Existence Exists - Redux

I'm having a real hard time understanding the first axiom of Objectivism. I take it for granted that it's true, but is this just a product of my own belief system? I don't truly know it to be true. I can't prove it to myself. I realize axioms are supposed to be unprovable, but this is insufficient for me. I know this question has been posed numerous times, and everyone here is probably sick of answering it, but I've read so much I think my eyes are about to bleed. Is "existence exists" a definitional thing. That is, are we able to assert this with certainty because we've defined the concept "existence" as "everything that exists?"

The oft-used example of "The Matrix." How do we know what we perceive with our senses is the real world? Does the existence in the Matrix exist? Since that is what those plugged into the Matrix perceive, does that mean it's real? Things in the Matrix don't actually exist, but those plugged into it perceive it. I understand this is a Stolen Concept Fallacy insofar as there is an existence which needs to be plugged into the Matrix - therefore there is an existence which really does exist, but it's not the existence everyone perceives. If we're basing our knowledge of what really exists upon our perceptions, then those plugged into the Matrix do not have a correct base.

I guess I'm just really trying to answer the questions: How do we know what we perceive is real? How do we know, with certainty, that existence exists?

Post 1

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 6:45am

Jeff,

First things first. I often approach things I need a clearer understanding of by asking myself, "what might the purpose of this be?" With the statement "Existence exists" we are almost automatically brought up to another great question, "Purpose? In what context?"

So, I have rapidly come to asking about what is the purpose for making that statement in the context of logic or metaphysics (the two contexts that occur to me). After all it is an assertion that belongs to the field of metaphysics. And as an axiom it has a role in logic.

Lets go to the context of logic first. You mentioned that you realized axioms could not be proved. But that doesn't seem to be a compelling purpose creating something - not to me anyway - so I end up focusing on another property - any statement that attempts to disprove it will contradict itself since it will at the same time rely on it being true. This arises out of the fact that knowledge is hierarchical. Here is my favorite example of that: "Property" needs to be defined and understood before we can understand "Theft" which is a concept that requires that we first understand what properly owned property is before we can understand what is stolen property. I use these two words because Branden pointed out that "Property is theft" - a famous saying by the philosophical father of anarchy - commits the fallacy Branden named the stolen concept fallacy. Knowledge also is made up of assertions - some times they are strung together as a chain - other times they are simple subject and what is predicated about it. In this case there can be logical problems with the sequence of the chain (like circular reasoning), or with the validity of what is predicated about the subject (like with equivocation).

Now, given that knowledge is hierarchical it stands to reason that one concept will be more fundamental than all others: Existence - by its definition is that concept includes all that is. And the most bullet-proof thing that one can predicate about existence is that it exists.

Now, switch to the purpose in the context of metaphysics. We know that people have attempted to assert that reality is not real, that it is imagined, or some such denial of an independent existence. If existence is the most fundamental of all concepts - it will have to be the foundation for anything they say - even if what they are trying to say is that existence doesn't exist. If it would be meaningless to attempt to contradict the predication (actually a tautology) of 'exists' about 'existence', then no chain of so-called logic can be valid if it contradicts this predication. "All that exists is acually just imagined" contradicts "Existence exists."

Hence, the purpose of the axiom is to provide a solid base for reasoning from and to be able prove that contary positions are wrong. It's like a mathematical proof - but for logic applied to the most basic issue of metaphysics.

I expect that others on this forum, more experienced in this area, can give more cogent explanations and correct any errors I've made, but that is my understanding and how I arrived at it.

------------
ps - I wouldn't teach this axiom directly to kids... but I would often finding myself asking them things like, "What would be the purpose of someone doing that?" Or, e.g., "In what context? You know, just here at home, or everywhere?" To gently, indirectly, let them grasp the power of asking those questions.

Post 2

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 8:34am

I remembered some material in Nathaniel's article on the Stolen Concept fallacy that pertained to Axiom. This is a lengthy quote taken from the middle of the article:

Consider the laws of logic. In the Aristotelian school of thought, these laws are recognized as being abstract formulations of self-evident truths, truths implicit in man�s first perceptions of reality, implicit in the very concept of existence, of being qua being; these laws acknowledge the fact that to be, is to be something, that a thing is itself. Among many contemporary philosophers, it is fashionable to contest this view�and to assert that the axioms of logic are �arbitrary� or �hypothetical.�
To declare that the axioms of logic are �arbitrary� is to ignore the context which gives rise to such a concept as the �arbitrary.� An arbitrary idea is one accepted by chance, caprice or whim; it stands in contradistinction to an idea accepted for logical reasons, from which it is intended to be distinguished. The existence of such a concept as an �arbitrary� idea is made possible only by the existence of logically necessary ideas; the former is not a primary; it is genetically dependent on the latter. To maintain that logic is �arbitrary� is to divest the concept �arbitrary� of meaning.
To declare that the axioms of logic are �hypothetical� (or merely �probable�) is to be guilty of the same contradiction. The concept of the �hypothetical (or the �probable�) is not a primary; it acquires meaning only in contradistinction to the known, the certain, the logically established. Only when one knows something which is certain, can one arrive at the idea of that which is not; and only logic can separate the latter from the former.
�An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let the caveman who does not choose to accept the axiom of identity, try to present his theory without using the concept of identity or any concept derived from it � � (Atlas Shrugged).

Post 3

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 11:32am

Hi Jeff,

Steve has done a superb job of presenting the Objectivist case for the axiomatic concepts. But I want to address your example of the Matrix. You write,

The oft-used example of "The Matrix." How do we know what we perceive with our senses is the real world? Does the existence in the Matrix exist? Since that is what those plugged into the Matrix perceive, does that mean it's real? Things in the Matrix don't actually exist, but those plugged into it perceive it. I understand this is a Stolen Concept Fallacy insofar as there is an existence which needs to be plugged into the Matrix - therefore there is an existence which really does exist, but it's not the existence everyone perceives. If we're basing our knowledge of what really exists upon our perceptions, then those plugged into the Matrix do not have a correct base.

I don't think you understand the stolen concept fallacy correctly. It isn't simply saying that there is an existence that needs to be plugged into the Matrix. The stolen concept fallacy says that the concept "The Matrix" PRESUPPOSES the concept of a real perceivable existence, without which a concept such as "The Matrix" would not be intelligible. In other words, if you couldn't perceive the real world, you couldn't form such a concept as "The Matrix," to begin with. The Matrix in contrast to what? The concept "Matrix" refers to an illusion -- that which does not really exist, but only appears to -- which is a concept that is understandable only if you can contrast it to that which is NOT an illusion -- which is to say, only if you can perceive the real world.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 7/25, 11:34am)

Post 4

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 11:16am

Mr. Wolfer,
Thank you very much. These statements:

"Now, given that knowledge is hierarchical it stands to reason that one concept will be more fundamental than all others: Existence - by its definition is that concept includes all that is. And the most bullet-proof thing that one can predicate about existence is that it exists."

and the article by Mr. Branden were very helpful. If I may restate what I've learned:

"Existence," as a noun, as a concept, is the name we've assigned to the concept "everything which is." Why do we have such a concept? Because we can distinguish between things which do exist and things which do not exist. I could assert, "There is milk in the refrigerator." The validity, the truth of that assertion, would depend upon whether or not milk actually exists in the refrigerator. I could go to the refrigerator (or anyone could) and prove the truth of this assertion by distinguishing between milk existing in the refrigerator, or milk not existing in the refrigerator. The point being: we can make the distinction, and making that distinction depends upon knowing the difference between the two - non-existence depends upon existence, and vice versa. To make the argument, "There is no milk in the refrigerator." I would need to first assume I can tell the difference between that which does exist, and that which does not. That we have concepts for "that which does exist" and "that which does not exist" presumes we can tell the difference. If we can tell the difference, then something must exist which we can compare the non-existent to.

If someone says, "No, there is no milk in the refrigerator." I can ask them, "How do you know?" The only way to prove it with certainty would be to go to the refrigerator and look. This, in and of itself, presumes they have a way to distinguish between what exists and what does not exist, because only by applying this distinction could they validate the truth of their disagreement. If there actually is milk in the refrigerator, if the milk exists in the refrigerator, then they would either have to admit they're wrong, or they would have to deny the method by which they determine whether something exists or not. In fact, the very fact they are disagreeing with me presumes they exist to disagree, and the concept "disagreement" exists.

But this leads me back to "The Matrix." The above helps me counter the argument that we all live in the Matrix, or we're just living in a dream In both cases, there must be an objective reality in order to base the fake, or dreamed reality, upon. In "The Matrix" there was "the Real World" - something distinguishable from the fake. In dreams there must be something opposed to dreams, otherwise we would have no concept "dream." What it doesn't help me answer is whether what we perceive with our senses is the existence which does really exist. Suppose someone disagrees with me that there is milk in the refrigerator. They go to the refrigerator, look inside, then proclaim, "See? I told you." I go to the refrigerator and look inside, sure enough, there's milk in the refrigerator. We go round and round with, "Look, it's right there, beside the grape juice." And they reply, "Where?" I pick it up, he just looks at me like I'm crazy. Well, one of us is. How do I know, with certainty, it's not me?

Post 5

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 12:51pm

Jeff,

I glad I was able to help. I'll clear up what might be a confusion. You say,

"Existence," as a noun, as a concept, is the name we've assigned to the concept "everything which is." Why do we have such a concept? Because we can distinguish between things which do exist and things which do not exist.

And then you begin working with an example of milk in the refrigerator. The concept of "existence" as we are using it, is about the sum total of all things that exist as a total - not about just a single concrete, like one container of milk. So when we say "existence" in this fashion it means you, your computer, me, the milky way galaxy,.... everything.

On the issue of non-existence, that is a little tricker and maybe Bill will explain it - I've seen him do it before and he would make it clearer than I - but it has to do with the fact that, as defined, existence is everything so there can be nothing outside of existence and therefore no non-existence as an entity or state of being.

As to the milk example, it would only work as something related to "existence" as a noun, if someone starts an argument that the milk was just imagined to be there since there is no real world - or something like that. Are they talking metaphysics or validity of the senses (epistemology), if not you aren't dealing with the concept of existence.

If what they are disputing is that single container of milk and not a metaphysical/epistemological principle, then it isn't about "existence" as such - but perhaps only about what do you mean by 'milk', I'm talking about soy milk or half and half - a definitional misunderstanding, or about no real argument because between the time you looked and he looked the milk was taken out (you don't share a common time in your argument), Or, an evidentiary error - one of you thinks you saw milk but were mistaken or looked for milk and didn't see it behind the orange juice, or someone is fibbing because they drank the milk and won't own up to it :-)

You have grasped the concept perfectly where you say,

The above helps me counter the argument that we all live in the Matrix, or we're just living in a dream In both cases, there must be an objective reality in order to base the fake, or dreamed reality, upon. In "The Matrix" there was "the Real World" - something distinguishable from the fake. In dreams there must be something opposed to dreams, otherwise we would have no concept "dream."

You then say,

What it doesn't help me answer is whether what we perceive with our senses is the existence which does really exist.

Remember, there is only one existence (and nothing outside of it) - so if you sense something it is 'something.' With the senses, ask what could they be percieving but existence (non-existence? What a silly idea that would be - what kind of sensory apparatus is that?). Attempt to make an argument in favor of the position that you are percieving something other than existence and you run right into axiom city.

There are some good articles in the Objectivist literature on this subject. And probably articles and threads here on ROR.

Your example is one that is a hypothetical which presumes an impossible situation - in the same way that magic tricks generate a sense of amazement - but the key is the word "trick." And the trick in the milk carton example where one of you sees it and the other doesn't is in the example not reality.

"How do I know, with certainty, it's not me?"

Axions, integration, trust in your judgement based upon past experience, psychologically being on your own side, verifying your reasoning when in doubt, casting out doubt when you have verified or have no need to, working to achieve clarity, paying attention to detail, and all of the other good habits for critical reasoning. This question comes up when Mike Wallace interviewed Rand in 1959 - I don't remember which of the three parts - they are about 10 minutes each. I enjoyed not only her answer but watching someone who had earned not just the right to certainty, but was comfortable employing it. It makes no sense to give up any sense of certainty just because it is possible to make a mistake - making judgements is just the beginning, next we have to act upon them - life requires that - and that is the purpose of certainty - and without some measure of it, one is frozen with fear. And, like I mentioned to you in the other thread, look at the importance of self-esteem - it is a solid psychological base for certainty. Self-esteem in this context is the sense that one is efficatious in principle, certainty is confidence in ones judgements.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 7/25, 1:10pm)

Post 6

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 2:14pm

Jeff S,

Suppose someone disagrees with me that there is milk in the refrigerator. They go to the refrigerator, look inside, then proclaim, "See? I told you." I go to the refrigerator and look inside, sure enough, there's milk in the refrigerator. We go round and round with, "Look, it's right there, beside the grape juice." And they reply, "Where?" I pick it up, he just looks at me like I'm crazy. Well, one of us is. How do I know, with certainty, it's not me?

Please let me know if this kind of a thing ever happens to you in your lifetime.

If this kind of a thing is something that often -- or even, occasionally -- happens, then it would become an important thing for you or I or us to figure out. However, if this kind of a thing is something that has never happened to you nor to anyone that you have ever known -- and you are just using your imagination "free style" -- then you are speaking arbitrarily. When someone enters the arbitrary, they lose rational footing -- because reason is reason about reality (not about just anything imaginable). When you sever the tie to reality -- via counterfactual, mental gymnastics -- then even reason can't pull you back in to the shores.

If, in life, this kind of a thing ever happened -- then I'd be willing to bet that there would be a way to figure out who's crazy and who's sane. There would be some kind of a pattern in not just "milk jug recognition" -- but in a whole slew of things giving it away who's crazy and who's not.

;-)

Ed

Post 7

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 3:17pm

Something exists (otherwise one could not be reading this message). Everything that currently exists and the changes they are going through is reality.

Post 8

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 3:20pm

Jeff S, Even if we were in "the matrix", the matrix is still real and we are a part of Reality. Software programs are parts of reality.

Post 9

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 3:25pm

Hi Jeff,

You wrote,

But this leads me back to "The Matrix." The above helps me counter the argument that we all live in the Matrix, or we're just living in a dream In both cases, there must be an objective reality in order to base the fake, or dreamed reality, upon. In "The Matrix" there was "the Real World" - something distinguishable from the fake. In dreams there must be something opposed to dreams, otherwise we would have no concept "dream." What it doesn't help me answer is whether what we perceive with our senses is the existence which does really exist.

Ah, so you still have the following question: Granted there has to be a distinction, how do I know that what I perceive is the real world and not an illusion?

Well, in order to have the concept of an illusion, you have to be able to identify reality; otherwise, an 'illusion' wouldn't make any sense. How do you form the concept of illusion, to begin with? From the experience of being deceived. But you can only recognize that you were deceived in relation to the real world. It is only in contrast to the real world that you can identify a deception. If you couldn't identify what's real, you couldn't identify what's deceptive. Deceptive in relation to what? In relation to what you are now aware of, which is reality.

- Bill

Post 10

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 6:27pm

Jeff S,

The above helps me counter the argument that we all live in the Matrix, or we're just living in a dream In both cases, there must be an objective reality in order to base the fake, or dreamed reality, upon. In "The Matrix" there was "the Real World" - something distinguishable from the fake. In dreams there must be something opposed to dreams, otherwise we would have no concept "dream." What it doesn't help me answer is whether what we perceive with our senses is the existence which does really exist.

I can assure you that "what we perceive with our senses is the existence which does really exist." Think about the opposite. Think about beings who perceive with their senses "existence(s)" which doesn't/don't exist. So that what it is that they are perceiving is something that doesn't exist. They are perceiving something that isn't really there. That's how their perceptual apparatus works -- by "perceiving" error instead of reality.

These fantasy-based non-creatures, using their productive capacities to solve the Problem of Survival (like all beings must do), are somehow lucky enough to continue to get by -- making errors instead of getting things right. They make tools that aren't really there, and then use them to build shelters that don't really exist (to protect them from the weather). They make weapons that don't really kill the wild game that they chase around all day -- wild game that doesn't really exist (to get their nourishment).

Do you see where all this is going?

:-/

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/25, 6:29pm)

Post 11

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 5:43pm

Thank you all for your patience. I know this is a subject often visited and I'm sure you get tired of restating what's been stated a thousand times.

Mr. Wolfer-
You wrote:

The concept of "existence" as we are using it, is about the sum total of all things that exist as a total - not about just a single concrete, like one container of milk. So when we say "existence" in this fashion it means you, your computer, me, the milky way galaxy,.... everything.

Doesn't this just turn "Existence exists" into a tautology? Maybe that's not a bad thing, but I wonder if it's enough when trying to go from "existence" to "reality." That is, if one agrees on the definition of "existence" as "all which exists," they couldn't argue nothing exists because they've already agreed on the definition, and definitionally existence exists. However, they could still logically argue that God, for example, belongs to the set "existence." In reality, He doesn't. (At least, I think He doesn't, but how can I be certain?)

My purpose in the milk example was only to try and draw a simpler analogy which demonstrates we know, and can differentiate between, what exists in reality and what does not. Since we can, since we have a concept for things which exist and a concept for things which don't exist, there must be some things which really exist and those things, in toto, would constitute "existence." I see now how flawed it was.

You wrote:

Axions, integration, trust in your judgement based upon past experience, psychologically being on your own side, verifying your reasoning when in doubt, casting out doubt when you have verified or have no need to, working to achieve clarity, paying attention to detail, and all of the other good habits for critical reasoning.

Mr. Thompson wrote:

If, in life, this kind of a thing ever happened -- then I'd be willing to bet that there would be a way to figure out who's crazy and who's sane. There would be some kind of a pattern in not just "milk jug recognition" -- but in a whole slew of things giving it away who's crazy and who's not.

If I understand you both, and am able to restate it correctly, it's our reason which leads us to seek a resolution to the contradiction. In the case of my milk example I would have to recognize there's a problem: we can't both be right, ergo one of us is wrong, is there any other information I can bring to bear in order to determine whom is right? Does my friend have a history of psychosis? Do I? Etc.

Mr. Thompson-
You wrote:

Please let me know if this kind of a thing ever happens to you in your lifetime.

Well, it can happen, right? Have you ever interacted with a truly psychotic person? Their reality is very much as real to them as ours is. However, I concede the point. I only hope I've come to the right conclusion as I explained above.

Still, I wonder about our senses being deceived. For example, have you ever ridden any rides at theme parks where the intention is to immerse your senses with the effect of tricking your brain into thinking reality has changed? The space shuttle ride at Disney World provides all the visual, auditory, and tactile sensations of riding in a launching rocket. Imagine you woke up already strapped into this ride - an entirely possible scenario. How would you differentiate between the reality that it is only a ride, but all your senses are telling you you're on your way to Mars? I imagine you would argue, "Well, how often do you wake up in rocket ships?" And I concede the point. But it seems to me that it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that something could be fundamentally wrong with our senses such that we're all experiencing the same illusion. I'm not arguing that's the case, only that logically the possibility exists. But if it does exist, would we need to have something contradictory to it, some existence where we don't have this fundamental defect, in order for it to exist? Certainly we would need something contradictory to it in order to recognize we do have this defect, but I don't see how it being possible would require an alternative.

I realize I've moved from metaphysics to epistemology (at least, I think I have), but the two seem inextricably connected.

Mr. Dwyer-
You wrote:

The stolen concept fallacy says that the concept "The Matrix" PRESUPPOSES the concept of a real perceivable existence, without which a concept such as "The Matrix" would not be intelligible. In other words, if you couldn't perceive the real world, you couldn't form such a concept as "The Matrix," to begin with.

Within the movie this is consistent. Few know the Matrix exists because they have something to compare what they sense when plugged into the Matrix against what is objectively real. For those who have nothing to compare the Matrix reality to, the real perceivable existence is the Matrix, or the fake reality. A concept such as the Matrix would not be intelligible. They don't know it's fake. For them, existence is not real, but they don't know it. Why can't that be us?

Post 12

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:19pm

Jeff,

You said,

"...they could still logically argue that God, for example, belongs to the set "existence." In reality, He doesn't. (At least, I think He doesn't, but how can I be certain?

First, as you have grasped, 'existence' is THE super-set and there is nothing outside of it.
Second, an atheist might answer, yes, God exists in the sense that there is concept behind this word, but the true referent in reality for that concept is a mythical entity, a literary invention, a supersition and there is no actual entity in existence matching that description. How can he be certain? Because he measured the evidence offered for the existence of a real god, using his mind, because that is only tool for such measurement, and the evidence came up zero.
Third: Let's shift to, "What is the purpose of certainty?" Certainty is important in two ways as you live your life. It is an mental/emotional state that allows you to act more easily in an area, and it is a measure (cast in different kinds of units) of the probability of a given assertion being true (or, the probablility that you are not making an error in a given assertion).

There are many more ways that certainty can be discussed and technically you are asking for the set of critical reasoning skills that would measure the validity of an argument and, of course, the metaphysical and epistemological foundation that support that set of reasoning skills.

But actually what we need is the feeling that we are right and that comes out of using our reasoning, learning to trust our judgement, integrating our concepts, and improved self-esteem habits. You start by saying that you are certain that you are not in some Matrix-like or hallucinogenic state and believing that. What a terrible injustice a person does to themselves if they keep hovering back a forth between between our need to know and to act, and doubts that can reach all the way down to existence itself - and just look at how much inner-serenity and personal power is throw away. Where in the world is there ANY evidence that you actually are in that damned movie or a psychotic state?

If someone suspects they may have a mental condition, if there is some evidence of delusion or hallucination, then it is an issue to discuss with a good professional - and rule it in if that's the case so that treatment options can be examined, or rule it out and no longer have to consider that as a source of uncertainty.

If anyone were to tell me that they still had this kind of doubt, despite grasping the concepts that let them know the feeling of that particular kind of doubt was not justified, I might tell them to create a small mental process akin to an internal video - as if seeing through their own eyes, that they are throwing those doubts into the toilet, as if they were physical, and flushing! Make that image the rapid, automatic, habitual response to existential doubt, to free-floating uncertainty. I'd ask them to imagine and to make real how it would feel, in their chest, as that imagined doubt disappeared down the toilet. I'd ask them to breath in deeply while they did this and I'd tell them to commit to being on their own side in this issue. To make that commitment and go to work the mental/emotional muscles that lead to higher levels of confidence and certainty. No one gets into good physical condition with the first visit to gym, but until the process is underway a person stays stuck.

Post 13

Friday, July 25, 2008 - 10:58pm

Jeff wrote,

But it seems to me that it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that something could be fundamentally wrong with our senses such that we're all experiencing the same illusion.

Well, the illusory part comes with your assessment of what it is that you're perceiving. If you're experiencing an illusion, then you're still perceiving existence, because "a consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms [and] a consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms; before it could identify itself as conscious; it had to be conscious of something. If what you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." (Rand) .

So, obviously, every perception is of an existent, because there is nothing else to perceive; the illusory part pertains to one's judgment of WHAT it is that one is perceiving, not to the question of whether or not one is perceiving something. Now if you're talking about an hallucination, then that is something that is more akin to a dream, which depends on stored information, but that information had to come ultimately from a perception of the external world. Observe that concepts such as matrix, illusion, hallucination and dream depend on a prior grasp of the external world against which they are being conceived and understood.

I'm not arguing that's the case, only that logically the possibility exists.

No, I understand that very well; you are advancing a form of Cartesian skepticism. And I am arguing that that skepticism cannot logically be maintained, because it undercuts the foundation for its very existence.

But if it does exist, would we need to have something contradictory to it, some existence where we don't have this fundamental defect, in order for it to exist? Certainly we would need something contradictory to it in order to recognize we do have this defect, but I don't see how it being possible would require an alternative.

Well, to conceive of the possibility that one is being deceived or is the victim of an elaborate hoax or illusion, one would have to understand what reality is.

I wrote, "The stolen concept fallacy says that the concept 'The Matrix' PRESUPPOSES the concept of a real perceivable existence, without which a concept such as "The Matrix" would not be intelligible. In other words, if you couldn't perceive the real world, you couldn't form such a concept as 'The Matrix,' to begin with."

Within the movie this is consistent. Few know the Matrix exists because they have something to compare what they sense when plugged into the Matrix against what is objectively real. For those who have nothing to compare the Matrix reality to, the real perceivable existence is the Matrix, or the fake reality. A concept such as the Matrix would not be intelligible. They don't know it's fake. For them, existence is not real, but they don't know it. Why can't that be us?

You're saying that it's possible for us to be in such a state, which means that it's possible that what we view as real world is in reality an illusion. But if reality were an illusion, what then would reality be? What would the term refer to? What would be an example of a real existent? In that case, there wouldn't be any. And if we don't know what reality is, then we can't know what an illusion is, because the latter is understood in contradistinction to reality.

The argument here is that it's conceptually incoherent even to entertain the possibility that we are victims of a metaphysical hoax or illusion, because to do so destroys the very basis for the possibility.

- Bill

Post 14

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 3:44am

Jeff S,

If I understand you both, and am able to restate it correctly, it's our reason which leads us to seek a resolution to the contradiction. In the case of my milk example I would have to recognize there's a problem: we can't both be right, ergo one of us is wrong, is there any other information I can bring to bear in order to determine whom is right? Does my friend have a history of psychosis? Do I? Etc.

Yes, you'd have to recognize there's a problem -- but I would ask you to take it a step further (or, is it: farther? ... Ted! Where are you when I need you??). I would ask you to recognize that there is a Problem of Survival (existing for everyone everywhere and all of the time). If you recognize that there is a Problem of Survival, then you must ascertain how in the world -- if we're commonly in epistemological error, rather than in reality -- then how in the world do we go about solving it?

If you admit that there is a Problem of Survival, then you have to admit that we have to get things right (to solve it, and survive). Getting things right is the same thing as not hallucinating (or being "illusioned"). If you do not admit that there is a Problem of Survival -- if you do not admit that there is a contingency to life -- then I would ask you to perform a month-long trial and to get back to me on it (so that we could then pick up the argument where we had left off).

The trial is a month without ingesting fluid. If life is not contingent, then you'll come back in a month and we can argue. If my knowledge of the biological sciences is correct, however, then you will not make it 30 days without any intake of fluid -- as this is a biological impossibility (for human beings).

You can argue until you are blue in the face that there might be a Matrix and that all of your fluid intake for your whole life has been sinisterly fabricated by manipulated firings of your brain cells in a vat by a Cartesian demon mastermind. I will simply make the similarly-grounded conjecture that there's a Guardian Angel tricking the trickster and that this demon mastermind only thinks he's got your brain in a vat and is manipulating your thoughts and experiences (because the Guardian Angel has his brain in a vat!).

At this point, you might retort with appeal to the principle of parsimony -- that entities should not be postulated or multiplied unneccessarily. At which point I'd reply that you are indeed correct, and that the most parsimonious scenario is one without any brain-containing vats -- or demon-sponsored illusions -- in the first place and from the get-go.

Mr. Thompson-
You wrote:

Please let me know if this kind of a thing ever happens to you in your lifetime.
Well, it can happen, right? Have you ever interacted with a truly psychotic person? Their reality is very much as real to them as ours is. However, I concede the point. I only hope I've come to the right conclusion as I explained above.

Still, I wonder about our senses being deceived. For example, have you ever ridden any rides at theme parks where the intention is to immerse your senses with the effect of tricking your brain into thinking reality has changed? The space shuttle ride at Disney World provides all the visual, auditory, and tactile sensations of riding in a launching rocket.

I love to get fooled by those kind of rides! But, according to the ecological theory of direct perception (championed by the psychologist JJ Gibson, and indirectly -- pun intended -- by Rand, and by the Objectivist David Kelley) our senses aren't ever deceived, because they merely pick-up variation in the ambient stimulus array. Our judgments about those perceptions can be deceived, like when children view sticks sticking out of the water.

When children view sticks sticking out of the water for the first time, they might mistakenly believe that these sticks are bent. Also, adults -- looking at the error in judgment of these children -- might mistakenly judge that these children's senses are being deceived. The solution to this textbook example of illusion is to come to realize that the senses are picking up two entities -- a stick, and some water (with refractory properties) -- rather than one (rather than just the stick).

As soon as it is realized that the mind (the "judgment") was deceived, and not the senses -- because there wasn't just one thing out there to be perceived, but two of them -- then the so-called "problem" is solved.

Bringing this conceptual success back to the Problem of Survival then, we can say that we can be fooled into believing silly things about perceived entities initially -- but that we aren't ever continually fooled into believing silly things about entities that matter (to our survival). The reason that we aren't ever continually fooled like this is because we have the capacity to learn to sort out the variances in our ambient stimulus array -- and that, if we didn't, we'd all be dead long ago.

:-)

Ed

Post 15

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 11:02am

Jeff S,

Steve has explained the psychological importance of knowing what it is that you know, Bill has explained the philosophical incoherence of claiming, even hypothetically claiming, that you don't really know what it is that you know. I am coming at you, or what you are saying, in a third correct way to approach this problem -- this problem that you have as one of your many concerns as you go about living your life.

You might call my method: the appeal to the absurdity of the arbitrary (or AAA, for short). When someone says something not demonstrably tied to reality, then you can use AAA as a defense in rational discourse. When I brought up the arbitrary possibility that there might be a Guardian Angel out there for you -- one who tricks other arbitrary ideations of beings who are tricksters themselves (so that they are tricked into thinking they're tricking you -- but really aren't), the appeal to parsimony (the "keep it simple as you can" principle) doesn't work in your defense; as I showed above.

In fact, because the arbitrary isn't tied in any way to reality, there is no way to compare probabilities of the two hypothetical scenarios (the one where we're being tricked into perceiving error, and the one where we're not really being tricked -- but someone somewhere thinks that we are). Let's go back to the Matrix and try this out. One possibility is that we're all living in a Matrix created by some beings somewhere. Another equally likely possibility is that our proposed beings who created our proposed Matrix are themselves in a Matrix of their own, call it Matrix 2.0, created by still further beings.

Now here is the kicker: There is no way, in truth and reality, to ascertain the difference in probability between these 2 scenarios. The reason that this is true is because they are both fantasy without a tie to reality in the first place. It's an argumentum ad infinitum. There is no evidence anywhere that can lead us to believe in one of these 2 absurd possibilities or the other. Now, knowing this, it is an epistemological vice to continue to hang on to one or the other of these 2 absurd possibilities -- and it is an epistemological virtue to cast off the arbitrary as if nothing has even been said.

Think about the opposite. Think about having to rationally deal with every arbitrary postulation or possibility imaginable. Just like there is no end to the amount of Matrices that can be postulated -- each with beings thinking that they've got somebody else fooled in their own Matrix (but are merely puppets in somebody else's Matrix) -- so too are there endless postulations that could, in theory, be made. At some point you have just got to suck up and recognize that your limited time and energy and will and happiness would be better spent than chasing after possibilities for possibility's sake.

Would you agree?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/26, 11:04am)

Post 16

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 12:48pm

Mr. Wolfer-
You wrote:

Second, an atheist might answer, yes, God exists in the sense that there is concept behind this word, but the true referent in reality for that concept is a mythical entity, a literary invention, a supersition and there is no actual entity in existence matching that description. How can he be certain? Because he measured the evidence offered for the existence of a real god, using his mind, because that is only tool for such measurement, and the evidence came up zero.

Wouldn't this be more of an agnostic viewpoint? That is: I can't prove God doesn't exist (I can't prove a negative). Yet, there's no evidence God does exist.

Mr. Thompson-
You wrote:

These fantasy-based non-creatures, using their productive capacities to solve the Problem of Survival (like all beings must do), are somehow lucky enough to continue to get by -- making errors instead of getting things right. They make tools that aren't really there, and then use them to build shelters that don't really exist (to protect them from the weather). They make weapons that don't really kill the wild game that they chase around all day -- wild game that doesn't really exist (to get their nourishment).

and Mr. Dwyer wrote:

...if reality were an illusion, what then would reality be? What would the term refer to? What would be an example of a real existent?

It wouldn't be necessary for those in the Matrix to be fantasy-based. As in the movie, they could be real people in the real world, only their environment is fake. The Problems of their real Survival are solved in the real world, so it wouldn't really matter what they eat in the fake world. They could make what would be errors in the real world, but the Matrix might have different rules where real-world errors aren't errors at all. Reality would be the real world - a world they do not know. A world controlled by, in this case, machines. The machines would know what "reality" refers to, with real existents, but those plugged in wouldn't.

I really hope you don't think I'm just trying to be difficult. I honestly almost had it before I considered the above. This is what I was going to write:
How do we know we're not living in the Matrix? Because we have a concept of the Matrix, which means we have a concept of the non-Matrix - the "Real." Which would mean we could differentiate between the two. If we are living in the Matrix, then what are we contrasting what we perceive with? What is the "Real?" What are its referents? What evidence do we have to even prefer the Matrix view over the Real view? We have evidence to prefer the Real view over the Matrix view because the only referents the Matrix view has are, necessarily, fake referents.

My Dwyer wrote:

Observe that concepts such as matrix, illusion, hallucination and dream depend on a prior grasp of the external world against which they are being conceived and understood.

But that would only be required if we're going to assert there IS an alternate reality outside the Matrix, illusion, dream, or hallucination. If one argues, "We're just in the Matrix (a dream, an hallucination, etc.)," then he's going to have to provide some proof; some referent(s) from the real reality. (Do I understand the Stolen Concept fallacy when I state this person has, by virtue of simply making this statement, agreed there is an existence?) However, if one merely asks, "How do you KNOW we're not living in the Matrix (dream, hallucination, etc.)?" I would hard pressed to answer anything else besides, "I don't." I could make appeals to an inability to prove a negative, or Occam's Razor, or, as Mr. Thompson pointed out, the principle of parsimony. But I still couldn't prove it.

All of which would mean that my senses CAN be wrong, and if my senses are wrong, then my reason is already disadvantaged. If my reason is disadvantaged, then the rest of my philosophy falls apart.

Perhaps the answer is: Well, until proved otherwise, until there's even some evidence of an alternate reality, this is the reality I have to deal with and survive in. And this reality has certain requirements; like, you need to produce in order to survive.

Mr. Thompson wrote:

Bringing this conceptual success back to the Problem of Survival then, we can say that we can be fooled into believing silly things about perceived entities initially -- but that we aren't ever continually fooled into believing silly things about entities that matter (to our survival). The reason that we aren't ever continually fooled like this is because we have the capacity to learn to sort out the variances in our ambient stimulus array -- and that, if we didn't, we'd all be dead long ago.

I love this explanation, but I don't think it lets me off the hook. It presumes we have knowledge that there is a variance; this could be a priori knowledge, or it could be learned knowledge. Suspend disbelief for me for a second and suppose we really are in the Matrix. We really exist in a vat. Our survival depends upon a machine feeding us hemlock. In reality, we survive on hemlock and hamburgers are poisonous. But in the Matrix, in our fake reality, we eat hamburgers and hemlock is poisonous to us. We wouldn't need to know we exist in the Matrix. We wouldn't need to know that hemlock is actually good for us. We only need to know enough to survive in the Matrix; we only need to know the rules of survival in the Matrix. We could learn to sort out the variance in our ambient stimulus array, but those will be variances based in the Matrix. We wouldn't be fooled by someone pulling a rabbit out of a hat, because, in the Matrix, people don't pull rabbits out of hats. But that says nothing of a reality outside the Matrix where the rules could be entirely different.

Of course, this:

When you sever the tie to reality -- via counterfactual, mental gymnastics -- then even reason can't pull you back in to the shores.

keeps replaying in my head. But the flaw in my logic eludes me.

Thank you all, again, for indulging me. I'm sure there's a fundamental mistake I'm making. I just wish I could discover it.

Post 17

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 1:14pm

When I am unavailable, Ed, try Google. Further and farther were originally dialectal variants of the same word (the comparative of far) like the two pronunciations of either, or the origin of the word vat in the Somerset-shire England pronunciation of the word fat - a vat was a cauldron used to render fat. In truth, there is no original difference in meaning. But when a word becomes split thus, it is not uncommon for its two forms to acquire different meanings over time. Grammar mavens nowadays insist that "farther" refers to a greater physical distance only, while "further" refers to metaphorical distance in time or other dimensions.

This supposed distinction is a modern development, not an original distinction (such as that between who and whom, which dates back to Proto-Indo-European) in danger of being lost. Feel free to use which ever variant you like. Adopting the supposed distinction (see here) is not wrong, but neither is it mandatory.

Post 18

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 1:48pm

Jeff, the conventional distinction is made between the agnostic, who says that he can't disprove the existence of God, and thus refuses to believe or disbelieve, and the atheist who is steadfastly opposed to the concept of God. This is problematic. I cannot disprove that you are a serial killer. Would this justify me in treating you like you might be one? Claims such as that for the existence of God must be demonstrated by those who make them, otherwise they should be treated as arbitrary, and dismissed out of hand. If I accused you in court of being a serial killer because I could not disprove it, the accusation would be thrown out as unfounded. Now, what is more important in the scheme of things, whether one might be a serial killer, or whether the claims of God's existence, divine commandments, an afterlife, and eternal damnation or salvation be true? The more important claim (if true) of God's existence should be more certain than whether any mere mortal is a serial killer.

Agnosticism isn't reasonableness, it is a perverse refusal to be reasonable. Likewise, the atheist is not necessarily anti-theist. To say that claims for God's existence are arbitrary and can be dismissed out of hand does not imply that one therefore has it out for the deity. Upon telling some of my friends in high school that I was an atheist, I was asked are you really a devil worshipper? The ability to think clearly should show the error in this train of thought.

Atheism is not a belief.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/26, 2:03pm)

Post 19

Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 1:57pm