william.scherk

Very much on topic, I think. Ellen Stuttle has expressed strong doubt that Hawking is responsible for anything that has his name affixed to it. She goes so far as to warn readers that they mustn't take Hawking to task for anything that has appeared under his name, since no one could ever tell if he was actually responsible . . . I have only read excerpts and reviews of Bauby's book (and the film based on his book). Curiously, Ellen claims to have worked on a similar literary production (which begs the question of how she would know the locked-in guy was responsible for the output she claims to have blue-pencilled): Frankly, I have doubts that Ellen had any connection with such a writing project. If she really had, I would have expected she would have applied the same epistemological waffle to such a product as she applied to Hawking, would have had grave doubts that she could know such 'a guy' could be said to be responsible. Especially given her uninformed 'warning' (emphasis added): "I'm not suggesting that Mendelev (sic) just up and wrote a book and put Hawking's name as "co-author." He'd have needed compliance and help from Hawking's caretakers/keepers. I'm claiming that there's no way anyone could know what Hawking really thinks of what's published in his name, if he even knows all of what that is -- and if he's even still capable of coherent consecutive thought. Do you believe that someone who, as Baal graphically described one of the details of Hawking's plight, "has to be aspirated frequently or he will drown in his own spit" would be capable of doing a whole lot of detailed mathematical analysis? I don't." I suspect she made up the reference to 'a guy.' Of course we will never know . . .

Jonathan, Ellen's murky opinions are based on gossip. She won't cite any errors in Hawking's products, let alone discuss them. Since she won't cite or discuss specifics, we can push her own product into the bin labelled 'tittle-tattle.' I was initially curious about her murky 'warnings.' How did she get to the place of believing Hawking had a crippled mind, I wondered -- how had she formed that belief? There are interesting and detailed critiques of The Grand Design recently published, and no doubt more to come. Some of Hawking's peers take issue with the scope and detail of his books. Hawking's peers discuss his work in physics journals. These are interesting. Ellen's retailing of sotto voce mumbles are not. She has nothing pertinent or useful to say about Hawking, in my opinion.

I withdraw that remark and strike it out. If Ellen has worked with a 'locked-in' person and understood that a disability like ALS or stroke does not dim a mind or crimp its powers, then I am obviously wrong to impute to her the attitude in the 'wow' phrase. My apologies to Ellen for the over-the top remark.

Well, that was easy. Maybe you would like to point out the errors you have found in a book that you apparently haven't read yet. We can then blame them on both authors, and poor Hawking will just have to somehow live through the horror. I am on page 29. Have I yet passed the point where my BS detector should have given a mighty 'ping'?

As was pointed out to me backchannel by a couple of folks, asking 'how we could know' Hawking writes his books is not an illicit question. In an attempt to find out the answer I came across the story of 'locked in' writer, Jean-Dominique Bauby, whose story is told in a New York Times book review. Here is an excerpt from that review. His time "as a perfectly functioning earthling" ended, one might say, in the blink of an eye. But it was blinking -- that age-old image of heedless speed turned into literal, concentrated labor -- that saved Bauby from becoming just another object in the room. By moving his left eyelid in response to an alphabet rearranged according to the letters' frequency of use, Bauby managed to write a book as moving as Job's and as expansive, in its way, as any composed by the wheelchaired, boundless Stephen Hawking. Jean-Dominique Bauby was the victim of a stroke that left his mind and one eye functioning -- enough to enable him to dictate "The Diving Suit and the Butterfly" to Claude Mendibil before dying of heart failure. "It is a simple enough system," he explains. "You read off the alphabet . . . until, with a blink of my eye, I stop you at the letter to be noted. The maneuver is repeated for the letters that follow, so that fairly soon you have a whole word." Fairly soon! Less soon when the amanuensis anticipates and makes mistakes: "One day when, attempting to ask for my glasses (lunettes), I was asked what I wanted to do with the moon (lune)." I don't expect Ellen to defend her contentions here, or rather, I don't think she will assemble a coherent, well-referenced argument that deals with objections raised to her implacable skepticism. I suspect she hasn't thought much about the ways in which a functioning mind can struggle through obstacles to express itself. It is a funny thing. In the next couple of decades, the arduous techniques by which Bauby and Hawking transcended their disabilities will likely be replaced by ever more wonderful technology. The creative mind and its abilities to devise, marshall and express extremely complex thoughts -- this is a wonderful, awe-inspiring capacity to me. It saddens me that Ellen apparently cannot conceive of any mind that will battle through grave disabilities to get its intricate interior productions out to the rest of us -- I think of the prodigious feats of memory in which ancient and present-day bards compose and retain vast 'books' of poetry -- without recourse to written language at all. |I think of the prodigies of modern-day 'Memory Palace' competitions and of Matteo Ricci and many score historical prodigies, and I wonder if she makes her own mind the measure of humankind. At root, Ellen seems to doubt that any human being can be such a titan, whether locked in by disability or not.

I don't mind if you don't appreciate the pretty nested boxes, Ted. I was trying my best to follow Ellen's request that I pull together the relevant posts in one place. I wonder -- do you have an opinion on the topic?

I found a topical note purported to be 'written' by Stephen Hawking, from "My Experience with ALS." For a time, the only way I could communicate was to spell out words letter by letter, by raising my eyebrows when someone pointed to the right letter on a spelling card. It is pretty difficult to carry on a conversation like that, let alone write a scientific paper. However, a computer expert in California, called Walt Woltosz, heard of my plight. He sent me a computer program he had written, called Equalizer. This allowed me to select words from a series of menus on the screen, by pressing a switch in my hand. The program could also be controlled by a switch, operated by head or eye movement. When I have built up what I want to say, I can send it to a speech synthesizer. At first, I just ran the Equalizer program on a desk top computer. However David Mason, of Cambridge Adaptive Communication, fitted a small portable computer and a speech synthesizer to my wheel chair. This system allowed me to communicate much better than I could before. I can manage up to 15 words a minute. I can either speak what I have written, or save it to disk. I can then print it out, or call it back and speak it sentence by sentence. Using this system, I have written a book, and dozens of scientific papers. I have also given many scientific and popular talks.

I opened a new topic, "Did Stephen Hawking co-author The Grand Design."

Duplicate !!

Ellen Stuttle has put forward an interesting thesis in several postings here at Objectivist Living. -- quoting me and her backchannel communication: Your quote above was from your note continuing the topic backchannel after I'd indicated that it would be a few days before I could respond on-list. Here is the "pretty feeble" answer I gave: [ . . . ] Plus, in response to your saying that you "think the general question of how he gets his thoughts out has been answered," I responded: I responded backstage: The post we both refer to . . . Are you suggesting that Hawking's disability prevents him from expressing himself, or that any production in print or on stage/video is suspect in some way? If yes, if as it seems you consider that the productions in his name are suspect, can you give us an idea of what you think happens between him and the apparatus he appears to use? Have you ever watched Hawking in recent video, Ellen, seen or read of him in action answering questions from an interviewer or audience? If you are wondering what story is told to explain his synthesized speech productions, and his abilities to use language, there is a page on his website, under the title "Prof Stephen Hawking's Disability Advice." If you watch a recent video of Hawking 'speaking' through his voice synthesizer, you can see that the only thing that he moves on his body is his right cheek. I have also seen a video of him answering questions recently, which did not edit out the entire time it takes him to answer a question put to him. The video crew showed the screen that he watched. As far as I could tell, the synthesizer is no simple 'hunt and peck' device. In any case, there have been a few cases of folks who have been paralyzed by cerebral accident who have used computers to 'write' . . . I will try to find a reference for you if you like. I am very interested in your reply. I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself. There is a relatively recent (March 2010) report from BBC that should interest you. See the video of "Giving Stephen Hawking A Voice." There are some other enlightening stories on communication devices and strategies for disabled people on the same page. PS -- see also an article in the Guardian in which the reporter claims to have interviewed Hawking. I give just a brief excerpt to entice readers who doubt the man can communicate/write/think in consecutive, coherent thought. Those not paralyzed by doubt, who are yet capable of coherent consecutive action, can use Google to find the whole dang thing . . . "Behind his shoulder, his assistant nods. There will now be some time for live questions. Stupidly, given that I have read all about it, I fail to realise just how arduous and time-consuming the process of live communication is. If I did, I wouldn't squander the time on asking a joke, warm-up question. I tell him I have heard he has six different voices on his synthesizer and that one is a woman's. Hawking lowers his eyes and starts responding. After five minutes of silence the nurse sitting beside me closes her eyes and appears to go to sleep. I look around. On the windowsill are framed photos stretching back through Hawking's life. There are photos of one of his daughters with her baby. I notice Hawking's hands are thin and tapering. He is wearing black suede Kickers. Another five minutes pass. There are pictures of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, one of which has been digitally manipulated to feature Hawking in the foreground. I see a card printed with the slogan: "Yes, I am the centre of the universe." I write it down and turn the page in my notebook. It makes a tearing sound and the nurse's eyes snap open. She goes over to Hawking and, putting her hand on his head, says, "Now then, Stephen," and gently wipes saliva from the side of his mouth. Another five minutes pass. Then another. Hawking's assistant, who sits behind him to see what is going on on his screen, nods slightly. Here it comes: "That was true of one speech synthesizer I had. But the one I use normally has only one voice. It is 20 years old, but I stick to it because I haven't found better and because I'm known by it worldwide." That's it? The fruit of 20 minutes' effort? This man is a Hercules." NB -- the purported co-author is Mlodinow, not Mendelev. I will repeat perhaps the central question to Ellen: I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself.

A community in which members vow not to work in their chosen professions and to take the lowest jobs they can find instead -- do you seriously think Rand meant this to depict an ideal perfect world? The passage describes the rule for those who were to join The Strike on the outside, not the rule for the community of Galt's Gulch. The quote cited does not quite make Brant nuts for describing the gulch as a fictional utopia . . .

It isn't clear yet if the OAC Presidium of the Central Committee will nominate Debi or someone else from inside the Kremlin to deliver the teleconference "guidance." Also not clear to my mind is how many folks will be part of this historic event. Perhaps it will take a month for the OAC students to be vetted for purity of thought and intent. But I bet you that someone will do their very best to get the gist of the guidance session out into the air -- if not the content out to Youtube. I certainly will do my very best to cultivate Kremlin contacts. Kudos to Starbuckle for the paraphrasing. Well done.

That seriously misrepresents what was said backchannel. Do I have your permission to post your part of the exchange? No, Ellen, you don't. I don't mean to be a jerk, I just don't get it -- your contention that we should hesitate before accepting the idea that Hawking co-authored The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow. Here is what I wrote on that point backchannel. . . The advanced epistemological stuff makes my eyes glaze (e.g., anything like 'how do we know we know what we think we know he knows he knows'), and I don't think that was what you are getting at. For me, it's a point of curiosity -- IF you think he doesn't have control over what goes out in his name, IF . . . I simply wonder how you came to suspect he doesn't. Now you have permission to let us know, should you choose to do so, how you got to this bizarre place . . . the answer you gave backstage was pretty feeble.

Robert, both your points about 'the consequences' of Speicher's peekaboo stance are worth pondering. On the one hand, she is true to her mini-Kremlin 'keep it in the family' policies with regard to the personalities of McCaskey and Peikoff. Her FORUM is fairly free and easy for a rigidly conformist Objectivist gated community: what is ultimately allowed to be uttered there is public, and she has allowed a lengthy discussion of the book itself. On the other hand, she seems to need to let her voice ring out freely elsewhere. In the past she has opined on topics hither and yon -- on Noodlefood, on OO.net, on HBL -- while stomping out discussion of the very same topics in her own garden. In other words, her own private Ministry of Truth rules forbid her to say what is on her mind in her own office, so she leaves her mini-Kremlin to visit other competing mini-Kremlins. In the past weeks she has also used and encouraged the use of non-Kremlin forums for folks to say what is really on their minds, such as Facebook. Of course, she can't speak on Rob Joyce's pages, since he is allied with Diana, who has been self-banned from the FORUM, but she can speak in the Facebook garden of Bob Gifford . . . So, in the end she has decided to write her thoughts in invisible ink and put her note in a bottle that can only be passed hand to hand to her trusted comrades, who no doubt have to promise to pop a cyanide chiclet should they allow her thoughts egress . . . Although this sort of scuttling whispered 'I can't say what I think openly because then people will not be NICE' is thoroughly understandable in the context of a bygone day of secret policing and disappearances and purges and denunciations, it is screamingly absurd in the context of an 'intellectual movement.' It just reeks of paranoia and cult kookiness. One final bit of 'somebody said something about later not saying something,' Lindsay Perigo, undoubtably the most also of the also-rans, has uttered an aside on SOLO that "I'm also told ARI is going to be explaining its stance to its supporters in about a month." This murky reporting by the head of the smallest Objectivish Kremlin on Earth is confirmed in a following note (emphasis added): I'm also told ARI is going to be explaining its stance to its supporters in about a month. A month??!! Yes, Debi Ghate has indicated that a month from now the OAC will be providing "guidance" to its students (via teleconference) as to why this is a "private matter." As for the delay, I can't say I blame them. Personally, if I had to explain to someone that this was a "private matter" and keep a straight face, I would need a lot longer than a month to prepare. I would need to empty the contents of my brain, fill it with scrambled eggs and copulate with an amoeba. That could take a while. For my money, there won't be too many people on the other end of that call who require instruction on this question. The ones who do might be offered a job, though. I offer my hand in gay marriage to anyone who can dig up the actual content of Debi Ghate's astonishing offer of "guidance." But I expect no one has the several secret keys to the Innermost Inner Sanctum of Obedience. Can this get any crazier?

I very much enjoyed reading Phil and hope he returns at some juncture -- he has put forth a few great nuggets of value (as do you on occasion), but also has a hard time absorbing and using critical reactions -- almost always in 'teaching mode,' less often in 'learning mode.' He is, I dare say, prone to telling others how to behave while exempting himself from similar reforms. I gave him critiques and encouragements backstage, usually pointing out to him that he might try a different tactic or two to get his points across. I liked him; I thought his heart was in the right place and his aims to often be aims that I shared. That he found himself frustrated, angry and misunderstood was a real shame, because I believe with a bit more effort he will find his marks with less wear and tear on his emotions. In other words, I miss Phil, consider him a nice man, an intelligent man, and a man without a nasty urge. I wish he would learn to tailor his remarks to his audience and get back in the game. Your frustrations with discourse are similar but not identical to Phil's, I find. Your comments can sometimes be nasty, personal, ill-tempered, quick off the draw, and swollen with rectitude. You tend to counter cogent and impersonal criticism with belligerence -- because of these bellicose reactions, you often lose the good regard of folks who might otherwise be your allies. Ask yourself how many times you have leaped down the throat of an interlocutor, how many times you have lost your self-control, how many times you have left a discussion in a rage, how many times you have been banned, moderated, spanked, dismissed as a nutcase or otherwise been frustrated in your goals. You might decide that all of these occasions have been the fault of the morally-depraved nitwits who hound you. But I should think these occasions might better offer you a chance to reflect on your own style and your own internal demons. I meant to point out to you in a trenchant way that your irrelevant comment was ill-considered. If you don't like to receive blunt reactions to your ill-wrought Miss Grundyish comments, don't post ill-wrought Miss Grundyish comments. Get a grip on your own behaviour and stop lecturing others on theirs. It will help you get what you want, brother.

I thought it was a fine piece, well-written and informative. I am not a sports fan, but I understand why a top player with brains, determination and an excellent attitude can be both inspiring and heroic to his fans. Our friend the Ninth Doctor is pulling your chain. Put him on ignore and get back in the game, brother.

Scherk, I find it not cool to be posting Betsy's email address such that it can be scavenged by SPAM bots. Well, good for you, dude. I expect Betsy's email address -- as published openly on her forum in the post I quoted -- is already scraped and scavenged. I also expect her inbox has the basic spam filters that any email program since 1902 has incorporated. She is not an idiot. Her various webpages have her email address front and centre. My email address is william.scherk@gmail.com, and you and any other tight-ass Miss Grundy is free to spam the absolute heck out of it. Pinhead.

Speaking of "utter ignorance," I can't recall a more ignorant statement about Rand's ethics than your assertion that it is "other-worldly and Platonic." Where do you come up with this stuff? Indeed, where, Ba'al? Usually I think I understand where you get your views, even when I think they're wrong. But the assertion that Objectivist ethics is "other-worldly and Platonic" is just bizarre. Where DO you get it? Explanation, please. Ellen, I was struck by a few comments of yours in another thread, comments in which you seemed to suggest that Stephen Hawking is incapable of co-authoring the bestselling book that just appeared with his name affixed to it. You haven't yet made it back to that thread to add further meat to the bone of that suggestion. I will put my comments in a stronger form here: Usually I think I understand where you get your views, even if I think they're wrong. But the assertion that "there's no way anyone could know what Hawking really thinks of what's published in his name" is just bizarre. Where DO you get it? Explanation please. Now, I should note for interested readers that you almost sort of answered a similar question backchannel, in that you referred to some gossip without further elaboration. But why should Bob Kolker tell you where he got his "bizarre" assertion when you don't tell us where you got your "bizarre" assertion?

I had written: That was unfair to Speicher. In her one previous announcement that there would be no discussion of the Peikoff/McCaskey/Harriman kerfuffle, she made clear her reasons. They had more to do with civility and niceness than with a desire to keep dissenting voices shut out. In her actual words: "Conflicts among Objectivists can and should be aired, but not here." She has just published a note to her FORUM that further explains why her take on the Peikoff/McCaskey/Harriman/Tracinski kerfuffle will not appear on her FORUM. Here it is: My promised statement on Rob Tracinski's "Anthemgate" article is ready, but I have decided not to post it publicly. The reactions even to the best public postings have been full of speculation and gossip leading to uninformed and unjust judgments, hostility and attacks even on innocent bystanders, wholesale de-friending, and worse. Since I don't want to encourage that, I will make my statement available privately to anyone who wishes to know my opinion. Just e-mail me at betsy@speicher.com and ask for my Anthemgate statement. I am on her PNG list, so I won't bother writing. Can someone several levels higher on the rungs of hell request a peek at the private review?

Discussion proceeds on the Peikoff/McCaskey kerfuffle in a variety of places, some behind an iron-curtain of orthodoxy, some relatively open to sunlight. One such dappled glade (much akin to the Chip Joyce Facebook wall discussion before Joyce began to systematically prune dissent) is Bob Gifford's Facebook 'reminder' "An Apparently Forgotten or Ignored Element of Who Dr. Leonard Peikoff Is." Here stark differences between otherwise orthodox personages is open to view at the moment. There is some outright blasphemy -- for example, several commentators comparing Peikoff's infallible dicta to that of the Pope -- and some rather telling ironies. For one example of the ironies, although Betsy Speicher has banned any open discussion of the Peikoff/McCaskey festivities within her own family crypt, here she is instructing the wider congregation on fine points of dogma. I wonder how long it will be before Speicher and Hsieh will unbar the door to discussion in their own dank cloisters . . . Speicher: John Kagebein wrote: "Nowhere does Dr. Peikoff indicate that his theory of induction is part of the content of The Philosophy of Objectivism." Not true, Peikoff DOES say his theory of induction is part of Objectivism. On the Ayn Rand Book Store web site (http://tinyurl.com/2988p3q), the description of Peikoff's lectures on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy" begins: "These historic lectures present, for the first time, the solution to the problem of induction ..." Observe that on Peikoff's web site (http://tinyurl.com/2c96lye), the description begins: "These historic lectures present, for the first time, the OBJECTIVIST solution to the problem of induction ..." [Emphasis mine.] Check it yourself.

One of the two Nobel winners is quoted extensively in a Guardian story published today. He is quite an amusing, light-hearted fellow -- apparently the only person to have won both a Nobel Prize and an IgNoble prize !! The Guardian article contains his plaint that proposed UK cuts to science are just what the UK does not need if it wants to maintain its place in the rankings of scientific innovation. I highlight a few parts of the story that don't rant on about the need for state support of research; in the Objectivish Valhalla to come, of course, research similar to that done by the Nobel team would be accomplished under capitalism -- though this is disputed by at least one Marxist/Fascist looter in comments following the story. Geim is regarded as a playful and highly creative physicist who once published a scientific paper that was co-authored by his pet hamster, Tisha. In other work, he proved that it was possible to levitate frogs using magnetic fields. Geim and Novoselov's breakthrough came in a deceptively simple experiment in 2004 that involved a block of carbon and some Scotch tape. The two used the tape to strip off layers of carbon that were only one atom thick. These thin wafers of carbon, known as graphene, were found to have extraordinary properties. [ . . . ] Geim encouraged creative experiments at the laboratory, Novoselov said. "We'd just try crazy things and sometimes they worked and sometimes not. Graphene was one of those that worked from the very beginning. It's such a robust material and all the effects were so pronounced." Despite winning the prize, Novoselov said he was planning to work in other areas of physics and was considering taking a year or two of sabbatical leave. "All this graphene business is very exciting, but we've been doing it a while and we're trying to diversify from it and establish some new directions," he said. "I really like it here and want to do my research in Manchester." [ . . . ] The Nobel committee said of the two scientists in its press release: "Playfulness is one of their hallmarks. With the building blocks they had at their disposal they attempted to create something new, sometimes even by just allowing their brains to meander aimlessly." Link to full story here. Comment by socialist swine below. Wait? What's this? A basic research project which has yielded a result which should change all our lives for the better? Centrally funded through a research council? Yet another example of how government funding of science is vital

The ensuing discussion is interesting also. I recommend it to those who wonder why some folks don't like Atlas Shrugged, and also wonder if anyone among those folk can give reasoned, relatively sober grounds for their dislike. I find it very instructive, but your mileage may vary. For some folks, Atlas Shrugged tends to Holy Scripture . . . if it didn't turn someone's crank, then that someone is probably some kind of morally-bankrupt demon spawn. Although the non-Objectivish are found in about 250-to-1 ratio in the commentary, I find Objectivish opinion is given a relatively fair shake, considering how snarky and vile and uninformed a lot of anti-Rand commentaries can be. [edited only for grammar lapse]

I would not put the situation in such stark terms. Up here in the hellhole, though, there just isn't any credible push to write a new abortion law, or any effort whatsoever to rewrite the provincial marriage statutes. Many folks might not like the fact that two men or two women can go to the court house and get a license to wed, but they aren't quite ready to go apeshit Tea Party crazy over the matter. The 'struck down' laws stand for the moment (the judge gave 30 days 'grace') and the federal government (by Canadian standards from the 'right,' by Tea Party standards on point with Mao) will appeal the ruling. But you are right. The moralistic arguments are the usual screeching and moaning about what other folks do with their genitals and how awful it is . . . but human trafficking is a grave concern for some who otherwise like the idea of a laissez-faire market in sex. I didn't add another note that might surprise some of my south of the border friends -- marijuana policing. In my province, BC, cops and courts simply don't give a shit about smoking dope or possession of under an ounce. In Vancouver right now, at the New Amsterdam cafe, about a hundred folks are toking madly away in the storefront downtown, with zero possibility that police will enter, let alone charge anyone found in. Does this say anything about the relative merits of the Socialist Hellhole and the USA? Nope. But it is a fact.

Not quite true . . . the newly appeared McCaskey emails have been referenced at Noodlefood, and the OLer known only as Starknuckle has posted the lengthy script of Peikoff there too. Prepare for the red button . . .

I have been following the (non)debate on the Orthodox lists. Has anyone noted these new McCaskey emails appearing anywhere else? As far as I can tell, the bar has gone down on discussion at Betsey's list and at Noodlefood. The premise for not allowing commentary moral judgement is that 'we don't have enough information.' This premise strikes me as reasonable on its face, but desperately stupid in its execution. I figure that Leonard Peikoff will never comment for attribution on this imbroglio, so it seems that there will never be a time when the necessary information has been assembled for the orthodoxy to allow reasoned conclusions to be put forward. Before Chip Joyce began his bannathon and one could read comments from a variety of Orthodox personages on his Facebook wall, Diana Hsieh had alluded to personal communications with named and unnamed High Poobahs. She may have since assembled a coherent result of her fitful investigative efforts, but as yet nothing has appeared from behind the iron curtain. I wonder if Peikoff himself is actually queried by Orthodox worthies, or if everyone is skirting the margins of inquiry . . . Every couple of days I send a politely-worded question to Peikoff asking him for evidence that McCaskey crossed the hot red line of Objectivist apostasy. I am surely not the only one to do so. But as far as I can tell, he prefers to answer questions about Ayn Rand's cats and the morality of loneliness. If it weren't so funny it would be sad.