RoR: Forum

Well written - clear, precise, not filled with obfuscations.

Post 1

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:51am

I really enjoyed this article.

Solo has several posters who always pop up whenever axiomatic concepts are discussed in order to promote primacy of consciousness. (For those who don't know, that means that our minds create reality and that reality does not exist separately from human [conceptual] awareness.)

It is like a breath of fresh air to read something new and vital on this issue. I wish Ron Merrill were alive today. I am sure that I would like him a lot.

Most people I talk to get downright bored with discussions of axiomatic concepts, especially with all those little "suppose this" and "suppose that" games that go nowhere in most of the discussions. Well, actually, they usually go one place. They try to validate that you can't validate anything.

The game works this way:

POSTER A:
You just stated xxxxxxxxxx (some aspect of reality or how we know things). That is not quite correct. Suppose yyyyyyyyyyy (long example of some situation). Now in light of that, zzzzzzzzzzzzzz (conclusion that sidesteps the issue), so that proves that "reality does not exist" (or "you can't know anything" - of course they never are stated this way, but the underlying meaning is always one of these two).

POSTER B:
Heh. You missed something. You forgot aaaaaaaaaaaaa (some other aspect of reality or how we know things) when you mentioned xxxxxxxxxx. Now suppose bbbbbbbbbbbbb (other long example of some situation). In light of that, ccccccccccccc (other conclusion that likewise sidesteps the issue), so that proves that "reality really does not exist" (or "you really can't know anything" - of course they never are stated this way, but the underlying meaning is always one of these two).

This goes back and forth for a while until a flare-up or a cordial sign-off.

Often Popper and other philosophers are mentioned to lend authority to the "fact" that axioms or reality or conceptual thinking do not exist.

Now to quote a passage by Ayn Rand that so aptly applies here from the Forward to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology:

If, in the light of such "solutions," the problem might appear to be esoteric, let me remind you that the fate of human societies, of knowledge, of science, of progress and of every human life, depends on it. What is at stake here is the cognitive efficacy of man's mind.

I find many of these discussions frustrating because of the constant sidestepping of principal points and issues. It is like trying to catch a fish with your bare hands. The issue always seems to slip away when you are just about to grasp it (and the posters who postulate such irrational nonsense think that they - not the issue - are the ones who are slippery, and that makes them clever). Of course, that is because rationalisms are flying around all over the place based on "stolen concept," "argument from authority" and a host of other mental-masturbation ploys. These posters jump from one to another without compunction when it suits them. Arguing with people who do not set proper definitions, or who change definitions by whim, definitely can get tiring.

I jump in from time to time, though. The reason is that I refuse to let irrational premises, especially on axioms, take root by default, by no one caring enough to argue, just because these discussions are so mercilessly boring.

Michael

Post 2

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:36am

After his book The Ideas of Ayn Rand appeared in 1991, I wrote to Dr. Merrill and invited him to contribute to Objectivity. He contributed "On the Physical Meaning of Volition" in 1992, "Axioms: The Eight-Fold Way" in 1994, and "Objectivist Ethics: A Biological Critique" in 1997. www.bomis.com/objectivity

I was the editor of Objectivity. Ron and I corresponded extensively concerning these three compositions (and concerning another one he was working on at the end of his life). Correspondence in those days was by surface mail, back and forth between me in Chicago and Ron in Torrance.

By the fall of 1994, Ron had completed the initial draft of "Axioms: The Eightfold Way." In his cover letter, he remarked of Objectivity: "the quality of the papers has been excellent, and I have found reading Objectivity very instructive." The manuscript on philosophical axioms elicited a three-page letter from Chicago to Torrance, a letter with a five-page addendum, which had been faxed down from heaven, from a former professor of philosophy at Konigsberg (concerning the representation of his philosophy). Below are excerpts from Ron Merrill's reply to me on 18 December 1994.

Most of the points you brought up have been clarified. In particular, I've expanded a bit on the issue of rationalistic deduction and the "fertility" of axiom sets. . . .

Your comments stimulated me to clarify my thinking on the nonindependence of axioms, and to come up with the formulation: If an axiom is truly inescapable, then it must be assumed in making any statement, even the statement of another axiom. This is why axioms (as opposed to postulates) are inherently nonindependent. The only limitation is that an axiom is inescapable only within the context of truth to which it applies. Thus "existence exists" is implicit in stating the axiom of consciousness; but the contrary does not hold. Again, the principle of noncontradiction is implicit in "existence exists," but the contrary does not hold. There are things that could be true, even though they are not true; and there are things that are true, even though they are not known to be true.

As to the completeness of the axiom set, I have left this question completely open. Your suggestion that this could be investigated by enumerating the implied primitives is very apt. . . .

The new version of the paper, I hope, will meet a better reception from Herr Professor Kant. . . .

Fond memories.

Post 3

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:43am

Here is a quick overview of Ron's eight axioms (some in my own words):

Logical axioms for everything that can be true.
1. Every statement is either true or false.
2. No statement can be true and false at the same time.
3. A true statement that is denied is false and vice versa.
(The abbreviated form of these is truth exists or non-contradiction.)

Metaphysical axioms for everything that is true.
4. Existence exists.
5. Things have identity.
6. Things exist in relation to one another (causality)

Epistemological axioms for everything that is known to be true.
7. Consciousness exists.
8. Volition exists.

In metaphysical axioms, Fred Seddon already mentioned space, time and change. I agree with him, but would place them under my own first one below.

I would add three corollary metaphysical axioms:
a. Existence is made up setting and things.
(This "setting" is where I would place space, time and change.)
b. Things are divided into living and non-living entities.
("Entity" would include energy, also.)
c. Identity is made up of attributes and actions.

On the epistemological level, I would make consciousness dependent on life and volition dependent on consciousness.

Then there is the nature of life and a few other issues where other axioms can be identified. Ron was gracious about it when he stated:

Of course other ways of organizing these fundamental truths could be proposed.

In general, I like his approach and think it is a good solid framework for expanding on in this area.

Michael
(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/09, 8:51am)

Post 4

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 12:21pm

So, is quantum physics just a bunch bunk? The position of electrons, the particle/wave thingy, the uncertainty principle, etc.? I'm not looking for a fight, just interested in how Objectivists deal with these developments in scientific fashion. I really am curious about how you folks think. I've been asking questions here for a couple weeks now and I've gotten some thoughtful responses and some dismissive quips. I really prefer the thoughtful responses. :)

One thing though:

Michael Kelly quotes Ayn Rand:

If, in the light of such "solutions," the problem might appear to be esoteric, let me remind you that the fate of human societies, of knowledge, of science, of progress and of every human life, depends on it. What is at stake here is the cognitive efficacy of man's mind.

In terms of argumentation, isn't that just an "emotional appeal?" I'm-right-because-your-life-depends-on-it kind of thing?

Post 5

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 1:13pm

Hi Kevin,

Welcome to Solo. You ask good questions, but Objectivists do not deny quantum physics. Those darn little subparticles seem to behave in ways that have not been imagined before. Many Objectivists are fascinated by them.

One thing is certain, though. They exist. That's the axiom. If they did not exist, there would be no subparticles at all to study.

Also, we are all aware of reality. We each have a consciousness. That's another axiom. It is through our consciousnesses that we study subparticles (and everything else). If we were not aware, we could not study.

Believe it or not, there are those who deny this. They claim that something (including subparticles) can both exist and not exist at the same instant. One error they commit is to conclude that if we discover that the behavior of something is not yet explainable, then that invalidates basic logic. They are impatient and want the answer NOW. So the obvious answer is that everything we know is wrong, not just part of what we know (which takes longer to to right).

They really get awareness screwed up, too. Some think that our consciousness actually creates reality - not identifies it.

btw - Have you read any of Ayn Rand's works? There is a very good book called Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology that gives a more advanced exposition of all this. Her fiction is pretty exciting, also.

Of course she has emotional appeal, but think of the alternative to accepting reality. Every time mankind has tried not to on a large scale, here come the thugs and beat people over the head and take what they have. Literally.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/09, 1:17pm)

Post 6

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 2:41pm

Hi Kevin,

Many Objectivists (and non-Objectivists for that matter) reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

>�isn't that just an "emotional appeal?"�

Nah. It�s up to the author to explain why her reader ought to care about the issue she�s discussing. Her answer: human cognitive efficacy depends on the issue�s resolution. So it�s more an ethical appeal; the emotional aspect is secondary.

Jordan

Post 7

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 3:43pm

Michael, I really liked your Post 1. Debates with my religious friend always wind up tracing back to axioms, at which point the discussion usually proceeds along the lines you outlined. "Trying to catch a fish with your bare hands" sounds just about right.

Post 8

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 4:39pm

That's why the 'miracle of the fishes' was a sleight-of-hand trick...

Post 9

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 4:42pm

MSK writes:
>Solo has several posters who always pop up whenever axiomatic concepts are discussed in order to promote primacy of consciousness.

Who exactly are these "several posters" promoting 'primacy of consciousness' doctrines on Solo? I haven't come across any.

- Daniel

Post 10

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 5:19pm

The fish speaks?

Daniel, are we playing the ball or are we playing the man?

Michael

Post 11

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 6:21pm

So, is quantum physics just a bunch bunk?

It accurately describes physical phenomena if that's what you're asking.

Sarah

Post 12

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 6:37pm

MSK:
>The fish speaks? Daniel, are we playing the ball or are we playing the man?

Oh, ok, so you *did* mean me as one of your slippery "fish".

I'm afraid you are very much mistaken. Critical Rationalism is *not* a "primacy of consciousness" philosophy. We subscribe to commonsense reality. Further, that commonsense reality is *prior to* consciousness in the CR schema. (You may look all of this up if you doubt it).

Further, I have written nothing on this forum or anywhere else that "promotes" such a doctrine. This claim is entirely false. If you can show that I have please do. If not, feel free to retract.

Thanks
Daniel

Post 13

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:13pm

What was that phrase of Brendan's that set me off? Oh yeah,

"The uncritical..."

(ahem... assuming a more puffed up pompous pose with deeper stentorian voice)...

"The uncritical reader might assume she has done just that, because Rand uses words such as �grasp� and perceive� which suggest bla bla bla bla bla..."

And uncritical fishies might bite at any old bait. //;-)

Are you one of Brendan's uncritical readers?

I still ask, are you playing the ball or playing the man (or the fishy)?

You used to be a whole lot more slippery. Now your axioms are congealing and you have already admitted elsewhere that your "non-physical existence" completely depends on a physical support (a brain). So obviously you are not a primacy of consciousness freak. We still don't agree on the existential nature of awareness yet, though.

It is actually good to hear you speak of a reality independent of and prior to consciousness. Progress, my man, is always welcome...

Why don't we talk music? We might get along better. I really like your ideas on the sound thread. We agree on much there.

Michael

Post 14

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:27pm

Aren't some of us touchy...

Post 15

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:49pm

More fishies?

This is starting to get metaphorical...

Who knows, maybe someone will remember to honor the deceased, on whose thread our aquatic games unfold?

//;-)

Daniel, I have been informed by a well-wisher of a peculiarity of your phrasing. You refer to reality as "commonsense reality."

If consciousness is not a priori to you in that formulation, as you claim, then what executed the sense and how did it become common?

As I understand it, sense is an activity and attribute of a consciousness. Common refers to more that one, thus implying more than one consciousness.

All this input in an adjective to modify "reality." Hmmmm...

Is that not primacy of consciousness or even consciousnesses?

Anyway, lets look at the opposite: unique lunatic nothing.

Hmmmm...

ahem...

Gotta get better bait. This one sucks.

Michael

Post 16

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:51pm

MSK:
>You used to be a whole lot more slippery. Now your axioms are congealing and you have already admitted elsewhere that your "non-physical existence" completely depends on a physical support (a brain)....Progress, my man, is always welcome...

I have not changed my position in the least, nor am I now "admitting" that non-physical consciousness depends on the physical brain. *I have never said otherwise*! That is the classic interactionist position, always has been, show me where I've ever said anything contrary.

I am glad you now understand I am not a 'primacy of conscious freak'. Hopefully will come to understand the rest of my position, tho I am suprised you could have held that opinion after the amount I've posted here. Still, to send it right backatcha: progress, my man, is always welcome.

Happy to talk music anytime, actually used to play a lot of Brazillian music back in my classical guitar days.

- Daniel

Post 17

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 7:53pm

Ahh - then maybe you are familiar with Charo's playing?

Post 18

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:21pm

Robert writes:
>Ahh - then maybe you are familiar with Charo's playing?

Not at all, but I'm liking what I've just googled..;-)

Better not hijack the thread, but I mostly studied Villa Lobos's work.

- Daniel

Post 19

Tuesday, August 9, 2005 - 8:59pm