The premise that is missing:

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

As said another way:

This premise also is needed:

If P1 and P2, then C.

But that claim itself needs justification. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You need to answer that better than you barely do [see later in this post].

/

I know it is not [a definition of 'selfish']. — Garrett Travers

So you should not have suggested that it is.

Human survival also depends on other means, including ingrained responses (you jump from fire by a natural tendency to avoid its pain well before you reason about it), emotion (enthusiasm, hope, love), physical effort (pushing a rock to not be crushed by it), and cooperation with other humans (except for extraordinary people, survival by oneself with just reason is not likely).
— TonesInDeepFreeze

All of this is involved in the reasoning process, and how your brain determines one's actions. — Garrett Travers

(1) Reason depends on the biological process of the brain. So one could just as easily say that all reason involves biological process.

(2) Not all those examples involve reason. Or, if they do, then everything involves reason, but also, human survival also involves physical, emotional, and social attributes. So one might as well just say "the means of survival", inclusive of all means, rather than pick out only reason as determinative over all of them.

(3) Some of those examples do not involve reason. I retract immediately upon touching fire, not because I reason about it. Of, if you call that 'reason' (because it contributes to survival) then virtually anything is reason that contributes to survival. And in that case, if it contributes to survival then it's reason and if it's reason then it contributes to survival. And in that case, your framework is circular.

The pain/pleasure response is about the best thing here as far as a natural response to immediate stimuli that ensures survival, so I think you can have that. But, even that is an essential element to: think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic- or reason. — Garrett Travers

Your argument is that reason should be singled out as the necessary attribute. But then I mention another necessary attribute. But then you say it contributes to reason. But whether the other attributes contribute to reason or not, they are necessary. Without better argument, you are arbitrary to claim that reason is the essential necessary attribute, let alone to further argue that ethical behavior is all and only that which is based on values corresponding to reason. One could as well say that ethics is all and only that which contributes to pleasure and avoidance of pain. Or one could as well say that ethics is all and only that which contributes to survival. Adding that it must be toward life corresponding to "values based on reason" doesn't follow from your premises.

I value fresh air, not from reason,
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If you value it, it's reason. — Garrett Travers

(1) On it's face, that means that whatever I value is based on reason. But you can't mean that, because you hold that certain values are not based on reason. So it's ambiguous what you think reason is.

(2). And, no, reason is not why I value the air. I value it because it is excruciating not to have it. I don't reason about that; I just feel the pain of suffocation and desire not to suffocate - immediately without reason. You said yourself that you concede pleasure/pain may precede reason. If turning toward air, even as an animal would do, is from a process of reason, then virtually any behavior is from reason and the word 'reason' loses its particular meaning.

breathing isn't going to get your food, shelter, or skills for continued survival for you. — Garrett Travers

Ah, your argumentation relies on shifting between what is necessary and what is sufficient. Yes, breathing is not sufficient for certain things but it is necessary. And reason is not sufficient either. But your point has been the necessity of reason. If you point out the necessity of reason, then I correctly also point our the necessity of breathing, even though neither is sufficient.

Yes, means of survival are developed by reason, values are secondary. — Garrett Travers

(1) Again, there are necessary means of survival that are not developed by reason.

(2) And you support my point when you say values are secondary. Since they are secondary, unless there is other connecting argument, it is arbitrary to claim that ethics is identified with them in the particular way that Objectivism does.

And it requires argument to show that there are not values other than selfishness that are developed with reason
— TonesInDeepFreeze

No, it doesn't. That isn't necessary at all. All values developed with reason. Selfishness is the value in the reasoning faculty to provide life and values. Doesn't matter which values you generate. — Garrett Travers

(1) The point I made is that it requires argument to show that there are not values other than selfishness developed from reason. I didn't claim that selfishness as a value is or is not developed by reason.

(2) "Doesn 't matter which values you generate". On its face, that can't be what you mean, even in this context, since you hold that there are values that are irrational.

(3) Even though, quite arguably, valuing one's life and pleasure and enjoyment of certain values is selfish, it does not follow that (a) all values are developed by reason (which was my point) and (b) that one can't develop from reason also unselfish values (a point I'm adding in response to your response here).

(4) Even though, quite arguably, the value of selfishness contributes to one's own life and values, it does not follow that ethics is merely that which contributes to one's own life and (rational) values. It is pure question begging to merely say that ethics does not permit putting the lives and (rational) values of other people above your own.

I'm willing to take it as axiomatic that ethical behavior must at least contribute to life, pleasure, and rational values. But whether (a) that must be (or, weaker, can be) only one's own life, pleasure, rational values (egoism) or (b) life, pleasure, rational values in general (utilitarianism), requires argument. The proposition you need to demonstrate is "Ethical acts are all and only those that contribute to one's own life and (rational) values".

I wrote:

reason is only part of the means of human survival. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You replied:

No, the things you mentioned are minor parts of survival that could potentially exist outside of : think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. — Garrett Travers

(1) Physical capability, unmediated response, emotion, social inclination are obviously not minor.

(2) Even if they are merely minor (which, they are not), that wouldn't provide for your framework as singling out reason while disregarding all the other aspects of survival. Let alone that without physical capability, there is no reason anyway.

(3) If they can exist without reason, then that destroys your point.

If humans survive by reason, and reason is the human's means of surviving and living in accordance with the values produced from reason, then a society that respects that process is the only one conducive to human life. How does that not follow? — Garrett Travers

(1) You are shifting the argument.

Your original conclusion was that people should be free to be selfish. I don't opine here on that. But I point out that it doesn't follow from your premises.

Now you say that a "society that respects that process is the only one conducive to human life". A premise (which is uncontroversial) "society should be conducive to human life" does contribute to "people should be free to be selfish". I don't mind too much taking liberty in that respect as a kind of starting ethos, as long as it is not categorical. It does not necessarily follow that an ethical society may not limit certain selfish pursuits. First, without better Objectivist argument, we should not accept the Objectivist escape hatch that violation of the rights or others is never selfish. Second, if promotion of life is the fundamental value, then it is not ruled out that society disallow people from doing things that threaten their own lives. Third, again, it is question begging to claim, without supporting premises, that society should not act to promote life, pleasure, and values of people in general rather than merely allow people to pursue selfish objectives that happen not to violate rights.

(2) The Objectivist position that ethics is all and only that which is selfish, it is not itself that proposition above you hold about society. Again, as to Objectivism, the premise that needs to be supported is:

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

This is completely fair. So, I say we go from there. — Garrett Travers

As was clear, that is not my own position.

And:

(1) There are attributes needed for survival other than reason.

(2) If the claim is not just necessity but is moreover essentiality, then Objectivism needs to support its philosophy of essentialism, and provide argument how essential properties entail certain other normative claims.

(3) The whole conditional sentence itself requires argument, unless it is simply an axiom.

So, I say we go from there. — Garrett Travers

Okay, go from there. Try to make a logically sound argument for it.

That the proposition impresses Objectivist as overwhelmingly true is not a demonstration that it is true. A demonstration is showing:

"Reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival". (And that has not been shown.)

and

showing that

"Reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values"

entails

"An act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason."

I value seeing a colorful flower, not from reason, but simply from the unmediated pleasure I get from it
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If you can use thought to enumerate the reason, that's reason. — Garrett Travers

I don't know what "enumerate the reason" is supposed to mean.

I can use thought to enumerate the emotions I felt yesterday. That doesn't entail that the emotions themselves are reason.

If reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values, then an act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

As said another way:

This premise also is needed:

If P1 and P2, then C.

But that claim itself needs justification. — TonesInDeepFreeze

These are not my premises. The first two are, that conclusion is yours. We haven't gotten to the moral justifications portion of this conversation yet.

So you should not have suggested that it is. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I didn't, I said we'd "start" here.

Reason depends on the biological process of the brain. So one could just as easily say that all reason involves biological process. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's specifically what I'll be arguing.

"Doesn 't matter which values you generate". On its face, that can't be what you mean, even in this context, since you hold that there are values that are irrational. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That's because you didn't analyze the rest of the statement. It does not matter whether you can value irrational concepts, the concept itself is generated through the same process of reason per individual.

Even though, quite arguably, valuing one's life and pleasure and enjoyment of certain values is selfish, it does not follow that (a) all values are developed by reason (which was my point) and (b) that one can't develop from reason also unselfish values (a point I'm adding in response to your response here). — TonesInDeepFreeze

There is no evidence to suggest this, and plenty to suggest otherwise. I've linked studies in the thread.

Your argument is that reason should be singled out as the necessary attribute. But then I mention another necessary attribute. But then you say it contributes to reason. But whether the other attributes contribute to reason or not, they are necessary. Without better argument, you are arbitrary to claim that reason is the essential necessary attribute, let alone to further argue that ethical behavior is all and only that which is based on values corresponding to reason. One could as well say that ethics is all and only that which contributes to pleasure and avoidance of pain. Or one could as well say that ethics is all and only that which contributes to survival. Adding that it must be toward life corresponding to "values based on reason" doesn't follow from your premises. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Reason is without a doubt the necessary attribute. One that uses the attributes that you described to initiate and standardize behavior. They are necessary attributes, but are not sufficient protocols for survival, reason must be employed to ensure long-term homeostasis. You do not understand my conclusion, you are only talking from your conclusion that I did not assert.

You are shifting the argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope, that was you. This was my specific argument.

Okay, go from there. Try to make a logically sound argument for it.

That the proposition impresses Objectivist as overwhelmingly true is not a demonstration that it is true. A demonstration is showing:

"Reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival". (And that has not been shown.)

and

showing that

"Reason is the essential attribute for a human's survival and reason provides for human values"

entails

"An act is ethical if and only if it contributes to the actor's values derived from reason." — TonesInDeepFreeze

We're gonna do this one on a separate comment, after I get through your gish gallop.

I don't know what "enumerate the reason" is supposed to mean.

I can use thought to enumerate the emotions I felt yesterday. That doesn't entail that the emotions themselves are reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If you can describe why you enjoyed something, then such is a matter of reason.



So, here's how we're gonna move forward. Don't post any more of these gish gallops, and you and I will handle each objection individually, like I've been doing with everyone else. I'll let you decide which one you want to tackle first. Post it in a comment, and you and I will explore it. I'm not responding to any more of these huge messages with numerous issues of which may or may not have been derived from you misunderstanding something entriely.

Influenced, of course. Controlled, no. — Garrett Travers

So waking to a room on fire and escaping in a panic - this isn't an example of incoming stimulus controlling the brain?

From what I can gather, the brain controls everything. — Garrett Travers

The brain controls reasoning and also the irrational in the human system(s)?

So the brain, in its control of irrational thoughts, emotions and behavior, is both rational (given to reasoning) and irrational?

So waking to a room on fire and escaping in a panic - this isn't an example of incoming stimulus controlling the brain? — ZzzoneiroCosm

No. It is the brain integrating data to be used in motivating you away from harm, and into safety. It's a function of reason. Your brain is always reasoning, even in situations of this kind. However, situations of this kind limit the breadth of executive function in that process, which limits total reasoning capacities. In the case of Randian Ethics, that executive function aspect of how you formulate your code of behavior is something that should never be jettisoned. And it strikes me as bizarre that anyone would come to a separate conclusion.

The brain controls reasoning and also the irrational in the human system(s)?

So the brain, in its control of irrational thoughts, emotions and behavior, is both rational (given to reasoning) and irrational? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. Aren't you reading what I've showed you. You have the capacity to instantiate systems of thought and value, that do not value reason. Which is strange, because you're actually using reason to do so. Individual reasoning capacities and manipulation have a strong part to play in this process.

So the brain, in its control of irrational thoughts, emotions and behavior, is both rational (given to reasoning) and irrational? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Think of it in terms of religion. If I can convince you through sensory validation that there's a god, or you should believe in god, it is reason you are using to conclude whether or not I can be trusted, and my arguments sound. If you are convinced, there's a good chance you will adopt a system of religious belief that specifically regards reason as anti-thetical to god. Thus, through the application of reason, which isn't avoidable because that's how humans survive, you have adopted an anti-reason, and therefore anti-human, conceptual framework of behavior. I once met a guy who told me he didn't need evidence for believing something, while simultaneously holding opinions based on observed phenomena...... Humans have done a number on themselves, my friend.

Yes. — Garrett Travers

And how can a person know whether his present thoughts, emotions or behaviors are rational or irrational?

Is it possible to believe a given thought, emotion or behavior is rational when upon closer inspection it turns out to be irrational?


For example, your behavior right now on this forum: is it possible that while you believe it to be rational it turns out to be irrational?

And how can a person know whether his present thoughts, emotions or behaviors are rational or irrational? — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's what we have language for. We've mapped the word "reason" to a concept that is a standard for interaction with the world, it simply happens to correspond to human nature. Meaning, reason is itself a definition one can defer back to, in case they think they're predicating an action on a desire that would override a more wholesome, and equilibrated action.

Is it possible to believe a given thought, emotion or behavior is rational when upon closer inspection it turns out to be irrational? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course. Happens to me all of the time. I only recently found out about Epicurus. His history utterly negates everything we knew about communism and capitalism. Yet, most of us, including myself until last week, are walking around with all of these concepts that seem rational, when in fact they're contradictory completely. Which would make sense as to why Communists and Capitalists can't square their damn differences. Just as an example.

For example, your behavior right now on this forum: is it possible that while you believe it to be rational it turns out to be irrational? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. But, I value empiricism, which is also a standard placed on top of the "thinking" aspect of reason, that I personally value for the results I can achieve with it. If you were to show me demonstrable proof that Rand was wrong, and Kant was right, I'd change my mind right now. As it stands, the only evidence that currently is compiled, supports most of Rand's views, as opposed to Kant's. Does that all make sense?

Yes, I know you hate Ayn Rand. (Except, of course, for you.) :) — ZzzoneiroCosm

Oh no. Here we go again. An Ayn Rand thread... 16 hours and 5 pages.

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

If P1 and P2, then C.

But that claim itself needs justification.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

These are not my premises. — Garrett Travers

What are you talking about?

You listed P1, P2, and C:

P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals — Garrett Travers

I pointed out that it is a conditional statement, not an argument. But then I allowed that you probably mean it as an argument.

But P1 and P2 do not logically entail C.

We haven't gotten to the moral justifications portion of this conversation yet. — Garrett Travers

Whatever you haven't gotten to, it includes not having gotten to a valid argument. If you have a valid argument for C, then it requires more than P1 and P2.

Reason depends on the biological process of the brain. So one could just as easily say that all reason involves biological process.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's specifically what I'll be arguing. — Garrett Travers

Then you'll be arguing in the opposite direction of your gravamen.

I said we'd "start" here. — Garrett Travers

I took you to mean it was a definition from which you would go on to make other points. So, now, good that it's clear that it wasn't a definition of selfishness, but then it that case you were mislading to say it was what is "meant" by 'selfishness'

You are shifting the argument.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope, that was you. This was my specific argument. — Garrett Travers

I didn't shift any argument. What argument do you claim I shifted?

You shifted from the point that there are survival means that are not reason.

On its face, that can't be what you mean, even in this context, since you hold that there are values that are irrational.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

That's because you didn't analyze the rest of the statement. It does not matter whether you can value irrational concepts, the concept itself is generated through the same process of reason per individual. — Garrett Travers

I didn't ignore any "rest of the statement". Please cite the "rest of the statement" that you think I ignored.

Then the process of reason includes violation of rationality. I wouldn't disagree too much - included in reasoning is incorrect reasoning or irrationality. But, since, presumably, irrationality detracts from survival, your argument is weakened by allowing that irrationality is also a process of reason.

We're gonna do this one on a separate comment, after I get through your gish gallop. — Garrett Travers

I look forward to seeing how you think you think you are're going to do it.

"gish gallop" has no rational argumentative value. You have not shown that my points, especially the central ones, are inaccurate. Nor have my points been unreasonably numerous, especially as they have been point back directly to your posted claims; moreover, I have barely gone much further than direct counterpoint.

I don't know what "enumerate the reason" is supposed to mean.

I can use thought to enumerate the emotions I felt yesterday. That doesn't entail that the emotions themselves are reason.
— TonesInDeepFreeze

If you can describe why you enjoyed something, then such is a matter of reason. — Garrett Travers

"A matter of reason" (a vague rubric) is not what's at issue. What is at issue is whether the original mental events were reason. If there is a difference between emotion and reasoning, then my emotions yesterday were not reason. The fact that I can later use reason to think about the emotions I once had doesn't make those emotions themselves reason. Otherwise, any mental state is reason. If you persist to deny this, then you make yourself risible.

Oh no. Here we go again. An Ayn Rand thread... 16 hours and 5 pages. — ssu

Oh, but yes.

Did you not read where I said I was not going to respond unless we took the arguments one at a time? Which argument do you want me to address first? We will go from there.

Is it possible to believe a given thought, emotion or behavior is rational when upon closer inspection it turns out to be irrational? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course. — Garrett Travers

So while believing ourselves to be following our rational self-interest we may in fact be following our irrational self-interest?

In other words, while believing ourselves to be rationally selfish in the Randian sense we may actually be just plain selfish?

Oh no. Here we go again. An Ayn Rand thread... 16 hours and 5 pages. — ssu

Haha.... She's a Firestarter...

Can you respond to my point about scientific projects? How would a Randian society fund large-scale projects that don't return a realistic return on investment, like the Hubble Telescope and LHC?

Does that all make sense? — Garrett Travers

Makes sense.

So while believing ourselves to be following our rational self-interest we may in fact be following our irrational self-interest? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yep. Happens all of the time. The thing about it is, humans have these default mode network settings that do not require one to move beyond a certin level of sophistication in their reasoning. Basically, whatever can induce a base-level homeostasis, is really all most people will seek out.

In other words, while believing ourselves to be rationally selfish in the Randian sense we may actually be just plain selfish? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes. I've met a ton of Randians that were irrational ideologues.

Did you not read where I said I was not going to respond unless we took the arguments one at a time? — Garrett Travers

I don't take myself to be obligated to reply to only one of your many claims at a time.

You can reply or not to whatever you like.

If you would like a first point though, then you could start with my first point, and as I have elaborated on it:

P1 and P2 do not entail C. So if you claim C, then you need premises more than P1 and P2. What are those premises?

Can you respond to my point about scientific projects? How would a Randian society fund large-scale projects that don't return a realistic return on investment, like the Hubble Telescope and LHC? — RogueAI

Through voluntary donation. If it fails it fails.

That's a knock on your philosophy. The LHC and Hubble and moon landing and ISS have been net goods. Not huge net goods, but net goods.

P1 and P2 do not entail C. So if you claim C, then you need premises more than P1 and P2. What are those premises? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Okay so let's tackle this.

P1.

if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival. — Garrett Travers

Evolution is clearly not a deniable source of human creation I'd imagine, so we'll deal with reason.

Reason being: think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. All human thoughts are informed by sensory data used to inform further action in a feedbackloop. What actions that are life-sustaining are not classified by this description? That's what you're going to need to dismiss P1.

PFC: "This region is implicated in the most human of behaviors, such as social interaction, moral judgment, fairness, self-control, prediction of the future, and decision making in conflict situations.88-9" — Garrett Travers

PFC is implicated in most human behaviors.

Sensory Data Accrual: "In everyday life, we choose between options with multiple attributes. The attributes of an option (e.g., shoes) can be qualitatively different (aesthetics and expenses) and are associated with positive or negative values. For successful choice behavior, individuals need to integrate the different values into an overall subjective value." — Garrett Travers

Integration of multiple values informs our choices.

Data Sifting: "People can conceptualize the same action (e.g. ‘riding a bike’) at different levels of abstraction (LOA), where higher LOAs specify the abstract motives that explain why the action is performed (e.g. ‘getting exercise’), while lower LOAs specify the concrete steps that indicate how the action is performed (e.g. ‘gripping handlebars’). Prior neuroimaging studies have shown that why and how questions about actions differentially activate two cortical networks associated with mental-state reasoning and action representation, respectively" — Garrett Travers

Cortical networks work together to process various levels of abstraction.

Concept Informed Behavior: ""The activation signature of a concept is a composite of the different types of knowledge of the concept that a person has stored, and each type of knowledge is stored in its own characteristic set of regions" — Garrett Travers

Different regions of the brain work together to store and integrate knowledge.

All this to say the brain controls everything? Am I following?

That's a knock on your philosophy. The LHC and Hubble and moon landing and ISS have been net goods. Not huge net goods, but net goods. — RogueAI

No, it isn't. No system is perfect and there are always going to be successes and failures. This kind of system is going to be incentivized to maintain, and increase quality output over time, in accordance with the value being placed in their developments by the voluntary contributions to the project. If it fails, so be it.

Furthermore, it has never been stated the current system cannot do some good, nor that it cannot sustain itself for a long time. But, specifically, that it is not the system that is most conducive to the human's life. However, markets could very well be relied on to produce all of that, with variation through competition.

PFC is implicated in most human behaviors. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yep, and all human behaviors lead to data accrual to inform further behaviors based on that data: Reason.

Integration of multiple values informs our choices. — ZzzoneiroCosm

All formed from sensory data: Reason

Cortical networks work together to process various levels of abstraction. — ZzzoneiroCosm

All using sensory data: Reason

Different regions of the brain work together to store and integrate knowledge. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Reason defined

Different regions of the brain work together to store and integrate knowledge.

All this to say the brain controls everything? Am I following? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, as far as I know, this it what the evidence suggests. Thank you for steelmanning the position so far, I appreciate it.

First, you elide my point. Whether P1 or P2 are true, they do not entail C.

All human thoughts are informed by sensory data used to inform further action in a feedbackloop. What actions that are life-sustaining are not classified by this description? — Garrett Travers

You keep skipping my reply to that:

"A matter of reason" (a vague rubric) is not what's at issue. What is at issue is whether the original mental events were reason. If there is a difference between emotion and reasoning, then my emotions yesterday were not reason. The fact that I can later use reason to think about the emotions I once had doesn't make those emotions themselves reason. Otherwise, any mental state is reason. — TonesInDeepFreeze

So if any mental state is reason, then your argument reduces to:

P1. if humans evolved with mental states being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through mental states that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals[/quote]

But I am even more interested in the fact that even if we accepted P1 and P2 as true, they don't entail C.

What are your additional premises added to P1 and P2 to derive C?

We obviously don't agree, but you have made a spirited defense of Randian philosophy! I salute you!

First, you elide my point. Whether P1 or P2 are true, they do not entail C. — TonesInDeepFreeze

We're not there yet, we're still on P1, so let's just answer Garrett's question and we'll continue. What life sustaining actions are not characterized by the description I gave, in accordance to the cognitive scientific data currently available (which I have posted), and the current working definition of reason?

[/quote]

All formed from sensory data: Reason — Garrett Travers

Not clear in this.

Are you equating sensory data and reason?

We obviously don't agree, but you have made a spirited defense of Randian philosophy! I salute you! — RogueAI

Thank you, friend. Really, I just want you guys to walk away from this without this fabricated idea that Rand was "nOt A pHiLoSoPheR." She was, and a damn good one. I encourage you to read the first chapter of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, just the first. If you still think she's useless, I'll never bother you about her again.