:)

Good for you. It sounds intriguing.

I've had myself howling from the things Mom's told me.
I'm going to be a molecular biologist. I want to research DNA, proteins, RNA; anything at the microscopic scale, I find interesting.

Thanks, Zen. I hope to do a book soon. And a wok makes great stir-fry. Like philosophical ideas that people stir around until their brain is fried. :)

Seriously, Ayn Rand laid the foundation. Her concepts of concept formation, checking premises, non-contradiction, volitional consciousness, and the rest of her entire opus are the template for a quantum leap in human evolution. If only the destructive old ideas were not so difficult to dislodge. You can watch them fight for their survival every day in the news. It's to weep.

puzzle; Wow, you've put a lot of wok into this. I appreciate all your effort. Txs

Great question, Zenphamy! I have a theory. Bear with me as I outline it step by step.

1. All life forms are the result of mutation. Natural selection builds on changes that work.

2. Evolution is continuous. Life’s algorithm drives growth and the urge towards greater complexity as new features are added to the previous levels.

3. From microbes to nation-states, organisms grow by building on an originally simple template.

4. I posit that both hardware and software are involved in maintaining life and building the template. The software is the electro-magnetic process in the brain and actually throughout the body. Even single-cell organisms have a field around them with which they can connect to other cells and transmit information, albeit of a very simple kind. They join in clusters to form larger collective organisms. (Sorry about that.) By the time larger animals, including humans, have evolved, they contain trillions of cells organized into symbiotic aggregations.

5. I posit that the software of consciousness is a similarly evolving and emerging system, that it attaches itself to living tissue with which it co-evolves from conception to adulthood, and develops the same operating directive of survival and self-defense. This software is composed of bits I call “memes” (as named by Richard Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene)”.

6. In humans, what we call intelligence is the development (evolution) of brain functions with problem-solving, creative thinking, critical analysis, abstract reasoning, systems building capabilities. Since survival depends on an accurate appraisal of the real world —reality—and of the natural laws that operate in it—the laws of cause and effect—the cognitive functions of the brain and its fitness for supporting more complex software will naturally evolve through that process of mutation that favors higher efficacy. And when brain function maps accurately onto reality, we call that rationality.

7. Not all humans are equal in their brain capacity nor their efficacious meme set, just as not all humans have equal talents in other functions. Further, not all brains have equal receptivity to appraising reality. What brains (and their software) do have is a subroutine for accepting second-hand information—just as young animals learn from their parents about the basic necessities for survival.

8. Humans thus do not all possess the most highly evolved brain hardware nor the most enlightened software. Each individual is different. Some are content to be patterned by their culture. Thus the argument from authority can embed errors of judgment from childhood on. Some may rebel but without a better alternative. what they all share is being linked to their emotional chemistry. At this point in human history, the prefrontal cortex is in place, but only the rarest individuals have self-generated operating systems, alias free will.

9. Once memes (information received second-hand or even experienced first-hand) are internalized, they will block attempts to remove or change them. We see a parallel to this in computer programs that are protected from outside tampering. This is how belief systems take on a life of their own, with “truth” no longer the measuring rod or compass for the content of consciousness, and sometimes even to the detriment of the host.

10. So, yes, Objectivism is the outgrowth of a mutant emergence in the brain of its creator, from where it spread virally to the minds of others whose equipment is capable of downloading it. Yes, Objectivists are the latest stage of evolution. And our eagerness to teach it to everyone else illustrates the life force and survival drive of ideas that use human brains as incubation and replication devices.

I am convinced that each individual human being is a mutant.

Good explanation cat, Txs

Maybe so.

They will live or die by their own choices. Our choices for our survival my save them as well, but their luck may run out. We can't help that.

Before science, the study of that which exists, you sat around a fire grunting and gesturing as most children and women died in childbirth and disease. Now you rely on science to write its denial. That is why Objectivism calls it a stolen concept. Read Atlas and learn why that is a fundamental enemy of reason. Almost every bird you eat and flower.you buy is GMO. Read Darwin and learn about speciation by breeding and Rand for reason and science. .

That was the basis of Soviet and is Cuban medicine.

Wiggys nailed it.

Mutations change molecules not minds. Hyman needs elementary biology. .

Z Biologically we all get the same neurological contents and it is up to us to decide what content we want those billions of neurons to work with. The feeling of reason is that there is a actual saving of energy when the contents fit with each other instead of contradicting each other. The brain can quickly act for your survival versus being unable to integrate. SO we all have that feeling of when stuff fits. Reason for lots of biological reasons actually fells good. Its called noise versus coherence in information theory. It has good biological consequences.
Best Z.

It would take at least 20 years, and probably more, for enough of the looters to die off before a society that once had looters to be sufficiently "clean" enough such that I would take the entrepeneurial risk to go back. Rare is the opportunity to make a high enough ROI to break even in 5 years, and most such opportunities are add-ons to existing production facilities, rather than startups from scratch.

As you acknowledge, those are two pretty daunting conditions.

You're welcome k. :)

j; As you say, and that's always disappointed me about people that can't 'critically think' and can't or won't separate their societal connotation and feeling about certain words from the actual meaning of words and the ideas behind them. It's a form of cognitive behavior control imposed on the listener by others that 'feel' bad about the concept in the context expressed or fear the expression of the concept behind the word.

The author discusses some of that difficulty with the word 'evidence' used by the scientific vs. the non-scientific. It's like talking a different language that uses words that sound the same, but have entirely different meanings in the different language.

I think I agree with that, though I also think that the brain operates more in the analog realm than the binary. But what's so amazing to me is the degree of sub-conscious activity involved in some of it's operations.

Yes. I'm pretty certain that I've read everything he's written and commented on.

cat; I'm not comfortable with the idea of "That's why we like the feel of using reason." or that O's care as an explanation. However, I agree that there are no Innate ideas. But I do contend that the 'wiring' is different and the ideas can be encouraged at a very early stage in the children that continually ask, why.

Yes. The internet can provide valuable access to information and knowledge--but it also provides a lot of nonsense, as witnessed by some of the Posts we get. I wonder how much of it comes from the ease of sitting by oneself reading the internet rather than having the self esteem to ask a Dr. for more explanation. I've met a few that were arrogant when questioned, but most were happy to explain.