[The Solution to the Problem of Universals]

Oh boy, this was an interesting topic. ThomasF, I think you underestimate Ayn Rand's understanding of the problem of universals. In one sense she has already found a solution which is very similar to yours. She states repeatedly that all existence is relational. This means that even though existents are distinct, they are also connected. Rand also says that the essence of concept formation is measurement omission. Obviously this implies that she acknowledges that existence is measurable, which precisely entails the relational nature of existence. Relations underlie measurement. Measurement in turn, if you did not quite capture it, is the process of identifying similarity and difference. I think Stephen Boydstun has done some interesting work in this regard and I am anxiously awaiting further developments from him:

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Boydst...t_Program.shtml

Kent Palmer (a mystic Sufi thinker!) once created a metaphor to capture the relationship between objects and relations that I to this day find very enlightning, namely the conjunction. What is a conjunction? It can be represented as a "+"-sign, and it has the effect of holding two separate entities together, while at the same time holding them apart. Thus A+B is a conjunction, where the "+" both makes the objects A and B distinct while at the same time forming a relation between them. I find that metaphor quite profound and I am sure that it can be refined within the context of Objectivism.

Now, Ayn Rand was not a professional philosopher. From an academic point of view she barely published anything, and therefore her philosophy at most counts as a sketch of a philosphy. That is a bit harsh on her because her sketch followed her own philosophy: they were the bare essentials. Although there is plenty of room for "fleshing out" her philosophy and in many areas take it to a whole new level, she didn't leave out any essentials from philosophy, including metaphysics. What Boydstun is doing is to try to flesh out the underlying metaphysical structure of measurement. It wouldn't surprise me if the end result of a long such inquiry is a mathematical theory of how the mind and existence *must* be in order to result in precisely that objective, relational universe we live in.

[Why is the Initiation of Force Immoral?]

I'm new to Objectivism, and have found most of it very insightful, and I certainly classify myself as a potential Objectivist. However, after reading Peikoff's argument for why the initiation of force is evil (or immoral) in OPAR, a question popped into my mind that I haven't been able to resolve through the writings of Rand that I have available: Why is the initiation of force immoral?

I think I understand what you are asking. There are THREE primary reasons why the initiation of force is immoral from the perspective of the initiator:

1) man is a PRODUCTIVE animal, and by initiating force against other such productive beings he undercuts his own productive rational nature. Man needs to live as a self-sufficient, independent, productive being in order to be happy and prosper. By initiating force, he starts living like a fraud, attempting to cheat reality, and a parasite which destroys his mind and renders him incapable of being happy. THEREFORE initiating force against others is immoral, even if he could get away with it.

2) most of the time he could not get away with initiating force. He will be punished by others. This is not in his selv-interest.

3) what kind of society is better for a selfish person to live in in the long run: 1) a peaceful one or 2) a society in civil war? Naturally the peaceful one. By initiating force one dramatically undercuts the prospects of living in a peaceful society and this will cost one's peace of mind and the prosperity of free trade among rational beings.

[Finite existence]

Sorry about the late reply. I am glad you find this debate stimulating, and I hope that you are also realizing that I do not hold a simplistic position that can be easily shot down.

You are responding to whom exactly? What is it in my post that made you think my position was otherwise? What i am disputing is that this impact is DIRECT, period, because you want to use that assertion to show that it is therefore a real substance of sorts. In other words, without PHYSICAL ACTION, it has no impact whatsoever on the world, which is why we don't censor THOUGHTS or ideas.

I think thoughts ARE real physical actions that have real impact on the physical world, but it just happens to be your own body and the individual rights grant you exclusive rights to do what ever you want to do with your body, including think whatever thoughts you may have. One of the reasons Objectivism focuses on self-esteem and a healthy thought pattern (rationality, valuing one's ego etc.) is that an unhealthy thought pattern leads to physical unhealth: depression and anxiety, which leads to illness and early death. That's a real physical effect of thought.

But then, this is true even for dogs. Thus, the "impact" of human consciousness is nothing more special than that of dogs. Neither has direct impact; neither can be "felt" or "sensed" (or scientifically "measured"?) by an external thing.

First, I do think human and dog consciousness has something important in common. What dogs lack is the intelligence to do abstraction. Otherwise I think that animals have pretty much the same experiences as ourselves. Second, one day consciousness could be measured as an action on matter. Just because we can't measure it today doesn't mean that there is nothing to measure.

Your "thus" does not follow from the statements preceding it, I'm afraid. Did human consciousness necessarily evolve from monkey consciousness? Is this your version of Darwinism?

Yes, human consciousness necessarily evolved from a lower kind of consciousness. Our mind is equally much an evolutionary product as the rest of our body. It evolved gradually, step by step, climbing the latter of mount improbable.

And what does "a seed of freedom" mean, anyway? Without knowing precisely how consciousness arises, how can you even know it requires some kind of "seed" in a more primitive state? Does this seed exist in the amoeba?

It's quite possible that it exists in amoeba. The reason animals evolved a central nervous system, eyes and ears and a brain is because a UNITY of some sort evaluates and integrates the information from our sensory organs. That unity is consciousness.

Our brain does "know" how to do this (integration and differentiation) but no one knows HOW it knows.

This is a fallacy. Integration means holding a single unifying thought in mind all at once. How can a collection of atoms do that?

Onar, your reasoning here would be true even if you assumed that it is the human brain that *does* something (and that *action* being what is called consciousness). Thus i can rephrase your statement: "But that means that there has been a selective pressure for the brain's process of consciousness, and that can only mean that the human brain does something special. It has a real, metaphysical process that does real work and can be selected for by evolution."

Obviously the brain is the vehicle by which consciousness is created, and thus evolution has to act on the brain. But we return yet again to integration. It doesn't matter how many atoms you have in your brain and how you organize them so long as there is no integration, which is the function of consciousness. Think about the million pixels or so on your screen. You perceive them as ONE image. But try to get a computer to do the same thing. You'll have a really, really hard time. (No-one has succeded yet) Computers essentially can look at one pixel at a time, and has no concept of space and unity. To a computer an image is just a collection of data. It does not "see" it, i.e. experience it as one. This integration is crucial to the operation of the mind and must have been subject to selective pressure.

And I am not saying that the two are the same substance either. I am saying one is the action of the other ("the" is correct in this kind of sentence, i think ).

Are you saying that we could explain human behavior if we knew all the states of all our atoms?

But my ability to identify is metaphysically the same as your ability to identify. It's the SAME ability qua ability. See my last sentence in this post (below).

I don't see how this explains the statements I disputed: that we NEED identity in order to survive, etc etc. My point was that you have it backwards. Because of our metaphysical identity, we can only survive in a particular way that conforms to that identity. So, you epistemologically BEGIN with your identity. Read your statement again to see what i meant when i said you have it backwards.

Ah, so you believe your personal identity is your body and your metaphysical identity is your mind? I say your metaphysical identity is you qua man (the species). Your personal identity is you qua onar (the individual). This is important because it could resolve many of our differences in this discussion.

I don't understand this. To me the mind and body forms a unity which together make up my metaphysical identity. It makes little sense to speak of consciousness alone as your personal identity without recognizing that all your memories are stored in the brain.

You see, your identity as Onar is primarily for others, as i said earlier, not for you as such. You won't need it if you are the only one in the world.

That's simply blatantly untrue. I need to know whether the tree I am chopping down is part of me or not. Is my leg a part of me? Well, then chopping it off would be very, very bad for me. My immune system most certainly needs to distinguish me from the non-me all the time. It fights foreign elements in my body to protect my body. But in order to protect your body the immune sysem needs to know what YOUR body IS. I.e. it needs to know your identity. You don't need a single person in the whole world in order to need an identity. Mentally you also need to be an identity. You need to distinguish your thoughts from sensory data, and your senses do that quite well. Just like your immune system your eyes and ears tell you what is from the outside, i.e. not part of your identity.

[Finite existence]

Sorry about the late reply. I am glad you find this debate stimulating, and I hope that you are also realizing that I do not hold a simplistic position that can be easily shot down.

You are responding to whom exactly? What is it in my post that made you think my position was otherwise? What i am disputing is that this impact is DIRECT, period, because you want to use that assertion to show that it is therefore a real substance of sorts. In other words, without PHYSICAL ACTION, it has no impact whatsoever on the world, which is why we don't censor THOUGHTS or ideas.

I think thoughts ARE real physical actions that have real impact on the physical world, but it just happens to be your own body and the individual rights grant you exclusive rights to do what ever you want to do with your body, including think whatever thoughts you may have. One of the reasons Objectivism focuses on self-esteem and a healthy thought pattern (rationality, valuing one's ego etc.) is that an unhealthy thought pattern leads to physical unhealth: depression and anxiety, which leads to illness and early death. That's a real physical effect of thought.

But then, this is true even for dogs. Thus, the "impact" of human consciousness is nothing more special than that of dogs. Neither has direct impact; neither can be "felt" or "sensed" (or scientifically "measured"?) by an external thing.

First, I do think human and dog consciousness has something important in common. What dogs lack is the intelligence to do abstraction. Otherwise I think that animals have pretty much the same experiences as ourselves. Second, one day consciousness could be measured as an action on matter. Just because we can't measure it today doesn't mean that there is nothing to measure.

Your "thus" does not follow from the statements preceding it, I'm afraid. Did human consciousness necessarily evolve from monkey consciousness? Is this your version of Darwinism?

Yes, human consciousness necessarily evolved from a lower kind of consciousness. Our mind is equally much an evolutionary product as the rest of our body. It evolved gradually, step by step, climbing the latter of mount improbable.

And what does "a seed of freedom" mean, anyway? Without knowing precisely how consciousness arises, how can you even know it requires some kind of "seed" in a more primitive state? Does this seed exist in the amoeba?

It's quite possible that it exists in amoeba. The reason animals evolved a central nervous system, eyes and ears and a brain is because a UNITY of some sort evaluates and integrates the information from our sensory organs. That unity is consciousness.

Our brain does "know" how to do this (integration and differentiation) but no one knows HOW it knows.

This is a fallacy. Integration means holding a single unifying thought in mind all at once. How can a collection of atoms do that?

Onar, your reasoning here would be true even if you assumed that it is the human brain that *does* something (and that *action* being what is called consciousness). Thus i can rephrase your statement: "But that means that there has been a selective pressure for the brain's process of consciousness, and that can only mean that the human brain does something special. It has a real, metaphysical process that does real work and can be selected for by evolution."

Obviously the brain is the vehicle by which consciousness is created, and thus evolution has to act on the brain. But we return yet again to integration. It doesn't matter how many atoms you have in your brain and how you organize them so long as there is no integration, which is the function of consciousness. Think about the million pixels or so on your screen. You perceive them as ONE image. But try to get a computer to do the same thing. You'll have a really, really hard time. (No-one has succeded yet) Computers essentially can look at one pixel at a time, and has no concept of space and unity. To a computer an image is just a collection of data. It does not "see" it, i.e. experience it as one. This integration is crucial to the operation of the mind and must have been subject to selective pressure.

And I am not saying that the two are the same substance either. I am saying one is the action of the other ("the" is correct in this kind of sentence, i think ).

Are you saying that we could explain human behavior if we knew all the states of all our atoms?

But my ability to identify is metaphysically the same as your ability to identify. It's the SAME ability qua ability. See my last sentence in this post (below).

I don't see how this explains the statements I disputed: that we NEED identity in order to survive, etc etc. My point was that you have it backwards. Because of our metaphysical identity, we can only survive in a particular way that conforms to that identity. So, you epistemologically BEGIN with your identity. Read your statement again to see what i meant when i said you have it backwards.

Ah, so you believe your personal identity is your body and your metaphysical identity is your mind? I say your metaphysical identity is you qua man (the species). Your personal identity is you qua onar (the individual). This is important because it could resolve many of our differences in this discussion.

I don't understand this. To me the mind and body forms a unity which together make up my metaphysical identity. It makes little sense to speak of consciousness alone as your personal identity without recognizing that all your memories are stored in the brain.

You see, your identity as Onar is primarily for others, as i said earlier, not for you as such. You won't need it if you are the only one in the world.

That's simply blatantly untrue. I need to know whether the tree I am chopping down is part of me or not. Is my leg a part of me? Well, then chopping it off would be very, very bad for me. My immune system most certainly needs to distinguish me from the non-me all the time. It fights foreign elements in my body to protect my body. But in order to protect your body the immune sysem needs to know what YOUR body IS. I.e. it needs to know your identity. You don't need a single person in the whole world in order to need an identity. Mentally you also need to be an identity. You need to distinguish your thoughts from sensory data, and your senses do that quite well. Just like your immune system your eyes and ears tell you what is from the outside, i.e. not part of your identity.

[Finite existence]

Sorry about the late reply. I am glad you find this debate stimulating, and I hope that you are also realizing that I do not hold a simplistic position that can be easily shot down.

You are responding to whom exactly? What is it in my post that made you think my position was otherwise? What i am disputing is that this impact is DIRECT, period, because you want to use that assertion to show that it is therefore a real substance of sorts. In other words, without PHYSICAL ACTION, it has no impact whatsoever on the world, which is why we don't censor THOUGHTS or ideas.

I think thoughts ARE real physical actions that have real impact on the physical world, but it just happens to be your own body and the individual rights grant you exclusive rights to do what ever you want to do with your body, including think whatever thoughts you may have. One of the reasons Objectivism focuses on self-esteem and a healthy thought pattern (rationality, valuing one's ego etc.) is that an unhealthy thought pattern leads to physical unhealth: depression and anxiety, which leads to illness and early death. That's a real physical effect of thought.

But then, this is true even for dogs. Thus, the "impact" of human consciousness is nothing more special than that of dogs. Neither has direct impact; neither can be "felt" or "sensed" (or scientifically "measured"?) by an external thing.

First, I do think human and dog consciousness has something important in common. What dogs lack is the intelligence to do abstraction. Otherwise I think that animals have pretty much the same experiences as ourselves. Second, one day consciousness could be measured as an action on matter. Just because we can't measure it today doesn't mean that there is nothing to measure.

Your "thus" does not follow from the statements preceding it, I'm afraid. Did human consciousness necessarily evolve from monkey consciousness? Is this your version of Darwinism?

Yes, human consciousness necessarily evolved from a lower kind of consciousness. Our mind is equally much an evolutionary product as the rest of our body. It evolved gradually, step by step, climbing the latter of mount improbable.

And what does "a seed of freedom" mean, anyway? Without knowing precisely how consciousness arises, how can you even know it requires some kind of "seed" in a more primitive state? Does this seed exist in the amoeba?

It's quite possible that it exists in amoeba. The reason animals evolved a central nervous system, eyes and ears and a brain is because a UNITY of some sort evaluates and integrates the information from our sensory organs. That unity is consciousness.

Our brain does "know" how to do this (integration and differentiation) but no one knows HOW it knows.

This is a fallacy. Integration means holding a single unifying thought in mind all at once. How can a collection of atoms do that?

Onar, your reasoning here would be true even if you assumed that it is the human brain that *does* something (and that *action* being what is called consciousness). Thus i can rephrase your statement: "But that means that there has been a selective pressure for the brain's process of consciousness, and that can only mean that the human brain does something special. It has a real, metaphysical process that does real work and can be selected for by evolution."

Obviously the brain is the vehicle by which consciousness is created, and thus evolution has to act on the brain. But we return yet again to integration. It doesn't matter how many atoms you have in your brain and how you organize them so long as there is no integration, which is the function of consciousness. Think about the million pixels or so on your screen. You perceive them as ONE image. But try to get a computer to do the same thing. You'll have a really, really hard time. (No-one has succeded yet) Computers essentially can look at one pixel at a time, and has no concept of space and unity. To a computer an image is just a collection of data. It does not "see" it, i.e. experience it as one. This integration is crucial to the operation of the mind and must have been subject to selective pressure.

And I am not saying that the two are the same substance either. I am saying one is the action of the other ("the" is correct in this kind of sentence, i think ).

Are you saying that we could explain human behavior if we knew all the states of all our atoms?

But my ability to identify is metaphysically the same as your ability to identify. It's the SAME ability qua ability. See my last sentence in this post (below).

I don't see how this explains the statements I disputed: that we NEED identity in order to survive, etc etc. My point was that you have it backwards. Because of our metaphysical identity, we can only survive in a particular way that conforms to that identity. So, you epistemologically BEGIN with your identity. Read your statement again to see what i meant when i said you have it backwards.

Ah, so you believe your personal identity is your body and your metaphysical identity is your mind? I say your metaphysical identity is you qua man (the species). Your personal identity is you qua onar (the individual). This is important because it could resolve many of our differences in this discussion.

I don't understand this. To me the mind and body forms a unity which together make up my metaphysical identity. It makes little sense to speak of consciousness alone as your personal identity without recognizing that all your memories are stored in the brain.

You see, your identity as Onar is primarily for others, as i said earlier, not for you as such. You won't need it if you are the only one in the world.

That's simply blatantly untrue. I need to know whether the tree I am chopping down is part of me or not. Is my leg a part of me? Well, then chopping it off would be very, very bad for me. My immune system most certainly needs to distinguish me from the non-me all the time. It fights foreign elements in my body to protect my body. But in order to protect your body the immune sysem needs to know what YOUR body IS. I.e. it needs to know your identity. You don't need a single person in the whole world in order to need an identity. Mentally you also need to be an identity. You need to distinguish your thoughts from sensory data, and your senses do that quite well. Just like your immune system your eyes and ears tell you what is from the outside, i.e. not part of your identity.

[Finite existence]

You might have missed the meaning of my dog example.

No, I understood it completely. I just tried to illustrate the fact that just because two things (dog consciousness and human consciousness) have impact on reality doesn't mean that they impact the world in the same way.

Well, this is what I am disputing. The identification of this distinction has to be circular.

Obviously. Free will is an axiom, and to assume that we do not have free will leads to a contradiction. If we are determined then we are clearly also determined to think that we are determined, and could easily have been determined to think otherwise. Why trust a determined being? Hence, the only way we can make meaningful statements about the world is if we are free.

It is only because you know that free will is more useful or more productive that you can claim there is a difference in impact on reality.

If free will has no impact on reality, then why on earth did it evolve? Why did consciousness evolve if the brain could do just as well without it? The fact that so much of our brain chemistry is built around producing consciousness and free will is strong evidence for the efficacy of consciousness and free will.

A prisoner in chains is metaphysically just as free as a non-prisoner. Same thing with a person living in a colonised country and one living in a free country. The reason such a person can even struggle for freedom is because he has free will, in the same way and to the same degree, as someone in a free society. This is a difference in *political* freedom rather than metaphysical freedom.

Agreed. But there are other ways to imprison a man. By drugging him for instance, so that his consciousness behaves like that of a dog. Metaphysically he is still free, but now he has a lot more in common with the dog. My point is that there is some quality to consciousness which allows it to evolve into conceptual free will. Thus, there has to be a seed of freedom even in the most primitive of consciousnesses.

Perhaps i wasn't too clear. Every action of the brain is not consciousness, but consciousness is a brain action. Perhaps it was the word 'the' which was problematic, but i figured you'd understand my meaning from the context. Anyway, it's "a", not "the".

Hold it right there! This transition from "the" to "a" is highly nontrivial. The function of consciousness is to integrate, which is to reduce information from many to one. But how does the brain "know" how to do this? It doesn't. Evolution has just selected the kinds of chemical combinations in our brain that creates our particular kind of consciousness, i.e. reduces information in our peculiar kind of way. But that means that there has been a selective pressure for consciousness, and that can only mean that consciousness *does* something. It's a real, metaphysical thing that does real work that can be selected for by evolution.

That sounds like a very arbitrary assertion, one that is currently unfalsifiable, therefore of not much value, intellectually.

I'm just showing that at the moment there is no intrinsic reason to assume that the brain and consciousness are the same substance, so we shouldn't make any such assumptions about it.

Ability to identify is my identity? So, i am not different from you, since you also have this ability. So, even if i die, my identity continues - IN YOU. [Hoping that from that absurdity you can see your equivocation].

Not a universal ability to identify, YOUR ability to identify. It is a self-generating system.

Ayn Rand actually said that? Please quote. My bet is that you have things backwards.

I don't have an exact quote in front of me, but her famous indestructible robot example and explication of the origin of value is the source. I believe this is where she defines value as "that which we act to gain or keep" implying that living is an active process.

But you are confusing something. You have a metaphysical identity and you have a personal identity. You seem to be equivocating between the two and this is not helping your argument (or the discussion) at all.

When you say that when you die your identity ceases, what do you mean? Your metaphysical identity or your personal identity?

Both. We are ONE system, mind and body. When we die both our brain AND our mind dies.

[Finite existence]

A non sequitur. What are you talking about now, Omar? Even dogs have consciousness, and it has a "real impact on matter", but it does not have "the metaphysical ability of free will". So, "impact on matter" (directly or indirectly) obviously has nothing to do with free will.

First of all, consciousness has real impact on reality, as does gravity. This does NOT imply that consciousness=gravity. Similarly, free will has impact on reality but in a different way than mere consciousness. That is, you can measure the difference between free will and no free will.

Second, what we call "free will" is really conceptual consciousness. Dogs have an element of freedom in their consciousness, just like a prisoner in chains has an element of freedom (he can choose to relax his muscles, choose what to think about etc.) But the force of instinct is so overwhelming that it makes sense to distinguish qualitatively between perceptual and conceptual consciousness, labelling the latter as "free" and former as not free. But we should never lose sight of the fact that consciousness evolved because it was functional and had survival value. What was its function? To CHOOSE.

No, Onar. ACTING (consistent acting) on contradictions in mind results in death.

I agree. This is the way we translate epistemological contradictions into consequences in the real world.

This is simply because they do not consistently act on those contradictions. So, it is the physical actions that directly lead to death, not the contradictions in the mind. These have absolutely no impact on the universe (qua epistemological contradictions), which is why we do (or should) not censor people's thoughts and ideas, no matter how irrational they are.

No disagreement there.

Um ... no. It will never be measurable, at least not in the way you interpret this. Why? It is just action; consciousness is the action of the brain. Although it metaphysically exists, it is not a metaphysical thing as such. It's a metaphysical process.

This may or may not be true, but consciousness is MORE than merely the actions of our brain and nervous system. Why? Because if it were a simple one-to-one relationship between brain and mind we would be conscious of every single signal in our body, every heartbeat, every breath, every taste, every impression, every decision, every movement in our body. It has been suggested that autism is precisely the inability to filter out of consciousness impulses from the environment. If that's true a 1-1 relationship between brain and mind results in vegetation and severe disability. The whole point of consciousness is that it reduces reality, the function of mind is to integrate. Now, I am open to the possibility that there are qualities or properties in matter that allow them to "extinguish" consciousness and thereby enable integration, much like the magnetization of metal where all magnetic poles become unilaterally aligned. But it is perfectly possible that consciousness is built from an "ether" which interacts with the brain. In any case, consciousness is so much more than just "the action of the brain."

Mind and body are really different *aspects* of the same thing, which is why their distinction is epistemological rather than metaphysical.

It could well be that mind and body are different aspects of the same thing, or it could be that spirit is a separate substance that just floats everywhere in space. Epistemologically it makes no sense to assume that they are one until there is evidence for this. Similarly electromagnetism and gravity can be treated as separate phenomena until they are shown to be interrelated. The only thing that in my view points in the direction of a unification of mind and matter is the observed noise in quantum mechanics. This is precisely what I would expect to observe if consciousness/free will is an aspect of matter -- wiggle room in matter.

Your emphasis is right this time. Effort. Action. That's what leads to destruction. That's what's "real" (with respect to matter), not the contradictions (in consciousness).

The distinction betwen existence and "existence" helps. :-)

The only thing you can validly mean by emphasizing the “YOUR” is simply your ability to indentify.

But that IS your identity.

Your identity is ALWAYS primarily to others, whether you are dead or alive. Would you really need an identity if you were the only person in the world?

The answer is yes, just like an organism needs an identity (self-production) even if it were the only organism in the world. Again Ayn Rand gives the correct view on this: survival requires effort. We need to WORK and PRODUCE to survive. If we don't act for our survival, we die. This active nature of our being demands that we have an identity. We need to act to survive, but act for WHOM? For ourselves, our "I", our identity. The very concept of self-production consists of two distinct components: 1) the process of PRODUCTION, and the identity of SELF. This is at the very core of egoism. We don't exist for others, we exist for our SELVES. To paraphrase freely from the Fountainhead: "In order to be able to say 'I exist', we must first be able to say 'I'."

[Finite existence]

When you say that contradictions can exist in consciousness, you must realise that this can only mean that they exist EPISTEMOLOGICALLY, and NOT metaphysically.

Correct.

The problem is that you are treating them as *metaphysically* existing in your consciousness, which is impossible and meaningless.

I disagree, I don't think I am treating them metaphysically. I am treating *consciousness* as a metaphysical existent, but not the *contents* of consciousness, which is epistemological. Now, my point is that in order for consciousness to have the kind of ability we call free will, it actually has to have an impact on the world. Consciousness is something real, created somehow by our brain, but really affecting our brain. Consciousness could be a hitherto undiscovered aspect or parameter of matter, or it could be a different substance from matter altogether, but regardless it must have real impact on matter for it to have the metaphysical ability of free will.

In this context the epistemological contents of the metaphysical consciousness becomes very important, because since we act and choose freely based on that content, contradictions in mind can have real world effects. In fact, trying to embrace contradictions fully leads to death. That is, to non-existence. And that is precisely the kind of metaphysical "behavior" we would expect from contradictions. Contradictions cannot exist, i.e. they must be non-existent. Embracing contradictions in mind using our free will results in death. Our being as individuals becomes non-existent.

Why is this important? The contents of your consciousness do not exist metaphysically. What does this mean? It means that "exist" is only a manner of speaking in application to "them". It means that consciousness can not contain any existents. Consciousness is merely an action (or a process); the specific action of perceiving (and conceptualising, for humans). When you see something, this does not mean it is now in your consciousness. and when you imagine something, this still does not mean it is in your consciousness. But we can say it is there just for the sake of discussion, for the sake of identification (integration and differentiation). The word we use for this is 'epistemological'.

We distinguish between body and mind ONLY for the sake of discussion, for the sake of identification, to integrate and differentiate certain aspects of the SAME metaphysical thing. Hence it is only an *epistemological* distinction.

This I am not certain of that I agree with. I think Binswanger may be correct that consciousness one day may turn out to be a measurable effect in the brain, i.e. something that actually impacts matter. My current favorite image of the brain is as a kind of musical instrument, an organ playing music, and the standing waves of sound is what we call consciousness. Obviously this requires a kind of "air" or mind-stuff, spirit if you like. I think of this "air" as something that exists everywhere in the universe, possibly it is a property of matter, but it has no structure without matter. So the brain is actually molding and shaping this mind-stuff, creating its content, the stuff that we say is *in* mind. So the brain presents to consciousness its content, and the consciousness then chooses. When we die, that structure dissolves, so our *mind* literally ceases to exist. Just like a wave ceases to exist when the organ stops playing.

Sure, the mind and body still makes up one entity, just like the bones and soft-tissue are inseparable parts of the same unity, but the stuff of mind is real.

Now, what you are doing is saying that a contradiction EXISTS in your consciousness, and interpreting this "existence" metaphysically instead of epistemologically. This leads you to the error of concluding that the axioms of METAPHYSICS are defied in this thing called consciousness. Had you realised that the contradiction that CAN exist is not METAPHYSICAL, but epistemological, you would have naturally realised that the axioms of METAPHYSICS are still not defied even "in" your consciousness.

I understand what you're getting at, and I agree, but I still think you are barking up the wrong tree. I guess the term "exist in consciousness" is ambiguous and the root of the misunderstanding. "Exist" is a better term to show that it is epistemological, i.e. that it exists only as an interpretation of the mind, i.e. the experienced meaning that the mind puts into it.

Thus, your theory of how free will arises remain invalid, because your premises are philosophically mistaken.

Not at all. Consciousness exists, contradictions in mind "exist." Consciousness and its free choices has real, measurable impact on the world , and thereby is able to translate "existence" into effects in the world that "exists." Thus, people may e,g, take their broken, contradictory concepts of communism which "exist" and try to build a real communistic system only to realize that reality won't permit contradictions to exist. The effort will fail. However, the *effort* actually did exist. We can observe misery and failure unfolding. We could even say that communism exists temporarily, which brings us back to my quantum mechanics example. At the quantum level particles apparently go in and out of existence from nothing. Obviously something funky is going on here, and I can't help but to notice that their brief temporary existence resembles that of the brief temporary attempts of enacting contradictory ideas in reality by conscious, free beings.

No, death is not the end of identity.

Your death most certainly is the death of YOUR identy.

A "dead person" is an identity.

Only to others than the dead person himself.

(In fact, if you paint your car from blue to red, you can equally say it has lost its "blueness" and is now something else: a red car; just like you can say a person has lost his life or consciousness, and he is now something else: dead.)

This argument is most certainly true for inanimate objects. A car doesn't care whether it is red or blue, taken care of or destroyed. In all cases it is just changing forms of matter consistent with the laws of nature. With teleological entities it is truly different. As Ayn Rand says, life is metaphysically different from all other stuff in reality because matter cannot be destroyed, whereas life can die. I interpret this to mean that life has a very special kind of identity, namely a self-produced identity. Since the identity is produced by the identity itself, death actually destroys the identity. It ceases to exist. It really does go out of existence. But from the rest of the universe's perspective the organism was just a bunch of atoms, an object that changed form.

So what we appear to have is life and consciousness as a kind of metaphysical "super layer" on "top" of existence at large, i.e. on top of matter. You could argue that they only "exist", i.e. can only be ascribed meaning to by a mind, but what truly complicates things is consciousness. We ARE after all consciousness. Consciousness doesn't just "exist", it is a real phenomenon, with a real existence. So the super layer is more than mere appearence, it seems, and in this layer we can observe contradictions as real effects in the world, but only temporarily. Any being that attempts to live contradictory will be weeded out of existence, i.e. die.

[Finite existence]

(snip)

Finally a reply which goes slightly beyond Objectivism 101. First, let me emphasize that I am NOT saying that consciousness doesn't have an identity, but its identity involves the ability to be able to choose freely and it is this ability I am trying to understand how can arise. What I have claimed is that contradictions can exist in consciousness, but not in reality. What I mean by "exist in consciousness" is not that consciousness itself can be twisted to behave in a contradictory manner, this would constitute a contradiction _in reality_, but that the mind can hold the _idea_ of contradiction and non-existence as _content_. Furthermore I have speculated that this ability is integral to the ability of free will.

Now, it is one thing for you to understand that a unicorn only exists in the mind, but not in reality, but some colleagues here have been arguing for the existence of something they call empty space (or “space”) in REALITY.

I'm not sure who you are referring to but I have been arguing for the existence of an ETHER. I'm not sure that counts as space, but it sure is *something.*

For you to claim that something exists in reality, you MUST be able to scientifically identify it.

The ether can be identified in my opinion. The evidence points in the direction that mass influences the density of the ether, because light is refracted around massive objects.

The other one called it a “potentiality” and that’s even worse nonsense; even a “potentiality” must have scientific identification if it exists in reality. To posit something that can exist OUTSIDE existence or WITHOUT identity is meaningless, no matter what name you give to it, and of course it is SURPRISING when it is “real” Objectivists who persist in that fallacy even AFTER it is pointed out to them.

Again I am not sure who you are referring to, but I completely agree. Potentiality has the same and only kind of existence as santa claus, i.e. as a fiction, an imagination, a linguistic entity, stuff of mind. Claiming that these potentialities could ACTUALLY exist amounts to creating a second world, i.e. supernaturalism.

The irony, of course, is that you are now being essentially told that it is impossible to imagine something that contradicts reality. That's wrong. What is impossible (and meaningless) is to imagine something that contradicts THE AXIOMS of reality, as they were attempting to do in their “thought experiments”.

I found it clarifying, but it doesn't address my own speculation, namely the role of the ability to imagine contradictions and non-existents in free will. Furthermore, consciousness (and teleological entities in general) seem to have rather peculiar abilities compared to existence at large. A consciousness or a living being can DIE, cease to exist. I.e. its identity is not preserved. Ayn Rand identified mortality as the basis of values, but I'm not sure if she ever addressed the problem that death is the end of identity. A is A, but at the end of one's life A is A no longer. Of course, the atoms don't cease to exist, but that integrated identity known as the "I" does vanish. Yet another property that seems to place consciousness (and life) in a metaphysically category than existence at large.

[Finite existence]

If it doesn't exist it 'could' not exist either

Actually, there are two different kinds of non-existents here. Non-existents that COULD exist in reality, and non-existents that COULDN'T exist in reality. Prior to 1870 cars didn't exist, but there was certainly nothing in the laws of nature that prevented it from existing. Dry water on the other hand could not exist in reality. We would actually have to change the laws of physics to do that. However, in both cases I can imagine these non-existents, and it is the same faculty that conceives the possible non-existent and the impossible one.

No, you can't imagine a unicorn.

I can picture it quite clearly in my mind.

Keep it simple, try to imagine 1=2.

That's not simple. That's a "hard" contradiction, one that can only be expressed linguistically, but not understood.

What 'produces' free-will is the fact that you are finite and part of reality.

If that were true rocks would have free will.

Thus, being part of reality, you have to assume that you have a free will.

Of course, and I have never claimed otherwise. Am I being exceptionally dense here? I am not questioning free will, I am pondering on what it IS and how it can exist.

If your mind automatically weeded through contradictions for you, how much easier life would be! I’m all for the equivalent of a mental garbage collector.

Precisely.

I don't think this is exactly right. Evasion is the process of looking away or disregarding evidence. You can still hold something valid in your consciousness in the process of doing that. For example, I can focus on a basketball or hockey puck while evading the existence of an on coming truck.

I have to agree with you that very primitive evasion involves simply focusing on a different existent. But in general as a way of living evasion involves contradictions. You most certainly accumulate contradictory viewpoints by constantly evading.

[Finite existence]

I'm not so certain that you can. I cannot, for the life of me, imagine a round square. And I cannot, for the life of me, actually believe that there both is and is not a tiger outside of my house. I can only go back-and-forth between a tiger and no-tiger thought.

Contradictions organize along a gradient, starting with no contradiction at all ending with utter non-sense. In between however there are many stages that you can easily grasp. First the notion of thinking about a thing that could exist, but doesn't. (potential existence). Here you are holding something non-existent in your mind. Your thoughts contain a unit that has no referent in reality. Then you can start imagining things that can't exist in reality such as dry water or a unicorn. Furthermore as Thales pointed out you can hold different contradictory facts in mind at the same time. If you're a muslim you may at the same time value Western material goods but hate Western culture, not realizing that one is the product of the other. Or the most extreme contradictions which are simply unthinkable such as black whiteness, which you can only construct linguistically but has no meaning whatsoever.

Thus, you start at one end of the gradient with existents and then gradually move towards complete and utter contradictions which are impossible even for the mind to hold. It's a gradual breakdown of non-contradiction.

But again I stress the point that this ability to hold something non-existent in mind, i.e. an object without a referent in reality, is key to free will. This leads me to speculate if this is a crucial property of consciousness, i.e. it lies at the very boundary of existence, starting to break up into contradicitons/non-existence, and precisely this is what produces free will.

[Finite existence]

It is not a contradiction to say: there is a tree in reality, and I'm imagining reality without one. This is because existence has primacy, your imagination does not change reality or make it the same and different at the same time and in THE SAME RESPECT.

This is true, no-one is claiming that contradictions can exist *in reality*. The question is whether they can exist *in consciousness*. I think the answer is clearly yes, just like we most certainly can think of things that do not exist, and even cannot exist. The question is then what this consciousness-thing is that differs in nature so strikingly from reality. Hence my discussion on the boundary of reality.

One can say "black whiteness" but that phrase has no cognitive or conceptual meaning whatsoever.

True, but meaning (as correctly and brilliantly defined by Ayn Rand) is the referent in reality. If a phrase has no referent in reality whatsoever and such a referent is inconceivable then the phrase is by definition meaningless. However, we can still hold such thoughts in consciousness. In fact, evasion would be impossible without it. Evasion is exactly the process of holding something *other* than reality in consciousness. This would not be possible if we could not hold meaningless ideas in mind.

Proper concepts refer to actually existing existents, "black whitness" refers to nothing in reality, even imaginary things, thus it is not a concept, it is a zero and only has existence as three meaningless syllables strung one after the other.

Agreed, and yet we can talk about it, holding it in mind as an idea. We are capable of evading reality, we are capable of being irrational. These are very special abilities

[Finite existence]

Well, that's just not true.

I agree that there is "quantum noise" in nature, but in macroscopic systems where this noise is cancelled or not amplified (such as planetary motions) the behavior of matter is very predictable.

I have trouble understanding this, I think because of a loose use of language. Existence and the mind are not at all opposites in this sense: the mind exists! Moreover, I'm not certain that a person can actually have contradictions. Certainly he can express them, but I question whether truly believing that a proposition and its negation are simultaneously true in the same way is at all possible. But even if it were, they could in a sense be compartmentalized, so that there would not be any metaphysical contradiction.

A key factor in conceptualization/abstraction is the ability to hold an object in mind and be able to view it as something other than itself. Example: when you look in the mirror you don't see another person on the other side of the mirror, you see yourself, although your senses say otherwise. We treat the mirror *symbolically*, meaning that the object itself becomes a reference to something else. When we read a word "tree" our awareness of a tree is triggered. But clearly "tree" is a pattern of letters, not a tree. This ability to treat something as other than itself is a key element of free will. If someone says "fire" we don't immediately interpret it as a fire that we need to escape. We are able to hold the thought of fire in our head and at the same time realizing that there is no actual fire. Similarly we can think of alternative futures, futures that may or not come to be, but certainly isn't inevitable. By making these mental images of futures which know not to be actual, we can choose freely among them the ones that best suit our need -- the key ingredient in human free will.

Now, this very same ability that enables us to see an object other than itself -- seeing it at a distance, detached, abstracted if you like -- is the very same ingredient embodied in creativity, fantasy and irrationality. Planning different kinds of futures requires creativity. But we can also use that creativity to create symbolic conjunctions of things that never has existed in reality: an angel is a person with wings. A unicorn is a horse with a horn etc. This freedom of abstract, detached recombinations of things that simultaneously are something other than themselves also allow us to construct contradictions: black whiteness, a true falsehood, a square circle etc. We can't hold these contradictions in mind *perceptually*, only linguistically. That is, only by using the abstract, detached ability of language in isolation can we construct contradictions, that we can *comprehend*, but not *visualize*.

But I fail to see what relevance this has to the issue of finity.

It's quite possible that I am going out on a limb here in speculatory language games, I am most certainly in an exploratory mode here. My starting point of inquriy is what happens if you zoom down to the quantum level. In one interpretation of quantum mechanics particles can spring into existence out of nothing, so long as it is temporary. I think the energy dense aether makes a lot more sense, i.e. temporary particles from the aether, but the problem of apparent contradiction and indeterminism still seems to exist at this level. Quantum tunneling suggests that this is more than a mere measurement uncertainty, but rather a real phenomenon. The quantum level is my perfect example of the edge of existence, where non-contradiction starts to break down. How can this be? Well, to me the behavior down at the quantum level is very similar to that of consciousness. Quantum uncertainty looks to me a lot like free will. We know that contradictions in the mind can lead to profoundly irrational behavior due to free will. Thus, we can observe in humans what can only be described as a contradiction: self-destructive behavior of the self. This gives me associations to temporary, short-lived particles at the quantum level. People can embody profound contradictions in reality in their behavior, but only very briefly before it results in their death. Rationality is required for long term survival, but in the short term some irrationality can endure. If humans were particles I would describe such temporary particles apparently violating the laws of nature as quantum noise.

Well, then. Maybe that's exactly what quantum noise is? Maybe there exists "free will" particles or properties of matter, so what we are really observing at the quantum level is where matter transits into the realm of consciousness. If so then biological consciousness should ultimately be explained as a kind of amplification of quantum noise to the macrolevel.

Disclaimer: this is pure speculation for exploratory purposes

[Finite existence]

You can't hold contradictions in the mind, not in way you mean it. Can you imagine a square circle?

No, but I *can* talk about it. Contradictions can only exist in language, as a conjunction of contradictory concepts. Such linguistic contradictions are literally meaningless (meaning=the referent in reality), but we *are* capable of constructing meaningless, contradictory phrases. This very same constructive process is used to construct non-existing, but *possible* meanings, e.g. plans of the future. Thus the very same process that underlies the ability to create linguistic contradiction is the one that underpins free will. Also note that trying to adhere to a contradiction in consciousness will result in consequences in reality -- ultimately death.

[Finite existence]

Anyways, trying to get the discussion a little bit back on track, I'll try to give an example of the boundary of reality. As we all know, contradictions cannot exist in reality, but they can certainly exist in the mind. Non-existence does not exist in reality, but the *concept* of non-existence exists in the mind. Furthermore, matter -- the stuff of reality -- behaves predictably, it is determined. Mind on the other hand is not determined. We have a free will. In fact, free will directly relies on non-existent possibilities. In order to have a free will we need to be able to have many different images of futures in our head which don't exist yet, and pick one among them.

The way I have described it existence and mind seem to be opposites. Of course, that's not the case. We may have non-contradictory concepts too (in fact, most of them are of this kind) as well as concepts with referents in reality. We can also choose to use our free will rationally and thereby behave predictably. Thus, a more correct description of consciousness would be as partially possessing the properties of reality and partially not. Consciousness seems to be in the "twilight" between existence and non-existence. Certainly people who choose to evade reality quickly become non-existent themselves. They die.

So what then if consciousness is the boundary of existence, the edge where non-contradiction starts to break down?

[Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes]

Is this not a case where it is proper to use race, since that is pretty much all you have? Now of course, you could argue that you should have asked for this and that information in the apps, and while that may be true, this is what you have asked for, as you only expected a handful of apps, and now you are in a hurry.

I would have to agree that if you have NO other information and don't have the opportunity to inquire further the rational course of action is to use any statistical information that you may have, including race. But I would have to add that this is a somewhat strained example. If you lead a rational life you will not run into examples such as the one you gave.

[Finite existence]

I understand that space *could* be a relation, but what if space is ether-like, essentially a liquid? Then it would be an entity. I for one have not totally given up on the ether.

[Finite existence]

That may be how many interpret relativity theory ... but no. Even under the mathematical framework of relativity theory, space and time (taken inseparably together) are relationships among entities.

Tell me again why relations between existents cannot themselves be existents?

[Finite existence]

I think this point is important. You must realize that "space" is a relational concept and as such only describes relationships among entities and is not itself an entity, therefore it need not be bound by such limitations as finitude.

So since space is not material, it can not possess and edge, only entities possess edges.

I think this is interesting and it could very well be correct, but why couldn't space be an existent? Given how Einstein's theory of relativity works, space (and time) seems to be something more than just relations. When the Earth makes one full rotation around the sun, it hasn't in fact rotated 360 degrees due to "frame dragging." Space is actually dragged along in the gravitational field. To me that sounds a lot like space is a kind of "liquid" which is stirred by the objects in it.

[Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes]

1.) Terrorists are not necessarily stupid. If we use a predictable system based on elementary profiling techniques, the terrorists will be able to reverse engineer it. For example, suppose that a present system is in place that consistently only screens "high profile" candidates according to whatever criteria we wish to design (ethnicity, age, gender, strength, etc.) A savvy terrorist organization can then send many unarmed members on "test flights" just to determine the likelihood of its members being selected for secondary screening. Almost surely, terrorist organizations would eventually discover who is not considered a high profile target. As RationalBiker suggested, these will then be the next individuals who will execute the next terrorist attack on a plane. For example, Richard Reid and Jose Padilla are non-stereotypical al-Qaeda operatives.

I haven't looked at the paper yet, but it seems to be missing out on another major point: non-terrorist muslims are not necessarily stupid either. They will likely strongly dislike being the constant humiliating target of security checks, and if they are rational they will direct their angers at the terrorists that are causing this inconvenience in their life, making them far more likely to try to identify the terrorists in their communities.

[Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes]

What is this, liar's club day? Jesus H. Christ on a cross! The supposed correlations are in dispute.

Well, I acknowledge that YOU dispute them, just as there are people who dispute evolution as a fact. But again, the correlations themselves are not in dispute, they are established beyond a shred of doubt as fact.

Since I think that you have a much better chance of grasping the issue, what proof do you have that being genetically connected to the (African) black race has a (negative) correlation with IQ scores?

I've given you several references already. If you're really interested in the topic you should actually read them.

[Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes]

This is a flat out lie. You know very well that it is in dispute. I have disputed it, and you have not even offered a proof that it is true. If you want to say that you feel that there is such a correlation, you may express your personal feelings. You simply cannot deny reality by denying the dispute.

I don't understand how you can say this. The *correlations* themselves are not disputed by anyone. Some people, mostly ideologically motivated people, question whether IQ measures anything real, or whether the measured racial differences in IQ are cultural or biological, but the correlations are very real. I might add that if this had been any other scientific field, there would not be any question at all about whether IQ is a real phenomenon and whether there are racial differences. The natural null hypothesis, knowing nothing else, is to presume that racial differences are to be expected. Why? Individuals differ in IQ, and groups are just aggregations of individuals. If individuals differ, so can groups.

As to whether IQ is a real phenomenon there are some bleedingly obvious facts that under normal circumstances would shed away any doubt. The most obvious one is that the human brain on average uses 20% of the body's energy at rest. That's one huge giveaway, a giant elephant in the room. Organ energy usage is directly proportional evolutionary importance. By this standard the human brain is immensely important and must produce a very real and tangible evolutionary advantage over a smaller brain. Now, the fact that there are significant differences in brain size between the races means that some races have to allocate more energy for their brains on average. The only way that makes sense evolutionary is if that bigger brain results in a tangible evolutionary advantage. And what is the primary function of a big brain? Intelligence.

You don't actually need a single intelligence test in order to make a very strong evolutionary argument for racial differences in intelligence. But we do have all sorts of tests, hundreds of studies all showing that the evolutionary argument is indeed correct.

Also, I have previously referenced literature for anyone who cares to read up on this. "Race, Evolution and Behavior" by Philippe Rushton is a good starting point, as well as "Race differences in Intelligence" by Richard Lynn. There you will find all the evidence you need.

[Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes]

I should have said "judging a person's IQ". This thread has gone all over the place, but I just wanted to point out that, in the case of IQ, even if black Americans have a lower mean IQ than white Americans, one will not encounter any moderately serious situation where one can use such knowledge.

That's true. This kind of information is only relevant on a statistical level, i.e. as an explanatory force behind group differences. People may want to know why China is succeeding so much better at reproducing the success of western capitalism than Africa. Here statistics provide a compelling partial answer.

By moderately serious, I mean where one is making a decision like class-allocation, or job-granting, and one needs to figure if a person has an acceptable IQ. In such a situation, one has ways to predict IQ (e.g. a short IQ test) that would make any further use of color (over and above the result of the test) irrational.

Indeed, but notice that this too is usage of racial information. That is, you are using knowledge of IQ distributions to determine that you need a better IQ test than race. This didn't *have* to be the case. If the distribution of IQ was very narrow within each race, but significant *between* races it would be perfectly legitimate to use race as a proxy for an IQ test, and this would NOT be racist. However, studies of racial differences has shown very clearly that race is not an accurate IQ indicator.

[Racism or Correlations of Race with IQ / Physical Attributes]

That really depends on what you mean by "take into account". If you mean doing so rationally, then of course it cannot hurt. However, take the example of "taking into account" that went something like this: "lot of blacks are in prison" so faced with a black and white guy there's a higher chance of the white guy being trustworthy. That is "taking into account", but incorrectly; it's a misapplication of knowledge.

Agreed. Even though blacks are dramatically overrepresented among criminals it is still a statistical fact that the overwhelming majority of ALL races are law abiding citizens. The appropriate use of statistics in this case for an ordinary citizen is therefore to assume that a randomly chosen person from any race is most likely not a criminal.

However, for law enforcement the crime statistics becomes far more important. Who should you focus on in violent crime investigations, old ladies or young males? Obviously the latter since they are dramatically much more likely to be the correct target group. Who should you focus more on in airport security, muslims or non-muslims? Obviously the former. Who should you focus more on in criminal investigations, blacks or asians? Obviously blacks. That's just resource optimization. And precisely because of this the targeted group should not interpret the investigation as racism.

Now, race is not the only group on which it is possible to do statistics. I've mentioned religion, age and gender, but there is another category which would dramatically reduce the number of intrusive investigations and that is education. There is an *extremely* high correlation between functional illiteracy and crime. Thus, in a rational world being able to prove that you have a high school diploma should almost instantly exclude you from further investigation in cases of violent crime, unless there is direct evidence that justifies an investigation. The nice thing about education profiling in law enforcement is that it gives another good incentive to get an education: stay clear of police investigations.

As for the whole race-IQ issue, I cannot imagine any situation of moderate seriousness where one would use the information in judging an individual.

That depends on what you mean by "judging" an individual. Part of the process of judging people is to evaluate where to allocate your resources. In the case of airport security you do actually want to use racial information as a starting point for an individual judgment. Thus, by the time you are finished judging a person you have made an individual assessment. If he has no bomb or weapons, it does not matter that he is Arab. His ethnicity then ceases to be an issue. BUT the reason you chose Arabs and not Finns for the security check is due to racial/ethnic information.

So, since an easy predictor of IQ is available, to "take into account" a person's race when one has knowledge from the more reliable predictor would be irrational.

Agreed. Take a racial profiling situation in law enforcement: blacks are overrepresented in low IQ and therefore partially overrepresented in illiteracy and therefore partially overrepresented in crime. Among these categories (black, IQ, illiteracy), black is the worst predictor of crime, IQ is the second worst predictor, and illiteracy is the best. Thus, the instance you know that a black person is literate you know that he is very unlikely to be a criminal. Similarly, the moment you know that a white person is illiterate you know that he is a prime candidate for a criminal.

[Finite existence]

Do you consider the surface of a sphere to be infinite? If not, then where are its "end points"? Your logic is flawed.

This is a very good example of how identifying the behavior of a finite existence is non-trivial. If space indeed is spheric then finity would express itself in terms of repetition when moving in one direction. Mathematically 3D space COULD actually be spherical. In fact, there exists only three such spheres without singularities (poles), namely S1, S3 and S7. S1 is the 2-dimensional sphere built from a 1-dimensional space (a line), essentially a circle. S3 is a 4-dimensional sphere built from a 3D "surface" and S7 is an 8-dimensional sphere built from a 7D "surface." It would be an odd but beautiful coincidence if our own universe turned out to be one of these three possible spheres.