PART 2: CHAPTER 7

REASON

58

Introduction to Reason

Reason is to identify and integrate what is perceived sensorially.

“Reason,” in Ayn Rand’s words, “is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” She means that valid thought begins with the evidence of perception.

A valid concept must connect to percepts. It integrates them — the photo album must contain photos of that type of entity. In other words, a concept must refer to something concrete.

Wikipedia defines reason as “the capacity of consciously applying logic by drawing conclusions from new or existing information, with the aim of seeking the truth.” Rationality is defined by the Collins English Dictionary as “the state or quality of being logical.” Neither definition mentions man’s senses or percepts.

59

Reason Is an Individual Faculty

Reason is an exclusive function of the individual, there is no collective thought.

The individual brain is the only entity that thinks. There is no collective brain the size of a stadium, so there is no “collective thought.”

What is called “collective thinking” is a crowd phenomenon, in which the irrational parts of many brains align irrationally — for example, during a panic stampede. Gustav Le Bon explores this in Psychology of Crowds.

Galileo, Newton, and Darwin thought for themselves. A thousand men did not paint Leonardo’s Gioconda or compose Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. One Einstein was enough to formulate E = mc².

Thinking is an individual action. It is the neocortex of a single person, choosing to reason for themselves.

Following the majority without critical analysis is not thinking. It is copying those who think, or following followers who believe they are thinkers.

60

Focusing The Mind Generates Good Decisions

Focusing the mind produces contrast, allowing man to choose between clear options.

Focusing the mind is like a professional photographer focusing a camera lens. It is the decision to see a sharp image, to clearly distinguish what it contains, especially outlines and boundaries.

The same applies to thought. Man must focus his mind to see clear options and evaluate them accurately.

Focusing the mind is the first decision. It makes all other decisions possible. The more focused the mind, the sharper the options, and the more effective the decisions. Man is free to focus or not, but he cannot escape the consequences of evasion. If he chooses to focus, his clarity allows effective, precise decisions, bringing success, wealth, and self-esteem.

Focusing the mind is not automatic. It can never be automatic because it requires deciding to study and taking the time to do it.

Before studying anything, a man calculates the time and effort it will cost. That calculation — deciding whether to pay the price — is focusing the mind.

For example, a man choosing to study medicine first estimates the years of study, time, effort, risk of failure, and willingness to sacrifice other activities. Only after this evaluation can he decide. This does not happen automatically. Focusing the mind always begins with assessing the cost.

100

Focusing in low or high definition produces very different results. Thinking in HD — total clarity —requires more effort: greater concentration, attention to detail, scope, and implications. Entering medicine is not enough; not all medical students become top doctors. The best ones focus their minds better and achieve exceptional results.

To understand something as clearly as knowing that two plus two equals four, a man must pay the full price: time, effort, intensity, motivation, and concentration. To think like a Rolls-Royce, he must pay for a Rolls-Royce.

Man must pay the highest price to focus his mind in HD, 4K, or 8K — the standard required to become his own champion. The highest price is overcoming the paleocortex, which resists studying anything that threatens the cultural imprint.

101

61

Free Will Is Absolute

Free will is absolute, since not to choose is to choose not to choose.

Whether a man chooses or does not choose, in both cases he chooses. No one can escape the consequences of decisions, by action or omission.

Man’s free will is absolute. This means the consequences of his decisions are absolute. If consequences are absolute and interconnected, even minor decisions shape the destiny each man builds for himself.

Every decision has absolute consequences once made. This is how each man writes his own story and decides how it ends.

102

62

Logic

Logic is the science of non-contradictions.

Logic is the science of non-contradictions to reach certain conclusions. A logical conclusion is a reasoning that derives from two premises and is called a syllogism.

For example:

Premise 1: All men, are mortal.

Premise 2: Socrates, is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates, is mortal.

Every premise has two parts: subject and predicate.

In premise 1, the subject is “all men” and the predicate is “are mortals.” In premise 2, the subject is “Socrates” and the predicate is “is a man.”

Effective logic ensures that, in both premises, the subject and predicate refer to entities whose existence proves itself. If they are floating concepts — without percepts — the conclusion may be logically valid but factually false.

Logic is the science of non-contradictory identification. Its principle is the law of identity: A is A. A cannot be an “a priori” concept if man wants to discover objective conclusions.

103

63

Possible, Probable and Certain

Possible probable and certain are not synonymous.

When there is no evidence against and some evidence in favour, something is possible. If the evidence increases but doubts remain, it is probable. If the evidence is conclusive, it is certain. Certainty occurs only when a judgment allows no other interpretation and leaves no room for doubt.

Possible means capable of being done or achieved. Probable means likely to happen or be the case. Certain means able to be firmly relied on to happen or be the case.

To decide assertively, ask yourself: Is this possible, probable, or true? These are the same questions a jury asks before convicting a defendant or a scientist asks to validate a hypothesis.

If Kant’s philosophy does not help man trust reason with certainty, how does that affect his emotions and self-esteem?

104

64

Reason Is The Only Means of Man’s Knowledge

The only means of knowledge of man is his reason.

The intellect alone knows reality, from sensory perceptions to ideas.

Emotions depend on some intellectual evaluation, but they do not serve to know reality.

If you are in an emotional storm, postpone decisions until you regain calm. Then identify the cause of the storm, which may include an irrational criterion from your cultural imprint.

105

65

Emotions Do Not Serve To Know Reality

Emotions are reactions to intellectual evaluations and do not serve to know reality.

All emotion derives from a process that occurs in four steps:

Perception
Identification
Intellectual evaluation
Response

Man first perceives a stimulus. Second, he identifies it. Third, he evaluates it intellectually using some criterion. Fourth, the emotion surges and he feels it in his body. Emotion is the final step. This process happens so fast that only the emotion is perceived, not the preceding steps that caused it.

An emotion cannot know anything. It is simply the effect — the final consequence of an intellectual evaluation carried out according to a criterion.

If the third step — the evaluation — is based on irrational cultural criteria, it produces cognitive dissonance, leading to anxiety and functional self-deception. If the criterion is objective, it produces cognitive consonance, and the resulting emotions are proportional to reality.

The image of a rider being ridden by a horse illustrates a reversed relationship between reason and emotion. This happens when cultural criteria are irrational. If the criteria are rational and objective, the rider rides the horse. Emotions obey the rider because he sees reality, and the horse trusts him. The rider knows and decides; the horse trusts and responds.

106

66

Evasion

Evasion is making an effort not to see.

Evasion occurs when a person chooses not to see the facts, refuses to consider the evidence, or makes an effort not to understand.

Evasion resembles a coup in which the paleocortex hijacks the neocortex. Taken to absurd extremes, it is expressed as 2 + 2 = 5, as in George Orwell’s 1984.

A child’s paleocortex is programmed by the culture of their family. Because the family is a means of survival, the child absorbs the culture as a “friend,” including its irrational aspects. The paleocortex cannot distinguish rational from irrational. Confronted with criticism — even constructive — it feels threatened with death. It interprets critique as an attack on its “friend,” the cultural imprint, and hijacks the neocortex.

In a debate, the hijacked person cannot separate a personal critique from criticism of the argument. The neocortex seeks win-win truths; the paleocortex seeks to identify friend or enemy.

Humanity’s evolution depends on rationality minus irrationality — that is, the neocortex minus the paleocortex. In the game analogy, the lower dice represents the paleocortex, the higher dice the neocortex, and the difference determines how far the player moves their token. This changes when the player leaves the Comfort Zone for the Champions Road and becomes master of their mind.

107

An evader is like a goalkeeper who closes his eyes to avoid a goal, believing the ball will disappear, or a striker who thinks desire alone can score a penalty without a ball. The evader fails. You cannot save a penalty by closing your eyes or score without a ball.

The evader places “I want” before “is,” cultural beliefs before reality. He resembles a child in a tantrum, wanting nature to obey his wishes without obeying it first. When that fails, he deceives himself to explain the outcome. He lives in the fantasy of his whims instead of adapting to nature.

The evader cannot tolerate that nature is absolute. He finds it humiliating that he must obey her before she obeys him. He believes social laws can override natural laws. His neocortex is hijacked by his paleocortex. This is why politicians may provoke catastrophic outcomes, including nuclear disaster.

108

67

The Arbitrary as Something Neither True or False

The arbitrary is neither true or false, just an absurd whim.

An arbitrary statement is neither true nor false. It is not different from the sound of a sneeze, therefore, there is no point in trying to debate with one.

The arbitrary says: “You can’t prove that X exists, but you can’t prove that X doesn’t exist either.”

If someone says something, he must present the evidence. It is the onus probando (the burden of proof) as a legal principle that requires evidence to be presented if something is affirmed in court. In logic you cannot prove a negative.

Bertrand Russell said: “If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a porcelain teapot revolving around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, no one could refute my assertion, provided I take care to add that the teapot is so small that it cannot not be seen even by the most powerful telescopes. But if I were to say that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, it is intolerable presumptuousness on the part of human reason to doubt it, one would rightly think that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, if it were taught every Sunday as a sacred truth, if it were installed in the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would be a sign of eccentricity, and whoever doubted would deserve the attention of a psychiatrist in enlightened times, or that of the inquisitor in earlier times.”

109

Carl Seagan said: “Absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

The only logical response to an arbitrary statement is silence. Arbitrariness does not exist in the territory of reason or reality.

Arbitrary claims always “win” in a logical debate because they disguise themselves in the clothes of logic. They pretend to exist in the logical realm, but since they do not, no argument can refute them. Arbitrary statements belong to the realm of the absurd—the only place they can prevail.

Arbitrariness may appear intellectual, but it is just a sound, like a sophisticated sneeze. How do you recognize it? When the statement is unsupported by facts or evidence.

If someone claims, “Russell’s teapot exists,” the logical response is: “Present the evidence.” Without evidence, it remains a sneeze.

For example, if a woman lies to another, claiming, “I saw your husband leaving a motel with his secretary,” can the husband prove he did not have sex with her? He can only say: “Present the evidence.” If there is none, there is nothing to argue.

The arbitrariness trick is a scam used in marriage, business, and politics. Knowing how to differentiate arbitrary claims from valid arguments saves time. Why waste time arguing with sneezes?

110

68

Things Are Absolute in a Context

Things are absolute in a given context and moment.

All things that exist, exist absolutely, in a given context and at a given moment. For example, the absolute fact that you exist and are reading now, in the place where you are.

Similarly, everything that exists in the macrocosm or microcosm — each thing and each fact —exists absolutely, in its own context and moment.

111

69

Agnosticism

An agnostic believes that anything is possible, but is not sure.

The motto of the agnostic is: “I cannot prove that what I say is true, but no one can prove it false, and perhaps we never will know.”

The philosophy of an agnostic is never to be sure of anything, not even that.

The agnostic does not know if what he thinks exists, or if what exists thinks. He is not sure of either.

The only thing the agnostic is sure of is that he is not sure of anything — but sometimes he has doubts even of that, or not?

The Oxford Dictionary defines an agnostic as “a person who believes that nothing certain can be known about the existence of God or anything beyond the material, and may therefore prefer to make an affirmation rather than an oath.”

Interestingly, Oxford’s definition begins with a premise of existence beyond material existence — that is, a premise that assumes the supernatural: Platonism.

112

70

Mysticism and Scepticism

Mysticism and scepticism deny evidence and reason.

“Mysticism” denies evidence-based reason because it relies on Platonism, as in hermetic pseudoscience, astrology, and mystical interpretations of quantum physics. These systems accept the primacy of consciousness over existence: action without an entity that acts; “a priori” concepts without percepts; folders without photo albums; photo albums without photos.

“Scepticism” also denies reason by claiming that no truth is absolute.

Both mysticism and scepticism deny the validity of perceptions and reason. They deny the existence that exists and the evidence of the absolute natural world. Thinking with their premises produces cognitive dissonance and anxiety.

The Oxford Dictionary defines mysticism as “belief in union with the divine nature by means of ecstatic contemplation, and belief in the power of spiritual access to ultimate reality, or to domains of knowledge closed off to ordinary thought.” Like agnosticism, it begins with a premise of the supernatural.

113