Existence exists subsidiary thread

[CriticalThinker2000]

Let me reiterate some things, so I may be clearer on my own understanding. Correct me if I am wrong. Objects indeed have forms, but these forms do not constitute objects. Yet, objects are formed by nature or people, but forms do not form objects.

 

When I say 'form' in this context I mean specifically form of perception- ie. sight, hearing, etc. The object of your perception is indepentent of the form of perception. A book is independent of your seeing it. This is not what you're talking about in the above quote so in the interest of not confusing the subject further I'm not going to comment on your assertion 'objects indeed have forms.'

 

Therefore, reality cannot be changed by conscious will alone.

 

 

 

Right, you can't just will something into existence or just will it to change.

 

 

However, our consciousness is inseparable from our bodies, which are objective.

 

Your consciousness and your body exist- is that what you mean by describing them as objective?

 

 

We can change reality with our bodies, and those bodies are controlled by conscious will.

 

Sure.

 

 

Can I say that consciousness can indirectly change objective reality then?

 

I guess... if what you mean is that we can physically interact with reality and that physical interaction is directed by our consciousness.

[New Buddha]

"You are saying that consciousness is dependent on metaphysical reality, but the reality is independent from consciousness. What about physical reality?"

 

Try and think of it this way.

 

Think of a rabbit.  To you it has a bushy tail, big ears, pink nose, big hind feet.  To a hawk, who's eye sight is better than ours, a rabbit is perceived differently and he can distinguish a rabbit from say, a badger from a long ways off. To a wolf, who's sense of smell is greater than ours (or a hawks) a rabbit is perceived differently - he can perceived (smell) the presence of a rabbit that when we and the hawk cannot.  And to a tick, a rabbit may be nothing more than body heat or breath.

 

The important point to understand about the four "forms" of perception is that they are all objective, all true and no one form is "better" than any other form.  There is no "platonic" form of rabbit which exists independent of perception.

[Ilya Startsev]

CriticalThinker2000:

When I say 'form' in this context I mean specifically form of perception- ie. sight, hearing, etc.

This means that I was confusing the physical form and the form of perception. How do the two relate?
 

you can't just will something into existence or just will it to change.

You cannot will a form of perception, but you can will a physical form into expression, right?
 

Your consciousness and your body exist- is that what you mean by describing them as objective?

You see, I used the word objective as it's used in physical sciences. Now I see that Objectivists have created a new terminology for objectivity that is not related to physical objectivity. Can you explain to me the difference? Maybe the reason that David Kelley has confused the two is that there is not enough differentiation of these concepts of objectivity.
 

if what you mean is that we can physically interact with reality and that physical interaction is directed by our consciousness.

Yes. Now you see my confusion and conflation of physical and metaphysical. I have to be honest, I knew nothing of this metaphysical stuff before I learned of Objectivism. I have been accustomed to scientific objectivity. I really appreciate all of your comments. This discussion is very helpful.

 

in the interest of not confusing the subject further I'm not going to comment on your assertion 'objects indeed have forms.'

I am not trying to trick you. I am genuinely interested in philosophy, and so far I can only communicate with Objectivists like you on these topics. And for this I am indeed grateful.

 

New Buddha:
So, the form of perception changes with consciousness. I want to add that if it is a body with some form of a nervous system, it has some kind of consciousness, although sensual integration is not the same like ours (it involves no linear logic). Consciousness is not just a human trait. The idea here is that metaphysically we all exist separately (our consciousness (perception) is separate and independent from others), but all come from objective reality. I agree with this now.
 

The important point to understand about the four "forms" of perception is that they are all objective, all true and no one form is "better" than any other form.  There is no "platonic" form of rabbit which exists independent of perception.

You mean five forms? Five physical senses, that is. And yes, they are all equal and, for example, sight should not be treated superior to other senses, such as taste or hearing. Platonic forms, as Aristotelian forms, are really souls. These Ancient Greek philosophers believed that the form constituted the body. Here is something I grasped from Wikipedia: "[T]he first genuine scientist in history" Aristotle used a "method [that] is both inductive [philosophical] and deductive [scientific]. "[H]e introduces the concept of potentiality (dynamis) and actuality (entelecheia) [...] the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form)" as "one and the same thing." "Aristotle also held that the level of a creature's perfection was reflected in its form, but not preordained by that form. Ideas like this, and his ideas about souls, are not regarded as science at all in modern times." Now the scientists consider matter as a form to be permanent and objective, whereas the soul to be outside of matter and form, too dynamic (impermanent) and subjective to be studied. This is a complete distortion of Aristotle's original views.

 

P.S. I want to clarify that a soul, to me, is a part of consciousness. A mind is another part of consciousness. Consciousness, then, is primarily composed of a soul and a mind. The physical forms of perception (the five senses) are from the mind, whereas emotional perception is from the soul.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

No, your consciousness is part of objective reality just as everything that exists is. And it has a relationship to reality, it perceives it. The form of perception is dependent upon the object of perception but the object is not dependent upon the form. To concretize the distinction I'm making, take your sight as a form of perception. The object you see exists independent of whether you see it or not. The object is independent of the form. However, your sight still has a relationship to the object it perceives in that it gathers reflections of light. It's simply that the object of perception is not dependent upon (ie is independent of) your sight. If you do not make this distinction you collapse into contradiction.

 

 

If you make the distinction between object and form as Rand makes, why does saying that object is independent of form imply that you have no relationships to anyone?? That doesn't follow and it's why you need to make the distinction.

 

 

OK, but consciousness is part of reality. It's only that reality is not dependent upon your perception of reality.

 

 

When an Objectivist says that reality exists independent of consciousness they do not mean that there is a consciousness and there is reality and they exist in two different dimensions or something. It simply means, as I've explained in the post already, that the object of which you are aware is not dependent upon your perception of it- reality is independent of your consciousness.

 

 

They are both metaphysical, meaning that they both exist. There is a relationship between the two. Consciousness perceives objective reality but objective reality is not dependent upon your consciousness's perception of it- hence it is independent.

An excellent point. If consciousness (brain-work?) isn't seen as a a part of objective reality then i'm afraid we have a ghost in the machine upstairs! Well, at least Objectivists do!

 

Perhaps, then, there's a history to Rand's Cartesian dualism...then perhaps not...or perhaps she'd being misrepresented?

 

For my part, I've always had a serious objection tot the use of 'consciousness' because of its bad metaphysical connotations. Far better, then.  to simply say 'brain work' or 'awake'....

[Ilya Startsev]

An excellent point. If consciousness (brain-work?) isn't seen as a a part of objective reality then i'm afraid we have a ghost in the machine upstairs! Well, at least Objectivists do!

 

Perhaps, then, there's a history to Rand's Cartesian dualism...then perhaps not...or perhaps she'd being misrepresented?

 

For my part, I've always had a serious objection tot the use of 'consciousness' because of its bad metaphysical connotations. Far better, then.  to simply say 'brain work' or 'awake'....

Yes, to differentiate consciousness from subconsciousness, it is like a state of wakefulness and sleep, respectively. Here are also some interesting relationships to ponder:

consciousness (self) a part of reality

logic (science) a part of philosophy

deduction a part of induction?

 

P.S. And indeed, in my philosophy, subconsciousness is a different self. That's why sometimes they say that to sleep is like to die. In sleep, people become their minds, whereas a body does not play a role in sleep.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

Yes, to differentiate consciousness from subconsciousness, it is like a state of wakefulness and sleep, respectively. Here are also some interesting relationships to ponder:

consciousness (self) a part of reality

logic (science) a part of philosophy

deduction a part of induction?

 

P.S. And indeed, in my philosophy, subconsciousness is a different self. That's why sometimes they say that to sleep is like to die. In sleep, people become their minds, whereas a body does not play a role in sleep.

It seems as if you a hopeless cartesian, too.

 

The body plays a role in sleep because it's the body that sleeps. If you don't believe me, try eating blue cheese at bed time.

Edited June 15, 2014 by frank harley

[Ilya Startsev]

It seems as if you a hopeless cartesian, too.

 

The body plays a role in sleep because it's the body that sleeps. If you don't believe me, try eating blue cheese at bed time.

I cannot account for the effect of blue cheese, but when the body sleeps, so does one's consciousness.

 

P.S. Lucid dreams is when one's (body) consciousness becomes mind consciousness.

P.S.S. It is the body that "wakes up," and consciousness follows. By "sleep," I meant the dream state. The body does not dream.

Edited June 15, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

I cannot account for the effect of blue cheese, but when the body sleeps, so does one's consciousness.

 

P.S. Lucid dreams is when one's (body) consciousness becomes mind consciousness.

P.S.S. It is the body that "wakes up," and consciousness follows. By "sleep," I meant the dream state. The body does not dream.

There are three basic & measurable levels of brain activity associated with sleep--or what's called in bio-med, being un-conscious'. Food intake prior to becoming 'unconscious' does, indeed alter the observed waves.

 

Of course, sleep levels differ greatly from those of being awake, or 'conscious'. To this end, I 'spoze that 'body consciousness' has something to do with Zen or pot?

[Ilya Startsev]

'body consciousness' has something to do with Zen or pot?

Unless you are solely attempting to make a joke, you are completely misunderstanding me. I said exactly what I meant. Are you conscious of your physical body when you are asleep? No. Hence, body consciousness is actual consciousness, and what you call unconsciousness is a subconsciousness. You have taken my idea of "In sleep, people become their minds, whereas a body does not play a role in sleep" from the point of view of a body. However, you confused here that it is not bodies who sleep but people, viz., their consciousness.

 

P.S. I guess I should add that the state of the subconscious can be interrupted by transference to (our) consciousness or through physical body interaction. Although we are subconscious in sleep, we still have a connection to consciousness in this reality, but, to someone who is asleep, our reality will be superconscious. Here is a simple illustration from our reality (the reality of our consciousness):

Organ--Aura (subconsciousness)

Body--Environment (consciousness)

Society--Nature (superconsciousness)

 

Anything beyond these can be considered unconsciousness.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

Unless you are solely attempting to make a joke, you are completely misunderstanding me. I said exactly what I meant. Are you conscious of your physical body when you are asleep? No. Hence, body consciousness is actual consciousness, and what you call unconsciousness is a subconsciousness. You have taken my idea of "In sleep, people become their minds, whereas a body does not play a role in sleep" from the point of view of a body. However, you confused here that it is not bodies who sleep but people, viz., their consciousness.

A gazillion bodily functions have to work in order to go into deep dreamy sleep.

 

But if you think being 'philosophical' is writing like a Ken Wilbur wannabe, that's okay.

[Ilya Startsev]

A gazillion bodily functions have to work in order to go into deep dreamy sleep.

 

But if you think being 'philosophical' is writing like a Ken Wilbur wannabe, that's okay.

Yes, but are you conscious of these bodily functions? No. Therefore, these functions operate on a subconscious level. I will read about Ken Wilbur, thanks for the tip.

 

P.S. I know I am going on a spiraling tangent here, but let it be so for diversification purposes. My first argument is against Wilbur's "The relation between individuals and society is not the same as between cells and organisms though, because individual holons can be members but not parts of social holons." Can a society function without individuals? No, because individuals are members of a society by choice and hence are also its parts. I see the same confusion in Objectivism. Remember that we are a part of our context - the market. And the market is the foundation of society. Hence we are also parts of the society. But the difference between the market and the society is that the first is a sum of individuals in their environments (with explicit relationships through sex and money), and the second also includes their implicit relationships (like friendships and cooperatives). It's pure insanity to say that individuals "can be members but not parts of social." Here is a definition of member: "a person, animal, plant, group, etc., that is part of a society, party, community, taxon, or other body."

Edited June 16, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[New Buddha]

@Ilya #78

 

"You mean five forms? Five physical senses, that is."

 

No. I mean the four "forms" perceived by 1) the man, 2) the hawk, 3) the wolf and 4) the tick.  Each of the four forms is different, based upon the make up of the senses of each animal - but no one of the four forms is "more right" than the other.

[Ilya Startsev]

@Ilya #78

 

"You mean five forms? Five physical senses, that is."

 

No. I mean the four "forms" perceived by 1) the man, 2) the hawk, 3) the wolf and 4) the tick.  Each of the four forms is different, based upon the make up of the senses of each animal - but no one of the four forms is "more right" than the other.

You forgot #5) the fly. They are indeed different and various forms developed by each are more suited for their individual realities: human must be objective and logical, the hawk more visual and clearsighted, the wolf a better tracker of prey, the tick should grasp more tightly, and the fly quick at turns. I may be wrong on those because I am culturally conditioned, so please correct me and add anything you see fitting.

[Eiuol]

You forgot #5) the fly. They are indeed different and various forms developed by each are more suited for their individual realities: human must be objective and logical, the hawk more visual and clearsighted, the wolf a better tracker of prey, the tick should grasp more tightly, and the fly quick at turns. I may be wrong on those because I am culturally conditioned, so please correct me and add anything you see fitting.

No, I think he just means the form of perception, the way the world is perceived, varies. Being objective is not a form of perception,  nor is tracking prey or grasping tightly. Those are methods of survival. Consider what it is like to be color blind. A color-sighted person doesn't see the world as "more right" than a color blind person. The point here is perception. And anyway, it doesn't make sense to say "tracking prey" is a form of perception. It is an action, not an object...

[New Buddha]

Ilya,

I can tell from your posts that you are the type of person who creates problems so that he can "solve" them.

 

Objectivism is a very direct and, frankly, simple philosophy.  This type of philosophy will never satisfy someone of your disposition.  Rather than just learn and move on to the next thing, you want to wrestle with everything.

 

Some times a table is just a table....

[Ilya Startsev]

No, I think he just means the form of perception, the way the world is perceived, varies. Being objective is not a form of perception,  nor is tracking prey or grasping tightly. Those are methods of survival. Consider what it is like to be color blind. A color-sighted person doesn't see the world as "more right" than a color blind person. The point here is perception. And anyway, it doesn't make sense to say "tracking prey" is a form of perception. It is an action, not an object...

I considered New Buddha's post about "4 forms/animals" a joke and hence played on it as well. Of course what I mentioned are not forms of perception, but neither are ticks a form of perception, and I don't think there is a way to know how they perceive in the first place.

 

Ilya,

I can tell from your posts that you are the type of person who creates problems so that he can "solve" them.

 

Objectivism is a very direct and, frankly, simple philosophy.  This type of philosophy will never satisfy someone of your disposition.  Rather than just learn and move on to the next thing, you want to wrestle with everything.

 

Some times a table is just a table....

I totally agree with what you said. Totally. However, I see a great potential in Objectivism. It is a philosophy that can be accepted by simple-minded individuals (although not the majority), but it can be a philosophy for the greatest of intellectuals as well. In all the years of research, I have never encountered a philosophy quite like Objectivism before, and, frankly, your philosophy once again ignited my love of intellectual digging.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

The difference between a human and an animal is the purposes they serve, hence the purposes their forms of perception serve. Similarly for human cultures. All cultures serve purposes depending on their environments. Some exist in harmony with natural environment, others create artificial environments through industrial culture. The question is whether one is better than another for YOU. Yes, you can change from being an animal to being a human - that's called evolution. Yes, you can continue being an animal or being a human - we have both, even through some evolved. All human cultures are equally right in the way they perceive their environments. It is not a question of whether objectivity or subjectivity is better; it is merely a question of choice.

 

P.S. Although few Russians live better today than back in the U.S.S.R., when you talk about the overall living, today is much worse than before. The physical evidence that I depend upon is that the amount of drug addicts and alcoholics skyrocketed after the collapse (from an interview I personally conducted with a specialized doctor in Russia).

Edited June 18, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Eiuol]

All human cultures are equally right in the way they perceive their environments.

Perception is how you see or sense the world. Don't equivocate that meaning of the word perception with perception as a viewpoint on reality. There are indeed better ways to think of reality, but there is no perception that is "more right". That does not mean there is no "more right" way to think about reality.

[Ilya Startsev]

Perception is how you see or sense the world. Don't equivocate that meaning of the word perception with perception as a viewpoint on reality. There are indeed better ways to think of reality, but there is no perception that is "more right". That does not mean there is no "more right" way to think about reality.

Hmm, I don't like the usage of "more right." Did I use it originally? If so, I apologize. Yes, you are right, but now we need to differentiate between perception as the act of sensing or using senses and perception as the integrated whole or a worldview. The latter perception is closer to the meaning of consciousness, am I right?

 

P.S. Confusion is in the definition of perception as well: 1) the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding. 3) the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.

P.P.S. By a better way to think about reality you mean logic, correct?

P.P.P.S. I don't know if any of you have read Metaphors We Live By by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. It's a subjectivist account with interesting arguments. It inspired me to continue our discussion so. I am trying to understand whether they are confusing different perceptions too. Maybe you can help out. Here is a quote from them: "meaning depends on understanding. A sentence can’t mean anything to you unless you understand it. Moreover, meaning is always meaning to someone. There is no such thing as a meaning of a sentence in itself, independent of any people." Now I wonder how one can learn a language without others. There is a logic in language, and logic depends on absolute truths. Logic is a way of thinking that integrates more of the senses (or at least integrates the ones that are cognitive). It is a better way to integrate perception, although we are limited in perceptions, and thus there is no better way to perceive. Am I right in my thinking? This ends up with the idea that one can change one's consciousness for the better. However, what if there is a way to open up new senses? Bah, then I am just making it too complicated. Let's just stick with the evolving consciousness. So, you say that industrial consciousness is better than natural consciousness, right?

Edited June 19, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

Metaphors We Live By is not so simple after all. Here is their direct criticism of objectivism (as a philosophy since 1854) on page 175:

"What objectivism misses is the fact that understanding, and therefore truth, is necessarily relative to our cultural conceptual systems and that it cannot be framed in any absolute or neutral conceptual system."

 

It also provides plenty of examples of how metaphors are inseparable from our language.

 

Reference:

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. 2nd ed. University Of Chicago Press, 2003.

[Ilya Startsev]

They are calling themselves experientialists, and they are repeating what I have said on many occasions: "But the real world is not an objectivist universe, especially those aspects of the real world having to do with human beings: human experience, human institutions, human language, the human conceptual system" (ibid. 193). Experientialists differentiate themselves from subjectivists by saying that there are still constraints in the world made by our culture, but these constraints are comprehended from a cultural viewpoint, versus that of a single individual. Experientialists differentiate themselves from objectivists by claiming that interaction, not truth, are fundamental to human understanding.

[Eiuol]

There is a significant difference between Objectivism and objectivism. When the term objectivism is used, it refers to intrinsicism if described by Objectivism. Now, it is true that knowledge/understanding varies, but it does not follow that truth is therefore relative only to a conceptual system provided/aided by a culture. So, Objectivism actually deals with how 1) knowledge can be individual-relative, while 2) truth is a correspondence to reality. Intrinsicism would say 1 is false, that knowledge itself is equivalent to reality (that is, only "Truth" in an absolute sense is knowledge). Perhaps you know there is a difference between Objectivism and objectivism, but I'm pointing out that you are overly concerned about differences in knowledge.

What does metaphor have to do with that? Your claim that constraints are comprehended from a cultural viewpoint is true of many people, but it is no argument that there is no objective fact to reality or that those people are right. Nor is it an argument that human experiences are somehow ignored by there being a fact of the matter. The problem is that you seem to be saying knowledge can only ever be analyzed by cultural viewpoints. That we cannot separate a biased cultural viewpoint from understanding of reality.

 

Did I use it originally?

I think New Buddha used it first here.
 

Confusion is in the definition of perception as well

Right. I don't know if in Russian there are two different words for 1 and 3. In this thread, at least for my posts and Buddha's, I'm using the concept for 3. So, be clear when you are using 1 or 3.
 

By a better way to think about reality you mean logic, correct?

 

Not necessarily. There is also induction, dealing with emotions, etc, but I at least mean proper use of  reason, and that there is in fact a wrong way to reason. That includes avoiding logical fallacies.

 

So, you say that industrial consciousness is better than natural consciousness, right?

Yeah, I can explain after we deal with this post first.

[Ilya Startsev]

There is a significant difference between Objectivism and objectivism. When the term objectivism is used, it refers to intrinsicism if described by Objectivism. Now, it is true that knowledge/understanding varies, but it does not follow that truth is therefore relative only to a conceptual system provided/aided by a culture. So, Objectivism actually deals with how 1) knowledge can be individual-relative, while 2) truth is a correspondence to reality. Intrinsicism would say 1 is false, that knowledge itself is equivalent to reality (that is, only "Truth" in an absolute sense is knowledge). Perhaps you know there is a difference between Objectivism and objectivism, but I'm pointing out that you are overly concerned about differences in knowledge.

I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing it out. So, intrinsicism is not part of Objectivism, but experientialism is now a fourth side. I wonder how it relates to Objectivism. The knowledge and hence some form of understanding is relative to an individual, and a mind as a whole and reality are absolutes.

 

What does metaphor have to do with that? Your claim that constraints are comprehended from a cultural viewpoint is true of many people, but it is no argument that there is no objective fact to reality or that those people are right. Nor is it an argument that human experiences are somehow ignored by there being a fact of the matter. The problem is that you seem to be saying knowledge can only ever be analyzed by cultural viewpoints. That we cannot separate a biased cultural viewpoint from understanding of reality.

I agree. I think the authors of that book absolutize metaphors. The examples that they provide are very casual and would not be used by everybody even in the same culture. More than that, they suggest using objective models only on metaphors, thus setting metaphors to be the only way of understanding reality. It's more like they are trying to make metaphors our new "objective" reality.

[Ilya Startsev]

Ok, here is another way I understand Objectivism and experientialism. They both integrate subjectivity and objectivity, albeit differently. This is interesting for comparison.

Objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by putting self (subject) into objective context (reality) through rational ethics. Thus, the ethical relationship of self to context will be objective, albeit different for each self.

Experientialism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by applying objective methods on cultural experience (subject) through the vehicle of conventional/conceptual metaphor. Thus, objective standards can be applied experientially, albeit differently for each culture.

 

P.S. Forgot to mention:

 

Neo-objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by putting self and others into the objective context (the market) where self and others connect emotionally (subjectively). Thus, the emotional relationships of self and others are reflected objectively (economically) while being within and inseparable from the context.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[frank harley]

Ok, here is another way I understand Objectivism and experientialism. They both integrate subjectivity and objectivity, albeit differently. This is interesting for comparison.

Objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by putting self (subject) into objective context (reality) through rational ethics. Thus, the ethical relationship of self to context will be objective, albeit different for each self.

Experientialism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by applying objective methods on cultural experience (subject) through the vehicle of conventional/conceptual metaphor. Thus, objective standards can be applied experientially, albeit differently for each culture.

 

P.S. Forgot to mention:

 

Neo-objectivism integrates subjectivity and objectivity by putting self and others into the objective context (the market) where self and others connect emotionally (subjectively). Thus, the emotional relationships of self and others are reflected objectively (economically) while being within and inseparable from the context.

Yes, it's the emotiveness of the market which led Stiglitz, et al to write that markets are fundamentally asymetric.

 

Much of his work, btw, was highly influenced by the 'heuristic' of Kahneman and Tversky.