regarding "the primacy of existence"

Christopher,

You have to define what you mean by "God." If you simply mean a conscious entity that created other entities, then human beings could themselves qualify as "gods." But that's not what the term normally means. It means a pure, omniscient and omnipotent spirit that created the material world out of nothing. In other words, it means a pure consciousness that existed before anything else existed.

Question: Is such a being even theoretically possible? I'd answer, no. It's not theoretically possible, because a consciousness must first be conscious of something (other than itself) in order to exist, which means that something (material) must first exist in order for consciousness to exist.

I have yet to see you refute that argument. What is your refutation, if any?

- Bill

Post 21

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 10:05pm

Christopher,
The existence of some sort of superior being you might call God cannot be "ruled out" by anyone because it is impossible to prove a negative. A whole lot of time and energy is wasted, in my opinion, on arguments about the existence of God. No proof, can't disprove...time to move on to something useful. Glad you're not here trying to proselytize.

Post 22

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 8:53am

I'll rule out that, if you'll rule out this:

Post 23

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 9:19am

LOL! Ted, the Pastafarian!

The God with the biggest balls wins?

Post 24

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 9:24am

Oh?

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/22, 12:56pm)

Post 25

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 3:29pm

William,
Thanks first for your post.
I already indicated why I did not agree with that argument. It is indicated in post 14. Let me know if you don't understand what I'm saying in any part of it, if you want. Thanks again. I need all the help I can get... Although when I quit thinking so hard about it and just ask myself if there might be a God, I almost laugh at the issue. I REALLY am not a believer... haven't been since perhaps when I was a little kid. However, I enjoy being certain about things, and as you know that involves more than just FEELING a certain way.
--Chris

Post 26

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 4:41pm

Christopher, you say,

I already indicated why I did not agree with that argument (the one I made in Post 20). It is indicated in post 14. Let me know if you don't understand what I'm saying in any part of it, if you want.

Well, in Post 14, you 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.

What are "non-physical components"? Conscious thoughts? If so, then assuming that nothing else exists, you are again talking about a consciousness that is conscious of nothing but itself. But that view has already been refuted by Rand, when she stated, "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms. Before it could identify itself as consciousness, it would have to be conscious of something [other than itself]." If you disagree with this argument, please do us the favor of pointing out what you think is wrong with it.

If, on the other hand, the assumption is that such a consciousness is made of physical components, then we are no longer talking about a God in the normally understood sense of the term, because in that case, God could not have created the material world, for something material (i.e., God's physical body) would have existed, to begin with. In that case, however, what you mean by "God" is simply another physical being who evolved in a material world from previously existing conditions. How, then, would such a God differ fundamentally from any other creative entity, such as a human being?

You say that such a God could still have created the world in which we live. Are you referring to the rest of the material universe? If so, then it is folly to think that a conscious, physical being could have existed by itself independently of the material universe and of a suitable environment for its continued existence. Yet that is what you are suggesting, if your idea of God is that of a consciousness with physical characteristics.

- Bill

.

Post 27

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 12:26pm

Thanks William.
I will admit that if there could be some intelligent being who created the world that we live in, he would basically just be some kind of alien. He would not be ALL-powerful, because he could neither erase facts nor alter the laws of existence. However, I think it still might be called a "god" just if it created the world we live in. I of course have no evidence of such a being, but I wouldn't rule it out as being something that there COULD never be evidence for.
As for what are "non-physical components, I don't know what they would be other than what is portrayed by the term. My point was merely that this being (assuming he existed) might be able to be aware of some part of himself other than his own inward-states. If he were non-physical, then he would have to be aware of parts of himself which were non-material.

Post 28

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 2:35pm

"As for what are "non-physical components, I don't know what they would be other than what is portrayed by the term. "

But what is "portrayed" by the term? All ideas ultimately derive from the physical. Everything either is a physical body, or exists in relation to a physical body.

Post 29

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 5:31pm

Ted,
I'm not sure about this one. What about the black of the night sky? Is that not non-physical? Yet it is perceived extrospectively. And what do you mean by saying that if the object isn't physical it exists only in relation to the physical?

Post 30

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 6:11pm

Black is a color you see with your eyes. No person blind from birth knows what black is. "Empty" space exists between bodies, in this case stars, and you cannot specify it without referring to those bodies, which you sense with your body. And of course, space is not empty, but full of radiation, if nothing else.

To have the notion black, but to fail to know where that notion came from, that once one knew only bodies, and that one then learned that black was the color of some of them, is to be worse than a child, who, not yet having learned his colors, at least has not forgotten the things from which they come.

All is body or exists in relation to body. Consciousness is a relation between bodies. We have abstractions from abstractions from our bodies' perception of bodies. Consciousness not in relation to body is an empty word, a sound without meaning, squiggles of ink without significance.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/23, 10:04pm)

Post 31

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 8:57am

Are you saying that black is something physical then? Perhaps radiation or something else physical? But how could we know that it has mass or takes up space?
Another thing occured to me to ask you as well: How can it be that all of the content of our consciousness is either perceived directly through extrospection or else is derived from extrospection? The reason I'm asking this is that the content of introspection (except, perhaps, in the case of dreams) is all different from the content of extrospection. Sure, they are similar, but--for example-- I cannot HEAR a song in my head literally. Does the mind not have to, at least, create equivalents of the content of extrospection in order for it to be perceived through introspection? I think Rand said something to this effect. What we perceive looking inwards, in other words, is not merely a certain combination of elements perceived through extrospection; it is instead a combination of equivalents of elements that were perceived through extrospection. Where do these equivalent elements come from though? They are not the same as what is perceived through extrospection, so it follows that they do not come from the outside world alone. Just curious to see if you have any thoughts on this matter.

Post 32

Friday, December 26, 2008 - 10:57am

Christopher, you asked Ted:

How can it be that all of the content of our consciousness is either perceived directly through extrospection or else is derived from extrospection?

The alternative to every thought thing being derived from the perception of reality -- is the notion of the innate idea (something thought that isn't in any way derived from perception of reality). If you believe that there might be such a thing as an innate idea -- or a group of them -- then I invite you to try to form an argument for one or some of them. I invite you to attempt to convey an idea that has no relation to the perception of reality.

There are three or four ways for things to exist. Conventionally, we speak of existence as the extra-mental (i.e., the stuff of the world). If you talk about other ways to exist, then you should explain to others that you are not talking about the usual way that things exist (i.e., as part of the world).

However, there are things that we think about which aren't real, like unicorns. They only exist mentally. We can invite others to imagine them -- but they have no existence that is not dependent on our consciousness, they are fictions created by us that exist, but that exist only in someone's imagination. Concepts also exist, but in a more objective way than imagined fictions do.

I can give examples of things that only exist purely subjectively, because of one particular consciousness (e.g. toothaches only felt by one person), things that only exist objectively but intentionally, because any particular consciousness (e.g. concepts understood by all competent persons), and things that exist objectively and completely independently, without relation to any particular consciousness (e.g. the ground below me right now).

I will assume -- unless you argue otherwise -- that those examples prove my point about three differing ways for things to exist. Does this outline of "existence" answer all (or most all) of your post 31 questions?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 12/26, 10:58am)

Post 33

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 1:52pm

Ed,

I wanted to say that I realize I made a mistake in asking how all content of consciousness is either content which exists external to us, or else is derived from such content. I realize now that this is probably not the Objectivist opinion (for, I doubt that Rand would say that emotions, for instance, either exist exterally to us or are combinations of data derived from estrospection.) There were three points I was curious about that I don't think have been answered here yet though.:
1.) Is darkness physical? If not, is it perceived in relation to physical things instead?
2.) What do Objectivists mean by saying that certain things are perceived in relation to physical things? For instance, I guess that Rand would say that emotions fall under this category. How then are emotions things we are aware of only in relation to physical things?
3.)Where does introspective content come from if it is different, at least in certain ways, from the content of extrospection? I think that it is likely that the content of our introspective awareness is somehow dependant upon our first being aware of similar things extrospectively, but obviously something must account for the ways in which introspective content is, in certain ways, different from extrospective content. Introspective content has, at least usually, different qualities than extrospective content. If I try to hear a song "in my head", for example, that song has more subtle qualities uaually than a song than I was hearing through introspection. The content may be similar to extrospective content, but it is not the same as that content; its not even the same in its parts as anything I've heard extrospectively. My point here is that, if it is true that the content of introspective content is dependent upon our awarenss of things "out there", it must be true that the mind somehow reformats the data we perceived as "out there" before we can become aware of that content introspectively. Where do the reformatted elements come from though? For they are different all throughout in quality from the things similar to them that we first experienced through extrospection. The elements of introspective awareness (which may have a one-to-one corrspondence with similar elements perceived through extrospection), are in , in other words, nonetheless different qualitatively from the similars they correspond to. I understand that the reformatted elements may be derived in part from extrospective content, but the mind obviously introduces new qualities into the reformatted elements. Where do these new qualites come from? Surely not from our awareness of the outside world alone.

Post 34

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 2:38pm

Are you saying that black is something physical then?
...............

Black, in terms of radiation, is the absence of color [as white is all the colors]... color, as such, is a specific range of radiation, which if not perceived, than is not seen - hence black...
[and not to be confused with paint, in which is the opposite, because it is reflected radiation]

darkness, then, is radiation in which none of the color range is perceived by one's senses...
(Edited by robert malcom on 12/27, 2:39pm)

Post 35

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 2:48pm

Emotions are psycho-somatic responses to a perceived 'for me or against me' responding to some relationship between the self and the perceived involved environment - it is an evaluative perception, an elaboration from the primitive 'action/reaction' stimulus responding... it is with the use of reasoning on the emotion, gathering into consciousness the particulars of the environment which initiated that responding that one can evaluate the rightness or errorness of the emotion in context to that specific situation... this is to say we all have the capacity to emote, but on what and whether appropriate or not depends on our mindfulness or the consequences of the lack of that mindfulness...

Post 36

Saturday, December 27, 2008 - 8:54pm

If we are talking about intangibles, I think values are an example of something that exists which is solely created by conscious thought and which did not exist prior to or absent from that thought. Certainly the value you have for an object did not exist until you assigned it that value.

If we are talking about tangibles, than you probably need to differentiate between existence and change. Certainly we can change pre-existing items with conscious (or rational) thought. However these changes are not new creations but rather rearrangements of the pre-existing.

Post 37

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 11:31am

Christopher,

Robert answered questions 1 and 2 well. I'll assume that they're sufficient for you (unless you speak out). Here's my attempt at question 3:

==========================
3.)Where does introspective content come from if it is different, at least in certain ways, from the content of extrospection?
==========================

The glib answer is that it's mental, stemming from the activity of a mind.

:-)

Your very question seems formed with the underlying notion that you're not "happy" that introspection is different form sense perception of the outside world (extrospection). That you had wanted it to be the same and -- if it's not the same -- then you demand an explanation.

It's like you wanted reality to be a different way, so you're demanding that someone explains to you why it is the way it is -- instead of your pre-conceptions. I, on the other hand, just passively accept that introspection will be a little different from sense perception. I accept that whenever I introspect, that I will have to ask if what I "see" upon introspection has external reality as well as my interview "view" of it.

I cannot ask the same thing about sense perception. I cannot question whether the things I perceive are real. If I did, or could, then there couldn't be a thing called "perception" but only things called "illusion" or "hallucination" and -- and this is the kicker right here! -- if there wasn't a thing called "perception" in the first place, then there couldn't ever be a thing called "illusion" or a thing called "hallucination"!

In the same way, if there never was a truth in the first place, then there couldn't ever be a falsity. A falsity is false because it misses a truth -- and for no other reason than that.

Ed

Post 38

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 12:36pm

Christopher,

Going back a moment, I wonder if perhaps you are viewing "consciousness" as a thing or as some stuff rather than as a *process* of identification. Under Objectivism, consciousness is akin to metabolism. To say consciousness could exist without something (other than itself) to be conscious of is similar to saying metabolism could exist without something (other than itself) to metabolize.

No worries if you leave this comment be. I see you've moved on per your post #33.

Jordan

Post 39

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:28pm