- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Also,
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Part 1, Non-Contradiction
Part 2, Either-Or
Part 3, A is A
The names of the parts are not questions but are precise statements.
Rand, like some of us sometimes (compare with Alice who can believe in several contradictory things before breakfast) was unsure about some issues. I prefer the clarity of unambiguous clear statements when the logic demands. This is the strength of Rand's writing and thought.
Where Rand was unsure, there is no sense in us being unsure when, now, proof exits.
One of the strengths of an alert human mind is a strong pattern detection. Being able to assess either physical or theoretical images and detect what doesn't fit the pattern is a natural consequence of having to detect game that has natural camouflage, or select edible vegetation from inedible surroundings. I discovered that with enough information it's possible to determine errors in a project without a long, involved analysis. The errors seem to stand out as not belonging to the correct pattern. Some people call this ability "gut feel" or "intuition," but I believe it's a natural survival skill unconsciously applied. Objectivism is a form of pattern matching skill. We instinctively know that certain behaviors just don't fit a pattern for successful outcomes.
I surmise she was on to something akin to what I have observed. These creatures do exist and primarily are a hybred of pre-conscious human and non-conscious Nephilim...we call them: the parasitical humanoidal ruleless delete class or better yet...the great unwashed that have assumed rule over Conscious Human value creators and producers in an upside down, inside out and backwards paradigm.
A more (unspoken) modern day anthropological view is that Humans did not evolve from lesser species, we were a species unto ourselves but devolved as a result of interbreeding with the Nephlim species. Reportedly, the ruless class claim decendentry of Nimrod of Babylon...a self professed Nephilim.
Just an observation of their behaviors throughout history will tell you that they are not human, not conscious with no conscience...just a disconnected bicameral brain in a human looking body.
Rand had every interlectual right to question the validity of Darwin's theory. (inter-lectual: integrated knowledge or wisdom).
It doesn't get anymore bizarre than that...we must test these creatures, trace their dna and see if any of that might be accurate.
I would say that Darwin was wrong on the accounts of one species evolving into another but perhaps correct on inner species evolution. We see that with the evolution of the 4 bloodtypes, skin colors and genotype body and head shapes; I would also add: the evolution of self aware introspection that resulted in a connection to the Conscious Mind. (Julian Jaynes; The Breakdown of the bicameral, (brain), Mind.)
Ayn Rand did not question the validity of Darwin's theory. She simply said she did not know enough about it to evaluate it and did not write about it. She did not say that there is a "hybrid of pre-conscious human and non-conscious Nephilim". She described those in modern society who do not choose to develop and use their own capacity for rational thought with abstract concepts, the "anti-conceptual mentality".
But darwin is wrong about one species turning into a totally different species...and we do have evidence the nephilim existed...read your history. Find the newspaper article that noted the many nephilim bones being destroyed by the Smithsonian so that darwin would not be challenged.
I PERSONALLY have seen the 12' tall nephilim bones in AZ while traveling through to california.
There is no conspiracy by the Smithsonian to destroy alleged evidence so Darwin would not be challenged. The science of evolution is well-established and scientists continue to investigate further, including the science of genetics, learning more about evolution despite the crackpots that are properly ignored as irrelevant.
But progressive and now, post modern, creatures have abandon facts, truth and reason altogether...Everything, even science, has been confounded.
Just a few months ago it was expressed that Math is a racist, white supremacist construct and nothing more...and bet your bottom dollar the useless idiots will believe that...Now That's mysticism!
PS...where have you been?...haven't seen you around here lately.
I have never heard a creationist deny the evolution of skin colors, bloodtypes nor genotypes abet, of course...neither of these idiotologies understand the evolution of self introspection.
Don't get confused by the fact that all living things on this planet share some components of DNA...doesn't mean we evolved from any of those creatures. Those components of DNA can be found everywhere in the universe...especially the cosmic winds; as found by NASA scientist.
My point with Rand is in her statement that man can turn himself into a subhuman creature and these creatures may be among us today. Her observation and thoughts, I feel, reflected upon the worst of man and his rulers as she observed in her life.
I am in agreement with her there...I call them: parasitical humanoids and suspect that there is a connection to the Nephlim because they act much the same way.
She praises conscious man and his reason just as I do.
No one with a basic understanding of evolution is "confused" about the role of DNA, and components of DNA are not "found everywhere in the universe" -- except at the atomic level in which atoms are a component of everything material, which has nothing do with genetic explanation of evolution of species of life.
In her article "The Missing Link" Ayn Rand said that some men do not choose to develop their own human conceptual means of consciousness. She did not say that man can turn himself into a "subhuman creature", let alone that there are "subhuman creatures" "among us today" with a "connection to the Nephlim". Trying to connect Ayn Rand to the bizarre is more bizarrely bizarre.
The anti-conceptual mentality is quite common; one of its effects is the spread of conspiracy theories, superstition and myths. But understanding Ayn Rand's concept of the "anti-conceptual mentality" requires a certain degree of conceptual development to know the difference.
Ignoring, not knowing or denying historical facts is the main cause of anti-conceptual mentalities...at one time, yes...the Nephlim were mythological, just like many of the Greek Tails of Sparta, the Iliad or the Odyssey....that is until you run smack dab into physical proof...as have been done on a daily/weekly basis in archaeological digs in Israel and other parts of the world.
Take care ewe.
Better to ask whether or not people have grown and embraced principles of rationality and personal accountability. To me, it doesn't matter what age someone lived in: there have been tyrants and saints in all ages of history. I don't embrace the false narrative that progression in time necessarily begets progression of ideals.
It is not "better" to ask whether people have "grown" in their thinking. It is a different question than what he is asking in the context of evolution.
Seriously, I want to hear what CG has to say and hear it from him - not you. If I want to hear your interpretation, I'll ask you.
This did not happen.
RE: "And that you downvoted me twice - from two different accounts."
This did not happen.
RE: "If I want to hear your interpretation, I'll ask you."
This is a public forum blarman. Anyone can respond to anyone. If you'd like to hold a semi-private conversation, you can of course post in the Producer's Lounge.
Only with the invention of "written" (first in stone) records greatly improved transmission of experiential knowledge from generation to generation and beyond.
We have to remember that Faraday and Maxwell lived only some 150 (6 generations?) ago and came up with the theory of electromagnetism. The scientific and technological advancement has always and still is on an exponential growth. In early humanity days a noticeable improvement would take millenia.
What we do have now is the means to afford the survival even of the weakest of brains. Just my opinion.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Biological evolution relies on choice only indirectly in which kinds of people propagate and survive in accordance with the capacities they are born with: Choices made in life do not change genes determining future offspring.
How Ayn Rand thought that those of the anti-conceptual mentality might represent what others had called a missing link in evolution isn't clear (it wasn't clear to her either). Is there any evidence of variations in genes correlated with degrees of ability to choose to think?
Also, knowledge doesn't pass from parent to child as a matter of heredity, but as a matter of education. Thus our capacity for using our rational faculties is limited to our education in large degree (we have to learn what to do). Add to that the disparity in cognitive ability from one person to the next and as a race, I question what type of cognitive evolution could take place - if it ever has.
Reason is semi-special, but not completely unique. Just another evolutionary hurdle.
Cognitive ability is not objectively challenged. We can relatively arbitrarily increase our number, and take what we choose. There is no real challenge to the reproductive cycle today, or the last 50 years in first world economys.
"Granted" is a huge leap, I have no information to base a belief in.
Superior smell and hearing of dogs is an inherited perceptual ability involving both sense organs and the nervous system, not conceptual, which is why they can be superior to humans in some ways without having the ability for conceptual reasoning.
But there are different levels of "reasoning", ranging from immediate, simple physical problem solving all the way to the highest level of abstract conceptual thought in science. Whether or not one is including elementary problem solving of dogs, there is a difference in emphasis in speaking of "reasoning" versus the human faculty of reason. Everyone engages in some kinds of reasoning with simple concepts (even though some often do not choose to even for immediate problem solving even at an elementary level), but many do not choose to use and do not develop their human capacity of reason in the sense of conceptual thought. The latter is what Ayn Rand discussed in "The Missing Link".
Your hypothesis is supported in the very limited set of data we have, but not by a definitive scientific analysis (e.g. physics). AI's can reason. They can beat us in most games (apparently Go, is an exception).
I find it flawed to believe that what separates humans from animals is completely fundamental, yet we can replicate it in computers, today with relative ease.
Not only that, but some systems can out reason many humans in many areas.
There is no doubt that humans are more capable at reasoning than computer systems. However, given one has been worked on for a few decades, and the other has been evolving for millions of years, the comparison is 1) unfair, and 2) will clearly yield closer results, as the last 20 years provides overwhelming evidence.
Humans are better, smarter and first (maybe). However, humans are fundamentally different.
That programs can outperform humans for specific kinds of tasks says nothing about the hardware allegedly having "reason". Mechanical adding machines did the same thing. The difference is volitional consciousness.
I also disagree that AI's qualify - though if you could invent one which read womens' minds I could be persuaded otherwise. :) AI's are created to fulfill a specific purpose - they do not invent or discern purpose in and of themselves. No Isaac Asimov, Skynet, or "Person of Interest" (great TV show) level AI (yet) exists, though I will admit that if we do get to that point it will be a pivotal moment in history. When a computer can create its own value system - not merely act on someone else's at a faster rate than humans - then it will meet one of my criteria for consciousness, but not until then.
Animals are conscious: "aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake". This is the opposite of unconscious, which animals and humans can both be. I think you had something else in mind.
These rest of what you use for evidence is technical and societal advancement, which is enabled by episodic memory and higher mental capacity. These are not distinctly uniquely magic things. They are just something we have more of...today, and we have used them to further separate ourselves.
That definition fits all life down to and including one-celled organisms. (More below)
"These rest of what you use for evidence is technical and societal advancement..."
The examples I cited were first conceptual in nature and then realized - including the creation of society itself. For example, in order to be able to trade or form societies, one must recognize 1) the state one is currently in 2) relative to where one wants to be and 3) that something possessed by someone else can facilitate progress toward where one wants to be. Yes, these do require mental capacity, but also reasoning faculties far beyond the instinctual. Animals do not create economies. They do not invent tools to help them move away from a lower state of being toward a higher. I consider that level of conceptualization to be the base requirement for "self-awareness" and/or "consciousness" because it is the point at which one then assumes natural rights and their corresponding responsibilities. To me, that's where the rubber meets the road, but your thoughts are welcome.
One should not use one's own definitions of terms in communication or discussion. This confuses many.
There is no doubt humans are smarter, have vastly superior reasoning and got here first. However, humans are not fundamentally different than animals.
If you want to move to natural rights and the beginnings of law, that is a different matter entirely. I've made no assertions about using animals as livestock and denying them the level of rights as people. That is a wholly different matter.
I do not consider a group of animals a "society" but rather a pack (or even a gang). Packs have no laws based on natural rights or private property: law-giving and "enforcement" is performed by an alpha-male who got to his position by brute strength - not superior intellect or reason. There is no recognition of equality among animal packs - not even as potential trade partners - and certainly no equality of the sexes. Nor do animals agitate for a change to these systems. Animals which do use tools (such as blades of grass to get termites) use them to fulfill short-term needs - primarily for sustenance - not for long-term goals. They maintain their existing status but do not move to a higher one.
I see the ability of humans to make these critical distinctions (by reason) as no small evolutionary improvement but rather a quantum leap in difference separating us from the animal kingdom. Of course, the mice may have another opinion entirely (nods to Douglas Adams).
I don't see anything in Blarman's post indicating that he was using his own definitions. He emphasized "The examples I cited were first conceptual in nature".
Missing from your comments throughout are the role of concepts as a form of awareness distinctive to humans. That is the fundamental difference between humans and the lower animals. That is man's rational faculty. Concepts mentally integrate percepts into higher level abstractions in a hierarchy through the ability to focus on and compare similarities and differences and to assess what is essential for the classification. That is what allows us to subsume unlimited numbers of referents into broad abstractions in the form of a single mental unit concretized with a word as its symbol and with which we logically reason. The lower animals do not do that.
What do you mean by "reason is semi-special, but not completely unique"? The capacity for conceptual thought is a form of consciousness, but essentially different than perceptual and more primitive forms of awareness.
You and I have disagreed in the past about this (I think). I believe our ability to reason is just an increase in mental capacity and episodic memory over animals. This is unique now, but there is no reason to think another species can not evolve to have it as well, or that some animals dolphins/whales don't have it already, but have an easy enough life that they are driven to use it as we have.
The nature of concepts is described in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. She described the "anti-conceptual mentality" of humans who largely do not learn to use their rational faculty for abstract concepts and characteristically do not think with them in the article "The Missing Link" that Roger Donway referred to. It is in Philosophy: Who Needs It.
What started this entire branch was my assertion that human evolution had stalled, and is perhaps reversing. I maintain this statement. Regardless of capability, the lack of necessity is causing widespread lethargy and atrophy.
Recognizing that capability does not mean that no other species can evolve to also have it. After all, that is how we got it. The difference between humans and other animals because of the conceptual faculty is a difference in fact in the current evolutionary states now (and back into our history), not magic outside of evolution.
Human evolution in the Darwinian sense -- but not by other means and not other species -- may have "stalled" for the reasons given here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... But it isn't fundamentally lethargy and atrophy. Even ignoring the welfare state, advanced civilization makes it possible for a wider variety of people to live (and mate). Yet it also makes biological advances possible through application of science.
Some cool biological events may take place, and go unnoticed. Nothing is driving success among the successful.
On the other side, the intellectual advancement of science has the potential to make man-made genetic improvements reducing tendency for major diseases and who knows what else. The average effect may not be intentional, as in the result of accumulated individual choices aborting high risk births. But that kind of genetic improvement in the species is not the Darwinian mechanism, other than at an abstract level in which the intellectually fittest have the inherited potential to make the changes for the species.
As for differences in cognitive ability from one individual to the next now, it appears that so many people not using the capacity they have is a bigger factor, related to but not the same as "own failure to reason is our greatest impediment."
The nature of biological evolution for mankind, cognitive capacity or otherwise, is different now because survival now depends on civilization, not breeding between individual survivors. "Designer babies" (metaphorically) through chosen use of advancing technology appears to be a potentially more dominant factor than the original mechanism of evolution.
Our hero, Ayn Rand, was not so bold as to proclaim absolute truths regarding the human mind and/or what life is, or what human is. She was careful to distinguish between strong assumptions or hypothesis and declarative "must be" truths.
Ayn Rand did know the difference between life and inanimate matter and the "truth" of man's rational faculty in contrast to lower animals. She knew that our rational faculty is the essential distinguishing factor conceptualizing man in distinction with lower animals regardless of other similarities and differences. It's not a tentative "assumption".