[Notes on "The Evidence of the Senses"]

All arguements against the axioms are self refuting and also validates them. How can you put forth an arguement against existence? And with what tools would you argue it with? Logic? Logic is based on reality, and states that A=A. You cant simulatneously persue logical argumentation while denying the priciples that is is derived from. The reason that the axioms can not be 'unproven' is because what is proof without an independent reality in which the proofs relate. How do you prove consciousness? By means of unconsciousness? How do you even tell the difference between the proved and unproved without admitting identity? Asking one to prove existence, consciousness and identity literally translates to "Prove that proof is proveable." George Smith wrote eloquently:

"Like all skeptics, you seem to think that you can assume as true the very thing you are trying to disprove, and you attempt to skirt this problem by stipulating that you are diong so for practical purposes becasue we make these assumptions in everyday life. You claim that, as a philosopher, you have discovered reasons to doubt the validity of sense perception. My point is this: regardless of whether you call your use of language 'practical' or whatever, by attempting to communicate you commit yourself to a certain philsophic context-namely, the context that makes communication possible. Once you are working within this context, it is completly irrational to turn around and declare that the foundation of that context are rationally unfounded. If the premise that our senses give us accurate knowledge of reality has no basis in reason, then any arguement that occurs within that context has no basis in reason either-which includes your arguement." - Atheism: C.A.G.

Dr. Peikoff showed how the idea behind denial in this context is disagreement. However, for the sake of the arguement, he postulates to the denier that there is no such thing as disagreement, everyone believes the same thing. When the skeptic replies that this is obsurd and that he disagrees with many different people. The question is, by starting off on the assumtion that there is no reality and therefore no subject matter, what is there to disagree about? Nothing exists. Or maybe we are both right at the same time. No?

You can not speak unequivically about consciousness without the primacy of existence. To talk about non-conscoiusness in terms of consciousness. is a blatant contradiction. To deny or assent to anything is to conclude, therefore your implicitly acting on the assupmtion that your awareness is valid and that your are conscious. There is no I or mind without it. You can't use it in the attempt to deny it. Simple logical fallacy when the conclusion denies the premises. The same goes for all Objectivist axioms.

Hope this helps

Thank you very much for illuminating this subject for me. I unfortunately have been tainted by the influence of Skepticism (it's an old habit). That is why I am so attracted to Objectivism: because it is the only rational philosophic system I have encountered that assuages my sometimes baseless skepticism. I owe a great deal to Miss Rand in this regard. I have yet to read only Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, and For the New Intellectual; so I do not possess a grasp of the more subtle aspects of Objectivism (namely, concept formation).

[A question concerning perceptions.]

Stay tuned for the next spellbinding chapter of "The Evidence of the Senses" wherein the doctrine of sensationalism is confronted and given the evil eye.

"The key question then is whether the physiological processes of integration that make possible depth perception, the constancies, and other features distinguishing perceptual from sensational awareness provide any reason for considering perception indirect." - Kelley

I feel as if I am awaiting the newest installment of my favorite soap opera!

Seriously, though, I am looking forward to this.

[Notes on "The Evidence of the Senses"]

By speaking.

Could you please elaborate on that?

[A question concerning perceptions.]

I would like to thank everyone for their assistance in this matter. All of these posts have been very helpful. I eagerly await any further elucidation.

[Notes on "The Evidence of the Senses"]

I hear Objectivists state that by attempting to deny the three axioms, one is unintentionally affirming them; namely, they cannot be disproven.

Can anyone provide information as to why this is so? For example, if one denies the primacy of existence, how is he implicitly confirming the axiom?

[A question concerning perceptions.]

Also, excuse my initial posts horrendus spelling errors. I was very tired when I wrote it.

[A question concerning perceptions.]

Do you go to a psychiatrist, and/or take any medications for delusions and/or schizophrenia? Do you see objects or hear voices other people cannot see/hear?

If you have a normal, healthy brain than if you are "seeing" objects then those objects your perceptual organs are giving you are "out there," they really do exist.

There is nothing about your sense-organs, which give them the ability to "construct" an external world.

I am not under treatment for a mental disorder, nor do I have one. I am simply trying to resolve a question that occurred to me a few days ago. I know intuitively that my conclusion was erroneous; I just couldn't quite put my finger on my mistake. Hence I posted it as a topic for discussion. I appreciate everyone's responses--they are clarifying the issue for me. However, you don't have to be so rude as to intimate that I am psychologically unsound.

Thank you.

[A question concerning perceptions.]

First, I wanted to point out, that you chose to use the term "re-construction", which obviously means "to construct again."

Given the context of what you are describing, the implication is that "construction of the external world" had already taken place and then whatever you meant by "mental" has constructed the external world again.

The implication of the external world being previously constructed, has many bizarre consequences.

Hopefully you did not intend imply that the external world was somehow first constructed then our body/mind somehow constructs it again.

Your question:

Our body's organs which provide use with sense-perception, and the method and/or mechanism of how they provide us with sense perceptions are deterministic, i.e., non-volitional, and operate via the law of identity.

The sense-perception organs provide us with sensory information in a particular "form".

If we had different perceptual organs, we would perceive the objects of the world in different "forms".

But, the "object" we perceive is still the object, no matter by what "form" it is perceived.

Thus all forms of perception are valid.

Thank you for point the first part out. No, I of course didn't mean that the world is previously constructed and then "reconstructed." That was poor syntax on my part.

[A question concerning perceptions.]

A very simple way to put this is that you do not see images. You see cats. (Well, if someone takes a picture of a cat and shows it to you, then you do see an image).

Ah, alright. I suppose the question that I meant to ask, but somehow forgot, was: are the things which I am seeing only being seen in my mind? If sensations are being sent from my various senses to my brain, is it not all occurring in the brain? Or is it that I am simply aware of what is there?

[A question concerning perceptions.]

Absolutely not. But re-read what your question says. Suppose that conclusion were true; then that would mean that when you see a cat, the "thing you see" -- the cat, itself -- is only a "mental reconstruction" of something. That implies that the mind projects this reconstruction in some fashion so that there isn't any real cat, just a "reconstruction". That contradicts the further assumption that this is a reconstruction "of what exists objectively".

The only way in which you might hope to save that position would be if you believe in an intermediate projection. Somehow, the cat causes the creation, somewhere, of some non-mental "reconstruction", and then we see only the indirect internal projection of the cat. People have held such ideas, but the obvious problem with that theory is that you wonder, where are these mysterious images that we see? That's why nobody believes that theory -- there are no projected spots inside the head which we see.

The third option is that you have some other interpretation of "mental reconstruction", but then you'll have to explain what exactly you mean. What you literally asked cannot be the case. OTOH it clearly is the case that when you see a cat, there is a mental representation of that cat, which is most certainly not an actual cat. Part of the act of seeing is the creation of that representation.

Do you think you could possibly expound on the first part of your post? I'm afraid I don't exactly follow.

[A question concerning perceptions.]

Can it be argued that when we see, it is really some action of electrons or molecules inside our brain that we think of as sight? Yes, and if you were interested in some particular aspect of biology, that is all that might interest you in some particular context. However, stepping back, would one argue that biological actions are causeless primaries, or would one agree that they are caused by (say) the transmission of some flows via the nervous system? Further, would one argue that those flows are causeless primaries, or that they are caused by the actions of (say) light or sound? And, further, wouldn't one argue that that particular instance light and sound is caused by some particular external object, rather than being a causeless primary?

Yes, they are of course caused. However, the causes and the actual image that I see (hear, taste, sound, and smell) are not the same thing then, are they?

[A question concerning perceptions.]

I will do my best to keep this succinct. (This issue has been bothering me lately, and it strikes me as absurd, only I can't quite put my finger on the cause of this absurdity)

Since our senses pick up information of the world around us--and since this sensory information is carried to our brains vie certain nerve processes--could it not then e argued that the things we see, taste, touch, hear, and smell are only a sort of mental reconstruction of what exists objectively, but not the thing itself? (I know, by the way, that this is very Kantian in nature.)

[A question concerning perceptions.]

I will try to make this as succinct as possible. (Disclaimer: some may find this laughable or absurd, but it has been bugging me incessantly and thus I need some feed-back.)

If my senses receive stimuli from reality and send aforesaid stimuli to my brain via certain nerves and what not, could it not then be argued that what I am seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling are some sort of mental reconstruction of the external world?

Any insights would be tremendously appreciated.