StrictlyLogical

I second that. "Publish" it here in a new thread, they seem to be unable or not willing to block your access to this site.

How is it that they are failing, absolutely and completely failing, to keep you quiet on this forum? If they can't silence you here, surely you must be able to send all your work, formulas, theorems, simulations, documentation to Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, or Russel Brand, or Alex Jones / Info Wars to ensure it gets public? What is stopping you?

So it is about science. But is it ever really just about the science? What kind of discovery was it? In what industry? How lucrative is it? Would BiG Money make a lot of money from the science? I assume, if you had not really solved it they would not have been interested in you at all. Their noticing you means they would have had to have seen that you did (past tense) actually solve it, not just claimed to have solved it. I assume then that the science was published, otherwise how would they know that you had solved it, so the "solution" is now (and has been since they discovered your solving it), out there. That said, after discovering that you have let the genie out of the bottle why do they care about you anymore, shouldn't they be chasing the genie? Or implementing it for their own gain or power? If you have more information they don't want published, why do they let you post here? Perhaps they secretly just want your information. Why not just upload and post all your work for everyone to see, access, apply, it does not seem that anyone is stopping you from doing that. If it is important people will discover it and find it useful. I suspect, if you really want it, once you have posted whatever they want, they will leave you alone, they cannot risk being discovered, and will go back into the shadows.

Why are the terrorists bothering with you? Are you rich? Do they want to take your money? Are you highly powerful or influential over a large group of people or geographical area of interest to them? Why did they target you in the first place and how is it worth it to them to do so?

I think many in the world are pivoting away from old conflicts defined in terms of polar opposites which are not at play right now as they once were. When the world is seen as filled with mostly "good" cultures and societies which generally value peace, autonomy, family, life, happiness, for everyone... the philosophical quibbles over just what the good is and why, and how best to achieve it can be real and indeed can be very contentious and stark: Atheism versus Religionism, Capitalism versus Socialism, but in the end they are not existentially and urgently crucial. Christians have been quite harsh on "heretical" or "heathen" thinking for quite some time and the vehemence with which the Atheists "rebelled" against Christianity, religious and mythical thought is quite breathtaking. But over recent times I think many feel that the animosity between generally good people over these issues is rather small potatoes. For the world is now seen as having a sort of "thing" working in the background, of people whose motive is sheer political and economic power, whether governments and bankers or oligarchs and powerful families etc. or all of them... it possesses an unmistakable "evil" culture which does not value peace, autonomy, family, life, happiness, for everyone... instead valuing those for some: personal friends and family, and are happy to "pay the price" of consigning everyone else to their antitheses : war, authority, isolation, misery and death. What point is there to fight over just exactly what good is and how to get there when a faint but clear harbinger of cultural evil.... atheist non-moral anti-human post-modern evil that is arising. Whether or not consciously emerging from the nexi of power, or whether unconsciously emerging in the psychology of culture which has lost the basis of its morality and has not discovered objectivism, the inhuman evil is now at work here. It makes sense for those that hold humanity, human life, individual life and liberty in high esteem to band together for humankind. It has been happening. Craig Biddle debated with Denis Prager a few years back putting forth the position that they should not fight... Prager at that time was stuck in the mind set that he must scare people back into religion with the bromide "without religion morality is impossible"... as if membership in the good camps was more important than sheer numbers of good people. Richard Dawkins has announced that he is an "Atheist Christian"... quite a claim to unpack but nonetheless one which is symbolic of a real spiritual and mental alliance ... good people who still value humanity and life on earth as free individuals with peace, autonomy, family, life, happiness, for everyone, NOT just some people, should and will come together. Of course the "thing"'s activity in sowing divisions is accelerating, men against women, blacks against whites, left against right, atheism against religion, Christian against Muslim... Christians citing Objectivism and Objectivists reaching out to good religionists is a good thing and all individual human loving people need to come together.

Excellent responses by all, not much to add. My one observation is that the main problem is not so much a conflation of identity and value... sure, these concepts are not to be conflated, but if such an error were made, it should be easily remedied by one familiar enough with each concept, and secondly, such a conflation, even if believed, cannot form the foundation for the "primacy of consciousness view". Even if value can be created in things by sheer subjectivity, the things themselves to which this magical value attaches cannot be created ex nihilo. Neither do we observe the magical consciousnesses (ghosts?) at work absent the physical brains/bodies by which they are manifested. With the conflation they can perhaps get to things "enchanted" or "haunted" by consciousness... but they cannot get to primacy of consciousness. I think you will find that rather than some small conflation enabling or leading to such a conclusion (which is far out of reach), in fact the "conclusion" is an existing presumption, an entrenched pre-existing premise which motivates the person to try to find evidence or reasons (perhaps even the conflation ... not knowing that it is erroneous) which can be used to support that presumption. Here they are starting at the end (primacy of consciousness) which is not rationally justified by the means to arrive there (no pun intended).

In addition to what I said above here is something to think about: Old school mailboxes at the end of the driveway are a nice example of the interplay between things, causation, information, and knowledge. If you have outgoing mail, you ensure the flag is up, the outgoing mail is in there and the mail carrier is supposed to put it down and take your outgoing mail. If you see the flag down, it should be an indication the carrier took your outgoing mail and dropped off any incoming mail. BUT that assumes the carrier knows the convention, she could have opened and closed the box without taking your mail (thinking it incoming mail from yesterday). She could have lowered your flag out of spite, and not done anything with your mail. You can't even be sure if she came, the flag could have failed... a mechanism finally rusting through, a branch from a tree may have fallen on it, or a squirrel or a racoon could have fiddled with your box... or a mischievous neighbor or child in your neighbor hood is playing prank on you... or in some cases (depending on the mechanics) some snooping person may have merely opened the mailbox and closed it again. If you see the flag still up, it should be an indication the carrier did not take your outgoing mail nor dropped off any incoming mail. BUT again that assumes the carrier knows the convention, she could have opened and closed the box took your outgoing mail and dropped off your incoming mail and put the flag up again. If the flag is "still" up you can't even be sure nothing happened with the flag since you last put it up, although that is your assumption. So, if you see the flag up, you literally have no certain information, although statistically you can draw inferences... and If you see the flag down you are certain only about causality, something or someone (including failure) caused the flag to move, although statistically you can draw inferences. In the end, you behave as though the carrier does what was supposed to be done and generally nothing else interacts with the flag, and statistically speaking you end up use that information as efficiently as possible, even if thing sometimes surprise you.

Pretty much. In the real world you can gain that knowledge from things by observing the thing directly (in any way through a causal chain without intervening third parties). You can also gain knowledge from information which has been generated by third parties observing the thing and essentially telling you about it. This information is recorded in any symbolic form of communication or record keeping and it represents the referent to which it is directed. We also use the term information to identify the representations conveyed by nonliving causal intermediaries between the thing and our minds... e.g. eyes, provide the information we know... video recording provide information about what the camera was aimed at...the photons travelling from galaxies give us information about the galaxies. Both knowledge and information are about or refer to things, they have referents in reality. Knowledge is in your head, information is encoded in some, any medium, or causal intermediary. You can get knowledge about referents directly or from information. Both knowledge and information is valid when there is both a causal connection to the referent and when they identify the referent or whatever is relevant about it,without contradiction with that reality.

Our brains use physical means in order abstract and to form abstractions. Do you contend our physical brains CONSIST of abstractions? If you contend information exists as a physical part of any physical system, does it exist independently of, over and above , or in addition to, all the other physical characteristics we can observe but traditionally have not identified as "information" as such? What happens to physical system we observe when the information is removed from the physical system? What is the distinction between a first universe where we merely identify and perceive information about a physical thing, the information existing only in our minds as and because we create it by thinking of and referring to those things, and a second universe where the information is in the things themselves? Specifically, what is different about those things themselves which we observe in those two universes?

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.

I did not mean a logical base... I meant a base or starting place for discussion. Responsibility with regard to an "IT" is of a different kind (not just a different magnitude) from responsibility in respect of a "who". That's why I raised a few silly questions about property and killing. I agree, we are dealing with a responsibility (to a "who") and I like your example of dining and dashing, the responsibility (or not) to the people running the restaurant. I also agree with the responsibility starting with "claiming the table". Yes, it is a concrete example, but we are capable of abstraction here ... claiming the table is a positive act implying entering to a relationship with the restaurant owner as against all others. It gives rise to expectations which are reasonable in the context and which conveniently allow everyone to dispense with "proclamations" of intent and agreement. Diner: I am sitting here because I intend to order and pay for food provided by the owner and expect to have possession of it for the duration of the meal. Others: I understand that you and the owner are exercising a dining-meal providing custom, and I will not try to sit at your table or eat your food, or take your seat if you go to the washroom, i.e. the table is yours because you have claimed it temporarily as part of the exchange... Owner: I see you sitting there to the exclusion of others who might buy a meal from me and I expect you will order a meal and pay me... Of course this would be silly. No one has to say anything because in the culture your positive actions speak to others your intent, which is tied up with unspoken agreements and expectations etc. Stay outside the restaurant if you do not wish to send to signals of intent to trade for food... As regards a "who" which is not an "it", your actions of caring for him/her and not giving him/her up for adoption, (in today's society there are plenty of people looking to adopt) is a "claim" (not of anything like a table...) that you are literally "taking responsibility" for the child. The continual choice of not volunteering the child up to the care and custody of others tells the child and the others that "you got this" and you ARE intending and trying to provide for the child. At some point a child (not being property) could choose to go with someone else if that responsibility were not being met... while at the same time if it were being met, others would best take the kid (if a misbehaving) back home to be properly schooled...etc. How does one repudiate the unwritten expectation in the restaurant if by accident they sat down in one? Leave ... before eating of course. As for the child, if one does not want to be responsible, literally does not want to provide for a child, (which lack of want goes along with a lack of love) one has only to give it up for someone else to do so. Leaving the specifics of university education aside.