dream_weaver

When you consider the evidence available for a species that possesses conceptual thinking, what is present that is noticeably absent from all other species. From fireside discussions to the development of dictionaries and symbolic notation to accommodate ever increasing vocabularies, from domesticating the horse to developing the automobile and placing man on the moon, there is evidence that accompanies and supports the identification that man is a conceptual being. Is there similar evidence to support that other forms of conscious animals possess the same ability? What does evidence for falsification look like anyway?

I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.

Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star The astronomers found molecules of glycolaldehyde -- a simple form of sugar [1] -- in the gas surrounding a young binary star, with similar mass to the Sun, called IRAS 16293-2422. Glycolaldehyde has been seen in interstellar space before [2], but this is the first time it has been found so near to a Sun-like star, at distances comparable to the distance of Uranus from the Sun in the Solar System. This discovery shows that some of the chemical compounds needed for life existed in this system at the time of planet formation [3]. Sweet Building Blocks of Life Found Around Young Star One of the big questions is whether it is common that these organic molecules are formed so early in the star and planet formation process -- and how complex they can become before they are incorporated into new planets.

DNA could have existed long before life itself Starting with a mix of chemicals, many of them thought to have been present on the early Earth, Powner has now created a sugar like that in DNA, linked to a molecule called AICA, which is similar to a base. (Journal of the American Chemical Society, doi.org/h6q Multicomponent Assembly of Proposed DNA Precursors in Water)

In these days and times, it would be prudent to consider possible repercussions from reporting drug related activity, especially if your identity could be compromised.

Dániel Boros said Christians invented the term : http://www.pandasthu...he-origins.html It's like beating a Christian with a Bible. Bizarre... That conjures up a rather bizarre visual . . .

Dániel said: "There have been many scientists who claimed that only scientifically proven theories can be true, and that philosophy is simply a relic of the past. See Brief History of Time for example. The problem is that if only scientifically verified facts can be true than what could possibly verify the scientific method? Science? That's a circular argument at best." The way it is stated creates the appearance of circular argument. An analysis of what gives rise to the scientific method should provide the verification, but not if philosophy is tossed out as an unnecessary relic of the past. Such an analysis should break the steps down, identify what they are comprised of, ascertain if the comprised elements can be broken down further verifying each aspect either along the way, or until all the essential elements are verified providing the basis for the verifying the 'sub-assembled' aspects in turn.

Yes. Those are they.

Isn't "They spent their childhoods and early adulthoods learning and obsessing over math and computer science, until they got really good at it." an integral part of aptitude?

I found one indirect reference which only acknowledges him via one of his inventions in "The Fountainhead" where Miss Rand prefaced a heater with "Franklin."

Craig Biddle, of The Objectivist Standard, also identifies why he endorses this development in his article here.

Most people are struggling to understand within the framework of how they have discovered to make sense of it so far. If a person does not recognize something as self-deception, how can they largely base their lives on it. If people think what they believe is true, how can they distinguish it from simply believing what they want to believe? If they buy into the widespread belief that there are no 'Truths', why would they be interested in pursuing it? People are generally creatures of habit. How are most people taught to think? Once a habit is practiced for years, do you think it becomes easier or more difficult to replace it with a different habit?

If I could judge beauty in a vacuum, as if it existed in and of itself. Oh look. That is a beautiful apple. It almost looks too good to eat. Or look. That is a beautiful circle. Part of the standard comes from the what that is being evaluated as being beautiful. Even so, within the categories, there is room for preferences within proportions, or favor bias of color etc. As the what becomes more abstract, the identification of the criteria to evaluate it by becomes equally more complicated. Art, for instance, is going to resonate by your own sense of life engaged with the artist's stylization of what they consider important. To attempt a concrete personal example, when I was younger, I enjoyed Stephen King novels. I didn't really know why, I just enjoyed reading them. I stopped reading them in the 90's. Part of it was due to the new series of books he wrote at the time just did not appeal to me. Later, I was able to put my finger on part of the why. What I enjoyed in his earlier works was the interlacing of towns and characters through some of his novels. Cujo, Christine and probably some others I don't recall at the moment would make appearances in his other works. I liked the "integration" he did within his novels. At the same time, I began to get a sense of his malevolent universe premise that lends to his popularity in the horror genre. In this way, discovering what you like or dislike about a particular work can provide insight to your own mental processes. In discovering what others like or dislike about particular works can provide insight about others. In this regard, there isn't one first level abstraction to be isolated that can serve as the basis of beauty cart blanche. Nor does the standard based on what is being evaluated mean that the conclusions are going to be as objectively determinable as 7 is the sum of 3 plus 4, or justice was or was not served in a particular case. Chocolate or vanilla. Red, blue or green. Personal preference reigns in these inconsequential choices. The nihilist, the materialist, the idealist, those seeking objective criteria are going to implicitly or explicitly have some criteria by which they evaluate the beauty of any particular object. The objectivity of that criteria is going to depend on selecting the standard appropriate to what is being judged.

Looking up qualia, it appears the sense it is being used here is along the line of "a property as it is experienced as distinct from any source it might have in a physical object." Does this differ from the description offered near the beginning of ITOE of the sensations being automatically integrated by the brain into percepts, which serve as the material for later integrating into concepts? This would be much like stating that qualia is the form the sensory apparatus provide of the object, or the form/object distinction.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.

On a semi-related note, Peikoff in the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy posits the existentialists asking "Why is there something?" He contrasts this with the non-existentialists asking "Why is it this, and not something else?". There are those who ask "Why is there consciousness?" and those who ask "Why is it in the form that it is and not some other form?" In OPAR he points out that even if science were some day to fully explain consciousness, that would not alter its status as a philosophic axiom. I think it is valid to inquire as to how consciousness comes about,

It was not, nor was it intended to be.

Then two lovers engaged in passionate love making are having two separate experiences of the same thing, rather than sharing the experience together? While I can appreciate the technicality, it does not come across with the same intensity of intimacy.

A beautiful illustration of "[a] declared inner war", allegorically written, of course.

Family appears to have a few contextual applications. The first that comes to my mind is a father, mother, child. Secondly, I'm aware of couples who have adopted children and would consider this family as well. There are cases where a individual may get involved with a mother or a father and via mutual consent (not necessarily of the child, depending say on their maturity) choose to consider themselves a family. Some are based on romantic relationships, some are based on economic benefit, some are based on convenience. These are by no means exhaustive, but I think I understand what you're asking.

If you have to tell people to pursue their values, and you desire them to be within the context of being objective, you may consider the entry on values within the Lexicon. Incidently, I notice there is an entry on marriage as well.

I was presuming that you might take 'value' to be rational values, based on the same reality that validates the concept of values in the first place.

And this could cut to the crux of the issue. Choice implies a selection on the basis of alternatives available with consideration given to what one values. " 'Value' presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. " ( Philosophy: Who Need It?) What standard? Objectivism identifies man's life as the standard of value. What purpose? Objectivism holds that each individuals life is their own purpose.

If that book were by Kenner and Locke it should offer some interesting perspectives.

Hernan, I see from your link in your signature to Conquistador that you view mentoring and being mentored as high enough values that you either manage the site, or consider it significant enough to direct others to it. I would suggest that if you have come to an Objectivist oriented website to find out how people use Objectivism to evaluate concrete scenarios using broader abstract philosophical principles, you would be in the role of the mentored, rather than the mentor. You mentioned earlier that: Mind you, this is not the Objectivist view on the "nuclear family". This is the application of the underlying principles that are at play in interpersonal relationships, primarily the role of values and more broadly within a proper framework of ethics. To determine if the "nuclear family" is true as a value, it would be necessary to validate all the relevant observations that would lead to it being a value. This is done by identifying the premises it relies on, and further validating those premises back to the fundamental premises that are implicit in all observations and knowledge. From my religious background, marriage is an institution that goes back to Aristotelian times. There are many factors that lie in its being practical at the time, one of which was the shorter lifespans that man enjoyed then as opposed to now. Another would be the technology that allows us a more independent existence via a division of labor was not discovered then where more collective style of arrangements were relied upon for survival. A wife asked her husband to pick up a ham from the butcher and reminded him to have the ends cut off. "Why?" he asked? "Well," she said, "that's how my mother always cooked them." They had her parents over for dinner one night, the husband inquired of the mother why she had the ends cut off the ham. She replied, "That how my mother always did it.". The next time the entire family got together, the husband inquired of the grandmother why she had the ends cut off the ham. She replied, "So that it would fit in the roaster." When it comes to tradition - is it tradition because it is good, or because that's how it has been passed down as always having been done that way.