tadmjones

Yes I wish Stephen as many good years as he wants!

The Iranian mullahs and their regime are undoubtedly state sponsors of terrorism, ie Hezbollah, Hamas ect, but the current US administration has recently lessened sanctions against Iran that some have described as basically' giving Iran billions in cash' , true or truish does that make the US complicit in their sponsorship? The US state department told Iran it would be best to inform Turkey of launching , what Iran calls reprisals for the attack on their embassy in Syria(?) that killed at least one senior Iranian military commander. The previous US admin killed an Iranian military official 'ex country' and admitted that they know the Iranians would retaliate will a strike but that the strike would be relatively 'minimal' and was allowed as an act of 'face saving'. So , basically, the big boys play at a game were strikes and counter strikes , tits for tats, are expected and warranted. With Jordan seemingly siding with Israel in this particular 'tat' , it looks like something closer to an Abrahamic Accord thingy forming against Iran , than a prelude to doomsday, no ?

Stephen's mind and their products are one of a kind! Though the longer I contemplate objective reality , the more bereft I come to see no satisfying guide to tie in my selfish subjective experience/relation to all of It.

So not just an Italian thing , lol.

So Whitehead was correct that western philosophy is a footnote to Plato?

While I would agree with the principle of avoiding theocracy, religious schools should not be disallowed in law. The solution is to do away with government supported schools. But Christianity is very foundational to Louisiana, Catholicism in particular as in their 'counties' are 'parishes'.

Publishing your theoretical findings should lessen the immediate threat to your life, and seems the only way left to safeguard any potential personal benefit you may derive from your work. At this juncture it appears to be the least worst option.

The Bulwark is rubbish if this is indicative of their views!

Where does the reverence come from? Did the theistic monopoly imbue those who contacted their subjects with it , or is it that reverence was misplaced? If reclaiming infers a misplacement what is the genesis of the reverence?

But wouldn't the world just saved attack the US because of international conventions around first strike nuclear actions ?

You don’t see Israel as a dominant regional power? Granted their continued dominance is in large part due to their continued relationship with the west more broadly and the US in particular. What would the US ‘entering’ a war against Gaza look like, or why would it be necessary?

But isn’t it the case, that post-Einstein the amount of extracted energy from wood by combustion, the same as pre-Einstein? By that I mean the ability to perform a computation describing the energy-mass conservation principle to a specific piece of wood is similar to converting between units of Fahrenheit and Celsius. The average kinetic energy in a specific location can be measured and described , but the naming of the units of measure has no effect on the ‘absolute quantity’ of the thing eg the temperature when converting units. The post-Einstein(I have had that the e=mc2 is a thing prior to him but most associated with him ) wood’s energy doesn’t exist a part from it being wood, changing the description to a different unit frame doesn’t confer a different reality to the wood or the ‘energy’ therein. Similarly when you equate the ratios between energy/information availability to actual states is hard for me to follow. What I was asking , obviously poorly, by ‘information’ do you mean just a different way to describe the apprehension of identity as metaphysical category into an epistemological frame?

If popular science/philosophy are amenable to one’s level of curiosity and or study, Bernardo Kastrup’s Essentia foundation is a good platform for a non materialist approach. He is a strong Jungian and Schopenhauerian, and in one of the videos featuring Bernardo he speaks to a definition of free will coming from Schopenhauer’s framing.

Rand's critique of religion as primitive philosophy is as reaction to the dogma produced by 'faith' , a product of irrationality or arbitrary statements and not comparable or even remotely related to 'proper' knowledge in Objectivism. The condemnation of the morality that would follow an ethos of sacrifice is her defense of the self as the highest value. Is the appeal ,(or prehension) for religionists or specifically Christians for O'ism, rooted in an escape or denial of 'transcendental' aspects of reality? Are Galt's triumphs not actually literary examples of transcending the 'mundane'? Regardless etymology , what is inspiration?(and then reconsider etymology)

The notion that is perplexing is the idea that the phenomenon of experience is the reified self as awareness at base. That bodily development, change and eventual decay are conditions to the locus of consciousness/awareness, and that that locus is the self at base. The basic notions of the Vedic philosophies.

I think the essential in most religions could be characterized as a faith in a transcendental aspect of reality. A faith in the possibility of overcoming the seeming paradoxes in the gross physical environment of life on earth. The life and death of Christ, the perceptual aspects of a human being and the strive to offer an explanation or meaning for how non material aspects , ie 'love' or 'will' , can or do affect one's 'lived experience'. Why be 'good', what are the results of 'being good' , whence the good ?

Publicize the findings? Perhaps that would lessen any personal threat.

I’m perplexed with the notion that self describes subjective experience a part from any description of mental products or operations of cognition, ie the ontological basis of the ‘first person’ perspective of experience. As per Rand , and Stephen , consciousness is the act of perceiving that which exists. Would an irreducible subjectiveness be non perceivable and render it without identity and therefore non existent?

It's as if Penrose is a human LLM analog

This article offers a different frame of interpretation of what was ‘captured’. It seems a better view of the image is to see at as capturing the interactions between light’s ’energy’ and target particles , the light isn’t ‘seen’ or imaged as exhibiting dual aspects as much as what is depicted in the image is the history of the reactions between particles and light as akin to an interference pattern. https://www.insidescience.org/blog/2015/03/13/no-you-cannot-catch-individual-photon-acting-simultaneously-pure-particle-and-wave

I suppose Hindus are better salesmen then , lol.

Is that to mean Rand and Augustine agree that embracing God is a negation of the self or the mind? both? or are they one and the same? I've long thought that mind and self were the same, but lately I'm perplexed with the notion that self contains the mind as an aspect. That the more fundamental self is consciousness as such. The underlying awareness of the functioning of the mind and its contents are objects to the self.

"No, there is no way to hold any kind of elections during war/martial law. For details see Martial law in Ukraine. Besides, the respective legislation was adopted long before Zelensky became president.😁" "Besides" according to Oxford dictionary means in addition to or apart from. How was it you used the word as preamble to the legislation's origin? I inferred you implied I thought or intimated that Z was the cause of the legislation, I just couldn't fathom another reason on your part to add this. Looking forward to hearing your reasoning on this particular example of syntax.

Notice the comical misspelling , and the fact that it is a question without an answer, cuz no cycle? BTW I've lost track, which of us is rubber ?

Author Posted 44 minutes ago (edited) The more was arbitrary claptrap as there will be no election , as ordered by Z. Expand "1. Missing are your apologies for putting words in my mouth - about what I was allegedly implying. Besides, the respective legislation was adopted long before Zelensky became president.😁" Allegedly ? An objective reading would see that comment as an unsolicited 'off topic' remark. lol face Besides, I was just making a declarative statement about my implication or lack thereof, it wasn't an explicit accusation. You know how implication and inference work, yeah ? Perhaps even better than the level of my legal understanding of Ukrainian constitutional law.