TonesInDeepFreeze

Getting air into your lungs can save your life.

With each other.

You said that science holds as possible that certain low level responses involve reason.

Yes, you conflated necessity and sufficiency, then made clearly incorrect arguments about them (you skipped my demonstration of that). But you didn't ...

All of that, even without disputing it or not, does not vitiate my point.

Objectivism does not agree that bugs use reason. For the fourth time, what reference to "science" do you have?

I integrated and then disemboweled it.

(1) Please cite where Objectivism incorporates the view that a bug smelling food and turning to it is organizing perceptual units into concepts by pri...

Essentiality is more than just necessity.

If I automatically gasp for air, that's not organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic.

Cool that I've pointed out that mere response to stimuli is not reason.

I thought the Objectivist view is of survival with enjoyment of exercise of rational values. I can use reason to survive, but that is not in and of it...

What you're claiming undermines important planks in the Objectivist platform. If you wish to dissent from Objectivism, that's fine with me. But your p...

Objectivism disagrees. Objectivism does not regard a bug turning to a sticky spot as reason.

The concept is key.

Sometimes they're used even without reason.

So animals conceptualize.

You omitted a key concept in the argument. It's not a matter of whether you sometimes don't use all the terminology.

We don't survive in any way other than a combination of many faculties that are not reason with the faculty of reason.

You're welcome for my having pointed out that essentiality (which you have omitted until now) not just necessity, is part of the Objectivist argument,...

"eason is the faculty that organizes perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic". - Peikoff When I first retracted my f...

Objectivism explicitly mentions the difference between humans an animals, as part of the explanation of the Objectivist notion of reason. There is no ...

In that view, a remarkably unintelligent bug senses things and acts in response, so the bug is using reason. And that is consistent with the notion of...

Correct. Your other arguments are wrong for their own reasons.

Maybe you can mention an article that explains that? Perhaps something at the level of an encyclopedia.

It is very key to the Objectivist argument. You did touch on it when you mentioned that animals don't use reason. For sake of argument, let's set asid...

As I mentioned, the Objectivist argument is more involved than yours, as it deploys essentialism. Maybe you might go back to reread your Objectivist t...

It was not your original argument. You started switching to it only long after your necessity position crumpled. And it still is a wrong argument. Att...

Your notion of 'reason' is so dramatically iconoclastic that it is truly not recognizable as any sense of the word 'reason' I've ever seen. (I don't t...

No, terminology is not why your argument is not modus ponens. It's not modus ponens because it is not of the form of modus ponens.

That doesn't vitiate the point that humans also have such attributes, and we don't call it 'reason'. That doesn't vitiate that humans also use attribu...

What does 'it' refer to? Your argument? What do you mean 'it does'? It does what?

Modus ponens is the form: If P then Q P Therefore Q. Your argument is not of that form. But I showed you how to put it into modus ponens form. But the...

My point stands that your view requires a notion of 'reason' so broad as to lose ordinary meaning. Also, using your notion of reason, I stated your "s...

It's clearly not an Aristotelian syllogism. So what valid syllogistic form do you claim it to be?

Are you claiming that it does follow? And I already told you why it doesn't follow. It is missing premises that would provide entailment. One premise ...

Again, for about the tenth time, you do not address my point, that if knee jerk is from a process of reason, then any human behavior in response to st...

Only when the participants haven't themselves checked the purported proof. They may take the word of the referees that the purported proof is correct....

The set of real numbers is defined in set theory, which is a mathematical theory. Set theory makes reference only to pure sets. Not sets of apples or ...

I don't know of a common definition of 'mathematical object'. I said that (except in special contexts) in ordinary mathematics, there is no object nam...

I won't argue against the notion that what is the study of mathematics is based on what professionals in departments called 'mathematics' do. But as t...

If there is one field that is the least based on appeal to authority, I don't know what would be a better candidate than mathematics.

You have test Briggs-Meyer and MMPI test results of sets of mathematicians that you draw inferences from? How would you obtain such test results? But ...

On what data points do you base your characterization of the personalities of mathematicians?

With emphasis on 'you're', I guess you mean that you have a better response but you're holding it close to vest because I'm the one asking? Anyway, my...

Assuming what? I infer that you don't have any actual studies to cite, since you continue to reply without mentioning them. And I know a little about ...

It is someone who has a poor grasp of logic who can't see that examination of the logic or illogic of an argument does not depend on examination of th...

Then that includes even automatic response such as knee jerk. Of course, you can skip that point and declare yet again that you are right. That doesn'...

Too bad, a real live Objectivist, in an open forum not under the auspices of Objectivists, and he won't face this: The Objectivist argument is: 1. Rea...

Means what?