dream_weaver

Many things going on outside the world of the Objectivism Online Forum.
Discovered, over the course of a year, that I was able to live within an anticipated budget, and that I would likely not have to return to the 'working 9-5' world.
Such was not to be. I received a call asking me if I'd take on a part-time position. After 40+ years with my nose to the grindstone, a year vacation softened my resolve. The work offers the flexibility to take on more varied activities, with the added bonus of not eating into the seedcorn.
I've watched the Ayn Rand Center U.K. ramp up activities with a rather different approach to the Ayn Rand Institute, one centered more on Objectivism, as a philosophy for living on earth. The focus has been noticeably on values and their pursuit. In a style reminiscent of Andrew Bernstein's suggestion that Objectivists should live as value-intoxicated people.
Back in early 2012, I started a thread here: Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step. It dealt with yeast in bread and evolution. The latest of the 29 current posts was added at the end of September 2021. Shortly after reaching a separation agreement at the end of 2022, I saw an article in my Android news feed with a picture of a loaf of Challah bread.

The Golden One (Photo by Greg Lewis, February 12, 2023)
I can do that. This picture is of the 19th loaf after receiving "The Perfect Loaf" for Christmas, done in Sourdough.
Granted, it has not provided me with an evolutionary step, but after 7 days of nursing a glob of mixed flour and water, the active yeast in the environment manifests itself as a result of the processes.
The sourdough process versus commercial active yeast provides a thought of division of the domesticated versus the wild.
After following a recipe for making sourdough bagels, an appreciation for the bakeries that can turn them out more efficiently comes into sharper focus.
Additionally the idea of proofing the yeast, and proofing the dough come into play, where both provide evidence of the yeast's vitality.
After almost a day in the kitchen, you get to enjoy one of the fruits of your labor.

The Dark Ages were a long time ago.  Something more recent is Lysenkoism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
This is the very definition of a "scientific consensus" in Soviet Russia.  It's not so much that correct genetics "stood" during that time, but that it was "rediscovered" when the incorrect "consensus" withered away, as it had to.
Consensus is not science and in fact has nothing to do with science. 
The scientific method, when used by independent individual thinkers is, and always has been, that which shatters ideological based consensus, especially when masquerading as "Truth" or "The Science".
 
 

That approach could be dark, and last for ages.

Most of the bullshit that is intellectual crime is itself arm chair philosophizing, why should it not be able to be refuted from an arm chair?  One can refer to reality from an arm chair as easily as evade it.

The Rise of Man

Steven Pinker suggested this in his recent book, Rationality, Chapter 10: What's Wrong With People?
"The obvious reason people avoid getting onto a train of reasoning is that they don't like where it takes them." Page 289

On the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy page is the Forensic Science section.
In the 'About' section, it reads:
Forensic science is a critical element of the criminal justice system.  Forensic scientists examine and analyze evidence from crime scenes and elsewhere to develop objective findings that can assist in the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of crime or absolve an innocent person from suspicion.
In Ayn Rand's essay, Philosophical Detection, a passage reads:
A philosophical detective must seek to determine the truth or falsehood of an abstract system and thus discover whether he is dealing with a great achievement or an intellectual crime.
 
The Forensic Files provide brief insightful looks into the world of solving murder cases. In the American legal system, the oft-touted claim is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The episodes introduce the viewer to some of the behind-the-scenes looks at the processes of validating evidence.
If the desire is to provide an equivalent in philosophical matters, the methods need to be impeccable as possible, be they for a great achievement or an intellectual crime.
 

By what measure(s) did you refer to the fundamental metaphysics and epistemology as being inescapably correct?

Holy hell, don't go down that road of censoring messages or users.  Dividing people up into ever smaller bubbles that only are permitted to agree with each other is unethical and impractical.  Fobbing thread moderation off onto the thread originator is giving power to the people who are the least objective about the thread.  The topic of the Ukraine war is of broad enough interest that no matter who made it there would a lot of posts, AlexL has no control over that aspect and shouldn't be held responsible for it.  
If you did follow through on this there would be multiple threads on the same topic with contrary editorial and censoring policies.  If you want duplicate threads on every controversy, then do this because that is how you get duplicate threads.

Frank,
I'd take correctness as one thing and brilliance another. I'd take brilliance in this context as correctness that is not found elsewhere. Knowledge of the brilliance, then, would requiring knowing what is to be found elsewhere, i.e., in the history of philosophy to the present.
Finding out why so many professional philosophers would not consider Objectivism a valid philosophy would require getting hold of their specific criticisms and thinking them over. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any professional philosophers put their criticisms into writing, actually be competent in what the Objectivist view is in the major areas of philosophy, and be able to step out of, for a moment, the presumptions of their own philosophic school.
I'd say just keep on studying other philosophers until you can for yourself identify the ways in which they are different from Objectivism, and where they agree, and which, if any, of the positions (Objectivist or not) are correct by your lights. 

By what measure(s) did you refer to the fundamental metaphysics and epistemology as being inescapably correct?

I would like to welcome you to the forum, but beware. Ayn Rand says, "A political battle is merely a skirmish fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war." And, boy, are you in for it.
Did you know the best book about Objectivism (in my opinion) didn't come out until 1991? I myself didn't discover it until 1998. It is Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR). It gathers up the essentials of her philosophy into a single book -- and it might be the reason that some of what you are saying in your essays doesn't jive with the Objectivism I know.
I think OPAR's coverage of epistemology, though correct, was somewhat weak, but that's because the big breakthrough didn't come until later, when Peikoff collaborated with David Harriman to produce Induction in Physics and Philosophy. Peikoff delivered this as a lecture course and Harriman wrote the book. It provides a solution to what philosophers call the "problem of induction" along with several examples from the history of science. As you are a scientist, it might be of interest to you.
You say that Ayn Rand rejects evolution, but that is not my impression. She did say she wasn't a student of evolution, but I think she was pleading ignorance rather than rejecting it. Another Objectivist philosopher, Harry Binswanger, has written a book about epistemology called How We Know which works out an understanding of the senses and how they grasp reality, and his work is explicitly compatible with evolution. (Rand did reject the notion that "survival of the fittest" requires humans to kill each other like animals, which is the way some other philosophers interpreted Darwin's discoveries.)
I have never regarded Objectivism as a "guide for my life." It isn't specific enough for that. Rather, I regard it as a set of tools for figuring out reality, staying consistent with it, and avoiding certain dangerous errors. (Whether I myself am successful in using those tools correctly is beside the point of this post: they are the best tools, as far as I can tell.)
I don't think Objectivism needs to be "improved," but people's understanding of it does, and that includes clearing up a lot of misconceptions about it -- to the extent this is possible...

Stephen, we had to finish some milk that got left here when the grandchildren slept over. Cracker Barrel Brand mix was used to make Blueberry Pancakes and yes, maple syrup was used. (Still keeping active at the local fitness center while I can.)
Been watching Forensic Files. Gone with the Wind might be a nice repeat interjection. Hidden Figures has been advertised on freevee the last couple of episodes. You might enjoy The Help, if you've not seen it already.
These issues, and others, are not likely to be played out in our lifetimes, but I am encouraged by some observations, and if they are confirmation bias', such as ARCUK, The John Galt Line, cross platform shows put forth by James Valliant and from my own back yard, Robert and Amy Nasir. 
I think Andrew was doing more reminiscing than advocation of the product line. His Robber Baron lecture series, (no longer available) is superb and he is a bubbly advocate in general. I'm not as familiar with this guest/host.

Dream Weaver, those guys, and I also, are too old and sedentary to be eating pancakes. I concur with you that maple syrup is best. I have it on my Kashi cereal every morning. Occasionally, I still make cornbread, and when I put syrup on it, that would be real maple syrup.
There is another sort of syrup, which is called Log Cabin. It is made from brown rice, and I find it a good fit with Rice Krispies. I expect the name Log Cabin will not be crashing under the consciousness-raising efforts. Although, there is perhaps opposition from some that my ancestors cut down trees to make shelters such as log cabins. I cut them down when dead or dying and use them for firewood, and I shall not be moved.
I watched Gone with the Wind the last two evenings. Melanie and Mammy are the best characters, notwithstanding the good of breaking by us of the stereotype of black people conveyed in the film (and too much sympathy for the Confederacy and the slavery era). James Baldwin once remarked that it was the best bad movie ever made. Mammy is never going to be abolished or forgotten, and that actress is not going to be forgotten either as superb, even as minds with better understanding of race relations and their possibilities for betterment see the film.

Putin apparently expected good prospects for further cooperation with Ukraine in the future on the basis of past ties and shared history and ongoing economic involvement.  When the U.S. simply overthrew the gov't in 2014 Putin should have begun to realize the ruthlessness of the opponent he was dealing with.  All agreements ever made with the Ukraine government had been abrogated when the U.S. dissolved that gov't in 2014 and made it a U.S. puppet state.
So what makes a government legitimate?  What does "legitimate" mean in this context?  There must be an objective definition of "government" so that we know what the referents are before it is possible to distinguish better or worse within the category.  Calling the Russian government illegitimate doesn't make it go away or make it any less of a government.  You must admit it to the category of government before you can begin to apply the standards of a proper government to it.   
Rand's definition of government A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.
Defining and defending the territorial integrity of a country is one of the essential defining attributes of government.  The Russian government is not illegitimate for doing what a government does by its very nature and identity.  Anytime a government does something wrongly or incorrectly it does not cease to be the government (if only government reform could be so easy!).   
Also from the Lexicon, from Galt's speech we have The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” The objective form in which consent manifests is acting in compliance with the government exercise of authority.  Governments collapse when a critical mass of people simply stop complying with it.  Up until the moment that happens governments wield real authority. 
The distinction between wielding real actual authority and wielding legitimate authority is reached by applying a normative standard to government actions.  The Objectivist philosophy of government is that government action should be about defending human rights.  There are people in this world who are not Objectivists and not even philosophical who have different opinions about what government action should be about.  Objectivists do not have the right to murder people with different philosophies or no philosophies because those people are still humans with their own rights.  The American government, which is not in the hands of Objectivists, does not have that right.  
 

Lines
 
In the line Round:
round to wider round,
race and trace one’s arc
farther to farther one’s start,
pressing through the space
of this magnanimous earth.
 
In the line Alive:
the dance,
the chase, romance,
the smiles, the glance,
the kiss, undress.
The touch.
 
In the line Time:
ray through all days
slowing, olding, palely knowing.
Scribe of my line, this me,
passing into dispersing,
swirling tomorrows of companions.

Dishonesty is unfastening from full reality and precludes the possibility of genuinely protecting objective values. I've seen only one public figure in the US tell possibly as many big lies as Sergei Lavrov in his public career: our recent President, Donald Trump. The name Lavrov is rightly joined with the title Liar whenever he's at the mic for year after many year. Depend on it: what he says in any years to come, as in all his past, will be a tissue of lies upon lies.
Why the Kremlin Lies

Rand writes in her mature philosophy “Your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver” (AS 1020).* This line is consistent on its face with Descartes’ doctrine that the human body is a machine, although Rand would contradict Descartes’ accompanying picture in which all nonhuman animals are devoid of consciousness. Rand had benefit of our diesel-electric locomotives, our particle physics, our chemistry, and our biology, profoundly enriching, over the four centuries since Descartes, what is “mechanical,” what is a “machine,” and what is mind in animals and humans. We can more easily see than Descartes could see the driver of the bodily machine as requiring the brain not only as means for sensory reception, imagination, and direction of the body, but as means of the driver’s own and only existence. With advance of science and without Descartes’ religious constraints, bolstered by his radical divide of extension and thought, we bind the entire driver: with brain and with perceptions of world and body and with the life and mortality of the body. Rand shares a pair of errors with Descartes in supposing that automatic mechanical sensory and motor responses cannot be in error—cannot present a falsehood apart from subsequent judgment—and that purely mechanical mind could not be free.(<–from Foundational Frames: Descartes and Rand)
*Mind can be not only controller of the instrument, but at the same time, the song of the instrument. "I am my own song and the harp on which it is played" (Anthem, 1938, p.236 ; cf. Phaedo 85e–86d, 93a–95a and De Anima 407b27–408a29).
Veridical perception, I say, is neuronal system indicating in consciousness things as they are. Illusions are neuronal system indicating in consciousness things in some ways as they are not. I say percepts are leaders to reality, due to our constitution. Percepts not only present. They indicate, due to our constitution. Their character of automatically indicating in consciousness is what makes percepts components in empirical cognition.  The proverbial straight stick partially in air and partially in water indicates a bent stick. Understanding how it comes to look bent does nothing to change the circumstance that the perceptual presentation is misleading (contra Branden 2009 [c.1968], 47–48; Kelley [. . .]; Peikoff [. . .]). The stick’s looking bent is not on account of some inference we have made, not even an inference unconsciously made.

Human Intelligence in Liquid Form
Robert Tracinski 

I have a new piece up at Discourse taking on our recurring fascination with the prospect of a robot apocalypse, in which humans are replaced, superseded, and eventually eaten by artificial intelligence.

Alive and ticking
The idea that nature is a humming, complex, clockwork machine has been around for centuries. Is it due for a revival?

The idea of an animal with volition is preposterous until you concede that humans are animals.

I suggest that a machine—say, a learning machine such as an artificial neural network one—has not educed a human concept even if it has been designed to learn dimensions of similarity among a group of items and even if its groupings according to degrees of similarity along those dimensions are registered by measure values and even if a label for each of those comparatively similar-member collections were to be given by the machine, these distinguished collections would not be like human concepts, and for three reasons:
(1) Human perceptual comparative-similarity groupings are made against a background of possible actions upon them and uses for them by the agent who is on his way to forming a concept. This is contemporary Ecological Psychology continuing its research down from James and Eleanor Gibson, who acknowledged that their leading idea of "affordances" in perception had been a gift from William James and John Dewey. Rand, Peikoff, and Kelley did not put enough emphasis on this aspect of perception. Rand did set out that while the human is learning what things are, he has a parallel assessment going on as to whether the item might be to be avoided or might be desirable. Rand once mentioned, correctly, that most concepts are amenable to definition. In my 1990 paper "Capturing Concepts" I proposed than prior to learning to make sentences, the toddler (all of us) embed our single-word utterances and concepts into action-schemata. To get nearer to human concepts, even the most elementary concepts, a machine probably would need to be a robot, an agent, given a set of values and their interrelations by human designers and given ability to register and assess affordances. Perhaps the lab at MIT has been working on this.
(2) Human perceptual learning is as part of a process of development towards acquisition of discursive thought and communication. Single-word stage of human conceptual consciousness and the predicative multi-word stage are motivated very much from urge to more and more precise communication with other humans. With this motivation not attending machine learning, and coloring its concepts and their interconnections, I think machine concepts would be but a stick-man of ours. Indeed, getting outputs from the learning machine we desire does make the machine operations in some community with humans, though not directly with other learning machines. This condition and its profundity in human conceptualizing was silently passed over by Rand, but it should not be neglected in a fully realistic picture of human conceptual operations.
(3) A machine able to learn comparative similarity groupings among items would be doing something that humans can do, though perhaps without the affordances and background sociality of human cognition concerning the items. Other analyses of similarity computations besides the measurement ones given by Rand have been set out in the psychological literature. One could program a machine to detect particular similarities using these various computational schemes, but unless the results have different advantages, I don't see how one could determine whether Rand's measurement-analysis of similarity was receiving some confirmation that it is the better. And in the case of learning machines, I'm unsure if it can be determined which of the computational schemes is doing the work in learning to sort. Further, to show such sorting capability does not show conceptual ability. If a test for conceptual ability could be shown—say, passing a Turing test—and it were shown that machines using Rand's measurement-omission scheme for forming concepts from similarity groupings were the most successful in the machine, then we might say Rand's distinctive idea concerning the nature of concepts has received some recommendation from trials in machines. But that is a big IF, and unless we take passing a Turing test as showing understanding (and using sets in knowing concepts and numbers!), we'd not want to conclude that the machine has human-like concepts at all. And between you and me and the fence post, I don't think understanding at all is possible without the agent being conscious and, therefore, alive.
 

AI is the best parrot/yes-man there could be.
See and imitate.
You'll get from AI what you already get, all the time, nothing more.
 

I should paraphrase Dagny ("Why have we left it all to the fools?"): Why have we left the platonic realm of mathematics to mystical platonism? 
The great empiricist account of this realm, which takes history of mathematics as essential in constituting the realm, is Philip Kitcher's The Nature of Mathematical Knowledge.*

In Leonard Peikoff's 'History of Philosophy' he pointed out that Mathematics was the first science to be spun off of philosophy (in ancient Greece). 
It's interesting how the unknown, or yet to be identified, has the Platonic, or mystical, element going for it even to this day. 
Undertones of the spiral theory of knowledge seem to be underground currents that go undetected, at best.