StrictlyLogical

I think he is saying that we quantify how "purely physical" things act or are arranged in ways more sophisticated and with what we associate with "information".. as such we use concepts like bits, bandwidth, coding and compression theory to characterize what we observe in the physical world, the same way we have used number and classical mathematics to quantify more intuitively observables of the physical world. Just like numbers, as such, do not exist independent of the things we count with them, so too these concepts only identify characteristics of physical things, but are not themselves physical. But insofar as things for centuries "possessed" quantifiable attributes, properties, etc. which we describe with numbers, so too in 2023 purely physical things of sufficient complexity "possess" functional capacities and arrangements which we can quantify in terms of "information" and specifically in terms of "bits, bandwidth, coding and compression". It is another matter entirely, whether consciousness itself can be equated with "computation" or an information processing "algorithm". Although not an objectivist, I like the recent musings of Roger Penrose on the issue.

I am no philosopher. I would characterize Rand as finally being wholly unbiased in operational orientation towards deduction or inference, and that certainly post maturation, her structures were girded by both, as the state of all prior knowledge and observation required for the particular bit of construction on the edifice of her philosophy. It may be that she leaned towards a deductive foundational approach in the early years, but I do not believe she leaned in any particular direction in the mature philosophy... A dichotomy is presented here which may not be necessary. what has not been provided is a third option... one which leans in neither direction.

OK... so... DID you imagine a drawing of a house, such as what a child might draw? If not.. you are mystery to me, but at least my understanding of your words (which I can't quite fully believe) would be validated. If you had to draw it before "seeing" it, you win. If you did visualize a house... I'd say you and your wife are not so different.

Just a second… how would you visualize a spatial problem? For example imagine placing furniture so that it fits a room but also imagining it in place to determine if there is flow and if it will work functionally long term? Do you not visualize it i.e. see it in your mind’s eye? If someone described “An isosceles triangle pointing straight up, its horizontal base longer than and resting on a square, a smaller vertically oriented rectangle resting in the square at its base, a small circle inside and to one side of the rectangle” do you see anything in your mind’s eye or would you literally have to draw it first following this description as if they were a set of instructions?

This reminds me of much, and brings up a thought or perhaps a sentiment... a certain asymmetry... Although "We cannot know things-in-themselves" is flawed it is a certainty that "things-in-themselves cannot know We... only We do." is true.

How could it come to this? Korean Air Flight 801 "Save face" of (and for) your superiors... don't speak up. Publish anyway... crash and burn.

US Corruption is not partisan... nor should be its opposition.

Hear hear.

interesting

Poetry.

Why does Tyson call the axioms "presuppositional"? Isn't what is actually presupposed the "possibility of knowledge" as such, and based on that presupposition, the axioms follow ... almost.. dare I say, deductively?

You know, all rights come from an understanding of what the right society is for an individual to live and flourish in, and is grounded in an ethics we all know as selfish (but not irrational selfishness). Generally the idea of living in peace necessary for flourishing with individuals who are restrained from initiation of force (including fraud) gives rise to the concept of individual rights. There are a lot of reason which you know of which support Rand's theory of individual rights, how politics springs from an ethics, a morality of rational selfishness. Imagine all the reasons for having individual rights in a society, and do not forget we are human beings not meaningless machinations. We are all individuals but we are not all independent and fully rational. We all were children once, dependents starting as pre-rational, who at some time later become independent and rational... and we all to some degree have the potential (if we are lucky enough to live long enough), slip back into a state of physical or mental dependence.. and possibly post-rationality... once more. And the vast majority of us love and value family, old or young. I do not think the society which rests on all those reasons for individual rights, would be able to remain the right kind of society for flourishing, if the society removed rights for all dependents, or all children or adults, all members of society, who are not fully independent and rational. At the very least a right to life is necessary, a right also to bodily integrity, being free from irreparable harm is also a requirement. These rights are not extended to those "others" in a society as something superfluous to the proper society, they are necessary to it. Try to imagine the kind of society which protected rights for only those who were fully rational and independent, and all the kinds of predation and killing and human suffering which could result... yes, emotional psychological harm is real, but it is not the only harm, not the only aspect inimical to flourishing one would get in such a society. I think there is a balance to be struck for the kinds of rights to be protected for dependents, a balance which recognizes that they are dependents, and cannot be fully responsible in all ways... possibly being a danger to others or themselves... but who at a minimum should have rights to life, bodily integrity, generally free from unnecessary initiation of force etc. Rights and responsibilities would be rationally considered given the context of the individual. The second amendment, for example, would not enable a 4 year old, or a completely addled old man with severe dementia, to remain in possession of a loaded gun.

All individual rights are protected under a proper government, you are still exploring what rights a child has, and why. This is explored more in another of your posts which I reply to below.

Yes, indeed this is the sort of thing I agree with. Case law governing what constitutes propriety is usually enough until real concerns about immediate safety issues are raised... a proper system does not invoke preventative justice (based on speculation or statistics), but it has mechanisms for dealing with real threats of imminent harm, and irreparable damage and the like... and it would apply should someone find out the child is being sold for money or a pedophile is attempting to adopt...

I understand your equation of possession with ownership, and your idealization of property with that which you take possession of and value, but they are quite different concepts. True property over a thing MEANS you have the absolute right to do with it as you wish (without harming others, or violating anyone else's right etc.) this MUST include the absolute right to do anything to or with it, to sell, rent, modify, etc. and/or destroy the thing. A proper government could NOT prevent you from doing anything to your property including destroying it... because THAT is what DEFINES property which is yours. A mere possession, or an ill-gotten thing owned by someone else, or anything subject to anyone else's rights, therefore cannot be your property. This essential aspect of what property IS means no one else has any claim on it, and you do. Now, of course you can own "bundles of rights" IN a thing, rights under a contract can be enforced.. rental agreements, rights of ways, licenses, etc and in that sense you can "have property" in things... but the things themselves (which you have SOME but not all rights in) are not your property. In this sense, in the sense of what is at the heart of what differentiates property over a thing from any other type of mere possession, or merely having some rights in, is what makes it impossible for a person of any age to BE property in a proper society.