if [animal instinct] is instinctual very low resolution, unsophisticated reason. — Garrett Travers

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

Variable gradients exist in all complex systems. — Garrett Travers

That doesn't vitiate that humans also use attributes other than reason.

It can only survive when it can develop its reasoning abilities to the point of achieving goals. — Garrett Travers

Again, for about the tenth time, the question is not whether humans could survive by non-rational means alone. The point is that reason is not the only necessary attribute.

Animals are not exclusively relegated to having such as their means. — Garrett Travers

The fact that reason is not an attribute used by lower animals doesn't vitiate that reason is not the only human attribute required for survival.

You didn't come to that conclusion based on the integration of sensory data that informed your future actions in a way that avoided harm..? — Garrett Travers

That is not enough to cay it's "reason". If an animal takes sensory data to respond in certain ways in the future, then we don't call that "reason".

Post after post after post, you merely persist to claim that all human response is reason, even though that is a patently untenable position, even as I have spelled out exactly why it is untenable.

Actually it does, nevermind. — Garrett Travers

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

Modus Ponens — Garrett Travers

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 then, if you want to move past mere validity to a demonstration of the truth of your conclusion, then you have to demonstrate that the "If P then Q" and "P" parts are true.

For your reference, here is an instance of modus ponens:

(If P then Q) If humans evolved with response to stimuli being their means of survival, and if it is only through response to stimuli that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty, then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.

(P) Humans evolved with response to stimuli being their means of survival, and if it is only through response to stimuli that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty.

Therefore, (Q) the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.

/

That is valid.

But to demonstrate that Q is true, you sill need to demonstrate that both "If P then Q" and "P" are true.

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 stimuli, is reason, even unconscious response such as twitching your nose if ticked by a feather.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, fundamentally. That doesn't mean one is employing reason at the level of executive function, but the cognitive process of integrating data to inform behavior is reason. — Garrett Travers

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 "syllogism" to show that it is even more implausible than you started with.

Automatic response, animal instinct, emotion. And as to necessary attributes, not just reason is required, but all the biological processes and physical capabilities.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

All of this is dependent on reason to be used to sustain life. — Garrett Travers

Going back about 50 posts, I pointed out that reason depends on them. No physical processes, then no brain, then no reason. Physical processes themselves are necessary too. It is arbitrary to say that only reason deserves to be mentioned as an attribute necessary for survival.

Are you thinking of it as a syllogism?
— ZzzoneiroCosm

Yep. — Garrett Travers

It's clearly not an Aristotelian syllogism.

So what valid syllogistic form do you claim it to be?

What makes it clear that it doesn't follow? — Garrett Travers

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 that could be added:

"If humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival, and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty, then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals."

With that added premise, it is a valid argument. (NB: 'valid does not mean that the premises and conclusion are true. 'valid only means that if the premises are true then the conclusion is true.)

Your argument doesn't lock. The premises (irrespective of whether they are true or not) don't provide a lock by which the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.

A technical point: To prove that an argument is invalid requires showing an interpretation of the vocabulary in which the premises are true but the conclusion is false. Or showing at least hypothetical circumstances in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false. Because the vocabulary here is not so easily transposed to different meanings, it would be pretty unwieldy to provide such a proof of invalidity. So, a more restricted claim technically needs to be made: The proponent of the argument has not shown the validity of the argument; the proponent of the argument has not cited a valid logical form of which the premises along with the conclusion are are an instance or that valid form. But, for example, by adding another premise, I showed an argument in valid form, viz. modus ponens.

Yes, that is sensory data, that involves thought, — Garrett Travers

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 stimuli, is reason, even unconscious response such as twitching your nose if ticked by a feather.

Not that jerking one's knee will save their life or anything. — Garrett Travers

There is a more general claim that you backed yourself into: That all responses to stimuli are in a process of reason.

Another matter is whether all means of survival are from a process of reason. But even basic animal instincts (I'm accepting your rubric 'instinct') contribute to animal survival, and you granted that humans at stages of maturation, do respond by such instinct. You backed yourself into the reductio ad absurdum from the claim that all all means of survival are based in reason.

What's it based in, then? — Garrett Travers

I already told you: Automatic response, animal instinct, emotion. And as to necessary attributes, not just reason is required, but all the biological processes and physical capabilities.

You keep saying we should settle one point first, but we have come full circle on the point long ago, while you continue to skip certain decisive arguments I've given.

It appears that the reason Objectivism makes this incorrect overstatement, this implausible reduction, is that it is needed to drive other conclusions about ethics and politics. But even granting the reductions, the conclusions don't follow.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

This isn't an argument. — Garrett Travers

I don't claim that is an argument that refutes you.

Calling an assertion a reduction deosn't make it one. — Garrett Travers

That's right. And it's not necessarily incorrect to make reductions. But I have not just said that it is a reduction; I showed how your particular reduction is incorrect, on pain of taking 'process of reason' to include even knee jerk or even nose twitching during sleep.

You are born with no animal instincts that could ensure your survival. — Garrett Travers

(1) What is the proof of that claim?

(2) Even if one is not born with the instincts, that doesn't make them a process of reason. If humans are not born with animal instincts, then I would guess that there are instincts of lower animals that are also not present in birth. Or are you claiming that lower animals endow all their instincts in completeion genetically?

(3) Even if we granted that all human instincts are learned, still the learning is so basic that it's not what people ordinarily mean by 'reason'. When I was an infant and refrained forever from touching fire because it once was painful, I didn't use reason for that, again, unless 'reason' is defined so broadly that it loses ordinary meaning. Just as, if a lower animal learns certain responses, ones not given at birth, then we don't say that the animal used reason.

You've still not provided a single life-sustaining behavior, that falls outside of the confines of reason, that could ensure human survival. — Garrett Travers

Again, you blew right past what I said about that many posts ago. I have not claimed that means other than reason are sufficient for survival. They are necessary for survival. Even granting that reason is necessary does not vitiate that other attributes are also necessary. And reason alone is not sufficient for survival.

If you can't get straight the difference between necessity and sufficiency then of course you wouldn't be able to properly reason about this.

Moreover, you are leaving out that the Objectivist argument is not just with regards to necessity but also as to essentiality. So not only is your argument not valid, it doesn't an aspect that particularly characterizes the Objectivist import. And I mentioned before that the Objectivist argument requires justification of the Objectivist essentialistic framework.

It's still a matter of consensus to determine whether the proof is valid. — jgill

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. My point is that in principle, it is objective to check whether a purported proof is correct, and if an incorrect inference is clearly shown, then no consensus can alter that the purported proof is not correct. (Again, I'm setting aside situations that are so terribly complicated that there is real debate.)

humans have to agree before it becomes an accepted piece of mathematics — jgill

Granted. But they will ordinarily agree if they check the proof. It's not based on consensus in the same sense as other kinds of questions.

Whatever consensus there might be, if one shows an incorrect inference in a purported proof, then the proof is disqualified from being deemed an actual proof.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Guess there's not a consensus, then. — jgill

No, there is a consensus that the purported proof is not correct.

I meant to ask was whether something uncountable (an example of an uncountable infinity is the set of real numbers R) can be considered mathematical? — Agent Smith

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 nations or thoughts, but only sets provided by the purely abstract axioms. Indeed, the empty set itself doesn't have to be taken as given but is derivable from purely abstract axioms.

After all, math is, bottom line, about countability (0, 1, 2, 3,...). — Agent Smith

The natural numbers are foundational. That doesn't entail that mathematics must be limited to the natural numbers. And set theory takes not the natural numbers as primitive, but merely the relation 'is a member of', i.e, membership. And with axioms about membership, the natural numbers are constructed, and from the natural numbers, then the integers, then the rationals, the reals are constructed,.

is an uncountable infinity a mathematical object? — Agent Smith

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 named by the word 'infinity'. I mean that there is no constant symbol added to the language of ZFC where the constant symbol is rendered in English as 'infinity'.

Instead, there is a predicate symbol that is rendered in English as 'is infinite'. And there are particular constant symbols that are defined as particular sets and we have theorems that those sets are infinite. For example, let 'w' [read as omega] stand for the set of natural numbers. It is a theorem that w is infinite, and it is a theorem that w is countable. Or, let 'R' stand for the set of real numbers. It is a theorem that R is infinite, and it is a theorem that R is uncountable

Mathematics is what a consensus of mathematicians says it is. — jgill

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 to whether a purported proof is correct or not (unless it is extraordinarily complicated) is not a matter of consensus. Whatever consensus there might be, if one shows an incorrect inference in a purported proof, then the proof is disqualified from being deemed an actual proof.

Academics is, at its core, an appeal to authority. — SkyLeach

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.

I was using my knowledge of Jungian and the MMPI which are the most widely used and thus easiest to draw inferences from. — SkyLeach

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?

I'm generalizing and try never to use them to evaluate any individuals — SkyLeach

But you haven't given any basis even for the generalization you stated.

Any time you combine multiple data points — SkyLeach

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

It's the only one you're[/] getting — SkyLeach

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 point stands that just saying 'ZFC' is not a plausible response to the questions I asked.

You're a limbrain — SkyLeach

What's a limbrain?

ISFJ — SkyLeach

You don't know that I am an ISFJ. And even if I were, being any one of the types does not contribute to disqualifying a person from having asked pertinent questions.

with an ego the size of a mountain that has repeatedly demonstrated he's here to stroke his ego — SkyLeach

I would guess that most people who post do so with motivated to enhance their sense of self-worth by exercising their prerogative to express their ideas, and many people often with criticisms of the ideas or claims of others. You have no evidence that my motivation is any more for gratification of ego than average. Especially, I come nowhere close to the kind of egotism found in a forum such as this that is displayed by people with terrible grandiosity when they bloviate their personally devised philosophies, with irrational arguments denying any weight to, and insulting other views by people who know something about the subject, and doing that by way of egregious distortions of even the rudiments of the subject.

And even if my motivation were entirely egotistic, that would not disqualify my points themselves.

not discuss philosophy. — SkyLeach

I am interested in mathematics and philosophy of mathematics. I find that it is worthwhile not to distort or misrepresent the mathematics itself when philosophizing about it. Clearing up misinformation and misunderstanding that is posted about mathematics is a worthy first step toward discussion of philosophy about it.

I'm also not going to argue (as in fight) with your ego instead of your rational mind. — SkyLeach

You have not mentioned anything I've said that is irrational.

instead of just assuming you should learn a bit more about the humanities and what kinds of research are regularly done — SkyLeach

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 the notion of studies in psychology and sociology. Asking you to cite an actual study that justifies your claims is not a fault from my own understanding.

So, that we can finish up with P1. — Garrett Travers

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 the truth or falsity of the premises. If the logical form is not valid, then the conclusion can be not entailed by the premises even if the premises are true.

So I am interested in what premises Objectivists would add to this to make it a valid argument:

1. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for rational human values.

3. Therefore, an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's rational values derived from reason.

Too bad there's not an Objectivist here to respond.

the process by which the brain gathers data to allow the human to interact in the world — Garrett Travers

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.

By about 12 and up, we start being able to generate concepts independently from our parent's interpolations. — Garrett Travers

That doesn't vitiate my point that many behaviors are not exercise of reason, unless 'reason' is taken in such a broad sense that it is robbed of particular meaning.

The fact that as people mature they use reason more and more does not support the claim that all behavior toward survival is based in reason.

It is of course obvious that the human species could not be what it is without reason. But it is overstatement to say that all behavior toward survival is based in reason.

It appears that the reason Objectivism makes this incorrect overstatement, this implausible reduction, is that it is needed to drive other conclusions about ethics and politics. But even granting the reductions, the conclusions don't follow.

When a hammer is tapped on my knee, I have sensory data, but I don't take it that it is a function of reason that I lift my leg in response.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's exactly what is going on. Data has informed your behavior to induce a removal of yourself from the recurrence of a homeostasis disrupting event, that could potentially kill you. It is reason. — Garrett Travers

You keep skipping my point that if that is reason, then all human behavior is reason in response to stimuli is reason. But that is not what people usually mean by 'reason'. And with your framework, even response in sleep to stimuli is exercise of reason. If a feather falls on my nose during sleep and I twitch my nose, then I don't know anyone who would say that is exercise of reason.

If any response to stimuli is exercise of reason, then your argument reduces to:

P1. if humans evolved with response to stimuli being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through response to stimuli that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals.

And, again, even if P1 and P2 are true, then C is not entailed.

That being said, the reasoning process is in fact still unfolding even in an underdeveloped brain. But, it doesn't have all the systems, so it is operating on delimited functions. basical animal instinct. — Garrett Travers

And if you allow that there are animal instincts that contribute to survival, then we can see also that there are human animal instincts that contribute to survival. So reason is not the only means toward human survival, unless you think lower non-human animals are exercising reason too.

It's too bad you won't admit that "it's all reason" is an overstatement. You would be on better ground to stress the great importance of reason, and to devise arguments about ethics and politics with reason as an important prong, rather than falling into your own trap of saying it is only by reason that man survives.

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. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for rational human values.

3. Therefore, an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's rational values derived from reason.

1 and 2 do not entail 3.

Bet. — Garrett Travers

Means what?

Come back when you're ready. — Garrett Travers

I don't care to confine my posting based on imperatives uttered by you.

Too concerned to address even a single premise. — Garrett Travers

I addressed it amply.

So, I take it that you can't adduce premises added to P1 and P2 that entail C.

Any behavior informed by sensory data, is in fact an example of reason. — Garrett Travers

Well, I thought I was done with P1.

What does "informed" mean?

A baby has the sensory data of a shiny object. I don't take it that the baby uses reason and then makes a reasoned decision to smile in response.

When a hammer is tapped on my knee, I have sensory data, but I don't take it that it is a function of reason that I lift my leg in response.

When my finger touches fire, I have sensory data, but it's not reason by which I take my finger away.

I don't do gish gallops, fallacies, or any other form of bullshit. — Garrett Travers

You claimed that I posted gish gallop. I detailed exactly how you are incorrect about that. Instead, you shifted to claiming that you don't post gish gallop.

If you want to argue with me, we will address the premises one at a time — Garrett Travers

I don't care whether you argue with me or not. I will post or not in reference to your posts, no matter how you feel about it.

Again, you say "one at a time", which for you boils down to ignoring my rebuttals.

But, even more interesting is that you should recognize that reasoning includes accepting premises for sake of argument. So, in that way, even if I granted P1 and P2 as true, they don't imply C.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

We aren't there yet, we'll have to see, won't we? — Garrett Travers

You don't understand logic and discourse. It is quite reasonable to say, "Even if we accept the premises, they don't entail the conclusion". This is especially reasonable when the question of the premises is a dead horse and an interlocutor wishes to move on to look at the argument's logical structure.

I'll say it again:

P1 and P2 do not entail C.

I am guessing that you are incapable of suppling added premises that would entail C.

Garrett sees you're concerned about addressing premises individually, because he may just demonstrate to you that you're incorrect, and thereby embarrass this forceful display you've put on for everyone. — Garrett Travers

Then Garrett suffers delusions.

I suggest the latter, and I insist again that we finish up with P1 before moving on. — Garrett Travers

I'm finished with P1 and P2.

Now I am interested in what premises one would add to derive C.

I encourage you to read the first chapter of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, just the first. If you still think she's useless, I'll never bother you about her again. — Garrett Travers

I read it and studied it. It's bunk.

Even more fundamentally, but along the same lines:

The Objectivist argument is:

1. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for rational human values.

3. Therefore, an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's rational values derived from reason.[/quote]

1 and 2 do not entail 3.

What life sustaining actions are not characterized by the description I gave — Garrett Travers

You skipped again my response. If you are going to keep doing that, then there is no hope that you'll ever get around to addressing my point.

You have lost the argument about reason and survival. You persist in it only by skipping my rebuttals.

But, even more interesting is that you should recognize that reasoning includes accepting premises for sake of argument. So, in that vein, even if I granted P1 and P2 as true, they don't imply C.

If you think C is implied by anything, then what premises other than P1 and P2 do you adduce?

If you keep saying that you won't address that question until we have settled P1, which is a dead horse by now, then I take it that you wish to avoid facing that P1 and P2 do not entail C.

First, you elide my point. Whether P1 or P2 are true, they do not entail C.

All human thoughts are informed by sensory data used to inform further action in a feedbackloop. What actions that are life-sustaining are not classified by this description? — Garrett Travers

You keep skipping my reply to that:

"A matter of reason" (a vague rubric) is not what's at issue. What is at issue is whether the original mental events were reason. If there is a difference between emotion and reasoning, then my emotions yesterday were not reason. The fact that I can later use reason to think about the emotions I once had doesn't make those emotions themselves reason. Otherwise, any mental state is reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

So if any mental state is reason, then your argument reduces to:

P1. if humans evolved with mental states being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through mental states that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals[/quote]

But I am even more interested in the fact that even if we accepted P1 and P2 as true, they don't entail C.

What are your additional premises added to P1 and P2 to derive C?

Did you not read where I said I was not going to respond unless we took the arguments one at a time? — Garrett Travers

I don't take myself to be obligated to reply to only one of your many claims at a time.

You can reply or not to whatever you like.

If you would like a first point though, then you could start with my first point, and as I have elaborated on it:

P1 and P2 do not entail C. So if you claim C, then you need premises more than P1 and P2. What are those premises?

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

If P1 and P2, then C.

But that claim itself needs justification.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

These are not my premises. — Garrett Travers

What are you talking about?

You listed P1, P2, and C:

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

I pointed out that it is a conditional statement, not an argument. But then I allowed that you probably mean it as an argument.

But P1 and P2 do not logically entail C.

We haven't gotten to the moral justifications portion of this conversation yet. — Garrett Travers

Whatever you haven't gotten to, it includes not having gotten to a valid argument. If you have a valid argument for C, then it requires more than P1 and P2.

Reason depends on the biological process of the brain. So one could just as easily say that all reason involves biological process.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's specifically what I'll be arguing. — Garrett Travers

Then you'll be arguing in the opposite direction of your gravamen.

I said we'd "start" here. — Garrett Travers

I took you to mean it was a definition from which you would go on to make other points. So, now, good that it's clear that it wasn't a definition of selfishness, but then it that case you were mislading to say it was what is "meant" by 'selfishness'

You are shifting the argument.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope, that was you. This was my specific argument. — Garrett Travers

I didn't shift any argument. What argument do you claim I shifted?

You shifted from the point that there are survival means that are not reason.

On its face, that can't be what you mean, even in this context, since you hold that there are values that are irrational.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's because you didn't analyze the rest of the statement. It does not matter whether you can value irrational concepts, the concept itself is generated through the same process of reason per individual. — Garrett Travers

I didn't ignore any "rest of the statement". Please cite the "rest of the statement" that you think I ignored.

Then the process of reason includes violation of rationality. I wouldn't disagree too much - included in reasoning is incorrect reasoning or irrationality. But, since, presumably, irrationality detracts from survival, your argument is weakened by allowing that irrationality is also a process of reason.

We're gonna do this one on a separate comment, after I get through your gish gallop. — Garrett Travers

I look forward to seeing how you think you think you are're going to do it.

"gish gallop" has no rational argumentative value. You have not shown that my points, especially the central ones, are inaccurate. Nor have my points been unreasonably numerous, especially as they have been point back directly to your posted claims; moreover, I have barely gone much further than direct counterpoint.

I don't know what "enumerate the reason" is supposed to mean.

I can use thought to enumerate the emotions I felt yesterday. That doesn't entail that the emotions themselves are reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If you can describe why you enjoyed something, then such is a matter of reason. — Garrett Travers

"A matter of reason" (a vague rubric) is not what's at issue. What is at issue is whether the original mental events were reason. If there is a difference between emotion and reasoning, then my emotions yesterday were not reason. The fact that I can later use reason to think about the emotions I once had doesn't make those emotions themselves reason. Otherwise, any mental state is reason. If you persist to deny this, then you make yourself risible.

The premise that is missing:

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

As said another way:

This premise also is needed:

If P1 and P2, then C.

But that claim itself needs justification. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You need to answer that better than you barely do [see later in this post].

/

I know it is not [a definition of 'selfish']. — Garrett Travers

So you should not have suggested that it is.

Human survival also depends on other means, including ingrained responses (you jump from fire by a natural tendency to avoid its pain well before you reason about it), emotion (enthusiasm, hope, love), physical effort (pushing a rock to not be crushed by it), and cooperation with other humans (except for extraordinary people, survival by oneself with just reason is not likely).
— TonesInDeepFreeze

All of this is involved in the reasoning process, and how your brain determines one's actions. — Garrett Travers

(1) Reason depends on the biological process of the brain. So one could just as easily say that all reason involves biological process.

(2) Not all those examples involve reason. Or, if they do, then everything involves reason, but also, human survival also involves physical, emotional, and social attributes. So one might as well just say "the means of survival", inclusive of all means, rather than pick out only reason as determinative over all of them.

(3) Some of those examples do not involve reason. I retract immediately upon touching fire, not because I reason about it. Of, if you call that 'reason' (because it contributes to survival) then virtually anything is reason that contributes to survival. And in that case, if it contributes to survival then it's reason and if it's reason then it contributes to survival. And in that case, your framework is circular.

The pain/pleasure response is about the best thing here as far as a natural response to immediate stimuli that ensures survival, so I think you can have that. But, even that is an essential element to: think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic- or reason. — Garrett Travers

Your argument is that reason should be singled out as the necessary attribute. But then I mention another necessary attribute. But then you say it contributes to reason. But whether the other attributes contribute to reason or not, they are necessary. Without better argument, you are arbitrary to claim that reason is the essential necessary attribute, let alone to further argue that ethical behavior is all and only that which is based on values corresponding to reason. One could as well say that ethics is all and only that which contributes to pleasure and avoidance of pain. Or one could as well say that ethics is all and only that which contributes to survival. Adding that it must be toward life corresponding to "values based on reason" doesn't follow from your premises.

I value fresh air, not from reason,
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If you value it, it's reason. — Garrett Travers

(1) On it's face, that means that whatever I value is based on reason. But you can't mean that, because you hold that certain values are not based on reason. So it's ambiguous what you think reason is.

(2). And, no, reason is not why I value the air. I value it because it is excruciating not to have it. I don't reason about that; I just feel the pain of suffocation and desire not to suffocate - immediately without reason. You said yourself that you concede pleasure/pain may precede reason. If turning toward air, even as an animal would do, is from a process of reason, then virtually any behavior is from reason and the word 'reason' loses its particular meaning.

breathing isn't going to get your food, shelter, or skills for continued survival for you. — Garrett Travers

Ah, your argumentation relies on shifting between what is necessary and what is sufficient. Yes, breathing is not sufficient for certain things but it is necessary. And reason is not sufficient either. But your point has been the necessity of reason. If you point out the necessity of reason, then I correctly also point our the necessity of breathing, even though neither is sufficient.

Yes, means of survival are developed by reason, values are secondary. — Garrett Travers

(1) Again, there are necessary means of survival that are not developed by reason.

(2) And you support my point when you say values are secondary. Since they are secondary, unless there is other connecting argument, it is arbitrary to claim that ethics is identified with them in the particular way that Objectivism does.

And it requires argument to show that there are not values other than selfishness that are developed with reason
— TonesInDeepFreeze

No, it doesn't. That isn't necessary at all. All values developed with reason. Selfishness is the value in the reasoning faculty to provide life and values. Doesn't matter which values you generate. — Garrett Travers

(1) The point I made is that it requires argument to show that there are not values other than selfishness developed from reason. I didn't claim that selfishness as a value is or is not developed by reason.

(2) "Doesn 't matter which values you generate". On its face, that can't be what you mean, even in this context, since you hold that there are values that are irrational.

(3) Even though, quite arguably, valuing one's life and pleasure and enjoyment of certain values is selfish, it does not follow that (a) all values are developed by reason (which was my point) and (b) that one can't develop from reason also unselfish values (a point I'm adding in response to your response here).

(4) Even though, quite arguably, the value of selfishness contributes to one's own life and values, it does not follow that ethics is merely that which contributes to one's own life and (rational) values. It is pure question begging to merely say that ethics does not permit putting the lives and (rational) values of other people above your own.

I'm willing to take it as axiomatic that ethical behavior must at least contribute to life, pleasure, and rational values. But whether (a) that must be (or, weaker, can be) only one's own life, pleasure, rational values (egoism) or (b) life, pleasure, rational values in general (utilitarianism), requires argument. The proposition you need to demonstrate is "Ethical acts are all and only those that contribute to one's own life and (rational) values".

I wrote:

reason is only part of the means of human survival. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You replied:

No, the things you mentioned are minor parts of survival that could potentially exist outside of : think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. — Garrett Travers

(1) Physical capability, unmediated response, emotion, social inclination are obviously not minor.

(2) Even if they are merely minor (which, they are not), that wouldn't provide for your framework as singling out reason while disregarding all the other aspects of survival. Let alone that without physical capability, there is no reason anyway.

(3) If they can exist without reason, then that destroys your point.

If humans survive by reason, and reason is the human's means of surviving and living in accordance with the values produced from reason, then a society that respects that process is the only one conducive to human life. How does that not follow? — Garrett Travers

(1) You are shifting the argument.

Your original conclusion was that people should be free to be selfish. I don't opine here on that. But I point out that it doesn't follow from your premises.

Now you say that a "society that respects that process is the only one conducive to human life". A premise (which is uncontroversial) "society should be conducive to human life" does contribute to "people should be free to be selfish". I don't mind too much taking liberty in that respect as a kind of starting ethos, as long as it is not categorical. It does not necessarily follow that an ethical society may not limit certain selfish pursuits. First, without better Objectivist argument, we should not accept the Objectivist escape hatch that violation of the rights or others is never selfish. Second, if promotion of life is the fundamental value, then it is not ruled out that society disallow people from doing things that threaten their own lives. Third, again, it is question begging to claim, without supporting premises, that society should not act to promote life, pleasure, and values of people in general rather than merely allow people to pursue selfish objectives that happen not to violate rights.

(2) The Objectivist position that ethics is all and only that which is selfish, it is not itself that proposition above you hold about society. Again, as to Objectivism, the premise that needs to be supported is:

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

This is completely fair. So, I say we go from there. — Garrett Travers

As was clear, that is not my own position.

And:

(1) There are attributes needed for survival other than reason.

(2) If the claim is not just necessity but is moreover essentiality, then Objectivism needs to support its philosophy of essentialism, and provide argument how essential properties entail certain other normative claims.

(3) The whole conditional sentence itself requires argument, unless it is simply an axiom.

So, I say we go from there. — Garrett Travers

Okay, go from there. Try to make a logically sound argument for it.

That the proposition impresses Objectivist as overwhelmingly true is not a demonstration that it is true. A demonstration is showing:

"Reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival". (And that has not been shown.)

and

showing that

"Reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values"

entails

"An act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason."

I value seeing a colorful flower, not from reason, but simply from the unmediated pleasure I get from it
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If you can use thought to enumerate the reason, that's reason. — Garrett Travers

I don't know what "enumerate the reason" is supposed to mean.

I can use thought to enumerate the emotions I felt yesterday. That doesn't entail that the emotions themselves are reason.

We do not have speed, senses, fangs, venom, claws, wings, talons, or any other advantage they have that has allowed them to survive in their respective environments. We only have reason as a means of survival. — Garrett Travers

Humans do have physical attributes including feet, legs, endurance running, five senses, teeth, fingernails, fingers, opposable thumbs, et. al. Indeed the various features of the human body itself - that provides for breathing for oxygen to the cells, ingestion for hydration and nutrition, organs for regulation of chemicals, elimination, immunity, et. al - all are means of survival. To say that certain creatures don't have, say, wings to survive makes no sense in claiming that humans don't also have their own anatomical attributtes. And humans have psychological attributes including will, hope, fear (fear causes you to immediately avoid, without mediation of reason, a snake on the ground), anger (anger against an adversary can help you beat him to death in self-defense of your life), et. al. And humans have social attributes, including compassion, empathy, rescue.

What does Rand mean by selfish:

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

That's not a definition of 'selfish'. It's a conditional statement of the form:

If P1 and P2, then C.

I take it though that you mean it as an argument of the form:

P1
P2
Therefore, C

Anyway, it's not a definition of 'selfish'.

Moreover, the conclusion of the argument is not that ethically that people should be selfish. Rather, the conclusion is that people should be free to be selfish.

Looking at the arguments:

A. "[H]umans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival."

It's not clear what "generated", "natural processes" are supposed to mean there.

Reason is not the only means of survival. Human survival also depends on other means, including ingrained responses (you jump from fire by a natural tendency to avoid its pain well before you reason about it), emotion (enthusiasm, hope, love) , physical effort (pushing a rock to not be crushed by it), and cooperation with other humans (except for extraordinary people, survival by oneself with just reason is not likely).

B. "It is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty"

Surviving is one thing, but living life according to values is additional. Living according to values includes survival a fortiori.

And the conclusion does not follow from the premises. This premise also is needed:

If P1 and P2, then C.

But that claim itself needs justification.

And it requires argument to show that there are not values other than selfishness that are developed with reason, or even that values developed aside from reason shouldn't count (I value not experiencing the pain of being burned. That's not a value developed from reason but rather simply from my utterly basic preference not to experience pain. I value fresh air, not from reason, but simply from my utterly basic preference to feel refreshing oxygen in my lungs. I value seeing a colorful flower, not from reason, but simply from the unmediated pleasure I get from it.)

So, reason is only part of the means of human survival.

And it requires argument to show that what is ethical is only that which best contributes to living according to values based in reason. That is, it requires argument to show that "Action A is ethical if and only if it contributes to values based in reason."

[We] have developed reason, as opposed to fangs, to survive. — Garrett Travers

The species developed reason along with other physical, psychological, and social attributes.

The Objectivist argument is:

1. Reason is the essential attribute that provides for a human's survival.

2. Reason provides for human values.

3. An act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.

Those are three separate claims, without connecting logic, unless a missing premise if filled in: The premise that is missing:

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.

our only means of actually surviving in the world relies on [reason]. — Garrett Travers

Survival depends on intelligence, which we may says includes crucial reasoning. But survival also depends on other physical, psychological, and social attributes too.

Obviously, just saying "ZFC" is not a meaningful answer to the questions I asked.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659140

demographics — SkyLeach

Obviously, just saying "demographics" is not a basis for claiming:

People gifted in mathematics tend to be (very much a generalization) very judgemental, love symmetry, almost obsessively orderly, emotionally distant, become easily obsessed with problems, stoic in their self image, etc... — SkyLeach

People gifted in mathematics tend to be (very much a generalization) very judgemental, love symmetry, almost obsessively orderly, emotionally distant, become easily obsessed with problems, stoic in their self image, etc... — SkyLeach

What is your basis for that claim?

1 infinity + 1 infinity = 1 infinity — Agent Smith

Again, there is no object that is infinity (other than such things as points of infinity on extended numbrer lines). There are sets that have the property of being infinite.

That cardinal arithmetic is idempotent for infinite sets (especially for the set of natural numbers) is not really not problematic if you bother to read the proof.

There is a working axiom in mathematics (not yet extremely popular but growing every year) that linear algebra should be the core axiom of mathematics. — SkyLeach

I'm not familiar with that. Where can I read about it?

Traditionally the first axiom of mathematics is commutative principle. — SkyLeach

I've never seen such a "first axiom of mathematics" as you describe it. Is it something you've read or just an idea of your own?

derived axiom — SkyLeach

What is a "derived axiom"? Ordinarily, sentences derived from axioms are called 'theorems'.

the axiom that given any observable set we can assign whole numbers to that set as a form of measurement. — SkyLeach

Where is that stated as an "axiom"?

Hand them ["famous and influential mathematicians"] a set and ask them to do anything with it and they have a meltdown and rant about new ideas ruining everything. — SkyLeach

What famous mathematicians in particular do you have in mind? Where have you witnessed these "meltdowns"?

The use of sets is ubiquitous in mathematics. I didn't know that famous mathematicians were having "meltdowns" about sets.

Mathematical logic and modal logic are related and interact sometimes. But Godel's argument about God is not mathematical in the sense that the modal assumptions would not ordinarily be thought of as mathematical assumptions.

the vagueness of modal terms, such as "Necessity" — Gnomon

The modal operator 'Necessary' is primitive, i.e. undefined.

Godel uses modal logic and certain modal assumptions. His argument is not "mathematical computation"