Your proclamation doesn't solve the problem.
Rand contends that some chemicals in the brain ("thoughts") correspond to an external reality. The problem is this. How does she know that the chemicals in her brain correspond to an external reality? How could she possibly know?
There is, then, the obvious problem of knowing that our impressions are true representations of reality. There is no way to check them that does not itself rely on sensation and so is open to the same possibility of error. And since, on this view, one cannot tell if one's senses are delivering accurate information, one has reason to doubt that there is any referent for what one senses. One can reasonably (?) say that there is no extramental object (solipsism), or that there may or may not be an object, and we may or may not observe it accurately (relativism).
Let's say that the knower is physically, you; and that the known is something you know conceptually -- in essence we are talking about your body and soul.
Add to that your identified "problem" ... the obvious problem of knowing that our impressions are true representations of reality ... and we're talking about the split Ayn Rand identifies as the "Soul-Body Dichotomy," of which she writes ...
As products of the split between man's soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelations, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter -- the enslavement of man's body, in spirit -- the destruction of his mind.
Because they cannot correspond to anything else, by definition. Ask yourself, how do you know there was a Rand, an Aristotle, an Aquinas, a church or anything else? The problem here is you are ignoring the incalcuble learning curve you yourself went through from the moment of being born until you began thinking independently. How do YOU know there are chemicals in anybody's brain, let alone Rand's? It presupposes the very correspondence you question.
You see, you steal so many concepts here that it becomes impossible to see that these questions make absolutely no sense without the stolen concepts, which are all, unequivocably and without exception, based upon the very correspondence that you question, otherwise you wouldn't know about any such things to ask the question.
There is, then, the obvious problem of knowing that our impressions are true representations of reality. There is no way to check them that does not itself rely on sensation and so is open to the same possibility of error.
Once again, how is it you can make a distinction between 'true representations' of reality as opposed to 'error' without already having objective definitions within your own brain as to what these terms mean. In other words, why isn't your observation that we are subject to error, subject to the same error which would therefore prove that we cannot know we are subject to such error.
This whole line of reasoning negates itself.
If there were error, that was in fact, all pervasive and undetectable, then it would be invisible to us and irrelevant for all intents and purposes. And if it can be proven, objectively, that there is such error, the proof demonstrates that it isn't 'error' but faulty conceptualization which is corrected by other observation and more accurate conceptualization. There is no problem here.
I assure you Ayn Rand never mad such an assertion, did not believe such a thing, and never said anything that could be interpreted to mean this.
This begins with nonsense, "There is, then, the obvious problem of knowing that our impressions are true representations of reality...." What is meant be reality? If reality is something other than what we are conscious of, how did the writer learn about it? He couldn't have. There is no gap.
Hank