Reddit reviews The Brains of Men and Machines

By the way, this conversation has followed a very typical routine.

Person A says "How does one directly perceive the universe, as Rand says is possible, without the flaws of the senses interfering? That doesn't make sense." Rand says it's logically impossible for your perceptions to be incorrect or you wouldn't be able to argue that your perceptions are incorrect.

Someone like you comes along and after several rounds winds up backpedaling to a perfectly reasonable position, in this case, "my senses are sufficiently accurate that with additional reasoning and instrumentation, I can figure out to a large extent how the universe works."

This happens repeatedly with Rand's works, I find, because she tends to make outrageous and easily countered statements (such as it being impossible for one's perceptions to be flawed, or that man is the only rational animal, or the only creature capable of thinking conceptually as she defines it) and then goes on to argue something completely prosaic (if not downright mundane) from that that is nevertheless open to discussion (such as your argument that useful information is available to your senses, or that people think and use their judgment). She'll want to make point X which is open to debate, but then express it as X+++ and assert that X+++ is inarguable. If you point out that X+++ is actually flawed, supporters will say "but X is perfectly reasonable, how can you disagree?" But the actual following arguments depend on X+++ being logically true, not just "reasonable."

As for authorities, start with these two, which I found to be quite readable. Of course, feel free to consult actual college courses in neurophysiology or something if you actually want science instead of Rand's guesses about how objective reality behaves.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Brains-Machines-Ernest-Kent/dp/0070341230

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Mistook_His_Wife_for_a_Hat

I don't disagree that your senses give you important and useful information about the world. I disagree that it's impossible for your perceptions to be inaccurate, and I disagree that you directly perceive the universe as it really is without your senses distorting it. (Indeed, you'd probably be a pretty crappy organism, survival-wise, if your senses didn't distort your perception of the universe, as you'd likely be unable to pick out the important features.)