Karl

I know you don't, but I can't ever compromise Stosh, I can't afford to. It's like saying that I will accept a bit of poison, or some degree of theft. It's completely against my principles and that would be immoral. I would be betraying myself knowingly and I cannot do that under any circumstances where the freedom of choice continues to remain open to me. If man is sovereign, if he is his life is held as tye primary value, then he must use his mind and body to survive and he must be free to exercise that right. Any form of force initiated against him is therefore an denial of that freedom to choose and therefore to survive. It is a denial of his right to live and the primary value he holds. To know this and appreciate it by holding ones life as the only moral standard by which everything else is judged, then to knowingly support something which devalues it is impossible. When I was practising Yoga I read several times that once you became enlightened it became impossible to ever go back. It seemed an impossible kind of thing. I expected some kind of mental change, or a revelation, I didn't really know what and eventually I gave up all thought of it. Tonight, I see for the first time that enlightenment isn't revelation, it is a deliberate and volitional expansion of consciousness through reasoned thought. Now I see it, I can't go back. Any backsliding would be to put a noose around my neck and throw myself from a tree. It's that serious that death would be the only alternative.

Love walking. We walk every night and on a weekend. Every holiday contains at least half a dozen walks, some very adventurous, others are urban, mountains, lakes, rivers, dappled lanes or long roads it's always great.

It isn't hatd to do oo (imagine all the people living...), just stare at a patch of empty sky and that's what it would be like.

I got called far worse than that by a member very recently. It would run to a vast number of buttons.

I'm not really bothered if it supports my post. I dont believe in sacrifice of some men to other men, or some men to nature. People must be free to choose what they will do without coercive force. We have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and private property. That is moral, because mans life is sovereign, his life is an end in itself. If we start down that path, for whatever reason we rationalise, of interfering with men's rights, we may as well install tyrants and be done with it.

Logic is another abstract concept as is reason. I don't think this seems to be understood. It's as if people think it's reality in and of itself. Humans are conceptual creatures, we are forced to use reason. Existence exists, reality is reality, our senses relay perceptual information to our minds where it becomes conceptual abstractions. We see what we see, but we must interpret accurately what we see in order that we correctly identify threats and opportunities. Our method of integrating and differentiating is the use of the abstract concept of reason and the most potent tool we have in accuracy is the abstract concept called logic. Logic doesn't exist in the perceptual universe. It isn't an object. It is part and parcel of our consciousness. Our existence is identity and so our consciousness is identification. Reason is the abstract concept, it is the faculty of human survival and logic is the most refined abstract concept of a best method to avoid error. Just as language is our abstract conceptual way of communication and definition.

That would be a very long post. I applaud anyone who takes on the task of explaining logic to a group who largely live in a world which they believe is an illusion.

Yes but that was in 1990-95 There are a lot of older people, so the doubling isn't exactly accurate as many will die off. We are now in 2016 so the first chart was a good 20 years ago. We can create more arable land and far more technical kinds of production and yields have exploded. Most of us prefer to live in cities despite the high density we aren't interested in Arable land or having more than a few metres of space. Many city dwellers don't venture into the country at all, it's like an alien world devoid of shops and culture, just acres of scary openess which makes them feel queasy. The Earth is one massive ball of resource for us to dig, drill, harvest as we will in order to survive, so of course we are human centred. Nature gives us nothing without engaging in action. We must apply our minds then bodies to the task of survival or perish. What I find startling is the number of people who seem to think perishing is a good plan.

Pretty similar for me. Mine was An introduction to logic. Informal fallacies Deductive reasoning Hypothetical and alternative arguments Syllogisms The square of opposition Definitions Inductive reasoning Mills method Inductive fallacies Analogies

You can't help but see things logically.

I have no sense as to what you are getting at. Logic is the art of non contradictory identification according to Ayn Rand's definition. So, we have an art, and an art needs to be practised. So first you have to have some kind of formal approach to get down the basics. Just like painting you must have a basic grounding in the techniques, materials and styles before plunging in. So, I fail to see why you think that would be dogmatic ? Don't you first need to learn the controls of a car, the traffic signs, road markings, laws, basic mechanical requirements before you set off driving. Each driver learns them, adapts them, enhances them as they need. What do you mean by meta logic ?

What, you just repeated them back like a parrot without any sense of what they meant or what you are saying ?

What are you using to argue that point ? Are you saying that your current argument is illogical and irrational, that you have tried in anyway to consider the previous statement and have just spurted out a lot of rubbish ?

They arent commandments in my understanding-as I said previously. They are part of a toolbox, they aren't a empiric panacea like a mathematical equation. However, as a guide on a forum such as this, then it might be instructive. I didn't post it, or write it, but I appreciate the effort to bring some aspects of logic here.

Yes I took that to be self evident.

Surfing with the Alien

Well it's your birthday again so I think you can choose to be anything you want. :-)

That's ma unicorn although a bit cartoony. Did Aliens draw that ?

Alien dog thing type unicorns ?

Not to my particular notion, but what we generally accept as the creature having those mythical qualities. Like Pegasus is a flying horse, you can then show me a bat and tell me I just had a notional idea that it was a winged, flying horse. If you say that at some time there existed a kind of creature about the size of a horse with a single horn I'm quite happy to accept that as plausible. I don't know what atoms are, I've never seen them, I've seen depiction of them as you have shown but it's outside of my knowledge other than the qualities and theories I learned in physics.

Not sure why I have to prove you ate a burrito, but yeah, it's possible.

Can't check your link Brian. I can't check any links unfortunately.....Apple strikes again, releasing a software update that breaks every link in Google/yahoo/email/forums. :-( I'm guessing your link doesn't contain magic, single horned horses as is the accepted form of unicorn ?

I can believe in that possibility Brian. Jerk is an edible spice mix Chicken is an edible kind of fowl Burritos are an edible kind of bread I see in shops. Humans need to eat Night is a particular kind of term reserved for a late time of day. We can check your till receipts, credit cards and fridge contents. I can ask your family, friends, colleagues neighbours if they observed you eating said tasty snack. We can check the position through your mobile phone.

Under oath you could not offer evidence of alien activity. What might be possible is pure conjecture and would be inadmissible. Has the second thing happened ? No. Let's say I said it did. Yet no one else had seen it. I had no picture proof, no evidence at all. Military and civilian defence radar had not spotted it and the supposed landing site had no sign of any disturbance. Then it didn't happen. There is no possibility of corroborating the evidence. I might be convinced I saw it, but beyond that nothing can be said.

I'm going to think more simply than that :-) Logic is the art of non contradictory identification according to Rand's definition. In other words it's a way of conforming as closely as possible with reality. Part of that activity is identifying common fallacies in an argument, or concept. It's a process.