Plasmatic

Eliminative materialists claim consciousness is an illusion.  That the apparent duality is solved by repudiating consciousness.
Dualists of all types I think have the converse illusory view that nature itself, including structure function, identity and causality, somehow cannot itself simply be conscious "on its own".  That alongside this neutered "nature" (some narrow and implicit parody of mechanistic materialism) must therefore "exist" something else parallel, over and above, and/or coincidentally with it... and this other stuff, realm, or aspect is where we can place consciousness. 
Reality as a whole is a unity of identities, it simply is.  Entities are their attributes, not parallel to them. This requires a further reconciliation and/or integration for which I do not yet have the solution... but I'm starting to believe that the idea of duality itself must be the illusion because of the way we introspect and extrospect.  But these are different types of things we DO in one reality, not dual "aspects" of reality as such.
 
 

Regarding Efron's paper: "Biology without consciousness"
No one here has argued for eliminating consciousness by reducing it to biology. No one....

Perhaps he only "maintains" his statement.

You think your statement is true, do you?

I'll consider the notion that that is an instance of politeness. I havent considered it as such before, in a forum context. It seems to go without saying that there is no onus to post.

When one has sincere premises and questions they don't rush to meet others expectations, because they are products of a personal value hierarchy. I do only what I want, when I have nothing better to do. 
How others interpret the time frames involved doesn't matter to me.

In looking back on your quote I came across the following, which I believe clarifies her overall position on maintaining moral principles in the context of dictatorships:  "... Nothing but a psycho-epistemological panic can blind such intellectuals to the fact that a dictator, like any thug, runs from the first sign of confident resistance; that he can rise only in a society of precisely such uncertain, compliant, shaking compromisers as they advocate, a society that invites a thug to take over; and that the task of resisting an Attila can be accomplished only by men of intransigent conviction and moral certainty." ~ ARL, Dictator
This suggests to me that there is in fact, always a moral choice to be made when faced with adverse, abnormal conditions  for survival.  And that the choice to live requires an "intransigent conviction" to moral certainties about accepting or rejecting impediments to normal conditions; to "live" (uncertainly) on your knees, or to risk going down swinging.

To produce is to cause something to be by your own effort and action.

Obviously there are those who are rich who did not obtain their wealth by "their own effort". Inheritance is an example.

Louie said:
"Not engaging" an argument is not a defining characteristic of "empiricism....
louie said:
No shit... I didn't claim any such nonsense. However, all valid "abstractions" (even strings of them constituting an argument) are reducible to a perceptual base. 
Louie said:
I did point it out, previously! I don't cater to intellectual laziness, or context dropping. You would have to integrate the fact that I said "this list suffers from the same "divergences" as SK's previous thread" and then consult the previous thread for context. That would be the intellectually responsible thing to do before spouting off about someones post. In that thread SK says herself, that she thinks metaphysical concepts "cannot be reduced to experiences".... That means her "concepts" are "floating abstractions". A common error identified by Ms Rand. Look it up. Statements made by folks holding floating abstractions are merely making sounds and moving symbols.
Besides, technically she doesn't "argue" anything, she just asserts claims about certain strings of symbols "defined" by fiat. Oist don't engage arbitrary claims!
 
Louie said:
Surely you don't think that a concept, to be understood has to have be discussed in the wording Ayn Rand happened to choose, right?   
Yeah, this is a perfectly good example of what a dictionary is for. And when that fails to bring clarity, asking clarifying questions is a good practice.

Ok, so I think a productive line would be to point out that this list suffers from the same "divergences" as SK's previous thread. 
It's concepts are arbitrary and the differentiations don't follow an objective reduction to percepts making the differences asserted rationalistic symbol manipulation.
We see ontological pluralities created from what an Oist method validates as synonyms. 
We have no explanation how a metaphysics-ontology would aid one in doing fundamental physics without violating the general vs special methods that differentiate Philosophy from Physics and keeps both grounded in perception. 
We see how a knowledge of concept formation (or lack of) enables one (or hinders) to understand the process of definition. 
Metaphysics tells only what is true and necessary of everything. Only what cannot be rationally denied of all existents.  A discussion of how this subject matter would guide fundamental physics is in order.
 
 

Ok, so I think a productive line would be to point out that this list suffers from the same "divergences" as SK's previous thread. 
It's concepts are arbitrary and the differentiations don't follow an objective reduction to percepts making the differences asserted rationalistic symbol manipulation.
We see ontological pluralities created from what an Oist method validates as synonyms. 
We have no explanation how a metaphysics-ontology would aid one in doing fundamental physics without violating the general vs special methods that differentiate Philosophy from Physics and keeps both grounded in perception. 
We see how a knowledge of concept formation (or lack of) enables one (or hinders) to understand the process of definition. 
Metaphysics tells only what is true and necessary of everything. Only what cannot be rationally denied of all existents.  A discussion of how this subject matter would guide fundamental physics is in order.
 
 

Ok, so I think a productive line would be to point out that this list suffers from the same "divergences" as SK's previous thread. 
It's concepts are arbitrary and the differentiations don't follow an objective reduction to percepts making the differences asserted rationalistic symbol manipulation.
We see ontological pluralities created from what an Oist method validates as synonyms. 
We have no explanation how a metaphysics-ontology would aid one in doing fundamental physics without violating the general vs special methods that differentiate Philosophy from Physics and keeps both grounded in perception. 
We see how a knowledge of concept formation (or lack of) enables one (or hinders) to understand the process of definition. 
Metaphysics tells only what is true and necessary of everything. Only what cannot be rationally denied of all existents.  A discussion of how this subject matter would guide fundamental physics is in order.
 
 

The document stands more as a rejection of Objectivism than an application of it.  

I agree with Plasmatic on this regarding the universe at large or any collection including insufficiently interacting entities. 
In specific contexts some systems of existents will form "wholes" with properties emerging from their configuration, arrangement etc., an rubber ball, a brain, a molecule.  In this respect Eiuol's example of an atom is correct, but wholeness does not apply to existents which do not interact in such a cohesive manner.
My nose, the base of the empire state building, and the moons of Mars, do NOT form a metaphysical whole, in any sense.  Even conceptually they are merely a disparate, random, unrelated juxtaposition...

How the hell can she say this and this:
I can quote several more instances of her expressing her estimation of whole groups of people's sense of life and emotional/psychological states.....
 
For the record, I agree with the latter and not the former.
 
Jonathan, I will address you in a bit.

I did a google search for a phrase I read on OO's site once and it pulled up both sites in the results.

I note from your premises and definitions, either you are confused between reality and concepts or you are attempting to confuse other people.
 
Problematical use of "defined" and "in"
Entities in reality are not "defined", they exist.  Definitions are mental contents.  An object is not metaphysically "defined" by anything, it simply IS what it is.  The distinction between objects and substances is arbitrary here in premise 1, because all things simply ARE what they are.  Compound objects which are groups of objects arranged in certain ways are simply groups of objects arranged in certain ways.  A house made out of M&Ms is not a house + a bunch of M&Ms it simply is a house OF M&Ms, or a group of M&Ms in the configuration of a house.  There is not some metaphysical schism of some things making another thing, it is ONE WHOLE THING, which is a group of things which happen to be M&Ms in a particular configuration of a house.
Moreover, existents in reality are not containers as such. The M&Ms are not "in" the house, they CONSTITUTE the house itself, they are not contained BY it.  Groups of things surely can contain OTHER things (physically according to a definition of how the things are spatially related), as a bucket contains water, but a thing does not contain itself nor any part of itself, because a thing IS itself. 
You are attempting to use of the term "container" in its conceptually hierarchical sense (or possibly stolen from the concept of geometric shape), but you are attempting to attribute that to metaphysics and the thing itself.  This is an error.
An entire egg IS an egg.  An eggshell contains (physically) the white and the yolk.  The egg does not contain the yolk, the egg IS the yolk the white and the shell.  The concept egg, includes the yolk, and mentally one can look at the "shape" or "outer extremity" of an egg and say the geometrical volume occupied by the entire egg, contains all of the egg including the yolk.  Neither the concept nor the shape, however, IS the metaphysical egg itself.   
This is problematical as above re "in", it also confuses reality with concepts. 
Here you are referring to "one" and "another" and that the "two" are the "same" as if you were introducing statements about reality, but they cannot be statements about reality because they are contradictory.  This is bunch of fumbling nonsense.
 
You are trying to say essentially "Suppose there exists one thing and a different thing, if they are really the identical same thing, they are not two things but one thing, and are not one thing and a different thing."  This contains a contradiction which means that part of it is not a statement about things in reality (no contradictions in reality) but is a statement about an error of knowledge.
"Suppose I first thought there existed one thing and a different thing, but then found out they are actually one thing, then I was wrong thinking there was one thing and a different thing"
This is a fundamentally useless statement.
 
1.  Nothing preceding Definition3 leads to an infinite regress.  Your arbitrary premise 1, that objects are made of objects or substances logically leads ONLY to the conclusion that (whatever substances are) objects ultimately are made of substances.
 
Again, here there is confusion between metaphysics and epistemology: entities in reality are not "defined", they exist.  Definitions are mental contents.
Again, entities in reality are not "containers" of themselves or containers of any portion of themselves, they ARE themselves.
Note also, you have a completely empty definition (assuming it was sensible) for substance, it is defined as a negation and only in terms of itself...  Such is not a definition of anything...  "ishdatriddle is defined as that which is not defined by anything else except itself" is not a definition, it is a loose set of constraints FOR a definition which HAS NOT BEEN supplied.
In a sense your definition of "substance" has defined nothing... (to avoid confusion, technically, it has not defined anything) which although ironic, is not of any substance for your chain of "logic".
 
This, renders Definition 4, and anything which depends upon it, invalid.
"Nothing is the object which" is a contradiction.  The word "nothing" does not refer to any metaphysical object or entity.  Trying to redefine the word "nothing" to refer to "something" is foul-play even in a silly word game; it is the exemplar of trying to define "A" as "non-A".  Definition X: Dog means a non-dog... This attempt invalidates the sentence, the definition, destroys any possible meaning for the "word" being (re)defined.
 
The word "nothing" is used to designate absence, in the context, of an existing thing, which would qualify as satisfying the requirements of the sentence.
"Nothing in that box is red", means, of all the things that exist, there is no thing, which is both in that box, and is also red.
"Nothing is longer than itself", means, of all the things that exist, there is no thing, which has a length which is longer than its length.
"Nothing, other than air and lint, is in my pocket", means, of all the things that exist, there is no thing, other than air and lint, which is within my pocket.
 
Simply put, here you have tried to (re) define nothing as a something, which is as successful as trying to define a contradiction; it is invalid.
 
As shown above, the premises are flawed and thus the conclusions invalid.
 
The errors are too numerous to correct, and I have no suggestion for what kind of conclusion you could hope to reach using anything similar to this line of "logic"...
 

Ground rules for meaningful communication:
Premise 1. Know what a concept is and how its formed and validated.
Premise 2. Know what a definition is and how to apply it to any concept you deploy.
Premise 3. Require your dialogical counterparts to present the same when they engage you in philosophical communication. (especially when they want to derive a metaphysical principle out of moving symbols around)
 
There is no such thing as nothing. You think so? Tell me how to form the concept you want to communicate and define it so that I can know what you are referring to. Otherwise there is no reason to make such an ado about nothing....
 Fundamental concepts such as entity are defined ostensively. Can you point out a "nothing" for me?

Dustin said:
That is not a matter of rhetoric but philosophic principle. What you are saying is that Oist are minorities on that issue and should recognize the mob cant be wrong. You don't persuade others to change their premises by pointing out they are an intransigent minority.

Epistemologue said:
Could you do that for music without lyrics?

That looks like a well selected sound-byte for hitting the Cruiz control button.

Dustin said:
That is not a matter of rhetoric but philosophic principle. What you are saying is that Oist are minorities on that issue and should recognize the mob cant be wrong. You don't persuade others to change their premises by pointing out they are an intransigent minority.

Dustin said:
That is not a matter of rhetoric but philosophic principle. What you are saying is that Oist are minorities on that issue and should recognize the mob cant be wrong. You don't persuade others to change their premises by pointing out they are an intransigent minority.

I would have used a comma after communication, personally.

Louie said:
I'd say rhetoric doesn't separate process from content like this. A rhetorical method that is emotional, used on an audience that doesn't value passionate communication will be ineffective.