EC

This: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/02/if-these-us-navy-patents-are-made-then-we-are-in-a-star-trek-technology-world.html The specific article I meant with all the Navy documents seems to have been deleted from the internet or at least a Google search. Doesn't surprise me lol

I point this out specifically because I had previously reached the same idea for the process for room temperature conductivity that was outlined in the Navy documents but had never spoke of it then read that a few years years back and learned they had a patent for both that and another technology I had independently already thought of in the same paper.

I disagree but have seen that said at times. Think of it this way, Einstein's General Relativity didn't invalidate Newton's theory of gravitation in the specific context that it applies and neither do Miss Rand's contextually appropriate definitions of concepts. Point out a specific definition she ever used that isn't correct in essentials given the appropriate context.

@InfraBeat the point I believe Odden was trying to make is that one has to use the objectively correct definition of a concept in the exact context that it is being used to convey correct meaning, not "specialized meanings" that only apply to "specific philosophies" (even Objectivism) but to *everyone* at *all times*. Yes specific words can change over time but *concepts* can't except for more essential specific definitions as new knowledge becomes explicitly available that was always implicit in the concept but due to usually lack of specific scientific knowledge at the time was still explicitly unknown still or the exact correct context was still unknown or undiscovered. But that's my interpretation of Rand more than what Mr. Odden means (and I noticed he posted a reply as I was writing this).

There's another way to do this but I won't go into the details here but it was discussed in an article in the 19fortyfive online magazine involving technology that is being "secretly" held by the Navy.

I quote Peikoff with one addition added in parentheses which also applies to the "libertarians" and not just the so-called "potential allies" involved in these types of mass-media inaccurate puff-pieces. "The real enemy (or "friends") of these men is not Ayn Rand; it is reality. But Ayn Rand is the messenger who brings them the hated message, which, somehow, they must escape or dilute (some of them, I think, never even get it). The message is that they must conform to reality 24 hours a day and all the way down."

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned changing the proper name Objectivism to "objectivism" in the first article (I didn't read the second). But what all of you are discussing is actually the common practice of media trying to make an issue "palpable" to their "core audience" instead of showing something as it actually is. It's not actual news or completely unbiased and *objective* that is ever conveyed but a form of mass marketing that dresses up and changes facts for a usually political purpose. David Odden is correct that it's source is disintegration and concrete-bound thought that doesn't apply valid principles.

There was a point where one of humanity's ancestors didn't possess our species's degree of rational faculty so this inflection point definitely exists and happened without doubt unless "magic" or the "supernatural" is invoked. That's the philosophical point. I just applied science to this to fully explain how this happens and how what nature and evolution did over billions of years can be replicated using quantum gravity principles in the context of AGI specifically creating a more inclusive concept of "rational entities" that includes humans, "potential" rational aliens, and AGI instead of philosophy limited only to Man.

The phase change point where the data processing of a conscious entity's mind becomes fully volitional, conceptual, and develops the ability to use conceptual reasoning. Exactly the same concept as when a potential superconductor undergoes a phase change to become superconducting but applied to data processing abilities.

What exactly do you mean by "unconscious mind" in this context? A person under anesthesia or something like the first animal that became conscious? Without doubt matter in highly specific configurations can become conscious, there's an inflection point that occurs at some degree of evolution that this occurs. There is also a self-evident inflection point where a conscious being develops the ability to use conceptual reasoning. Nature found a way as we both know, so, it can be done without doubt.

I visit the Lexicon webpage every couple days just to keep things fresh in my mind and because it makes me happy. Since at least yesterday concepts and various discussions within them have been disappearing or have been edited for the worse. For instance benevolence is gone and the most blatant proof is The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness is currently causing an error. I could list a ton of examples but those especially stick out. Point is, either that site has been hacked or they started changing it for the worse suddenly. Does anyone know which which is true or is anyone able to contact someone at ARI to warn them if it's a hacking scenario?

It wasn't. I just didn't explain it in detail. I meant the physics of the universe is deterministic when taken as a whole, which requires the existence of a multiverse of multiverses, while conscious minds are emergent properties of "brains".

e^iπ + [ħ ] = Gμν Clayton's Identity

@dream_weaver Thankfully reality is the final arbiter of truth and not other Objectivists who keep their mind stuck in only one version of Schrödinger's cat box. Even the one's I highly respect 😉

Our specific local universe and timeline is just a holographic diorama of the quantum computation of this data. Entangled data is what the universe is as such.

Exactly correct. The Universe is Symmetry. Each spacetime (such as ours) is a inverse holographic manifestation of quantum computation on the event horizon of any given Plank Length area within it with each possible possibility represented as a change within the error bar of the Uncertainty Principle. So emergent in this context means more symmetrical, specifically data symmetry in the case of volitional consciousness.

No, it is our "local" universe. The universe that Miss Rand refers too. It just doesn't include all that exists. This paper describes the concept mathematically. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267211322_Split_Fibonacci_and_Lucas_Octonions

I will, but not here I think. Also, sorry for not logging in since. I was more or less just using this as a public storage area for this idea as I developed it and integrated it with the physics more explicitly.

There is no contradiction if the our "universe" is actually a holographic diorama of the entire Universe which is a multiverse of multiverses such that E^\[Pi]I +\[CurlyPhi] [HBar] = G\[Mu]\[Nu]

My newest integration and creation I will now call Clayton's Theory of Mind. The universe is deterministic but a rational entity's mind is not because of the existence of emergent contextual volition via a informational phase change at a definite complexity inflection point. The phase change at the inflection point of sufficient complexity of a given entity's consciousness changes deterministic factors into the context of the emergent volitional mind.

Also for you Tad, I don't possess floating abstractions (or very few anyway and with these concepts certainly not), and am not prone to any type of intrinsicism nor rationalism. In fact, I'm quite certain that I could teach a class in Objectivist epistemology accurately if I so chose to. But yeah, keep your random straw man attacks coming bro👍

Not true. You and I are rational thinking biological machines and are neither deterministic nor programmed by anyone but ourselves. If nature can create a thinking machine via billions of years of evolution, then man also can. To deny that fact would be a blatant contradiction. This must have been what it was like about 125ish years ago having to argue with someone that human flight would soon be possible while they clearly falsely claimed it is impossible as birds flew overhead. 😂

You're wrong and I could prove it, but have a million things to do and don't really have the time to argue/explain it in detail. But here's a quick question for you: why do believe that another type of rational (read: moral) entity running a moral government would be contrary to rights preservation? Only answer in the context of an general "artificial" intelligence with efficient thinking abilities many orders of magnitude advanced of the brightest current (non-brain technology interfaced) humans?

I've described my solution to this, an AI "dictator" in control of an advanced drone force. And I suppose we could still have a more normal police force too, as long as they aren't allowed to possess any type of weapons. Police shouldn't have access to weapons as part of their job contract so that they can't terrorize the people who's rights they are supposed to protect, like they currently do.