ruveyn1

and people who adhere to reason are rational animals. We are animals whether or not we use reason and logic. That is a biological fact following from the biological definition of animal.

If there were two distinct ethical systems each of which is compatible with human survival and flourishing how would you say that one is "better" than the other?

Did logic identify the molecular structure of water? I think it took more than logic to do that. ruveyn1

The "first generation" Objectivists were mostly Jewish in the sense that they were brought up in Jewish homes and families. Start with Ayn Rand herself. ruveyn1

My murder is wrong, and I will back that assertion with deadly force. ruveyn1

That is not the definition that people who do logic for money use. Every professional logician alive will tell you logic is the art/discipline of valid inference. If you wanted to know what scientific medicine was who would you ask: 1. a novelist or 2. a licensed medical practicer or a medical researcher with degree, publications and other certifications? ruveyn1

1959

I see that as a person choosing to live and survive. There is no ethical imperative to do so. We can choose to live or not choose to live. Neither choice is unethical. ruveyn1

How do you reconcile this with the physics of interactions. How do you work this in with the conservations laws for systems of particles ruveyn1

And Sam Harris -after- Rand with no basis in Rand's philosophy. See -The Moral Landscape- by Sam Harris Ayn Rand was gifted but her work, like the work of many others was incomplete in some respects and in error in other respects. For example her definition of logic misses the distinction between soundness and validity. ruveyn1

If I want to know what medicine is I talk to a doctor or a medical researchers whose life is dedicated to pursing medicine. I do not go to philosophers. Logic is a technical discipline. Aristotle identified it as drawing conclusions using valid syllogisms or chains thereof (viz. sorites). If I want to know what logic is I go to Aristotle, or Boole, or Frege or Goedel. I would not to to Neitzche, who is a philosopher. When you want to know something go ask the professionals. Ayn Rand got many things right. But here definition of logic is not quite correct. ruveyn1

On a desert island I can see choices and preferences (constrained by the talents of the individual and physical laws). Can you tell me where rights or any other ethical issue is operative? ruveyn1

Government has a brown thumb. Whatever it touches turns brown, smelly and sticky. ruveyn1

That is implicit in all numerical measures. A numerical measure requires a compact ordered fields to associate with measurements. Or put another way, a measurement associates a real number with that which is measured. So after all other properties are abstracted what is left is the real number. People have been using measurement omission since the time of Eudoxus who defined ratios for all quantities whether they are rational or not. So my vote goes to Eudoxus for measurement omission. The ultimate exercise in measurement omission is point set topology which separates (abstracts) important properties of objects from any metric considerations. This goes back the Euler in the 18 th century. But Eudoxus and Euler did not develop a system which covered politics and ethics. My point was that each of Rand's empirically true theses were dealt with (singly) by others. Rand put it all together in a system. That is her distinction. She also packaged her ideas in some entertaining novels. Very few philosophers are good writers. Besides Rand the philosopher who was an entertaining writer was Plato in his dialogues. They are jewels either in the original Greek or in translation. This is especially true of his earlier dialogues and not so true of -The Laws- which was very tedious. ruveyn1

Incorrect. Read Newton's rules of experiments which is his method of deriving hypotheses from experiment. You might call it induction on steroids. Please see: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/newton-princ.asp He states these rules in Principia Mathematica ruveyn1

If you ask logicians what logic is they will tell you logic is the discipline of valid inference of conclusions from premises. A valid argument does not require that the premises be true, only that the conclusion follows from them according to accepted rules of inference. For a an argument to be --sound-- it most not only be valid, but it must be based on true premises. Determining the truth of premises is the job of observation, measurement. Generalizing from a set of true propositions is the job of induction and abduction ( reaching probable causes from observed effects). All the modes of reasoning must be employed to get to conclusions -soundly- reached from specified premises. In particular the physical sciences require induction, abduction and deduction. ruveyn1

Under the new DMV Aspberger's has been folded in with Autism. I am an Aspie myself. While it created some difficulties when I was young, it put me an an advantageous position in applied math and computer software design and testing. If I were religious I would say computers and math are G-D's gift to the Aspies. Being what I am, I had the perfect "head" for ferreting out errors in both my work and in other people's. They used to bring me in just to wreck systems. Not a bug was safe once I entered the building. When you described some things about your self I picked on some possible markers since I am familiar with them first hand. An aside question: why schlomi as opposed to schlomo which is a more common Hebrew name? Lech b'shalom. ruveyn1

Logic IS deduction. However to get anything useful out of logic one must operate on -true- premises. Now how do we get true premises. By induction and abduction (hypothesizing to likely causes). Logic is great for justification, but it takes induction and abduction to get something to justify. Not everything logical is factual. There are internally consistent systems which do not align with the facts of the world. And there are primary facts, things which are so, and we accept them as such. It is not "logical" that masses attract each other, but THEY DO. Aristotle believed things fell because they strived to get to the earth which is an element of which heavy bodies are made. Air and gas rises because they are made of Fire or so Aristotle believed. It made perfectly good sense to him, but it was dead wrong. And please don't get me started on heavier bodies falling faster than lighter bodies .... ruveyn1

The universe must be of such a nature that a brain like ours can arise by purely biological physical processes. Do you deny that the brain is the seat of consciousness? If not, then you have to ask how did a brain such has humans posses come about? ruveyn1

Tres cool!

Shlomo, have you considered a possible diagnosis of Aspberger's syndrome? What you have written seems to show some of the external behavioral markers of A.S. You might want to look into that.

Baruch ha'bah

As far as I can make out, every view of Rand that conforms to external reality has also been made by others, sometimes better than Rand made the point. Which is not to say that reading Ayn Rand's work is not worthwhile. She does make her points dramatically with her novels. Absorbing Franscisco's "money speech" can be a lot more enjoyable than ploughing through von Mises book on money and credit. ruveyn1

The Weak Anthropic principle holds up, but it is as useless as teats on a bull. ruveyn1

Here is a TED vid on a related topic. You might find it interesting: http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html It explains why the next big thing may very well happen not in the U.S., Europe or any of the "advanced" countries. About 20 minutes of your valuable time. ruveyn1