Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Words do morph their meanings over time. I don't think 'the mind is a completely blank slate' is an innate part of what we mean when we say empiricism today.

Although, obviously, if we're talking about it in a historical context it could possibly be relevant.

And then there's the difference between 'correct reaction' and 'knowledge'. A mouse might scatter away at any noises, because that helped her ancestors avoid predators, and it's coded in some way in her brain, but can we call that knowledge of anything?

No, that mouse acts on instinct. The reaction isn't conscious.

@Point Maid: It doesn't apply to all of empiricism, but specifically the theory of mind. The blank slate has been held even very recently, and I'd say not only that it's not only wrong, but quite destructive. I was specifically interested by how it fit into the rest of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Apparently she also disliked the theory of evolution (while not denying it was true). Perhaps she liked the blank slate idea since it made people more "self-made" (a capitalist concept as well) which the long process of evolution undermined? Just speculation, but it seems possible.

edited 5th Sep '14 5:40:34 PM by Fireblood

maybe she see that evolution dosent fix her view of doing whatever ones wants and that somehow it will help the rest, she have a very messiac view of selfishness, something ironic because many comuninst and socialist presidents cast themselves as saviors, funny thing

I'm... not quite clear on what you said on Rand? Can you please rephrase that?

I just finished reading The God Delusion today. Although it didn't really say much that I didn't already know, it did give words to some ideas that I previously was only able to think of in an abstract way, or things that I had an intuitive sense of that I didn't know how to describe.

The thing that was new to me, though, was the idea of religion being dangerous, even in the case of reasonable people who happen to practice or follow a particular faith. That the mere concept of believing without sufficient evidence (or in the lack of any evidence) could be harmful. While I'm inclined to agree at first, I have to wonder if this isn't sliding down a kind of slippery slope.

In the end, everyone has assumptions, postulates, and the like. Whatever your base is, it is arbitrary; for example, whatever method you use to discern truth is chosen, not proven.

I don't see how saying religion is dangerous is sliding down a slippery slope.

@desdendelle: I think Rand liked the idea of the mind being a blank slate as that would allow people to be more "self-made" rather than a product of their genetics, for instance. I also think it may be why she disliked evolution. Does that help?

There's no way to prove truth, in your opinion? Not even in theory?

@unknowing: I'm not sure I follow you. If you mean that Rand disliked evolution because it would limit people and thus they couldn't help people, I'd say that wouldn't matter to her. She was not into helping others. Unless you mean spreading the word of how great selfishness was. I think that you have a point on her being a lot like the communists in some ways, though-people are usually very influenced by those they hate.

If the mind was a blank slate you can blame stupid people for being stupid, cautious people for being timid etc. If intelligence and other personality traits are genetic however, it becomes unfair and irrational to blame people for not being awesome and the whole justification of objectivism crumbles to dust.

That still only would account for innate mental aptitudes, though. That people also have different upbringings and physical abilities would seem to be self-evident.

@Antiteilchen: It can be argued both ways: assuming the mind is a blank slate, a person could be a product of their environment, not genes. Either way it doesn't tell you how much that influence that has in terms of free will vs. determinism. Ayn Rand was very heavily in the free will, but environment is sometimes argued to be just as strict as genetics in determining who you are, so I don't think it's definitive either way.

@Point Maid: I agree, it seems obvious to me too, but historically there have been whole schools of thought like behaviorism that argued no one had innate attributes (or almost none).

edited 6th Sep '14 6:11:57 PM by Fireblood

Remind me how this discussion started?

@Xopher: this conversation started from this.
@Fireblood: Assuming other people are other people with their own chosen method and of set postulates, no, you can't discern a universal truth. You can still find something that is true for your own system. Of course, if other people aren't other people — rather, they're projections of you're own mind; other words, if you're a solipsist — then you can discern a universal truth because your system is the only game in town, so to speak.

@Xopher: I'm sorry, it went off on something of a tangent.

@desdendelle: Why not? Remember that I believe in an objective reality.

And therein lies our disagreement. I don't take objective reality for granted. (I'm going Epistemology —> Ontology, if that makes things clearer.)

I don't either-it still appears to exist though.

The characters in the Skyrim game I'm currently playing also appear to exist. Do they?

In a sense. The idea of them exists. The data they are composed of exists. Instead of atoms they have a series of switches, but those switches are very much real.

If an idea is all you need for something to exist, then god exist (also the rest of them and we should probably start sacrificing animals to Zeus again lest we suffer from Bolts of Divine Retribution).

I agree that gods exist as ideas. The difference between them and your Skyrim characters would be that their existence is independent of individual minds. If people stop believing in them, they don't just go away.

Yeah, we're fine. Idea-Zeus can only shoot Idea-lightning bolts. Which might do damage if you also have a d20 handy, but not to the real you.

Urk, I don't think I was clear: what I was saying is, "something that appears to behave a certain way does not necessarily behave the same way". Basically, even though I can see and hear my Skyrim character, it's not really in the same way you guys would say the computer I'm using to play Skyrim (and type this post) is. What's the difference?

I'm sorry, I don't quite get what you're saying there.

Neither do I