Argument for the existence of God

[icosahedron]

The question you are begging is "Whydo you choose that definition?" And why should I or anyone else accept that definition?

If you give any reason for accepting that definition of arbitrary without demonstrating that such a reason is testable, then you have contradicted yourself. Let's put it another way:

*Any non-testable reason to defend your definition is arbitrary by it's own definition.

I assumed that you understood the basic principles of logic.

1. Define your assumptions unequivocally

2. State your assertion as a function of your assumptions

3. Show that the assertion is true, false, or unprovable in the context of the given assumptions.

Definitions are not assertions, they are assumptions. If you want to debate definitions, fine, but whatever definitions we come to (assuming you don't evade the self-evident) will lead to the same idea of testability, ultimately; but if you claim not to understand the concept of testability, because we can't agree on a definition, then you are being obtuse -- I am certain you understand the concept. Semantic games get no where quickly (which is why the relation back to reality is crucial).

Once again, you have assumed that untestable = unreal. You have no basis for this claim other than whim. If you can present a basis for this claim, please do so.

Not unreal, but irrelevant to my reality, because not graspable by me. And I am suspicious of anyone who claims to grasp something, but cannot show me how to do so. I suspect that, whatever they think they have grasped, is most likely vaporware -- either that, or we have a communication gap.

I have identified my basis: A is A. In addition to identifying it, I have also analyzed it for validity (publicly on this forum) and have found nor received no reason to doubt it. If you think it is invalid, please prove this to me as I do not wish to base my worldview on the invalid.

And I have identified how your use of that basis is irrelevant to my reality, and not a basis (belief) on which I choose to base computations or take as a pillar of knowledge, or argue from in any way.

Moreover, I do not respect perspectives that cannot be validated against reality; by "respect", I mean, re-spect, i.e., re-examine; as soon as I determine that arbitrary belief is the basis, I reject the conclusions.

So, why are you accusing me of building systems without a valid basis?

Not doing that. Saying that your conclusions are irrelevant to reality, because based outside of it. If they are self-consistent, then congratulations on creating your own little mathematical world! But don't expect me to embrace your idiosyncratic assumptions, nor any logics based on them.

What makes you think that my basis (Logic) and parts of my worldview (Logical necessities) are irrelevant?

Simply because they cannot be shoved into a test-tube?

This is a very narrow, contrived, and arbitrary definition of "relevance".

What leverage do you get with such worldview, versus, say, mine, which makes no mention of an unobservable? If you can show me how it helps my life in some way, without abrogating my freedom, then cool, I'll dig it.

But I've been down this path. It leads nowhere. There are productive uses for one's time, and except perhaps in taking "solace" in "brothers" embracing the same evasions, I don't see how you get any net leverage from the "concept".

Having said all that, I acknowledge your right to your assumptions, and I can see how you conclude as you do based on them.

I think there is a better way. I have proof in my own life. If you are asking these questions, and thinking about them, then you are at least peering in the right direction, I would never ask anyone to take anything on faith.

Eventually, if you persist, you will exhaust the metaphor, and move past it. Whether or not I said this.

Cheers.

- ico

[icosahedron]

And this- appealing to efficiency- is all that a consistent Naturalist can do at the end of the day. Because reality is not that which exists apart from the mind, but that which the mind stumbles upon and perceives. Therefore, ultimately, there is nothing but animal like perception to appeal to. Reality is reduced to the test-tube or the other end of a microscope- and it's function reduced to pragmatism and "efficiency".

Wrong. Efficiency is a concept, not the ratio of work out versus heat into a thermodynamic engine.

For example, one can debate the efficiency, in terms of testable results, of various medical practices, physical theories, mathematical frameworks, philosophical systems, etc.

Efficiency is much more important mentally than it is physically, actually.

Conceptual efficiency leads to technical efficiency and puts more bread on the table.

- ico

[Grames]

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.

Your criteria for a foundation imports your desired conclusion, in other words you make a circular argument. Your move here is completely equivalent to Descartes' assuming metaphysical dualism by asserting the prior certainty of consciousness with his "Cogito, ergo sum." If consciousness can know things and use logic without being aware of anything outside of consciousness then that denies that consciousness is relational. This is a theory of consciousness as a substance or entity, or in other words an intrinsic attribute independent of the rest of existence. Of course this leads you to God, you've built the God-idea of a radically independent consciousness into your definition of consciousness.

What is foundational has nothing logically prior. Perception is causal, the objects perceived and the means of perceiving them are temporally prior but not logically prior. Existence exists prior to consciousness perceiving existents, and all of the contents of consciousness are derived from what is perceived. (That is the Primacy of Existence principle.) Perception can be foundational for subsequent reasoning because it is not the product of prior reasoning. Perception is causal and automatic, it can be described but it needs no justification or explanation because it is the source of all justification and explanation.

Perception does not need to explain itself, and logic cannot explain itself.

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.

You are after intrinsic absolute truth, truths that are true in themselves and not because of relations to other truths. In other words, you want effects without causes.

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

Fallible but true and certain.

How so?

By assuming that consciousness is independent of existence, that logic is prior to perception, that automatically makes all proof necessarily in the form of words and propositions. See Kelley ch. 6. The attempt to use logic to establish that consciousness is independent of existence completes the circle.

[Jacob86]

Your criteria for a foundation imports your desired conclusion, in other words you make a circular argument.

Is it a circular argument or is it axiomatic? Why do you accept this form of argument when presented by Rand/Peikoff in defense of the axioms, but not when presented by men in defense of Logic?

Please see OPAR (bottom of p.9-bottom of 11, especially bottom of 11).

And do you not realize that the REASON the axioms are self-evident and unable to be argued against is because they are participating in Logic??

"Existence exists" is invincibly true BECAUSE "A is A" is invincibly true.

The Axioms are invincible because Logic is invincible.

Your move here is completely equivalent to Descartes' assuming metaphysical dualism by asserting the prior certainty of consciousness with his "Cogito, ergo sum." If consciousness can know things and use logic without being aware of anything outside of consciousness then that denies that consciousness is relational. This is a theory of consciousness as a substance or entity, or in other words an intrinsic attribute independent of the rest of existence. Of course this leads you to God, you've built the God-idea of a radically independent consciousness into your definition of consciousness.

I was not aware that "this leads you to God", but I do care enough about truth to say "If it does, then so be it". What? Am I to back track on everything that I know must be true simply because it has brought me to an idea that I wish not to be true?

I have not "built" such an idea into consciousness, but by evaluating the nature of reason and consciousness, you seem to think that we have necessarily come to this idea - and you don't like it.

It seems you are the one who has "built" an idea into the definition of consciousness in order to avoid God.

What is foundational has nothing logically prior. Perception is causal, the objects perceived and the means of perceiving them are temporally prior but not logically prior. Existence exists prior to consciousness perceiving existents, and all of the contents of consciousness are derived from what is perceived. (That is the Primacy of Existence principle.) Perception can be foundational for subsequent reasoning because it is not the product of prior reasoning. Perception is causal and automatic, it can be described but it needs no justification or explanation because it is the source of all justification and explanation.

Is it (perception) the source of justification and explanation for this assertion?

Perception does not need to explain itself,

This is a rather strong assumption, which seems to be the foundation for your epistemology, but has no answer as to "why" it is the case.

You keep insisting that this principle of perception should be adopted as foundational but give no non-contradictory reason why.

and logic cannot explain itself.

A is A. It just did.

You are after intrinsic absolute truth, truths that are true in themselves and not because of relations to other truths. In other words, you want effects without causes.

I don't know how this implies effects without causes, but is there some problem with truth that is true in and of itself-- isn't that sort of necessary as a foundation for any other truth? Isn't it also the implicit goal behind the formation of and adherence to the Axioms???

Fallible but true and certain.

How can it be fallible, yet certain?

By assuming that consciousness is independent of existence, that logic is prior to perception, that automatically makes all proof necessarily in the form of words and propositions. See Kelley ch. 6. The attempt to use logic to establish that consciousness is independent of existence completes the circle.

Again, I am only doing with Logic what Objectivism does with the Axioms....and what they do with the axioms is dependent upon logic anyways.

If this argument stands against Logic, then it also stands against the Axioms and your worldview crumbles.

[Greebo]

An argument is axiomatic when any attempt to disprove it must use it.

An argument is circular when it's conclusion rests on a premise which rests the conclusion.

You are attempting to make perception rest upon logic in defiance of your own definition of foundational.

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.

You want to make perception rest on logic. Perception exists whether we are aware of Logic or not.

You cannot *explain* perception without logic because the very act of explanation is a logical act.

One does not need to *explain* perception to have perception. A dog can no more explain sight or smell than it can explain that A is A, but the dog will see the tree and smell the other dogs marks upon the tree regardless of his lack of logic.

Helen Keller did not understand logic to understand when she felt water, or warmth from the sun (though she had no concept or even precept for sun). She had perceptions without logic.

[Grames]

Is it a circular argument or is it axiomatic? Why do you accept this form of argument when presented by Rand/Peikoff in defense of the axioms, but not when presented by men in defense of Logic?

Please see OPAR (bottom of p.9-bottom of 11, especially bottom of 11).

And do you not realize that the REASON the axioms are self-evident and unable to be argued against is because they are participating in Logic??

"Existence exists" is invincibly true BECAUSE "A is A" is invincibly true.

The Axioms are invincible because Logic is invincible.

No, axioms are not validated by logic, nor do they "participate" in logic, whatever that means. Self-evident means given by perception. See the lexicon entry for Self-evident. "A is A" is validated by perception, as are all the axioms.

Axioms are propositions composed of words. The words involved are axiomatic concepts. The meaning of a concept is what it refers to in existence. Being aware of what exists requires the act of perceiving what exists.

Since you have access to OPAR, or least the first 11 pages, you should re-read those earlier pages.

[Jacob86]

An argument is axiomatic when any attempt to disprove it must use it.

An argument is circular when it's conclusion rests on a premise which rests the conclusion.

You are attempting to make perception rest upon logic in defiance of your own definition of foundational.

Actually, the argument is question (is it circular or axiomatic?) was my argument for Logic as the foundation because of the fact that it is invincibly true.

It was asserted by someone else that Logic cannot validate itself (implying that it rests on something outside of itself for validation).

My response was: "A is A. It just did [validate itself]"

This is what I am being accused of "circular reasoning" for. This is what I am contending is axiomatic, not circular.

Judge for yourself.

You want to make perception rest on logic. Perception exists whether we are aware of Logic or not.

You cannot *explain* perception without logic because the very act of explanation is a logical act.

And this is my point. See below for elaboration.

One does not need to *explain* perception to have perception. A dog can no more explain sight or smell than it can explain that A is A, but the dog will see the tree and smell the other dogs marks upon the tree regardless of his lack of logic.

Helen Keller did not understand logic to understand when she felt water, or warmth from the sun (though she had no concept or even precept for sun). She had perceptions without logic.

Perhaps I have not made this clear enough. I think I agree with you (and Objectivists in general) a lot more than you realize. We are just talking about different things.

PLEASE, try to understand what I mean by the difference between Cognitive Science and Epistemology. What you are asserting is what I call "Cognitive Science" which is a separate (though helpful) study from Epistemology.

We are talking about two different types of "foundation".

What you are talking about is an "Experiential Foundation". What I am talking about is an "Explanatory Foundation". I AGREE with you about the "Experiential Foundation", but I am suggesting that you are confusing experience with explanation and assuming that the foundations of each must be one in the same.

I agree that we experience percepts before we experience logical reasoning. I agree that perception is possible apart from our use of logic. I agree that our first and most obvious connection with reality is perception. And mostly I agree that "perception cannot be explained without Logic because the very act of explanation is a Logical act".

I add, therefore, that Logic is the most fundamental starting point FOR explanation. And explanation-not experience, is what I am after in Epistemology. Yes, Perception is the starting point for experience- but detailing the steps of this experience is the realm of Cognitive Science, not Epistemology.

Do you understand this distinction? Do you agree with it? If not, what do you disagree with and why?

[Jacob86]

No, axioms are not validated by logic, nor do they "participate" in logic, whatever that means. Self-evident means given by perception. See the lexicon entry for Self-evident. "A is A" is validated by perception, as are all the axioms.

"A is A" is a formula with variables. Whatever you plug in for the variables, the function of the formula is the same. Yes, perception gives us various things to plug in for the variables, but the function is purely Logical.

By perception we experience "existence". By plugging it into this formula (i.e. by Logic) we know "Existence exists".

This is what I mean by the axioms being dependent upon/validated by/participating in Logic.

If you can validate "A is A" to me by perception alone, a) I will be thoroughly impressed & b ) I will consider accepting your position.

However, before you attempt to, it may be helpful to see my clarification on the above response to Greebo. In it I point out that I think we are talking past each other because we are talking about two different types of foundation: Experiential Foundation & Explanatory Foundation.

Axioms are propositions composed of words. The words involved are axiomatic concepts. The meaning of a concept is what it refers to in existence. Being aware of what exists requires the act of perceiving what exists.

I agree with this- but inside of Logic. This is because the Logical (Possible) is the ultimate context for existence (the Actual). To drop this context is to lose reality/existence altogether. Logic tells us what is impossible. And existence is necessarily inside of the possible- which is to say that it is inside of the Logical.

Since you have access to OPAR, or least the first 11 pages, you should re-read those earlier pages.

I have reviewed much of it during this discussion and that is why I am all the more convinced of the necessity to stress the difference between "experiential" and "explanatory" in regard to foundations.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Jacob86

[icosahedron]

Actually, the argument is question (is it circular or axiomatic?) was my argument for Logic as the foundation because of the fact that it is invincibly true.

Logic is not "invincibly true" or any other form of true. Logic is a means to discover the relationships among known facts, i.e., a means to discover whether something is true. As such, it is correct in all cases where applied judiciously; but "correct" and "true" are not the same concept, that's why we have different words.

[icosahedron]

I have reviewed much of it during this discussion and that is why I am all the more convinced of the necessity to stress the difference between "experiential" and "explanatory" in regard to foundations.

Obviously, one's representation of the relationships among experiences is not the same as the experiences from which the representation is derived; but that the representation is derivative and (ought to be) contingent (if you want your ideas to correspond with reality); to take the representation as an equal partner is to accord it equal fundamentality, in contradiction of the experience of creating such representations, in which experience, the basis is logically prior to the representation, and without the basis in reality, the representation cannot stand on its own.

You can't dichotomize mind and body and get away with it for the long term without paying more than the benefit you obtain.

Operational efficiency naturally leads to rejection of "concepts" which have no bearing on Life.

- ico

[Jacob86]

Logic is not "invincibly true" or any other form of true. Logic is a means to discover the relationships among known facts, i.e., a means to discover whether something is true. As such, it is correct in all cases where applied judiciously; but "correct" and "true" are not the same concept, that's why we have different words.

Okay- If logic is a means to discover whether something is true, I agree. But let's go further into that idea.

This means it applies to the question "is ________________ true?"

Logic alone does not always give us enough information to say "yes" or "no" to that question.

[i think this is your point. *I agree. Keep reading for my point]

(The underlined is that which fills the blank above)

EX: Is the statement that "the pen on my desk is red" true? Logic alone cannot answer "yes" or "no" definitively in this case. One must examine the pen on my desk to know whether or not it is true.

However, I am contending (and challenging you to prove me wrong) that there are some instances where Logic alone IS able to say "yes" or "no" definitively.

EX: Is the statement that "The pen on my desk is not a pen" true? Logic alone does indeed give us enough information in this case because as long as "pen" is meant in the same way in both parts of the statement, it is a contradiction in terms and therefore automatically false. One does not need to examine the pen to know whether or not this statement is true. One may need to examine the object in question to see if it is indeed a pen and not some cool James Bond tape recording device- but that is not what the statement declares. The statement ascribes pen-ness to the object and denies pen-ness of the object at the same time and in the same relationship- and is therefore automatically false without any further perceptual examination.

Let us consider another example which has already been mentioned.

EX: Is the statement that "There is no absolute truth" true? Again, Logic alone is sufficient to answer "no" because the statement is implicitly self-contradictory. It implicitly is saying "THIS is true", while denying truth. No perceptual examination is necessary in order to declare this statement false.

However, notice something else; This statement is a universal negative. It is one side to a necessarily "either/or" scenario: Either there is absolute truth or there is not absolute truth. Therefore, if one is necessarily false (because of the self-contradiction), then the other is necessarily true.

So, by Logic alone, we have not only been able to say "no" definitively to contradictions, but we are also able to say "yes" definitively to the opposite of a contradiction when it is a necessarily "either/or" scenario.

Now, let us ask the question at hand.

EX: Is the statement that "Logic does not necessarily applies to all propositions and statements and ideas about the truth" true? Again, Logic alone answers definitively "no" because the statement relies on the application of logic throughout while denying logic. AND, again, it is a necessarily either or scenario and therefore it's opposite is true: "Logic does necessarily apply to all propositions and statements and ideas about the truth".

another way of asking this is:

EX: Is "A=A" true?

I think you would like to say "not necessarily. We need perception to find out". However, I would point out that regardless of perception, any answer which says "no" is necessarily self-contradictory. The answer (by Logic alone) is definitively "yes"!

THIS is what Rand meant by "Contradictions do not exist". They can not.

And THIS is what I mean by the statement "something (any idea about reality) must be logical before it can be empirical" or "it must be possible before it is actual" or "it must be logical before is perceptual".

What I am saying is that you can take ANY statement or idea about the world and plug it into that blank, asking "is this true" and that in many cases (mostly scientific ones) Logic alone will not be sufficient to answer definitively (though it will necessarily be used throughout)-- But in many other questions (usually philosophic ones), Logic alone will be sufficient to answer definitively.

If any statement or idea violates Logic (is self-contradictory), it is automatically false without any perceptual consideration needed. And, in any necessarily "either/or" scenario where one side is self-contradictory, the other side is automatically true without any perceptual consideration needed.

THIS is what I am saying. No more. No less. When, I say "no more" I think you have the idea that I am suggesting that EVERYTHING can be definitively answered by logic alone- which is not the case. I am simply saying that if something IS definitively answered by logic, then further perceptual examination is unnecessary and irrational.

This is what I mean by it being foundational to all questions of truth.

[dream_weaver]

THIS is what Rand meant by "Contradictions do not exist".

Jacob86, I would be interested in the answer to Plasmatic's inquiry.

Can you cite where Rand supports you on your assertion here? You appear to suggest that the essence of her statement was captured in the preceding paragraph.

[Eiuol]

What do you mean by intrincisism?

What I mean by intrinsicism is that you can only "start" with logic if logic somehow was automatically grasped (or grasped through revelation to explain that as simply as possible). Logic is a conscious process and a means of conceptual understanding of the world, but no one starts out knowing the rules of logic. What IS automatic is perception, and it involves nothing conscious. Perception is the starting point because it doesn't even require thinking. Even birds have perception, although clearly without any conceptual thinking at any point. Birds don't use logic; they operate on perception. A bird has no way of KNOWING that existence exists, but any action it takes implies things exist. I should emphasize that coming to KNOW that existence exists requires using reason (and thus logic), which is why cavemen didn't ever know even what an axiom is. By know, I mean grasping in explicit terms.

(I'm only posting to explain what I meant by intrinsicism)

Edited November 10, 2010 by Eiuol

[Dante]

To jump in here on the naturalism topic...

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).

2)If there is only physical matter, than our brains are only physical matter and the concept of “mind” is only an abstraction referring to the chemical activity within the physical matter of our brains.

3)If only physical matter in our brains exists (if “minds” don’t actually exist) and if only physical cause and effect can explain all events, then only physical cause and effect can explain the physical/”chemical” activity of our brains.

4)If only physical cause and effect can explain the activity in our brains, then only cause and effect can explain the act which we call “reasoning” or “thinking” or “being objective”.

But “to reason objectively” means for the activity of one’s brain to correspond accurately to outside reality.

5)If only physical cause and effect can explain all activity in the brain, then one’s brain cannot be said to accurately correspond to reality except by extremely low probabilities of mere chance.

I believe you are imputing something extra into your definition of "physical matter” and “physical cause and effect," which Objectivists would argue does not necessarily follow. Speaking for myself, I do hold that only physical entities exist. However, I think you are making an added implicit assumption that physical matter can only act and interact through deterministic processes (I am using the term “deterministic” here to include quantum events which occur with a known probability distribution set by the natures of the entities involved. I mean to contrast “deterministic” with “volitional.”). When you jump from "only physical matter exists" to "physical cause and effect is the only explanation of events," you seem to be simply stating something obvious, but we see from a later step that you mean something more specific by “physical cause and effect.” When, in step 5, you say that the limitation to only physical cause and effect precludes volitional truth-seeking by a person (correct me if I misunderstand you), you are saying that by “physical cause and effect” you really mean completely deterministic processes. You seem to be assuming that simply because some physical entity is limited to its physical form, it cannot have volition, on that basis. If so, this is an unwarranted empirical assumption about the nature of all physical entities.

Your argument is actually quite similar to the argument in OPAR against determinism. Both you and Objectivists agree that there must exist some volitional process that is not completely deterministic, but rather has powers of self-determination. Otherwise, objective knowledge would not be possible, and the claims of determinists would be contradictory. Objectivists would house this volition within the human brain, and would explain it entirely through natural causes. After all, the simple statement “Existence exists” does not make any particular claims about the properties of the entities which exist; in particular, it does not make the claim that everything that exists is deterministic. Also, we experience free will on a first hand basis from introspection. Thus the conclusion, humans have the power to choose.

Now, your argument aims to locate the source of this “something extra” outside of physical entities, but it is only your empirical assumption about how physical entities interact (deterministically) that necessitates this shift. Without this assumption, introducing the concept of a God to explain volition is a needless addition. You are positing an entity which, by its nature, has the power of choice. We agree that such an entity must exist, but we have first-hand evidence that man has volition, and no independent evidence of a higher power. Thus, the creation of a God to explain volition, once your empirical assumption is removed, is an arbitrary addition; there is no need for one. Man has the power of choice, by virtue of his nature.

[Jacob86]

Jacob86, I would be interested in the answer to Plasmatic's inquiry.

Can you cite where Rand supports you on your assertion here? You appear to suggest that the essence of her statement was captured in the preceding paragraph.

Concerning Plasmatic's question, I actually responded to him in some length but the post was accidentally deleted by a moderator who was attempting to edit it. I will try and see if Plasmatic has an email copy of my original response to him and if not, I will try and fully respond to him again on here- though I probably can't do it in full at this moment.

In regards to the specific question, the answer was "no" I have not read Peikoff's ASD, but I think I understand the issue well enough to say that I do not hold to a dichotomy [this is further explained in my post which should be forthcoming in one way or another]

Concerning Rand's support for this meaning of Logic, I think a quick excerpt from Galt's speech should suffice:

"A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 125

Note, she does not say "unless one perceives a contradiction in reality" at the end. That's because contradictions don't happen to not exist. They "cannot exist". To say "unless a contradiction is perceived" turns the entire force of this on it's head. If someone thinks they have spotted a contradiction, it is not reality which holds the contradiction, but one's thinking. That's why throughout Atlas Shrugged it is said that contradictions do not exist; if you think you've spotted one, check your premises. One of them is wrong.

If one arrives at a contradiction (that which is necessarily false according to logic), but holds out hope that his perception will give him more/different information on the issue- he is guilty of the last part of that quote, only in a worse way.

To understand that a square circle is a contradiction and therefore logically and necessarily impossible, and then to ignore this and keep searching for perceptual evidence of a square circle is to rebel against reality and everything upon which your ideas about your perceptions depend. It is the height of arrogance and it is worse than passively "maintaining a contradiction". It's a rabid defense of a contradiction. It is not simply evicting one's self from reality- it is waging war against reality.

[Jacob86]

What I mean by intrinsicism is that you can only "start" with logic if logic somehow was automatically grasped (or grasped through revelation to explain that as simply as possible). Logic is a conscious process and a means of conceptual understanding of the world, but no one starts out knowing the rules of logic. What IS automatic is perception, and it involves nothing conscious. Perception is the starting point because it doesn't even require thinking. Even birds have perception, although clearly without any conceptual thinking at any point. Birds don't use logic; they operate on perception. A bird has no way of KNOWING that existence exists, but any action it takes implies things exist. I should emphasize that coming to KNOW that existence exists requires using reason (and thus logic), which is why cavemen didn't ever know even what an axiom is. By know, I mean grasping in explicit terms.

(I'm only posting to explain what I meant by intrinsicism)

Ok. Then we agree that we do not automatically start with logic experientially- and therefore I am not guilty of this idea of "intrincisim". However, I am contending that we do start with logical explanatorily.

Please see my above responses concerning this distinction.

[Dante]

Note, she does not say "unless one perceives a contradiction in reality" at the end. That's because contradictions don't happen to not exist. They "cannot exist". To say "unless a contradiction is perceived" turns the entire force of this on it's head. If someone thinks they have spotted a contradiction, it is not reality which holds the contradiction, but one's thinking. That's why throughout Atlas Shrugged it is said that contradictions do not exist; if you think you've spotted one, check your premises. One of them is wrong.

If one arrives at a contradiction (that which is necessarily false according to logic), but holds out hope that his perception will give him more/different information on the issue- he is guilty of the last part of that quote, only in a worse way.

To understand that a square circle is a contradiction and therefore logically and necessarily impossible, and then to ignore this and keep searching for perceptual evidence of a square circle is to rebel against reality and everything upon which your ideas about your perceptions depend. It is the height of arrogance and it is worse than passively "maintaining a contradiction". It's a rabid defense of a contradiction. It is not simply evicting one's self from reality- it is waging war against reality.

I don't think anyone here is defending the view that we know contradictions don't exist because we've never met one perceptually. It is not the specific content of perception which tells us that contradictions do not exist. All of the axioms are implicit in any act of perception, regardless of what one is perceiving. You seem to think that people here are defending the view that logic must be validated by perceiving things behave according to logic, or that the laws of logic are verified inductively by not observing anything illogical. This is not the argument. Rather, any form of contact with reality, any form of perception, implicitly verifies the axioms. It is not our specific perceptions, but simply the fact of our perception, which implies the axioms, and from which we conceptualize the laws of logic.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Dante

[Grames]

"A is A" is a formula with variables. Whatever you plug in for the variables, the function of the formula is the same. Yes, perception gives us various things to plug in for the variables, but the function is purely Logical.

By perception we experience "existence". By plugging it into this formula (i.e. by Logic) we know "Existence exists".

This is what I mean by the axioms being dependent upon/validated by/participating in Logic.

This analogy is wrong because it assumes the formula already exists. Where did the formula come from? Now matter how you spin it, you accepting a priori or innate knowledge and metaphysical dualism. The critique of this position ultimately is that it is the negation of the possibility of knowledge because there is no basis in necessity (ultimately the causality of perception) for any relation between an existent and an idea.

If you can validate "A is A" to me by perception alone, a) I will be thoroughly impressed & b ) I will consider accepting your position.

I will not do so, it would be wrong to even attempt it because your perceptions are yours alone. As Peikoff writes: "Axioms are perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality." And also: "No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self-evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further."

Perhaps I have not made this clear enough. I think I agree with you (and Objectivists in general) a lot more than you realize. We are just talking about different things.

PLEASE, try to understand what I mean by the difference between Cognitive Science and Epistemology. What you are asserting is what I call "Cognitive Science" which is a separate (though helpful) study from Epistemology.

We are talking about two different types of "foundation".

What you are talking about is an "Experiential Foundation". What I am talking about is an "Explanatory Foundation". I AGREE with you about the "Experiential Foundation", but I am suggesting that you are confusing experience with explanation and assuming that the foundations of each must be one in the same.

I agree that we experience percepts before we experience logical reasoning. I agree that perception is possible apart from our use of logic. I agree that our first and most obvious connection with reality is perception. And mostly I agree that "perception cannot be explained without Logic because the very act of explanation is a Logical act".

I add, therefore, that Logic is the most fundamental starting point FOR explanation. And explanation-not experience, is what I am after in Epistemology. Yes, Perception is the starting point for experience- but detailing the steps of this experience is the realm of Cognitive Science, not Epistemology.

Do you understand this distinction? Do you agree with it? If not, what do you disagree with and why?

I understand the distinction. I do not agree with it. The problem is with your formulation "our first and most obvious connection with reality is perception." The first and only connection between consciousness and reality is perception. All of the contents of consciousness are derivative from what is perceived i.e. from what is causal, even knowledge of the methods of logic. Any other proposed form of connection is acausal or in other words invoking magic.

[Jacob86]

I don't think anyone here is defending the view that we know contradictions don't exist because we've never met one perceptually. It is not the specific content of perception which tells us that contradictions do not exist. All of the axioms are implicit in any act of perception, regardless of what one is perceiving. You seem to think that people here are defending the view that logic must be validated by perceiving things behave according to logic, or that the laws of logic are verified inductively by not observing anything illogical. This is not the argument. Rather, any form of contact with reality, any form of perception, implicitly verifies the axioms. It is not our specific perceptions, but simply the fact of our perception, which implies the axioms, and from which we conceptualize the laws of logic.

We are in agreement here. The question seems to be this: once we have experienced this conceptualization of the laws of logic, is it safe to assume that they do hold sway over any and all ideas and statements about reality no matter what?

In other words, you seem to be saying that experientially we discover the laws of logic through perception. I agree.

But in addition to this, I am asserting that these laws (which we have discovered-not invented) are laws- they are and always have been and always will be and always must be true about anything in reality- whether we perceive it or not.

This second part seems to the point of disagreement with the other Objectivists.

This analogy is wrong because it assumes the formula already exists. Where did the formula come from? Now matter how you spin it, you accepting a priori or innate knowledge and metaphysical dualism. The critique of this position ultimately is that it is the negation of the possibility of knowledge because there is no basis in necessity (ultimately the causality of perception) for any relation between an existent and an idea.

A priori and innate knowledge are not the same thing. Most of us discover the facts about biology before we discover the facts about chemistry and the facts about physics. Notice, I am agreeing that we discover these facts (not that they are innate). We also discover their relations to each other. And in our discovery, we learn that physics is necessarily "a priori" to chemistry and chemistry is necessarily "a priori" to biology. The fact that chemistry is foundational to biology in this sense does NOT mean that we came across chemistry first! This emphasis on the order in which we happen to discover things is a Subjective emphasis. The emphasis on the order of things in reality is an Objective emphasis.

I am saying that Logic (though we discover it long after we discover many perceptual things) is foundational IN REALITY (not our experience) to perceptual things- just like Chemistry IN REALITY is foundational to Biology.

We do not automatically know the relation of things to each other, but the relation of things to each other is automatic and not dependent upon our knowledge. Once we discover the relation of things to each other (i.e. their "a priori" relationships/ their "foundational relationships") we must not go back on this discovery. Once we discover that Logic/Possibility is "a priori" IN REALITY to the Empirical/Actual, we must from then on treat them as such.

I will not do so, it would be wrong to even attempt it because your perceptions are yours alone. As Peikoff writes: "Axioms are perceptual self-evidencies. There is nothing to be said in their behalf except: look at reality." And also: "No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality, without your help, does not convince a person of the self-evident, he has abdicated reason and cannot be dealt with any further."

I would take issue here with the idea that Axioms are perceptually self-evident. I would agree that "existence" is perceptually self-evident, but the idea that "Existence exists" requires both perception and logic.

I understand the distinction. I do not agree with it. The problem is with your formulation "our first and most obvious connection with reality is perception." The first and only connection between consciousness and reality is perception. All of the contents of consciousness are derivative from what is perceived i.e. from what is causal, even knowledge of the methods of logic. Any other proposed form of connection is acausal or in other words invoking magic.

If "magic" is the only type of non-caused knowledge you can conceive of then you seem to be making a dichotomy between mind and body, not me. If knowledge is caused the same way farts are caused (i.e. involuntarily), then what is the difference?

[Dante]

But in addition to this, I am asserting that these laws (which we have discovered-not invented) are laws- they are and always have been and always will be and always must be true about anything in reality- whether we perceive it or not.

This second part seems to the point of disagreement with the other Objectivists.

Like any principle, the laws of logic apply to the context from which they are formed. In the case of these laws, the context is all entities, or all of existence. Thus, characterizing them as necessarily true about anything in reality is accurate.

A priori and innate knowledge are not the same thing. Most of us discover the facts about biology before we discover the facts about chemistry and the facts about physics. Notice, I am agreeing that we discover these facts (not that they are innate). We also discover their relations to each other. And in our discovery, we learn that physics is necessarily "a priori" to chemistry and chemistry is necessarily "a priori" to biology. The fact that chemistry is foundational to biology in this sense does NOT mean that we came across chemistry first! This emphasis on the order in which we happen to discover things is a Subjective emphasis. The emphasis on the order of things in reality is an Objective emphasis.

I don't think Objectivist epistemology suffers from this "Subjective emphasis" that you seem to think it does. As you describe what you mean by "a priori," it sounds to me as though it is a restatement of a central part of O'ist epistemology: the idea of context. Chemistry is necessarily "a priori" to biology precisely because the broadest context of biological principles is the realm of all living things, while the broadest context of chemical principles is all matter. Thus, true chemical principles must be taken into account when studying relevant biological phenomena. Your idea of some knowledge being "a priori" in relation to other knowledge seems to me to mirror the idea that some knowledge is formed from a wider context than other knowledge. In this case, logical principles would be "a priori" to any more specific empirical claim about the universe, as they are formed from the context of all that exists.

I am saying that Logic (though we discover it long after we discover many perceptual things) is foundational IN REALITY (not our experience) to perceptual things- just like Chemistry IN REALITY is foundational to Biology.

We do not automatically know the relation of things to each other, but the relation of things to each other is automatic and not dependent upon our knowledge. Once we discover the relation of things to each other (i.e. their "a priori" relationships/ their "foundational relationships") we must not go back on this discovery. Once we discover that Logic/Possibility is "a priori" IN REALITY to the Empirical/Actual, we must from then on treat them as such.

Considering my relation of your "a priori" ideas to context, how is this different or more objective than Ayn Rand's exhortation never to drop context? It would seem to be the same as your admonition to never forget the order of relationships among knowledge.

I would take issue here with the idea that Axioms are perceptually self-evident. I would agree that "existence" is perceptually self-evident, but the idea that "Existence exists" requires both perception and logic.

"Existence exists" is an axiomatic concept, not strictly an axiom.

[Plasmatic]

Jacob, have you found your post addressed to me? I don't do the email notification thing.

[Grames]

We are in agreement here. The question seems to be this: once we have experienced this conceptualization of the laws of logic, is it safe to assume that they do hold sway over any and all ideas and statements about reality no matter what?

In other words, you seem to be saying that experientially we discover the laws of logic through perception. I agree.

But in addition to this, I am asserting that these laws (which we have discovered-not invented) are laws- they are and always have been and always will be and always must be true about anything in reality- whether we perceive it or not.

This second part seems to the point of disagreement with the other Objectivists.

All laws govern humans, not inanimate matter. Legal codes distinguish permissible from impermissible human behavior. The laws of physics and the laws of logic distinguish permissible from impermissible human methods of thought. Your thinking does not yet use the concept of objective differently from the intrinsic, and the problem with that is what is intrinsic is entirely apart from humans. Only particulars of existents and identity are intrinsic, or in other words existence is neither true not false it simply is. Human conceptual knowledge is always human, the appropriate standard is objective meaning derived from valid methods of thought that avoid falsehood, contradiction and the arbitrary.

A priori and innate knowledge are not the same thing. Most of us discover the facts about biology before we discover the facts about chemistry and the facts about physics. Notice, I am agreeing that we discover these facts (not that they are innate). We also discover their relations to each other. And in our discovery, we learn that physics is necessarily "a priori" to chemistry and chemistry is necessarily "a priori" to biology.

These are merely examples of logical hierarchy. You do not know enough philosophy to properly argue your case, or understand the counter-arguments. A priori and innate knowledge are the slightly different perspectives on the same idea. See this article on Wikipedia A priori and a posteriori. Distinguishing between knowledge which is independent of experience from knowledge which is dependent on experience is the same as your "experience vs. explanation" distinction. It is the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. All of these distinctions, the a priori/a posteriori, the analytic/synthetic, and the necessary/contingent, run in parallel and are equally mistaken.

The refutation of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy is given in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 2nd ed., in the chapter "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" by Leonard Peikoff. That is the correct place for that essay to appear because it is dependent on the theory of concepts and their meaning presented by Rand in that book. OPAR is a great presentation of Objectivism as a systematic whole, but it is no substitute for ITOE if you want to understand how to think.

I would take issue here with the idea that Axioms are perceptually self-evident. I would agree that "existence" is perceptually self-evident, but the idea that "Existence exists" requires both perception and logic.

This is terribly, terribly sloppy writing and thinking because there is no logic in the sentence "Existence exists." There are words and thus concepts, a subject and a verb. There is no syllogism, no premise, no conclusion. There is no logic. "Existence exists" is an assertion. The only thing that saves "Existence exists" from being a bald-faced ex-nihilo or ex-cathedra arbitrary assertion that can be immediately dismissed from consideration is that fact that it is implicit in every act of perception and every subsequent valid thought. "Existence exists" is ineluctable, true, and self-evident. "Existence exists" comes before all logic and is the basis of logic (one of the bases; logic requires several axioms before it can "get started"), therefore any attempt to logically argue for it is necessarily circular and invalid. "Existence exists" is demonstrated, not proven.

If "magic" is the only type of non-caused knowledge you can conceive of then you seem to be making a dichotomy between mind and body, not me. If knowledge is caused the same way farts are caused (i.e. involuntarily), then what is the difference?

The causal basis of knowledge in perception is the foundation for conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is also causal but in a different way from perception, the difference is captured in the axiomatic concept of volition.

[icosahedron]

Ok. Then we agree that we do not automatically start with logic experientially- and therefore I am not guilty of this idea of "intrincisim". However, I am contending that we do start with logical explanatorily.

Please see my above responses concerning this distinction.

Logic is transformative, i.e., acts functionally to convert information in one form, into information in another form, such that the information after the transformation is implied by that before.

As for any transformation, it is at best irrelevant if it is not applied, i.e., if there is no input to feed into a function, then it's not very useful.

You still need both the power of thought (which is, IMHO, a more general notion that subsumes logic), and something(s) for that power to be referenced to, to use as inputs.

Function is predicated on material to be processed.

You can't drop context; a pump that might but never does run is not actually functioning, so why imagine it is useful without something to pump?

You can probably come up with your own if you need more analogies here.

- ico

[icosahedron]

The causal basis of knowledge in perception is the foundation for conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is also causal but in a different way from perception, the difference is captured in the axiomatic concept of volition.

First of all, the whole of which I snipped all but the final bit was VERY well written and clear, thank you!

To underscore the nature of volition, note that conceptual knowledge, like all things man-made, does not have to be. It is the result of making conditional choices.

As in, "If I want to live effectively, then I must learn how to do so", and then also, "If I want to learn effectively, then I must take my limitations into account in choosing my methods of learning."

It is the recognition of limitations, and the limitations of those limitations, that leads to learning and growth. The limitations are rarely challenged except when necessary, and when necessary the challenges are most instructive. When one really, really wants something, and must stretch to figure out how to gain the object of desire, then one finds means that reduce the limitations that stand in the way, if such means are available; if not, then one finds that out and learns the bounds of the possible (and the sooner, the better).

- ico

[Jacob86]

Like any principle, the laws of logic apply to the context from which they are formed. In the case of these laws, the context is all entities, or all of existence. Thus, characterizing them as necessarily true about anything in reality is accurate.

I don't think Objectivist epistemology suffers from this "Subjective emphasis" that you seem to think it does. As you describe what you mean by "a priori," it sounds to me as though it is a restatement of a central part of O'ist epistemology: the idea of context. Chemistry is necessarily "a priori" to biology precisely because the broadest context of biological principles is the realm of all living things, while the broadest context of chemical principles is all matter. Thus, true chemical principles must be taken into account when studying relevant biological phenomena. Your idea of some knowledge being "a priori" in relation to other knowledge seems to me to mirror the idea that some knowledge is formed from a wider context than other knowledge. In this case, logical principles would be "a priori" to any more specific empirical claim about the universe, as they are formed from the context of all that exists.

Thank you. You seem to be the only one on here (so far) who has agreed with me on this. The majority of the other responders seem to have been arguing against using Logic in this way for this type of foundation. I assume that many have simply misunderstood my position (perhaps confusing it with other positions of innate knowledge, etc..). So, I've been laboring to get across what I am saying and what I am not saying in order to see if they agree.

Considering my relation of your "a priori" ideas to context, how is this different or more objective than Ayn Rand's exhortation never to drop context? It would seem to be the same as your admonition to never forget the order of relationships among knowledge.

It is not different. This is one of the reasons I was attracted to Rand and Objectivism; because she treated Logic the way it ought to be treated. However, in discussing epistemology with Objectivists, it seems that many do not share (in full) her understanding of Logic. I suspect this is because it was never explicitly spelled out (especially in this way in which I am spelling it out).

The Explicit Objectivist Epistemology begins with what I call "Cognitive Science" which is the study of how we happen to come to know things and form ideas. This emphasizes the experiential and makes it implicitly the foundation- hence many Objectivists holding to perception as foundational in epistemology.

(This would be like working from our experiences of biology to the study of biology to the study of chemistry to the study of physics in a class on the "Order of the Sciences")

I think the proper way to discuss Epistemology is to begin with the explanatory foundation: Logic and to proceed from there to the philosophy, then Science in general (the social and physical sciences), then Physics, Chemistry, Biology. This emphasizes the objective explanatory order of things in reality.

I think that the failure to distinguish between these two types of "epistemology" and the failure to explicitly study the second type has unfortunately made many Objectivists equate the process of the first (perceptual experience) with the goal of the second (foundational to objective reality).

This is the only sense I can make of the current confusion and debate in this thread.

"Existence exists" is an axiomatic concept, not strictly an axiom.

I'm not sure what distinction you are making here- or whether or not it you consider it to be important....? Sorry.