dream_weaver

At the risk of injecting a [f]requent, long, or unseasonable epithet—done—though I suspect it won't make much difference.

80 posts split to Have any prominent Objectivists addressed this point II?

The mRNA approach got a lot of well-earned publicity. Ongoing success should help to lend more credibility to the science!

I think of the broken window fallacy where the focus is on all the downstream positives that occur because a kid hit a baseball shattering the glass as it went through it. The glacier now has money to spend that in turn benefits who he spent it on and so forth. Henry Hazlitt goes on to point out how the suit the money was going to be spent on was not purchased, which the tailor did not have the profits to in turn spend on what he wanted. — While the thief may be 'enriched' by the theft, it does not negate the fact that without productive minds, what would be available for a wannabe thief to steal?

From my android news-feed, THE MOST TRANSLATED BOOKS FROM EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD Several books I have read and enjoyed made this list. The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas by John Boyne, The Diary of a Little Girl by Anne Frank, The Hobbit by J. R. R. Tolkien, and there are a few more titles that I've seen put on the silver screen, Anne of Green Gables by Lucy Maud Montgomery, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carrol, The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi, Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson, Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren, and The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind by William Kamkwamba L. Ron Hubbard's The Way to Happiness appears to share a common theme with Jordan Peterson's Twelve Rules for Life, putting forth moral commandments and the popularity that seems to ensue from said approach. I have read neither and my assessment is drawn from my estimates of other assessments used to gage their proceedings.

A Restored Vermeer Painting Reveals a Hidden Cupid Artwork Hanging in the Background "Conservators knew the image of the Roman god of love existed after a 1979 X-ray, although it was assumed that Vermeer had altered the piece himself. Only after they performed a series of infrared reflectography imagings, microscopic analyses, and X-ray fluorescence examinations in 2017 did they realize that the Cupid was covered decades after the painter’s death, even though they still aren’t sure who marred the original piece or when. This dramatic of an alteration is rare during restoration, considering standard processes generally involve simple cleaning and repairs." “When layers of varnish from the 19th century began to be removed from the painting, the conservators discovered that the ‘solubility properties’ of the paint in the central section of the wall were different to those elsewhere in the painting,” From The Romantic Manifesto: The closer an artist comes to a conceptual method of functioning visually, the greater his work. The greatest of all artists, Vermeer, devoted his paintings to a single theme: light itself. The guiding principle of his compositions is: the contextual nature of our perception of light (and of color). The physical objects in a Vermeer canvas are chosen and placed in such a way that their combined interrelationships feature, lead to and make possible the painting's brightest patches of light, sometimes blindingly bright, in a manner which no one has been able to render before or since. I've never gone searching for Vermeer paintings. I remember the name and connected it to the praise cited above, and had clicked on the article, making a note of it yesterday. The contrast the left and right side of the image provide over and above the Cupid restoration echo what Miss Rand illuminated in her praise of his theme here.

One market contribution were the vaccines that came forth. It was not without its share of governmental meddling as well.

If you do not have a Covid infection, it should stand to reason that you cannot impart it to others. If you test positive for a Covid infection, only then should the question of quarantine legitimacy arise. In the absence of a legitimate quarantine policy, common courtesy should keep those interested in such decorum to refrain from putting others who potentially could be infected by it at risk.

That gets me pondering how the cities have local police, counties and parishes have enforcement personal, that there are state police agencies and then many years after the formation of these United States, the FBI, and other agencies are brought into play. The system developed to bring about law and order has within it the system infiltrating and instigating insurrection as the means of crafting the circumstance to beget more tyrannical rule. To Beattie's credit, he's not hiding behind a shadow of anonymity on this point.

The article was put forth by The Hill, and identifies Robert Smart of Boca Raton, Fla. In an earlier post linked to in this thread, Ron Watkins was singled out as the, or one of the founding Q's. Sure, names are being put forth. A bit more background was provided regarding Ron Watkins. Robert Smart may be viewed as riding the coat-tails of the QAnon phenomenon that Ron had initiated. What Chris Mills Rodrigo means by the far-right is implied in the paragraph. It would be where Robert Smart and others like him can be found if desired. In a related story, the FBI does not seem to be giving QAnon much weight as investigation into the insurrection of January 6th. FBI: Scant Evidence Jan. 6 Was a Plot

Researchers identify key QAnon influencer 'GhostEzra' excerpt: GhostEzra has recently emerged as one of the most influential figures in far-right online spaces, amassing well over 300,000 Telegram channel subscribers since the beginning of the year. The channel frequently spars with other QAnon influencers, something that has distinguished it from the other voices trying to fill the void left when the shadowy figure Q stopped posting on image boards last fall. “Like with all movements, you are going to see factionalism once the main 'leader' goes away, and the fault lines of this factionalism usually have to do with ‘purity’,” Amarnath Amarasingam, assistant professor in the school of religion at Queen’s University, said in the report. “[GhostEzra] routinely criticizes other influencers as basically sellouts, as not true to the heart of the movement.” Lord Of The Rings opening monologue Galadriel: (speaking partly in Elvish) (I amar prestar aen.) The world is changed. (Han matho ne nen.) I feel it in the water. (Han mathon ned cae.) I feel it in the earth. (A han noston ned gwilith.) I smell it in the air. Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it. It began with the forging of the Great Rings. . . . . . . . . . And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend. Legend became myth. And for two and a half thousand years, the ring passed out of all knowledge. Until, when chance came, it ensnared another bearer. Rule By Secrecy, published in 2000, contains what the author considered the most significant (essential) organizations operating behind the scenes to shape the course of history. J.R.R. Tolkien captured a human truism while Hollywood stylized it for the silver screen. The future cannot be viewed easily in retrospect. Will a future version of a Rule By Secrecy style book contain a subsection on QAnon?

The individual that fights for his own freedom is not sacrificing himself for others. He is unwilling to live as a slave.

You've taken a poll of the 7 billion people on the planet, assessed how many of them know Tony, and have segregated them accordingly to draw this conclusion? And before you have to repeat yourself, I know, I know, no one need pay mind to me either. You demonstrate well how someone versed in the field of psychology can apply tact and diplomacy in conversation here.

This is where the onus of proof is delegated to the one making the positive assertion - i.e., that it is the demonstrably true/existent. There is no onus to 'disprove'.

If "x = y", x = "42", and y = "the answer to life, the universe, and everything", then by a slight of substitution, Douglas Adams could be attributed with "x is y". This example, while flawed, is only arbitrary in having been contrived to exploit another subtlety used to span from "A is A" to "A = A".

400 replies in this thead to date. Obviously answering EasyTruth resurrection of an idle topic has taken a back seat to roasting whYNOT. <sarcasm intended>Sad. Such an objective approach to handling disagreement.</sarcasm> In the spirit of Charles Ives, and The Unanswered Question . . . Would you consider it suicide? As far as I can see, both questions highlight the difference between the somatic application and volition as it applies to the conceptual faculty.

Would you consider it suicide?

Just got done cutting the grass to the tune of "Basic Logical Theory" by Leonard Piekoff. There are two contexts of volition at play in this thread being applied from two different sciences. The autonomic and somatic is something no pre- or non-conceptual consciousness would be aware of. With regard to the knowledge of a non-conceptual consciousness, would either of the two advocates of prefacing non-conceptual consciousness with volitional consider the critter capable of making an error with regard to exercising any of the choices offered thus far?

To elaborate more on the choices available, when nature presents it with prey, it can pursue it or not. If it pursues it, it can select from the "arsenal in its toolbox". Drawing upon episodic recollection may guide it in its selection. Presented with two or more prey to "select" from, episodic recollection may provide guidance, in both cases provided it is part of the cognitive package nature provided the always what has remained a hunter-gatherer lifestyle it has not been able to alter generation after generation.

So both uses of preconceptual in that passage are referencing human preconceptualness. In other species, there appears no conceptual realm. So to extend a minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of an animals senses, that is going to result in the perception that is automatically provided by them. An animal sees, hears, tastes, smells and feels the immediacy of the moment. It is an integrated cognition that can provide it the awareness of entities, without the awareness that it is entities of which it is aware of. The extent of what can be done with such cognition is delimited to the nature of the particular animal at that point. The self-generated motion, without a sense of self has to be based on the environment. The power to alter the environment is limited to its particular nature.

Another paragraph relevant to the one posted from the appendix to ITOE earlier. This is from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 17 May 21, 1973, The Missing Link--Part II I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between man and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon—a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless "safety" of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve. For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality. I note the preface of hesitancy to discuss volition on the preconceptual level in the ITOE reference. Why the need to qualify the second preconceptual reference with infant? Surly it is not to segregate infants from adult chimpanzees. Why the hesitancy to discuss volition on the preconceptual level at all? The minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of [a human infant's] senses - as in contrast with what extemporaneously omitted delivery? An animal has no conceptual consciousness that has been demonstrated except for perhaps a couple of extreme borderline cases. Borderline cases are generally exceptions to the rule and indicators of some deeper underlying factor.

Some personal notes from the following recording https://youtu.be/HtXQTVYrBuQ State of awareness, Faculty of awareness. Form/Object distinction 19:00 Awareness in terms of concepts is volitional. "Awareness as volitional at the conceptual level." 50:00 Perception as distinct from visualization (visualization, which unlike perception, is fallible) This point is not addressed by Ayn (Alissa) Rand (Rosenbaum) (1905-1982), but is by Greg Salmieri and Aristotle of Stagira, Greece (384BC-322BC). What perception is and isn't, and why perception cannot be wrong. Visualization is the perceptual projecting of how an object will act or respond based on prior perceptual knowledge of it or similar objects. Visualization is the perceptual projection of how an object will act or respond which is based on one's prior perceptual knowledge of it or like objects. An animal which jumps around in trees, say a chipmunk, has landed on branches of various sizes before throughout its life. In each case they perceived how they supported him. This is an example of perceiving causality. The animal jumps, it lands, the branch, the branch bows, it feels it bow, and it feels the rush of the wind in its face, it feels it spring back: and what it is doing is perceiving the branch supporting it.

For those who have a searchable CD, the term "volitional" brought to light the following passage from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in the Appendix—Abstraction as Measurement-Omission: [A]lthough I hesitate to talk about volition on the preconceptual level—because the subject isn't aware of it in those terms—even a preconceptual infant has the power to look around or not look, to listen or not listen. He has a certain minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of his senses. But volition in the full sense of a conscious choice, and a choice which he can observe by introspection, begins when he forms concepts—at the stage where he has a sufficient conceptual vocabulary to begin to form sentences and draw conclusions, when he can say consciously, in effect, "This table is larger than that one"—that he has to do volitionally. If he doesn't want to, he can skip that necessity, and you can observe empirically that too many people do, on too wide a scale. I would contend, per the Salmieri lecture referenced earlier, that certain "low hanging fruit" of causal connections are likely provided for by instinctive means. You might find an interesting introduction into a genetic approach to the domestication of animals in this link.

People are capable of holding false beliefs. The tenets of Objectivism "speak" for themselves. Volitional, conceptual minds make their own characters. Per the law of excluded middle, the higher animals, excluding man, are either volitional or they are not. I think of Francisco line to James Taggert prefacing his request to be properly and formally introduced to his bride.

Between the insults and failure to identify common ground to precede from, and now stretching into 14 pages to be used as a shining example for whom, about what? I don't see the lions and tigers and bears frittering away their time bickering about their position on such matters. I would suggest that the animals chose otherwise, but I know better. Positions have been indicated. Are you (collectively) not men enough accept that an impasse has been reached, that minds may not be changed on the basis of what has been presented? This is not the first issue that the charge raised that Rand is deficient on. Rand would also declare that you not take her say so on matters, but to identify the relevant factors within the scope of your own capacity.