A is A

What his opponent ultimately means is acting without cause.

If you don't think you learn anything from "that which runs, runs" then contrast that with "that which runs, crawls" or "that which runs, cries" or "that which runs, cheers" or "that which grows, honks". What do you know from that statement? What relationship between the entity and its actions do you know? Not much without further investigation. The problem is in looking at the tautology as a statement with no context, as concrete-bound grouping of words. The tautology is a wide abstraction identifying causal relationships of an entity and its actions. One reaches the tautology only by looking for causal relationships among events that occur in reality. Identifying an entity and its actions in the form of a tautology is the method of proving inductive statements. If one can state, "that which is mortal, is mortal" then one has identified a causal relationship between the entity and it actions (or properties). "That which exists, exists" is the widest abstraction that all entities and their actions have in common.

Look at it this way. How do you know that which exists, exists? You would not know the meaning of those words without observation and conceptualization.

Turns out it is very easy to know you're not in the Matrix.  Not everything has a green tint to it.

The only thing need to prove guilt is that the person committed the crime.  Why he did it is irrelevant for guilt, although knowing motive certainly helps in putting the crime in context.  But, unless the defendent himself actually testifies, you'll probably never know his true motive.

There may be cases where knowing the motive is important, such as in self-defense cases where one person is dead and the other is alive.  

Except for a few corrections, yes.  The "grouping' of the two pouches is not an automatic process.  Perceiving the pouch's similarities and differences from the jar is the automatic process. 
 
Measurement omission does not consist of forgetting the measurements.  The measurements are just not specified, with the implication that they may exist in any amount and must exist in some specific amount.
 
When forming the concept container, you'd need a third object that is not a container, something to serve a difference (as a foil or counter) in function from the jar and pouch which are similar in function.  
 
 

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

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.
 
 

The "decision" being "made" by the robot is just an extension of the programmer's rules.  If I set my clock radio to wake me up at 7:00 am, does it "chose" to do so?  A RNG or as Nicky say's, faulty programming, does not equal intelligence.  Even an epistemological subroutine would not cause something to be conscious or make decisions.
 
Intelligence is not algorithmic.

Eamon, you're welcome to throw your college years away if you want, but do me a favor: Whenever you end up realizing that the actions you're planning on undertaking have brought you nothing of value, don't blame it on Objectivism.

I lost count of how many people I heard say that they "grew out of Objectivism, because it's naive and idealistic" once they realized that in today's world it's impossible to do the things you're planning to do. It's tiresome. There's nothing in Objectivism that asks of you to refuse to attend a state funded university, or in any other way live outside society for the sake of showing other people how strong your convictions are. Remember this when it comes time to blame someone for not being able to get the job you want with an online degree.

If you don't think you learn anything from "that which runs, runs" then contrast that with "that which runs, crawls" or "that which runs, cries" or "that which runs, cheers" or "that which grows, honks". What do you know from that statement? What relationship between the entity and its actions do you know? Not much without further investigation. The problem is in looking at the tautology as a statement with no context, as concrete-bound grouping of words. The tautology is a wide abstraction identifying causal relationships of an entity and its actions. One reaches the tautology only by looking for causal relationships among events that occur in reality. Identifying an entity and its actions in the form of a tautology is the method of proving inductive statements. If one can state, "that which is mortal, is mortal" then one has identified a causal relationship between the entity and it actions (or properties). "That which exists, exists" is the widest abstraction that all entities and their actions have in common.

Look at it this way. How do you know that which exists, exists? You would not know the meaning of those words without observation and conceptualization.

Those assertions are meant to undercut idealism and confidence in one's mind.  Ignore them.  The people who assert them gave up pursuing their values and have settled for less in life.

For the last 2,000 years, every country on earth has either discriminated, harassed, restricted, murdered, forced conversions, or completely separated Jews from its own society.  To state that the protection of the individual rights of these people by a government is somehow discriminatory, or apartheid, or theocracy, is evasion on a truly massive scale.  To claim that Jews discriminate against Arabs when Arabs have forcibly kicked out virtually every Jew from Arab countries is a demand that Jews annihilate themselves. To claim that Israel is basically a "Jewish state" when it is the only state that allows all three major religions in the region to freely practice their beliefs is to use words without any meaning.

Curi is a Popperian and a pragmatist who attempts to "integrate" Objectivism into his eclectic style.  His writings demonstrate little understanding of Objectivism's methodology and his inability to grasp this fact is his major flaw.  He has flooded other Forums with the same questions he has here, where he was criticized and refuted on many points.  His inability to grasp the basic arguments against him demonstrate how much he has integrated Popper and pragmatism into his thinking.  
 
If you'd like to read other analyses of his arguments, see 
Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology  
 
Epistemology Without Weights and the Mistake Objectivism and Critical Rationalism Both Made  
 
Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature  
 
False Dichotomies, Package Deals, and Karl Popper