Easy Truth

not sure if this convinces you that it has been in development for a while. https://www.genengnews.com/topics/translational-medicine/infectious-diseases/whats-next-for-mrna-vaccines/

This is definitely a psychological context. The unconscious intelligence is in fact conscious in a way that is not current awareness or fully conscious/awake. This is different than the context where the definition of consciousness is "conscious of". And yes, this psychological area was very lightly touched on in Objectivism. It is in fact the weak underbelly of the philosophy. Branden was looking at it later in his career but he was not too good at it. This area is where neurosis and creativity lie and also psychological healing. What is described in the quote is the creative mechanism. As another problem, I would add "happiness", is best defined in the psychological context too, since pursuit of it is so important in both politics and ethics. I don't know what the name of the non-psychological context is, it may be the philosophical context, or the epistemological context or maybe it's simply a far more abstract context than psychology.

But does intelligence being part of nature mean that nature is intelligent? Nature simply is.

Intelligence is a natural phenomena. So is life. But that would only imply that intelligence is a subspecies of natural phenomena. That does not mean that natural phenomena necessarily has a property ... which is intelligence. But that is metaphorical. Otherwise, the case is being made for God, or intelligent design and therefore purposeful. I see the psychological benefit, I simply don't have a way to prove such an intelligence.

But this is ascribing intelligence to natural phenomena. Changes that occur to maintain equilibrium, or any reaction, any effect, can be seen as being a result of unconscious intelligence. Isn't that arbitrary? Also using occam's razor, what is the point of adding the intelligence factor when "it is what it is" suffices? The question should come up "to what end?" What is the ultimate reason for the natural world? Why not accept that there is no non-arbitrary reason that is not false? And in the case of the arbitrary one, shouldn't it be ignored? A plant growing toward the sun, a spider creating a web can be seen as living intelligence that is not of the human form. As if that kind of reaction/perception is infused with life. We have to be careful here or the metaphors will overwhelm us. Reaction is not infused with life. Even perception in the sense of identification is not infused with life, as a light detector, or temperature gauge or any measurment device can be seen as intelligenty distinguishing stuff but it simply reacts to something. Furthermore, isn't the final arbiter of human consciousness, the possession of freewill?

Sounds like you're lying to your self. You obviously have a preferred understanding/explanation of it and it is probably far more firm and developed than you wish to admit. The depth of your inquiry shows it. What is the definition of intelligence that is being used here? As in conscious intelligence. And why simply "appears to be" in the statement above? As in why not say "is alive".

Ditto, politics is higher in the knowledge chain and is based on earlier, more fundamental issues such as metaphysics. Rand and Peikoff never made claims about consciousness or existence with some pre-established agenda of attacking altruism, collectivism, or warning about the destructive effects of authoritarianism. Those things might naturally follow from certain conclusions in the more fundamental areas. Not relevant. To benefit you in any way, your appraisal of reality must be accurate. Then other considerations follow. If you can declare I am interested in the subject matter because xyz, the xyz will determine what you will focus on and what will be un-important. It will show what you will ignore. It will not show you're accuracy or correctness, but the direction of your gaze. I would agree that there is no adgenda on the part of Rand on changing the facts to suit her needs, I am saying she is not interested in certain things and left them alone for others to ponder. As far as psychological benefit goes, I do agree that understanding of reality should not be about the benefits, but a way of looking at things may have a perspective that is psychologically beneficial. For instance, there is only one reality. But when a couple are having trouble a third part may say "you each have a different reality" and let us work through it. That statement is incorrect, but beneficial in it's healing purpose. So I was trying to confirm that (healing) attempt is not being made in this discussion. Actually, it's the idea of teleology that is based on the earlier, more fundamental issue of whether existence is intelligent. Not the reverse, as you state. If existence has been intelligently concieved, i.e. created by conciousness for a purpose, although poetic, it would be arbitrary. That is what I was getting at. Well, yes, you could make that claim. But how would you know? How would one be conscious of this existence that perished (which includes the perishing of the consciousness that is supposed to know about the non existence etc etc. I suspect you are talking about an existent that has perished but I'm not sure. But again, I ask, why is one the product of the other??? Why not see it as they come together. Almost like one being the shadow of the other.

To think of existence in terms of intelligence assumes teliological nature which is simply arbitrary. Here one would have to make the case either that it is not arbitrary or there is some psychological benefit to hold existence that way. But epistemologically speaking existence does not come before, it comes "with" conciousness. I wonder why the chicken or the egg issue is so important.

The Objectivist emphasis has been an attack on authoritarianism. If we separate existence from consciousness, making consiousness primary it would be the only thing that would exist. Objectivists see the obvious contradiction in that position: "I am" would include "things have to exist" because "I exist" requires existence to exist... but the primacy of existence will be ignored by proponents of primacy of conciousness for the following belief: "consciousness creates existence". Which means all there is ... is consciousness. Meaning existence is simply what we agree on. Things are not what they are. Only the collective reflects the truth. If we don't agree that "it" exists, it does not exist. Which leads to: Don't believe what you observe or conclude. It can change, based on "agreement" meaning: Things are not as they are, but it depends on who you are around at any moment. Nothing is real unless we agree on it. So don't bother thinking, don't trust your self, it's all fluid. Knowledge of reality will come from your group. Ultimately, the conclusion is that society is the arbiter of truth, not your puny little mind. There is also the issue of entering a room where everyone except you believes in God or the necessity to redistribute wealth. They say, we agree, that is why it is true. In these ways, primacy of existence has major political implications. But from a personal psychological and healing perspective, especially in phenomenology, the world revovles around you. You are prime, you are the center, you are the cause of everying i.e. your experience of existence. This area is not Rand's exploration at all. It's ignored because of her higher priority was in attacking altruism, collectivism, mainly in the political sphere.

Being aware of your own existence is definitely awareness of something, even if you are cut off from other kinds of perception. My point is that Galt dimisses the possibility of such an awareness (only of oneself) in a context where this kind of self-only awareness is widely practiced for millenia in Eastern countries. Its characteristics can be studied using EGG and what not. Yes, that kind of awareness and pursuit is ignored by Ayn Rand. Possibly as part of her disdain for mysticism. In the area of "states of awareness", I have found little even in Branden's work. I have done biofeedback for many years and I am aware of "me" through artifacts of my biology. I could be aware of it and only it. I am also aware in real time, how I can and do lie to myself because of the objective measure. Nevertheless, exploration of sensation or that which I am aware of can be a sensation in itself or a conceptual view point of what is happening. Either way, it is an awareness of only myself by ignoring everything else that exists. Only myself does not mean devoid of existence. Branden would say that she would say I know anything about psychology. It was probably rhetorical, but in the area you bring up, it would fit. I have seen this with many Objectivists I know. The other issue I have seen is regarding the idea of multiplicities, i.e. the different selves in one self that many Objectivists will negate by saying "no, there is only one self". As in, a part of you thinks you sacrificed but on the whole you think you did what needed to be done.

If you consider consciousness as meaning "conscious of", emphasizing the fact that it is not the definition relevant to psychological states of consciousness, it would make sense. I think when there is a conflating the two definitions we end up with that question. I've had the same problem until I realized that there seems to be a non psychological (maybe philosophical vs. psychological) perspective on consciousness in Objectivism. In that way: a "conscious of-ness" that is not "conscious of anything" is conscious of nothing, meaning a consciousness that is unconscious. A consciousness that is conscious of something, implies existence of that something, which implies existence. Another issue is that we are never aware of nothing, yet we use the word and in a sense we are aware of it. But only conceptually, it is a placeholder. That which could be that is not. Like the variable X. So are we aware of X, yes. Does X exist, it has to be resolved. But what if it is not resolved, or what is its status while it is not resolved.

The kind of things that make me cringe about him are statements like: All of these problems are caused by secularism or If you don't believe in God, you will believe anything … https://www.prageru.com/video/ep-251-secularism-the-age-of-the-absurd

All I can say is I admire Ayn Rand, but I wouldn't want to date her.

It's not that simple.

It's about "amount", as in amount of life (time alive) or amount of knowledge. In this case immortality or omniscience points to "all" time or all data. Acquiring all of that is not possible. The issue of flying is contextual. Granted we used tools to achieve what a bird does, but we can in fact travel in the same area above the surface. It may be metaphoric language but we communicate using it. But putting aside immortality, let us say Transhumanism is reaching beyond it's grasp, perhaps it's good in the sense that it will cause longevity i.e. improvement. I think I saw an excerpt from the Jonny Carson show where Rand objected to the idea of the "impossible dream" although she liked the way it was performed. Maybe there is a place for the impossible dream. Or is it dangerous and harmful? When does a utopian idea become a danger to be fought?

Yes and no. I think you're talking about a certain kind of limitation because we get around limitations all the time, as in flying. But in the case of mortality, I would agree that it is part of our identity. If we were immortal, I don't know what happens with right and wrong. Like inherent values exist. A similar (but not same) problem exists with "I will become omniscient" with such and such technology. The limitation of our knowing defines us too. Although in this case it's the nature of knowledge that limits it.

Yes, and that would imply a divergence between Objectivism and this aspect of Transhumanism. From what I have gathered, the ultimate desire of Transhumanism is to put our self in a machine so we become immortal. The collectivism is of concern but this would be the most attractive part. Here is a reference to uploading your mind: https://mindmatters.ai/2019/11/transhumanism-is-it-a-dangerous-idea/

It seems that a fundamental question is if a human, or a consciousness can be duplicatable in the physicals realm. If one duplicates every molecule of a person, would the consciousness stay with the original body, or one single consciousness would control both bodies or will there now be two consciousnesses that diverge after that moment. https://veilofreality.com/transhumanism-the-consciousness-trap/

It seems like there is some glamorization of collectivism within this movement. Not entirely, but it there is the "we will be connected" drum beat. https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-elites-horrific-transhumanist-future/

Both. I hear opposition to this hope or philosophy, I don't understand the concern. Is it being against prosthetic limbs? Or is it a prescription to becoming "inhuman", whatever that would mean? In the other thread I mention a philosopher that seems to be linked to transhumanism. I am still researching the subject.

The above is what caught my eye. What exactly is the logic of transhumanism?

I'm willing to look at the reports but they have to be coherent. The uptick in mortality can be causes by the sudden change in economics and Covid itself, and lock downs and changes in life style so it can be refuted. Reports of undetermined this or that simply means, they are undetermined, until they are determined. You are deciding to be the determiner. It's just not enough. The hold up here is the word "safe". Is the vaccine safe enough for the government to mandate it? No, not even if it were 100 percent safe, there is NO place for government to do that. Safe enough for someone at high risk to take it. Probably yes, including the manipulated media's reporting. The fact is that you are making an assertion based on some news source, or some information source. I am going with the media and my own personal experience and the recommendations of Doctors that I believe care. We could be wrong, but then, you could be wrong by that standard too, so the "you could be wrong" angle is a moot point. For instance, I will grant you that Biden is corrupt, that Ukraine is corrupt, and that the Covid jab has risks involved. But Biden and a Republican congress is better than a Trump with a Republican congress, meaning gridlock is best. That is not based on news sources, just an over all assessment. Ukraine is corrupt, but not corrupt enough for the population to abandon and not fight and die for their country. Again, I don't need a special new source to see that. And with Covid, again, no mandate on principle, but is it as dangerous as ingesting same amounts of arsenic? no it is not.

No, not Covid, but the flu. The raw potential was discovered in the 1960s. It's the delivery process that was slow to come by, and I think was too damaging. I can only conclude that it was tested enough, otherwise, I doubt that it would be accepted by multiple western countries. Unless all these countries are brainwashed by the same source. I will grant you that there possibly is not enough time to be sure of side effects. But that does not mean the lack of time means you can be sure that there are statistically significant side effects. Especially with personal experience and seeing people around us, not falling and dying from the vaccine. Unless of course, data is being suppressed. But if that is the case, we have to go by the indications, the evidence. But this whole tangent is about how we get our valid information, including about the Ukraine situation. I can only speak in broad strokes, I don't claim to know specifics.

I can see that we don't know how it will effect reproduction, so the issue of children being vaccinated is still open. But for adults, my understanding is that development has been a very long time, at first causing serious heart problems until they figured out how to deal with that so it effect a small percentage now. I'm willing to hear your arguments but I have heard things like Covid is a bioweapon all the way to chips are being injected into people so you have to be specific about your position. The only argument I have is against mandates. These things have risks and no government should be able to force people to take them. But as far as safe goes, an the right to try goes, with most Americans having had at least one shot, it seems like they are not that dangerous, meaning that 99 percent do okay based on what I have seen. A seventy year old has to assess what risk they want to take and I can understand if they do or even if they don't get vaccinated.

The problem is that explaining her philosophy has been done repeatedly and this type of thing happens. It is in fact necessary, to answer questions, when they appear. This idea that the audience will read something that is comprehensive is not true. They want their questions answered more than anything. And when we don't answer them and expect them to read or hear reams of information that might answer their specific question, we loose. Why not simply say read these books and you'll understand the problems with the article. This is putting your head in the sand. Refuting even one paragraph is going to make far more of a difference than giving a bibliography to read.