reason is limited, identity and consciousness as reproduction

[LoBagola]

Some argue that "reason is limited". I know Rand's position is that reason is the only way of acquiring knowledge.

 

If reason is not limited, does that mean it is unlimited? if reason is unlimited does that mean it has no identity?

 

My guess would be that this is false but also that "reason is limited" is true, i.e. it has a specific nature - and it can still be the only way of acquiring knowledge but then I don't get why the statement "reason is limited" is an issue unless further expanded on to mean there are other ways of acquiring knowledge. To me though, saying "reason is limited" does not automatically lead on to being an anti-reason statement.

 

 

 

I'm listening to 'consciousness as reproduction' lectures right now and at one point it is said (in the context of discussing naive realism)

 If consciousness is reproduction then reason can have no identity

 

But if consciousness is reproduction, isn't that the identity of consciousness?

 

“Since its function is to think all things all forms and all universals it can have no form of its own”  (Randall)

 

Again, consciousness has the identity of being a function which thinks all things and all forms, no?

 

 

[dream_weaver]

To suggest that reason is limited is to say reason only applies to that which reason applies, implying that there are things outside the scope of reason.

But there is nothing outside the scope of reason.

 

Did you mean "Consciousness as Identification" lecture?

 

"If consciousness is reproduction, then reason can have no identity" is the application of consciousness under naive realism.

 

Consciousness as reproduction suggests that consciousness has no identity of its own, rather it takes on the identity of that which it is reproducing.

 

But consciousness is the faculty of awareness. It does not take on the identity of what it is aware of, it is the process by which we are aware, an active state consisting of two essentials: differentiation and integration.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Reason is limited by its identity.

 

It requires mental content (experiences, memories) with which to apply it, because you can't think about nothing in particular.  Whatever you think about, you are thinking ABOUT SOMETHING; that something is some form of content.

Furthermore reason is not effortless; it takes time and energy, just as manual labor takes time and energy.  Anyone who denies the effort required has never seriously grappled with a difficult question.

 

Those are the only limitations of reason; time, energy and content.

 

Those who argue that reason is limited invariably mean something different; that there are certain things to which it is inapplicable; there are subjects which are out-of-bounds to reason.  I believe this can be traced back to Immanuel Kant.

But no subject, once clearly understood (with adequate CONTENT) is beyond reason.

 

Think of a computer.  You wouldn't dream of declaring any calculation or algorithm to be uncomputable, right?  Even certain monstrously difficult calculations, such as calculating pi to the n-th decimal point, are still computable; they only take a long time to complete.

Well, to say that any question or subject is beyond the scope of reason, would be like saying that a certain calculation is beyond mathematics.  It's simply gibberish.

 

This is ALWAYS used as a smokescreen to defend irrational mysticism; to hide it and prevent anyone from asking too much about it.  I'll return at some point with some brief refutations of it, but the short answer is that it's simply wrong.

It's wrong in full, on its face, by its very conception; it refutes itself.  All you have to do is point that out.

[A is A]

To suggest that reason is limited is to say reason only applies to that which reason applies, implying that there are things outside the scope of reason.

But there is nothing outside the scope of reason.

 Not an accurate description of what saying "reason is limited" means. It means that there are things - processes - that reason does and there are thing - processes - that reason does not do, such as respiration, digestion, etc. Thus, reason has identity. It means that one cannot claim that reason is invalid because it has an identity, as Kant and Kantians state or imply.

Did you mean "Consciousness as Identification" lecture?

 

"If consciousness is reproduction, then reason can have no identity" is the application of consciousness under naive realism.

 

Consciousness as reproduction suggests that consciousness has no identity of its own, rather it takes on the identity of that which it is reproducing.

 

But consciousness is the faculty of awareness. It does not take on the identity of what it is aware of, it is the process by which we are aware, an active state consisting of two essentials: differentiation and integration.

I agree with the above.

[dream_weaver]

Not an accurate description of what saying "reason is limited" means. It means that there are things - processes - that reason does and there are thing - processes - that reason does not do, such as respiration, digestion, etc. Thus, reason has identity. It means that one cannot claim that reason is invalid because it has an identity, as Kant and Kantians state or imply

Thanks for the correction, Paul.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dream_weaver

[LoBagola]

Yes, I meant "consciousness as identification".

 

Consciousness as reproduction suggests that consciousness has no identity of its own, rather it takes on the identity of that which it is reproducing.

 

Is "taking on the identity of that which it is reproducing" not an identity? i.e. that is it's nature, otherwise it is nothing, doesn't exist and I don't get why Aristotle even conceived of it. He is the one who conceived of the law of identity in the first place.

 

 

Those are the only limitations of reason; time, energy and content.

 

OK. So yes, reason is limited. This is what I was thinking. But, in it's usual (non-objective) context, this statement is implies reason is limited in it's ability to conceive of things, right? This is what I really dislike about everything else I read: so much is implied and so little is defined.

Edited July 31, 2013 by LoBagola

[dream_weaver]

LoBagola: Is "taking on the identity of that which it is reproducing" not an identity?

 

That is a misuse of identity. An identity is what something is, not what it takes on.

 

An impersonator can impersonate another, but the impersonator does not become the impersonated.

Consciousness does not become the object of which it is aware, it is simply aware of it.

[LoBagola]

Ok! I follow. 

 

So is that what the Subjectivists recognised? That consciousness *must* have identity, otherwise it is nothing?

 

Or did they disregard the argument from the perspective of:

If I close my eyes things go black and I no longer reproduce objects in my mind. How can this be? It can only be if I am perceiving by some means. Therefore consciousness must have identity.... It just seems like such a simple observation that I'm thinking maybe I do not get the naive realists explanation. 

Edited July 31, 2013 by LoBagola

[LoBagola]

Ah! The problem here is definitions and context as I agree with what everyone has said.

 

"reason must be unlimited in the way the senses are not, at least in terms of what they can know."

 

But reason is limited by its identity, time, content... 

 

What kind of energy is reason limited by?

[StrictlyLogical]

Ah! The problem here is definitions and context as I agree with what everyone has said.

 

"reason must be unlimited in the way the senses are not, at least in terms of what they can know."

 

But reason is limited by its identity, time, content... 

 

What kind of energy is reason limited by?

 

Whatever the energy the reasoning entity consumes by the act of cognition.  Every manipulation, change, operation in respect of knowledge and information must be manifested in reality somehow, likely such would be subject to causation, thermodynamics, laws of physics.  State changes generally always require energy ... you could expect that any brain of any kind will require "food" or "electricity" and will likely give off heat (not 100% efficiency). 

 

That energy is not likely the operative limiting factor.. our bodies would die first...

[Harrison Danneskjold]

So is that what the Subjectivists recognised? That consciousness *must* have identity, otherwise it is nothing?

 

Or did they disregard the argument from the perspective of:

If I close my eyes things go black and I no longer reproduce objects in my mind. How can this be? It can only be if I am perceiving by some means. Therefore consciousness must have identity...

Subjectivism is a rejection of objective reality which requires a blending of consciousness and existence (what you see and the fact that you see it).

Yes, when you close your eyes the world literally disappears- from your perspective.  A subjectivist is someone (usually miserable) who doesn't recognize any other perspective as valid.

 

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?  A subjectivist would say not- and would also say that when you close your eyes, the world around you ceases to exist.

That's the significance of the tree-in-the-forest hypothetical; whether objects still exist when not directly perceivable.

 

To see why that's wrong, simply ask yourself what it would mean to fully and completely accept it.  How much of your knowledge is based on direct observation, without the slightest inference or interpretation?

If trees in virgin forests do not exist, then neither can atoms.  Neither can people whom you've never met before, nor planets which you've never been to, nor the entire Chinese nation (or Swedish or Australian; name anywhere you haven't been).  But it goes further even than that- does your bathroom still exist when you leave it?  Does your physical body exist when you're asleep?

If one accepts perception as the same as existence then nothing exists but what you are immediately aware of, right now; there can be no past or future, nor any form of knowledge.

---

 

The simple fact is that trees do not require your ears in order to make a sound; the only question is whether YOU will hear it.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Harrison Danneskjold]

But reason is limited by its identity, time, content... 

 

What kind of energy is reason limited by?

 

Effort.

No problem may be solved without concentrating on it and concentration is a deliberate action which requires real effort.  Larger and more complex problems are more difficult to focus on; furthermore, the longer one spends in a state of intense concentration, the more difficult it becomes to concentrate on anything at all.

Subjects which are interesting or fun to concentrate on are easier to, but even those become difficult to retain after long enough.

 

So this mental energy is the effort required to concentrate, which is most certainly limited by time (more time requiring exponentially more effort).

Whatever the energy the reasoning entity consumes by the act of cognition.  Every manipulation, change, operation in respect of knowledge and information must be manifested in reality somehow, likely such would be subject to causation, thermodynamics, laws of physics.  State changes generally always require energy ... you could expect that any brain of any kind will require "food" or "electricity" and will likely give off heat (not 100% efficiency). 

 

That energy is not likely the operative limiting factor.. our bodies would die first...

Various neurochemicals and (I believe) AtP?  Dreamweaver would probably know better than I.

But yes, you're absolutely right; it's all subject to thermodynamics, physics, biology, et cetera. 

 

Interestingly, the human brain constitutes a tiny percentage of our body-masses and yet it single-handedly consumes 25% of the nutrients in our bloodstreams.  So as far as the operative factor. . .  It wouldn't be much of a stretch to say that the human brain is its body's limiting factor.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold