Concerning first and second axiom

[LoBagola]

You the reader have now grasped the first axiom of philosophy (what is, is / existence exists). This act implies a second axiom: that you exist possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. Consciousness is not inherent in the fact of existence as such; a world without conscious organisms is possible. But consciousness is inherent in your grasp of existence. Inherent in saying “There is something— of which I am aware” is: “There is something—of which I am aware.”

- OPAR

I've thought up and heard some confusing arguments in reply and will attempt to answer them as best I can and then hopefully receive some comments / help from you. I have no training in logic / argumentation / philosophy so these might be really basic but I find them so slippery and frustrating. Any pointers to helpful resources is much appreciated.

So A is the other guy.

Conversation 1

A:existence exists is just a meaningless tautology. It's just like me saying farmers farm. How does that help you? Why must you begin with this if we discuss a philosophical issue?

Me: You must begin with this because if nothing exists then there is nothing for us to investigate.

A: No, maybe nothing exists and this is all some imaginary world. We still have to do the best we can.

M: I didn't say anything about the nature of existence. Only that *something* must exist. An illusion is something.

A: No an illusion is not real, by definition.

Anyway, the argument just seems to go around in circles and I have trouble getting to the root of the issue or argument.

Conversation 2

A:

How do you know it's really you perceiving that which exists? Maybe there is no you but your only an illusion.

Me: ??

Conversation 3

A: How can you just arbitrarily define consciousness to be what you want it to be? Who said that your definition of consciousness is true?

Me: in order to discuss some topic we have to start with some common definitions.

A: But there are many things that will have different definitions given our experience, so it's impossible to redefine every word.

Then the topic goes onto epistemology and linguistics which I don't know much about.

Conversation 4

A:How do you know a world without conscious organisms is possible? Maybe consciousness is inherent in the fact of existence, but your just arbitrarily saying it's not.

Me: ??

This is not really one person but I've heard variations of these things and I find myself confused about what is even being said and how to address it.

Edited December 7, 2012 by LoBagola

[ppw]

1: See 2 and 4.

2: Onus of proof issue. See 4. (There's a whole branch of ideas that developed from that assertion, but that's irrelevant.)

3: Here is the issue of having a proper epistemology, specifically, of objectivity. When discussing a topic, to start with "common defintions" is not proper - the proper starting point is reality. From there you form some ideas and try to discuss them with others, but the ultimate judge is always reality. That's why it is indeed possible to have an objective epistemology - because the nature of existence is immutable. And why should one seek to redefine every word? That's not a proper goal at all. The goal should rather be to see if what you're saying makes sense, i.e. whether your words have any bearing to reality.

4: Ask A to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on he who makes the assertion. You can't be asked to prove a negative, you know. However, if A said that consciousness is inherent in our perception of existence, that would be something else.

[Boydstun]

PPW, hear, hear!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. No illusions if no correctness. No correctness, no illusions, and no meaningful speaking of them, if no living, conscious being doing the speaking. No possibility this sentence is being read, yet by no one; and at the moment, no possibility you are not one reading this sentence. No reason to suppose every question sayable is objectively meaningful;* reason to think these two under 2 as merely grammatically correct and merely inauthentic with respect to reality.

4. Many times thinkers have argued that consciousness is inherent in all existence. Likewise, many thinkers have argued that consciousness is inherent in only some of existence, either in only living existence or in only some subset of living existence (or in machines made by living intelligence). Both sides have given reasons and evidence. There is no need for either side to assert their view groundlessly (arbitrarily).

There is evidence and reason (everyday and scientific) to think that rocks have no sensations, that plants have no sensations, that without sensations there is no perception, and that without perception there is no consciousness. There is in fact evidence that without a cerebral cortex, there is no consciousness. (Rand had the impression, as have many, that animals as lowly as insects have consciousness; I think the accumulating research in the decades since then establishes that consciousness is not possible to insect neuronal systems; but there is at least one eminent researcher who does not yet close the book on the older view, Rand’s view.) The sequence of powers—sensation, perception, and thought—along with their corresponding suites of action, are what we learn in study of the varieties and history of life on the planet as well as in the development of individual animals from their single starting cell to infancy and on to maturity (see also OPAR 189–97).

LB, you might find Understanding Objectivism (2012) helpful. More on Rand’s axioms: Lennox* – Boydstun*

At a more advanced level, down the road, you might like to open:

The Evidence of the Senses

David Kelley (1986)

Certainty: A Refutation of Scepticism

Peter Klein (1981)

The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World

Hilary Putnam (1999)

[ppw]

Right, my previous post needs some correction - 1 and 2 don't actually fall under the onus of proof, they're variants of the stolen concept fallacy (and Boydstun has shown nicely the absurd results of holding that premise, i.e. that some part of existence is an illusion).

Basically any objection to the basic axioms is self-refuting - if A thinks existence is an illusion, so is he, so why should you listen to him? If you're an illusion, why should A be talking to you?

Now as to the usefulness of holding that axiom - existence exists - philosophically, it slashes away a whole branch of corrupt philosophy. Psychologically, it provides the subconscious the first building block of a benevolent sense of life.

[Reidy]

One that I can recommend is Wittgenstein's On Certainty. A technique he points out is to ask the skeptic or solipsist What would change your mind? What evidence would move you to admit that you're wrong?

[Grames]

Conversation 1

A:existence exists is just a meaningless tautology. It's just like me saying farmers farm. How does that help you? Why must you begin with this if we discuss a philosophical issue?

Me: You must begin with this because if nothing exists then there is nothing for us to investigate.

A: No, maybe nothing exists and this is all some imaginary world. We still have to do the best we can.

M: I didn't say anything about the nature of existence. Only that *something* must exist. An illusion is something.

A: No an illusion is not real, by definition.

Tautologies are not meaningless. All true statements are able to be converted into the form of a tautology, and no false statement can ever be a tautology. Tautologies are methodological guides for conceptual thinking that assure us that we can know before ever looking up from the words that a statement such as "existence does not exist" must be wrong. The opposite of a contradiction is a tautology. Contradictions are to be avoided; tautologies embraced.

Imagination is rearrangement and recombination of memories, memories of whole entities or memories of attributes such as color or shape or texture or sound. The origin of the memories is from existence outside of the remembering consciousness.

The idea of an illusion takes for granted that there is in fact a truth or reality against which the illusion can be compared.

Conversation 2

A: How do you know it's really you perceiving that which exists? Maybe there is no you but your only an illusion.

This is an invalid use of the idea of an illusion. It is 'you' as a perceiving, judging, thinking subject which is capable of falling for an illusion. If there is no 'you', what then is falsely believing the illusion? The very idea of illusion requires both an external reality and a fallible subject, and to repudiate one or the other by an "argument from illusion" is the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.

Conversation 3

A: How can you just arbitrarily define consciousness to be what you want it to be? Who said that your definition of consciousness is true?

Me: in order to discuss some topic we have to start with some common definitions.

A: But there are many things that will have different definitions given our experience, so it's impossible to redefine every word.

Reality is the final authority by dictating what works and what does not. The practice of objectivity in finding definitions will find what is common in all experiences. In the effort to be objective, it is helpful share experiences with others and to listen to others experiences in order to craft definitions that encompass of the known relevant cases but no more.

Conversation 4

A:How do you know a world without conscious organisms is possible? Maybe consciousness is inherent in the fact of existence, but your just arbitrarily saying it's not.

All organisms are mortal (in the sense that they are not invulnerable to damage).

If all organisms were dead at the same time, that would be a world without conscious organisms.

Using a restricted and literal interpretation of 'world', Earth's Moon is goes beyond being a merely possible world without consciousness into being an actual world without consciousness.

[LoBagola]

2. No illusions if no correctness. No correctness, no illusions, and no meaningful speaking of them, if no living, conscious being doing the speaking. No possibility this sentence is being read, yet by no one; and at the moment, no possibility you are not one reading this sentence. No reason to suppose every question sayable is objectively meaningful;* reason to think these two under 2 as merely grammatically correct and merely inauthentic with respect to reality.

I'm confused by this. No illusions if no correctness. Correctness of what?

4. Many times thinkers have argued that consciousness is inherent in all existence. Likewise, many thinkers have argued that consciousness is inherent in only some of existence, either in only living existence or in only some subset of living existence (or in machines made by living intelligence). Both sides have given reasons and evidence. There is no need for either side to assert their view groundlessly (arbitrarily).

There is evidence and reason (everyday and scientific) to think that rocks have no sensations, that plants have no sensations, that without sensations there is no perception, and that without perception there is no consciousness. There is in fact evidence that without a cerebral cortex, there is no consciousness. (Rand had the impression, as have many, that animals as lowly as insects have consciousness; I think the accumulating research in the decades since then establishes that consciousness is not possible to insect neuronal systems; but there is at least one eminent researcher who does not yet close the book on the older view, Rand’s view.) The sequence of powers—sensation, perception, and thought—along with their corresponding suites of action, are what we learn in study of the varieties and history of life on the planet as well as in the development of individual animals from their single starting cell to infancy and on to maturity (see also OPAR 189–97).

Why would anyone argue that consciousness only exists in machines made by living intelligence?

You say "Both sides have given reasons and evidence. There is no need for either side to assert their view groundlessly (arbitrarily)." I'm not sure how these two sentences are connected. Why would they be asserting their views groundless if they have given reason and evidence? (Maybe I misunderstood)

Thanks for the pointers to the additional reading.

[LoBagola]

Reidy would you say Wittgenstein's book is a little advanced? I study computer science and have for the most part avoided anything in the humanities or involving reading/writing - so I'm taking this slow.

[LoBagola]

Tautologies are not meaningless. All true statements are able to be converted into the form of a tautology, and no false statement can ever be a tautology. Tautologies are methodological guides for conceptual thinking that assure us that we can know before ever looking up from the words that a statement such as "existence does not exist" must be wrong. The opposite of a contradiction is a tautology. Contradictions are to be avoided; tautologies embraced.

Imagination is rearrangement and recombination of memories, memories of whole entities or memories of attributes such as color or shape or texture or sound. The origin of the memories is from existence outside of the remembering consciousness.

The idea of an illusion takes for granted that there is in fact a truth or reality against which the illusion can be compared.

I've spent some time thinking about this and am having trouble converting some ideas/statements to tautologies.

E.g. I like to eat because food is good - that's a tautology?

Farmers farm... tautology?

But what about a false statement like all dogs are red because they are red (isn't this a tautology?)

So saying existence might be imaginary is basically a fallacious statement, your using a concept your denying. Cool !

This is an invalid use of the idea of an illusion. It is 'you' as a perceiving, judging, thinking subject which is capable of falling for an illusion. If there is no 'you', what then is falsely believing the illusion? The very idea of illusion requires both an external reality and a fallible subject, and to repudiate one or the other by an "argument from illusion" is the logical fallacy of the stolen concept.

Ahhh!

Now I tell A this but he says a transient being beyond our ability to define is falling for the illusion. I then get back to that topic of the need for words to have defintions in a discssion and don't know how to tackle it again. I know you might say don't argue with someone like this but I get really frustrated in not knowing why I can't completely destroy his arguments - which is due to what I think is a lack of solid understanding of principles on my part.

Reality is the final authority by dictating what works and what does not. The practice of objectivity in finding definitions will find what is common in all experiences. In the effort to be objective, it is helpful share experiences with others and to listen to others experiences in order to craft definitions that encompass of the known relevant cases but no more.

Here I will be taken back to the issue of what if what I perceive is different from what you perceive. How do you really know the red you see is the red I see blah blah.

(I'm not expecting you to smash out huge answers to my questions just hoping there might be some underlying theme / concept to my problems with these type of arguments and that I could pick up a book and work it out).

[Reidy]

On Certainty is accessible to a nonspecialist (like me). Wittgenstein's aphoristic style makes the book easier to get through in small pieces than a systematic treatise would be.

His choice of a trip to the moon as an example of impossibility is not the happiest, but if you think of it as a trip to the moon by familiar terrestrial means it all falls into place.

[Boydstun]

LB, in the statement “No illusions if no correctness” I was speaking elliptically, that is, leaving out words (for speed on this occasion). Your question is natural. The idea is only that there could be no illusions if there were only illusions. The concept illusion depends on the concepts truth and correctness. It is like an error in a computer program. It is only by reference to the general idea of correctness in a program that the idea of an error in a program makes any sense. Furthermore, when we identify an error in a program, we will understand the error. That means we will understand how it is specifically wrong within the wider surround of right.

Similarly, with perception. It is not that an illusion is an error, strictly speaking, but the situation is analogous, and an illusion can lead to error. Perception is so often integral with action that it is easy to slide in thought to thinking there has been an error in perception when there has been an error of action due to some sort of illusion in perception. That is a fine point, and I’m probably giving you too many words on this now, where I gave too few before.

There is another way in which we glide into the idea that a perceptual illusion is an error, which really it is not, at least not of itself. Take the Müller-Lyer illusion.* In the illusion, the horizontal lines appear to be of unequal length. That is the way they appear, so of itself there is nothing erroneous about the appearance. The reason, however, that we call it an appearance at all and indeed an illusory one is that we have a wider web of perceptions and effective actions by which we can show that it is an illusion and explain in what way the illusion is a misleader. We have the power of measurement, and more generally the power of comparison and integrated cross-comparison, using the true to separate and to explain: (i) off-truth of anomalous perceptions (illusions) and (ii) errors such as occur in computer programs. Without our capability for truth in an area of cognition, we can have no capability for illusions or errors in that area.

To overlook that result is to fall into what Rand called the “stolen concept fallacy” (a, b, c). I agree with her on this pattern of incorrect thinking, which should be let go of—it is not effective thinking, where our goal is truth.

Another example of this fallacy would be were I to say “It’s possible that all is a dream.” No. We only know of dreams that they are dreams if we know of waking, successful cognition of reality into which we are able to fit dreams as a part. Descartes took up that sort of question and your item 2. Concerning the latter, he would say you cannot be only an illusion because you would still have be around having an illusion in order for there to be an illusion. He exposed a stolen concept. However, some sharp thinkers after him—Leibniz, Charles Saunders Peirce, and Rand—all challenged Descartes’ larger project of starting with doubt and then trying to figure out what cannot possibly be doubted. No, begin with truth you have, not doubt. Have reasons for doubting, reasons speaking the truths you have.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point about machines and intelligence was only meant to remind that machines (and machines that make machines) are the result of living intelligence, ours, and that whatever intelligence a machine someday might have, it will have been a descendant of our intelligence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Maybe consciousness is inherent in the fact of existence, but you’re just arbitrarily saying it’s not.”

I was pointing out that the respondent can (after a little study anyway) come back and say “No, what I’m saying is not arbitrary, here are my grounds for saying it.”

[thenelli01]

Ahhh!

Now I tell A this but he says a transient being beyond our ability to define is falling for the illusion. I then get back to that topic of the need for words to have defintions in a discssion and don't know how to tackle it again. I know you might say don't argue with someone like this but I get really frustrated in not knowing why I can't completely destroy his arguments - which is due to what I think is a lack of solid understanding of principles on my part.

Ask him for evidence to back up the claim that "a transient being beyond our ability to define is falling for the illusion." You don't really need an argument against that; that argument falls on its own.

Edited December 16, 2012 by thenelli01

[Grames]

I've spent some time thinking about this and am having trouble converting some ideas/statements to tautologies.

E.g. I like to eat because food is good - that's a tautology?

Eating is good because food is good.

Good is good.

Farmers farm... tautology?

Those who farm are those who farm.

But what about a false statement like all dogs are red because they are red (isn't this a tautology?)

Compound statements have to analyzed into all of their parts. 'Red is red' is a tautology but 'All dogs are red' is not and the portion that is false. 'Dog' is a word that may be used in several senses but in the sense that it refers to those animals also called canines, then the meaning of the concept dog is all the dogs that exist, have ever existed or ever will exist. The existence of a single non-red dog falsifies 'all dogs are red.' The proposition 'all dogs are red' attempts to assert 'non-reds are red', failing the tautological test for coherence.

Ahhh!

Now I tell A this but he says a transient being beyond our ability to define is falling for the illusion. I then get back to that topic of the need for words to have defintions in a discssion and don't know how to tackle it again. I know you might say don't argue with someone like this but I get really frustrated in not knowing why I can't completely destroy his arguments - which is due to what I think is a lack of solid understanding of principles on my part.

You can never 'completely destroy his arguments', which really means 'destroy his argumentativeness' because you cannot coerce or force his mind.

Here I will be taken back to the issue of what if what I perceive is different from what you perceive. How do you really know the red you see is the red I see blah blah.

You can never know the red that I see as I perceive it because it is in my mind not yours. If we can pick out the same colored objects when asked to point at what is red (and what is not) then that is enough to establish common understanding, because meaning is in the reference. It is a principle of Objectivist epistemology that the meaning of a concept is what it refers to, not its definition.

[LoBagola]

Thanks for clarifying, that helped.

[LoBagola]

Tautologies are not meaningless. All true statements are able to be converted into the form of a tautology, and no false statement can ever be a tautology. Tautologies are methodological guides for conceptual thinking that assure us that we can know before ever looking up from the words that a statement such as "existence does not exist" must be wrong. The opposite of a contradiction is a tautology. Contradictions are to be avoided; tautologies embraced.

I can see why "existence does not exist" must be wrong: If you define existence as everything which exists then you cannot use it and then negate it in the same sentence (stolen concept), but I'm not sure why/how a tautology is a methodological guide for telling us this?

[ppw]

I can see why "existence does not exist" must be wrong: If you define existence as everything which exists then you cannot use it and then negate it in the same sentence (stolen concept), but I'm not sure why/how a tautology is a methodological guide for telling us this?

It's not "tautologies" that are a methodological guide - it's the law of identity. Introducing contradictions into discussions of some subject denies the identity to that subject. That's the principle that should be tended to: don't hold contradictions.

[Grames]

I can see why "existence does not exist" must be wrong: If you define existence as everything which exists then you cannot use it and then negate it in the same sentence (stolen concept), but I'm not sure why/how a tautology is a methodological guide for telling us this?

Consider how the 'stolen concept' established to be an error of logic. Perhaps you can "just see it" but the proof needs to be explicit, which means reducing a stolen concept argument down to its essential contradiction. For the example given: "existence does not exist" is the same as "existence is nonexistence".

What is methodological about the law of non-contradiction/tautology is that It is a formality in constructing sentences of an argument, just as when in algebraic manipulations of a mathematical equation if the result is the assertion that "1 = 2" or some similar unequal equation then there must have been an error somewhere.

The law of identity is that "a thing is itself", and is an assertion of a metaphysics. The law of non-contradiction or equivalent "test for tautology" is methodological and hence the assertion of an epistemology.