Argument for the existence of God

[Greebo]

The response by Dr. Knuth: "Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested."

Credit where due: http://www.xkcd.com

Don't infer too much from the "silence", Jacob. The best conclusion to reach is that our logic dictates that we stop wasting time with you. It is of no value to do so.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Greebo

[RationalBiker]

If I have demonstrated irrationality or evasion of reason at any point in this discussion on Epistemology, PLEASE point it out.

You mentioned, "begging the question'..... okay...

From your first post in this thread;

Description of this Uncaused Cause (Or my picture of it):

This ultimate person must be the ultimate embodiment of all rational virtues and perfections. I imagine He would be the ultimate embodiment of Rand's view of humanity (a very "Galt-like God"). He must value above all that which is most valuable (Himself) and be obsessed with Himself. He must do all that He does for the sole purpose of enjoying Himself. In this sense He would be similar to Aristotle's "self-reflecting God" except Aristotle falsely concluded that such a God could never contemplate/create anything lower than Himself-- I would argue that He could contemplate and create things lower than Himself as a means of reflecting upon and enjoying Himself.

Why should I accept that as a definition of a god? What evidence do you have that this is what a god would be like? Why do you assume that a god must be "person-like" and why do you capitalize "Himself"? How have you determined the sex of the god or that a god must even have a sex? Also, give your evidence that this Uncaused Cause MUST be knowable. How have you logically ruled out that information regarding this event hasn't been irrevocably lost?

Lastly, how did this Uncaused Cause come into existence?

[RationalBiker]

Don't infer too much from the "silence", Jacob. The best conclusion to reach is that our logic dictates that we stop wasting time with you. It is of no value to do so.

Bingo!!

[Jacob86]

The response by Dr. Knuth: "Dear Reader: Enclosed is a check for ninety-eight cents. Using your work, I have proven that this equals the amount you requested."

Credit where due: http://www.xkcd.com

Don't infer too much from the "silence", Jacob. The best conclusion to reach is that our logic dictates that we stop wasting time with you. It is of no value to do so.

Wait.

So, the Objectivists on the forum deny the validity of Logic while I defend it and claim that it is the foundation of my worldview.

Then-

the Objectivists respond to me as though I have denied the validity of Logic and as though it is consistent with their worldview....?

*Scratches head.

ummmmm... call me a dunce, but how does this follow?

[Greebo]

You are free to believe whatever you wish, Jacob.

[Eiuol]

How do you KNOW that "Existence exists"?

It's self-evident, knowing that existence exists is actually much later in a process of your conceptual development, so it probably was a bad idea on my part to phrase it in THAT way. From sense perception that IS automatically given to you, you then go on to form various concepts and ideas. To think requires logic, sure, but to even SURVIVE you implicitly grasp that existence exists. Even a dog implicitly, albeit in an extremely primitive way, sees that existence exists. A dog doesn't KNOW that existence exists, though. Knowing is a conceptual process that comes after the automatically given perceptual level. Also, if logic comes first, that IS primacy of consciousness and a kind of intrinsicism.

[Jacob86]

You mentioned, "begging the question'..... okay...

From your first post in this thread;

Why should I accept that as a definition of a god? What evidence do you have that this is what a god would be like? Why do you assume that a god must be "person-like" and why do you capitalize "Himself"? How have you determined the sex of the god or that a god must even have a sex? Also, give your evidence that this Uncaused Cause MUST be knowable. How have you logically ruled out that information regarding this event hasn't been irrevocably lost?

Lastly, how did this Uncaused Cause come into existence?

Wow. First of all, I think I made it clear in that same post that this description I was offering was not being asserted as certain or provable, etc..

I was simply saying "If there is a God within the Objectivist worldview, this is how I would picture Him".

Furthermore, the attempts to discuss possible arguments for the existence of God (or even for the existence of an uncaused cause) led to MANY misunderstandings and circular discussion.

I realized that most Objectivists were assuming Naturalism up front as a basis for their arguments against me.

So, I produced an argument against Naturalism in post #182

*Please see this argument and read the entirety of that post before responding about it in order to avoid needless misunderstandings*

This revealed some major differences in Epistemological assumptions which meant that a conversation on Epistemology was in order (so that we could have a common starting point or at least identify and evaluate each others starting points). This conversation was suggest by Plasmatic and agreed to by myself.

Therefore, I gave a rather thorough explanation of my Epistemological starting points as well as an evaluation of those of Objectivist Epistemology [Posts #252-253]

The result so far has been the majority of Objectivists either questioning or outright denying the validity of Logic (because in my proof on 182 and in other instances, it showed their assumptions to be invalid)

Plasmatic alone (besides myself) has claimed to uphold the validity of Logic, but has not yet been able to respond.

So, I have spent the last 2 pages (about) trying to uphold Logic and demonstrate it's necessities on the Objectivist worldview.

I have been accused of being "arbitrary" and "rationalist" and "irrelevant" for doing so.

I'm beginning to think that this is the position of all Objectivists.

*****Based on the above, I'd like to say :

"Let's FORGET arguments for the existence of God for now and focus on Epistemology and perhaps basic Metaphysics"

Without clearing this ground, discussions of the "proofs" will be exercises in futility- on both sides.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Jacob86

[Greebo]

The "proof" in post 182 starts with this premise:

"1)If only physical matter exists (outside of the mind), than physical cause and effect is the only explanation for any event (the interaction of events) or thing (the past, present or future condition of any entity). "

Your premise is both flawed and unrelated to Objectivism, which says that Existence Exists, not Matter Exists. We are not Naturalists.

It has been stated, "That which exists can be proven to exist". Energy is not matter (though it can become matter) - but it exists and can be proven to exist.

Since premise 1 is flawed, logic dictates that you have not proven anything logically, and the rest need not even be considered. Fix premise 1, proceed from there. Until then, the rest is just wasted time and effort.

[Jacob86]

You are free to believe whatever you wish, Jacob.

Excuse me.

Have you even read the current discussion!?

By current I mean the last 100 or so posts (or at least the last 10-15 before you posted).

Every Objectivist has been laboring to invalidate or evade Logic (EXPLICITLY)!

They are actually saying things like "that has no basis in reality" in response to the fact that I am talking about the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle.

and you have the AUDACITY to come in here and pat me on the head condescendingly and imply that I am "believing whatever I wish"!?

Talk about the Theater of the Absurd!

[RationalBiker]

Wow. First of all, I think I made it clear in that same post that this description I was offering was not being asserted as certain or provable, etc..

I was simply saying "If there is a God within the Objectivist worldview, this is how I would picture Him".

That's all I need to hear. Thanks.

[Jacob86]

Your premise is both flawed and unrelated to Objectivism, which says that Existence Exists, not Matter Exists. We are not Naturalists.

Tell that to all the Objectivists who have been assuming it and arguing for it.

It has been stated, "That which exists can be proven to exist". Energy is not matter (though it can become matter) - but it exists and can be proven to exist.

Since premise 1 is flawed, logic dictates that you have not proven anything logically, and the rest need not even be considered. Fix premise 1, proceed from there. Until then, the rest is just wasted time and effort.

This is rather a simple fix: add "and energy" to "only physical entities/matter". This does not seem to alter the argument in any significant way.

If you think it does, please point this out.

[dream_weaver]

I need to make an apology regarding my 'verbal judo match' to any practitioners of this worthy endeavor.

The analogy I was trying to make is not captured in the reference.

A practitioner of Judo spends hours learning, refining and understanding under the guidance of an instructor to learn the proper execution of his techniques to automate them should a situation call for them.

Unlike many of the martial arts which hold there are no 'superior' martial arts, only superior martial artists, in philosophy knowledge is judged to be correct or incorrect, and the criteria by which to judge it, must itself be judged.

I don't really have a substitute at them moment, save for perhaps a 'verbal barroom brawl', but I would like to withdraw the 'verbal judo match' from this bad selection of an analogy.

[Jacob86]

That's all I need to hear. Thanks.

....so are you here to actually participate in the discussion or to make

IDIOTIC little jabs?

If the latter, please refrain from any further comment. It's extremely annoying. I've heard it all. It accomplishes nothing but to make you look like an insecure little bully who must pick ridiculous fights with others for no other reason than to attempt to echo back to himself some form of self-worth.

If the former, please take the time to understand all of one's words and ideas and propositions in the context in which they are being presented- i.e. take in the full actual MAIN POINT of the arguments being presented, and respond accordingly.

[Jacob86]

It's self-evident, knowing that existence exists is actually much later in a process of your conceptual development, so it probably was a bad idea on my part to phrase it in THAT way. From sense perception that IS automatically given to you, you then go on to form various concepts and ideas. To think requires logic, sure, but to even SURVIVE you implicitly grasp that existence exists. Even a dog implicitly, albeit in an extremely primitive way, sees that existence exists. A dog doesn't KNOW that existence exists, though. Knowing is a conceptual process that comes after the automatically given perceptual level.

Okay, I agree (with only reservation that we might differ on some definitions that I am as of yet unaware of). haha.

However, I would like to point out the two senses in which we are talking about "knowing".

1)The first is the kind that we have in common with the dog- the "automatically given" perception.

2)The second is the kind that is special to Man- the conceptual process involving reason.

In the first, we "know" without any certainty about our knowledge- it is perceptual and experiential only.

We don't necessarily know THAT existence exists- we just "know" existence in a familiar way

In the second, the kind which the dog does not possess, we are certain- we not only know existence, but we know THAT existence exists!

This second type of "knowledge" (which I will refer to on out as the only type- leaving perception to define the first type)- this knowing THAT something is true..or knowing THAT we know is the proper goal of Epistemology.

The first type is simply the study of Cognitive Science and needs not be discussed in Epistemology (except maybe as a side not).

This is because in Epistemology, we are not after "how we happen to come to ideas through experience?"; we are after "How can we know if our ideas about our experience or anything else are true?"!

THIS is where Logic "comes in" and this is why I say Logic is the foundation of my Epistemology. The ONLY way to know THAT "existence exists" is to accurately grasp the Law of Identity (even if it is only implicit). In fact, it is impossible to know anything without Logic. We can have sensory familiarity and experience without logic just like animals- but nothing can be said to be "known" without Logic.

Also, if logic comes first, that IS primacy of consciousness and a kind of intrinsicism.

I don't know enough about the whole debate over "primacy of the axioms" in order to respond to this.

Why do you say that this IS primacy of consciousness?

If it is, you seem to imply this is bad- why?

What do you mean by intrincisism?

Perhaps something to keep in mind before you answer that is this helpful distinction:

When I say logic comes first, I don't mean experientially. That is, I am not saying that we experience logic before we experience sensory data. *Remember, I don't care to speak of the order in which we happen to develop into adulthood. I care more about the order in which we construct a rational worldview (Foundational things first, etc..). In that sense, we start with Logic- as the intentional and necessary foundation for our worldview.

[dream_weaver]

I don't know enough about the whole debate over "primacy of the axioms" in order to respond to this.

Why do you say that this IS primacy of consciousness?

If it is, you seem to imply this is bad- why?

What do you mean by intrincisism?

Interesting. For one who can quip from and think they can critique OPAR efficaciously, not to have gleaned from the same section the above questions, is itself an enigma.

"One knows that the axioms are true, not be inference of any kind, but by sense perception"-OPAR middle of P.8

Incidentally, he goes on to contradict this on pp.9-12 by demonstrating ("showing to be true") the validity of the axioms by inference rather than sense perception.

It's true that we do perceive the reality of the rules (logic and the axioms) by sense perception, but this is not what makes them true! There's a difference. What makes them true is the virtue of the fact that they simply must be true. This is what Peikoff (and even Rand) say and imply in pp.9-12 because there is simply no other way to talk about Logic and Axioms as Objective without talking about them apart from sense perception. But as shown above on p.8, and by virtue of starting with Cognitive Science, the Obj. "epistemology" explicitly denies the ability to do this.

It explicitly denies that which is done implicitly throughout. In fact, Rand herself had such a remarkable grasp (implicitly) on the OBJECTIVITY of Logic and the Axioms that many of her followers wishing to obey her explicit teaching today would likely accuse her of "reifying" them. Note: she even named the three parts in Atlas Shrugged after the Laws of Logic.

Did you pull this from someone else's analysis, or just skip over the sections that outlined intrinsicism, rationalism, axiomatic validation and primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness?

[Jacob86]

Interesting. For one who can quip from and think they can critique OPAR efficaciously, not to have gleaned from the same section the above questions, is itself an enigma.

Did you pull this from someone else's analysis, or just skip over the sections that outlined intrinsicism, rationalism, axiomatic validation and primacy of existence vs. primacy of consciousness?

I've read all of the above (however, it was quite a while ago that I read all of it- and just recently that I reviewed the section which I was quoting and referring to). At the time of reading it, I was assuming that Objectivism ultimately held the same basic Epistemology and Metaphysics as I did and so I likely wasn't reading in a "critical" manner.

I came to Objectivism through appreciation of Rand's "sense of life" / her morality because it matches so closely to my own. Because of her celebration of Logic and Reality as necessary and Objective, I assumed that her philosophy held the same basics as mine- just in different terms.

Therefore, when I read through that material in OPAR, I wasn't really comparing and contrasting against what I believed--

Plus, when I came across the axioms, I did not feel the necessity to pit any of them against each other as "primary"- The whole debate about it seemed to be based in naturalistic assumptions, so I didn't pay much attention.

If you think it is important or vital to the conversation at hand, I'd be happy to review the material in order to discuss it.

ps- I'm really not into "quipping" about anything and I don't regard myself as some sort of "kung fu master" of logic or rationality or anything of the sort. I've just discovered a very helpful epistemology that makes it easier to spot contradictions in various arguments. However, I think many many many others would be MUCH more capable than I at this task given the proper epistemological tools.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Jacob86

[Grames]

This is because in Epistemology, we are not after "how we happen to come to ideas through experience?"; we are after "How can we know if our ideas about our experience or anything else are true?"!

The answer to the second question is by means of the first. Epistemology is a study of methods and process. If you have followed the proper methods as verified by perception then you can discriminate true from false. Perception is the "first word" on what we discover to exist. Perception is also the "final word" on what is true and what is false. (Perception is actually not linguistic at all, hence the scare quotes. Justification is ultimately non-propositional.)

Your entire approach to the subject of epistemology is wrong.

[Jacob86]

The answer to the second question is by means of the first.

Would you say then, that an accurate representation of this position is something similar to the Principle of Falsifiability? i.e. A principle which in effect says that the most fundamental standard of truth is "testability" or "empirical" or "evidential", etc... ??

If so, my question is this: What reason do you have to hold such a standard and why should anyone else hold such a standard? If the answer to that question is not testable, empirical, evidential, etc.. (whatever your standard happens to be), then this standard violates itself.

In other words, the standard of truth must be sustainable in and of itself and not dependent on outside explanation (for then THIS outside explanation would actually be the standard- not that which rests upon it).

Epistemology is a study of methods and process. If you have followed the proper methods as verified by perception then you can discriminate true from false.

Verified by who's perception? Yours? I don't perceive your perception. And if each individual's perception is THE means of discriminating true and false, then is truth not dependent on the perception of each individual? How, then, can truth be spoken of as "Objective" within OBJECTIVism?

Perception is the "first word" on what we discover to exist. Perception is also the "final word" on what is true and what is false. (Perception is actually not linguistic at all, hence the scare quotes. Justification is ultimately non-propositional.)

But does perception really give us anything that can legitimately be considered "knowledge"? It gives us sensations, but until an IDEA is formed, there is no thing called "knowledge"- only sensations. And an idea is necessarily propositional (however implicitly it may be). An idea assigns identification to something (the something could be a sensation or it could be a different idea)- it necessarily involves logic.

Once again, if Justification is non-propositional (and by this I take you to mean a-logical since logic applies to propositions), two questions:

1)What reason do you have for saying this about Justification (i.e. judgement standards)?

2)If this is the case, why are you calling yourself an OBJECTIVist- since Justification is solely dependent upon the perceptions of the Subject??

**Note: I am not saying that you or Objectivists in general or Rand are actually Subjectivists in every sense of the term. As I've stated, Rand and most of her followers are functionally Objective (which is what I love about them...you guys). But I'm trying to show that your explicit epistemological principles here- when pressed- lead to Subjectivism. And I'm trying to say that you can be a rational non-mystic ideal man without these faulty epistemological principles- you won't suddenly become a mystic if you accept the necessity of Logic over sensory perception.

Your entire approach to the subject of epistemology is wrong.

It seems one of us is certainly wrong- I suppose that is the purpose of this discussion; To reveal which is which.

[Plasmatic]

Come on! I've been waiting to hear your response on the issue and that's all you have to say!? (Tongue in cheek)

Aren't you going to refute them or correct them?

Honestly Id rather debate what we are discussing then correct their particular type of problems.

What do you think it is that makes them doubt any of the three...in any context?

Taking physicist who dabble poorly in philosophy seriously. Not realizing the foundational nature of philosophy. Not realizing what the sounds coming form their mouths [which pretend to be words] would actually mean in reality ontologically. Taking Poppers poop seriously [particularly without actually reading his garbage]

Jacob your whole epistemic position rests on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. Therefore Ill first ask if youve read Peikoffs writings on the ASD?

This would be one of the major problems with Objectivist Epistemology. It's not actually epistemology. It's more of a "cognitive science"- as unfortunately are most "epistemologies" today.

The difference is this:

Epistemology is the study of how to know THAT we know whereas a cognitive science is a study of how we come to know WHAT we know. The former (Epistemology) is concerned with Objective Reality (the way things are and must be in reality) followed by an individuals mind accurately corresponding to Objective Reality according to the rules already established.

The latter (cognitive science) is concerned with Subjective Reality- the way and order in which things occur to an individual mind followed by discussion of the way things are in reality.

The Former (Epistemology) is about rules and standards of knowledge, certainty, reality, etc..

The Latter (Cognitive Science) is about the development of the individual mind and it's ability (or lack thereof) to grasp reality

On what basis did you derive this distinction between CS and Epistemology? Where did you derive your position on what you call epistemology?

How did these rules "get established" Jacob? How did the "rules and standards of knowledge,certainty, reality, etc".. get here? And the most important question of epistemology: What is knowledge? Why is it relevent? And most importantly for your position, to WHOM?

Cognitive Science is not without it's value, but apart from Epistemology in the way I've described it above, it is potentially destructive.

The value of starting with Epistemology in the way I described it is that rules and standards of reality are firmly established long before any consideration of how the subject (individual) is to grasp reality. Conversely, by starting with Cognitive Science without a very explicit Objective Epistemology (the way I described it), puts the experience and abilities of the subject in a logical priority over the necessary standards and rules of reality (the object) which can and often does lead to implicit subjectivism and irrational/arbitrary assumptions.

Objectivist "Epistemology" does just that. It begins with Cognitive Science (the subject and it's experience of reality) and mixes in Objective Epistemology (rules about reality) later (i.e. axioms and logic). But it does so in a very subjective way- treating them (objective rules) as dependent upon the subjects experience

Question:

Where do the standards come from if not from experience? So establishing the "rules and standards of reality" is accomplished without a "grasp of reality" by a subject? How is one to contact these "objective rules" without starting with the content of perception? "The rules are here.How did they get here......." Blank out?

Ill have to get into this tomorrow though... I had too much going on...

Edited November 9, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

Would you say then, that an accurate representation of this position is something similar to the Principle of Falsifiability? i.e. A principle which in effect says that the most fundamental standard of truth is "testability" or "empirical" or "evidential", etc... ??

Youd be better off learning the reasons why Popper came up with his nonsense. And the answer is no! The standard of truth is correspondence to reality. Tomorrow.......

[Grames]

Would you say then, that an accurate representation of this position is something similar to the Principle of Falsifiability? i.e. A principle which in effect says that the most fundamental standard of truth is "testability" or "empirical" or "evidential", etc... ??

If so, my question is this: What reason do you have to hold such a standard and why should anyone else hold such a standard? If the answer to that question is not testable, empirical, evidential, etc.. (whatever your standard happens to be), then this standard violates itself.

The principle is named the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is entailed by the Primacy of Existence axiom. The reason is that primacy of existence is inescapably true, unavoidably axiomatic and logically unprovable. Consciousness is awareness of what exists, it conforms itself to reality to create the correspondence. So far the single great Objectivist monograph on the necessary validity of the senses and primacy of existence is Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses, which I have outlined here. Excerpting from my own notes:

II. Primacy of Existence cannot be proven

A. Proof cannot begin by premising facts external to consciousness because that begs the question

B. Proof cannot begin by premising facts about consciousness as that contradicts the thesis that facts external to consciousness must be known first before awareness of awareness is possible

C. There are no other kinds of premises

D. Primacy of Existence cannot be a conclusion

E. "P of E" is self-evident not arbitrary or an act of faith

F. "P of E" is axiomatic because existence is implicit in any and all instances of awareness, any attempt to deny it affirms it

G. The third person external perspective when used to explain consciousness is implicitly a primacy of existence perspective.

Verified by who's perception? Yours? I don't perceive your perception. And if each individual's perception is THE means of discriminating true and false, then is truth not dependent on the perception of each individual? How, then, can truth be spoken of as "Objective" within OBJECTIVism?

Each individual's perception is the standard. Concepts are objective because they are abstractions that refer to open-ended types not individual's differing percepts of particulars. Knowledge is contextual and human assertions of what is true are not infallible. Since no one is infallible, a theory that explains why that is so has an advantage over a theory purporting to give infallible knowledge.

But does perception really give us anything that can legitimately be considered "knowledge"? It gives us sensations, but until an IDEA is formed, there is no thing called "knowledge"- only sensations. And an idea is necessarily propositional (however implicitly it may be). An idea assigns identification to something (the something could be a sensation or it could be a different idea)- it necessarily involves logic.

Your analysis acknowledges the existence of sensations and ideas, but the starting point of human conceptual consciousness is percepts. Percepts are the epistemological given, the awareness of particulars from which concepts and ideas, language and logic are abstracted.

Once again, if Justification is non-propositional (and by this I take you to mean a-logical since logic applies to propositions), two questions:

1)What reason do you have for saying this about Justification (i.e. judgement standards)?

2)If this is the case, why are you calling yourself an OBJECTIVist- since Justification is solely dependent upon the perceptions of the Subject??

1) The contrary position is always a circular argument, usually simply assumed and not confronted directly.

2) Epistemology requires a knowing subject. There must be subjects first, then we learn to be objective. If you know Rand's ethics then you have read a similar argument of the form 'values and valuing require the existence of a valuer'.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Grames

[RationalBiker]

....so are you here to actually participate in the discussion or to make

IDIOTIC little jabs?

Hardly idiotic, and I could give a rat's behind what you find annoying or how many times you've heard it before. I did participate in the discussion and I heard what I needed to hear for you. The fact that you personally don't like it is not my problem. I'm having no problems understanding what your writing so you can give up on that little schtick as well. And also, quit psychologizing, you are not very good at it.

[dream_weaver]

If you think it is important or vital to the conversation at hand, I'd be happy to review the material in order to discuss it.

If you think it is important or vital to understanding what rationalism is, reviewing the material might be benificial toward that end.

Edited November 9, 2010 by dream_weaver

[Jacob86]

The principle is named the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is entailed by the Primacy of Existence axiom. The reason is that primacy of existence is inescapably true, unavoidably axiomatic and logically unprovable.

Ok. So it seems you are saying here that "Existence exists" is the foundation to Epistemology because of the fact that it is inescapably true, unavoidably axiomatic and logically unprovable.

This foundation of something which is "logically unavoidable" seems closer to my position than to the position of percepts being foundational (which I thought was your position).

Please let me know if I am misunderstanding you here.

I think you might respond by saying "yes, but perception is required to grasp existence, which is required to grasp the foundation that existence exists".

This is why I do not hold "existence exists" as the Epistemological foundation. Because it is necessarily and avoidably dependent upon the validity of Logic.

To put it another way, we both agree that "Existence exists", but your position seems to say:

"The foundation for this axiom is perception of existence and therefore perception is the foundation of epistemology"

While my position says:

"The foundation of this axiom is Logic and therefor logic is the foundation of epistemology"

How can we tell which is the primary "foundation" to the axiom? The answer lies in the necessary features of a "foundation". That which is foundational for any argument must be self-contained/self-explanatory/ independent of anything outside of itself for reason.

Which fits the bill? Perception or Logic?

Can perception explain itself without logic? no.

Can logic explain itself without perception? yes.

Consciousness is awareness of what exists, it conforms itself to reality to create the correspondence.

But does reality correspond to itself apart from our consciousness? Or does it only correspond to itself once we are consciously aware of it's correspondence?

To put it another way, I hold that Reality is Reality- independent of and apart from any perception of it.

If you respond "but you cannot come to know that this is the case without perception", my response is "irrelevant". That it is and must be the case is not dependent on the fact that I was not capable of grasping it until after perception. I am not after what I happen to be capable of learning and the order in which I happen to come to learn it. I am after truth and it's necessary foundations- regardless of my perception.

So far the single great Objectivist monograph on the necessary validity of the senses and primacy of existence is Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses, which I have outlined here. Excerpting from my own notes:

II. Primacy of Existence cannot be proven

A. Proof cannot begin by premising facts external to consciousness because that begs the question

B. Proof cannot begin by premising facts about consciousness as that contradicts the thesis that facts external to consciousness must be known first before awareness of awareness is possible

C. There are no other kinds of premises

D. Primacy of Existence cannot be a conclusion

E. "P of E" is self-evident not arbitrary or an act of faith

F. "P of E" is axiomatic because existence is implicit in any and all instances of awareness, any attempt to deny it affirms it

G. The third person external perspective when used to explain consciousness is implicitly a primacy of existence perspective.

I don't question the validity of sense perception- and I don't think I'm questioning the Primacy of Existence.

Each individual's perception is the standard. Concepts are objective because they are abstractions that refer to open-ended types not individual's differing percepts of particulars. Knowledge is contextual and human assertions of what is true are not infallible. Since no one is infallible, a theory that explains why that is so has an advantage over a theory purporting to give infallible knowledge.

I do not claim that all human knowledge is infallible. I do claim that logic and that which is logically necessary is infallible. I have absolutely every reason to hold to this and have found no reason not to.

Incidentally is your assertion that "no one is infallible" fallible or infallible??

Your analysis acknowledges the existence of sensations and ideas, but the starting point of human conceptual consciousness is percepts. Percepts are the epistemological given, the awareness of particulars from which concepts and ideas, language and logic are abstracted.

Yes, I know that as a baby developing into a child and into an adolescent that my awareness of things graduated in such a way. I DON'T CARE. lol. My gradual discovery of truth is not the standard of truth.

Let me give an example.

I did not come to perceive (and consequently understand) that I was a male until late childhood.

But this had no effect whatsoever on the fact that I was indeed male. The truth of my "male-ness" was not at all in jeopardy because I happened not to perceive it yet.

Likewise, I did not perceive and understand that I have a Y chromosome until adolescence. But the reality of the Y chromosome did not pop into existence at my perception of it.

(I think we agree on the above)

*Now here is the important part:

The fact of my "male-ness" is dependent upon the fact that I have a Y chromosome. The reality of the Y chromosome is foundational to the reality of my "male-ness"... in spite of the fact that I perceived my male-ness BEFORE I perceived the Y chromosome.

THIS is the difference that I am laboring to get across. By foundational, I mean "foundational to reality being what it is". Not "foundational to me thinking about reality".

The fact that I happen to perceive my "male-ness" before I perceive my Y chromosome does not in any way make my "male-ness" foundational to the Y chromosome. In other words, "I don't have a Y chromosome because I am male" but "I am male because I have a Y chromosome".

Likewise, Logic is not valid because we perceive no contradiction. We perceive no contradictions because Logic is valid. This makes all the difference in the world.

1) The contrary position is always a circular argument, usually simply assumed and not confronted directly.

How so?

2) Epistemology requires a knowing subject. There must be subjects first, then we learn to be objective. If you know Rand's ethics then you have read a similar argument of the form 'values and valuing require the existence of a valuer'.

Yes, experientially it requires a knowing subject, but foundationally it requires that subject to "objectify" beyond his own perception- lest he be subjective.

Yes, I am familiar with her argument which basically says "if there is no valuer (i.e. subject) there is no value (i.e. object of value). I agree.

However I'm not so sure that argument works in this case. It would go something like this: "If there is no knower (i.e. subject), then there is no thing to be known (i.e. object)" This make the thing known (reality) dependent upon the knower.

If you mean "if there is no knower there is no knowledge", fine. But this has no effect on the Reality of Reality and the simple necessity that A is A even if no one knows it.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Dante

[icosahedron]

I am saying that Naturalism must logically lead to Determinism. Since

Information requires an energetic basis. In that sense, a mind without a body would have no context to work with, so would be inert, and non-functional, i.e., not acting as a mind, i.e., non-existent.

If you take this too far, and assume that causality implies lock-step evolution of information, a la Laplace, then you mistake logical deduction for causality, and fall into Determinism.

If, instead, you say that every entity has a material, concrete, transportable, reproducible component, you will not run into any Determinism per se, unless you overstate the law of causality.

I don't think you have understood the truths required for Quantum Mechanics to work as a theory validated against real experimental results. If you take the time to, you will see that it is precisely the limits of measurable certainty that give rise to future possibilities and inductions -- literally, uncertainty provides the space between things that allows them to be quasi-independent and only partly predictable as parts of a larger whole.

Then we are agreed that logic is infallibly necessary in all contexts and all situations- even though it may not produce any particular definitive knowledge that we are seeking?

Assuming our definitions of "logic" match, yes.

I am making a distinction between the "existence" of things outside of my mind and the "existence" of things inside of my mind.

I distinguish between inside and outside, volumetrically, but beyond that, I understand a set of general principles that are consistent with themselves and all other aspects of my sum-total experience, as far as I am aware. These principles are not "physical" or "mental"; they are "material" in the broadest sense of that word, including not only the material of today, but also the potentials of tomorrow as expressed in ideas, knowledge, judgment, and plans to transform the given into more useful form.

I distinguish between the given and the man-made. The former had to be, the latter did not. But every entity, including conceptual entities such as ideas, has a structure, and occupies a volume. One can visualize material combinations and judge them worthy prior to expending effort in bringing them into material being. The duals of association and dissociation, contraction and expansion, cohesion and explosion, or however you wish to conceptualize the tension/compression forces that must exist to create stable structures (physical and mental); there must be a balance, a dynamic equilibrium, to create stable structures.

Concepts are structural containers, just like any other volumetric device, and consideration naturally occurs in units commensurable with the primaries of perception, i.e., as volumetric relationships among definite entities. That the volume is the same as externally accountable is not my point; that it is mathematically analogous is my point.

The same principles apply in the physical and mental worlds (your lingo), i.e., the given and man-made (my lingo). This must be true if the internal world of me, my inside which you cannot experience except imaginatively, is to be consistent with my outside.

My inside is man-made. "Man is being of self-made soul", and I am a Man. My soul did not have to exist in the form it does today. But now that it does so exist, it is real. The problem is assuming that the organs of awareness and thought are static in their power; in fact they are dynamic and can evolve in power, scope, depth. They, like our arms, can make use of leverage (knowledge/tools) and time (division of labor/planning) to move mountains. But they, like muscles can atrophy too.

I have an inside, and an outside. There is (at least) Me, and NotMe -- this is the basis of awareness, this "counting to 2", as I like to call it. One is realized in retrospect, but the first awareness is the awareness of otherness, of NotMe, which reflexively induces self-awareness and births the individual consciousness.

How this is implemented, in detail, is not important, as long as you realize that you cannot detach Me from its perspective as an unique awareness of otherness; which is to say, you can't tear the soul from the body, as the body is the minimum representation of the soul, volumetrically, that is consistent with Existence.

- ico