[Primacy of existence]

Yes, [“every other kind of entity acts in a certain way and only in a certain way”] is [perceptually self-evident.]

But doesn’t that include things that we can’t even perceive?

[Primacy of existence]

Does this help you Hunter?

To be more accurate, the passage seems to have very little to do with Primacy of Existence or axioms. Internal vs. external may be of use in building up the idea of Primacy of Existence, but that only gives more credence to the idea that Primacy of Existence is not an axiom. What part of it do you find most relevant to the idea that Primacy of Existence is (implicitly) self-evident?

[Primacy of existence]

how do you think axioms are formed? Axioms are sophisticated formulations. Children don't state axioms, adult, learned philosophers do.

I agree with what you’re saying about explicitly forming and stating axioms; my point is that you don’t need sophisticated formulations to implicitly grasp the perceptually self-evident.

Consciousness, like every other kind of entity, acts in a certain way and only in that way. In adult, philosophic terms, we refer to this fact as the "primacy of existence."[OPAR]

This Primacy of Existence is not an axiom – “every other kind of entity acts in a certain way and only in a certain way” is not something that is perceptually self-evident.

Do you realize that axioms are only implicit until later epistemic/conceptual development?

Sure.

Can you provide a single example of a perception that does not involve the subject, object,inner-self,external-not self implicit in it?

No, but is that necessary for implicit knowledge of an axiom?

[Primacy of existence]

It was not my implication. It was Ayn Rand's. She states it explicitly, and I have provided the reference above.

You provided arguments from authority, but you have not said which perceptions show that existents are causally independent of any consciousness.

[My one year old son] has only this week learned he can put a finger in each ear and stop the "awareness" of the sounds coming in.

That’s what I'm looking for: a perception. But coming to the conclusion that all existents are causally-independent of all consciousnesses is not something you perceive, rather it’s an induction. Not an axiom.

Does this help you Hunter?

Somewhat, and I see that you’ve posted some other stuff today that I haven’t yet read. I’ll do that.

[Primacy of existence]

Your question does not follow from what I wrote.

I wasn’t questioning your definition of the term axiom.

By primacy of existence Ayn Rand means that every [existent] exists independently of our consciousness

I had similarly thought of Primacy of Existence as meaning that existents are causally independent of any consciousness (i.e. that a consciousness cannot alter any existent’s causality.)

But Primacy of Existence was then stated as

"Existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness". However, if a consciousness exists, then something exist -- "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence".

Phibetakappa, I was questioning your implication that “The universe exists independent of any consciousness” is an axiom. If in the causally-independent sense, how is this perceptually self-evident? If in the logically-independent sense, how would this set up an epistemological order necessary for establishing the Objectivist epistemology?

[Primacy of existence]

Is this a serious question?

Yes. What self-evident perception makes you say that the universe exists independent of any consciousness?

[Primacy of existence]

The question about something existing before consciousness observes it is "NOT EVEN WRONG" Its an invalid question.

Why? Presupposing existence doesn't mean you presuppose a particular existent's existence.

"What self evident perception makes you say that their are mind independent objects." would be a better way to state it.

Agreed.

[Primacy of existence]

It seems [Laissez-Faire has] two questions then. I thought you were interested in the question of mind independent objects and their relationships to the axioms as such.

They’re related. They both ask “is consciousness of an object necessary for that object to exist?” Primacy of existence defined as

"Existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness". However, if a consciousness exists, then something exist -- "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence".

does not answer that question.

Axioms are an explicit conceptual expression of the perceptually self-evident.

What self-evident perception makes you say that

the universe exists independent of any consciousness

?

[Argument Assistance]

I explained to her how abolishing the public school system and removing stifling regulations from the private schools would solve our educational funding problems. She listened quietly and then timidly repudiated my statements with her usual standby.... Should I just bite my tongue here or what?

You really ought to be careful in "blaming" your great-grandmother for having kids!!! I'm not sure social Darwinism is the answer either.

The virtuous businessman and generosity aren't mutually exclusive. If you really want to convince Granny, I'd argue that that virtuous businessmen are *far* more willing and able to help their fellow man (not as a defense of capitalism, but simply to make a point) than government bureaucrats.

[Primacy of existence]

Used only in the sense that all arguments have the primacy of existence at the root. The conclusion that consciousness alone cannot change existence is a complex conclusion, involving man's nature.

So then how do we get from

["existence" is not logically dependent on "consciousness"… "consciousness" is logically dependent on "existence".]

to [consciousness alone cannot change existence]?

[The subject of Rigor and Ayn Rand's critics in academia.]

I think the claim that Objectivism lacks rigor in some regards is valid. And if it’s true, it’s not necessarily a knock against Objectivism, as I think that the “rigorous” alternatives to Objectivism are weaker philosophies, rigor or not.

[Obama and Why The Peikoff Argument Does Not Apply]

I did vote for Obama, and I wouldn't change that vote if I could. McCain would be doing the same thing as Obama is, just less eloquently.

IMO one interesting effect of Obama's win is that the Democratic opposition seems to be focused on economic issues, rather than religious issues as in some years past.

[What is the antonym of judgment?]

"Mercy" is the closest thing I can think of.

[The Fallacy of Composition]

Your argument about whether a deterministic person could distinguish between herself being correct or if she was making an error is the same as the one a skeptic makes for a volitional being, "Man can make mistakes, so you might be wrong, even if there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that you are." That is an arbitrary claim and can be rejected.

Those are arbitrary claims, I suppose, but that isn't my argument. But I will note that in one case there may be something you that you don't know but could have and will be able to know and in another case there is something you couldn't have known and may never be able to know.

Taking one who makes an error in judgement:

If she is volitional, that she may be wrong because she doesn't know something is arbitrary and should be rejected as you say.

My argument, that the universe's initial state is such that, if she is deterministic, it either

1. was impossible for this person to have not made the error or
   
2. will be impossible for this person to ever rectify her error,
   

is not arbitrary. Surely you acknowledge these facts?

I'm not saying determinism is erroneous because of the above, but it does impact the idea of knowledge (and dependent subjects) in a deterministic world, take it for what you will.

[The Fallacy of Composition]

What you require of volitional entities, namely that they check out everything in their minds against reality, make sure that their predictions match reality, etc. are all possible to a determinist entity, in principle. Sure, they may make an error, but if they are applying the correct method, they will, by the nature of reality, have to come across the problem.

How would a deterministic person tell whether X is objectively correct or whether X is objectively incorrect, but she is determined to believe X was correct?

The issue isn't that she can't be guaranteed that she's correctly distinguishing one from the other. That, as I believe you have stated, woud apply to volitional beings as well.

The issue is that

1. If the universe's initial state is "wrong" (i.e. is an initial state that determines that she will distinguish X incorrectly), it is impossible for her to distinguish X correctly; if the universe's initial state is "misleading" (i.e. is an initial state that determines that she won't find out that she is distinguishing X incorrectly), it is impossible for her to find out that she was distinguishing X incorrectly.
   
2. it is impossible to know whether the universe's initial state is "wrong" or "misleading" in terms of X.
   

Do these impossibilities exist for a volitional person?

[Rand's argument against determinism]

It's an "if then" argument... if it's true, then there's this paradox.

Are you sure? Can you state this paradox?

[hunterrose and some others] who have argued here have immediately switched into must-prove-determinism-false mode, and consequently their arguments have not addressed the issues I put forth originally (for example... since the paradox is "if-then" and since the "if" conditions are not assumed, [hunterrose's] accusation of an "unsupported paradox" is meaningless).

Then I'll make it more meaningful for you.

if modern science shows that everything in the universe is ruled by natural laws and that every effect has a cause, then how can we possibly get around determinism? That is, suppose I accept the argument I challenged above: man is volitional. Then man somehow exercises free will independent of pre-existing physical realities; but since no physical system acts independently of the pre-existing physical realities, it follows that some aspect of volition is nonphysical... Yet the conclusion that some aspect of volition is nonphysical implies that science will never ever fully explain cognition in purely physical terms.

If determinism is true and volition exists, then volition is supernatural, then it is outside the realm of science. That seems true, but that is not a paradox.

It would be a paradox for Objectivists if Objectivists believed 1) volition exists even if determinism is true and 2) volition is within the realm of science. Do you understand why?

suppose science one day does explain cognition in purely physical terms; it would therefore follow that volition is an illusion. But for the above reasons, we can't draw that conclusion definitively; but neither can we ignore scientific findings.

If science explained human action in purely physical terms and anything explainable in physical terms was deterministic, then volition would be false, then the only way Objectivists could believe in volition would be by ignoring scientific findings. That also seems true, but that is not a paradox.

It would be a paradox for Objectivists if Objectivists believed 1) anything explainable in physical terms was deterministic and 2) believing in volition does not require ignoring scientific findings. Do you understand why?

<Deep breath>

1. If science explained cognitive knowledge in purely physical terms and anything explainable in physical terms was deterministic, then
   
2. determinism is true, then
   
3. there is no way that a determinist can distinguish whether any cognitive knowledge is objectively true from whether he is merely determined to think so.
   

That would be a paradox for a determinist who believed that, say 1) determinism wasn't scientifically unprovable and 2) a determinist can distinguish whether a determinism proof is objectively true from whether he is merely determined to think it is true and distinguish whether a determinism proof is objectively false from whether he is merely determined to think it is false. Do you understand why?

Strictly speaking, the Objectivist paradoxes do not exist when your if-clauses (as you framed them) are false - but that's not why they're unsupported. Your paradoxes are unsupported because, even if your if-clauses are true, they aren't self-contradictory in terms of Objectivism.

[The Fallacy of Composition]

I do not think the question [whether inanimate matter is capable of producing, through a particular causal chain, only one series of events] is one that requires specific scientific proof; I would place it in the scope of general philosophy, and I think the answer necessarily follows from the law of identity applied to existents over a span of time.

When you get back: Aren't you using philosophical axioms (i.e. not using science) to defend your determinist beliefs, and then requiring that volition be scientifically proven?

[Rand's argument against determinism]

Several times I asked the author of this post to give clear examples of systems which are not dependent on their initial physical conditions, and he/she repeatedly refused to do so. His failure in this regard renders this argument regrettably unsubstantiated.

Have you given up on your unsubstantiated paradox?

[The Fallacy of Composition]

If every interaction between every particle and every other particle in the universe can be described by a set of deterministic equations, then there is only one possible future.

I agree.

Let's say that this set of equations predicts that I will do X tomorrow, and I subsequently don't. Do you agree that this would be evidence that I have volition?

#101If inanimate matter is capable of producing, through a particular causal chain, only one series of events, then it seems volition itself should be capable of producing only one series of events.

Do you have scientific proof that inanimate matter is capable of producing, through a particular causal chain, only one series of events? Or is this one of your axioms?

[The Fallacy of Composition]

But the idea that every action of a particle (let alone a human) is caused by outside forces is not science. How would you disprove it??? Exactly: it's axiomatic.

We have no evidence for anything other than deterministic or stochastic processes in nature. And so there is no reason to believe that anything else exists. Such a belief would be arbitrary at best.

When you are starting with the axiom that every action of a particle is caused by outside forces, it's impossible to accept any possibility of the non-deterministic/stochastic.

If a particle acts for an unknown reason, you are already ignoring it and saying that "there is every reason to believe that it behaves in a deterministic manner." And when humans act in ways that in no way appear to be deterministic, you are ignoring these actions and falling back on your axiom that things made of determined particles are themselves determined.

What would constitute evidence of non-determinstic/stochastic action? If nothing qualifies, then that's more indicative of your reliance on an axiom to make your case.

[The Fallacy of Composition]

I don't use the FOC because it falls utterly flat... The attempt to exempt the human brain from this principle [that objects composed of deterministic particles are necessarily determined] is an instance of the fallacy of special pleading.

You and every other volitionist rejects that "principle." You fault the fallacy of composition for that?

The argument from a determinist view is primarily an argument from physics... (I discount the "well its an axiom" argument because it does not address the flaw in the above argument).

Scientific experiments show that the effect of gravity on a human is determined. So while we couldn't say that every action of a person is determined, we can say that some are. That's science.

But the idea that every action of a particle (let alone a human) is caused by outside forces is not science. How would you disprove it??? Exactly: it's axiomatic.

If you don't like pro-volition axioms, that's fine. But why are you then accepting pro-determinism axioms as if they were proven science?

[The Fallacy of Composition]

To say that if all the parts of a system are determined then the whole system is determined is not to commit the fallacy of composition, for determinism is clearly the sort of property that "carries over" from parts to whole.

This reasoning does seem sound to me. There has never been an example of a system (as far as I am aware) where determinism hasn't "carried over" from parts to whole.

If you were to say "all the parts of a system are determined according to the law of gravity,so the whole system is determined according to the law of gravity," then that indeed makes sense.

Add in as many additional laws as you want, and it'd still make sense.

The problem with Van Inwagen's statement is that there actually is no Law of Determinism that says that every action of a particle is determined by its environment.

Such a theoretical law may make sense from a philosophic sense (and I think determinists kinda count on the sanction of their volitionist victims here) but it's not valid science.

[Michael Jackson dead.]

I learned not to respond to insults, because there's nothing to gain from talking to people who use them. If you think my posts sound idiotic, you don't have to read them.

That's one option. I've learned to not let false insults slide, because there's something to lose in allowing slander to stand as "facts."

If you found my prior post so insulting, I'll apologize and rephrase that it's a shame if you can't appreciate what Michael did in life, but don't go out of your way to piss on his grave. But note that calling Michael a pedophile is more insulting and unsubstantiated than anything I've said.

I don't know the details of Marilyn Monroe's life, except that she abused sleeping pills, but Joe DiMaggio was the guy she loved and he was not self-destructive nor childish by any means!

I didn't mean to insult Marilyn - I quite like her. What I meant was that criticizing Michael for drugs and association with kids is like insulting Marilyn for drugs and association with pornographers - it's part disingenuous and part irrelevant when you consider the overwhelming value these two brought to life.

[Michael Jackson dead.]

The facts are that [Michael] was incredibly self destructive, he surrounded himself with children, and he died from drug addiction.

The facts are that Marilyn was incredibly self destructive, surrounded herself with people much worse than children, and died from drugs. What's your point?

It irks me when people go out of their way to criticize the dead for spurious reasons, even more so when said dead have left an undeniable positive effect on the world through their life's work. Jake, it's a shame if you can't appreciate what Michael did in life, but it sounds idiotic to go out of your way to piss on his grave.

Even though I wouldn't say Marilyn was as great a person as Michael, I would agree that she was a great person despite her faults.

[Rand's argument against determinism]

Every particle in the universe obeys a set of laws which determine its actions in all cases, so the brain acts deterministically. That is a logical conclusion.

Which scientific law says that every particle obeys a set of laws which determine its actions in all cases??? Which set of laws can determine every particle's action in every case??? Are you assuming either exists??

It's unfortunate that you're using unsubstantiated ideas of science to say that the only way volition can coexist with reality is by the power of the supernatural/souls/magic.

The brain is composed solely of particles, and every action of every one of those particles is determined by the laws of physics. As a result, the brain's actions as a whole are determined by the laws of physics. The only way for that to not be the case is if there were something other than matter/energy in the brain, a "soul".

Either you're making this case for determinism using some heretofore Theory of Everything, or you're using the fallacy of composition.