A is A

They do, in consciousness.

I'm discussing the concept in an epistemological sense, not a biological sense. The issue is one of the hierarchy of concepts. "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action." "Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action." As conciousness is an attribute of living organisms, intelligence is an attribute of consciousness.

Aritificial means made by a human being rather than occurring naturally.

You wouldn't feel patronized if you didn't put words in my mouth. Your disagreement had nothing to do with my statement. Your lack of knowledge did.

Again, you're using stolen concepts. If something is alive, it is not artificial. intelligience is a function of consciousness, not of non living things.

I suggest you study Objectivist epistemology more thoroughly. The issues you're talking about have been written about extensively. I see no point in simply repeating what others have written. You'll have to think and figure these things out yourself. The answers are out there.

Well, if you want to discuss philosophy, you'd better use concepts with precise meaning or you'll wind up totally confused.

Basically, yes. This question has been addressed throughout the Obectivist literature. I'd suggest reading Galt's speech, or Atlas Shrugged if you haven't, or ITOE, or OPAR.

No, asking for help or assistance is not second-handed, unless you have some ulterior motive, like feeling superior. Besides the very good question, "what do I want?", the next important quesiton to ask to untangle issues is "what do I value?" Unresolved conscious and subconscious issues ultimately result from some goal that you are pursuing. If you can identify that goal, that value, and then ask your self, "what would happen if I didn't value that?" you'll find your way to achieving self-sufficiency.

If I don't take this comment as a joke, I will simply regard it as a misunderstanding. If you're eyes are open, you are seeing something, let's say a chair or desk or house. If you close your eyes, you are not seeing that something. If you do not accept the answer, then I can only guess that you have X-ray vision and can see with your eyes closed. You imply that "close your eyes" means you see nothing, which is an absurd conclusion and the exact opposite argument that Rand makes. She simply means that you do not see what you see with your eyes open. If you really think you see the back of your eyelids, then go into a room with no light leaks. Look at an object in the room with a light on, then turn off the light so that it is pitch black. Even with your eyes open, you will not see the object. You certainly will not see the back of your eyelids. Thus "existence" is a concept that conceptualizes what you see when your eyes are open and there is sufficient light.

Let's not forget that ethics presupposes a living being, with consciousness and volition, purpose, and awareness of the consequences. So the robot is out on all counts. Ascribing "choice' to the robot's actions as described above is absurd.

Your arguments are sound. On the last point, they were using the fallacy of self exclusion. See Taking Philosophy Seriously for a good presentation of this fallacy. By avoiding your arguments, they are using evasion as a method of dismissing you so that they don't have to acknowldge your arguments. If they refuse to deal with your arguments and simply repeat what they are saying, you can bet you've gotten to the point of someone who uses emotions as a guide to their thinking. Simply make your case, and leave them to their own devices. You cannot convince someone who does not use reason with a rational argument. There is no referent in the external world to which you both can cite as truth. They are looking at their inner world of floating abstrations and emotional associations.

Check out these two references: Binswanger, Harry (2014). How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation. New York: TOF Publications, Inc. ISBN 978-0-9856406-1-3. Binswanger, Harry (1990). The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts. Los Angeles: Ayn Rand Institute Press. ISBN 0-9625336-0-2.

You think it's not immoral to lie?

She meant that Wynand ahould fight for Roark till the outcome of the trial. She probably would only have stayed with Wynand had Roark lost the trial and was sent to jail. She was in love with Roark. He new that Toohey could never control the banner if he, Wynand, quit. He may have been smart enough, but he didn't have the moral fortitude withstand the social atmosphere that he helped create.

The reason for formulating and distinguishing the fundamental characteristic from essential characteristics is that the fundamental characteristic is the one used in the definition of the concept.

When maturing and growing up, children need to be involved in as many things as possible to find out what their good at and what they like doing.

I was only attempting to be sarcastic about his comment and state of mind. I wasn't implying anything about what you said. Sorry if you took it that way.

Let's not speculate on what Frank is doing. He seems to be speculating on what Rand said.

Interesting. But it clearly confuses metaphysics with epistemology as if what a thing is is the only thing we can think about it. When we think of the concept 'apple' we don't only think of one apple.

1. The standard is Man's Life qua rational being. This is clearly identified in Galt's speech. By evaluating altruism in the context of Objectivist morality. 2. Not sure why you don't get the connection. The answer, of course, is YES, but not consistently.

Again, you don't understand her theory. Your invention of "bundling" does not adequately describe how concepts are formed. We do not derive concepts by "putting data bites of experience together." Your last sentence makes no sense in light of your lack of understanding of her theory. Perhaps you should demonstrate an understanding of her theory before attempting to critique it.

This is false. Objectivism doesn't use such terminology as 'bundling of perceptions.' Objectivism readily recognizes imagination. I can perceive man's torso, head and arms, and a horse's body and create centaur. However, this is not a concept formed in the way required for concepts to be tied to reality. Epistemology is not the study of neuroscience. How the brain processes concept or percepts is not part of her theory. It would be nice if you actually demonstrated having read what she wrote by citing where you're getting your interpretation from. None of what you attribute to her is in her theory.

You can only act according to that reason if you choose to act in a manner consistent with the reason. Since a determinist rejects such a choice, he is implicitly asserting acting without a cause since the only way to interpret human action is the choice to act in such a manner. For example, I have a reason to go to bed now because it is late. But I don't act on that reason because I want to address this issue. A determinist would have to hold that since I have a reason to go to bed now, I will go to bed now. (Good night. NOW, I am going to bed.)

What his opponent ultimately means is acting without cause.