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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 6:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Cogito ergo sum." I think, therefore I am. One must exist in order to experience, and the fact that you experience is convincing proof you exist.
 
You consider yourself to be a single being - which is why you call yourself "I" instead of "we". Your body; however, is a plurality - a composite of individual elements or fundamental particles, each with its own properties and each with its own physical domain. Logically this presents a conundrum.
 
In order to reconcile this disparity, scholarly pundits with alphabet soup after their names have conjured up the notion that the right combination of inanimate elements produces a synergy - a composite that experiences a single identity. And which layman in his right mind would contradict an entire horde of pundits - especially when they are immersed in alphabet soup.
 
The concept of identity means one existence will have a single set of experiences and a collection of existences will have individual sets of experience equal to the number of elements in the set. And any claim that a composite can, by some esoteric power, become a single identity just isn't logical.
 
JMc
An abstract from www.theory-of-reciprocity.com/life.htm  


Post 1

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 10:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I think, therefore I am" - reflects the primacy of consciousness, namely consciousness preceeds existence...... WRONG!!

"I am, therefore I think" - reflects the primacy of existence, that you exist as a human, therefore you think.....


Post 2

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quote Robert Malcom: "I think, therefore I am" - reflects the primacy of consciousness, namely consciousness preceeds existence...... WRONG!!

"I am, therefore I think" - reflects the primacy of existence, that you exist as a human, therefore you think.....

Oh, I agree entirely. Which is why I pointed out that one must exist in order to experience. However, the fact that you experience IS very convincing proof you exist.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 8:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I point out it's not necessary to plead to vitalism to explain the nature of the mind nor life itself.

Consider things that seemingly are 'alive.' Fire, hurricanes, and pyrite all pretty much seem 'alive' in one respect or another (growth, reproduction, and consumption/survival). Yet, it's pretty clear not one of them is alive like a human, or any other living thing know. They don't have DNA to transmit genes by. They don't have something like cell walls to contain their mechanisms (especially fire has no border between other fires). And they don't seem to show any ordered response to radically different changes in environments (hurricanes keep moving until they hit a bad patch of cold water and fizzle out. And pyrite keeps growing until it hits something that nullifies its growth.).

So, what makes these three things seem alive? Well, the simple answer is that many of the features of life come from matter itself, in the respect that matter allows them as an option to be exercised, and easily so. It follows then that other complex systems, as they evolve in the environment, will come along to exploit these options, and it just happened that the mechanisms of life (DNA and its predicessors) did that. Also, life, like the other three examples of somewhat life-like phenomena, are emergent, in that no one compositional structure defines the full behavior of the entity/phenomena in question. Water doesn't define the full behavior of a hurricane, but it does give it physical flexibility in its motion. The elements that allow pyrite to exist also give it its property to grow, but it doesn't stop it from growing and mixing into other elements, thus altering their shapes as well. And the fuel that allows fire, may define what a fire entails, but it doesn't stop it from spreading to other kinds of fuel if available.

That's the key point here, life is emergent. It comes from seemingly simpler components to give rise to new features of behavior not implicitly or explicitly defined by the components themselves. DNA doesn't define how animals would evolve, it doesn't have the structure to exclude the rise and fall of the dinosaurs. It doesn't have the structure to explain the evolution of the human species. All DNA has is the ability to reproduce itself, and possibly sustain itself within a specific framework of the environment. Even genes don't explain the whole story. They can tell you what sorts of proteins come into the formation of an animal, but not what kind of animal. It can regulate the production of proteins, but not define what every protein is always for (since many proteins are used just everywhere in the body for many processes). So, this suggests that many features of life as we know it come about as it becomes more complex, which includes the human mind.

Millions of years of evolution for the primates, inevitibility driven by the drying of Africa through the ice ages, lead to the possibility of a perceptual engine giving way to a conceptual one, in that the first animals to evolve to contain the capacity of perception laid down the foundation from which a mind could be produced upon. It just happened the species related to humans were the ones to reap the benefit of having a mind, an ability to work on things remembered and to learn, to make new memories based on thinking and not just experiecing. This process requires no etheric soul. It only requires that perception evolved from the species in the animal kingdom, through natural selection, and that no one given component to life excluded it explicitly/implicitly. From this context, it makes it clear why we have minds, and why we're alive, without soul, and without mysticism.

-- Brede

Post 4

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, life IS complex. Physiology certainly has a drastic impact on consciousness; however, it has been over 58 years since the advent of my corporal shell and I don't quite remember back that far so I can't tell you what it was like to be without it. But ask me in a few years and I might be able to describe it.

I do know; however, that I experience thought and sensation. And only that which exists can experience. Every element in a set has an individual (identity property) set of experiences and a unique history - so the essence which is me must be a single existence somewhere in that myriad of elements which comprises my corpse.

We may assign names to collections of elemental particles for the sake of convenience (a chair for example), but only voodoo can turn a composite into a single identity.


Post 5

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 6:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We may, for convenience sake, assign the name "Jack THoR McNally" to a certain evident type of mind (like a fool) yet to believe that the collections of elemental lexical particles assembled here under that sign indicates a unitary mental entity behind those scribblings would be mere voodoo?

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer on 9/27, 9:06pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 6:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's not voodoo if the properties of the entity are not reducible to their component parts. Consider water. It's made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Neither the hydrogen nor the oxygen atoms under the same temperatures as we experience on Earth, would behave the same way as water. Yet, again, water is made of these atoms. What is the magic in the fact that water, is made of components that are unwater-like? Nothing, it simply proves that properties of entities can be built upon the properties of other entities, to give way from one entity to another. In a way it is its own form of evolution without biological pressures (consider Aristotle's argument that categories can and do change as a point to this fact). What you think of as voodoo is the fact the reductionist view that either you've implicitly or explicitly utilize cannot explain emergence because it rejects it. Life is emergent, water is emergent. It's hard to grasp, but it's not voodoo, we can measure it. We can test it.

-- Brede

Post 7

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 4:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bridget -
Thank you for your civil discourse - please don't take the sarcasm below personally it is meant to amuse

Ah yes :

Eye of nute
Wing of bat
A pinch of this
A touch of that
And ALAKAZAM   6.423333 x 10^26=1

I thought this was the forum for the Rebirth of Reason, not recipe's from the Book of Wicca.

Granted, things behave differently when they are in proximity to each other than when they are isolated in space. But no matter how hard you stir the cauldron, each element in a composite will retain its own identity,  regardless of which incantation you invoke.

If the (objectivist) axiom of identity if valid, then WHAT something is never changes. Something will always be what it IS. HOW something is - its state of being or condition - is dynamic.

Emergent properties are not the qualities of AN existence, they are virtual properties - behaviours that occur within a group of elements under given conditions.

Unfortunately in the English language conditions are said to 'exist'; but, conditions have no 'existence' beyond the entities in which they dwell. Conditions OCCUR - they do not 'exist'.

In saying that which is YOU is the product of emergent properties you are claiming you are an OCCURRENCE, not an existence. I have a major problem with that reasoning.

Do you further believe you will cease to be when you die, but all your parts will continue to exist (the whole is different from than the sum of its parts)? 

"Oh, do do that voodoo that you do so well." Cole Porter


Oh, and Ted, why don't you take your puerile comments to another thread and let the grown-ups talk.

(Edited by Jack (THoR) McNally on 9/28, 6:25am)


Post 8

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I think, therefore I am" - reflects the primacy of consciousness, namely consciousness preceeds existence...... WRONG!!

"I am, therefore I think" - reflects the primacy of existence, that you exist as a human, therefore you think.....
Your WRONG is wrong if the first consciousness mentioned is true consciousness and the second statement is self consciousness or existence.

If all of those quarks and particles created nature, were they clever enough to build something so they could see themselves?

Sort of like that science fiction flick where some little submicroscopic beings build this giant machine with them inside of it and the machine spends thousands of years trying to figure out where it came from



Post 9

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 8:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's our vector, Victor? (Airplane 1980)
Glad you could join us.
I must; however, disagree.

The two most basic phenomenon in the cosmos are:
1) existence (physical presence)
2) change (alteration of the state of existence or "condition")

Consciousness is a condition - I know because I loose it occasionally...almost every night.
It seems only logical that in order to be conscious, you must first exist.
And losing consciousness does not mean you have ceased to exist - at least I HOPE not....

JMc


Post 10

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What's our vector, Victor? (Airplane 1980)
We're also out of coffee  (Same movie)

Coffee, that stuff many of us need to attain full consciousness.

The "think therefore I am'ng" takes place in the subconscious and it's difficult but not impossible to stop thinking in the subconscious when awake, which is why people react to identity insults.  Fellows like Ghandi and King taught us how to ignore such things.

We may be confused with the fact that consciousness can (or may) precede recognition of consciousness or self consciousness.  Sounds scary but even a dead body is conscious but it just doesn't recognize it.


Post 11

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 9:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue (ibid)
 
I have little doubt that everything that exists 'experiences', but consciousness connotes wakeful human experience - something probably not available to those who may be temporarily 'sans corpse'


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Malcom wrote,
"I think, therefore I am" - reflects the primacy of consciousness, namely consciousness preceeds existence...... WRONG!!

"I am, therefore I think" - reflects the primacy of existence, that you exist as a human, therefore you think.....
Either statement is acceptable, as long as one understand what is meant by it.

Descartes cogito simply says that IF one thinks, THEN one must exist to do the thinking. Nothing wrong with that. It doesn't imply the primacy of consciousness -- the idea that consciousness precedes existence. Descartes is simply identifying the fact that one cannot doubt that one exists if one is engaged in a process of thought, because in that case, one must already exist to do the thinking. In other words, he is simply avoiding the fallacy of the stolen concept. The concept of 'thinking', according to Descartes, logically depends on and presupposes the concept of 'existence.'

It's also legitimate to say, "I am (a conscious person); therefore, I think." In other words, IF you exist as a conscious person, THEN you must do what every conscious person does, namely think.

So, properly understood, both formulations are correct.

- Bill

Post 13

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 2:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
According to Eastern Religion everything has consciousness.
According to Einstein's Physics all matter is a transformation of energy.
Yoga and other forms of meditation is designed to free the mind of all thought both in the objective mind and the subconscious mind in the body, essentially transforming the person into a higher state of consciousness or just another part of nature like a tree.

The human mind is essentially the objective mind or brain with the 12 cranial nerves feeding the senses (& functions) and the spinal nerve down into the body.

The image of Christianity is Christ sitting upon the mount, holding the staff and surrounded by the 12 apostles.


Post 14

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     What I have a prob with is that some poor souls need a so-called 'proof' that they exist. I mean, it's necessary in order to do...what?Without it, the doubter therefore can't do...what? Refrain from doubting that they exist? And that's it? Even a 'proof' can be...doubted; just as arbitrarily as the existence of the doubter.

     Question:  How is the existence of a 'proof' established, without the prover being already not doubted? Can we not say that Descartes begs his question in his 'proof'? -- Can we say 'stolen concept'?

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 9/28, 3:39pm)


Post 15

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
in answer to the question -- Does a life force or 'soul' exist? -- a distinction needs to be made between a 'life force' (or elan vital) and a 'soul.' A 'life force' is an animating spirit that is said to explain the self-sustaining action of living organisms. A 'soul' (as defined by Rand) is a mind and its values. Accordingly, 'life force' and 'soul' are not synonymous. Not all living organisms have souls, but everything that has a soul is a living organism.

However, a soul does not exist independently of a body, because a consciousness requires a brain and sense organs in the absence of which there could be no perception of the external world or the processing and storage of information gained from sensory observation. Perception always takes place according to a specific sensory modality -- e.g., sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell -- which requires a sense organ with physical properties that dictate the form of perception. Sight is a different form of perception than hearing, which is a different form of perception than taste, etc. Lacking a physical sense organ, perception would have no specific form, and therefore would not exist. Similarly, the processing of sensory information through memory and thinking requires a brain and nervous system, in the absence of which, there would be no cognition.

What we refer to as the mind or consciousness is simply the subjective manifestation of the sense organs, brain and nervous system. There is no separate spirit or soul that exists independently of the body, any more than there is a 'life force' or elan vital that exists independently of the action of living organisms. The notion of a disembodied soul is simply a relic of religious superstition.

Quoting Rand, “To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their definitions consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say – and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge – God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body . . . perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining but of wiping out.” (AS, p. 1035)

- Bill

Post 16

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 2:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
quote Bill Dwyer - Descartes is simply identifying the fact that one cannot doubt that one exists if one is engaged in a process of thought, because in that case, one must already exist to do the thinking.

Of course the $64000 question here is "Can a composite think?"

Can a collection of parts - organic or mechanical - have an identity, a consciousness?
Or is life initiated by elemental particles which have the attribute of animation.
Did it develop via intelligent design (not necessarily religious in nature), evolution or possibly BOTH?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Emergent properties are not the qualities of AN existence, they are virtual properties - behaviours that occur within a group of elements under given conditions.

Totally wrong for two reasons.

1. Emergent properties are existent because of other properties, but not one property of the originate composer(s).

2. These properties are not ordinally 'higher' or 'superior' to the properties of the composing entities.

Therefore, all your claims against emergence don't hold water. The fact you can't even give a reason for your claims, not a single example and what not, pretty much makes me wonder if you're even thinking about the issue critically. Sorry for being mean, but that's the problem, you're not arguing, you're going on with your own beliefs without validation and claiming them to be true without fact(s).

I pointed out examples (hurricanes, fires, and even life itself) for emergence. I pointed out why these examples work (and I gave sufficient detail for you to analyze and criticize). So, please refute my points or don't post at all, because it would be a waste of your time and mine in that you haven't even given a reason to believe your stance of vitalism. Vitalism failed for many reasons, and one of them is the constant application of divine forces for the origin of vital 'force' of matter. You claim that emergence is voodoo, yet vitalism is the true voodoo because it depends on outside forces to explain it. Whereas emergence depends on the fact that no given one property of any given single entity automatically excludes the options for the formation of an entity based on it as an atom. It doesn't go into making grand projections that life must exist one way or another, in fact it suggests there are many ways for life to exist, just that most of these ways are not optimal (silica based life, and etc are all proposed in theoretical works, and in many cases the theorists themselves tear down these ideas on where it would make them the least likely possibility versus our kind of life [carbon based]). Also, all the known laws of physics allow for emergence to operate as it does, being that no one system is absolutely closed nor absolutely irreversible. These two basic properties of reality (limited reversibility and finite openness of systems) allow for emergence to be an option to exercise at all levels of existence (from subatomic to macroscopic).

So, I'm throwing down the gauntlet, show me the money as it were, for the proof of vitalism, or you retract said claims for it and accept Nature as it is.

-- Brede

Post 18

Friday, September 28, 2007 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course the $64000 question here is "Can a composite think?"

Can a collection of parts - organic or mechanical - have an identity, a consciousness?
Of course, a collection can have an identity; anything that exists, whether an individual or collection, has an identity. But not everything that has an identity has a consciousness. Moreover, a conscious organism is not a collection but an integration of its parts.
Or is life initiated by elemental particles which have the attribute of animation.
Life cannot be initiated by elemental particles that have the attribute of animation, because having the attribute of animation means that the particles would already be alive, in which case, life could not then be initiated by them.
Did it develop via intelligent design (not necessarily religious in nature), evolution or possibly BOTH?
Life could not have developed by intelligent design, because intelligence is itself a property of living organisms, one that emerged during the course of their evolutionary development. Intelligence presupposes life; life does not presuppose intelligence.

- Bill

Post 19

Saturday, September 29, 2007 - 3:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quoting Rand, “To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their definitions consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say – and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge – God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body . . . perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining but of wiping out.” (AS, p. 1035)

- Bill
Repeating Rand, "Their definitions are not acts of defining but of wiping out." Or Bill as the old priests in the church used to say, "That's a mystery son." when we questioned doctrine.  Rand is recognizing that human beings find themselves in a hierarchy where they cannot totaly question God or become God but this really applies to those who sit at the bottom of the social hierarchy and submit to authority.  Of course the ones at the top of the hierarchies like Pilate and Caesar do have power and authority and manifest as gods, hence my earlier reference to theSermon On The Mount.  The popes essentially became the "kindler and gentler" successors to Caesar but of course the hierarchies still existed.  The Protestants like Martin Luther broke from the authority of the popes and Protestant culture enabled new European philosophy which eventually lead to the American Democracy in the New World. Ayn Rand recognized American democracy as a true vehicle to human individual freedom.

Of course now our representative form of government is in trouble and we believe one individual as the new president can solve every problem from the Iraq War to healthcare.  The real job should be to fix the government first which will enable the people to fix their own problems.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.