mfgreaves

Michael, Don't worry about the Robbins video. Thanks for all the tips. Mike

Wow. The internet was legitimate defense infrastructure that justified the taxes it consumed. Project Apollo was also a key part of the USA's defense apparatus. How do you propose to invent anything after the exchange of information has ceased. Only protecting the 1st inventor will induce him to divulge the very information that subsequent inventors depend heavily on. I dispute that you would succeed in using your brain and your property as you imagine. Now a guild system certainly does violate individual rights. How is my argument amoral again? I hope you are joking about Rothbard. Warm regards, Mike

Shayne, Not entirely sure what your full position on patents is. My position is that we would be in huge trouble without them. You'd end up with toxic secrecy, the return of the guild system, and scientific-industrial stagnation. I am an engineer who reads patents regularly at work and their value to civilization is inestimable. Mike

Robert, Very nice post. A pleasure to read and think about. Mike

Michael, I REALLY appreciate your suggestions. I will make time to watch all of those videos, and will start right after posting here. Michael, Those videos were interesting, but don't really new communicate knowledge which is new to me. They also don't relate very closely to the questions that I have in my mind. I did like the end of the Wave. The early posts on the Secret Objectivist Cult thread were HILARIOUS. 8-) Any idea what happened to the Tony Robbins video? Youtube says it's been deleted. I chipped in towards the costs of running the site. Any idea why my picture doesn't show up? I did upload one. I don't look very happy in it, but it's the best that I have lying around. Thanks. Mike

Thanks for the reading list, Ted! Have you read Hawkins' "On Intelligence" ? I have seen talks by Hawkins and also Ramachandran. Mike

Michael, I REALLY appreciate your suggestions. I will make time to watch all of those videos, and will start right after posting here. I am already somewhat familiar with essentially everything that you mentioned, and have never really fully accepted Rand's view of the mind's nature, as far as I have seen it presented. Psychology, in her day, was really only pseudo-science, and that can't have helped her thinking. On top of that, she probably disdained much of what it actually did offer. I have been familiar with Rand's work, especially her non-fiction, for more than 20 years, but only in recent days started making my way through OPAR, after making a conscious decision NOT to read Peikoff back then. I find it very interesting, but I am not blindly accepting any of it. My knowledge of neuroscience is peripheral and limited. I am an engineer, with a broad understanding of life sciences as well as applied physical science. I work in electronics manufacturing; my boyhood interest in robotics (as distinct from mere industrial automation) has resurged after 4 decades, leading me to artificial intelligence, which is currently looking towards natural intelligence, which relates to consciousness in general; and Objectivism. I am sure that there will be things to discuss. Many thanks. Mike

Nope. Same Bat Country, different Bat Province. I am located in Toronto. Which means: despite being your countryman, those foreigners at the ARI, in Irvine, CA, are closer to you than I am. I just joined here recently too. Let's wow them with our Objectivist insights. I am currently struggling to ascertain whether the ideas about the mind, perception and cognition, as presented in OPAR, are concordant with the latest insights of modern neuroscience. Yes, I am in over my head. Will post something, when it is worth sharing. Mike

Ted, I like seeing many things that others do not, even maggots. And stop feeding melange to your kitty! Are you trying to create the LOLCATZ HADERACH ?? Or what? Mike

Doctor, Thanks for the youtube link (as well as All The Fish). Mike

...I can prove it because I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side... Seriously, I am here because yesterday I just realized that David Kelley apparently WON the "Peikoff-Kelley debates". He won them by way of his comportment, more than his arguments. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that Peikoff LOST them because of his total absence of comportment; then and even more so since then. My realization was only 20 years in the making. You can all feel free to slap me if it makes you feel better. Yes, the McCaskey explusion finally opened my dim eyes. I created an account here because this is the only place where it is being discussed intelligently and really to any degree, as far as I can tell. Greetings all. Mike