Am I now to take selfishness as sign of strength? — Agent Smith

If you did you'd be in good (evil) company.

Rand defines altruism and selfishness in a very specific way.

Objectivism explicitly mentions the difference between humans an animals, as part of the explanation of the Objectivist notion of reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

And? That was decades ago. We've learned thing about the nature of human cognitive computation that have emerged in the past 2 years alone. — Garrett Travers

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 particular dissent is misguided. People don't regard a bug smelling something and turning to it as reason. Then you say that science does. I asked for a reference.

Rand defines altruism and selfishness in a very specific way. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That has to be, right?

What you're claiming undermines important planks in the Objectivist platform. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, you just won't actually integrate what I'm saying to you, nothing more.

If you wish to dissent from Objectivism, that's fine with me. But your particular dissent is misguided. People don't regard a bug smelling something and turning to it as reason. Then you say that science does. I asked for a reference. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I'm not dissenting. I'm saying that if one of the standard measurments for reasoning capacities is memory, and if it can be shown that animals and bugs use stimuli to inform future behaviors in some manner, then some level of reasoning is occurring in them. None of this contradicts anything. I did not say science did anything other than this, at all.

An act is selfish if it is predicated on one's own reason as his/her means of survival. — Garrett Travers

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 itself ethical, even for an Objectivist, I don't think.

And it has not been shown by you that an act is ethical if and only if it is predicated on one's reason as his or her means of survival. (a) One might use reason to survive but not survival that enjoys the exercise of rational values, (b) One can do things that aren't even related to survival. I can use reason to determine that if I kick a can down the road then it will end up many feet away; but I am not unethical in kicking a can for a purpose other than survival but rather merely to exercise my whim to do it. (c) More basically, you simply haven't made an argument in which your premises entail your conclusion.

Merely responding to stimuli is not enough to constitute concept formation.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Okay. Cool. — Garrett Travers

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

To survive? — Garrett Travers

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

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 itself ethical, even for an Objectivist, I don't think. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No, what's ethical is that ethical conceptualization is also a product of reason. To produce ethics that standardize the behaviors of others is unethical, because it violates the ethical source, which is individual reason, the same place we develop our cognitive framework for all other behavior in the world. If individual humans are the source of reason, and reason is the source of behavioral framework upon which they live, and among those frameworks is ethics, then any ethical standard must be predicated on its own source.

The concept is not key in any way that I didn't directly imply using other descriptors. — Garrett Travers

Essentiality is more than just necessity.

Objectivism disagreeing with science isn't a thing. If science indicates that it is 'possible' on some level, then Objectivism incorporates as much. — Garrett Travers

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

(2) You keep saying "science". I asked twice for a reference.

(3) Raising the notion of possibility gets into a sticky place with Objectivism, as Objectivism rejects as arbitrary making claims on the basis that they are possible.

No, you just won't actually integrate what I'm saying to you, nothing more. — Garrett Travers

I integrated and then disemboweled it.

I'm not dissenting. I'm saying that if one of the standard measurments for reasoning capacities is memory, and if it can be shown that animals and bugs use stimuli to inform future behaviors in some manner, then some level of reasoning is occurring in them. None of this contradicts anything. I did not say science did anything other than this, at all. — Garrett Travers

Objectivism does not agree that bugs use reason.

For the fourth time, what reference to "science" do you have?

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

It's also not a suvival mechanism that sustains your life. It's a basic response to stimuli, which will inform your future behavior, so there's definitely reason involved. It may preserve your life in a certain individual situation, but that is not a mechanism you live by.

Essentiality is more than just necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I explained it as more.

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 itself ethical, even for an Objectivist, I don't think.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

No, what's ethical is that ethical conceptualization is also a product of reason. To produce ethics that standardize the behaviors of others is unethical, because it violates the ethical source, which is individual reason, the same place we develop our cognitive framework for all other behavior in the world. If individual humans are the source of reason, and reason is the source of behavioral framework upon which they live, and among those frameworks is ethics, then any ethical standard must be predicated on its own source. — Garrett Travers

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

Please cite where Objectivism incorporates the view that a bug smelling food and turning to it is "organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Strawman.

You keep saying "science". I asked twice for a reference. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Reference for what?

Raising the notion of possibility gets into a sticky place with Objectivism, as Objectivism rejects as arbitrary making claims on the basis that they are possible. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I haven't made any claims in association with this comment.

Essentiality is more than just necessity.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I explained it as more. — Garrett Travers

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

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

You don't have a point to be vitiated. You just claimed you didn't see why it was ethical, and then I explained it.

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

Sufficiency and necessity were conflated with what?

Raising the notion of possibility gets into a sticky place with Objectivism, as Objectivism rejects as arbitrary making claims on the basis that they are possible.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

I haven't made any claims in association with this comment. — Garrett Travers

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

Sufficiency and necessity were conflated with what? — Garrett Travers

With each other.

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

It's also not a suvival mechanism that sustains your life. — Garrett Travers

Getting air into your lungs can save your life.

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

No, I said that science holds that reason and memory are inextricably linked. Meaning, if stimuli can be stored as memory to inform future behavior, then there's undoubtedly some level of reason going on. But, nobody would know how to determine that right now.

As far as memory and reason is concerned, that's mainstream: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00056/full

It may preserve your life in a certain individual situation, but that is not a mechanism you live by. — Garrett Travers

Breathing is a mechanism you need to live.

Breathing is a mechanism you need to live. — TonesInDeepFreeze

And? it is not sufficient to sustain your life. How you accrue resources and meet your needs is through reason.

Please cite where Objectivism incorporates the view that a bug smelling food and turning to it is "organizing perceptual units into concepts by principles of logic.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Strawman. — Garrett Travers

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

Not at all. You claimed that Objectivism will incorporate whatever science comes up with. And you claimed that science supports the view that lower creatures use reason,. — TonesInDeepFreeze

No I didn't. I never claimed science supported that.

Breathing is a mechanism you need to live.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

And? it is not sufficient to sustain your life. How you accrue resources and meet your needs is through reason. — Garrett Travers

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 reason and non-reason means are necessary.

You just claimed you didn't see why it was ethical — Garrett Travers

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.

then I explained it. — Garrett Travers

You've made specious arguments. I detailed the exact points of your speciousness.

Neither reason nor non-reason means are sufficient.

Both reason and non-reason means are necessary. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes, the same way your organs have to be working. That's not something in dispute in Objectivism. This is how a child analyzes something. Have you really been arguing this whole time that there are some things the body does autonomically that aid in survival? Very well. Duh.