Are you a dogmatist or can you rationally speak to my argument in your own words? The universe as it is described by those claiming to be objective today will use the term "spontaneous" to describe an action that comes from nothing simply to avoid looking as if they have ventured into the land of the supernatural.

If existence comes first, everything after that is an "effect." That is how I was using the word "effect."

Please read this:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primac...

We have in existence today a body of neuroscientists who are doing research into depression with the premise that depression is a medical disorder and are not doing any research, or none that I know of, on the premise that depression is a choice. For the neuroscientist depression and anxiety are assumed to be complex brain traits and a result of genetics interacting with environmental factors that cause the depression or anxiety. These neuroscientists would probably agree with you on your concerns about keeping terms defined, and I myself and all for keeping them defined, but the real problem when it comes to neuroscience and depression is their ONE "objective reality" has no regard for choice. Even when they are confronted with the reality of a tragedy; a love lost, a limb lost, or an extended sense of overwhelming helplessness in people who were able to eventually overcome these depressions and anxieties, then the scientists simply move the goal posts and differentiate between depression and "major depression" or anxiety and "major anxiety" as if there are two sorts of each.

The result of this neuroscience has become an arbitrary drugging of people based upon brain imaging and other research but it eventually becomes even more arbitrary and the man who has just suffered a heart attack will be put on anti-depressants because he is likely to suffer depression because of the heart attack. As if feeling depressed is an irrational choice of emotion after a heart attack.

I certainly agree with you and your concerns but suspect that your concerns are not the same as my concerns in some regards.

I believe it is wholly possible that the results of brain imaging showing the brain affected by depression and highlighting certain chemical reactions can still be a result of consciousness and not the brain. By consciousness I mean the decision made - which neuroscientists would ascribe to the "executive" portion of the brain, and I am ascribing to mind...consciousness.

I have not found any studies at all that have monitored depressed people who by choice overcame their depression and what that looked like on their brain imagining scans. There is only ONE objective reality but in order to be OBJECTIVE one must necessarily be cause over their own inherent SUBJECTIVITY.

I don't think JML is saying that they exist independently; rather, that they are both axioms. Rand herself wrote that "a content-less state of awareness" is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is being conscious of something.

We have to be careful of terms here. The Wright brothers did not create reality; they obeyed the laws of reality and as a result created something new - but observe that even their creation had to follow certain laws, such as gravity and aerodynamics.

Your comment that "both existence and consciousness have realities" is precisely the concern I have with keeping our terms defined. There is only ONE objective reality, which we all share, and that is existence. Consciousness is our awareness of existence (i.e., of reality) but it is NOT its own reality. It is an existent (as a process), but it is not a separate reality from existence.

I'm also not certain that one can describe the brain as an "effect of existence"; the brain simply exists.

Nothing is impossible. To claim consciousness is an effect of existence is a hypothesis, but the converse is that existence is the effect of consciousness. The building that exists does so as an effect of consciousness. The journey of a thousand miles certainly begins with the first step but if that journey reaches its destination, particularly on foot, it was more than just involuntary movement that accomplished that. If consciousness is merely the effect of existence, is it existence compelling you to advocate its primacy over consciousness? Why must it be one or the other? Why not something else? If consciousness is the cause of existence does this necessarily mean that consciousness did not exist prior to that cause?

It is impossible for something to exist independent of existence.

If this is true then it certainly does not exist independently of existence. The brain is the effect of existence, consciousness is something different.

Consciousness is an effect of existence.

It is a mistake to place existence at odds with consciousness. And to phrase it as the primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness necessarily demands one be cause and the other effect. When the conscious mind is cause over existence this is very much the same as creating reality. When the conscious mind is the effect of existence then it is existence that is creating the conscious mind, which is why it is a mistake to phrase it as one versus the other, especially if we are to agree the conscious mind exists independently of existence.

Your inference that I am arguing definitions of "reality" is erroneous. I am arguing that both existence and consciousness have realities, and that positive thought leads to a stronger consciousness capable of dealing with existence than does a negative conscious mind. Mans existence is determined by their state of mind as much as by the physical nature of that existence.

It makes no more sense to be at war with existence than it does to surrender to it. It makes more sense to be at peace with existence and shape ones own reality. This makes for a better productive person than one who is at war with existence and merely the effect of their own feeble mind.

The issue is primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness, not the definition of "reality."

You are absolutely correct about Quantum mechanics and science and while I am not willing to have this post construed as being in support of someone who believes all they have to do is point to a silly film as evidence to making reality, the reality is that humans first existed in a world where no buildings, automobiles or airplanes and jets existed and while everyone of these constructs obey the law of nature, they are also strong evidence of people creating their own reality. While Rand rejects the notion of individuals or groups creating their own reality she says this practically in the same breath she asserts that the external world exists independent of man's consciousness. There seems to be a contradiction there. It is, after all, man's consciousness that designs buildings to be built, invents, designs, and engineers automobiles and airplanes and jets that effectively have altered a past reality to the reality we now live in.

When the Wright Brothers first flew the notion they could fly flew in the face of the reality everyone shared and many declared that if man were intended to fly, God would have given us wings. It was, of course, the conscious reality all shared that believed that people couldn't fly, but the reality always was that people could certainly build a construct that carried human passengers to fly. In that regard that people could always fly was a reality all shared, but few knew it. They had no knowledge of it until some individuals dragged the collective ignorance into reality and in doing so shaped our conscious reality. There is such a thing as conscious reality and this reality can and is all too often created by individuals on the plus side and all too often on the negative side created by groups.

While positive thinking alone will not accomplish anything, positive thinking used to act is a stronger strategy than negative thinking used to act. Micheal Jordan missed far more shots than he made and yet he is not remembered for all the shots he missed but instead remembered for all the shots he made. Those shots were all shot in a physical reality where the law of bodies in motion holds true, but Jordan also spent much time thinking positively always visualizing the shot before he made it, and again, while he missed more than he made, he is not remembered for the shots he made because they were few, and he wasn't the go to guy to make a shot because he missed too much, Micheal Jordan is remembered because he made more shots than most. He made his reality as much as lived in it.

Quantum physics hasn't proven anything. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Always remember we cannot claim knowledge we don't actually have, and as Fred Allen Woolf rightfully observed in that documentary (which one should not consider a reliable discussion of quantum mechanics) the quantum world is a complete fantasy that physicists have come up with in an attempt to explain dilemmas and problems they encountered, but more knowledge is yet to be gained before we can quantify and establish any sort of law.

Also remember, the key part of objective reality is that we all share it. Even if observation changes the behavior of electrons, that does not mean that objective reality is subject to whims. That's exactly the mysticism that Rand warns against in Atlas Shrugged.

Thank you

Watch "What the Bleep Do We Know?"and then tell me that we do not create our own reality. Quantum physics has proven that the behavior of electrons actually changes depending upon who is observing them...

I believe the whole point to this board and "Objectivism" is to point out that we cannot create our own reality. Reality is reality. Existence exists. Also, the collectivism is getting to a point were it is almost impossible to live your life the way your want it. You can live your life up to the point were you can compromise and tolerate those compromises but that is on the best side of things. Not being negative or positive. That is the reality that exists now.

Or, misery loves company...

Giving attention to anything gives it power. Living in a world of positivity creates change...

It's very warm and fuzzy in here.

I generally agree with you, but I've seen much less complaining here than other message boards. Plus, commiseration is a method of bonding.

Thanks for having and encouraging discussion like this. It's very valuable. And remember, you can send us any of your ideas, suggestions, criticisms, etc by submitting a post about it and putting it in the relevant category for us to see. ie The Gulch:Bugs, Feature Requests, Support, TODOs.
Just like lsapinky did this one. Looking forward to hearing from you all.

Constructive criticism creates change and makes things better. To live in a world of positivity is to live in a un-real world..

Well put. After all, we are individualists in a collectivists world. By doing something, anything, we are bound to bring a little objectivism to those around us.