Existence exists subsidiary thread

[dream_weaver]

Okey, let me give you some examples.

 

Examples of Objectivist integration:

1) mind/body becomes mind as consciousness is primary, body as emotion is automatic (from your model, 2 versus 10A, respectively);

2) analytic/synthetic becomes analytic primary, synthetic faultily implied by Oist integration (level 3 from your model);

3) existence/consciousness becomes existence primary, consciousness secondary (1 versus 2, respectively);

4) rationalism/empiricism becomes rationalism as reason is primary, empiricism as senses is secondary (4 versus 5; also, I know no Oist scientists).

At best, those are examples of Ilya's attempt of identifying Objectivist integration.

 

These would parallel your misconceptions with statements akin to the Objectivist position in my terms.

 

1. Mind and body are an indivisible whole. Emotions are an automatic response to thoughts. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Reason is the tool of cognition. The "sum of the conclusions" accepted as true by the mind, are the "sum of the thoughts" that emotions are automatically responding to.

2. Objectivism rejects the analytic/synthetic dichotomy in favor of integrations properly formed, guided by the method of Aristotelian logic.

3. Existence exists. It is what your consciousness is aware of. The act of wishing gravity were something other than F = Gm₁m₂/r² has no impact on gravity. Existence sets the terms. Consciousness abides by the terms existence sets, or it declares an inner war on them, which still has no impact on reality.

4  Objectivism recognizes rationalism as a feeble attempt to reason without a method (Aristotelian logic) to adhere to reality. The data of sense (percepts) are the foundation, the basis, the material from which Aristotelian logic is derived from. (As to Objectivist scientists, have you considered David Harriman (physics), Keith Lockitch (physics), and Leonard Peikoff (philosophy), just to name a few of the more prominent ones?)

 

Edited: Added.

Edited July 15, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

Just... no... That's not what is meant by integration. Integration here doesn't mean a synthesis of thesis and anti-thesis. And as dream_weaver was getting at, you seem to be trying to treat Objectivism under Hegelian terms. Not as in Hegel per se, but as in Hegelians like Marx. Integration is observing a group of entities or noting some group of mental entities (e.g. concepts formed earlier), then uniting a subset of the group along some similarity. That's a one sentence version. Objectivism rejects those dichotomies you listed, it doesn't attempt to create an integration out of them to reach some transcendent truth. That's a totally different philosophical method and tradition.

At best, those are examples of Ilya's attempt of identifying Objectivist integration.

 

These would parallel your misconceptions with statements akin to the Objectivist position in my terms.

 

1. Mind and body are an indivisible whole. Emotions are an automatic response to thoughts. Emotions are not tools of cognition. Reason is the tool of cognition. The "sum of the conclusions" accepted as true by the mind, are the "sum of the thoughts" that emotions are automatically responding to.

2. Objectivism rejects the analytic/synthetic dichotomy in favor of integrations properly formed, guided by the method of Aristotelian logic.

3. Existence exists. It is what your consciousness is aware of. The act of wishing gravity were something other than F = Gm₁m₂/r² has no impact on gravity. Existence sets the terms. Consciousness abides by the terms existence sets, or it declares an inner war on them, which still has no impact on reality.

4  Objectivism recognizes rationalism as a feeble attempt to reason without a method (Aristotelian logic) to adhere to reality. The data of sense (percepts) are the foundation, the basis, the material from which Aristotelian logic is derived from. (As to Objectivist scientists, have you considered David Harriman (physics), Keith Lockitch (physics), and Leonard Peikoff (philosophy), just to name a few of the more prominent ones?)

 

Edited: Added.

In other words, Objectivist integration and method are not the same as common integration and method. You say that common is bad, okey. I am wrong because I use the common ones, okey, fine. Now I still need to understand how your epistemological integration becomes metaphysical integration. From what I gather, you think that by omitting all qualitative properties that differ from object to object and retaining only their existential and quantitative ones, you still retain the objects in your mind. But what you are actually doing in such integration from percepts to concepts is lose all senses that were related to percepts and go into abstractions that cannot be known and thus do not refer to reality. On top of all the conceptualization, you basically say that existence exists separately from everything qualitative from which you removed it. However, they cannot be removed from the senses or you have a rationalist trench! Either you remove senses or keep them. You got me confused. Btw, Greg, thanks for the names of the scientists--it's useful to know. Except, I don't consider Peikoff a scientist. Peikoff is no Aristotle.

[Ilya Startsev]

I have problems with the following Objectivisms: "physical existence" and "conceptual awareness." First, I know that existence refers to physical existents made of matter or energy but itself is not physical. Second, existence is a concept that also refers to pre-conscious awareness of existence, which is not conceptual. Besides, you cannot be aware of concepts in your head. You are conscious of them. For example, when you look in a mirror, you are aware of your body and presence but you are conscious of one's conception of self. Let me reiterate, awareness is the basis of consciousness like the first-level concepts. You are aware of sensation and physical perception (i.e., physical existents as they appear in your mind), but you are conscious of conceptual perception (i.e., words and other symbols) and conception. For example, existence of a table means the property of existence of a table. By that, I do not mean that the concept of existence is instinsic to the table--no--the concept is intrinsic to a human mind, but that the property of existence of which we are aware is intrinstic to the table and thus we know that the table exists.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[CriticalThinker2000]

Consciousness is identification. The problem is that you only use binary logic, like your computer.

 

I meant for you to take my question literally, what is it in reality that you observe which gives rise to the need for a concept, 'consciousness'?

 

In any event, you claim consciousness is not awareness but consciousness is identification. How does a consciousness identify something of which it is not aware?

 

 

But what you are actually doing in such integration from percepts to concepts is lose all senses that were related to percepts and go into abstractions that cannot be known and thus do not refer to reality.

 

Do you mean 'sensations'? Objectivism holds that percepts are automatic integrations of sensations. They are not lost by integrating them, as evidenced by the fact that we have the concept in the first place.

 

 

 

Besides, you cannot be aware of concepts in your head. You are conscious of them.

 

Again, how is a consciousness conscious of something of which it is not aware?

[Eiuol]

Now I still need to understand how your epistemological integration becomes metaphysical integration.

It doesn't. Integration is epistemological.

[Spiral Architect]

"Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

 

Ilya, what are you trying to accomplish?

[Ilya Startsev]

I meant for you to take my question literally, what is it in reality that you observe which gives rise to the need for a concept, 'consciousness'?

 

In any event, you claim consciousness is not awareness but consciousness is identification. How does a consciousness identify something of which it is not aware?

 

 

Do you mean 'sensations'? Objectivism holds that percepts are automatic integrations of sensations. They are not lost by integrating them, as evidenced by the fact that we have the concept in the first place.

 

 

 

Again, how is a consciousness conscious of something of which it is not aware?

Yes, I meant senses as sensations. I will say sensations or sense data from now on. The whole issue here is in the second stage: perception. You can perceive the existence of objects by being aware of them. You can also perceive words and symbols by consciously conceiving of them. However, physical objects are not the same as words or symbols. Yes, words and symbols are made up of atoms, but it is not atoms that we are conscious of but meanings. We are aware of atoms, if you allow me to put it crudely so. Let me give you another example. Say, you are playing an engaging video game (not solitare, unless you can lose yourself in it). While in the middle of some action, you literally lose awareness of your physical self and your existence. Instead, you are aware of the sensations coming from the screen. The only time when you need to actually turn on your consciousness is when you need to understand something. So, I guess to differentiate consciousness and awareness: you can turn off each (so it's not just pure sensations, which cannot be turned off), children and animals have awareness (including self-awareness, but "self" here is an existential presence, not a conceptual self), but humans have consciousness that they can turn on with the help of abstract philosophy like Objectivism.

 

It doesn't. Integration is epistemological.

This is really helpful. I think we are getting someplace.

[Ilya Startsev]

"Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes."

 

Ilya, what are you trying to accomplish?

I have very many plans that I want to accomplish. I am honest with you because I know that it will not work any other way with Objectivists. I have some plans that are in conflict with Objectivism. But I also have other plans that are based on promoting Objectivism. In fact, right now, the plans to promote Objectivism and philosophy in general are primary -- they are my basis for future plans. I cannot do anything without Objectivism. I love Objectivist ethics, politics, esthetics. I have virtually no conflicts with those and wish to spread them as much as possible, so people accept your ideas. I do not want to study those fields and spend time writing books on them. Objectivists have already built a wonderful base to spread the philosophy. Your rhetoric and argumentation is spotless and ingeniously clever (e.g., Rand's West Point speech). I am also in complete dependence (philosophically) on your metaphysics and epistemology because the new ideas depend on your concepts of existence and consciousness and the theory of concepts. I will promote them as they are now, but I will also add my ideology to them. Think about it this way: while supporting your philosophy, I am concurrently trying to weave dialectics (my own and Dr. Michael Kosok's, who integrated Hegel's and Marx's dialectics) with your metaphysics, which I consider to be the greatest and best metaphysics today. In philosophy, there are only two methods of thinking: metaphysics and dialectics. I want to use them both in such a way, so people like Objectivists will understand it and non-Objectivist philosophers will grasp it as well. In other words, it will be an all-inclusive philosophy--a true philosophy for all. But in this task, I also need Objectivist as an inseparable part of the overall plans. I want to finally make the government be employed by the independent people and thus make the world a better place.

[StrictlyLogical]

Can you mix a little "A = not A" into the Axiom A = A? Can you mix a little "things are not really what they are" with identity?

 

Can you mix a little "tyranny" with "rational self-interest"? Or a little "irrationality" with "logic"?

 

 

What you purport to propose doing... "weaving" something into/with Objectivism (those things being incompatible with Objectivism) is not possible.

[Plasmatic]

SL said:

What you purport to propose doing... "weaving" something into/with Objectivism (those things being incompatible with Objectivism) is not possible.

For a Hegelian (including the metarialist versions) incompatibility is exactly the criteria for integration ("weaving") They dont get that integration is constrained by identity, the possible constrained by the actual. This is the whole reason he wants "indefinate existence" and "multi-valued logic", because "dialectics" is all about contradiction., the metaphysically impossible.... We also need to add to this that he wants a metaphysical hierarchy to fall out of epistemological hierarchy.... Edited July 15, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

I am concurrently trying to weave dialectics (my own and Dr. Michael Kosok's, who integrated Hegel's and Marx's dialectics) with your metaphysics, which I consider to be the greatest and best metaphysics

I just looked up this Kosok and found this:

http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_03.htm

Exactly what I was saying!

[dream_weaver]

In other words, Objectivist integration and method are not the same as common integration and method. You say that common is bad, okey. I am wrong because I use the common ones, okey, fine. Now I still need to understand how your epistemological integration becomes metaphysical integration. From what I gather, you think that by omitting all qualitative properties that differ from object to object and retaining only their existential and quantitative ones, you still retain the objects in your mind.

Speaking for myself, I've looked more into Objectivist integration and method than "common integration and method."

As Eiuol pointed out, integration is an epistemological event, not a metaphysical one. The metaphysical observations performed by consciousness provide the material for performing differentiation (observational differences) and integration (observational similarities), the two essentials of consciousness as indicated by Miss Rand in ITOE.

But what you are actually doing in such integration from percepts to concepts is lose all senses that were related to percepts and go into abstractions that cannot be known and thus do not refer to reality. On top of all the conceptualization, you basically say that existence exists separately from everything qualitative from which you removed it. However, they cannot be removed from the senses or you have a rationalist trench! Either you remove senses or keep them. You got me confused.

If you keep in mind that the first abstractions are those made from entities, the symbol or word we use to correspond to the entity is accompanied by the action of pointing - essentially "by this" (uttering the symbolic word), "I mean that" (pointing at the entity corresponding to the symbol or word.) Rather than a rationalist trench (reasoning without reference to reality), it is the correspondence of the utterance (epistemological symbol) to the referent (empirical object).

Btw, Greg, thanks for the names of the scientists--it's useful to know. Except, I don't consider Peikoff a scientist. Peikoff is no Aristotle.

You're welcome. However, your consideration as to whether Peikoff is, or is not, a scientist are not relevant to whether Peikoff is, or is not , a scientist. The criteria you use to make such a judgment either is, or is not, the proper criteria to use for such an assessment. The fact that Peikoff is no Aristotle only indicates that Peikoff is not Aristotle - a fact that is quite simply and readily - self-evident.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

The fact that Peikoff is no Aristotle only indicates that Peikoff is not Aristotle - a fact that is quite simply and readily - self-evident.

If one accepts the "binary" logic that Peikoff cannot also be Aristotle, at the same time and in the same way. . . .

 

However, physical objects are not the same as words or symbols.

 

Why not?

[Ilya Startsev]

First of all, I want to thank all of you for the replies and feedback. The main reason that I love this forum is that it is so lively (and intellectual, of course). Now, onto the posts:

Can you mix a little "A = not A" into the Axiom A = A? Can you mix a little "things are not really what they are" with identity?

Yes! First, I want to point out that there are three laws of Aristotelian logic: the law of identity (LOI), the law of noncontradiction (LNC), and the law of excluded middle (LEM). Now, you have grasped LOI. I want to concentrate on the last two. Wikipedia helps in this regard. LNC shows that parts are "mutually exclusive," and LEM shows that parts are "jointly exhaustive." What does this mean? It means that the two opposite parts are all there is and that they make up a whole. In other words, a single part will not be a whole in the absolute sense. It has to have the opposite. The idea that you really need to understand is context as space. Rand mentioned in ITOE how entities can be contexts, but there is nothing in all of Objectivism about how contexts can be actually spatial (Peikoff repeatedly makes the mistake of ignoring the latter.) Rand wrote that existence and its opposite--nonexistence--cannot be at the same time (she only considered the epistemological time aspect of existence). But by LNC and LEM, existence is not everything. It is just a part.

 

Let me show you with a real example:

Yourself, in a room, and me, in my room. Think of the room as a spatial context, not as objects in it. Then, the room will be the places where you can exist (i.e., you cannot exist in the location of other objects; in other words, you cannot exist inside another object on your level of awareness). The same applies to me. Now, what I have shown is that you exist and the space around you does not exist. You can exist in this space only if it is not taken by someone or something else. In other words, your space and you are not mutually exclusive. However, if you look at me, you know that we are mutually exclusive. I cannot exist exactly where you exist, and you cannot exist where I exist. Our properties of existence are spatially different, but we can share space. However, my nonexistence (the space that I take up) can be inside of your existence and vice versa because this existence and nonexistence refer to opposite entities (you and me) and are not illogically opposite.

 

The recurring issue is the Objectivist misunderstanding of space as a concept versus a space as an actual nothing. Look at the starry sky. What do you see besides the stars? What you see is not a mathematical concept. It is called space. Space is everywhere. It is in your room, outside, inside objects; it's everywhere. Space is the context in which we exist. Thus, we exist in nonexistence. If you can understand this, you will overcome your hate for modern science and logic. Einstein's space is not a concept that was misintegrated. You cannot receive sensations without space. What Einstein had done was (even if subconsciously) visualized space based on the space he saw around him. Thus, he integrated percepts into concepts just like Newton and Maxwell and Aristotle had done with their concepts. And what we find now is the evidence that Einstein was right. For example, there is physical evidence of the timezones (proving SR) and astrophysical images of how light of some galaxies bends around galactic clusters (proving GR).

 

For a Hegelian (including the metarialist versions) incompatibility is exactly the criteria for integration ("weaving") They dont get that integration is constrained by identity, the possible constrained by the actual. This is the whole reason he wants "indefinate existence" and "multi-valued logic", because "dialectics" is all about contradiction., the metaphysically impossible.... We also need to add to this that he wants a metaphysical hierarchy to fall out of epistemological hierarchy....

Objectivist method of thought is pure metaphysics. The way you think is opposite to the way dialecticians think. To understand dialectics for you is similar to how it is to understand metaphysics for me. It is extremely challenging. I do indeed have those hierarchies you are talking about. And so far, there is not a single contradiction. Otherwise, you would have found it.

 

I just looked up this Kosok and found this:

http://www.anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2008_03.htm

Exactly what I was saying!

Thank you! This is a very interesting site. I should probably contact that philosopher. Her name is Rosa Lichtenstein, and she is an analytical Marxist. That is to say, she abandoned dialectics, never reached the level of conceptual metaphysics like Rand did, and simply applied scientific, empirical reasoning to Marxism. More than that, this is what she said in an interview: "I call myself both a Leninist and a Trotskyist" (http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10789). Yes, she is dangerous, but she would have you believe that Hegel is more dangerous. What she never grasped is that Kosok is neither a Hegelian nor a Marxist. Kosok is a pure dialectical realist (as how I would call him). Lichtenstein is not a dialectician and thus would rather fragment Kosok's work than try to understand him. Her way to understand Kosok is just as inadequate as your way of understanding Kosok because you all think differently. On the other hand, I am neither a pure dialectician, nor a pure metaphysican, nor a pure empiricst. My way is to understand all sides and integrate them without contradictions.

 

The metaphysical observations performed by consciousness provide the material for performing differentiation (observational differences) and integration (observational similarities), the two essentials of consciousness as indicated by Miss Rand in ITOE.

I have issues with understanding what you wrote. I know that you understand it correctly, but I don't. I am aware of physical observations. I can sense and perceive their differences spatially, but their similarities are concepts in my mind. I cannot observe metaphysics. I am conscious of metaphysical concepts that refer to physical observations, yes. But I do not see, literally, existence. You cannot! It's in your mind--in your consciousness. Your consciousness preserves the referents in concepts. It cannot literally preserve observations of such referents. It only refers to them.

 

[i wrote: physical objects are not the same as words or symbols]

Why not?

Because you cannot hold them. You can hold large amounts of matter but not small ones like words and symbols. For example, words and symbols that you see on a screen are particles of light that have negligible mass. Now, a book or a piece of paper is a physical object that exists (you can hit something with it), but not a word or a symbol. The primary function of words and symbols is conceptual. They are for our minds, but not for our bodies, such as a chair, a car, a table. Now, a physical carrier of a work of art is on our level of awareness, but we cannot literally be aware of the existence of separate words or symbols. They don't intrinsically exist as words and symbols but as matter, if you look at it physically.

[theestevearnold]

A free market is possible, yes. What will happen though, once it arrives? I need evidence.

The evidence is in the industrial revolution; a time when government intervention was much less than now while prosperity was greater.

The evidence is the historical fact that the closer economies are to laissez faire, the more prosperous they are. And vice versa.

So although no nation has ever had true capitalism, the US in its early days came close, & that was the most prosperous tIme In the hIstory of Earth.

[Ilya Startsev]

The evidence is in the industrial revolution; a time when government intervention was much less than now while prosperity was greater.

The evidence is the historical fact that the closer economies are to laissez faire, the more prosperous they are. And vice versa.

So although no nation has ever had true capitalism, the US in its early days came close, & that was the most prosperous tIme In the hIstory of Earth.

I concur. The question now is how to build the free-market without violence.

[Spiral Architect]

One merely has to see a view of the Korean penninsula from space at night to see a demonstration of the virtue of liberty in the market place.  Outside of a few concrete bound professors who can't abstract ideas the picture speaks for itself.

 

Not that it needs explaining.  The ethics of treating someone as an end to someone elses purpose is all the confession you need. 

[dream_weaver]

I have issues with understanding what you wrote. I know that you understand it correctly, but I don't. I am aware of physical observations. I can sense and perceive their differences spatially, but their similarities are concepts in my mind. I cannot observe metaphysics. I am conscious of metaphysical concepts that refer to physical observations, yes. But I do not see, literally, existence. You cannot! It's in your mind--in your consciousness. Your consciousness preserves the referents in concepts. It cannot literally preserve observations of such referents. It only refers to them.

True, you do not literally see an entity called existence. Your consciousness perceives the referents and forms concepts for them. From those referents and concepts you form other concepts, and so on, until you reach the concept of existence. Existence has to be conceptualized from what is around you. What is existence? It is abstracted from what is all around you isolating what is similar to all existents; ultimately the fact that the existents exist.

[CriticalThinker2000]

The idea that you really need to understand is context as space. Rand mentioned in ITOE how entities can be contexts, but there is nothing in all of Objectivism about how contexts can be actually spatial (Peikoff repeatedly makes the mistake of ignoring the latter.)

 

What do you mean here by 'context'? Here is what Peikoff means: "By “context” we mean the sum of cognitive elements conditioning the acquisition, validity or application of any item of human knowledge." It's an epistemological concept. What facts of reality do you think make the concept necessary?

 

 

The recurring issue is the Objectivist misunderstanding of space as a concept versus a space as an actual nothing. Look at the starry sky. What do you see besides the stars? What you see is not a mathematical concept. It is called space. Space is everywhere. It is in your room, outside, inside objects; it's everywhere. Space is the context in which we exist. Thus, we exist in nonexistence.

 

Space is not an entity. It is not a 'thing'. It's a relationship between entities. By treating space as an entity you arrive at silly conclusions such as "we exist in nonexistence" which is itself a contradictory statement. Concretize what it would mean to exist in nonexistence. Where would you be? Nonexistence is not an entity- you cannot be inside it. It's the absence of entities. Where do you think the concept of space comes from? It arises because entities exist in relatable locations. Space is a concept that designates this relationship.

 

Previously, you drew a distinction between consciousness and awareness. But if you again investigate why we need the concept 'consciousness' you can see that it's because we observe certain entities in reality (including ourselves) that are aware of things. We create a concept that refers to this faculty of awareness: consciousness. It therefore make no sense to say that awareness is separate from consciousness. Consciousness IS awareness- that's where we get the concept to begin with.

 

Your mistakes in these three areas (context, consciousness, space) are a result of not having a clear idea of what you mean by the concepts you're using and what specifically they refer to in reality. I think this is a problem that runs through a lot of your theories.

[Ilya Startsev]

One merely has to see a view of the Korean penninsula from space at night to see a demonstration of the virtue of liberty in the market place.  Outside of a few concrete bound professors who can't abstract ideas the picture speaks for itself.

Indeed. Amazing.

 

True, you do not literally see an entity called existence. Your consciousness perceives the referents and forms concepts for them. From those referents and concepts you form other concepts, and so on, until you reach the concept of existence. Existence has to be conceptualized from what is around you. What is existence? It is abstracted from what is all around you isolating what is similar to all existents; ultimately the fact that the existents exist.

Yes, that's what I meant.

 

What do you mean here by 'context'? Here is what Peikoff means: "By “context” we mean the sum of cognitive elements conditioning the acquisition, validity or application of any item of human knowledge." It's an epistemological concept. What facts of reality do you think make the concept necessary?

 

 

Space is not an entity. It is not a 'thing'. It's a relationship between entities. By treating space as an entity you arrive at silly conclusions such as "we exist in nonexistence" which is itself a contradictory statement. Concretize what it would mean to exist in nonexistence. Where would you be? Nonexistence is not an entity- you cannot be inside it. It's the absence of entities. Where do you think the concept of space comes from? It arises because entities exist in relatable locations. Space is a concept that designates this relationship.

 

Previously, you drew a distinction between consciousness and awareness. But if you again investigate why we need the concept 'consciousness' you can see that it's because we observe certain entities in reality (including ourselves) that are aware of things. We create a concept that refers to this faculty of awareness: consciousness. It therefore make no sense to say that awareness is separate from consciousness. Consciousness IS awareness- that's where we get the concept to begin with.

 

Your mistakes in these three areas (context, consciousness, space) are a result of not having a clear idea of what you mean by the concepts you're using and what specifically they refer to in reality. I think this is a problem that runs through a lot of your theories.

Context is a background. It's a relationship by which entities are defined. An entity should not be defined separately from its context. I don't treat space as an entity. Space is a nothing. Notice that I did not capitalize nonexistence. By nonexistence in "we exist in nonexistence" I simply meant space. Of course you can be in space. Your environment, nature, the world are not inside you. You are inside of them. Environment, nature, the world are not entities in your awareness of existence. Think of your awareness as a field. The field stretches only as far as where you can exist and perceive at the same time. In other words, your environment would be your field of awareness, not all of nature or the whole world since, although you could theoretically exist there, you cannot perceive all of it at the same time. Some entities exist in your field of awareness, but all entities do not exist in your field of awareness. I should specify, of course space includes entities; physical space cannot be without entities. You won't be aware of entities without their spatial relationships, though.

Although consciousness and awareness are inseparable, they are not the same. The way I conceptualized it, awareness is the integration of sense data into percepts. Consciousness is the integration of percepts into concepts. The two integrations are obviously not identical.

 

P.S. If you think that "entity" can be either a thing or a relationship between things, then you mix first-order and higher -order logics, and this is unacceptable.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

 

*** Mod's note: Split from an earlier thread. -sN ***

 

This is an interesting thread. Having never read most of the thinkers mentioned, I feel pretty stupid here. Would you help me integrate the Oist statement existence exists into my system of thinking? In my logical model, there is everything and nothing. To keep this short, starting with subatomic particles and ending with Omniverse is everything. Would it be valid for me to equate my term everything to existence? If so, it would become: everything exists. Our relations to everything are built through perceptually identifying some things. Hence our body is our body and our environment is our environment. Something that exists is a part of everything that exists. Are there any fallacies in my thinking? Does existence have to be material or can it also include what is caused by matter (e.g., consciousness)? If a metaphysical concept can be identified with a spatiotemporal dimension, it can be included somewhere between particles and Omniverse. Does such existence have to be perceived deductively or inductively? Either way it's perceived, though, I deem it fits my model.

 

 

 

Yes, that's what I meant.

Now ask yourself (or retrace the progression through the thread) how you went from the question in what is the OP of this thread: "Would you help me integrate the Oist statement existence exists into my system of thinking?" to "Yes, that's what I meant."

 

From ITOE, Chapter 6:

The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.

 

From ITOE, Chapter 1:

The building-block of man's knowledge is the concept of an "existent"—of something that exists, be it a thing {entity}¹, an attribute or an action. {event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.}¹

 

To acknowledge that existents exist (Yes, that's what I meant.), is to acknowledge that existence exist.

 

¹ {...} added by me.

[Ilya Startsev]

Now ask yourself (or retrace the progression through the thread) how you went from the question in what is the OP of this thread: "Would you help me integrate the Oist statement existence exists into my system of thinking?" to "Yes, that's what I meant."

 

From ITOE, Chapter 6:

The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.

 

From ITOE, Chapter 1:

The building-block of man's knowledge is the concept of an "existent"—of something that exists, be it a thing {entity}¹, an attribute or an action. {event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist.}¹

 

To acknowledge that existents exist (Yes, that's what I meant.), is to acknowledge that existence exist.

 

¹ {...} added by me.

In other words, what you know epistemologically is what exists metaphysically. Knowledge is limited by an individual's consciousness, but existence is potentially infinite. We can never know all of existence, but we can know some of it and project what we know onto our concept of existence. What happens when we have not discovered something that exists? Then we cannot know that it exists. But what if someone guesses correctly that something indeed exists even though he does not know of it. And what if someone finds this thing that was predicted to exist? We can then include a lot more into the category of existence than merely what we know today to exist. That's what I meant when I said that existence is indefinite and knowledge is definite. There is some belief inherent to existence. For example, people in the middle ages thought it was impossible for men to fly. There were many who failed and people called them lunatics. Yet, some people continued to believe that a person may fly. And these people who believed, but did not know, such as the Wright Brothers, proved their belief in knowledge that man can indeed fly. In contrast to the Objectivist hard claim of atheism, I want to point out that every scientist and individual that you admire who lived before the twenthieth century believed in God. It is a pattern that it wasn't atheists who built our knowledge base.

[Ilya Startsev]

From note 252 of Peikoff's DIM Hypothesis: "Existence (this world) is the primary self-evident axiom, grasped implicitly by a newborn in his first act of awareness; this axiom is fundamental because all other knowledge rests on it." Awareness here is not consciousness of concepts. Existence here is not a concept but it is meant as a concept.

 

P.S. I want to add here that belief similarly does not need to be conceptual. One's sensations and perceptions can be beliefs. A lot of debates are over perception. For example, one person may believe that he or she perceives a table out of a wooden crate or a bed out of a table or some flower of another flower, etc.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[CriticalThinker2000]

Context is a background. It's a relationship by which entities are defined. An entity should not be defined separately from its context. I don't treat space as an entity. Space is a nothing. Notice that I did not capitalize nonexistence. By nonexistence in "we exist in nonexistence" I simply meant space.

 

Well how is someone supposed to guess that by 'nonexistence' you meant 'space'? And what is the point of using 'nonexistence' as 'space' when the two concepts are not interchangeable and the resultant conclusions you reach are necessarily contradictory?

 

 

The way I conceptualized it, awareness is the integration of sense data into percepts. Consciousness is the integration of percepts into concepts. The two integrations are obviously not identical.

 

Again, how is someone supposed to know that you're using your concepts to mean things that they do not mean? Consciousness is not the integration of percepts into concepts. Such a meaning of consciousness would imply that animals are not conscious because they cannot perform at the conceptual level. But of course animals are conscious. Defining consciousness as one aspect of an advanced consciousness (conceptualization) wipes out the real concept- and it is a concept that is very necessary. Especially if you're going to think rationally about the problems of epistemology.

[Ilya Startsev]

Well how is someone supposed to guess that by 'nonexistence' you meant 'space'? And what is the point of using 'nonexistence' as 'space' when the two concepts are not interchangeable and the resultant conclusions you reach are necessarily contradictory?

 

 

Again, how is someone supposed to know that you're using your concepts to mean things that they do not mean? Consciousness is not the integration of percepts into concepts. Such a meaning of consciousness would imply that animals are not conscious because they cannot perform at the conceptual level. But of course animals are conscious. Defining consciousness as one aspect of an advanced consciousness (conceptualization) wipes out the real concept- and it is a concept that is very necessary. Especially if you're going to think rationally about the problems of epistemology.

I apologize. In the thread on integrating philosophy and science (ignore mysticism there for now) I used the concepts of space, nothing, and nonexistence interchangeably, since all of them refer to actual reality (but not to things). They can be contradictory only if you mix different spaces and nothings and the ultimate sum of them all in Nonexistence. But I do not mean those concepts metaphysically (indefinitely); I mean them definitely. On the indefinite conceptualization of those concepts, please refer to the aforementioned thread.

 

I see a dire need to differentiate between sensation/perception and perception/conception integrations, since I deem Objectivists confuse the two. Animals are indeed not conscious in my definition (in other words, they are not as rational as men), but they have awareness. Awareness directly refers to reality, and consciousness refers to awareness (i.e., consciousness indirectly refers to reality). We need to be clear that you understand what I mean before we proceed.

 

P.S. Here is the confusion I meant: "[you said:] Defining consciousness as one aspect of an advanced consciousness (conceptualization) wipes out the real concept." I did not define consciousness as one aspect; I defined it as an advanced consciousness (conceptualization). It does not wipe out the concept. Instead we can speak of concepts and percepts as they are rather than an amalgamation of concepts that who-knows-how refer to reality.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Ilya Startsev