Cognitive relativism

[Mikael]

You are correct, consciousness indeed exists. However, a notion that reality depends on consciousness is incorrect. Consciousness is a faculty of perceiving reality, an entity of a sort. It is capable of changing, but it changes in an objective way, by integrating stimuli into percepts.

We don't have to move or end it here. Look you say:

However, a notion that reality depends on consciousness is incorrect.

This is not my point, my point is that reality is all that exists. Since the mind and it abilities exists, what the mind choses to do changes reality or rather a part of it.

Look if I can change your mind about that the mind can change reality, then reality has changed.

Here is an example: A male and a female decides to choose if they want a child. They choose to do so and actively try to conceive and succeed. This changes reality.

In other words the mind can within the Laws of Nature change reality.

It(consciousness) is capable of changing, but it changes in an objective way, by integrating stimuli into percepts.

You have to explain how both consciousness and the mind changes in an objective way. What do you mean by objective???

Mikael

PS: DavidOdden, you can of course choose to change reality and close this debate. Then I will try to get an answer on how consciousness and the mind can change objectively in "Questions about Objectivism".

[DavidOdden]

PS: DavidOdden, you can of course choose to change reality and close this debate.

Moderators only close threads when people are acting in a destructively irrational manner. Y'all are being very polite, and I appreciate that. OTOH if you (вы) are tired of the debate, you can walk away anytime.

[lex_aver]

This is not my point, my point is that reality is all that exists. Since the mind and it abilities exists, what the mind choses to do changes reality or rather a part of it.

What mind chooses to do changes mind, it is a change of mind. There's nothing unique in that, it's only the fact that some of those changes are volitional that make it different (but that's the other question). But changing your mind does not change any other entity by itself.

A male and a female decides to choose if they want a child. They choose to do so and actively try to conceive and succeed. This changes reality.

The mere decision to conceive a child does not make it happen, would be parents have to make more than mental effort to do that. And that means that to change according to your decision an entity you have to actively interact with it. Reality is a concept, conglomerate, not an integrated whole, that's why you can't influence anything except your mental state by mere desire.

You could say that your mind obviously influences your body, and that's correct. However, it is fully compatible with what I've said because your mind and body are connected into one integrated whole, which is you, and by nature of that bond your mind can command your body (or not command, consider dreaming about being viking, jedi etc.).

In other words the mind can within the Laws of Nature change reality.

Now, having explained the way mind can change reality, I agree with you, but only in that context.

You have to explain how both consciousness and the mind changes in an objective way. What do you mean by objective???

I hope I've just explained what I meant better than I did previously. And by objective I mean pertaining to a fact, not an opinion.

DavidOdden, at this point my interest in the debate is revitalized, thanks to Mikael reducing his position to essentials.

[Mikael]

As to what the mind can do and can't do I think we agree on the main points. "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" (Francis Bacon)

The X here is Hitler, and the property is evilness. Hitler cannot be evil and not evil at the same time. So unless we're talking about different people (and in that case you should re-read what I wrote earlier about sentences versus statements) our statements contradict each other.

I hope I've just explained what I meant better than I did previously. And by objective I mean pertaining to a fact, not an opinion.

So I ask of you to explain how it a fact and not an opinion that: The X here is Hitler, and the property is evilness.

For you to claim that Hitler was evil, it requires that Hitler existed(objective), that Hitler caused pain and suffering in other humans(partly objective and subjective), that you can understand and feel pain and suffering(subjective), that you can understand that other humans can feel pain and suffering(subjective), that you know that Hitler existed and caused pain and suffering in other humans(partly objective and subjective), that you think it was wrong(subjective).

Alternatively you could explain why I am wrong in how I think you know that Hitler was evil.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

By observation and integration of facts (Hitler's deeds) to discover his property (evilness), just like I do with any other property of any other entity. Maybe you misunderstand what I mean by word evil?

Edited March 17, 2008 by lex_aver

[Mikael]

By observation and integration of facts (Hitler's deeds) to discover his property (evilness), just like I do with any other property of any other entity. Maybe you misunderstand what I mean by word evil?

You see, as far as I can tell you think Hitler was evil, because Hitler was evil whereas I think Hitler was evil because I think Hitler was evil. The difference being than in your version Hitler had the property of being evil and in my Hitler had neither the property of being good or evil, but rather that I think Hitler was evil, then it is because I think Hitler was evil.

Mikkel

[lex_aver]

Let's stick to what is.

[Chops]

Given lex's statement:

Actually, at this point it would be better to end this debate or postpone it.

...has the debate been "opened up" to the public, for conversation or does it remain a formal (read: closed) debate between Lex and Mikael?

Edited March 17, 2008 by Chops

[lex_aver]

No, I decided to keep it running closed after all. But feel free to discuss its points in a concurrent thread--I could use good criticism of my understanding of Objectivism and I think both I and Mikael will not mind answering questions about our respective arguments.

Update: However, in interest of advancing my debating skills, as well as in keeping things sporty, I will not visit that thread until debate ends.

Edited March 17, 2008 by lex_aver

[Mikael]

Let's stick to what is.

Okay, then I will shift away from Hitler to a related situation.

Let us say a killer and philosopher meet in an alley.

Killer: I will kill you if you can't show a Contradiction between my: "I want to kill you" and yours: "I don't want you to kill me".

Philosopher: Your "I want to kill you" is based on an opinion.

K: But so is your: "I don't want you to kill me". The one can't be an opinion and the other a fact. They are both either facts or opinions.

P: I can't find a contradiction. Help me, lex_aver.

Lex, remember cognitive relativism. You have to show that the killer's "I want to kill you" is firstly either True or False and if False then that it contradicts the True "I don't want you to kill me".

Mikael

[Mikael]

...has the debate been "opened up" to the public, for conversation or does it remain a formal (read: closed) debate between Lex and Mikael?

You can still post, but I have chosen not to answer any posts but Lex's. Now if other posts remain manageable for me to answer, then I will try to answer. The reason I chose not to answer any posts but Lex's is that I don't want other posters to expect an answer if it involves in to a one against many. That aside I would appreciate your input.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

There is no contradiction in two men desiring opposite things. It is called a conflict.

The fact that man desires something is a contingent fact, it could have been otherwise and man can always decide to desire the opposite. But once he desires something, at that moment his desire is set in stone, it's a part of the history, so to say. And it is very well observable.

I do not want to discuss concrete situations any longer. Since I assume we both want this debate to end in a meaningful way, let's discuss generalities and use concretes only for illustration, shall we?

[Mikael]

There is no contradiction in two men desiring opposite things. It is called a conflict.

The fact that man desires something is a contingent fact, it could have been otherwise and man can always decide to desire the opposite. But once he desires something, at that moment his desire is set in stone, it's a part of the history, so to say. And it is very well observable.

I do not want to discuss concrete situations any longer. Since I assume we both want this debate to end in a meaningful way, let's discuss generalities and use concretes only for illustration, shall we?

Okay, here is the is-ought problem: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/isoughtdichotomy.html

Now "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." is an generality.

If we need to stick to generalities then how about Man's Nature.

Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason.

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html

Lex, is that okay with you? Or do you want to propose something else or end it here? I leave it up to you. Of course you can always end it, when you want.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

I don't understand why are you departing from stated debate question. If you admit you were wrong, we can always move on and discuss other questions in the appropriate subforum or start another debate, ending this one and allowing others to comment. If you don't, then let's continue, I'm eager to hear your arguments.

[Mikael]

Okay, I will try to state my position.

Included in True statements is the statement that it is True that X is Wrong. Now since you as far as I can tell claim that X is Wrong can only be True or False, then I have been trying to find one example where whether that X is wrong is true or false is relative to a social group or individual.

So if you stick with your comment that:

There is no contradiction in two men desiring opposite things. It is called a conflict.

I gather that in a conflict it is neither True of False that in acting on a desire against another human, this desire X and it's consequent act is neither Right or Wrong, but rather it is relative to a social group or individual if X is right/true or false/wrong.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

Sorry, but I just don't get it. Please, use simpler language constructs.

[KendallJ]

Okay, I will try to state my position.

Included in True statements is the statement that it is True that X is Wrong. Now since you as far as I can tell claim that X is Wrong can only be True or False, then I have been trying to find one example where whether that X is wrong is true or false is relative to a social group or individual.

So if you stick with your comment that: I gather that in a conflict it is neither True of False that in acting on a desire against another human, this desire X and it's consequent act is neither Right or Wrong, but rather it is relative to a social group or individual if X is right/true or false/wrong.

Mikael

Lex, I'll give you a nudge. Mikael, I don't expect you to respond to me, but rather to give lex a nudge. If he chooses to agree, or restate then include your discussion in my debate.

The fact that two men desire different things is undisputable and it is not relative to a social group.

If X desires The Prize, and Y desires The Prize, both X and Y would agree that both of them want The Prize. That is not relative to a social group. This is I believe what Lex meant.

However, what I think you are getting at is that if both of their desires are founded, then there is a problem. Objectivism says there are no conflicts between rational men. That is, the fact that both men desires conflict means that one or both of them has not identified some fact of reality correctly. It is not true that just because some man desires something that it is a desire that is founded on the corresponding identification of truth about reality. Someone is mistaken.

Edited March 17, 2008 by KendallJ

[lex_aver]

I absolutely agree.

[Mikael]

Lex, I'll give you a nudge. Mikael, I don't expect you to respond to me, but rather to give lex a nudge. If he chooses to agree, or restate then include your discussion in my debate.

The fact that two men desire different things is undisputable and it is not relative to a social group.

If X desires The Prize, and Y desires The Prize, both X and Y would agree that both of them want The Prize. That is not relative to a social group. This is I believe what Lex meant.

However, what I think you are getting at is that if both of their desires are founded, then there is a problem. Objectivism says there are no conflicts between rational men. That is, the fact that both men desires conflict means that one or both of them has not identified some fact of reality correctly. It is not true that just because some man desires something that it is a desire that is founded on the corresponding identification of truth about reality. Someone is mistaken.

Lex, I will use this post by Kendall.

Now there are two claims here, which are related:

-there are no conflicts between rational men

-It is not true that just because some man desires something that it is a desire that is founded on the corresponding identification of truth about reality.

I will then restate that this leads to two parts of Objectivism:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/isoughtdichotomy.html

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html

Lex, what do you think? Do I need to explain it more or do you see the same progression in this debate?

Mikael

[lex_aver]

First, I do not want to discuss conflicts of interests, since it is an off-topic. It is obvious that conflicts exist and that man's desires are there objectively.

What I want to discuss is your initial statement, unless you resign.

[KendallJ]

Do I need to explain it more or do you see the same progression in this debate?

I certainly don't see the relevance to the original question. I would think you need to make it explicit.

Edited March 17, 2008 by KendallJ

[Mikael]

I think it is because English is not my primary language I may be thinking the sentences in Danish, so I will try to keep them short.

Cognitive relativism is in its most universal form claim that understanding reality can never be anything but relative and subjective to a given individual. Now I have tried to limit this in this ongoing debate down to moral or ethical statements.

So if I understand Objectivism correct when person A at gun point is told by person B: "Give me your money!" then it is either Objectively Right or Wrong. In other words it is True that it is either Objectively Right or Wrong. So whether an action is right or wrong is not relative to a given individual or indeed subjective.

Lex and Kendall, you Kendall wrote:

However, what I think you are getting at is that if both of their desires are founded, then there is a problem. Objectivism says there are no conflicts between rational men. That is, the fact that both men desires conflict means that one or both of them has not identified some fact of reality correctly. It is not true that just because some man desires something that it is a desire that is founded on the corresponding identification of truth about reality. Someone is mistaken.

This is not directly related to the above situation with "Give me your money!" but ends the same place: Someone is mistaken. In other words "Give me your money!" in a given situation is either Objectively Right or Wrong according to Objectivism.

Now it is then up to me to show how "Give me your money!" is neither Objectively Right nor Wrong, but rather right or wrong relative to a given individual. If you need to go back, you will find I have accepted in this debate: Existence exists, Consciousness and the Law of Identity, plus the Law of Non-Contradiction.

This means in context of when person A at gun point is told by person B: "Give me your money!" that it doesn't contradict Existence exists, Consciousness and the Law of Identity, plus the Law of Non-Contradiction, that it can be wrong for person A and right for person B.

It was therefore and with Kendall's quote in mind that I brought up:

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/isoughtdichotomy.html

http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man.html

So if "Someone is mistaken" is to be True then either person A or B holds "a desire that is founded on the corresponding identification of truth about reality". The other one doesn't hold "a desire that is founded on the corresponding identification of truth about reality" and therefore is Wrong.

From http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/isoughtdichotomy.html

In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between "is" and "ought."

A desire is either True or Wrong in relevance to an ultimate value, which for any given living entity is its own life.

I don't know how I can present my understanding of Objectivism otherwise and based on this I see my task in this debate as showing the following. That one man's ultimate value can conflict with, but doesn't contradict another man's ultimate value.

If I succeed in this there is at least one area where cognitive relativism holds based on the accepted axioms and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

Now I have tried to limit this in this ongoing debate down to moral or ethical statements.

So you think that in every subject of thought truth is achievable, except ethics? That I can be correct about rocks, plants, nuclear reaction, history, even metaphysics, but not about what's proper for me to do, where, you claim, there is nothing but an opinion?

That one man's ultimate value can conflict with, but doesn't contradict another man's ultimate value.

I can easily demonstrate why it's false. Every proper moral judgement necessarily rests on truth, and truth is correct identification of reality, you agreed with that. Now for two conflicting yet proper moral judgments to co-exist, two contradictory yet true identifications must exist, which means that there is at least one entity in the world for which some property both applies and not applies, and that is directly against second axiom.

[DavidOdden]

I think it is because English is not my primary language I may be thinking the sentences in Danish, so I will try to keep them short.

explains a lot!.

[DavidOdden]

I think more value will come from not debating this topic, and instead explaining some essential points.

Cognitive relativism is in its most universal form claim that understanding reality can never be anything but relative and subjective to a given individual.

Okay; now, there is no question that understanding is something that a mind does, and that only an individual has a mind. The idea of an understanding being "relative to an individual" suggests that in addition to objective fact, there is some additional, quasi-mystical element that goes into making an understanding. Objectivism holds that by applying logic to (axiomatic) perceptual knowledge, you can gain other knowledge -- an "understanding". If you don't use logic, then your results can vary quite wildly, but as long as you use logic, then a given set of premises (knowledge context) only results in one conclusion. The only room for individual variation lies in differing knowledge contexts. The epistomologico-ethical position of Objectivism is that one should seek the widest knowledge context possible.

So if I understand Objectivism correct when person A at gun point is told by person B: "Give me your money!" then it is either Objectively Right or Wrong.

That is an easy case: it is, in fact, wrong -- morally false. This is because no minor knowledge fact obliterates the basic fact about the nature of man, which is that man does not by nature live by force. Your argument:

This means in context of when person A at gun point is told by person B: "Give me your money!" that it doesn't contradict Existence exists, Consciousness and the Law of Identity, plus the Law of Non-Contradiction, that it can be wrong for person A and right for person B.

runs aground because it contradicts fact -- it is not good for B to be the victim of a robbery. I think the error you're facing is that you only seek verbal contradictions, and you don't recognize the implicit verbiage relating statements about reality to all of the facts of reality. When you look for the contradictions in theft, you can't just look at small set of statements relating theft to reality, you have to look at the entire context, which includes all of man's nature.