dream_weaver

A creator can create a garden, harvest the food, and create many wonderful meals from it. An inventor can put together a combination that has not been previously assembled from those ingredients before, perhaps add a process not previously conceived of and thus provide a new, or previously unexperienced, culinary delight. Producing widgets at work would be creative. Coming up with a patentable widget would be inventive. Wecome to OO.

The DIM Hypothesis review by David Gordon has been posted on Ludwid Von Misis Institute. Gordon provides a short analysis from a Worldly Supernatural perspective.

From "The DIM Hypothesis", Peikoff observes "The method by which he made his discoveries, Newton writes, is induction, . . . Induction for Newton is essentially generalization validated by two processes: experimentation and then the mathematical interpretation of its results.. Although each of these had been necessary to Galileo's work, and implicit in that of a few others, it was Newton who first identified the combination explicitly, and who first declared the two processes, if used together properly, to be necessary and sufficient to define the method of science. Newton thereby banished from physics any attempt to reach truth by deduction from a priori ideas, which in his view were arbitrary, subjective, and non-scientific. It was Newton who committed science exclusively to the study of fact: empirically based, precisely quantified, and therefore objectively demonstrated." Contrast this with what he wrote earlier leading into Descartes' approach, "The error of science like Galileo's, the Cartesians said, was its reliance on induction. To generalize from observation, they argued, is merely to describe what we perceive without explaining it, whereas the latter is the true purpose of science." The key objection is not the validity of Newton's work in "Optiks" or "Principia of Mathematica" showing that white light was comprised of color and that the celestial bodies moved according to their mass, velocity and distance from other celestial bodies, rather he did not "explain the nature of light or gravity, per se."

Didn't you lay some groundwork on this here?

ie: For the law of causality, have entities acting according to their nature, and entities not acting such. Weed out the violators to advance.

Not being much of a gamer, could your example of ascending the floors be accomplished by identifying increasing abstract principles derived from the clues (I don't know about antagonists) provided on each successive floor?

The crows distinguishing 2 or 3 units of man or even stones or trees seems plausible, but to distinguish 2 or 3 square feet of ground would require the ability to abstract 2, 3, a foot, much less a square foot.

For those prices, I purchased the Objective Communication course again, rather than finish converting the cassette tapes to digital format.

The Ayn Rand Institute eStore is open for business.

That would be a concession that censorship is a permissible activity on behalf of government.

"Mental existent" works fine for me. As to referring to it as a metaphysical object, I was thinking of ITOE Chapter 6 on Axiomatic Concepts "The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." Looking at it now, I can see it clearly states the units of the concepts, not the units of existence.

IOE2 pg.141 Appendix - Abstraction as Measurement Omission Prof. B: So, "similarity" is an epistemological concept, and a formulation of the metaphysical base of that would be: quantitative differences within a range. AR: That's right. She elaborates further: So that one of the important issues here, and the reason for going into the process in detail, is to indicate the metaphysical base of similarity and the fact that it is grasped perceptually, that it is not a vague, arbitrary abstraction, that similarity is perceptually given, but the understanding of what similarity means has to be arrived at philosophically or scientifically. And similarity, when analyzed, amounts to: measurements omitted. The metaphysical basis for similarity is real (realism?) and it is grasped perceptually (perceptually given, if you will). Once the mind recognizes "Hey - these two things are similar), the "similarity" can be integrated into a single unit, a new entity (mental entity), a concept (universal). Stepping out on the limb a bit, this new entity is a metaphysical object which is not a physical object, but I don't know if this deals with what you referred to as a hangup.

If a tyrant (person A) declared himself owner of a country, and told all his 'citizens' (persons B ) they could not step from their property, how long before economic reality imposed itself on person A via lack of food, water, electricity etc. Why on earth, assuming rational people of course, would such a scenerio as you suggest come about, presuming, of course, that the society you are advocating is based on objective principles?

Let's see, DIM is an acronym broken into 5 subdivisions under which the destination of each subdivision was explored. A Totalitarian state lies at the end of one path. The road to freedom lie down another. Observation identifies which path the most people trod. Do most people even know what path they are on? The solution is to illuminate why the destination is so dark, and the same time indicate the power source that resides at the alternative direction that can keep the lights on. Objectivism, like Aristotelianism has already been discovered.

Plasmatic, I wasn't aware that intersubjective was a term. That condenses into a word what took me two sentences to flesh out. As to the debate route, I think that was partially explored in the identification of how Aristotle induced his principles of logic from observation in another thread here.

Grames, as usual, your clear thinking and ability to communicate it in the manner you do is like sunshine on the morning mist - it helps burn away the fog. Is there any other philosophy than Objectivism that recognizes that Axiomatic concepts are tested to be axiomatic by logic?

And as a form of direct perception, the percepts are private rather than public. Understanding the relationship of free will as it applies to the man-made does provide percepts that are public requiring a chain of reasoning to connect it back to free will. Concepts like "thought", "evaluation", "consideration" etc., are also observable via introspection. First level concepts can be established by pointing. Scenerio's to aide in grasping colors, shapes and quantities have been around for many years. Both can be derived easily from publicly observable entities. While the percepts from introspection are clear to the introspector, they cannot be made first level to another ostensively. Like more complex abstractions, it is going to require a chain of reasoning which ultimately relies on someone else being able to introspect for themselves and observe the same percept(s) to abstract the same concept, consonant to the rules of language. The scientific method currently requires evidence to be public. This would put evidence that relies on introspectively based percepts outside of that method. Epistemology derives its method by corellating the extrospective to the introspective as well as the introspective to the introspective. Is this all a matter of intellectual honesty then?

Yes. I got tripped up in trying to validate free will with some determinists. I don't think an appeal to the metaphysical vs. the man-made is going to satisfy them.

In OPAR, pg 20, Peikoff states the following: "Introspection, of course, is necessary and proper as a means of grasping the contents or processes of consciousness; but it is not a means of external cognition." The validation of concepts is essentially objectively showing the the relationship between the concept and it's referents. In the case of concepts of consciousness, the referents are, by their nature, private not public. Is Objectivism's use of introspection as a necessary and proper means relating the contents or processes of consciousness to the various concepts that gain their validity from that relationship demonstrable?

Like, perhaps, insisting on original Rembrandt paintings to use for stoking the fire? Those are definitely limited in nature, unless of course, more are produced.

Tanner, You might find this thread on Does this put dogs in a new category? interesting.

The OP started with: So, my question is, when is the suffering of animals justified? Let me suggest two propositions that should be at the ends of this continuum: 1. The Suffering of Lab Rats in Human Medical Research 2. The Suffering of Calves In Processing Veal. The question of what distinguishes dolphins and quite frankly every other species of animal from man is our distinguishing characteristic, our rational faculty. Somehow, providing some evidence of how proof of this rational faculty manifests itself in the world around you, it stated you couldn't see how this proves dophins never could or would. It doesn't, nor was it intended to. Until you mentioned inferior, there were no attempts to rank the various species as inferior or superior to man in this thread that I detected. I'm having difficulty understanding how this ties in with either the suffering of lab rats in human medical research, or more broadly the suffering of animals in research, or the suffering of animals in the processing of food. I will offer my apologies that my response came across as affecting me negatively. It was an obtuse way of stating what is more directly stated in this post.

From what I understand, it is illegal to eat humans, but I think I would rather have any of the following on my plate at dinner time. GRILLED DOLPHIN 1 1/4 lb. thickly sliced dolphin 8 cloves fresh garlic, minced 1/2 c. olive oil 1/2 tsp. paprika 1/2 c. rice vinegar Salt if desired 1/2 tsp. pepper, black lg. ground Dinner for 4. Cut off any dark meat on dolphin. Marinate 4 even slices of dolphin in large bowl. All ingredients mixed for at least 6 hours. Grill 5-7 minutes on each side depending on thickness. Approximately 10 minutes total for 1 inch fillets. Baste with marinade mix while grilling. DOLPHIN L'ORANGE 2 lbs. Dolphin filets (snapper or grouper may be substituted) 1 c. vinegar 1 c. sugar 1 tbsp. orange extract 2 sliced oranges Place vinegar and sugar in saucepan. Boil until mix just starts to thicken. Add orange extract. Remove from heat. Place 1 layer orange slices on bottom of baking dish. Dip filets in thickened sauce and place 1 layer in baking dish. Pour on excess sauce and cover with remaining citrus slices. Bake in 350 degree preheated oven for 10 minutes per inch of filet thickness and serve. DOLPHIN AU'GRATIN Dolphin (or similar fish), towel dried and cut in 3 inch sqs. Sliced tomatoes, onions, green peppers and mushrooms Garlic salt, Everglades seasoning, lime juice, pepper, Italian seasoning Parsley flakes butter (squeezeable kind) Processed cheese In baking pan, which has 1/4 inch melted butter, place the fish, squeeze lime juice over fish, season liberally with spices to taste, cover with sliced onions, mushrooms, green peppers and tomatoes. Cover with foil, place on covered grill for 1/2 hour. DOLPHIN PARMESAN 2 lbs. dolphin Salt Pepper Lemon juice Parmesan cheese Sprinkle dolphin with salt, pepper, and lemon juice. Broil in oven for 10 minutes. Sprinkle with Parmesan cheese. Continue cooking until flaky (approximately 5 minutes). Ingredients ITALIAN DOLPHIN 8 Ounces dolphin fillets 1 x flour, all-purpose seasoned with salt and pepper 2 Ounces tomato sauce 1 x egg beaten with a little milk 1 x bread crumbs italian style 1 x olive oil 1 x mozzarella cheese 2 Ounces parmesan, parmigiano-reggiano cheese, grated Directions Rinse fillets; pat dry. Dredge in flour, dip in beaten egq, then in bread crumbs to bread the fillets. Place in pan with a little olive oil and pan sear until lightly browned. Place fish a casserole dish or on a baking dish and top with tomato sauce and mozzarella and parmesan. Bake at 350°F until cheese is melted and dolphin is moist Ingredients DOLPHIN DIJON 8 ounces dolphin fillets 1 x salt and black pepper to taste 2 tablespoons butter melted 4 tablespoons dijon mustard 1/2 cup bread crumbs 1 ounce herbs chopped 2 tablespoons mustard seeds Directions Season dolphin with salt and pepper; rub with a little melted butter; reserve remaining butter. Over very hot grill (500F) cook dolphin only until grill marks appear. Remove from grill at once. Rub Dijon mustard on filet; top with mixture of remaining butter, bread crumbs, fresh herbs and mustard seeds. Bake in oven at 350F until dolphin is brown on top and moist in center. If you're going to hijack a thread, you could at least try to blend it in with the sympathetic treatment of our animal prior to becoming delicacies. Please be sure to kill your dolphin as mercifully as possible before including in any of these internet search based recipies. PS.: I do consider eating an act of morality for a human being.

Quite frankly, if someone wants me to believe that dolphins are conceptual beings, it would be incumbent upon them to demonstrate it to me. The onus of proof and validation rests on evidence and demonstration, whereas falsifiable seems highly over rated and fully encapsulated by non-contradictory integration.

Missionaries have gone into primitive tribes over the centuries, learned their language and communicated their customs and learned theirs in return. It seems that a species capable of communication desire to have some with others who can do so. In the case of the primitive tribes, once some communication had been established, the tribe was instrumental in helping the missionaries learn and grasp more of their native tongues. As to your wrap up statement, are you alluding that I suggested this "proves they never could"? I only presented you with evidence that is commensurate with what one can observe, consonant with conceptual beings.