifying something as UNIQUE, like proper nouns. Tom's talking about identifying something as a being similar to something else, i.e., classifying it as a unit or attempting to. Granted, differentiation of this thing form other is involved, but once you have a standard "one foot" you measure off distances via their similarity to that length. Identifying the cat as "Viktor" rather than "a cat". Sube: Rand made the point that you need 3 units to identify a similarity because you need something to differentiate the similarity from in order to see the similarity. Betsy: I agree with that. One cannot identify red if that's all one has ever seen BetsyS: Right. At two entities you identify each as different from each other. Each is identified as what it is qua different thing, rather than similar thing. Subetai: yes, thanks you...however, even to identify something unique, once it is recognized (via perception) the only way to identify it in the future is by remembering what it was perceived as. Betsy: you are on the wrong topic...concept formation is only a part of this thread...we need to move on... Okay, let's move on. We'll come back to this in a while. Go ahead, Tom. Go ahead then. Ok, notice that havidng a standard that serves as a unit greatly expands the range of this that can be considered identical to that standard. Consider what happens ***after** you have differentiated and now have a standard...that's where we are. Ok, so the principle is that once you have that standard, anything that matches it is identical to it, correct? TomM: I disagree. TomM Not identical or there would be no need for measurement ommision. For instance, water is water once we have the standard of water being H2O...anything having a match to that standard is water. This is the principle behind congnition, the primary means of identification...having a standard establishes the "is" of the entity. Why say "identical"? Betsy: i dodn't care. Come on, this is a discussion. Subetai: Because we are talking about identification...if it is not identical to the standard, it is not identified (by that standard). In fact, two units may be "men" but they are not identical in any respect. Glenn: You may ahve missed an earlier statement due to the lag...concepts, due to measurement ommission, expand the range of things that can be considered to be identical. Tom: Do you agree that " identical " means having the same identity? TomMiovas: How are you using the word "Standard" here? As CCD? Because if have a unit of measure, such as an inch, which we use as a standard of measure, by measuring a foot as 12 inches doesn't mean a foot is an inch. HOwever, a foot and an inch are units of length. Betsy: They are identical once you ahve the concept "man." That is the entire point of having concepts, that you can deal with any man as exchangeable with any other man qua "ratioanl animal". "men" is a wider concept than "water" "Identical" is a bad word to use here. It means "exactly alike". But they're not. They share a commensurable characterstic, is all. I'm not going to argue this further...I've made my statement...moving on...(time is alreaedy out). TomM: But they are NOT _identical_ -- they are _similar_. What is a teleological measurement? TomMiovas: Men are identical qua man, i.e each IS a man, but they are not identical qua entities, i.e. joe is not sam, just because they are both man. When calling them identical, it is important to specify in what respect you mean. Measurement involving ordinal units. Betsy: The Objectivist virtues apply to *all* men because the concept man **unites** all men into one. jim: I said in regard to the standard...such as "rational animal." Glenn: Can you specify one such unit? Unit? You mean standard? In other words, how do you *measure* that something is "good"? Subetai: Sure, either will do. They are on a comparitive scale good, better , best Glenn: Be more specific. By relating it to some standard, and detrmining if it is beneficial or contrary to that standard. How do you get the concept "good" in the first place? TomMiovas: You measure it by the characteristic of benefiting one's life. A teleological measurement is an ordinal measurement indicating the distance between a thing and a value or the distance along a causal chain of means and ends toward and ultimate value. Is it life promoting or not. Betsy: Ok, but what is the standard of measuerment of such a process? TomM: Something is good if it is a means to the end of life. The standard is the value. In otherwords, how do you measuer that something is beneficial to man's life? What is the common unit that unites man's life and the thing considered qua value? For instance working --> money --> groceries --> eating --> living. Subetai2: What is commensurable? The CCD of "good" is the beneficial relationship to a goal (ultimately to life.) Gilles; The standard is not the value...how do you *know* (measuer) it is a value in the first place? Tom: You don't measure *that* something is beneficial to man's life. You meausre *how* valuable it is. MarkES: That was a while ago. Let's finish with this first. TomM: All standards have to be a unit with the property they measure. Length is measured in lengths, weight in pounds (a specific weight) etc. Gilles: But you integrate them by their having the common denominator of being beneficial to human life. The concept good applies to all levels of benifit, with the particular measure of degree ommitted. Gilles: How do you measure that it is valuable...i mean, do you just pick something out of the blue and say "This is a vlaue"? value In the interest of time ;) I'll give you the answer: The commensurate characteristice (unit) is TIME. (sorry for the poor spelling.) Life is self-sustaing, self-generative action...the means of measuring action is "time." Man has to decide on his purpose, or means of survival and then relate something is a value in that context or not. If something adds time to one's life, it is a value. TomM: You look at reality. Is eating pizza good for you? Is eating arsenic? Betsy: What does pizza do for you that you know it is a value? BetsyS: True. Rand actually clarified the concept of "Man's Life" as the standard, by saying "That which is required for man's survival qua man." and concversly, what does arsinic do that makes it a disvalue. ? kills people? Tomm: Pizza provides calories -- energy. It tastes good, satisfies hunger doesn't kill you right away, etc. What is the unit of beneficiality? no, but arsenic is good in its own way. Betsy: wont kill you *right away*? Betsy: When you eat pizza, doesn't it add time to your life? there is an end to which it serves Subetai2: Ok. something is good if it brings about an end. TomM: When Rand was talking about "time" she meant you evaluate a life span (of time) in units of time. Previously she said you evaluate units of economic value in dollars. Miss Rand is very clear on this matter...the unit of measuring "the good" is the extent to which it adds time to one's life. If you don't eat, you will die of hunger. No more time to live. TomM: I have IToE rifht here. WHERE does she say that? avejoe: The ultimate end is man's life...measuring the time something adds to one's life is the objective means of deciddidng if it is a vlaue. TomMiovas: Yes, to the degree it allows one's life to continue longer. Betsy: Keep readding under "teleological measurements" for a few pages (1.5 actually). Jim: Right! TomM: What pages. So, going by the above outlined principle of equivalency, pizza is time...man's life is time...therefore, pizza is man's life. Betsy: Inhardback, about pg 32. TomMiovas: But let's clarify something, the unit of good is neither "time" nor "life", but "ability to continue life." Jim: Nope, to be clear, the unit *is* time. It is the objective measuring unit. TomMiovas: I say this, because food isn't a kind of time, nor is it a kind of life, but it is a kind of thing that has the ability to add time to my life (I'll die if I don't eat.) TomM: See Rand's discussion of tel. measurement at the bottom of p.33. She is measuring according to a "hierarchy of values" -- not time. If something does fnot add time to your life, then it is not an objective value. Quality of life should play a factor here Jim: Well, if you followed my principle of equivalency above, you will realize we are saying the same thing. Two things equal to some third thing are equal to each other...both life and pizza (energy) can be measuered in units of time, therefore they are equivalent. She calls it the "currency". That's what you pay to *get* a value. By that standard, the more time you need to spend in attaining a value, the higher the value is on the teleological scale. That doesn't sound right. TomMiovas: You'd have to explain that. I think stating that the unit is time, you're not being exact. TomMiovas: Measure a pizza in units of time, and tell me how that makes it the same as life. Sounds terribly wrong to me. TomM: Life and pizza can also be measured in terms of space, cost, etc. And this demonstrates that evaluation *is* a species of cognition, because *both* use a standard to measure identity. Jim: Look it up in ITOE...RAnd is **very** specific (it is often overlooked, and took me two months to fully find/understand it). TomMiovas: I've read RAnd, but I think you're wrong. Try explaining yourself rather than defaulting to authority. Betsy: Sure, taht is why there are **two** hierarchies...those dedicated to measueing what something *is* (cognitive)...and those dedicated to measuring how *it* sustains life (normative). (I fully agree that evaluation is a species of cognition, btw. I argued that when you argued against it. However, I disagree with what you think is the measure of value.) TomM Could you state your original point again, that your discussion is leading to, for some of us that lost connection. Jim: I ahve already done that...to have a standard of measuerment is the only way to be objective. TomM: I don't buy into the two hierarchies either. measure of value = common denominator of values. Syaing something is beneficial to man's life is not yet establishing a unit of measurment. TomMiovas: I'm not denying the need for a standard of measurement of values. I'm denying your understanding of it, by saying pizza and life are identical by the measure of time. Any other attempt to measure value leaves one with no standard...hence, it is subjective. Jim: The common denominator is that they all (objective ones) add time to one's life. The measure of value is how much it contributes to your life, with your life as the end. Life as the end doesn NOT mean lifespan. TomMiovas: Ah, that's how I said it awhile ago. The common denomiator is that they all are things that add time to one's life. But that doesn't make pizza identical with life. You're still unclear in that respect. in some form or another. Jim: Ok, I'll bite ;) What is *your* unit? Subetai: in the long run, it is...see ITOE...RAnd clearly states that life*time* is the standard...like one has a limited amount of money to spend, so he has a limited amount of *time* to spend. Jim: And that would be life of a certain quality (qua man). If he spends it on things that do not add more time to his life, he is acting self-destructively. TomMiovas: I said my unit: things which contribute to the continuation of life. But the unit isn't time as such, but how those things increase the time of life. Tom: I just read that reference. She says that time is the "currency". That doesn't make it the measure of value. avejoe: You don't have the context to contribute to this discussion. I suggest you watch for a while if it interests you. Jim: That is not a unit...how do you **measure** that? TomM: How about the standard that Rand establ;ishes on P.33 of IToE? Means-->Ends relationships within a hierarchy of values? Subetai: you need to explain how that a currency is not a unit...after all, the unit of monetary transactions is the "dollar." TomMiovas: Let me make it more clear where I'm comming from. When we say that a unit of length, say an inch, can serve as a standard of measure, we don't need a standard to identify the characteristic of length, but only to measure length. We simply have to grasp that length must exist in some quantity, but in any quantity. Betsy: That is the *earlier* part of the discussion...read further. Tom: Time as currency *is* a unit, but it's not the unit of value. It's the unit of what you have to spend to get a value. The time you spend in getting a value, and the importance of that value do not need to be proportionate. Jim: True, but once you measure with that inch/foot, you can grasp that all things that fit that stadard have length...that is what is being measured with those units. TomMiovas: When we identify something as a value, we don't need to know how much of a value it is, but simply that it has the common denominator of a value, i.e. beneficial to human life. When we have an exact unit, we can then measure the degrees, but the concept of value doesn't require such measurement, it requires the recognition of the characteristic, and ommiting the measure. TomM: That is Rand's _basis_ for all teleological measurement of which "time" is only one kind. Subetai: Ok, and time is also the *profit* one gets out of pursuing only those things which add time to one's life...making a profit is the root concept of "value". TomMiovas: The standard of measure of lenght is an inch. The common denominator isn't INCH, however, but LENGTH. If time were the unit of measuring values, you could arrange values on a cardinal scale, you wouldn't need teleological measurement. Betsy: Name another one. What is good is the standard, what promotes a man's life and purpose. Subetai: No, they are ordinal because you can't be precise about it...for instance, I don't need to know that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich extends my life by 4.567 hours to know it is beneficial. So long as I make a profit in terms of time, I *know* it is valuable. Glenn: Purpose comes down to what you chose to spend your time on. Tom: Another teleological measure is how effective a cause is for acquiring a value. Or how enjoyable something is. Etrc. Betsy: Enjoyment adds time to your life psychologically...you want to live longer when you enjoy things. Tom: Man has to have a purpose in order to survive. Gleen: And his purpose must add time to his life or he is acting self-destructively...like a failed business venture. TomM: What is better-- a short and happy life or a long and miserable one? Betsy: I already answered that enjoyment adds time to one's life. If prolonging life is what determines whether something is a value, it would never be right to risk your life to save the life of someone you love. And that it is necessary...as motivation to live longer (i.e. to continue to wnat to add time to one's life). Subetai: Wrong...that person is one of your primary reasons for wanting your life to last longer...without that person, it wouldn't be worth the investment of time to continue. TomM: I had an Objectivist friend who had a good life and died of cancer before he was thirty. A lot of rotten people lived longer than that. Did they have a _better_ life? Betsy: You are entirely mssing the point that I have stated over and over again. TomMiovas: Then clarify yourself. I've missed your point as well. Betsy: his life was good, so long as he acted selfishly well he was alive and made a profit in the amount of time he spent to get more time. Tom: Man's nature (having to make pro-life decisions in order to survive) is why he has to make evaluations. well=while I believe Tom is talking about life in a rational context. Glenn: Sure...what I'm showing is that the stanedard of judgement of whether one *ought* to pick this option over the other is the amount of time it adds to his life. Gilles; Thank you for that! TomMiovas: You just said, "profit in the ammount of time." Does this mean that the time itself isn't whole point? How do you measure that profiting of time? Jim: By measuring the time it takes to aquire the thing, and comparing it to the amount of time it would give one if it was had...if the had gives a greater number of time units, a profit was made. Like my example in my essay. Making a pb&j sandwich takes only a few minutes...but by eating it, one gains many hours of sustained life. Therefore, it is profitable. Wings: Can you hold off a minute? Jim: Does that make sense? Tom: But Tom, standard of what is good would be those things that promote a mans purpose, not the length of time of his life. TomMiovas: Can you clarify whether you think the length of one's life indicates the success of one's life? Getting a car is valuble because it saves one time in aquiring further values. Jim: Not the length per se, of course, but provided one is rational, and pursues that which adds more timed, then yes...more life is better. Wings: Please hold off on that. TomMiovas: Saves you time in aquireing further things that save you time? What is more life to you? I thought you said time was the measure of life, but you now seem to be indicating that you think the measure of life is more than just the time. I apologize. The server must have went down. I am interested in seeing what your response, TomMiovas, was to my question. Jim: It *is* more time...life is measuered in terms of time...the pleaures of life are also measured in time units...the time it makes one want to live longer. Mark: Ask it again? Is sheer time lived equivalent to "good"? I don't think so. If you want to be "mathematical" that way, it ought to be more like: Integral(w(t), t), where w(t) is your happiness at t :) Look, a bank robbers time spent robbing banks is not well spent, because he will loose much time when he is caught. TomMiovas: How do you answer someone who says: well if living longer is the goal, then what does it matter if I'm motivated if I can achieve long life even if not as happy? Jim: You have ignored me saying repeatedly that pleasure is time as well. Phil: REad what Miss RAnd has to say about teleological measuerments, and how time is the unit in ITOE. I can enhance the enjoyment of my life through risky things such as skydiving. Chances are, I'm reducing my lifespan doing that rather than adding to it by "wanting to make me live". Should I not do that? TomMiovas: No, I didn't. You explained that the only justification for pleasure is that it motivates one to live longer. You don't seem to view pleasure as an important goal other than to save time. Phil: I am not alking about who lives the longest, but rather investing one's time prusuing those things which profit him in time. jim: i didn't say to save time, I said to keep one *wantding* to live for more time. TomM: Hence w(t) as some "measure" of that. Integrated over time ... w(t)=100/year for 10 years would equal another's w(t)=20/year for 50 years (to be probably ridiculously rationalistic about it) TomM: Correction: Time is _a_ unit (page 34). Money is _a_ unit (p. 33). Hierarchical relationship to life is the standard (p.33). TomMiovas: I recommend you read Peikoff's lecture on Judging and Feeling without being Moralistic. He discusses in there the error of viewing one's present merely as a means to some long term goal. Betsy: i said that a while ago. Time was a unit, but not the unit of measuring value. Subetai: Same answer as above...your enjoyment of skydiving enhances your life since by doding it, you desire to *live longer*...joy is psychological fuel...i.e psychological time. Jim: You are confused on what I am saying...the moments of one's life need to be enjoyed...joy is spychological fuel...ie.e added time. TomM: I believe that in the IToE discussion that Rand was saying that money is the currency of material values and time is the currency of spiritual values. Tom: However, it won't substantially decrease my desire to live if I don't take up skydiving. However, it's a substantial risk. By that equation, I shouldn't do it. Same for a lot of other activities. psychological. TomMiovas: Funny, in that lecture Peikoff gave the example of grad students justifying a trip to the movie on the basis that it would make them better able to write their papers. Peikoff claimed this was a complete error, that enjoyement isn't something you have to justify by future goals. He actually pointed out: All living is living in the present. The goal of long term plans is to increase one's (current) present, not the present to increas Subetai: if you do it safely, so that the doing does dnot remove time from your life, then go ahead and do it. Taking risks means deciding to spend a little time now for a great profit in time later...just like playing the stock market. Time is the unit of what you *spend*. That's what it measures. What you *get* does not need to have the same unit. TomMiovas: I am beginning to understand a bit more. I will restate it anyway. I currently value my education and my ambition to make money - however, after a certain point, making money doesn't really extend the duration of your life. Jim: I am not contradicting that...one goes to a movie to enjoy the movie...*not* to increase one's writing ability. Subetai: if it is not, then no profit is made, hence it is not a value. TomMiovas: I believe part of the answer would be that my ambition and education _does_, in fact, make me want to live longer. Mark: True, but I am not speaking about increasidng the average life expectency. TomMiovas: Nor is the goal really to increase one's time. TomMiovas: The goal of seeing a movie, that is. Mark: your current investment now in education will make lots of money (hopefully) in the future...and money *is* time. Jim: yes, it really is. Ultimately, the goal of life is successful living -- i.e., happiness and joy -- for however long it lasts. TomMiovas: How is it? Unless you're going to argue the error that the point of seeing the movie is only justified by future time, then the goal isn't more time. Jim: for the tenth time...joy is psychological ***fuel***...what do you think fuel is for except to expand one's time? The Marxists have the false labor theory of value ... that value gotten is equal to labor/time put in. Not so The tie of romantic art to this issue is that by observing a good movie, say, it saves one time regarding how to properly act in certain situations...so you dodn't have to figure it all out for yourself. If you knew that you had a terminal disease and were due to die in 6 months, with nothing you could do to prolong your life beyond those 6 months, does that mean you cease to have values? You cannot profit time-wise, then, for sure. phil: I agree...I'm saying MAKE A PROFIT! For instance, you take time to do some economic task...the reason you dod it is that the time investment involved is less than that upon completing it and selling it. Subetai: Suer you can...you profit while you are alive...for instance, if you don't eat, you'll die sooner. TomM: How about the fact that great romantic art is a wonderful experience here and now? TomMiovas: Joy isn't just fuel, but a reward. It is what the purpose of life is. TomM: Would you advise Peter Keating to go into architecture to make more money than he would as an artist? Betsy: I answered that...romantic art, by concretizing abstractions, saves you time and effort in that you didn't have to come up with those answers entirely on your own. Tom: Let's say you're doing whatever's physically necessary to last those 6 months. You can't do anything more there. So you stop acting, besides sleeping, eating and taking your pills? Betsy: NO...I would advise Peter to invest his time more wisely and become a romantic painter. That may sound like an unlikely example, but change that from 6 months to 100 years, and it covers us all. There's only so much you can do to prolong life. The rest is to improve the quality of that life. Subetai: not me...I'd do what I could to finsish whatever I was working on...then it becomes a spiritual addition of time, even if I don't make any modney off it. TomM: But it's less profitable -- or is it? By what standard of "profitablility". That's playing with words. What's a "spiritual addition of time"? TomM: A problem I see with your approach is that you want to quantify something which is inherently an ordinal scale, not a quantitative one Betsy: That comes down to optional values...optional values are those things you'd rather spend you time doing or being around...again, it's psychological time here. phil: I was thrown off by that for a while also, which is why my fiorst couple of posts on this issue came out the way they did. One can not precisely measure value, since it is ordinal, but one can specify the *range* the "unit" encompasses (like with concepts of consciousness). Phil: That's what Rand meant about teleological measurements being _ordinal_. Betsy: Concepts of consciousness are also only ordinal...but you can gaige the difficulty in thinking about this topic vs thinking about what you are going to wear tomorrow. You can not say: "Thinking about values is 2.345 units, but thinking about clothing is 0.456 units." It's two different things to say "increasing your lifespan" and "enhancing your enjoyment of life". They can't be bridged by a common unit of time. They can only be connected by "life as the standard". Betsy: Yes ... Ordinal means -- better than/worse than -- cheaper than/more expensive than -- more/less painful than -- more/less interesting than -- etc. Subetai: I don't know how else to put it. the *quality* of life means you are spendidng your **time** ddoing what you think is best **for** your own personal life. Besty: Yes...and you can also say peanut butter extends one's time/life less than a more helthy meal...but you don't have to be much more precise. healthy TomM: Everything in the universe takes time to effect. The real question is what you spend your time doing Tom: Yes, but if you're spending a day better than your neighbor, there's no diffenrence between the two that concerns "time as a unit". The difference is qualitative, not quantitative. It's *possible* to measure it more precisely, but ordinarily, it's unnecessary. Subetai: Better in terms of what you chose to spend your time on vs what your neighbor choses to spend his time on. Tom: That's a "better" where time is incidental, not the unit. You measure the "better" by "life as a standard". long discussion. Anyhow, speaking of time, it's getting late...sleep also extends one's time, since without it, one would die before too long ;) Okay, later, Tom. Thanks for the discussion. :) Subetai: Your time is spent more wisely by enhancing future time. Not necessarily Tom: Actually, I'm enhancing the value of the present. Enhancing "future time" is not the motivation there. I hope I ahve save/bought you guys more time by discussing this issue...hope you all made a profit from this investment. phil: You weren't here for the whole discussion. Spending first 40 yrs of your life "for the future" only would be a tragic waste of time Subetai: Any act of gaining knowledge is an investment in saved time in the future. philtwo: but everybody spends atleast the first 25. (if they go to college) phil: True, but that is **not** my position. Tom: But I do it for the present. If I have no mind-body dichotomy, what I do for the present can only benfit me in the future, but that's not why I do it. IRC log ended Sat Jun 1 00:07