dream_weaver

Rand copyrights the books in which she presents her discoveries. She can demand that her authorship of the discoveries be acknowledged (as Objectivism), that no other man appropriate or plagiarize the credit for it—but she cannot copyright theoretical knowledge. Her acknowledgement is one of discovery, not of creation. Laws of nature, principles of reality, or facts of reality, are not creations. Her precise form of presentation is available to anyone willing to put forth the effort to find and read it for themselves. As more information becomes public domain, it is getting set adrift in an ever increasing sea of data where essential data becomes more difficult to be subjugated to efficacious organization efforts.

I didn't see it directly mentioned in the body of the text provided, but I did not burrow into the linked references inside the bill to other legalese. Did the advertisement provide any more concrete detail, perhaps the relevant statute being invoked within legislative Bill S2992?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2992

@freestyle I don't recollect an Ayn Rand reference to this one. My answer is derived more as a hybrid from The History of Philosophy Thales to Hume, and I think Harry Binswanger has touched on the brain-in-a-vat on Selected Topic in the Philosophy of Science. I've also watched Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor, Existenz which are popular sources for positing such questions.

In the progression of knowledge, familiarity with what is right precedes the discovery of the concept of wrong. One of the roots of the concept "simulation" is the "what" that is being simulated. Unless you are going to embark on an infinite regress, ultimately a simulation of reality would have its foundation based on existence. Knowledge of reality is a prerequisite to ascertaining what you are dealing with is a facsimile. The skeptic has weight of the onus of proof on his shoulders.

Don Watkins came up in my android feed with the following: https://youtu.be/Vu8IaeGL1kE 615 views in 2 months.

A quick search for "truck driver" brought back 4 references. The first was the diner she went into after telling the driver to stop in a not so good section of town. "The stories they tell you when you're young—about the human spirit. There isn't any human spirit. Man is just a low-grade animal, without intellect, without soul, without virtues or moral values. An animal with only two capacities: to eat and to reproduce." His gaunt face, with staring eyes and shrunken features that had been delicate, still retained a trace of distinction. He looked like the hulk of an evangelist or a professor of esthetics who had spent years in contemplation in obscure museums. She wondered what had destroyed him, what error on the way could bring a man to this. "You go through life looking for beauty, for greatness, for some sublime achievement," he said. "And what do you find? A lot of trick machinery for making upholstered cars or inner-spring mattresses." "What's wrong with inner-spring mattresses?" said a man who looked like a truck driver. "Don't mind him, lady. He likes to hear himself talk. He don't mean no harm." The second was a reference to Midas Mulligan by Lee Hunsacker to Dagny Taggert. She sat up straight. "Midas Mulligan?" "Yea—the banker who looked like a truck driver and acted it, too!" The third was the individual in the valley. The roughneck was watching them from above, listening with curiosity. She glanced up at him, he looked like a truck driver, so she asked, "What were you outside? A professor of comparative philology, I suppose?" "No, ma'am," he answered. "I was a truck driver." He added, "But that's not what I wanted to remain." Interesting to note that the man in the diner, Midas Mulligan and the man Dagny observed were stated to have "looked like a truck driver." Aside from Lee Hunsacker's voicing the evaluation, the other two evaluations were privy to the reader. The man in the valley only stated he was a truck driver after he was asked if he was a professor of comparative philology.

I would have described those ten years Rearden spent as an investment. In the pursuit of one value or set of values, necessarily cannot be also pursuing a different value or set thereof. Rearden's evaluation of the end goal was such that it likely existed, if he only discovered the right processes to bring it about.

Which science, do you hold, explains philosophy? Why do you hold that philosophy does not weigh in on science? Have you considered the possibility that philosophy may be a science?

Aristotle, Aquinas, and Alissa. A triple-A rating not to be confused with the AAA® insurance company ratings. Miss Rand also penned "Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology" where integrations by essentials are advocated over aprocess of integrating by inessentials or nonessentials.

Excerpted from Galt's Speech: Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification. Miss Rand owing a philosophical debt to Aristotle, and Objectivism being essentially Aristotelean after the fashions of the portions you've extracted of his for consideration, seems quite the leap.

On page 61 of ITOE 2nd Edition, the charge is to look for the stand on axiomatic concepts. This was a variation used to underscore and explore a slight expansion on that theme. There are more effective ways of birth control alternatives to abortion for sure. Any psychological ramifications for choosing to appeal to abortion, however, should be between the applicant and her conscience, i.e., her maker. (IMHO)

Acquiring competence is about acquiring a first hand grasp of the particulars. While I may not persuade you of what I know to be true, it is unlikely that I will be persuaded from what I know to be so, unless I can be shown in such a way as to be incontrovertible. You contrast with the enthusiastic combatants in the "battle of ideas", being immune to learning. My father, years ago, told me that education was about learning how to learn. That also carries with it the capacity (and onus) to seek out the yet undiscovered roads to explore. It also has to acknowledge "the crow", in that one cannot learn everything there is to know about everything. Even in a delimited field as philosophy, mastery of the entire subject would be daunting. Another saying I grew up with was "a jack of all trades and the master of none." Over the past few years, shows such as Bones, Columbo, Law and Order, Murder, She Wrote, lately Silent Witness, have provided some insights into definitive testing that show and prove conclusions in regard to criminal acts. In her essay Philosophical Detection, she sets the task of investigating philosophies to determine if you are seeing an intellectual achievement or crime.

To chip in, d_m., I'd think a purpose of objective scholars... Was that intended as "To chip in, d_w"? or am I conflating the response as being intended, somehow, for DM?

Life or death. I was hoping for something a little more elaborative. To this, I'd have to ask whose life or death, and presume you are to pick one life or death over the life or death of the other.

What if you take her statement as philosophical, rather than adding a biological refinement or adding a socio-politicsl context? What is the essential issue at stake? What makes it the essential issue, objectively?

https://peikoff.com/courses_and_lectures/the-history-of-philosophy-volume-2-–-modern-philosophy-kant-to-the-present/ Odd. I thought it was also at the campus.

There is a second series by Peikoff that starts with Kant and proceeds from there. He touches briefly on Nietzsche in that series.

yes Do you hold there is no difference between the concept of consciousness and a concept of consciousness transference?

You mean the concept of consciousness transference hypothesized by Severinian?

I contended that the case for retaliatory force was set in the 1950's and that it should have been done then. Acting on this premise 70 years later seems more a case of the sin's of the fathers being used as rationalization by the children of the transgressed. The fact that lands are held by unproductive hands is not a case for commandeering lands either, regardless of what natural resources such lands may possess.

Under a capitalist approach, the ownership would go to the best products made the most economically, American-owned or otherwise.

Alex Epstein may have something on costs in some of his materials. He started with a moral case for fossil fuels. If resources were truly limited to the point of concern, it would make sense to buy Middle East oil til it ran out preserving American reserves for drawing upon at that time. For most resources, man's mind discovers a use for them and goes about developing more efficient means of extracting what is needed in larger quantities. Could it be at the root of this energy security concern is more or less a bunch of misinformation and misdirection?

I was addressing your reply to Severinian.

That too, would require consciousness to perform. As a starting point, try the 1913 Webster's definition of consciousness.