Argument for the existence of God

[Jacob86]

No.

Because all of those verbs rely upon an actor, and that actor must observe things to gain knowledge.

I know. Please read my long response to Plasmatic above. Everyone is missing the fact that I AGREE that perception is necessary in the formation of concepts. I am NOT talking about the formation of concepts. I don't care about the formation of concepts in this context (because we all AGREE on that). I am talking about the criteria of truth..

Please consider these two analogies. Notice that in both, the second person (Biologist & Politician) is emphasizing something that the first person (Chemist & Philosopher) does not dispute. However the second person is miserably failing to see/understand what the first person is saying.

Chemist: "Biology is dependent upon Chemistry because all biological things are foundationally chemical things. Therefore the true things about biology are dependent upon the true things about chemistry- and if the things about Chemistry were not true, the things about biology could not be true."

Biologist: "No, it is the other way around. Chemistry is dependent upon biology because if you were only chemical and not biological, then you'd have know way to look at and think about Chemistry and Biology. Therefore Chemistry is dependent upon Biology"

~

Philosopher: "Politics is dependent upon Philosophy because the conscious/subconscious metaphysical assumptions which one holds to necessarily influences the political beliefs which they will have."

Politician: "No. Philosophy is dependent upon Politics because in a bad political system you would not be free enough to develop a full philosophical system. Therefore Politics determines Philosophy"

Also notice that the Biologist and the Politician are stuck on the subjective criteria for one to discover and talk about truth.. Meanwhile the Chemist and the Philosopher (who do NOT deny this subjective criteria) are focusing more on the objective criteria for truth/truth system itself.

You are proposing the brain in a box scenario which suggests that a brain in a box with no sensory input could divine the nature of reality without it. Rand addressed this - I believe in "Philosophy, Who Needs It".

I am no more proposing a "brain in a box" in speaking of the objective foundation of Logic than the Chemist was proposing a "non-biological mind" in the objective foundation of Chemistry (to Biology).

False. Once one knows that contradictions cannot exist, one knows why it cannot ever not be true.

HOW does one know that a contradiction CANNOT exist? You can not use perceptual evidence to show that a contradiction CANNOT exist. You can use perceptual evidence to realize that there are no contradictions in that which you have perceived, but you cannot use perceptual evidence to know that they are impossible. To know that contradictions are impossible, one must graduate beyond the reliance upon the perceptual and analyze the idea. This analysis of the idea of contradictions and the consequent conclusion of their impossibility CAN NOT be apprehended through perception. It must be a purely analytical process (NOT in that one's mind magically forgets all that it learned through perception-- but in that one's mind does not and cannot look out for perceptual evidence in order to validate this idea).

If "it's own standard" is what you describe earlier in this post, then you have the standard wrong.

The "standard" in this case was Dream_Weavers assertion about "all knowledge being reducible to the perceptual" (or something to that extent). I was simply asking "is this particular bit of knowledge reducible down to the perceptual?"

[Jacob86]

I have to hand it to you. Few people out there could have stated as succinctly what you have here. Considering that the objective, systematic ordering of truth is 'stored' if you will 'in concepts', separating the 'subjective discovery and formation of concepts' (truth criteria) identifies it quite Objectively.

Did you miss the part where I emphasized that we all AGREE on how the subject forms concepts? That is why I say it doesn't matter. I mean that it is not an issue upon which we have disagreement and it further has no bearing on what I am trying to say.

[Greebo]

HOW does one know that a contradiction CANNOT exist? You can not use perceptual evidence to show that a contradiction CANNOT exist. You can use perceptual evidence to realize that there are no contradictions in that which you have perceived, but you cannot use perceptual evidence to know that they are impossible.

Correct.

To know that contradictions are impossible, one must graduate beyond the reliance upon the perceptual and analyze the idea.

One does not "graduate beyond the reliance upon the perceptual". One builds upon the knowledge gained from the perceptual.

This analysis of the idea of contradictions and the consequent conclusion of their impossibility CAN NOT be apprehended through perception. It must be a purely analytical process (NOT in that one's mind magically forgets all that it learned through perception-- but in that one's mind does not and cannot look out for perceptual evidence in order to validate this idea).

I think you do not understand the meaning of reducible to the perceptual. To reduce to the perceptual is not necessarily to find a perceptual example of that which one wishes to prove, but to break the concept down into it's constituent parts until one reaches the axiomatic premise or premises upon which the concept rests.

Calculus is a good example here - Calculus is an advanced mathematical system which is *built* upon simple mathematical concepts. It's quite complex and contains theories and formulae that do not actually exist (the imaginary number, for instance) - nevertheless it is a true mathematical system because as you reduce - or trace back to its origins - the foundational truths upon which Calculus is built.

That said - we've been over A is A before. It is axiomatic. It cannot be proven except by an attempt to disprove it, which in doing, relies upon it being true. All reason traces back to A is A, can go no further.

[Jacob86]

This is hogwash.

You do not know what the "key" is - NOR do you *know* that there are two of them. You *KNOW* that someone TOLD you they have two keys. You are accepting what that person told you as true - you do not *KNOW* it to be true.

Yes, this is correct. I was assuming that what the person told me was true. Perhaps it would have been better to say that IF what he told me was true, then I could know that there were four.

But you DO know that it is true that 2+2=4 because you have observed it and thus it has been proven to you.

No. By observation alone, I only know that 2+2=4 about the things which I have perceived. I have no way at all of observing that 2+2=4 is a universal principle concerning all things.

Since 2+2=4 is universal, it does not matter what there are two of - 2(X) + 2(X) = 4(X) for ANY value of X - apples, keys, widgets, truths, lies. You KNOW that 2+2=4 from observation. You do not know that there are 4 keys. You only trust that there are 4 keys.

How do you know that it is "universal" and applicable to "ANY" value of x? Can you observe its universality? Can you point my perception in the direction where I can perceive/observe its universality?

If you say "no. But I can still know that it is true", then you agree with me that you can know something (namely, the universality of universal principles) apart from appealing to perceptual observation.

If you say "no- and therefore we cannot know whether it is true" than it is not universal and all knowledge breaks down.

Your sin here is confusing the quantity with the entity. 2 is quantity. Key is entity. Quantity is not an attribute pertaining to a key - or rather the quantity of ANY single entity (key) is 1. 2 keys is shorthand for a group of two keys. The group is an entity (single) containing a quantity (two) of keys(single).

I don't think I would deny this. But it seems to miss the point.

I'm trying to get at how one knows that a principle is applicable to any and all (yet-unperceived) things in reality. One cannot perceive the application of that principle to that which is not perceived. And yet one can know that the principle does apply to that which is not perceived. In that sense, it is and must be possible to know some things without appealing to perceptual evidence.

[Plasmatic]

Jacob said:

Actually I understood you to agree previously. I just didn't want any sudden change in position do to a potential abiguity to pop up.

More later....

Edited November 30, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Greebo]

No. By observation alone, I only know that 2+2=4 about the things which I have perceived. I have no way at all of observing that 2+2=4 is a universal principle concerning all things.

Then you do not understand the nature of 2+2=4.

I don't think I would deny this. But it seems to miss the point.

No, it's spot on.

Jacob if your assertion is that we need to physically perceive every single instance of 2+2=4 to accept that as a universal principal, then we can never know that 2+2=4 because the number of instances of 2+2=4 is unbounded.

Thus, by your requirement, no knowledge is possible.

At all.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Greebo

[Jacob86]

Then you do not understand the nature of 2+2=4.

No, it's spot on.

Jacob if your assertion is that we need to physically perceive every single instance of 2+2=4 to accept that as a universal principal, then we can never know that 2+2=4 because the number of instances of 2+2=4 is unbounded.

Thus, by your requirement, no knowledge is possible.

At all.

Hahahaha. Im sorry for the misunderstanding. I was assuming the position of "we can not know anything without perceptual evidence". I obviously disagree with that. It was a sort of Reductio Ad Absurdum (sp?).

It seems you agree with me, then, that you can know some things apart from appealing to perceptual evidence...meaning, I can know the universality of a principle without observing its application to everything in the universe.

HUGE CLARIFICATION:

When I say "appeal to perception for evidence" I am not referring to the definitions of the words being used- I'm referring to evidence used to back up the claim.

So, with "square circles". When I say "we do not need to appeal to perceptual evidence to know that they do not exist", I am saying that we do not need to waste any graph paper or go on a safari hunt for square circles! I am NOT saying that we automatically drop or forget the definitions of the words.

But there is a huge difference.

So are you saying now that you agree with me?

[Plasmatic]

HUGE CLARIFICATION:

When I say "appeal to perception for evidence" I am not referring to the definitions of the words being used- I'm referring to evidence used to back up the claim.

So, with "square circles". When I say "we do not need to appeal to perceptual evidence to know that they do not exist", I am saying that we do not need to waste any graph paper or go on a safari hunt for square circles!

But do you understand that the reason we dont have to run a test to see if an entity can possess incommensurate characteristics is because of what we have already percieved? Identity and the invalidity of a statement that is a contradiction is because of the nature of what one has already percieved. One does not go investigate invalid claims because they can never be reduced to perception! [EDIT: one knows there will not be an entity with incommensurate characteristics to be found because that would invalidate all of what one has percieved before]

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

Edit: Perhaps one can say that all axiomatic violations entail ontological contradiction.....

Edited November 30, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Greebo]

Hahahaha. Im sorry for the misunderstanding. I was assuming the position of "we can not know anything without perceptual evidence". I obviously disagree with that. It was a sort of Reductio Ad Absurdum (sp?).

No - we genuinely can NOT know anything without perceptual evidence.

What we do not need is direct immediately related perceptual evidence on everything to know that thing.

We need perceptual evidence as the foundation of our knowledge. The knowledge of "A is A" and "2+2=4" is not directly verifiable in the absolutely true sense from perceptual evidence but it is verifiable as absolutely true based on knowledge *derived* from the perceptual evidence we have.

The perceptual evidence is the foundation - down in the basement - upon which all knowledge rests. The knowledge of "A is A" and "2+2=4" are on the lower floors. Advanced Calculus is on the 20th...

Up on floor 3, you can't see, touch or feel the basement - but the basement is still there.

It seems you agree with me, then, that you can know some things apart from appealing to perceptual evidence...meaning, I can know the universality of a principle without observing its application to everything in the universe.

In that context, yes. But it's important to clarify that while it isn't necessary to observe it's application to *everything*, it is necessary to observe its application to *something*.

HUGE CLARIFICATION:

When I say "appeal to perception for evidence" I am not referring to the definitions of the words being used- I'm referring to evidence used to back up the claim.

So, with "square circles". When I say "we do not need to appeal to perceptual evidence to know that they do not exist", I am saying that we do not need to waste any graph paper or go on a safari hunt for square circles! I am NOT saying that we automatically drop or forget the definitions of the words.

But there is a huge difference.

Square circle is a bad example. Circles are strictly defined geometrical concepts. You cannot have a square circle because of the very nature of the definition of a circle.

So are you saying now that you agree with me?

With specific regards to what?

[dream_weaver]

Did you miss the part where I emphasized that we all AGREE on how the subject forms concepts? That is why I say it doesn't matter. I mean that it is not an issue upon which we have disagreement and it further has no bearing on what I am trying to say.

I caught the part where you stated "I DO NOT care about the subjective discovery and formation of concepts" so I'm a little unclear if you implied the same thing that I inferred, or if you implied something different than I inferred.

You see, I don't know if you are subjectively saying what you mean, or if perhaps you are subjectively meaning what you say. It reads to me that words are mere arbitrary social constructs.

[Jacob86]

But do you understand that the reason we dont have to run a test to see if an entity can possess incommensurate characteristics is because of what we have already percieved?

To an extent, but if you are focusing solely on that which has already been perceived and relying solely on what has been perceived then you are leaving open the possibility of perceiving otherwise in the future.

Identity and the invalidity of a statement that is a contradiction is because of the nature of what one has already percieved.

One perceives the identity of the object in question. And yes, this is how we come to understand the object's identity (i.e. square being that object which has four right angles and four equal sides). However, this perception only tells you that this particular square is not circular. It does not give you any information about the rest of the squares in the universe. One does not and cannot use perception to conclude that "no squares in the universe can be circular". Given the perceptual data, this process of concluding that the contrary is impossible is not perceptual. It uses that which has been gathered by perception but it does not appeal to perceptual evidence. Appealing to perceptual evidence would be saying "no square circles have been perceived and therefore they do not exist".

One does not go investigate invalid claims because they can never be reduced to perception!

But why can they not be reduced to perception? Is it because no one has yet perceived what they are talking about? OR is it because it is impossible and therefore no one ever will or could perceive what they are talking about.

I think this would be more accurate:

"One does not investigate invalid claims primarily because they are illogical- and by virtue of them being illogical, they are therefore not reducible to perception."

IF the sole reason for not investigating an invalid claim is "the inability for it to be reduced to the perceptual", this would imply that one must perceive all possible things before one could say that a claim is invalid.

I don't believe that square circles do not exist because I have never seen them (this relies on perceptual evidence and leaves open the possibility of perceiving them in the future...which is irrational). I believe that square circles do not exist because they cannot- and if someone claims to perceive one, they are wrong.

Likewise, I do not believe "a is a" because I've never seen a contradiction. I believe "a is a" because it must be so, and therefore if by perception someone thinks they've come to a contradiction, they are wrong.

This is what I meant in my original Epistemology post about a claim needing to pass the "Logic round" before it enters the "Evidential round"... meaning that no matter what evidence is thought to back up a claim, if the claim is illogical, it is false. No investigation into the evidence is necessary.

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!

I think I do understand it. I think you are missing the point that I am trying to make. Please see my analogies with the Philosopher & Politician and that Chemist & Biologist.

[Plasmatic]

Jacob said:

The objective truthfulness of "A is A" is not dependent upon my perceptual observations. My subjective discovery and formation of "A is A" is dependent upon my perceptual observations

You are still not getting what objectivity is. The objectivity of any statement is directly related to the process of identification of existence [the object] through a subject! This presumes that there is an external object with identity. It in no way claims "subjectivity" as you mean it. Objectivity epistemologically requires a subject ! You are trying to say that the criteria for what is objective epistemically is dictated by mind independent existence [primacy of existence]. But your terminology is incorrect.

Jacob said:

I have attempted to stress before; it belongs to the realm of Cognitive Science rather than Epistemology because it is obsessed with the subjects development of ideas rather than the objective systematic ordering of truth and truth criteria. It's tantamount to a Linguistics Professor declaring that Philosophy is dependent upon Linguistics/Language because the philosopher never would have been able to understand or communicate any ideas without language and that therefore all Philosophical ideas must bow the knee to Linguistic ideas. The grave mistake being made is the confusion of the subjective dependence upon language (in the philosophers development of ideas) and the objective independence of ideas in reality. No one would object to the Philosopher saying that truth and reason is not dependent upon language in spite of the face that language is being used to communicate this true idea.

I reject your dichotomy here. The "objective systematic ordering of truth and truth criteria" cannot be divorced from the objective identity of the observers consciousness and its requirements of cognition! Not the least of which is language! Precisely because objectivity is all about the relationship of the subject to the object! This in no way repudiates the primacy of existence,it assumes it axiomatically.

the objective independence of ideas in reality

This statement exemplifies the terminology problem! "the objective independence of mind independent reality from an observers ideas" is what it should say.

One more time, there is NO logic without a logician. There are no contradictions outside of a fallible consciousness. there are NO ideas without one having them.

I am speaking about the truth criteria; that which is necessary to know and to demonstrate and to establish that a proposition is true.... not the process of discovery of the concepts used in the proposition.

That criteria is dictated by both the identity of the subject and object ! You are trying to discard the relevance of the identity of the identifier!

[Greebo]

To an extent, but if you are focusing solely on that which has already been perceived and relying solely on what has been perceived then you are leaving open the possibility of perceiving otherwise in the future.

Welcome to science.

One perceives the identity of the object in question. And yes, this is how we come to understand the object's identity (i.e. square being that object which has four right angles and four equal sides). However, this perception only tells you that this particular square is not circular. It does not give you any information about the rest of the squares in the universe. One does not and cannot use perception to conclude that "no squares in the universe can be circular". Given the perceptual data, this process of concluding that the contrary is impossible is not perceptual. It uses that which has been gathered by perception but it does not appeal to perceptual evidence. Appealing to perceptual evidence would be saying "no square circles have been perceived and therefore they do not exist".

You are context dropping. The very definition of a square *is* acquired via perception. You read it, or heard it, or saw it, or you developed the definition yourself BASED on perceptual evidence.

[Plasmatic]

To an extent, but if you are focusing solely on that which has already been perceived and relying solely on what has been perceived then you are leaving open the possibility of perceiving otherwise in the future.

One perceives the identity of the object in question. And yes, this is how we come to understand the object's identity (i.e. square being that object which has four right angles and four equal sides). However, this perception only tells you that this particular square is not circular. It does not give you any information about the rest of the squares in the universe. One does not and cannot use perception to conclude that "no squares in the universe can be circular". Given the perceptual data, this process of concluding that the contrary is impossible is not perceptual. It uses that which has been gathered by perception but it does not appeal to perceptual evidence. Appealing to perceptual evidence would be saying "no square circles have been perceived and therefore they do not exist".

The above shows how your rejection of the relevance of concept formation is affecting you! The very use of "circle" in the statement is predicated on the referents perceived and the abstracting of and designation of the characteristic of roundness! So one does reject a "square-circle" because of what one HAS PERCIEVED. Precisely because what one means by circle is based on the perception of the referent of the concept. Like wise all statements that are contradictions are rejected because they would make what has been perceived impossible to have been perceived in the past.

Edit: Im leaving aside the Oist theory of universals as applys to concepts via measurement omission above as it would just clutter this further]

But why can they not be reduced to perception? Is it because no one has yet perceived what they are talking about? OR is it because it is impossible and therefore no one ever will or could perceive what they are talking about.

I think this would be more accurate:

It is impossible and one knows it because of the perceptually self evident , past and present!

IF the sole reason for not investigating an invalid claim is "the inability for it to be reduced to the perceptual", this would imply that one must perceive all possible things before one could say that a claim is invalid.

No because one knows what one has already perceived past and present. This gives one the knowledge that it is impossible. One refers to the context of what one has perceived when employing concepts. So what one claims about the concepts have to be consistent with those referents.

This is what Peikoff meant when he said this in his comments on the ASD:

A similar type of analysis is applicable to every true statement. Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: "X is: one or more of the things which it is." The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Jacob said:

I think this would be more accurate:

"One does not investigate invalid claims primarily because they are illogical- and by virtue of them being illogical, they are therefore not reducible to perception."

Illogical entails the impossibility to be reduced to perception. There are things that cannot be reduced to perception that are not impossible, they simply do not exist. While there are things that cannot be reduced to perception because it would contradict what it means to be an existent i.e have identity.

I think what is needed here it to highlight the difference between invalid and arbitrary. Impossible to be reduced to perception would be invalid claims.Possible but claimed without evidence is arbitrary.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Grames]

Again I think your example with "Mugwumps" is not entirely accurate in representing my position. What you have proven in your example is that IF "mugwumps" exist, they would not be "green and ~green" at the same time. However, you are correct in saying that it gives no reason to believe that "mugwumps" even exist. But this is not the form of my argument. To deny the existence of mugwumps is not an exercise in irrationality. To deny the ability to know objective truth is and exercise in irrationality because it ultimately violates the laws of logic. To deny that unicorns exist is not an exercise in irrationality since no law of logic is violated in such a denial. However, the affirmation that square circles exist is an exercise in irrationality because it does violate the laws of logic.

I'm not sure what the accurate description would be for your example with Mugwumps. Perhaps it would be "smuggling in a false concept" or something to that effect. If you think that I have done that in any of my arguments, please point it out; i.e. point out the "mugwumps" or "unicorns" in my deductive arguments.

For you, logic itself (excuse me, Logic) is an equivalent to a mugwump, a unicorn. Logic operates upon universals, words representing ideas that refer to all instances of a class or kind. A theory of universals that explains their origin and justification is needed to justify logic. An intrinsic theory of universals is what you have been assuming, but Objectivism rejects intrinsicism. An objective theory of universals is Rand's theory of concept formation. This issue is pre-logic, and it seems you are not even fully aware of it.

[Jacob86]

I am going to try and spend some time tonight studying some of this more in depth in order to formulate a more cogent explanation of my position.

However, in the mean time: In order to avoid repeating myself (which seems to be accomplishing very little) I would very much like to see your answers to the following questions:

1) Concerning my analogies in post #451

-Do you understand the different types of "foundations" being emphasized between the first and second professors? Do you understand that in both analogies, the first person (Chemist & Philosopher) completely agree with what the second (The Biologist & Politician) is saying?

Do you understand that the second person is not grasping what the first is saying though?

Do you see it's relevance to this discussion?

[i am claiming that the Philosopher & Chemist represent my position while the Biologist & Politician represent the Oist position]

Do you reject the idea that its relevant to this discussion?

why?

2) Can you demonstrate to me how "A is A" is reducible to perception?

*I know that you can reduce "A" to perception and likewise the functionality of "is", but can you reduce to perception the principle which is identified as "A is A"?

Can you also demonstrate to me how "all knowledge is reducible to perception" is reducible to perception?

Can you reduce to perception "for any and all yet unperceived entities, each entity has identity which is itself and not ~itself at the same time and respect"?

Can you reduce to perception "for any and all yet unperceived entities, 2(x)+2(x)=4(x)"? ["x" being any particular entity]

** Remember, I agree and know that each individual word/concept in each of the above scentences is reducible to perception-- I want to know how the principle to which they refer is reducible to perception.

I do not think it is possible (hence our disagreement) but everyone seems convinced that it is possible, so please convince me.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Jacob86

[Jacob86]

Jacob said:

Illogical entails the impossibility to be reduced to perception. There are things that cannot be reduced to perception that are not impossible, they simply do not exist. While there are things that cannot be reduced to perception because it would contradict what it means to be an existent i.e have identity.

I think what is needed here it to highlight the difference between invalid and arbitrary. Impossible to be reduced to perception would be invalid claims.Possible but claimed without evidence is arbitrary.

I want to make a clarification of my position here because there still seems to be a misunderstanding on this issue. I know you will not agree with my position here. I simply want to make sure you know what I am saying and what I am not saying.

I hold three basic categories:

1)Logically Necessary- and therefore Actual apart from empirical proof.

2)Logically Possible- not Actual apart from empirical proof.

3)Empirically Actual- Actual based on empirical proof.

Examples of these categories:

1) "A is A"

2) Unicorns & Mugwumps

3) I have blonde hair.

I ONLY mean this as a clarification right now, not as a positive argument for anyone else to hold to these categories (so please don't reply with objections to these categories since this would skip many steps that need to be covered first). I only want you to see that I agree with Objectivists that there are many things which are logically possible (i.e. non-contradictory) but should not be considered true/real. It seems that Oists hold to only categories 2 & 3. I want to emphasize that I heartily agree on those two categories and the Oist understanding of those two categories.

[Grames]

I am going to try and spend some time tonight studying some of this more in depth in order to formulate a more cogent explanation of my position.

However, in the mean time: In order to avoid repeating myself (which seems to be accomplishing very little) I would very much like to see your answers to the following questions:

1) Concerning my analogies in post #451

-Do you understand the different types of "foundations" being emphasized between the first and second professors? Do you understand that in both analogies, the first person (Chemist & Philosopher) completely agree with what the second (The Biologist & Politician) is saying?

Do you understand that the second person is not grasping what the first is saying though?

Do you see it's relevance to this discussion?

[i am claiming that the Philosopher & Chemist represent my position while the Biologist & Politician represent the Oist position]

Do you reject the idea that its relevant to this discussion?

why?

The philosopher and chemist are intrinsicists in opposition to the subjectivists. All four of them are wrong in attempting to deny their opposite, and none speak the Objectivist position. There are no metaphysical hierarchies, but in epistemology hierarchies are unavoidable and vital to get correct to prevent fallacies and question begging. All of the facts of chemistry and biology are equally facts and equally existent and equally important and equally necessary. Imposing a logical and scientific explanation onto those facts framed in terms of the smaller parts, or a narrative of the events that chronologically preceded the present are simply two ways of ordering knowledge. The Objectivist position is that knowledge is advanced by alternating between logically organizing knowledge and getting more facts, this is called the "spiral theory of knowledge". The starting point of the spiral is the perceptual level, and even scientific knowledge is gained by instruments that make the invisible or indistinguishable turn into the plainly perceivable and measurable.

2) Can you demonstrate to me how "A is A" is reducible to perception?

*I know that you can reduce "A" to perception and likewise the functionality of "is", but can you reduce to perception the principle which is identified as "A is A"?

I look around and see stuff. From moment to moment it is the same old stuff. Even when it moves or changes, it just acts the way it always acts.

Can you also demonstrate to me how "all knowledge is reducible to perception" is reducible to perception?

Courtesy Dr. Peikoff:

How to reduce hierarchy (Reduce reduceability) (top down):

Knowledge is hierarchical (start)

Knowledge is conceptual

concepts are abstractions

some abstractions are of percepts (perceptual level)

Can you reduce to perception "for any and all yet unperceived entities, each entity has identity which is itself and not ~itself at the same time and respect"?

(Assuming this is the law of identity, it doesn't quite read right): Once this has been put into words there is no more to say about it other than look for yourself. But what are words? Symbols for concepts, which are types of things, open-ended sets of similar particulars both known and unknown.

Can you reduce to perception "for any and all yet unperceived entities, 2(x)+2(x)=4(x)"? ["x" being any particular entity]

This time I'll use the bottom-to-top technique:

First I learned how to count.

Then I counted two apples and two apples and saw they made four.

Then I counted two trees and two more trees and saw they made four.

Then I saw two birds and then two more came and together they made four.

Then in elementary school I learned to add, which meant that two of anything added to two of the same thing made four, and stopped paying attention to the types of things involved because there was less words that way.

In adult expression, the generalization is formed from the particular cases that were similar to each other and different from when other quantities were involved, and abstracted by omitting the details of what was counted.

[New Buddha]

I hold three basic categories:

1)Logically Necessary- and therefore Actual apart from empirical proof.

Words are concepts that have been concretized in perceptual form (written or spoken).

Concepts are formed from percepts.

Propositional statements are made up of words which are concepts (which are formed from percepts).

“Logically Necessary” propositional statements (formed of concepts, formed from percepts) don't need to be “based on” or “proved by” or “linked to” perception?

Can you posit a meaningful proposition that is not comprised of concepts, that are not derived from percepts -- when every word in the proposition is a concept derived from a percept?

[Jacob86]

There are no metaphysical hierarchies, but in epistemology hierarchies are unavoidable and vital to get correct to prevent fallacies and question begging. All of the facts of chemistry and biology are equally facts and equally existent and equally important and equally necessary.

So are you saying, then, that metaphysically, biological activity is not dependent upon chemical activity??

If it is dependent, it seems there is a metaphysical hierarchy. If not, is there any connection whatsoever between the biological and the chemical; and what sort of relation?

I look around and see stuff. From moment to moment it is the same old stuff. Even when it moves or changes, it just acts the way it always acts.

Yes, so you are able to say "A is A" concerning those things you've looked at. How can you say it about anything which you have not looked at? Let alone all things?

Courtesy Dr. Peikoff:

How to reduce hierarchy (Reduce reduceability) (top down):

Knowledge is hierarchical (start)

Knowledge is conceptual

concepts are abstractions

some abstractions are of percepts (perceptual level)

I'm not sure if this really answers the question...but even so, is "knowledge is hierarchical" reducible to perception? Likewise with the rest of the statements?

(Assuming this is the law of identity, it doesn't quite read right): Once this has been put into words there is no more to say about it other than look for yourself. But what are words? Symbols for concepts, which are types of things, open-ended sets of similar particulars both known and unknown.

Yes. It was sort of a re-wording of the laws of identity and non-contradiction regarding all entities.

"Look for yourself" is applicable to all perceived entities by any given subject. I want to know how "the applicability of the laws of identity and non-contradiction to any and all yet unperceived entities" is reducible to perception.

This time I'll use the bottom-to-top technique:

First I learned how to count.

Then I counted two apples and two apples and saw they made four.

Then I counted two trees and two more trees and saw they made four.

Then I saw two birds and then two more came and together they made four.

Then in elementary school I learned to add, which meant that two of anything added to two of the same thing made four, and stopped paying attention to the types of things involved because there was less words that way.

In adult expression, the generalization is formed from the particular cases that were similar to each other and different from when other quantities were involved, and abstracted by omitting the details of what was counted.

The underlined is where it seems you have left the realm of "reducible to the perceptual". You could reduce 2+2=4 to the perceptual regarding those particular apples which you perceived and those particular trees which you perceived and those particular birds which you perceived. However, I do not see how you can reduce it to the perceptual regarding "anything"- since anything would include that which has not been perceived.

[Jacob86]

Words are concepts that have been concretized in perceptual form (written or spoken).

Concepts are formed from percepts.

Propositional statements are made up of words which are concepts (which are formed from percepts).

“Logically Necessary” propositional statements (formed of concepts, formed from percepts) don't need to be “based on” or “proved by” or “linked to” perception?

Can you posit a meaningful proposition that is not comprised of concepts, that are not derived from percepts -- when every word in the proposition is a concept derived from a percept?

Please see my many previous posts where I emphasize that I agree with the Objectivist here on the issue of how concepts are formed (i.e. ultimately through perception). All words are developed ultimately through perception. I agree. I agree. I agree. I do not disagree.

Take this sentence:

"All entities (whether perceived or not) have identity and for any and all entities, they are not "not-themselves" at the same time and in the same respect"

Which is another way of saying that

"The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction 'apply' to any and all entities".

You seem to be emphasizing that each individual word in the sentence is reducible to perception. I agree.

However, I do not think that the principle or truth to which the sentence refers is reducible to the perceptual. It does not seem possible to perceive the application of the law of identity to any and all entities.

If you think that it is, please demonstrate it.

[Plasmatic]

Jacob said:

However, I do not think that the principle or truth to which the sentence refers is reducible to the perceptual. It does not seem possible to perceive the application of the law of identity to any and all entities.

How do you come up with these dichotomies? The "truths" are the referents the concepts designate. Every thing you see has identity. One knows there will not be an existent to percieve without Identity because of what it means to have identity. Which meaning is ubiquitously available to validate in every perception.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Plasmatic

[New Buddha]

that the principle or truth to which the sentence refers

The “principle or truth to which the sentence refers” is found in the words (concepts) that form the sentence. The principle is not a disembodied idea which exists independent of concepts (words) or independent of your mind or independent of reality. You cannot know-of or state a principle except by the “use” of concepts which are ultimately formed from percepts. Knowledge, meaningful, truthful knowledge, is Objective.

[Grames]

So are you saying, then, that metaphysically, biological activity is not dependent upon chemical activity??

If it is dependent, it seems there is a metaphysical hierarchy. If not, is there any connection whatsoever between the biological and the chemical; and what sort of relation?

To even speak of chemistry and biology is to depart the realm of meta-physics and be a plain old "natural philosopher", a physicist. Metaphysically there are just the things that exist and their activities. To name them and organize our observations about them is a distinctly human activity with an assumed human frame of reference.

I'm not sure if this really answers the question...but even so, is "knowledge is hierarchical" reducible to perception? Likewise with the rest of the statements?

Reducible and hierarchical each imply the other, they are equivalent here. Your question is answered.

Yes, so you are able to say "A is A" concerning those things you've looked at. How can you say it about anything which you have not looked at? Let alone all things?

Yes. It was sort of a re-wording of the laws of identity and non-contradiction regarding all entities.

"Look for yourself" is applicable to all perceived entities by any given subject. I want to know how "the applicability of the laws of identity and non-contradiction to any and all yet unperceived entities" is reducible to perception.

The underlined is where it seems you have left the realm of "reducible to the perceptual". You could reduce 2+2=4 to the perceptual regarding those particular apples which you perceived and those particular trees which you perceived and those particular birds which you perceived. However, I do not see how you can reduce it to the perceptual regarding "anything"- since anything would include that which has not been perceived.

These three questions are all of the same issue: you assert that it is impossible to derive a universal from several particulars. I assert that it is possible. I have paraphrased and synopsized Rand's theory of concept formation several times, and you can go read it again in full in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 2nd ed. If you have questions or objections to that theory, specify them.

I'm still not sure you even recognize the scope of the issue which the problem of universals poses. It seems to be a bit of a blind spot for you. The Medieval Problem of Universals is a review of the historical development starting from the Greeks. The problem is basically "Where is the universal? In the things (intrinsicism) or in us (subjectivism)?" To follow the story into modernity, Kant's "Copernican Revolution" advocated a theory for the meanings of words as determined by a kind of social inter-subjectivity. Kant and his intellectual descendants still qualify as subjectivists. Rand did not solve the problem (by picking a winner) as much as she dissolved the problem by emphasizing consciousness is an activity, a verb not a state or substance. Thus objectivity is a relationship and a relationship cannot be meaningfully attributed to either party in isolation from the other.