TonesInDeepFreeze

You need to first learn basic symbolic logic. I recommend 'Logic: Techniques Of Formal Reasoning' by Kalish, Montague and Mar. Then basic set theory i...

That post and most of what is said in the poster's following posts is terribly ill-premised. Classical logic itself does not result in contradictions....

I don't know what you mean by 'Newberry's parameter' or 'only staying within' it.

As I understand, it is suggested that we could add have a theory PA$ (still in the language of PA) that is PA with an added axiom schema: For all form...

It was claimed that there are capable philosophers of mathematics who are unfamiliar with basic logical notation. Maybe there are, but I don't know of...

I'm not angry about you. No, that's the point, I'm not. I'm talking about the very concept, as it was mentioned to you by even another poster. Moreove...

This distinction between, on the one hand, a set in and of itself without specifying an order and, on the other hand, an ordered tuple is crucially ba...

It's a ridiculous analogy.

Are you arguing this way?: The set of real numbers can't be counted. Consciousness can't be counted. Consciousness is not mathematical. Therefore, the...

Oh my god! You discovered the hidden truth that there is a rupture in mathematics! Division is not closed in the integers! A discovery as shocking as ...

Of course I did. It's on record as a post. Meanwhile, your characterization of mathematicians, as a generalization, is unsupported by any data whatsoe...

Non.

Okay. Still, the Objectivist ethical thesis is not supported by valid argument.

My point did not depend on equality. I explained my point long ago. And I have pointed out that you chronically skip the telling points in my original...

It's been two in the morning for 16 hours for you since your second post. Yours. Moreover, that should be bidirectional. With both directions, my orig...

Whatever 'relate in function means', my not mentioning it is not an assertion of an equality.

Good. That's what I said it is. I don't know why you said it isn't then changed your mind.

That is absurd. Bringing up two items for consideration together is not in and of itself equating them.

I don't see the point in quibbling whether we say "to benefit one's own survival" or "selfish". Except, again, Objectivism says not just survival, but...

'if and only if' is not an equation; it is an equivalence. You don't think that Objectivism holds that if an act is ethical then it is selfish, and th...

I didn't say it is an argument. it's the conclusion of an argument You don't think that Objectivism claims that an act is ethical if and only if is se...

Another abysmally vague term. And I made no claim of sameness of caliber nor containment in the "same ballpark" or anything like that.

You read without understanding simple English. Or you understood, but chose to skip the most telling points. Then eventually to resort to putting word...

That does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if it is selfish.

I said exactly what my argument is.

I do not.

Saying "it is not at all difficult to see" is not a logical argument.

You claim that I asserted an equality. I did not.

I don't mistake that breathing and reason are not the same thing. I don't mistake that breathing and reason do not share all properties. I don't mista...

Even if we accept that in some general sense as true, it does not entail that an act is ethical if and only if is selfish.

Now you're lying by putting words in my mouth.

You are doing it again. At this point it is trolling. Breathing is directed to survival. Breathing is necessary for survival. Breathing is not suffici...

'ballpark' is abysmally vague. And my argument doesn't require that one is "in the ballpark" of the other. I have explained that; you skip,

That is false. I asserted no such equation. I said that both are necessary for survival. I did not in any way claim that they are equal (in a sense of...

'primary agency' requires definition. And, you skipped my main point, again. Even if reason is primary, that fact does not entail that an act is ethic...

That is so specious. I said that breathing is necessary and it's not reason. You reply, essentially yeah but its's not reason (guided thought).

Breathing is an action directed to survival.

I addressed 'ensure'. And breathing is an action. It is necessary for survival, but does not ensure it. Using reason is an action. It is necessary for...

You said that there are things we don't know about creatures, but for many posts you claimed that even the least response to stimuli involves reason (...

Clearly, it is not all that I am saying. It was part of an argument I layed out very clearly, and with any rebuttals needed to advance it against your...

The brain does not do it alone. Reason doesn't ensure survival. And reason without other functions is even less reliable. So, it is not a good argumen...

It is, as I just quoted you omitting the means other than reason,.

"How humans actively ensure their survival" requires definition. And humans don't ensure their survival. No matter what we do, we can't ensure that yo...

You claim that it is incorrect to say that Objectivism says that even the lowest creatures are using some level of reasoning?

And it has taken you all this time to recognize it. My argument from the start has been there are attributes of humans other than reason that are need...

"Some level of reason" is a partial retreat you arrived at after earlier making stronger claims. And still "some level of reason going on" disagrees w...

No, I said that you haven't given a logically valid argument for the claim that an act is ethical if and only if it is selffish. You've made specious ...

You did it again. Shifted from necessity to sufficiency. I will lay it out one more time: Neither reason nor non-reason means are sufficient. Both rea...

Not at all. You claimed that Objectivism will incorporate whatever science comes up with. And you claimed that science supports the view that lower cr...

Breathing is a mechanism you need to live.