Cognitive relativism

[Mikael]

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.

Lex, I am going to make a generalization of your above claim:

Note: the italics designate the existence of evil as viewed respectively by you and me.

Person A does X -> A/X is evil

Person B says A/X is evil

Person C says B/X is not evil

A/X can't be in the same sense and at the time evil and not evil

Yes, your version is true, IFF A/X is OR is not evil

So here is my version:

Person A does X

Person B says A/X is evil, because B thinks A/X is evil

Person C says A/X is not evil, because C thinks A/X is not evil

That B thinks A/X is evil and C thinks A/X is not evil, is not in the same sense and at the time "thinks A/X is evil or is not evil"

Yes, my version is true, IFF an individual thinks A/X is OR is not evil

Lex, based on the axioms, the Objectivistic definition of Truth and the Law of Non-Contradiction it now comes down to if you can show as True that A/X is or is not evil or if I can show that an individual thinks A/X is or is not evil.

Since you made the positive claim first, namely that it is True that A/X is OR is not evil, then it is upon you to show this other than writing that it is the case.

Mikael

[Mikael]

To all.

At the core of this debate is not Existence Exists, Consciousness, The Law of Identity, the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Objectivistic theory of Truth.

The core is how to understand such terms as Reality, The Primacy of Existence, The Primacy of Consciousness and Man's Nature.

It is not whether Existence Exists, but rather where an entity or a property of an entity can be shown to exist.

In the most abstract and general terms my position is this: Because of how I understand The Primacy of Existence and The Primacy of Consciousness I can't reduce the two to one primacy without violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.

In short you could say I am an epistemological dualist, because I hold The Primacy of Existence and The Primacy of Consciousness both to be necessary and irreducible to one or the other.

I hope this makes sense.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

Firstly, making statement about facts based on bare assumptions is a faulty logic. I agree that two persons can make two contradictory arbitrary claims and have no means of validating either, but that's not even close to topic.

Secondly, do you really need full explanation why A or not(A) = true?

[lex_aver]

I hope this makes sense.

It doesn't. Please, elaborate, bring in some facts.

Edited March 18, 2008 by lex_aver

[Mikael]

Firstly, making statement about facts based on bare assumptions is a faulty logic. I agree that two persons can make two contradictory arbitrary claims and have no means of validating either, but that's not even close to topic.

"Person B says A/X is evil" is as arbitrary as "Person B says A/X is evil, because B thinks A/X is evil"

Lex, any utterance in language is by itself arbitrary.

You need to back up that A/X is or is not evil.

You made the claim that Hitler was evil, so back it up, otherwise it is arbitrary. Please state with reference to Reality why Hitler was evil.

Secondly, do you really need full explanation why A or not(A) = true?

No, that is not how I used it. In a formal sense A/X can by your understanding only be OR not be evil. So you need to give reasons why it is True that Hitler was evil.

Mikael

[DavidOdden]

It is not whether Existence Exists, but rather where an entity or a property of an entity can be shown to exist.

It is essential that you arrange the questions in the correct hierarchy. Proof that an entity exists logically depends on the entity existing; an entity can easily exist without there being a proof of its existence, or indeed any consciousness aware of its existence. But there can never be a proof of the existence of an entity, if there is no entity. Thus existence is logically prior to an act of consciousness regarding that existent.

In the most abstract and general terms my position is this: Because of how I understand The Primacy of Existence and The Primacy of Consciousness I can't reduce the two to one primacy without violating the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Certainly not: you cannot have both being logically prior. In fact, existence is logically prior, and consciousness is secondary, or in fact tertiary. Consciousness depends on identity, as shown by the fact that consciousness is an aspect of the identity of some existents, but not all existents. Identity depends on existence (they are not separable, as consciousness and identity are, but the logical flow is that "existence" is the simplest axiom and "existence is identity" elaborates on that).

In order to sensibly talk about whether Hitler was evil, you have to first develop an epistemology, and understanding of personal moral evaluation. Supposing that you have done so (and I don't, but we need to start somewhere), then you only have to look at the historical facts regarding Nazi Germany -- the 20 million deaths, the slave labor camps, the invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, that other country north of France. Unless you intend to proffer a hitherto unsupported theory that Hitler was controlled by space aliens, there can be no rational denial that Hitler willfully caused these events. That is proof that Hitler was evil.

[Marc K.]

Lex, any utterance in language is by itself arbitrary.

This is clearly not true. If it was, how could you be having this conversation?

[Mikael]

It is essential that you arrange the questions in the correct hierarchy. Proof that an entity exists logically depends on the entity existing; an entity can easily exist without there being a proof of its existence, or indeed any consciousness aware of its existence. But there can never be a proof of the existence of an entity, if there is no entity. Thus existence is logically prior to an act of consciousness regarding that existent.Certainly not: you cannot have both being logically prior. In fact, existence is logically prior, and consciousness is secondary, or in fact tertiary. Consciousness depends on identity, as shown by the fact that consciousness is an aspect of the identity of some existents, but not all existents. Identity depends on existence (they are not separable, as consciousness and identity are, but the logical flow is that "existence" is the simplest axiom and "existence is identity" elaborates on that).

"Proof that an entity exists logically depends on the entity existing; an entity can easily exist without there being a proof of its existence, or indeed any consciousness aware of its existence."

Yes, except you to you. Since you are a part of existence exists and a part of you is your consciousness.

"In fact, existence is logically prior"

No, because it is necessary for logic to come into play, that you are conscious. There would be no logic to you without you being conscious. Logic is depending on the view you hold of it a form of knowledge and/or thinking, which both require a thinker/knower.

Existence Exists, the Law of Identity and Consciousness are all necessary and all 3 are required to form you. Now if I said there could be Existence Exists prior to you, how could you know this without all 3.

In order to sensibly talk about whether Hitler was evil, you have to first develop an epistemology, and understanding of personal moral evaluation. Supposing that you have done so (and I don't, but we need to start somewhere), then you only have to look at the historical facts regarding Nazi Germany -- the 20 million deaths, the slave labor camps, the invasions of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, that other country north of France. Unless you intend to proffer a hitherto unsupported theory that Hitler was controlled by space aliens, there can be no rational denial that Hitler willfully caused these events. That is proof that Hitler was evil.

I will keep this part for later, because Lex and I are still going the rounds on that one.

Now back to the Primacy of Existence:

The universe exists independent of consciousness.

It makes no sense what so ever. Now I could leave it at that, but the reason is this:

- so does it mean that consciousness is not a part of universe?

- that you can know the universe exists without knowing it?

- that since your consciousness is a part of you and that you are a part of the universe, that you exist independent of your consciousness?

Mikael

[Mikael]

This is clearly not true. If it was, how could you be having this conversation?

Okay, please read this language Linear A.

Now take f.ex. Hitler was evil. Now according to Lex it means one thing and to me another.

Another example is: Can 2+2=11 be true? Now I have met proponents of Objectivism, who claimed that it was Objectively False that 2+2=11 could be True. It was then explained that 2+2=11 can be true and is true in base 3 and now it was Objectively True. So what changed? Can 2+2=11 be true? Or did the mind change?

Now read this: Mirror Neuron

In understanding each other there are 4 possibilities:

- person A and B can mirror each other

- person A can mirror B, but B not A

- person B can mirror A, but A not B

- neither can mirror the other

In an everyday sense we would replace mirror with understand or think alike. This is indeed an objective fact of reality that this happens everyday. This wouldn't happen if the meaning of language was intrinsic to language, because then the meaning of "Can 2+2=11 be true?" would reside in "Can 2+2=11 be true?" Now it doesn't, does it?

Now there is a progression to cognition; Jean Piaget. The interesting thing is that you can observe all 4 above possibilities. Just replace yourself with A or B.

On a day with a lot of communication I properly encounter all 4. The last one is properly not a question of cognition per se, but rather socialization.

Mikael

[DavidOdden]

"Proof that an entity exists logically depends on the entity existing; an entity can easily exist without there being a proof of its existence, or indeed any consciousness aware of its existence."

Yes, except you to you. Since you are a part of existence exists and a part of you is your consciousness.

This is no exception. It is, rather an instance of the fact that only some existents have consciousness, but all existents exist. That is what it means to say that existence is primary.

"In fact, existence is logically prior"

No, because it is necessary for logic to come into play, that you are conscious.

If nothing exists, there no beings with consciousness and therefore no logic. Before conclusions can be reached, something must exist. Do you know what that is?

It makes no sense what so ever. Now I could leave it at that, but the reason is this:

- so does it mean that consciousness is not a part of universe?

- that you can know the universe exists without knowing it?

- that since your consciousness is a part of you and that you are a part of the universe, that you exist independent of your consciousness?

I don't know how to make this any simpler: I doubt this is a language problem. The universe is what it is ("all that exists"), and that means that the universe exists even if you don't exist, or if your neighbor with a consciousness does not exist. It is pretty certain that for hundreds of years since the Big Bang, the universe existed without there being any consciousness in the universe. The converse cannot be the case.

[lex_aver]

Mikael, why are you repeating arguments I've refuted in the beginning of our debate?

[Mikael]

In fact, existence is logically prior...

It is pretty certain that for hundreds of years since the Big Bang, the universe existed without there being any consciousness in the universe.

Now I am not being facetious or snide, but I do want to acknowledge that you backed up your claim with empirical evidence. It does raise an interesting problem if we allow science to be an judge of philosophy. Namely this, the partly probabilistic nature of QM allows the following just as logical claim: Existence per se does not guarantee consciousness. So this was the claim and the reason is already stated as per QM. In everyday words science tells us that it is not given that if the universe was started from the same initial conditions, i.e. the Big Bang, it doesn't follow the human would have come into existence again.

Even if I concede that the QM probabilistic nature itself wouldn't have prevented the human race to come into existence the probabilistic nature of radioactive decay doesn't exclude that the actual chain of forefathers could have been broken by cancer or mutation for you and/or me.

The problem is that if we go by the method of science then we can only find consciousness if we observe it. The actual existence of something is not validated by claiming it, but observing it.

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

Now for "...existence is logically prior..." to be true it requires Existence Exists, The Law of Identity and Consciousness. Since you yourself use empirical data to verify "...existence is logically prior..." it is so of empirical data that it requires an observer.

If you on the other hand want to revert to pure logic we are then faced with the reverse of the induction problem; you must show that the past logically leads to the present for you to state: "...existence is logically prior...", because science doesn't support that view.

Even if I concede the primacy of the Primacy of Existence, I can't get it to match this:

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."

The bold part is me

You should know that if I have to chose between that

The universe exists independent of consciousness.

and "an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life" I do chose my own life as the Primacy of Existence. This is what my reason "dictate" me.

So here is the updated "scorecard" of what I accept from Objectivism with some mirror reservations:

- Existence Exists, The Law of Identity and Consciousness as necessary conditions.

- The Objectivist theory of Truth IFF Reality includes me.

- "An ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life."

As this has to stop somewhere let me explain in general why I object against the Primacy of Existence (without me or you for that matter). The Primacy of Existence as it stands there is a piece of knowledge and knowledge requires a knower. To state that the universe once had no consciousness in it (humans), requires humans. To debate what came first is pointless when your existence requires that you actually exist now, otherwise you couldn't read this. We as humans can learn from the past and of course the past as it actual happened is a necessary and sufficient condition for you existing right now, but the past only matters, because you exist now. "An ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life."

Mikael

[Mikael]

Mikael, why are you repeating arguments I've refuted in the beginning of our debate?

Lex, how can I explain that the statement "Hitler was evil" is not true, without actually reference to how you point by point arrived as this as a fact.

Take this as an example: You study mathematics, now suppose you were for the first time presented for it in the form of 2+2=4. That is all, 2+2=4; you weren't told anything more than this other that it is true. Wouldn't you question why that is true?

Another more general method is what in philosophy is called methodological doubt. I want you to doubt that "Hitler

was

evil" and equally doubt "Hitler was not evil as in Hitler was not evil.

In both cases examine if either can be true and list the support you can find and see if it logically adds up.

If you don't want to do that, then ask and I will try to present support for both positions in my next post. Lex, here is a quote:

And you should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true. The more general rule is that: I should not assume without proof anything as true, nor should I dismiss anything as false without finding if there is actual proof for it.

Now let me give you a hint. Prove that one should not cause harm to others based on the combination of these two quotes be Ayn Rand and further based on the first explain why the second is true:

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

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."

The bold part is me.

Lex, I am not trying to play with you or anything else of that kind. Life is in part a process where we learn from each other.

And from my point of view you haven't taught me why Hitler was evil. Now as it may be I properly haven't either explained good enough why Hitler was not evil.

Mikael

[KendallJ]

Okay, please read this language Linear A.

Now take f.ex. Hitler was evil. Now according to Lex it means one thing and to me another.

Another example is: Can 2+2=11 be true? Now I have met proponents of Objectivism, who claimed that it was Objectively False that 2+2=11 could be True. It was then explained that 2+2=11 can be true and is true in base 3 and now it was Objectively True. So what changed? Can 2+2=11 be true? Or did the mind change?

This is not any sort of example of relativism. It is simple slight of hand of the meaning of the words. The mind did not change, nor did reality. In fact if you represent the two statements using referents from reality, they would be exactly the same.

Base 10: 2+2=4

Base 3: 2+2=11

are exactly the same things and if you represent this in reality it is represented with 4 objects. To perpetuate this problem as one of falseness vs. trueness, one has to not only omit the context of hte statement 2+2=11, but actually refuse to divulge it. The mind does not change. One simply withholds the TRUE context of the statement (base 3), and relies on another person to default to a more common context. THe fact is that you meant to use the context of base 3, and did not reveal it, and in that context the person who said the statement was false is in error. However it is an honest error because the context of the statement was not revealed. It just seems to have a false sense of drama.

If you are representing Objectivism as being oblivious to context in determining the truth or falsehood of a thing then you misunderstand it entirely.

This is exactly why everyone has been asking you to define your terms because once we are talking in the same terms there is only one way of representing the truth.

[DavidOdden]

To debate what came first is pointless when your existence requires that you actually exist now, otherwise you couldn't read this.

In fact, "primacy" does not refer to chronology, it relates to position in hierarchical knowledge. We don't concern ourselves with chicken vs. egg questions. A "primary" concept is one that others depend on. If you're familiar with the mathematical notion "well-defined", that's what we're talking about. The "consciousness" is well-defined only if "existence" is defined.

[Mikael]

Kendall, it is late in the state of Denmark so I will do this in short version; google brain damage, learning disorders, brain scans, learning and words related to these in different variations. Now what you will find is that when you learn some new your brain change, brain damage can change what people know and can do, including math.

To the bone reality change, when you learn something, because your brain change. I am attacking this from the point of view of cognitive science.

So the point of view of cognitive science is that reality is different from when you don't understand something to you understand something and this show in reality; i.e. your brain change.

Further you could read up on Jean Piaget and cognitive science in general, you might also find mirror neurons interesting.

Now since you want to define terms let us start here:

Is reality everything that exists including your consciousness, mind and brain?

Is reality everything that exists excluding your consciousness, mind and brain?

Or do you want to propose another definition of reality?

I just thought of tabula rasa. Now I don't believe that humans are born with concepts or language, or that you can learn without the rest of reality being there, but my point is a part of reality to you is how you actually think and when you think differently reality change. Further you can't show language as not being dependent on an individual brain.

Mikael

[lex_aver]

Mikael, why are you persisting on what is already refuted? Do you have any new arguments to defend your point? If so, state them laconically.

See http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=171423

Edited March 20, 2008 by lex_aver

[KendallJ]

Kendall, it is late in the state of Denmark so I will do this in short version; google brain damage, learning disorders, brain scans, learning and words related to these in different variations. Now what you will find is that when you learn some new your brain change, brain damage can change what people know and can do, including math.

To the bone reality change, when you learn something, because your brain change. I am attacking this from the point of view of cognitive science.

So the point of view of cognitive science is that reality is different from when you don't understand something to you understand something and this show in reality; i.e. your brain change.

Further you could read up on Jean Piaget and cognitive science in general, you might also find mirror neurons interesting.

Now since you want to define terms let us start here:

Is reality everything that exists including your consciousness, mind and brain?

Is reality everything that exists excluding your consciousness, mind and brain?

Or do you want to propose another definition of reality?

I just thought of tabula rasa. Now I don't believe that humans are born with concepts or language, or that you can learn without the rest of reality being there, but my point is a part of reality to you is how you actually think and when you think differently reality change. Further you can't show language as not being dependent on an individual brain.

Mikael

Well I think I see where you are headed with this, but it misses the whole understanding of the Objectivist epitemology.

The fact that the mechanism of our brains may be in a different configuration does not change the things to which that mechanism refers to in its ideas or concepts. One's brains configuration is certainly relevant to the aspect of whether the ideas it holds conform to their referents (whether your evaluations are correct), but not whether those ideas are true in any way. The truth of the ideas is in the things outside of your brain that they refer to.

Furthermore, if the configuration of our brains did matter, then reality would still be the same for both of us. In other words you and I both would have to take into account the configuration of your brain and my brain both. However, this is irrelevant to the truth of a statement.

If I illustrate. Let's say you use your mathmatical statement to refer to the combination of 2 and 2 things in reality. Regardless of the configuration of your brain, there are still only 4 things in reality. The configuration of your brain, or in this case the base context of your statement is critical for me to understand what your statement means, but once I understand it, it is no less true or false. That is why you must hide that particular fact from me to make me in error. How we mean something is relative to how we think about it, but once that context is placed before us, the truth of it is unequivocable.

You say "is 2+2=11, and I am thinking in base 3." Answer: of course it is true. And anyone can objectively know that.

Wether Hitler is evil or not is irrelevant to the configurations of our brains now. Only the external referents of the facts of HItler's life are relevant to that. However, what we mean by the term evil is certainly dependant on our brains. But once we both agree on what we'll use for our concepts, the evaluation of Hitler is identical. If to you evil means dandelion loving, birds chirping, loving all men, peace loving, etc. then of course Hitler was not evil. However that doesn't change the fact that Hitler needlessly caused the butchery of 10's of millions of innocent people.

THe concept you are using is NOT Primacy of Consciousness. Primacy of cosciousness would be if we both agreed on exactly what the concept evil meant and that you then said, but I don't want Hitler to have been evil, therefore he was not. That the configuration of our brains actually determines the external referents to which they refer. If you had placed 2 blocks and 2 blocks on the table and then said 2+2 = 11 and you actually meant eleven (base 10) blocks, and this was true because you said it was, then that would be primacy of consciousness.

[Mikael]

Lex, I am going to answer you by answering Kendall first.

The truth of the ideas is in the things outside of your brain that they refer to.

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

Kendall, since you stressed the importance of definitions I would like an answer:

- Is reality including me? - Reality(a) as in all that exists.

- Is reality excluding me? - Reality(o) as in all that exists outside of me.

This has relevance to "The truth of the ideas is in the things outside of your brain that they refer to". If the quote by Ayn Rand referrers to reality(a) then you are mistaken, but you are right if it is reality(o).

Now I am going to give you an example related to whether Hitler was or was not evil. I love you versus I don't love you. Ask yourself this; if I love you is true, then by my(Kendall) definition of truth, how is I love you true?

No, I am serious. By yours and Lex's epistemology and metaphysics this you in I love you have the property of being loveable, just as Hitler has the property of being evil. If you say to another human I love you and I say I don't love you to the same human it is a contradiction because this human can't be loveable and not loveable in the same sense and at the same time. For example the way this person smile is loveable and not loveable, the way this person tells jokes and so on.

Now I am going to give some different definitions of some words:

Objective(a)/reality(a) - all that exists, both as entities and their properties.

Objective(o)/reality(o) - all that exists outside my brain, both as entities and their properties.

Subjective(i)/reality(i) - I as I exist inside my brain/mind including the properties I hold.

So to all of you; reality as above in the Ayn Rand quote is the crux of the matter.

Here are 3 version of the correspondence theory of truth.

1) Truth(a) is correspondence with the objective(a) reality(a).

2) Truth(o) is correspondence with the objective(o) reality(o).

3) Truth(i) is correspondence with the subjective(i) reality(i).

If we take the sentence I can think it is true in 1) and 3).

If we take the sentence there is a monitor in from of me it is true in 1) and 2).

I am not going to tell you whether "truth is correspondence with the objective(o) reality(o)" is true(a), true(o) or true(i). I am going to tell you that we hold different versions of the correspondence theory of truth and leave it at that.

So Lex, what "Hitler was evil" means, depends on what definitions of reality and what theory of truth are in use.

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.

You didn't refute me from my point of view, because to the best of my ability I think that I am not in contradiction with Existence Exists, the Law of Identity, Consciousness, the Primacy of Existence or Ayn Rand's understanding of the "Is"-"Ought" Dichotomy.

All values are derived from this: "an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life" "The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, 17.

That is part of objective(a) reality(a) and subjective(i) reality(i), but not a part of objective(o) reality(o) and in this sense not true.

I will illuminate the problem this way: The ultimate value to me is my life, but your life to me are of secondary value and derived from the value I place in my life.

So that I think that Hitler was evil(a value) is derived from that the ultimate value to me is my life.

Mikael

Edited March 20, 2008 by Mikael

[lex_aver]

I thought I answered your question about consciousness being a part of reality very thoroughly:

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.

Your mind as whole is the same case, even though there is volition involved. There is a distinction between necessary and contingent facts, but not truths. Once you've chosen something, it is set in stone and is knowable just like everything else. Contents of your mind are obviously dependent on your choice, but in a limited way: you can think about red t-shirt or blue t-shirt, but only if you know what t-shirt is. You can't acquire knowledge just by thinking it, and neither can you control outside events by your mere desire to do so (it is true even for neuronic human interfaces, because you don't really control them directly, they are designed to respond to your thoughts in some way). Even your control over your body is fairly limited. I refer you to Leonard Peikoff podcast (number 9 or 10, if I'm correct), Ayn Rand lexicon, ITOE and OPAR for further information.

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.

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.).

Indicate where do you see a flaw in my reasoning there, if you do. And please, be laconic.

Edited March 20, 2008 by lex_aver

[Mikael]

In short it hinges on how we should understand this:

...that's why you can't influence anything except your mental state by mere desire.

Is that a change of reality?

Mikael

[lex_aver]

It is flawed question, since there are two opposite answers in two contexts, and you specify neither. Reality is a concept which subsumes all existents. Now if you mean "does thinking change any entity?" the answer is "yes, it does change your mind". But if you mean "does thinking change overall state of the world?", the answer is "no, it changes nothing except your mind, which is just one entity out of a lot".

[Mikael]

It is flawed question, since there are two opposite answers in two contexts, and you specify neither. Reality is a concept which subsumes all existents. Now if you mean "does thinking change any entity?" the answer is "yes, it does change your mind". But if you mean "does thinking change overall state of the world?", the answer is "no, it changes nothing except your mind, which is just one entity out of a lot".

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

Okay, how does it relate to "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality."? What definition(context) of reality does Ayn Rand refer to?

Mikael

[Marc K.]

Now take f.ex. Hitler was evil. Now according to Lex it means one thing and to me another.

Oh, that's easy, here I'll translate.

I'm pretty sure I know what Lex means when he says: "Hitler was evil".

So why don't you tell me what you think "Hitler was evil" means and I'll see if I can reconcile the two.

[Mikael]

Oh, that's easy, here I'll translate.

I'm pretty sure I know what Lex means when he says: "Hitler was evil".

So why don't you tell me what you think "Hitler was evil" means and I'll see if I can reconcile the two.

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?

The short version of my position is that I think Hitler was evil, because I don't like what he did. To me Hitler was not evil, because of his property (evilness), but because I don't like what he did.

As far as I can tell it is evilness "exists" in Hitler versus I don't like Hitler. Hope it helps.

Mikael