This isn't a game playing "hands". The conscious mind in fact comes from the nervous system, which has in fact evolved. Conscious awareness through some kind of sensory experience is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom. Reason is our faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses. It is the human, conceptual form of awareness, i.e., the more advanced form of consciousness that permits integrating abstractions into concepts based on perception. Our conceptual ability, and our dependence on it for survival, is unique in the known animal world. It is a natural process, not mystical.

That the form of our consciousness has evolved to be what it is does not mean that it's "just another term for identifying how chemicals" do anything. Consciousness and its relation to existence as awareness of existence is an axiomatic concept, not chemistry. The actions of the nervous system are how it works, to the extent it is now known, not a reductionist replacement for the fundamental fact of awareness of reality, which is more, not "nothing less" (whatever that is supposed to mean) than "chemicals yielding thoughts and actions".

James' wild leap from a physical brain as the center of conscious awareness to "leaving out any basis for existence whatsoever" is bizarre. Existence is everything that is. It requires no "basis". Our consciousness is awareness of it in the particular human form. Consciousness is not a means to create existence out of alleged metaphysical nothingness, which does not exist. Recognizing that is not "playing a hand". If you think that this forum is to be exploited by endless sophistry intended to rationalistically manipulate people into a game of satisfying religious faith in the guise of honest questions you are sadly mistaken. This is a serious forum for the discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism. We do not "play hands" here.

That is not what you asked. If you want an answer to a question you have to state the question. Consciousness is the faculty of awareness of existence. Of course you have to be aware in order to reason. The faculty of reason based on the senses and in the form of conceptual thought is the distinctive human consciousness. It is physically located in the nervous system, especially the brain that processes sensory input and processes of thought.

What does a "quality of being aware you exist" mean? Most of us are simply aware that we exist. There is no "little guy whispering".

If by conscience you mean a sense of right and wrong, most people absorb principles of right and wrong, often bad principles, from what they are told and absorb from the culture around them, which was inherited from common beliefs and confused philosophy for millennia, just as they acquire all other basic philosophical ideas and their sense of life without systematic thought. See Ayn Rand's "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in her book The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophy of Literature. All branches of philosophy should be pursued as a science, systematically and objectively and based on the nature of man and reality, not tradition of mysticism. See the opening chapter "The Objectivist Ethics" in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism, and Leonard Peikoff's comprehensive Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

What is "seeking the function of reason" and what is "evanescence of understanding conscience"? Aristotle discovered the function of reason a long time ago. His conceptualizations and formulations of method didn't come from a "seeking" of something apart from what he was already doing and capable of doing. It has no relation to an alleged fading of a sense of right and wrong. Aristotle's discussion of morality recognized that it makes a difference to human life what choices we make but he only observed what most people accepted as ethical behavior (which did not include ascetic life of sacrifice for the supernatural).

The 'metaphysical', in any rational philosophy, pertains to the nature of reality in general, not mysticism. Plato employed a mystical realm to account for universals in concept formation. Aristotle claimed that universals are inherent in the particulars of this world. Both are intrinsicist in the realm of concept formation, but Aristotle emphasized reason, individualism and this world reality in contrast to Plato's mysticism and collectivism.

Ayn Rand identified the 'problem of universals' as epistemological, not metaphysical, and explained the mental integrations in terms of similarities in accordance with commensurate measurements differing only in degree. She provided an objective account in contrast to the intrinsicists and the subjective nominalists with their arbitrary grouping. There is no need to "tie" anything to the mystical and the attempt to do so is destructive.

Man understands, by reason alone, "how we got here" in the same way we understand everything we know through science, in this case biology and evolution. Supernatural fantasies explain nothing.

We start out using our ability to reason because it is the faculty we are born with. Perceptions and elementary integrations of the simplest concepts are automatic. We are born with the faculty but not the cognitive content, which is learned. We don't need to understand how it works in order to begin thinking any more than we need to know how the digestive system works to begin eating and digesting food.

We learn over time to think in ever increasing complexity of abstractions and method, using our reasoning ability to do so as in any science. Reason is not "surmounted" by faith, and not knowing what is not yet objectively discovered and known, about cognitive methods or anything else, does not prevent us from knowing and progressing in what we do know. Substituting faith and mysticism is corrosive and destructive. Starting with recognition of existence and living in it is not a "cop out".

Identifying reason as man's distinct means of knowing and living is not an act of faith. This has been discussed here previously. Faith is belief despite or contrary to reason and proof. It is the opposite of reason, not the basis for it.

That our thinking is not infallible is why we need proper methods of thinking, employed through the most careful focus and effort as any scientist. It is not a matter of "purity" (whatever that means), leading to acceptance of anything you dream up, imagine, or rationalize claimed to be "reasoning".

There are no other means of perception beyond the five senses on which our faculty of reason is based. All perception is through known sense organs. No "sixth sense" has ever been discovered accounting for faith or revelations, but we do know that people have the capacity for imagination and fantasy, mentally reconstructing aspects of reality, such as in cartoons. Imagination, fantasy, revelation, cartoons, etc. are not a means to knowledge. Not "limiting" yourself to reason does not give you additional knowledge. The fantasies confused with infallible knowledge corrupt your thinking and further limit and destroy what you can know.

You cannot honestly reason to "any end" whatsoever; that is rationalization. The resulting falsehoods are not "valid for the (alleged) reasoner". Honesty begins at home: upstairs in your own head. It precludes evasion and flights of fantasy claimed as knowledge. The virtue of honesty is primarily individual in not faking reality to oneself. Sophistry employed to manipulate and mislead people goes beyond that into the social realm of deliberate misrepresentation to other people through clever devices rationalizing through equivocation and context dropping.

Objectivity does not mean following a law regardless of what it is, does not mean rationalization manipulating ideas without regard to facts and the meaning of the concepts employed, and does not mean relying on mystic insights of the supernatural. Objectivity means thinking based on the facts in accordance with logical method, i.e., non-contradiction. The "external source" is reality, the object of thought, not a supernatural consciousness as an authority telling us what to think.

Only individuals have minds and only individuals can think. There is no group thought or supernatural thought, which is mysticism. The question is how to do it, i.e., how does the individual properly think, not what mystic or group authority to rely on. That only individuals can think does not make all thought "subjective". One can think objectively or not -- through subjective imagination cut off from reality and/or employing non-logical methods.

Here we are talking about the "objective" as epistemological, not metaphysical as reality apart from people. The objective is in contrast to both subjective and intrinsic (mysticism). Ayn Rand wrote a whole book on concepts in objective thought: Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Leonard Peikoff devoted an entire chapter to "Objectivity" in his comprehensive book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

To whoever took the point DEFEND your position. What in anything I wrote goes against or distorts what you believe?

And you as well, conscious.

Thank you.

The "truth" is...that you assert conclusions you've made regarding Objectivism when it's clear, from your remarks, that you haven't researched it. It comes off like someone trying to explain and criticize multiplication only using subtraction.

Rather than try to lecture on a subject you've inadequately grasped, you could just try to explain your own beliefs and see where that goes.

Objectivism’s highest political/social principle is that no person has the right to initiate force against another person. Murder is initiation of force, the most serious one that can exist. Therefore, Objectivism is opposed to murder. Simple as that. No “extra-anthropic truth” (whatever that is) needed.

Objectivist philosophy, in order to be of value to men of the mind and those that choose to live in reality, doesn't need to deal with inanity.

What I can't determine is if you just don't like what you read about Objectivism, written in plain English words and grammar, or if you honestly don't understand the language that most of us on this site and in this country use everyday.

Objectivists don't develop morals, nor do they set the terms and they certainly don't have beliefs. They rely on objective facts and reality and their choice to utilize reason in a rational and logical manner. Objective facts and reality are what exists outside of your mind and perceptions whether you're there to perceive them or not. They can be observed, measured, tested, and are repeatable by others also using rational and logical reason. And from those facts and reality, knowledge is gained, confirmed, built on, and passed on to others.

But reason is at all times volitional and each man must decide for himself whether to subject his perceptions and thoughts to it or not. If he chooses not to reason, then his irrational and illogical meanderings are of no value.

Yes james; Objectivists, though in no way followers, totally reject the idea that there exists such a thing as extra-anthropic truth whatever that is in your life view, other than there is an objective reality which exists outside of your perception and your subjective beliefs.

All I can see in your comments is you attempting to be rhetorically clever and trying to play sophist games. We all know exactly where you're trying to direct the discussion in asking Objectivists to give you some type of concrete, absolute answer to the simplistic question you try to pose.

Provide your definition and description of what you mean by murder.

Objectivists have faith as well, they have faith in people/each other to understand, receive and respect their view in totality. Unfortunately, faith in man for a definitive right and wrong, particularly based on self interest, is not substantial enough for one reason only, the inevitable human question of "Who the hell are you to tell me...." which is perfectly valid to ask.

I don’t see how a person who arrives at Objectivist values could attach a positive value to murder. An Objectivist would fall into the category I described above as one in which “a person values his or her own life and well-being, and those of others.” Valuing murder would directly contradict Objectivist values.

And if I desire that life and happiness continue past death, that is such a cardinal flaw?

Ayn Rand herself stated that negative definitions do not advance an argument. You have created for yourself a strawman argument by defining faith in terms of what it is not, rather than what it is. Again, I challenge you to positively define faith. If I in my limited reasoning capacity can do it, surely so can you if you try.

"That is a belligerent strawman irrelevant to the discussion."

To say that if you treat everyone around with contempt is going to make you a lousy evangelist of any philosophy is a statement of fact. People don't care how much you think you know until they find out why you are trying to persuade them to think differently. It's one of the reasons the progressives are so successful in their arguments: they persuade people that they care. Logic comes after that - when they are willing to listen to what you have to say because they think you are operating in their own interest. You're welcome to try it the other way around, but that wall is going to be pretty persistent and tough on your forehead. And in this day and age of word-of-mouth through the Internet, you can alienate 10x as many people as before as they go on to tell their friends about their experience. Read "Seven Habits of Highly Influential People". You won't find antagonism or contempt as one of those habits. You can't force anyone into Objectivism. They have to join of their own free will. ;)

"That is not "legislating morality" in personal choices."

What is the morality of Objectivism? Is it not that coercion is evil? That is absolutely a moral stance. And when codified into law gets derived into such policy directives as "Don't steal." "I shall not live by any other nor allow any other to live by me" (paraphrased) is a statement of morality. And when one seeks to organize any society under a unifying code of conduct such as in the Gulch in "Atlas Shrugged", that is legislating the morality held in that code of conduct: it is declaring what is good and what is evil. It is the declaration of how society should act and the penalties for abrogation of such. I would note that even Dagny herself was told she could not stay in the Gulch if she was not willing to say the Oath (law -> punishment). The argument that one can not "legislate morality" is an argument of self-deception. It also tries to erroneously assert that laws dictate behavior, rather than dictating the penalties for misbehavior. The real question is which sets of principles one is going to rely on in the creation of societal law.

That there exists a contest of moral opinions in this world is evident. That they all contend for the minds of men is evident. And political trends in a republican society are based on the predominant moral opinions. I agree with you many current opinions are driven by emotions and ignorance, but you're going to have little success combating the ignorance until those passions can be replaced by calm. Adding more antagonism to an antagonistic atmosphere isn't going to work. We can see that from the recent examples of Missouri University, Ferguson, Baltimore, and many more.

"Religion does not belong in politics in this country."

First, such a solution suggests two things: that you do not view atheism as a religion and second that you ignore history. I would point out several nations based on atheistic foundations who were responsible for the butchering of over 100 million of their own people such as the USSR, Vietnam, China, and others. The argument that atheism leads to personal freedom is directly contradicted by this recent history.

I would also point to the Founders of this nation. It seems pretty clear that this nation was the most free of any in history and it was founded by men who were unquestionably from religious backgrounds. What I find particularly remarkable about those men was that they did not try to impose religion on the entire nation but that their religions absolutely espoused the freedom of the individual to choose their path in life. This was of such import that they ensconced this not only in the First Amendment, but they specifically forbade a religious test for people running for office. I find those facts to exist in stark contrast to your assertion. That the philosophy of Objectivism could even rise at all was the result of there being a free society Ayn Rand could move to to escape from the oppression of the USSR. You take much for granted.

"If you expect political alliances with those who reject your religion then keep your religion out of it and stop demanding that we go along with it for the sake of an "alliance"."

Please cite any post with a link where I have evangelized in favor of my religion on this forum. I simply point out that if you wish to see a society based on freedom, it is going to be based on tolerance - not antagonism. So you have a choice to either work with people of faith to advance the common cause of freedom despite not agreeing with their precepts 100%, or you can go it alone. I'm not going to tell you which to pick, but given the numbers involved, the prudent choice seems fairly obvious.