Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jacob86

Regulars
  • Posts

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    Jacob86 got a reaction from Amaroq in The Illusion of Free Will   
    Harris rejects free-will because he seems to realize (rightly) that it necessitates a supernatural soul.

    Objectivism (rightly) insists on free-will because of its logical necessity to reason.. but conveniently ignores the logical necessity of supernature to free-will.

    I don't want to turn this into an argument for God per se.. but I would like to ask how Objectivists explain the possibility of free will without a supernatural mind/soul. How can free will (and therefore reason) be possible if Man's mind/soul is not free (i.e. distinct) from physical cause and effect?
  2. Like
    Jacob86 reacted to Plasmatic in Light and the Law of Identity   
    Cherring metaphysics is at the foundation of all knowledge. Philosophy has the veto on any special science in regards to invalid use of concepts such as incommensurate characteristics etc. Anyway Bohm does not have this contradiction from what I understand. You are in agreement with Peikoff and Harriman on this issue by the way.
  3. Like
    Jacob86 reacted to brian0918 in Light and the Law of Identity   
    Two concepts that were once thought to refer to different things (particle, wave), now turn out to overlap in terms of their referents (e.g. light). Their usefulness for describing how the universe works has been exhausted - the context in which those concepts are useful has been delimited. New concepts will have to be created to better understand the full range of observations.

    The appearance of a contradiction is simply a guide for furthering one's understanding: since contradictions can't exist, I will have to determine exactly what about my current conceptual understanding is presenting the appearance of a contradiction.
  4. Downvote
    Jacob86 got a reaction from dream_weaver in The Illusion of Free Will   
    Harris rejects free-will because he seems to realize (rightly) that it necessitates a supernatural soul.

    Objectivism (rightly) insists on free-will because of its logical necessity to reason.. but conveniently ignores the logical necessity of supernature to free-will.

    I don't want to turn this into an argument for God per se.. but I would like to ask how Objectivists explain the possibility of free will without a supernatural mind/soul. How can free will (and therefore reason) be possible if Man's mind/soul is not free (i.e. distinct) from physical cause and effect?
  5. Downvote
    Jacob86 got a reaction from Xall in Argument for the existence of God   
    I apologize for the Hiatus. I've been fairly busy lately, but I will continue to respond as I have time.


    This again? Lol. You know that I agree that existence exists. I've also labored to show how this does not answer the question. You wouldn't say "existence exists" to a scientist asking questions about the cause of a particular existent acting the way that it does. So why do you say it in a philosophy discussion which talks about the causes of non-volitional entities acting in general. You know I am not asking for an explanation to existence as such but rather to the action for non-volitional existents. In respect to answering the question at hand, the axiom is irrelevant here. So please, choose one of those options or suggest a better alternative which actually addresses the issue.



    I apologize but I am not super familiar with the logical notation of arguments. I have, however, explained and re-explained my reasoning multiple times.
    My position assumes the following:
    1) The law of identity- entities only act according to their nature
    2) The impossibility of an infinite regress
    3) Entities either act as a reaction or volitionally
    Do you dispute any of the above?
    From these assumptions (which I think are more than warranted), my position observes that there is action in the universe.
    This action is either reactionary or volitional. If it is reactionary, then the prior action which it rests upon is either reactionary or volitional. No matter how far you want to go back, there must be a beginning- meaning there must be a volitional action which gave rise to reactionary action.




    You tell me? Were the masses "placed" there? If so, yes..prior action was involved (volitional action in this case). Were they caused to be there as a result of something else acting upon them? If so, yes.. prior reactionary action was involved. If no, did they spring into existence magically?


    Ok... and I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't see the relevance. Regardless of the many different types of energy and action, it is all either reactionary or volitional...or it violates the law of identity. Take your pick.
  6. Like
    Jacob86 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Argument for the existence of God   
    Agreed. I'm glad that you seem to understand how the progression of an argument should unfold.


    Yes. I assume the impossibility of an infinite regress. More below..


    You equate "physical reality" with "existence" here and in so doing you assume that nothing but "physical reality" exists...which sort of begs the question....



    It's difficult for me to discern what exactly you are trying to get across here, so I will refrain from a specific reply for now.
    I will, however, admit that my original post and formulation of my argument was somewhat weak (easily misunderstood and sloppy). I would like to refer you to my more recent formulation of it which I suppose is sort of a condensed and altered version of Aristotle's Prime Mover Argument:
    1)Entities can only act in accordance with their nature
    2)Entities by nature either act as a reaction to prior action or they act volitionally.
    3)All reactions require prior action.
    4)Therefore there must be volitional action which began the "reactionary chain" of action.

    As mentioned above, this does assume the impossibility of an infinite regress.. for good reason. The postulation of an infinite regress is merely an evasive device which is seemingly complex enough to distract everyone in order to provide enough time to evade the issue. I have stated my argument against an infinite regress in the "Infinite Quantity" Thread and thus far no one has responded.
    In summary it is as follows:
    A "regress" is a series stretching back into the past. An "infinite regress" is supposed to denote a series stretching into the past forever (without beginning). But if a series does not begin, then it does not exist. Therefore to posit an infinite regress is to posit that a non-existent series exists.
  7. Like
    Jacob86 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Argument for the existence of God   
    Please see my many previous posts where I emphasize that I agree with the Objectivist here on the issue of how concepts are formed (i.e. ultimately through perception). All words are developed ultimately through perception. I agree. I agree. I agree. I do not disagree.
    Take this sentence:
    "All entities (whether perceived or not) have identity and for any and all entities, they are not "not-themselves" at the same time and in the same respect"
    Which is another way of saying that
    "The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction 'apply' to any and all entities".

    You seem to be emphasizing that each individual word in the sentence is reducible to perception. I agree.
    However, I do not think that the principle or truth to which the sentence refers is reducible to the perceptual. It does not seem possible to perceive the application of the law of identity to any and all entities.
    If you think that it is, please demonstrate it.
  8. Like
    Jacob86 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Argument for the existence of God   
    I assume that you wish to stress the parts which I underlined... and I underlined them because I wish to stress that I agree. But I would like to add that it is a mute point. My assertion that "the truthfulness of "A is A" is not dependent upon perceptual observations" in NO WAY denies/undercuts/ignores/belittles/evades the fact that I used perceptual observation to form the concepts which are spoken of in that sentence. This distinction must be grasped. There is a difference between how I developed the ideas and that upon which the truthfulness of the ideas themselves depend. The objective truthfulness of "A is A" is not dependent upon my perceptual observations. My subjective discovery and formation of "A is A" is dependent upon my perceptual observations. This is a crucial distinction.
    I DO NOT care about the subjective discovery and formation of concepts- because we all agree on that process and because as I have attempted to stress before; it belongs to the realm of Cognitive Science rather than Epistemology because it is obsessed with the subjects development of ideas rather than the objective systematic ordering of truth and truth criteria. It's tantamount to a Linguistics Professor declaring that Philosophy is dependent upon Linguistics/Language because the philosopher never would have been able to understand or communicate any ideas without language and that therefore all Philosophical ideas must bow the knee to Linguistic ideas. The grave mistake being made is the confusion of the subjective dependence upon language (in the philosophers development of ideas) and the objective independence of ideas in reality. No one would object to the Philosopher saying that truth and reason is not dependent upon language in spite of the face that language is being used to communicate this true idea. Nor would anyone object to the fact that biology is dependent upon chemistry in spite of the fact that one must be a biological creature in order to know and say such a thing.

    SO, when I refer to "establishing" or "validating" or "proving" something to be true apart from perception, I DO NOT mean that my mind is suddenly being mystically disconnected from reality [any more than the Chemistry professor is pretending that he is not a biological creature in asserting Chemistry's foundation to Biology]. I am speaking about the truth criteria; that which is necessary to know and to demonstrate and to establish that a proposition is true.... not the process of discovery of the concepts used in the proposition.

    If I have not made this distinction clear enough, I don't know how else to communicate it.







    Because both volition and reason require and imply freedom from the physical cause and effect system of the physical universe-- which is impossible unless there is some non-physical aspect which is free. If the activity in your brain is no different than the activity in your stomach (i.e molecules deterministically bumping into each other), then there is no reason to consider the activity in your mind to be correspondent to reality any more than that of your stomach.


    Would you rather call it "Testability"? The assumption really has many different names and expressions. I'm after the content not the label. If someone has a better label, go for it.

    A few have hinted at it by claiming that my arguments were absurd/arbitrary/false because they lacked empirical data.
    The point is that if one's definition of absurd/arbitrary is "that which lacks empirical data" then this very definition is absurd and arbitrary by its own standards.


    Agreed. However you want to word it, I am simply stressing that the proposition that "contradictions cannot/do not exist" must be objectively and universally true- regardless of the subject in question. If you think that this implies a "Universal Subject" (i.e. God), then that is a problem for your worldview- not mine. As I said before, I wouldn't argue for that particular conclusion right now, but I suspect that this (feared) conclusion is what is being avoided. If so, it begs the question.
    If "A is A" (along with all of its correlaries) is not universally true about all of reality (meaning if it is possible for something in reality to contradict itself), then no knowledge of anything is possible. Or to put it differently, all knowledge is utterly dependent upon the objective and universal truthfulness of "a is a".
    This means that "a is a" must be more than an artful tool in our cognitive bag of tricks. If it is simply the memorized commonality of that which we have perceived, then it is possible for a to be non-a... which means that no cognitive grasp of anything is possible.



    And this reminds me that I need to consider writing a response to the ASD.
  9. Like
    Jacob86 reacted to Plasmatic in Argument for the existence of God   
    Jacob said:



    Yes I agree and understand. Any Oist who rejects this does not understand Rand.
  10. Downvote
    Jacob86 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Argument for the existence of God   
    I think I've made it clear though that when I speak of logic being metaphysical, that I don't mean that reality must "obey" the laws in the same we that we must. I mean that reality simply is (and "must be" in the sense that we must understand that it simply is) logical, i.e. non-contradictory... and this must be understood apart from appealing to sense perception.
    Because, if we must appeal to sense perception in order to prove that reality is "logical" (i.e. does not contain any contradictions) than we imply that it is possible for reality to contain contradictions which is absurd.
  11. Like
    Jacob86 got a reaction from Grames in Argument for the existence of God   
    I'm going to assume that the major point of discussion now is that "A"- "An actual infinite cannot exist".

    There are three options here:

    Option 1: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible, but you don't agree that this necessitates an "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" or "necessary being". In this case, please point out what OTHER point of my argument you disagree with. ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in "option 3" of this position.

    Option 2: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible and you agree that this necessitates an uncaused cause/prime mover/necessary being- but this is not necessarily "God". In this case, I will suspend discussion (for now) on proving that it is "God", until a decent amount of people arrive at this option (assuming any will)! ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in options 1 & 3 of this position.

    Option 3: You disagree that an actual infinite is impossible.


    ****Please, Everyone who responds: Clarify where you stand! For the sake of taking this conversation seriously. If you stand at option 3, it's pretty obvious, but if you stand at either 1 or 2, please make it known, as this is not as obvious.
  12. Downvote
    Jacob86 reacted to RationalBiker in Argument for the existence of God   
    That's all I need to hear. Thanks.



  13. Like
    Jacob86 reacted to Plasmatic in Argument for the existence of God   
    He'll no! He has no idea what he's talking about! He has to assume LI and all it's corollaries to even make the stupid mistake many physicist have made in not understnading the foundational nature of philosophy. Let's not waste
    any more time on such nonsense in this thread.

    Need more time to respond to your other posts....
  14. Like
    Jacob86 got a reaction from ctrl y in Argument for the existence of God   
    The following is an attempt to make clear the angle at which I am coming at this issue in relation to Objectivism. I say "attempt" not because I think my efforts are lacking but because I fear even such a careful and elaborate explanation will be ignored by responders who wish to evade the actual subject of the discussion.



    Objectivism claims that existence is a given- which cannot be proved or disproved and is beyond question. Fine. But they then proceed to espouse a worldview which logically contradicts the possibility of existence. This does not negate existence, but it does negate those parts of the worldview which contradict the possibility of existence. I agree that we must assume existence, but we also must formulate a worldview which adequately integrates existence.

    “Explaining existence would require stepping outside of existence”. Exactly! Therefore a rational worldview must have an existent for which there is no outside explanation- an existent which is entirely explained in and of itself- a “Necessary Existent”. The Objectivist hastily says that this thing is Nature or “the physical Universe”- for no apparent reason other than that it happens to be the biggest and most all encompassing thing they can conceive of. Then, when a person questions the suitableness of Physical Nature to be considered as this Necessary Existent, the Objectivist repeats the fact that there is no explanation to existence. The Objectivist here has misunderstood the question (or is evading it). The question is not “what is the explanation for existence?”. The question is “Is the physical universe an adequate candidate to be considered the Necessary Existent?” Or “Does the physical universe have or require an outside explanation- which would bar it from being the Necessary Existent?” This question does not violate the axiom “Existence Exists” in any way. Rather, if asked genuinely, it is an honest expression of genuine devotion to the axiom- seeking to fully integrate it into one’s worldview without exception (even if it is difficult or counter-intuitive).

    A person with integrity who genuinely wishes to be logically consistent with the axiom that “Existence exists” would be eager to scrutinize any and all candidates for the position of “Necessary Existent”. He would not passively allow this position to be filled by any random assumption or whim. The constant reply from Objectivists when asked about explanations for Physical Nature demonstrate that they have done just that- they have passively allowed “the physical universe” to become synonymous with “Existence as such” or “Necessary Existence” without even realizing that they have done it. The two ideas have become so interlocked in their worldview, that they interpret the question “must there be an explanation for the physical universe?” as “must there be an explanation for existence?”. They have filled the category of “an existent without outside explanation” with a particular existent called “the physical universe”- but their inability to distinguish between the above questions demonstrates that they were likely never even aware that such a category existed in the first place- let alone that any candidate to fill such a category must be logically scrutinized.

    “To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.” –Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs it? p25.

    Here Rand seems to make the assumption mentioned above. The Theist agrees that” Existence exists, and that therefore _____________cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence”. In general, the blank could be filled by “Existence as such”, but this doesn’t help because it does not specify which existent is being discussed. The Theist is not content to throw just ANY existent in that blank. It is a holy blank and must not be filled passively. For instance- neither the Theist nor the Objectivist would fill the blank with “I” or “My spouse” or “Mt. Everest” or even “The Earth”. Why? Because it is immediately obvious that none of those things fit the context. Each could easily be annihilated and go out of existence. Rand surely thought that “nature” or “the universe as a whole” was sufficient and safe to fill that blank because of her explicit definitions of those terms. She defines “nature” and “the universe” as “the sum total of all existents”. Well, if this is the case, then she certainly has some breathing room as it is illogical to say that “all that exists can be annihilated”. However, in addition to the explicit meanings she attributes to those terms (Nature and Universe), there is the implicit meaning which she also attributes but does not mention as explicitly. She (and most Objectivists) mean “physical nature” and the “physical universe” when they speak of nature and the universe. They are making the assumption up front that physical matter is the only actual form of existence, and then “packaging” that assumption into their definition of the Universe as “all existents”. Therefore, when Rand says “universe” or “all existents”, we should read “the physical universe” and “all physical existents”. In this case, she may not have as much breathing room as it seemed. Perhaps there is good reason to assume that there are other forms of existents which are not physical. In this case, what she means by “nature” and “universe” surely cannot fill the blank. Perhaps there are certain things about "the physical universe" that make it difficult to imagine that it is the Necessary Existent....like the fact that it is only a category referring to many separate entities-each of which does not seem sufficient to fill the blank in and of itself... or the fact that each physical entity seems to have the capability of being annihilated and therefore it does not seem impossible for all physical entities to be annihilated...or the fact that physical entities are mutable while it would seem that a Necessary Existent would not be mutable, etc...

    Because of many such difficulties the physical universe does not seem qualified to fill the blank any more than “Mt Everest" is- and for the same reasons.

    Ignoring the difficulties does not make them go away and ignoring them in the name of "upholding the Axiom of Existence" is tantamount to an Altruist ignoring Objectivism in the name of "upholding morality".

    THIS is the "worldview" or "paradigm" or "angle" at which I am approaching this issue. I am convinced that it is the right approach. The majority of my arguments on this forum have been in the form of questioning the suitability of physical nature to be considered the "ultimate" or "necessary" thing.
  15. Downvote
    Jacob86 got a reaction from dream_weaver in Argument for the existence of God   
    I'm going to assume that the major point of discussion now is that "A"- "An actual infinite cannot exist".

    There are three options here:

    Option 1: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible, but you don't agree that this necessitates an "uncaused cause" or "prime mover" or "necessary being". In this case, please point out what OTHER point of my argument you disagree with. ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in "option 3" of this position.

    Option 2: You agree that an actual infinite is impossible and you agree that this necessitates an uncaused cause/prime mover/necessary being- but this is not necessarily "God". In this case, I will suspend discussion (for now) on proving that it is "God", until a decent amount of people arrive at this option (assuming any will)! ALSO, please aid me in convincing those in options 1 & 3 of this position.

    Option 3: You disagree that an actual infinite is impossible.


    ****Please, Everyone who responds: Clarify where you stand! For the sake of taking this conversation seriously. If you stand at option 3, it's pretty obvious, but if you stand at either 1 or 2, please make it known, as this is not as obvious.
×
×
  • Create New...