About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 3:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill: “Accordingly, it holds that in order for consciousness to exist, reality must exist, which means that Objectivism is founded on a "primacy-of-existence" metaphysics.”

Except that the existence axiom subsumes the consciousness axiom. If the existence axiom is an integration of all that exists, including consciousness, existence must therefore also integrate consciousness. But in that case, one cannot claim a primacy for either.

The primacy of existence claim can only work by establishing a dichotomy between existence and consciousness, that is, between a material world and an immaterial consciousness.

But that can’t be achieved via the Objectivist axioms, since there is no axiom for the material world. Hence, the primacy of existence claim is a failure.

Brendan

Post 41

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 7:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How about it guys,

Is the bi-conditional true:

atheistic naturalism <-> Objectivism.

What do you think?

G. Brady Lenardos


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 9:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

All that "the primacy of existence" (versus "the primacy of consciousness") means is that existence does not depend on consciousness, whereas (according to Objectivism) consciousness depends on existence. If tomorrow, all forms of consciousness were destroyed, you could still have existence (e.g., galaxies, stars, planets, etc.), but if there wasn't anything in existence to be aware of, there could be no consciousness.

- Bill

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 43

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 9:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brady wrote,
How about it guys,

Is the bi-conditional true:

atheistic naturalism <-> Objectivism.

What do you think?
I'm not sure I understand what a bi-conditional is intended to mean here. From Objectivism, you can certainly infer atheistic naturalism, because the latter is part of the philosophy. But atheistic naturalism doesn't imply Objectivism in the sense that the former subsumes the latter. One could be an atheistic naturalist without being an Objectivist. Nor can one "deduce" Objectivism from atheistic naturalism. It takes a lot more than an understanding of atheistic naturalism to arrive at Objectivism.

It's a misconception to think that one can justify everything by a process of deduction. To arrive at true conclusion deductively, one must begin with true premises, and those premises must be verified by direct perception or sensory verification. The idea that one can demonstrate the existence of something by purely deductive means is revealed in the so-called "ontological argument" for the existence of God. Without some kind of sensory evidence for an entity, you cannot prove its existence by a process of deduction. This kind of thinking is what Objectivism refers to pejoratively as "rationalism" -- a process of reason divorced from direct awareness. Rand defines reason as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." (Emphasis added)

- Bill


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 9:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brady asked:
If Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true.
What do you think? 

BEWARE: modus tollens coming!

(Edited by Glenn Fletcher on 3/29, 9:36am)


Post 45

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 10:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One cannot be an Objectivist if one is an advocate of the primacy of consciousness, which is one of the bedrocks of theism.
The primacy of consciousness is not a 'bedrock of theism'.  Theists don't believe that consciousness precedes existence.  They instead believe that the First Being, i.e. God, exists-- and that this being is (in a certain sense) conscious.   

I wrote: 
"God, as Christians conceive of him, is bound by nature, viz. his own nature. For example, because God is by nature all-good, it follows that it is impossible for him to commit anything evil in his actions."

That doesn't serve as a limit on omnipotence or change what I said about it. It just means that Christians also become willing to rationalize acts such as drowning everyone as somehow not evil.
Err, yes it does.  God cannot do evil.  And what we determine to be evil through the use of reason would be applied to God as evil, if God in fact committed evil.  You made reference to the Flood as an example of Christians 'rationalizing' that no matter how horrific an action appears to be, it must be good by virtue of the fact that it is done by God-- because God is all-good. 

Now, while I think there probably was a localized flood that the Israelites were reporting, it could very well have been a myth, probably lifted from the Babylonian story, Enuma Elish.  In any case, you should know that I'm not a biblical literalist, i.e., I don't take every passage presented in the OT in the past tense as history in the literal sense.  (Neither does the Catholic Church.) 

Christians believe that revelation is a process.  They believe that the Israelites experienced a special relationship with God throughout their history, and that Jewish writers attempted to construe this relationship through the Hebrew Scriptures.  This leaves open the possibility that they falsely attributed a certain event (like a localized flood) to the vengeance of God.

In my opinion, I follow St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that certain acts or passions attributed to God (e.g. anger) that do not seem to fit with God's nature (as omnimax) cannot be literally predicated of him.  With respect to the Flood, then, I don't believe it was caused directly by God; after all, God cannot kill.  Only sin can kill. 

I wrote:  "Christian ethics are founded on the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good-- and that he acts accordingly."

I simply do not understand how Christians hold such beliefs blatantly in contradiction with reality.
How does this contradict reality?

I wrote:  "You obviously don't know what 'mystical metaphysics' (as you pejoratively call them) are. I suggest you educate yourself."

Been there, done that. Raised Christian, but tossed its mystical metaphysics (and the rest) aside decades ago.

Wait, according to your profile, you're 31 years old.  So if you tossed mystical metaphysics aside "decades ago", that implies that you did so at a minimum of 20 years ago-- when you were 11 years old.  Let me get this straight then:  At age 11, you were in a position to comprehend 'mystical metaphysics' and then to make an informed, rational decision to toss them aside?  Sounds doubtful.

Faith is incompatible with Objectivism. If your religion includes that, then there is a strong contradiction between it and Objectivism. 
You don't understand what faith is, Dean.  Faith is intellectual assent.  Understood in this way, even 'scientists' have faith when they believe in the truth of a theory. 
If you discovered "God" through the scientific method, then I'd say well maybe you could be a poor Objectivist with problems using the scientific method
Why would I use an empirical method (i.e. based on sensory imput) to determine the existence of God, knowing that God is non-physical by definition?  That wouldn't make any sense. 
But I don't think discovering "God" through science is possible
This is on account of the nature of science, not on account of God.    

(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/29, 1:08pm)


Post 46

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron defined 'objective reality' as "That which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." GWL replied, "Should I start calling you Bishop Berkeley? Does something not exist unless it is perceived to exist?"

No, that's not what he's saying, GWL! He's saying that it doesn't go away when you stop believing (or perceiving) it. Berkeley would say that it does go away when a consciousness stops perceiving it, because "esse est percipi" -- "to be is to be perceived."

**GWL slaps himself in the face**
All that "the primacy of existence" (versus "the primacy of consciousness") means is that existence does not depend on consciousness, whereas (according to Objectivism) consciousness depends on existence.
You're skewing the theistic position.  Theists believe that existence and consciousness depend on one another; since they are unified in the person of God.  As such, theists believe that both existence and consciousness are primary. 
To arrive at true conclusion deductively, one must begin with true premises, and those premises must be verified by direct perception or sensory verification.
False.  A 100,000-sided polygon (almost certainly) does not exist in reality.  Yet I can still determine the measure of each of its angles.  No 'perception' or 'sensory verification' required. 
The idea that one can demonstrate the existence of something by purely deductive means is revealed in the so-called "ontological argument" for the existence of God. Without some kind of sensory evidence for an entity, you cannot prove its existence by a process of deduction.
You've failed to respond to the clarified ontological argument I've presented on the 'The End of WAR' thread.  Please do this before you make unfounded assertions to the contrary. 
Rand defines reason as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses."
It is OK to believe this, but not OK to assert it as certain.  It is impossible to prove the existence of material objects. 


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 47

Thursday, March 29, 2007 - 3:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"It is impossible to prove the existence of material objects."

How would you propose to prove anything without relying on concepts built up from accepting that material objects exist?

"How does this contradict reality?"

Omnipotent, omnibenevolent creature contradicts a reality containing evil. Christians will typically try to counter the problem of evil with some appeal to free will, but that doesn't avoid the problem (i.e. if free will leads to evil, why would an omnibenevolent entity create it?).

"Wait, according to your profile, you're 31 years old."

*laugh* It's entertaining to have my profile checked by someone who's been dead almost 300 years.

"So if you tossed mystical metaphysics aside "decades ago", that implies that you did so at a minimum of 20 years ago-- when you were 11 years old. Let me get this straight then: At age 11, you were in a position to comprehend 'mystical metaphysics' and then to make an informed, rational decision to toss them aside?"

A couple years earlier than that actually. When very young I believed in a christian god, witchcraft, ghosts, etc. And I really, really wanted them all to be real. But I rejected all of them at the same time for the same reason.

As Bill will undoubtedly soon explain better than I, mystical metaphysics are founded on primacy of consciousness - i.e. not on perceptions of existents, but primacy of a human consciousness simply wanting something to exist. Even without thinking in phrases such as 'primacy of consciousness' and 'primacy of existence', it's not beyond a child to know the difference between believing something exists because of evidence and believing because they wish it existed.

Post 48

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brady asked: "If Objectivism is true, then cosmological naturalism must be true. What do you think?"

Glenn replied, "BEWARE: modus tollens coming." Hey, let it come. If cosmological naturalism is not true, then neither is the Objectivist metaphysics. I can live with, because I know that the premise is false -- that cosmological naturalism is true.

- Bill

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 49

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 1:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "All that 'the primacy of existence' (versus 'the primacy of consciousness') means is that existence does not depend on consciousness, whereas (according to Objectivism) consciousness depends on existence." GWL replied,
You're skewing the theistic position. Theists believe that existence and consciousness depend on one another; since they are unified in the person of God. As such, theists believe that both existence and consciousness are primary.
Well, then, what is God? I thought he was a pure consciousness who created the external world out of nothing. Are you now telling me that this is incorrect -- that there was an external world in existence before God created the universe?

I wrote, "To arrive at true conclusion deductively, one must begin with true premises, and those premises must be verified by direct perception or sensory verification."
False. A 100,000-sided polygon (almost certainly) does not exist in reality. Yet I can still determine the measure of each of its angles. No 'perception' or 'sensory verification' required.
Hmm. I think you've got me there, GW. While I would still maintain that the concept of lines, angles and plane figures must ultimately be arrived at by a process of abstraction from sensory evidence, I think you are correct that the premises of every true argument do not themselves require verification by direct perception. But at some point in the chain of premises and conclusions, you must arrive at premises that are verified by direction perception.

I wrote, "The idea that one can demonstrate the existence of something by purely deductive means is revealed in the so-called "ontological argument" for the existence of God. Without some kind of sensory evidence for an entity, you cannot prove its existence by a process of deduction."
You've failed to respond to the clarified ontological argument I've presented on the 'The End of WAR' thread. Please do this before you make unfounded assertions to the contrary.
Okay.

I wrote, "Rand defines reason as 'the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.'
It is OK to believe this, but not OK to assert it as certain. It is impossible to prove the existence of material objects.
Now here I disagree with you, assuming that by "proof" you simply mean the correct identification of reality. "Proof" is often taken to mean a valid inference from direction perception, so that direct perception cannot, in that sense of the term, be "proved," which is not to say that it doesn't entail a knowledge of reality. Since it is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, if perception is unreliable, then so are all of the abstract ideas based upon it.

- Bill


Post 50

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 2:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill: “All that "the primacy of existence" (versus "the primacy of consciousness") means is that existence does not depend on consciousness…”

And how do you know that? If the existence axiom also includes consciousness, both existence and consciousness are primary.

In order to argue for the primacy of existence, one must dichotomise existence and consciousness. But if a concept means all its referents, the term existence as used in 'primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness' will no longer mean the same as when it’s used in the existence axiom. This is Rand’s bait and switch.

It’s also arguable whether she used primacy of existence solely to mean chronological primacy. As I understand it, she also used it to mean that our primary focus should be on existence or reality, not on consciousness, ours or others.

But neither understanding can be supported by the existence axiom, which says nothing about the nature of existence.

Brendan


Post 51

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 8:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Brendan,

... the existence axiom, which says nothing about the nature of existence.
Actually, it does say something about the nature of existence -- just not something that is purely "synthetic." Folks who wish that axioms would tell them something new about the world are too philosophically spoiled. Axioms aren't even meant to tell you something new about what you know to be old. Instead, they're meant to keep you focused on truth so that you don't contradict yourself when reasoning.

Axioms ground reasoning.

Ed


Post 52

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed: "Axioms ground reasoning."

Even further, axioms are implied in any claim to know anything at all(including claims that one can't know anything). That's why denying axioms is self-refuting.

Objectivism  holds that all of one's knowledge originated with sensory-perception. The Objectivist axioms are just implicit in that knowledge, and can't be mentally grasped until after until one has reached a certain stage of conceptual development. 


Post 53

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 12:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

... axioms are implied in any claim to know anything at all(including claims that one can't know anything). That's why denying axioms is self-refuting.

Still even further, one can't claim conceptual knowledge (which is made up of veridical distinctions) without at least implicitly adopting the truth of the axioms.

;-)

Ed


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How would you propose to prove anything without relying on concepts built up from accepting that material objects exist?

We know we experience phenomena, but not material objects.  Your 'access' to that which is outside of you is limited by your sense perception.  What you experience as 'reality' can really be simulated through direct brain stimulus.  As far as proving things without a reliance upon concepts gleaned from material objects, I would say the following.  1)  We cannot be certain about material objects, only phenomena.  2)  Mathematics and logic provide us with necessary truths-- truths which hold in all possible worlds.  On account of this, it makes little sense to say that necessary mathematical and geometrical truths themselves come from actual phenomenal experience, since experience can only tell us about what is actual, not what is necessary
[An] Omnipotent, omnibenevolent creature contradicts a reality containing evil. Christians will typically try to counter the problem of evil with some appeal to free will, but that doesn't avoid the problem (i.e. if free will leads to evil, why would an omnibenevolent entity create it?).


God would permit evil if he knew it would bring about a greater good. 

Free will is a higher-order good that allows the human being to embrace the good in his freedom, even though it opens up the possibility of evil. 

A world with free, morally responsible agents is a greater good than a world with soulless automatons.   

I wrote: 

"So if you tossed mystical metaphysics aside "decades ago", that implies that you did so at a minimum of 20 years ago-- when you were 11 years old. Let me get this straight then: At age 11, you were in a position to comprehend 'mystical metaphysics' and then to make an informed, rational decision to toss them aside?"


A couple years earlier than that actually. When very young I believed in a christian god, witchcraft, ghosts, etc. And I really, really wanted them all to be real. But I rejected all of them at the same time for the same reason.


I rejected witchcraft and ghosts at that age, too.  But I always knew that God was ontologically dissimilar from these; I knew he was the Creator of the universe. 

You say you "rejected [the christian God, witchcraft, ghosts, etc.] at the same time for the same reason".  May I ask:  what reason was that?  (Keep in mind that a response on the order of  "I knew they didn't exist!" begs the question.)

As Bill will undoubtedly soon explain better than I, mystical metaphysics are founded on primacy of consciousness - i.e. not on perceptions of existents, but primacy of a human consciousness simply wanting something to exist.
Aaron, come on.  The universe is 12-14 billion light years in diameter.  How do we know this?  By measuring the red-shift or the hubble constant of distant stars and galaxies.  But, even though we can safely infer the existence of these celestial entities, we don't perceive them immediately; we assume their existence based on their radiative effects. 

The way we determine the size of the universe (by noticing celestial radiation) is analogous to the way we come to believe in God-- by noticing his effects, i.e. the created order.  From here, we ask interpretative questions about causation, possibility, necessity, the relation of mathematics to physics, the source of morality, and we conclude from them that God exists (or that it is likely God exists).  In short, we end up accepting God's existence based on meditations concerning the nature of humanity, the universe, and existence itself.  It's called inference from perception. 

Even without thinking in phrases such as 'primacy of consciousness' and 'primacy of existence', it's not beyond a child to know the difference between believing something exists because of evidence and believing because they wish it existed.

The same charge could be leveled at atheism.  Consider the following quote from the atheistic philosopher Thomas Nagel: 
"I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself:  I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that...[Fear of religion may be] responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time."

So the argument cuts both ways. 

If cosmological naturalism is not true, then neither is the Objectivist metaphysics. I can live with, because I know that the premise is false -- that cosmological naturalism is true.

Bill, are you an infallibilist with respect to knowledge?  In other words, do you think knowledge is synonymous with certainty of truth?  If so, then you might want to ease up on the rhetoric.  You and I both know that you can't prove cosmological naturalism. 

I wrote:  "You're skewing the theistic position. Theists believe that existence and consciousness depend on one another; since they are unified in the person of God. As such, theists believe that both existence and consciousness are primary."

William responded:  
Well, then, what is God? I thought he was a pure consciousness who created the external world out of nothing. Are you now telling me that this is incorrect -- that there was an external world in existence before God created the universe?
It's misleading to call God a 'pure consciousness'.  For, when you think of consciousness, you think of human consciousness, and when you think of human consciousness, you think of the consciousness that emerges from a biological organism.   

It makes more sense to say God is something akin to a conscious entity, since God has knowledge and will and other (what we understand to be) mental properties, though he does not have them in the same way that we do.  For instance, God's knowledge of truth is immediate (not mediated like ours, through mental processes and sense data), and God knows all truths (not just some, as we do).       

These considerations assure us that making a consciousness/existence dichotomy is pointless.  Thus, we ought to let go of the term 'pure consciousness', and instead speak of God as a maximally perfect being, possessing all positive properties--  including mental ones. 

Hmm. I think you've got me there, GW. While I would still maintain that the concept of lines, angles and plane figures must ultimately be arrived at by a process of abstraction from sensory evidence, I think you are correct that the premises of every true argument do not themselves require verification by direct perception. But at some point in the chain of premises and conclusions, you must arrive at premises that are verified by direction perception.

1.  Please tell me what "direct perception" is. 
2.  Give a story of how sub-cognitive direct perception transforms itself into propositional knowledge. 
3.  Once you realize you can't do this, consider whether it could be that perceptions only take on meaning after having passed through an active intellect. 
4.  Embrace innate ideas.  ;)      

I wrote:  "It is OK to believe [in material objects], but not OK to assert [them] as certain. It is impossible to prove the existence of material objects."

William responded: 
Now here I disagree with you, assuming that by "proof" you simply mean the correct identification of reality. "Proof" is often taken to mean a valid inference from direction perception, so that direct perception cannot, in that sense of the term, be "proved," which is not to say that it doesn't entail a knowledge of reality. Since it is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, if perception is unreliable, then so are all of the abstract ideas based upon it.
Of course ideas, or perceptions, or sensations, or whatever you want to call them are necessary ingredients for knowledge.  But none of these are material objects.  They're phenomena. 

Thus, we ought not to say that perceptions are only reliable if based on material objects.  We should rather say that perceptions are reliable so long as they are appropriately based on, and consistent with, experienced phenomena, whatever that may be

Still even further, one can't claim conceptual knowledge (which is made up of veridical distinctions) without at least implicitly adopting the truth of the axioms.
How do we know these axioms?  Certainly not from experience alone, for then they would extend only as far as our experience-- meaning they would cease to be axioms.
(Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz on 3/30, 2:54pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 6:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

In post 54 Leibniz wrote,

“Free will is a higher-order good that allows the human being to embrace the good in his freedom, even though it opens up the possibility of evil.

“A world with free, morally responsible agents is a greater good than a world with soulless automatons.”

From post 19, “God, as Christians conceive of him, is bound by nature, viz. his own nature. For example, because God is by nature all-good, it follows that it is impossible for him to commit anything evil in his actions. “


It follows that a “higher-order good” would eventuate from the existence of a God with freedom, a God for whom it would NOT be impossible to commit anything evil in his actions. A free, morally responsible God is clearly greater than the one traditionally known. To avoid confusion, let’s call Him Dog. Obviously, Dog created God.

Dog, the all-powerful being with free will, capable of doing good AND evil, chose to do good when he decided to create an all-good universe. But, being capable of evil, he didn’t trust himself to get the job done flawlessly—so he created the all-good God for the task. Dog never once spanked God and sent him to an all-good private school, only to watch in horror as his creation—within a week of graduation—promptly fucked things up by creating man. Having free will, just like Dog Himself, we are actually made more in His image than we are in God’s. Dog loves the irony of that, and he loves us. The real heaven is a place where we drink beer with Dog for eternity—hell a place where we are locked in a room for an eternal time-out with the all-boring God.


Post 56

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dog and his wife, Beth, Goddess of Boom Boom Gorgeousness, loves us all so much that they risk life and limb to catch bail jumpers on TV.  God was so jealous of Dog, he enabled the Mexican government to issue trumped up charges against Dog, after Dog tracked, wrestled to the ground, and nabbed a serial rapist on Mexican soil.
God said, "Bad Dog! Bad bad!"



Sorry Jon, I couldn't resist.



Post 57

Friday, March 30, 2007 - 10:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
GWL wrote,
We know we experience phenomena, but not material objects. Your 'access' to that which is outside of you is limited by your sense perception. What you experience as 'reality' can really be simulated through direct brain stimulus.
If we don't perceive material objects, then how did we discover what a brain is (which, last I checked, is a material object), or that 'reality' can "really" be simulated through direct brain stimulus. Where did we get the knowledge of brains and of the effects of brain stimulus on conscious experience if not from direct perception?

Moreover, it won't do to say that what we perceive directly is sensory phenomena or sensations rather than material objects. A sensory phenomenon or sensation is not an object of awareness; it is a process or form of awareness; it is how we perceive, not what we perceive. In fact, we are able to arrive at a knowledge of sensations, of mental phenomena, only by first being aware of material objects in the external world and then identifying the process by which we are aware of them.
As far as proving things without a reliance upon concepts gleaned from material objects, I would say the following. 1) We cannot be certain about material objects, only phenomena. 2) Mathematics and logic provide us with necessary truths-- truths which hold in all possible worlds. On account of this, it makes little sense to say that necessary mathematical and geometrical truths themselves come from actual phenomenal experience, since experience can only tell us about what is actual, not what is necessary.
Well, if experience can tell us what is actual, then it can tell us that there are actual, material objects, which have a certain identity, part of which is their capacity to act a certain way under certain conditions. A red object, because it is red, will necessarily reflect light along a certain wavelength. An ice cube from my refrigerator will necessarily float when placed in a glass of water. Why? Because of what it is, because it is less dense than water.

I wrote, "If cosmological naturalism is not true, then neither is the Objectivist metaphysics. I can live with, because I know that the premise is false -- that cosmological naturalism is true."
Bill, are you an infallibilist with respect to knowledge? In other words, do you think knowledge is synonymous with certainty of truth? If so, then you might want to ease up on the rhetoric. You and I both know that you can't prove cosmological naturalism.
Well, if by "prove" you mean justify as true, then I can prove it, because all the evidence supports such a view and none contradicts it. There is no more legitimate evidence for supernaturalism -- for gods, devils, angels and other supernatural creatures -- than there is for fairies and ghosts.

GW wrote: "You're skewing the theistic position. Theists believe that existence and consciousness depend on one another; since they are unified in the person of God. As such, theists believe that both existence and consciousness are primary."

I replied, "Well, then, what is God? I thought he was a pure consciousness who created the external world out of nothing. Are you now telling me that this is incorrect -- that there was an external world in existence before God created the universe?"
It's misleading to call God a 'pure consciousness'. For, when you think of consciousness, you think of human consciousness, and when you think of human consciousness, you think of the consciousness that emerges from a biological organism.
Correction: I don't just think of human consciousness; there are other forms of consciousness besides human. But, as I've said before, consciousness requires a means of awareness, because it must perceive in a particular form, e.g., visually, auditorially, tactilly, etc. It doesn't have to be a human form, but it does have to be some form of awareness.
It makes more sense to say God is something akin to a conscious entity, since God has knowledge and will and other (what we understand to be) mental properties, though he does not have them in the same way that we do.
First of all, how do you know any of this? You're questioning my right to claim knowledge of material objects. Yet, you feel entitled to claim knowledge of a supernatural being that has no properties that we have any evidence of, let alone understand -- a being who thinks without a mind or a brain and who has knowledge and will without any of the preconditions for such faculties. If this isn't "wanting" to believe something without any justification for it, I don't know what is.
For instance, God's knowledge of truth is immediate (not mediated like ours, through mental processes and sense data), and God knows all truths (not just some, as we do).
What you are claiming to exist is an entity that possesses knowledge without any basis for possessing it. As I've pointed out repeatedly in my exchanges with you, It is simply impossible for a entity to be conscious and to possess knowledge and will without any means of doing so -- without any mode of consciousness or form of awareness. So not only do you have no material evidence for such a being; the very concept is incoherent. You can't even rationally conceive of an entity that possesses knowledge and awareness while lacking the physical preconditions for it. Next to God, such imaginary creatures as Superman and Santa Claus are a bold exercise in realism.
These considerations assure us that making a consciousness/existence dichotomy is pointless. Thus, we ought to let go of the term 'pure consciousness', and instead speak of God as a maximally perfect being, possessing all positive properties-- including mental ones.
Please explain to me what you mean by "positive property." Are you now telling me that God does possess physical properties -- that he does have a material body, brain and nervous system? You say he possesses all positive properties. What could that possibly mean? A skyscraper possesses the positive property of being 20 stories tall and made out of steel and glass. A human being possesses the positive property of being 6 feet tall and made out of flesh and blood. Is God 20 stories tall and made out of steel and glass, while at the same time being 6 feet tall and made out of flesh and blood? Aren't these positive properties, and if they are, how can God possess all of them simultaneously?

I wrote, "Hmm. I think you've got me there, GW. While I would still maintain that the concept of lines, angles and plane figures must ultimately be arrived at by a process of abstraction from sensory evidence, I think you are correct that the premises of every true argument do not themselves require verification by direct perception. But at some point in the chain of premises and conclusions, you must arrive at premises that are verified by direction perception."
1. Please tell me what "direct perception" is.
You can know it ostensively by direct experience. A scientific definition would be "a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism."
2. Give a story of how sub-cognitive direct perception transforms itself into propositional knowledge.
First of all, direct perception is not sub-cognitive; it is part of the cognitive process; propositional knowledge is not the only kind of cognition. My cat engages in a process of cognition, but she does not have abstract or propositional knowledge; her cognition is confined to the perceptual level. Direct perception is the basis for concept formation. I've discussed in previous posts how concepts are formed from direct perception. I won't revisit that here. Suffice it to say that once a child is able to form concepts, he can organize these concepts into propositions, a process which enables him to express a complete thought.
3. Once you realize you can't do this, consider whether it could be that perceptions only take on meaning after having passed through an active intellect.
Of course, they only take on conceptual meaning after passing through an active intellect, but that does not mean that perception does not constitute an awareness of objects in the external world. My cat is certainly aware of me, when she sees me walk through the door.

GW wrote: "It is OK to believe [in material objects], but not OK to assert [them] as certain. It is impossible to prove the existence of material objects."

I replied, "Now here I disagree with you, assuming that by 'proof' you simply mean the correct identification of reality. 'Proof' is often taken to mean a valid inference from direction perception, so that direct perception cannot, in that sense of the term, be 'proved,' which is not to say that it doesn't entail a knowledge of reality. Since it is the ultimate foundation of knowledge, if perception is unreliable, then so are all of the abstract ideas based upon it."
Of course ideas, or perceptions, or sensations, or whatever you want to call them are necessary ingredients for knowledge. But none of these are material objects. They're phenomena.
Again, perceptions and sensations are not the objects of direct awareness, they are the form of direct awareness or the process by which we are directly aware of material objects.
Thus, we ought not to say that perceptions are only reliable if based on material objects.
A direct perception cannot be mistaken; our senses can only perceive what is out there, and they do so in a particular form that is determined by the nature of our sensory apparatus. If a color-blind person perceives a car as gray that a normal person perceives as red, he or she does not perceive incorrectly. Gray is simply the form in which the color-blind person (or dichromat) perceives the car. His or her vision does not provide the same degree of discrimination that a normal person's (or trichromat's) vision does, but that does not make it incorrect or unreliable. Some animals, that are tetrachromats or pentachromats, are able to make finer color discriminations than normal human beings or trichromats are, but that doesn't render human vision unreliable.
We should rather say that perceptions are reliable so long as they are appropriately based on, and consistent with, experienced phenomena, whatever that may be.
You're talking about perceptual judgment or identification rather than simple perception. How do I know that the cat I see when I get home from work today is the same cat that I saw yesterday? That's an issue of identification not of perception. And, yes, I must integrate all of the relevant factors -- the entire context -- in order to make the appropriate judgment.

- Bill


Post 58

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed: “Actually, it [the existence axiom] does say something about the nature of existence...”

And what would that be?

Brendan

Post 59

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon: “Objectivism holds that all of one's knowledge originated with sensory-perception. The Objectivist axioms are just implicit in that knowledge…”

If the primary axioms originate with sensory perception, how are they generated? Since sense perception is always of particular things, it’s not clear how these very general concepts can be generated in this way. Perhaps you could demonstrate the process.

Brendan

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.