RoR: Forum

Brendan,

Both.

Last answer, as you insist on muddling concept (one) with fact (many) by such questions after all the preceding discussion. You would do well to learn what conceptual integration from sensory input means, then ask.

Michael

Post 161

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:02am

Of course it is a *tool.* The point Roger, Merlin and others are making is that it is a tool we adopt because we must if we want our consciousness to align with reality, which is structured according to the laws of logic. We know about logic because we observe that reality is structured that way, we don’t invent logic, we *conform to it.*

Jon

Post 162

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:24am

Jon,

Please see my post above on ontological consistency. Call it logic if you want. It isn't, since there are no "laws" without a mind to isolate them.

It is consistency (or whatever other term you want to call it), but when you use the word "logic" to mean metaphysical status, pomo wankers drive a truck through that crack.

Logic is biological just as consciousness is.

Michael

Post 163

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:29am

“…there are no "laws" without a mind to isolate them.”

So a thing can be and not be, but not while a consciousness is watching.
(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 9/01, 8:30am)

Post 164

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:32am

No Jon,

We simply have no control over what exists or not. Metaphysical status is bigger than us and does not observe logic. Logic observes it.

A law is not a "thing" separate from all the rest. It is an isolated aspect or facet - a concept, not an actual existent (other than the physical concept inside a brain).

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/01, 8:34am)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/01, 8:37am)

Post 165

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:40am

And I’ve read what you’ve written. The problem is that you are confused and wrong. The error to be purged is this Kantian notion that logic is just the way human brains happen to function.

Jon

Post 166

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 8:42am

Brendan,

Surely it’s because you already know what chairs are, by previous observation of actual chairs. In that case, in order to observe the absence of non-existing stuff, you need a concept of non-existing stuff. So remind me what you observe to form that concept?

Yes, I have to know what a chair is in order to know a chair is missing from the bathtub. I also need a concept for missing, or absence, or zero, or nothing. Rand discusses such a concept. Save me the trouble, and check it out.

You're not implying that existence is a thinker, are you?

I've already said that I don't think we can deduce from the axioms that existence is or isn’t a thinker.

So there’s the same problem: one set of premises, two conclusions.

There's nothing wrong with drawing multiple conclusions from one premise. Take the premise, "The ball is red." This implies that there's a ball that can have a property, that red is a property, and that a property the ball does have is that of being red.

You’re not finding this sort of stuff too taxing are you? I’ll understand if you want to have a lie down.

Don’t be rude to me. I've been patient and cordial with you. But we’re not getting anywhere. If I don’t soon see what your problem is, I’ll leave you be, as continuing discussion will just be a waste of our time.

Jordan

(Edited by Jordan on 9/01, 8:44am)

Post 167

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 9:02am

Jon,

Confused and wrong? Kantian? LOLOLOLOL...

I hereby state very loudly that you did not understand anything that I have written so far, since you claim to have read it. And you seem not to understand Kant too well either.

Wanna go back to sensory input and metaphysical consistency, then differentiation, elimination of measurement and conceptual integration?

Logic and conceptual integration do not exist outside a brain. Period.

A "law" is a logical manner (inside a brain) of isolating and identifying an aspect of what exists (through sensory input), not a reflection of a "logical stuff" out in the universe. Conceptually, it takes the form of an axiomatic concept.

That "logical stuff" out in the universe, like a "law" divorced from consciousness for instance, actually is the Kantian categorical imperative.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

LOLOLOLOL...

Dayaamm!

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/01, 9:03am)

Post 168

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 10:00am

Logic is non-contradictory identification - to identify requires conceptual consciousness, and without the consciousness, there is therefore no logic.

Post 169

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 10:52am

Logic is recognition of the fact of identity in one's mental deliberations. If you want to say ''reality is logical,'' fine, but you must keep in mind that all this means is that it is what it is--which is an objective fact. And all that means is: it is a fact. Existence is identity--they are a single fact from different angles.

In other words, existence exists.

Maybe if we say it enough ways, it will sink in?

(Edited by I. N. Rand on 9/01, 11:10am)

Post 170

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 5:13pm

Merlin writes:
>To MSK and Linz and anybody else who agrees that "reality is not logical", I suggest they read page 263 (hb) of the Lexicon, subject Logic, from "Philosophical Detection."

Merlin, if you have time, would you mind citing the passage you have in mind?

- Daniel

Post 171

Thursday, September 1, 2005 - 5:55pm

Laj writes:
>When I wrote that, I presumed that MSK would know what was the Objectivist position on the ontology of the Laws of Logic.

Hi Laj,

Well, what is rapidly becoming clear is that there is diametrical disagreement *between Objectivists* as to said ontology. Which is not really our problem, of course. It seems to be yet another philosophical problem that Ayn Rand solved once and for all - but unfortunately no-one can agree on what her solution actually was...;-)

I've already coined the term "The Accidental Determinist" to describe libertarians who, in discussing the mind/brain problem, unwittingly make strict determinist arguments. Given MSK's confusion on this one perhaps I now need to add the term "The Accidental Subjectivist"!

- Daniel

Post 172

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:04am

Brendan: “So is existence one thing, or many things?”

Michael: “Both.

Last answer, as you insist on muddling concept (one) with fact (many)…”

Over the last couple of days you must have changed your view about the nature of existence (the fact, that is, not the concept). Because in post 137 you said this: “Existence (fact) is one gigantic humongous thing that is all-encompassing…”

You may now like to pause and ponder, and learn what conceptual integration is really all about. Then you might like to have another stab at the question: is existence (the fact, not the concept Existence) one gigantic humongous thing, or many things?

Brendan

Post 173

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 5:22am

Daniel, here is most of the piece I referred to in #170. I omit the polemical part following it. The first sentence is one she clearly disagrees with.

"It's logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e. reality is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it?

Post 174

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 8:51am

Brendan,

What do you think "all encompassing" means if not many things?

Getting back to the problem, "one" and "many" are concepts anyway. They both refer to parts of the fact of "is."

This is now just word games and the focus is not on serious discussion any longer, since I see that your purpose is to criticize my understanding, not discuss the ideas.

(sigh)

More showing off and no interest in truth.

Thought I smelled horseshit, but I just wanted to make sure...

I'll make a deal with you. If you and your Kantian cohorts go on over to the Dissent part, I promise that I will let you snigger and snort and smarm all you want - even "prove" that we don't think or exist at all and that Ayn Rand was woefully lacking as a philosopher - and I won't utter a peep - not even one crack about all that horseshit. Dress it up to sound like anything you wish.

Most all of you state very clearly that you are not Objectivists, anyway.

Over here, I want to make sure that readers have an option other than horseshit to think about.

How does that sound?

Michael

Post 175

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 11:44am

Merlin cited Rand
"If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e. reality is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it?"

Thanks Merlin,

I agree this does seem to contradict what Linz and MSK are maintaining ie:.

Linz wrote Post 157:
>There's no need for lengthy treatises here. Logic is not intrinsic to reality. Logic is the human method, the epistemological tool, by which we grasp reality. It is not a reality-intrinsic, metaphysical entity. Reality is not "logical"—it simply is.

But then, what Linz has written here does not even seem to sit with what he has written elsewhere:

http://solohq.com/Articles/Perigo/Logic_Has_Nothing_To_Do_With_Reality_Yeah,_Right.shtml

Linz>...As Robert Nola from this university's Philosophy Department once put it to me, "Logic has nothing to do with reality."...these views in their own ways, of course, represent subjectivism, to which Objectivism is diametrically opposed....

MSK's position seems even less clear:

MSK Post 140>"I agree, as you state, that there is logic in reality. We use it. It is an attribute of consciousness. That does not mean that the universe is constructed logically (like a logical God would have done), but that in the emergence of the human being, a faculty came about that was able to isolate similarities and differences and integrate tags for them which we call concepts..."

Here MSK seems to be arguing that logic is "an attribute of consciousness", (consciousness being part of reality) but *not* the rest of the universe, which is not "constructed logically".

Therefore the rest of the universe is actually made up of contradictions or other violations of logic.

Therefore, as Rand points out in the above, what use is logic in the discovery of reality?

- Daniel
(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 9/02, 11:49am)

Post 176

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 12:36pm

Roger Bissel,

I want to go back to a quote of yours:

A logical process is how thought conforms to reality, so it seems reasonable to suppose that this is so because the Laws of Logic reflect the lawful structure of Existence. If they didn't, they wouldn't work!

Essentially I find nothing to contest here, if you are using the word "lawful" in the phrase "lawful structure of Existence" to mean "consistent" or "immutable" or "absolute" or whatever. The danger of using words like "logical" and "lawful" for metaphysical status and not epistemological process is the word games that pop up like the horseshit that keeps on appearing.

The contention against primacy-of-existence is that since existence precedes logic, then this is a justification for stating that contradictions exist. (This is done, of course, to smirk...)

It is really easy to do this, too, if you slip out one context (metaphysical status) and slip in another (epistemological process) as suits your itch to show off. (Slippery, slipper, slippery.) That is why I am against using epistemological process words to denote metaphysical states.

If you go from the fact that logic reflects metaphysical absolutes which just are (not the other way around) - that logic, as an aspect of consciousness, is merely one thing that exists among many and has a particular nature which is absolute, just like other existents - then these word games get harder to play. The world is not constructed according to our logic. Our logic reflects aspects of what does exist (especially absolutes - or, going back to the beginning of ITOE, universals).

So if you use the same word like "logical" to mean two different things, metaphysical and epistemological, the pomo wankers have a field day. Better to use different words for the different concepts.

I admit that part of the problem with this suggestion is that our culture is inundated with such usage. I personally try to avoid this usage myself and identify it where I can.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/02, 12:42pm)

Post 177

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 12:47pm

Michael wrote:

Essentially I find nothing to contest here, if you are using the word "lawful" in the phrase "lawful structure of Existence" to mean "consistent" or "immutable" or "absolute" whatever. The danger of using words like "logical" and "lawful" for metaphysical status and not epistemological process is the word games that pop up like in the horseshit that keeps on appearing.

I'm not aware of "word games" occurring when scientists (or even philosophers) speak of the Law of Gravity, so why should they occur when philosophers speak of the Laws of Logic more fundamentally being the Laws of Reality? The Laws of Logic state how thought must proceed to be valid -- and they also state how reality must be (i.e., how reality is). A law is a statement of necessity. Necessity exists in valid thought, and it exists in reality. It is not epistemological per se. It is a fact of both epistemology ~and~ metaphysics.

But I'm glad that we have no essential disagreement.

REB

Post 178

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 12:50pm

Daniel,

Don't waste your time. It's not the topic that's riling up MSK and others - it is the people making the arguments. I'm still trying to find the person who, as Linz claims, is not posting under his real name on this thread.

Laj.

Post 179

Friday, September 2, 2005 - 1:03pm