regarding "the primacy of existence"

How can every instance of the concept "existence" be said to exist independently of consciousness? What about when a person can affect their heartrate or breathing, etc... simply by using their his/her consciousness in a certain way? Would not the new heartbeat, etc... be dependant upon consciousness? Also, are not thoughts (also instances of the concept "existence") depedent upon acts of consciousness? Thanks.

Post 1

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 1:52pm

Human creation is dependent on consciousness, but existence is not dependent on consciousness. Human consciousness created the moon lander, but it did not create the moon. Consciousness may affect heart rate, but it did not create the heart.

It's all about "causation."

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 12/19, 1:53pm)

Post 2

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 6:24pm

Christopher, you will find a discussion of exactly that topic here. The topic starter held that my response was the correct one.

I would suggest you fill out your extended profile while you're here to let us know a little bit about you. There is no need to answer every question.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/19, 10:09pm)

Post 3

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:24pm

Ted,
Thanks for your response.
I think that Roger would interpret the primacy of existence principle as meaning that existence exists independent of whether or not a consciousness is perceiving it. If this is the proper formulation of the principle (And not, literally, that existence exists independently of consciousness.), then what could the Objectivist refutation of theism be? I would understand if all of existence was independent of consciousness that that would mean that consciousness cannot play a causal role at all. However, if the point of the principle is actually only that whatever exists exists whether or not one perceives it (and, assuming this formulation is true), then how could this principle be used to invalidate the God-idea? It would not be neccessarily impossible, according to this principle, for consciousness to create things would it?

Post 4

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:41pm

Ted,
Before you attempt to answer the last question I posted, I wanted to say that I don't think it is neccessarily part of religion to say that "God caused existence". In fact, most if not all religious people claim that God himself is uncaused, and therefore when they are asserting God as a cause of the universe, they are not meaning that God created everything including himself. They are claiming instead that God always was, and that he created the world that we live in. So how could the primacy of existence principle, properly understood, imply that this type of entity (God) does not exist? I could understand if one were looking for a cause of everything, in other words, but I have never known of a religious person who thought of God as being the cause of everything. He certainly is not generally supposed by his believers to have created himself. Thanks.

Post 5

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 3:14pm

Don't fuck this up, Ted.

Post 6

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 3:47pm

After Teresa's warning, I wonder if I should just keep silent?

Actually, I'm not too sure what the exact question I am supposed to be answering is. I would just say this, consciousness is dependent upon existence. Something must first exist for one to become conscious of it. Primary existence is physical. It consists of entities whose physical origin is prior to their perception. Consciousness is not a type of entity, it is a relation between entities. If I am conscious of there being an apple in my hand, it is because my pre-existent body and the pre-existent apple have come into a relationship which we call my consciousness of the apple.

As for creation, there are certain things that come into existence because there have been prior acts of consciousness. A work of art is imagined before it exists as a physical entity. But our imagination of the artwork is not consciousness (perception) of the artwork as a physical entity. Perception in that sense still requires that the artwork exist first before it can be perceived.

The object of our consciousness when we imagine the artwork is not the physical artwork itself, but rather prior perceptions of things that already existed physically before. If I imagine painting an apple, then my imagination or consciousness of the redness of the apple is not consciousness of (perception of) the redness of the painting before it exists, but rather consciousness of my prior perceptions of previous red entities that existed in the past and which existed prior to my perceptions of them. So let's say I imagine painting a blue apple. I can do this because I have been conscious of blue things in the past, and of apples in the past, and those blue things and those apples had an existence which was prior to my perception of them.

So, an act of consciousness can allow us to create things that don't yet exist. But that act of consciousness is dependent on prior existing things.

When one imagines something, the object of consciousness is actually the prior existents in one's memory, not the future creation. One is conscious of the future creation itself only when that creation has already been made. Until then, one is juggling memories, not being conscious of some thing itself which does not yet exist.

If this is difficult, then let me refer you back to the link in my earlier post which was quite clear.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/20, 4:30pm)

Post 7

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 4:25pm

I don't know what I was worried about. That was excellent, Ted.

Mr. Parker, you asked:

However, if the point of the principle is actually only that whatever exists exists whether or not one perceives it (and, assuming this formulation is true), then how could this principle be used to invalidate the God-idea? It would not be neccessarily impossible, according to this principle, for consciousness to create things would it?

Do you understand how Ted has answered this question to the n'th degree in post #6?

Post 8

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 7:33pm

Teresa,
I actually am not sure how Ted answered that question (if he did). I apologize if I am missing something that is supposed to be glaringly obvious.

Post 9

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 7:47pm

Upon reflection this evening I have decided so far that Peikoff means basically the following things in regard to the primacy of existence/consciousness. :
The primacy of consciousness metaphysics claims that one or more consciousnesses can make happen whatever they want to, regardless of the laws of nature etc...
The primacy of existence metaphysics claims that existence is not subordinate to how any consciousness relates to it; once something has been, is, or will be, it's existence is immutable and unalterable. One can hope to work with what-is in order to bring about certain types of effects, but one must heed the nature of realtiy if one is to be successful in this.
Anyway, I've decided not to take Peikoff so literally when he states that existence exists independent of consciousness.
Tell me if you think I'm on the money or not, if you'd like to. :) Thanks to everyone for being helpful.

Post 10

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 9:27pm

Christopher, what does this mean?

Anyway, I've decided not to take Peikoff so literally when he states that existence exists independent of consciousness.

Are you saying that you'll continue to "conceptualize" a god that has no perceptual referents in reality?

That's what Ted's post was all about. Even things that come from our imagination have to come from something perceived in reality. Monsters, elves, fairies, etc. could never be conceptualized without the perception of scales, wings, fangs, light, dark, and blood.

What is there to perceive in a god that will allow one to conceptualize something other than another kind of monster, elf, or fairy?

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 12/20, 10:20pm)

Post 11

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:39am

Christopher,

Did you understand Ted's point that in order for consciousness to exist, there has to be something to be conscious of? Quoting Rand, "A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 1015)

- Bill

Post 12

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 10:09am

Teresa,
What I meant by that statement was that I will not conclude from Peikoff's statements that he actually believes that everything which exists does so independent of consciousness (including the type of things I talked about in my first post). He would not conclude that the altetered physiology of my body as a result of meditation, for instance, is not a result of using my consciousness in a certain way. Neither would he conclude that my thoughts exist independent of consciousness (literally). I've decided, in other words, to try and see a bigger picture in Peikoff's statements on the primacy of existence.

Post 13

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 10:35am

There's a primary principle in Objectivism called the "Metaphysical vs. The Man Made."

Is that what you're struggling with? Have you read "Philosophy: Who Needs It?"

You may be able to change your heart rate, but you can't change mine. You can bake a pie, but I can't smell it or even know what kind it is. Your head has no effect on mine. There is no collective consciousness. Only you know what you know.

If you're going to make a conceptual construct of a god, it won't be dependent on anything I know, or even understand. It will be made up of referents you alone place importance to, things you value all by yourself. Everyone will have a different conceptual construct, because there's nothing perceptually hard in the concept of "god." Everyone's construct will be different, regardless of what religion they practice.

I'm not trying to bash you for this, I'm just hoping you'll see the error of placing any faith, let alone your whole precious life, into the hands of a very shaky concept. Too much misery has been the result of people doing exactly that.

Post 14

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 10:20am

William,
I figured Ted might have been trying to get at that point. However, I'm not sure if that conclusion of Rand's is valid. The reasons I doubt its validity are as follows:
1.)Assuming that the hypothetical God's consciousness was made out of something (it had certain constituent components, physical or non-physical), it would be possible for the god to be aware of those constituent parts. This would not mean that he had to be aware of anything besides himself, nor would it mean that he was aware of things only introspectively. He could merely observe those parts themselves, then introspect based on those observations if he wanted to and could.
2.)Other things could have existed along with the god without cause; for instance, the Bible speaks of the darkness of the heavens being there with God before the creation of the world we live in. I don't think that God would have created everything but himself in order to be a God; he merely would have had to created the world we live in.

Post 15

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 11:37am

I'm going to sanction Christopher so he can post freely. He's been honest in keeping this in dissent, and I think the discussion is important.

Post 16

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 11:50am

I find "hypothesizing" the existence of God to be a profoundly uninteresting topic and have since about the age of eight. My hypothesis here is Christopher is a "believer", he is here to strengthen his "God" rationalizations so as to confound others elsewhere who are less sophisticated in their understanding of rational philosophy.

Post 17

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:23pm

I'll second Teresa. But I'd suggest he try to make a clear positive description of some phenomenon which he thinks shows that existence is not prior to consciousness. I don't think I've gotten his point yet.

Post 18

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 12:45pm

Christopher wrote:

1.)Assuming that the hypothetical God's consciousness was made out of something (it had certain constituent components, physical or non-physical), it would be possible for the god to be aware of those constituent parts. This would not mean that he had to be aware of anything besides himself, nor would it mean that he was aware of things only introspectively. He could merely observe those parts themselves, then introspect based on those observations if he wanted to and could.

Rand expressed:

"Extrospection is the process of cognition directed outward - a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward - a process of apprehending one's own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined, or communicated. Awareness is awareness of something."

A consciousness aware of nothing but itself has nothing to compare it with. There could be no measurement, no opinion, and certainly no introspection.

Post 19

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 7:20pm