Fudo Manu

Some are saying these are hashes to check the authenticity of files. This could be a defensive move by Assange, which to me means he is feeling threatened.

This could mean bad news for Julian Assange; https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584

Most knowledge exists as "immaterial concepts", yet it is held has valid knowledge. Logic is the tool used to test the validity of inferred knowledge. All rights are asserted. There is no natural law compelling you not to do harm to me. Logically the Divine Rights of Kings falls apart, as it has. Reason is the faculty which one must employ to discover what rights one might posses. It could be said that they are innate in mans nature, but they must be reasoned from that nature to be claimed. To claim that the right to not be harmed is innate is no different then to claim the right of kings is divine. Both claims must be demonstrated to be true. How would one demonstrate that rights are innate if they have not discovered their origins? As for hypocrisy, the point in stating that the action is the primary is to emphasize the importance of looking at the action, not the words. If one's goal is to find and eliminate falsehoods, looking at the action resolves the contradiction inherent in hypocrisy.

No, in the case of this conversation we are speaking of the concepts themselves, apart from the attributes and accidents they connote. We are speaking of them with an identity of their own, namely as the mental integration of those attributes and accidents, in fact man cannot reference a thing apart from its abstracted qualities. If they don't exist how can it be said that they are ephemeral? If ephemeral means "Lasting for a short time", how is it that something that does not exist, can be said to last?

Concepts do exist. It is true that the mental integration of abstracted attributes and accidents only exists in the mind, but it still exists. The opposite of to exist is to not exist, to be nothing. It would reason then that for something to have an identity, it must exist. Square circles don't exist, contradictions don't exist because they break the law of identity. A is A, a thing is what it is, and it can't be what it is and what it isn't. Existence is Identity. Certainly concepts have identities, for we can speak of them. If they didn't exist this conversation, and all conversations wouldn't be possible.

The brain receives its stimulus through electrical impulses, These impulses can originate from within the body as well as from without. These impulses to the brain is what is meant by sense data. Man is not consciously aware of these impulses, but Mans defining characteristic, abstract reasoning, an automated and subconscious process, takes these impulses and abstracts characteristics and attributes from them and groups them. These grouping we call concepts. In order to store and recall these concepts. a symbol is applied. Words are one such symbol, and the must common. Reasoning is different from the quality of abstract reasoning, in so far as the latter is automated and non volitional, while the former is volitional. Reasoning means inference, and its utilization beyond the formation of basic concepts require cultivation. When you state that knowledge gained thru Reasoning originates in the mind, you are not incorrect. However I stated that all knowledge is founded in sense data, and to use your rational faculty there must be something to use it upon. Where would this initial knowledge come from? If not from the senses then where? If there is knowledge that is attained innately what is it and how would we know it is innate? The last point I will make is that rights are not innate, and must be discovered. I agree that I have a duty to abide by the NAP with those that hold it as a value. A value being that which one seeks to gain and or maintain. Those that express disregard for the NAP are not protected by it. That I may rightfully act aggressively toward an aggressor is the foundation of self defense. I also have no argument against be obligated to honor a contract made volitionally and free of duress. To break such a contract is theft, which is no different then placing said individual in ex post facto servitude, a violation of the value of self ownership and in discordance with mans nature as a heterotroph.

It is not. The first puts primacy in the the words, the second puts primacy in the action.

Pretty much a noob myself so no worries. If we get a couple more interested individuals, then I'll start arrangements.

The basis of knowledge is through sense data and the formation of basic concepts. There is intuitive knowledge and inferred knowledge. Intuitive knowledge is information received through the senses, inferred knowledge is the vast majority of mans knowledge and is gained through inference of existing knowledge. At its base this would be inference of sense data. Logic is a system that deals with inferred truths (knowledge) and guides one in what knowledge is valid and what is not. Since all knowledge must begin with sense data, any knowledge of morality must also be able to trace back to sense data. When it comes to morality; anyone that expresses a right to a thing, say life, must be able to express where ones right to life comes from. One that does not know, can not hold it as a value. My right to life comes from my nature as a living being, more specifically a heterotroph. That I must first and foremost in my existence seek to sustain my life means that my life must be my highest value. For without my life I can have no other values. To remove life from another human, is to express through action that human life is of no value, a contradiction. Most live in this contradiction because they don't value their lives but are too weak to end it, thus acting to continue a value they don't hold. One that expresses that human life is not a value is a threat to those that do. Remember, a hypocrite is not someone that does differently from what they say, but says differently from what they do. It is the action that holds truth, words often are used to manipulate.

Why does more reality equal more happiness? For most philosophy, and through it a clearer perseption of reality, equals strife. For one most likely grew up with beliefs and values that are contradictory to the true nature of things, and to see otherwise forces a choice, to live in contradiction or to abandon past held beliefs and all relationships founded in them.

All thought is conceptual. Man does not experience his sense data on a perceptual level. When mans senses are excited they leave an imprint, a phantasm, in mans mind, from which mans faculty of abstract reasoning automatically begins abstracting, or "taking away" attributes from it. These attributes are then catagorized into concepts. A symbol (word) is assigned to allow man to recall the concept. Man can only work from these phantasm in conscious thought, and the strength of the phantasm is a product of ones level of focus and concentration. So yes, all is conceptual in mans mind, and all concepts must originate from sense data.

Is it immoral to lie? No. Most are taught that it is because it is beneficial to those that do (lie). Always being honest is a dangerous position to put oneself in as it makes one vulnerable to manipulators. As all morality must be derived from sense data and observation of the nature of things, what evidence would support that lieing is immoral?

Curious if this group ever got off the ground, or if there is interest in reviving it. I'm willing to coordinate things if 5-6 individuals are willing to commit.

Searching Google didn't help much, most responses criticized the IQ as not valid for much other than "feeding one's ego". The others suggested some online tests that require a fee, I've taken one of those, the Stanford Binet and scored 128. Mensa was suggested. I'm looking to take one in person that will be recognized as authoritative. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

These were just thoughts I had. My intent was never to construct an arguement.