Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

nzcanadian

Regulars
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

nzcanadian's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. dougclayton Doesn't this mean that there are some areas where consciousness can be made to alter existence, even if that part of existence is inside my body? There must be some point at which it stops being consciousness and starts being existence. dougclayton Also we can use drugs to alter our emotions as well: administering chemicals to the brain can affect subjective experience (consciousness). Therefore, there are ways for existence to alter consciousness also. But if atoms are purely physical objects, with nothing but physical properties and physical relations to one another, and my consciousness affects and is affected by atoms, doesn't this mean my consciousness is purely physical?
  2. dougclayton said: How can you argue that consciousness has no ability to affect reality, and then say we have free will (i.e., we can cause our bodies to act upon our desires)? Do you know of any pages explaining Objectivism's stance on the mind-body problem?
  3. Should Occam's Razor be another axiom? Otherwise, how do we stop religious axioms from being introduced? For example, if the axiom "The bible is always true" is introduced, then you have to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, etc. Or is Occam's Razor somehow implied by the first three axioms and their application to our sense data?
  4. Thanks for all the responses. I think I see what you mean with respect to the cogito. It really implies the 3 axioms. However, what if I restricted it to "*Blue Desk*" or "*Happy Agreeableness*" -i.e., only the perception I am getting at any one time? Then it would even be possible to doubt 5+7=12. All I would have is a feeling of it being true. I mean, if we are being strict about it, why stop at the cogito?
  5. So Objectivism has 3 axioms: Consciousness, Existence, and Identity? But couldn't we still just have 1 axiom, as in 'cogito ergo sum'? The reality that I experience with my senses does not need to exist for 'the cogito' be true, any sort of reality might exist. How do you move beyond that first axiom? Also, if we have an axiom for "consciousness", and an axiom for "existence", how do we explain the fact that my consciousness seems to affect reality (i.e., I consciously make decisions and act on them in 'reality')? If my consciousness can affect objective existence, wouldn't that show that it is merely another part of objective existence, and therefore doesn't need its own axiom? Thanks
  6. We are talking about the "subjective" nature of consciousness here, right? Aka, "hard problem"? What evidence is there that a computer could not simulate the behaviour of a human brain in its entirity? Isn't that the materialist viewpoint? How does Objectivism deal with the "hard problem" of consciousness?
  7. Hi, I was wondering if there is a list of the axioms of Objectivism. Also, if axioms are, by definition, unprovable, how can you be sure that these are true and that, say, religious axioms are not (eg, "The bible is always right, if it seems it is wrong, you are wrong")? For example, how do you know that "reality" is evidence for anything?
  8. Would you agree that there must ultimately be some point at where the question "but why?" is no longer answerable? If not, in what form could the "ultimate theory" possibly be, such that it you never have unanswered "why" questions? Is it is possible the idea that "everything is deterministic" and that it has an "underlying model" is a result of intuition (i.e., inductive logic)?
×
×
  • Create New...