Watch more politics at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Everett, Thank you for your video response. I was never trying to justify as rational every decision I ever make. Only that the principle of induction (a guess based on what you know) is more rational than the alternative (a random guess). A couple things I didn't cover in the video. Order is where there are relationships between the elements. But since I'm looking at utility, some orderings would be classified as random from my perspective. So in the case where there isn't a direct but rather an indirect relationship between the elements I know and those I'm trying to predict, then they would fall under the random category. For example, the sequence of digits of the base of natural logarithms e could be said to be ordered since they are related via the Taylor series that generates them. But since I know of no way to backwards engineer a Taylor series from an arbitrary string of digits--perhaps Taylor does, how about it Taylor? :-)--I would count that as random. I read up on Hume and his view of induction was pretty close to the dictionary definition. Here's how my dictionary defines induction: 1. Any form of reasoning in which the conclusion, though supported by the premises, does not follow from them necessarily. 2. The process of estimating the validity of observations of part of a class of facts as evidence for a proposition about the whole class. My definition from my first video was a little closer to dictionary definition #2, though perfectly compatible with #1. I'm not a big fan of using the dictionary as the ultimate authority, but it seems to me that Webster, Hume and I would all agree that your infinite orderings all fall under the general umbrella of induction. So contrary to your comments, I'm not the one who's changing the definition to suit my needs. Cheers, ~Javier

Re: "Psychological Egoism" Is Subjective, Not Objective, Rational Egoism

This is a section of An Arab-American Psycologist, Wafa Sultan on Al Jazeera TV, Feburary 21, 2006. In the new century, the conflict in the Middle East is still in shaky ground. Palestinians' water, land are controlled, roads are guarded by Israel troop's checking points for the control the transportation of Palestinians. USA government still doggly supports Israel government, which has been surpressing Palestinians, who explodes car bombs and suicide bombs to kill Israel citizens in return. In West Africa the gap of the poor and the rich has worsened under the so-called democatic leadership. These happpen, because radicals religius ideas appeals to the public, has become the reflection of social and economical problems in these society, when government corrupts, when the gap between the rich and the poor has been intoleable, when a country is in financial ruin, or when the new cultural values have been forced to replace the old ones, and many more scenarios. This video also questions the necessity of religion, which has been a part of cultures since the beginning of mankind. When does relgion become a cultural lag? What's its function of religion today? Do most of the people really have the willpower to establish their own moral principles without religion? Are women surpressed in the name of religion? How to interpret relgiious doctrine? Figuratively or literally? Should democracy be imposed or encouraged? What's good about domocracy when your own survival is in danger?

In the woods of the state of North Carolina members of an extreme environmental group gathered to mourn the death of a fallen tree. Their behavior illustrates the mental disorder known as liberalism. Where is this emotion when a carrot is uprooted to feed the face of careless human? These mourners are an excellent example that the United States of America is too affluent. Too affluent to where some people can concern themselves emotionally over the downing of a tree. Many people in the USA and around the world concern themselves with their daily existence, while these children of the uber rich lament the harvesting of a crop, a tree. If liberals ever employed rationality to their thinking, liberalism would be eradicated.

This talk by Robert Brandom was given at a workshop held at the Centre for Time at the Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney on 14 October 2005. A transcript can be found at http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:c21GqtzwnXwJ:www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/forskning/internordic/Kantian%2520Lessons%2520abour%2520Meaning.doc+%22kantian+lessons+about+mind,+meaning,+and+rationality%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us Visit Brandom's homepage at http://www.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/

This talk by Robert Brandom was given at a workshop held at the Centre for Time at the Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney on 14 October 2005. A transcript can be found at http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:c21GqtzwnXwJ:www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/forskning/internordic/Kantian%2520Lessons%2520abour%2520Meaning.doc+%22kantian+lessons+about+mind,+meaning,+and+rationality%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us Visit Brandom's homepage at http://www.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/

This talk by Robert Brandom was given at a workshop held at the Centre for Time at the Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney on 14 October 2005. A transcript can be found at http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:c21GqtzwnXwJ:www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/forskning/internordic/Kantian%2520Lessons%2520abour%2520Meaning.doc+%22kantian+lessons+about+mind,+meaning,+and+rationality%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us Visit Brandom's homepage at http://www.pitt.edu/~rbrandom/

Roundtable discussion with Peter Brooks, Anne Dailey, Carol Gilligan, Nomi Stolzenberg, and Kenji Yoshino.

The NOFX song The Irrationality of Rationality, played alongside some photos.

Your ideas will end up much better if you take some time to consider your definition of rationality critically (i.e., through a few attempted counterexamples) before posting them on the comments. Just some advice... we're talkin like 5 min of thought here.

My definition (or view) on rationality. I recorded this quickly this morning so sorry if it sounds like I'm ad-libbing.

The video remix of the song "rationality" of the moldavian band - Headswitch

'People only see what they are prepared to see.' ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

reasonable and rational

In which I try to answer UrbanElf's Challenge: Exhibit a game in which the optimal winning strategy necessitates the use of random behavior! I give an example of solving the traveling salesman problem--a deterministic solution can be beaten by a randomized algorithm. With this example I'm aiming to prove that "Randomness in the Brain" can be more than just randomness in the brain. I want to point out that there is an inherent random component to rational behavior, which I call "Dionysian Rationality"

With a small r and a large R?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj1nCKiG9IM&watch_response

Types of logic: classical, basic modal, normal modal, non-normal, conditional, intuitionist, many-valued, first degree entailment, basic relevant, mainstream relevant, and fuzzy logic. Priest's book: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Non-Classical-Logic-Graham-Priest/dp/052179434X/ True Contradictions: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-paraconsistent/#DiaTruCon http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/

Religulous is a rather funny movie, but I think it misses the mark. Basically, Bill Maher assumes people actually read and literally interpret religious texts. His thesis is that the texts are self-fulfilling prophesies. He thinks we ought to get rid of religion in order to save the world. The problems with Maher's thesis are: - Lots of people don't read so it doesn't matter much what the actual religious texts say since most people rely on religious leaders to tell them how to live (and how to vote and how to shop...) - Religious texts can be interpretted a number of ways. In fact, many of the people Maher interviewed had non-literal interpretations of the texts. - Religion serves a purpose for many human beings. It helps explain the unexplainable and it helps give them meaning to their lives. This can be used for good just as easily as it cane be used for evil. - Certainly, religious leaders can manipulate people and religious leaders can do evil things, but that's a result of the power they have over people, not specific to religion. (See some forms of atheistic communism for examples of how POWER corrupts, with or without religion.)

We are living in a century that scientists try to explain everything naturalistically and want to take "God" out of creation. And they see religions as paralysers of science. I am not sure about other religions,but it is a certain fact that,Quran wants us to search, to ask,to reflect,and it indeed lead the way to science for many years. It was nothing,but Quran,that made Islamic countries increase at science,at Agricultural sciences,Applied sciences,Astrology, Astronomy,Chemistry,Earth sciences, Mathematics,Mechanics,Medicine, Neurosciences,Optics,Social sciences, Zoology and more. And automatically,it caused Islamic world to advance in all other ways. When we remember the Arabic world before Quran,it shows its importance and value more. Most of today's scince owes to Islamic science between the 8th and 15th centuries. And here is the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science Best regards Peace

In which I explain metaphorically in more detail why Alphie beat Bertie. I also give a sermon on why rationality has an intrinsically random element to it which I call "Dionysian Rationality". I also give a challenge! See if you can beat Alphie in the Best in the West game! Here are the coordinates I used for the various cities: "A Olympia",-461,-352 "D Boise",-365,-225 "B Salem",-489,-271 "C Sacremento",-489,-121 "E Carson City",-404,-121 "G Salt Lake City",-303,-134 "H Phoenix",-313,54 "K Santa Fe",-197,8 "J Denver",-174,-75 "QTopeka",-16,-36 "R Oklahoma City",-59,32 "U Austin",-38,150 "V Baton Rouge",95,167 "T Little Rock",73,54 "S Jefferon City",80,-53 "O Des Moines",73,-134 "N St. Paul",44,-217 "P Lincoln City",-8,-113 "M Pierre",-49,-174 "L Bizmark",-67,-271 "I Cheyanne",-161,-152 "F Helena",-268,-262

reply to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIWoyRa7qXQ Video Cam Direct Upload

ame Ja, dus thick bar farmers tot 110kg, yoke tot 350kg, sled tot 350kg ..

At Sundance, not talking about films...