Doug Morris

I heard something on the radio today about using bacteria to convert waste plastic to vanillin, which has various uses.

I heard something on NPR yesterday. I got the impression this is happening mainly in the U.K., but a Google search indicates Apple and Alphabet are doing it too. Apparently some companies are paying their CEO's bonuses to run the company "ethically", which is taken to mean according to ESG. The story did not mention anything about anyone questioning or challenging this equation of "ethically" with according to ESG. It did mention some people questioning the practice for other reasons. One criticism is along the lines: Isn't it part of the job to do things ethically? Why pay a bonus for it? If you have to pay a person a bonus to be ethical, is that the kind of person you want as a CEO? Another criticism suggests that this is a ploy to increase CEO pay without catching as much flak from the people who think CEO's are paid too much.

Are you including sensory regions of the brain as part of sense organs? Are you including neuronal functioning under mechanical?

I was being somewhat mischievous when I posted those two scenarios. I did not necessarily intend for them to be taken very seriously. But as you say, it is possible to discuss them seriously. If a physician or a neuroscientist or a cancer researcher uses expertise and modern equipment and techniques to discriminate something so particular like a brain tumor compared to any other mass in the brain, that is advanced human-level functioning. If the brain tumor exudes something chemically different from any other mass in the brain, and some animal has a sufficiently discriminating sense of smell to detect the difference, that's just a very keen sense of smell, and it is misleading to call it "advanced".

What if a parrot is given a cracker whenever it parrots Gandalf's line from Lord of the Rings, "Tell me, "friend", when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?" What if an animal with parrot-like mimicry ability and an extremely discriminating sense of smell is trained to say "Polly wants a cracker." whenever it smells a brain tumor? (Assume this animal is an obligate carnivore.)

We would need to be careful about the effect of this on the rest of the world.

I meant volition applying to what to do with one's consciousness versus volition applying to what to do physically.

Would it be worth distinguishing between volition applying to consciousness and volition applying to physical acts?

Today's email news summary from the New York Times contains two examples of the harm done by eminent domain. There is a lengthy lead article about highways destroying urban neighborhoods, and attempts to fix this. There is a mention of Romaine Tenney, a Vermont farmer who killed himself when his farm was taken for I-91. On a different topic, there are links to articles arguing that cryptocurrency should be banned because it helps criminals, especially ransomware hackers. I just got a popup from Newsweek about Biden saying the same. If you send me a request with an email address, I will forward the Times email.

Can you clarify? Who is in charge?

Kind of like the difference between someone who rapes your wife versus someone who merely threatens to do it? How about a person who argues abstractly that rape should be legal?

If the terraforming will eventually greatly increase the value of the stock, then to that extent the stock becomes a long-term investment which may be of value to people who are trying to provide for their descendants or for some cause they consider worthy. This may increase the current market value of the stock. A key question is how big this effect is.

An article I read this morning from Newsweek, The Rise of Righteous Online Bullies BY KATHERINE BRODSKY, suggests to me that the real threat to freedom of speech and honest, open discussion is not social media giants but individual online bullies that are sufficiently numerous to have a powerful ganging-up effect.

Usually "Euclidean geometry" refers to geometry consistent with Euclid's asumptions. Non-Euclidean geometry refers to geometry inconsistent with Euclid's assumptions, especially geometry in which the parallel postulate is altered. Euclidean geometry is relatable to ordinary experience in a way that non-Euclidean geometry is not. Most college-bound people study Euclidean geometry in secondary school, or at least it was that way when I was in secondary school. Non-Euclidean geometry is a more esoteric subject which is typically studied by math majors in college. Differential geometry is a more advanced subject. Its prerequisites include multivariable calculus and linear algebra. Even though I am a math major, I never studied it. It is a prerequisite to understanding Einstein's general theory of relativity, and is therefore of interest to physicists as well as mathematicians. It is too advanced and technical for the kind of general education requirement Boydstun is talking about.

I just read a Newsweek article indicating that governments are moving to crack down on cryptocurrencies and to create their own. This is for multiple reasons, but in particular to maintain their monopoly on issuing and regulating money.

Did she define ?

An article I read recently indicates that other rare events, such as neutron star mergers, probably also play a role.

How, exactly, are you distinguishing between cognition and perception? Is there evidence that animals have a choice whether or not to focus?

What is the definition of "volition" in this context?

As for the berating, The Romantic Manifesto offers this with regard to art. An artist reveals his naked soul in his work—and so, gentle reader, do you when you respond to it. There may be a lessor parallel in politics. The reasons for a choice in politics are of a fundamentally different nature from the reasons for a choice in art. In particular, in politics it is appropriate to understand the reasons conceptually before making a choice, and the reasons can be important to consider in evaluating the choice.

I think we need to pay better attention to this.

It helps me understand what you're saying a little better.

Strictly Logical, If I understand correctly, you are saying that, in at least some cases where a person makes a free-will choice, probabilities can be assigned to the different alternatives the person is choosing among. Is this what you are saying? If so, why do you think this?

Reminds me of Stand and Deliver, which is a pretty old movie now, but counts as another answer for the OP.

Ir sounds like you need to achieve two things before you can make much headway with metaethics, ethics, or politics. One is to make headway with metaphysics and epistemology. The other is to further clear up their misunderstandings about Ayn Rand.