All Activity

It's the phase change that allows volition to exist. Consciousness is the faculty that chooses between the options of the entangled state available given the context of how the individual possessing their volitional consciousness arrived at that specific location in the spacetime of the multiverse. Without this ability volition couldn't exist because the consciousness is choosing a specific path from an entangled state. The next Plank Time choice available is also a choice available to the volitional consciousness and so on. This requires entanglement which requires quantum computation. Volitional consciousness is a self-evident fact and this is the only way that it can exist therefore the mind is the result of quantum computation. There are many papers documenting how this is possible which I've linked to on this site in various discussions. One is correct at least partially and I'm not going through all that again here because it's not particularly important. The point is when a processor (human brain in this case) becomes capable of sufficient quantum computation with the relevant self-organizing algorithm (via nature in the case of the human mind or AGI in the near future) a consciousness switches from non-(or partially, say a dog's) volitional to fully volitional with the full usage of rational conceptual volitional consciousness that that brings with it. That is the phase change/inflection point I was speaking of.

And to go one step further, they confuse words which can slowly change general popular meaning with concepts that have universal correct objective in-context definitions. If the general population randomly decided tomorrow to start referring to the concept of a table by some random different word it in no manner would effect what the concept of a table actually is and means and how it is created. A lot of their discussions rely on out-of-context words taken from current "popular culture" instead of referring to the correct actual concepts in the appropriate context. A good example is when they take the definition of capitalism to mean everything that it doesn't instead of the appropriate concept of the sociopolitical system that exists solely to protect individual rights via private property and instead change it into some other random meaning incorporating concepts that are its complete opposite.

Why is this necessary? Why is it relevant? What are your grounds for saying that the brain uses quantum computation?

For a very different view, read Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and/or read the relevant parts of Leonard Peikoff's The Objectivist Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

A lot of the misconceptions are political in nature, but that starts way too high up the conceptual chain dropping the appropriate context of the ethics that lead to the correct politics, the epistemology that leads to the correct ethics, and the metaphysics that leads to the correct epistemology. They mostly want to deal in floating abstractions instead of fully integrated thought. It's very limiting and concrete-bound and leads essentially nowhere because the objections are all eliminated when one starts from the source that A is A and existence exists and systematically works through the conceptual hierarchy. Of course, as this forum shows there can be real disagreement on how to apply the higher abstract concepts to concrete events via principles but one can't reach that type of in context principled discussion while randomly starting at some concrete floating abstraction, in general. It's like speaking to people who are speaking a version of English where every word or concept can also mean something different or its complete opposite depending on their mood or whim. They don't have the context and specifically the correct in-context definitions of terms, words, and concepts to have an accurate conversation.

I wonder: Did you feel a call to the ministry? Were you good at it? Were you able to help some people needing advice on personal problems? Do you still believe in God? If not, do you find yourself more benevolent towards all humanity more than ever? Do you have an interest in teaching math or science? Have you seen the movie First Reformed? (I like it a lot.) I suggest: If you don't believe in God any more, tell your wife and children, explain why you've changed your mind, explain that you cannot simply choose what your mind takes as true, that you love them as ever and will always love them, and that you want them together in loving spirit with you. Those relationshiips might continue to grow, in somewhat new ways of value. If you do still believe in God, and want only to leave the ministry, the adjustment for them is less colossal, I imagine, than the challenge of them having to accept that you are atheist. If you have become atheist, don't lie to your loved ones about it. Be square and definitive about it, but not aggressive and militant about it. Find in your own thinking What in secular, natural terms is correspondent with elements in what the religious folk treasure in religion. You be agape. Getting prepared to teach math or physical science might bring you some renewal of the old joy and love of these old friends. I bet you CAN restore this knowledge in yourself and even get farther with it than ever. Struggle and hope. Look to the future, not redo of the past, and look to organic unity from all good in your past to a future. Teaching math and physical science might have some joy of participation now in a goodness in the world even after you die. Growth and resilience are beautiful.

Agreed, but it's just hard to answer questions and misconceptions that jump around at random while dropping context is my point. A read through of OPAR "sets the appropriate stage" and context for appropriate discussion. It's how I began.

While this is the best way for them to learn it, they may be reluctant to start until some specific questions and concerns are answered or an overview is given.

This thread. And to be explicit conscious minds capable of using conceptual reasoning are an emergent result of when a brain becomes capable of full quantum computation of data/perceptions.

Why was the suggestion to simply read the beginning corpus that I listed, and then go from there, something that would take an average reader less than two weeks to clear up misconceptions appreciated? This is the problem, people won't read and begin to integrate the philosophy themselves and instead want to build up some type of light "understanding" piecemeal and in random out of context and hierarchy via third person "interpretations" of others (second-handedness) (no matter how accurate or well intentioned in general, especially by the more articulate) instead of simply going straight to the original extremely well-written and amazingly easy to understand source for their own start at the integration of the ideas, step-by-step proofs, and knowledge presented.

I'm nearly 50. I have recently discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism and I feel like I've finally found a home. But I'm afraid it's too late... As a child and into my early teen years, I had many dreams and goals of becoming a world-class engineer. I was very good at math and science. Top of my class. But then in my teenage years, religion sunk its teeth into me, and I have spent the last 40 years sacrificing everything about myself. I gave up engineering, math, and science, and went to Bible college and seminary to become a pastor "to serve God." I married someone who would make a good pastor's wife. We had children together. I abandoned all my hopes, dreams, goals, and desires for the sake of religion, and for my family. Now, today, I feel like I am dead. There is nothing left in me that is truly "me." Is it too late for me? I read this thread and feel like maybe I am Peter Keating: I don't think I can go back and start all over. I tried to pick up math and science again this last year, and I have forgotten 99% of it. to start over, I would literally have to begin at Jr. High level math and science. This seems unrealistic at 50 years old. I also can't abandon my wife and kids. Maybe it is too late to "go back and start over" ... but maybe I can work to warn people about self-sacrifice and religious altruism. Any ideas or suggestions?

Another misconception, to quote one source I read, is that Ayn Rand "hates charity". She has stated explicitly that there is nothing wrong with helping others provided you can afford it and they are worthy of the help. What she objects to is the idea that helping others is an obligation or a primary virtue. To make sure there is no misunderstanding, this refers to epistemological integration, not mathematical or racial integration. Although Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to racism. Ayn Rand was also opposed to government coercion in connection with any of the topics mentioned in my post here. She thought that government should only be used as a defense against the initiation of direct or indirect physical force. This is more fully explained in her writings.

Beats me, mostly. However, the conclusion that knowledge relies solely on the existence of a metaphysical entity fundamentally contradicts doctrines of any version of Christianity (also Judaism and Islam). If it were true, it would mean that God directly implants knowledge into our minds, and we do not have a choice to learn or not learn. Rather than relying on faith in his existence, God would simply implant certainty of his existence in the mind. Since knowledge is a relationship between a consciousness and reality, you could however declare that if God had not created reality and various consciousnesses, there would be no consciousness which would perceive and therefore know anything, so perhaps you could say that the existents presupposed in the concept “knowledge” (i.e. “consciousness, existence”) themselves presuppose a divine being. At this point you probably end up in a regress of arbitrary and fundamentally irrational assertions about why a divine being is a “necessary” condition for existence. Anyhow, I think you would get better-informed responses by probing the question at a Christian philosophical website (like Christianity Stackexchange).

I think he is saying that we quantify how "purely physical" things act or are arranged in ways more sophisticated and with what we associate with "information".. as such we use concepts like bits, bandwidth, coding and compression theory to characterize what we observe in the physical world, the same way we have used number and classical mathematics to quantify more intuitively observables of the physical world. Just like numbers, as such, do not exist independent of the things we count with them, so too these concepts only identify characteristics of physical things, but are not themselves physical. But insofar as things for centuries "possessed" quantifiable attributes, properties, etc. which we describe with numbers, so too in 2023 purely physical things of sufficient complexity "possess" functional capacities and arrangements which we can quantify in terms of "information" and specifically in terms of "bits, bandwidth, coding and compression". It is another matter entirely, whether consciousness itself can be equated with "computation" or an information processing "algorithm". Although not an objectivist, I like the recent musings of Roger Penrose on the issue.

Do you mean that the concept of 'purely physical' now includes abstraction being in the same category as 'physical'?

Besides what Grames and Odden stated what would Stanfield make any decisions on this subject or any other without at least an implicit philosophy, basic implicit epistemology and ethics? Oh yeah he couldn't. What's better passively absorbed implicit philosophy that is non-systematic and full of non-sense and contradictions (as he has repeatedly shown in his posts) or an explicit, systematic, hierarchical approach that leads explicitly to consistent, non-contradictory moral clarity, knowledge, and certainty on this subject and all others. As stated above: Philosophy: Who Needs It?---- Again, the answer is *everyone*.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the NCAA is considering the "radical" idea of permitting colleges to pay actual money to the grown men and women who play spectator sports under their brands. Do note that the term radical is not my sarcastic description, but the newspaper's, and is used unironically in its headline. Here's what they're calling "radical":The proposed changes would create a new top tier, or subdivision, for the richest programs. Those schools would be required to set aside at least $30,000 per year for at least half of their eligible athletes in an educational trust fund designed to serve as a launching pad fund. The subdivision would also require schools to work together to make their own rules for things like scholarship limits, recruiting windows and transfer requirements. This neither challenges the altruistic premise that amateurism is morally superior to professionalism in athletics, nor grants professionalism a (long-overdue) moral sanction: It's just a new flavor of hypocrisy. And it is a sad joke compared to what athletes of similar ages abroad and in other sports are making. I argued years ago that football of the American gridiron variety should adopt the more capitalist (and thus more truly American) multi-tiered league systems of association football (aka soccer) already found in Europe: An expectant mother roots for Ajax FC, renowned for its youth development program. (Image via Pixabay.) The good news is that we are now speaking openly of compensating college-aged athletes. The bad is that we continue doing so on the unimaginative premise that they must play for college teams. Fortunately, we have the [counterexample] of European soccer abroad ... to help people see that there are far better ways -- morally and practically -- to foster young athletes...Interestingly, the article discusses several compensation-centered legal actions pending against the NCAA, including a unionization attempt by a baseball team. While that is occurring within America's hyperregulated and litigious legal environment, and unions are hardly friendly to capitalism, I would bet that has a higher chance of freeing college athletes to turn pro (even if accidentally) than the NCAA's "radical" proposal to continue not really paying college(-aged) athletes. -- CAVLink to Original

Hey guys, I'm a history scholar who also has a keen interest in philosophy, but I always seem to run into a certain group of people who argue that knowledge is dependent on a metaphysical being, like Yahweh/Christian God. This kind of thinking falls under presuppositional apologetics. It just confuses me a bit because I'm not convinced that knowledge relies solely on the existence of a metaphysical entity. I'm wondering if there are any philosophers out there who can provide some insights into this and explain the reasoning behind such claims. Thank You..

My portrait of Ayn Rand. Drawn in Pastel pencils on toned paper. Available as limited edition prints on Cordair Art gallery

"Someone with no regard for philosophy" vs. "someone who follows philosophy without understanding the reason for it" These are the same thing. They are descriptions of the same person from different perspectives. Rand's answer to the question "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" was: everyone. Before her some wit remarked upon how everyone is the slave of some dead philosopher without even knowing it. However, it seems that no one can be a slave of Rand without knowing it and needing to exert effort to know how.

Wooden Spool Mother had fashioned of thick thread a harness for the summer locust, thread run through the hole of the empty spool, the locust to pull across the floor, the children to smile. None could know the invisible thread spool-full, the rough unwindings of tomorrows and dreams, tough rewindings, revisions. The older boy to marriage and break and poverty and roughneck and loss of one arm and women lost and wealth won and death by cancer at fifty-four. The younger boy to no woman, no child, to books and pen ablaze, to man life-love, from nineteen, same age, to that man’s death at forty-one. Orbits six more, to new man life-love. The young girl, alone Mother’s own child, to marriage, children, and theirs, to failed health, non-stop pain, and death at sixty-six. That summer, its locusts, that wooden spool a while more in the second boy alone still unwinding the invisible to visible.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with Ayn Rand's ideas and Objectivism. It's interesting to hear how her writings have had a personal and broad impact on your understanding of life and your place in the world. NJMCDirect is an online ticket payment portal that helps to make the ticket payment to Municipal Court of New Jersey by logging on to www.njmcdirect.com.

Consciousness is indeed an axiomatic concept. However all axioms and axiomatic concepts belong to epistemology, because they provide certain guidance about how to think and know. "Consciousness exists", which affirms that it is real and of this world. Rand claims that consciousness is "the faculty of perceiving that which exists", so it is not only thinking humans that have consciousness but anything alive possessing a faculty for perceiving what exists. It is the year 2023. "Purely physical" now includes information theory: bits, bandwidth, coding and compression theory and all the rest of it. It is not a problem to assert consciousness is purely physical.

Does that not include those who can read and write??? The demonization of more than 5 million people (Palestinians) is akin to how the Jews were seen as sewer rats. That is nonsense. It's a contradiction. Following a philosophy without knowing the reason for it is valuing faith-based ethics. If that's what you're selling then you're definitely posting in the wrong forum.

You might be able to find The Objectivist in a library, perhaps through interlibrary loan. The link at online in my previous post leads to some other sources for the article. CORRECTION: Turns out you can buy it: The Objectivist (1966-1971) (Hardcover) – The Ayn Rand Institute eStore