Existence exists subsidiary thread

[dream_weaver]

In other words, what you know epistemologically is what exists metaphysically.

1.) What is known epistemologically is based on what exists metaphysically, if performed correctly.

Knowledge is limited by an individual's consciousness, but existence is potentially infinite.

2.) Knowledge is made possible by conceptual consciousness. Knowledge is limited by the law of identity - the flip side of the coin of existence.

Aristotle's grasp of the potential with regard to infinite is that the actual is always finite.

If this existent exists, that existent exists, and the other existent exists you have "These S's are P's." or "Some S is P". Are you unwilling to grant that "All existents exist" or "All S is P"?

All existents actually refers to all existents, and the actual is always finite, infinite only applies to the potential.

We can never know all of existence, but we can know some of it and project what we know onto our concept of existence.  

3.) This would move the position from "These existents exist" to "All existents exist". 

What happens when we have not discovered something that exists?  

4.) Some people go to the stores, buy groceries, take them home and put them away. Others get up, go to work, come home, and go to bed. Yet others swing on the swings and play on the merry-go-rounds at the local park.

 Then we cannot know that it exists.

5.) Oh - that probably went with the previous sentence. Ilya - group your thoughts into more logical "bite-size" chunks.

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.

6.) Then someone guessed correctly that something indeed exists, even though he cannot claim it as knowledge (he does not know).

Now you're going from guessing to predicting. What is the prediction predicated on? This is akin to a thought experiment with so many loose ends, no-one can tie them all together for you.

 

That's what I meant when I said that existence is indefinite and knowledge is definite.

 

7.) Refer back to points 2 & 3.

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.

 

It should be becoming more obvious to you by now that it was not their naïve belief in God for which they're admired. From your example of the Wright brothers proving the knowledge with regard to flight, It is for that proof I admire them.

[Ilya Startsev]

1.) What is known epistemologically is based on what exists metaphysically, if performed correctly.

2.) Knowledge is made possible by conceptual consciousness. Knowledge is limited by the law of identity - the flip side of the coin of existence.

Aristotle's grasp of the potential with regard to infinite is that the actual is always finite.

If this existent exists, that existent exists, and the other existent exists you have "These S's are P's." or "Some S is P". Are you unwilling to grant that "All existents exist" or "All S is P"?

All existents actually refers to all existents, and the actual is always finite, infinite only applies to the potential.

3.) This would move the position from "These existents exist" to "All existents exist". 

4.) Some people go to the stores, buy groceries, take them home and put them away. Others get up, go to work, come home, and go to bed. Yet others swing on the swings and play on the merry-go-rounds at the local park.

5.) Oh - that probably went with the previous sentence. Ilya - group your thoughts into more logical "bite-size" chunks.

6.) Then someone guessed correctly that something indeed exists, even though he cannot claim it as knowledge (he does not know).

Now you're going from guessing to predicting. What is the prediction predicated on? This is akin to a thought experiment with so many loose ends, no-one can tie them all together for you.

7.) Refer back to points 2 & 3.

It should be becoming more obvious to you by now that it was not their naïve belief in God for which they're admired. From your example of the Wright brothers proving the knowledge with regard to flight, It is for that proof I admire them.

1) Yes, but not vice versa, if it's the concept of existence.

2) I agree with Aristotle on most things except what he said about space. Peikoff paraphrased him as "the universe is not in space; space is in the universe" (DIM, p. 191). But the universe is indefinite. What about definite objects, such as an orange? An orange exists in space, right? The concept of existence for me is indefinite. We are conscious of it but we are not aware of it (of the concept). It is not the concept of existence that is the base of knowledge but the actual existence. In ITOE (1990:167), Rand said that existence is like the universe. It's also like the theory of everything. You won't say that the theory of everything is this orange, right?

3) Thus your actual existents become conceptual existents, but they are still not the same.

6) It's much simpler than you think. We move from what we do not know to knowledge, for direct movement from one knowledge to another knowledge only happens in fantasy or in accidents. I also want to stress that the concept of existence is not knowledge because we do not know of all that exists, has existed, or will ever exist

7) The Wright brothers were people who proved that flight was possible. I admire them for who they were, although they essentially became popular because of their "proof." But without being the kind of people that they were, there would not have been any proof.

 

edit

Edited July 18, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

1) Yes, but not vice versa, if it's the concept of existence.

Does Objectivist literature state the relationship is vice versa?

2) I agree with Aristotle on most things except what he said about space. Peikoff paraphrased him as "the universe is not in space; space is in the universe" (DIM, p. 191). But the universe is indefinite. What about definite objects, such as an orange? An orange exists in space, right? The concept of existence for me is indefinite. We are conscious of it but we are not aware of it (of the concept). It is not the concept of existence that is the base of knowledge but the actual existence. In ITOE (1990:167), Rand said that existence is like the universe. It's also like the theory of everything. You won't say that the theory of everything is this orange, right?

 

Repeating that the universe is indefinite does not make it so.

3) Thus your actual existents become conceptual existents, but they are still not the same.

 

The actual existents remain the actual existents. I create the conceptual grasp of them. My conceptual grasp of the existent is not the existent. Of course they are not the same. Nor need they be for me to be cognizant of the relationship betwixt the two.

6) It's much simpler than you think. We move from what we do not know to knowledge, for direct movement from one knowledge to another knowledge only happens in fantasy or in accidents. I also want to stress that the concept of existence is not knowledge because we do not know of all that exists, has existed, or will ever exist

 

You may as well be saying that 2+2 is not 4.

7) The Wright brothers were people who proved that flight was possible. I admire them for who they were, although they essentially became popular because of their "proof." But without being the kind of people that they were, there would not have been any proof.

 

Which is why I admire them for their accomplishments, and disregard the insignificance of any flaws others may wish to place under their microscopes.

[Ilya Startsev]

Greg,

 

Frankly, I have lost the point of the debate. Why are we arguing? Let me get exactly to the point and show you my unflinching devotion to perceptual reality. For this and this instance only, I ignore all of quantum physics and their logic, particles, empiricism, as well as the universe, God, existence, etc. None of those are as important as the following line:

Body--Environment.

 

I am a body living in an environment. I am not the universe nor the world. I am not existence nor nonexistence. I am not space; I am just a body.

[dream_weaver]

Ilya,

 

Why are we having this conversation?

I reckon it might have something to do with the fact that this is a forum. More specifically, it is a forum based on information or discussion about Objectivism and about its applications. While agreement with Objectivism is not required, conversations that misstate Objectivist positions as if they are Objectivist positions are likely to have those misstatements pointed out.

 

I get value from this forum. I use it to enhance my understanding of the environment I find my body within. I too, have a body. I also have an "I" that governs my body as well as my "I" within this environment. As crass as this may seem, I've seldom addressed just a body. I've had a conversation with myself once while standing by my mother's gravestone - that is, if addressing her remains counts. When Miss Rand wrote: "when one deals with words, one deals with the mind." it indicates the importance she placed on the mind. I can not help but notice the fact that it failed to make your "short-list".

[Ilya Startsev]

I did state that I am a body living in an environment. And an "I" and a "mind" are inseparable from a living body. A body is not an "I," though, nor is it a "mind." An "I" is the self that your consciousness identifies. A mind is more related to the brain than to a body, which subsumes both. A body is more important than most people trust. I still think that the majority--and that includes everyone who does not accept Neo-objectivism--does not understand the perceptual reality. No, nobody understands. We do not perceive our minds or our I's. We, first of all, perceive our bodies. And our bodies live, that is, are related to other bodies in an enrivonment. A body is that which lives in an enviroment. Of course, this is a simplistic explanation which does not cover the different kinds of environments available to humans. If you are interested, though, it will be my pleasure to elaborate.

 

I have nearly finished the DIM Hypothesis. I have to say now that my OP on the DIM had been misinformed to say the least. I honestly think that this book is excellent. I agree with the conclusions and the predictions of Peikoff, and those predictions are grim. I think it is to our advantage to expect the best but prepare for the worst. One type of preparation would be to unite our philosophies. Many have asked me what is the purpose of my criticisms of Objectivism. Of course, the ultimate purpose is that I love and value Neo-objectivism more than Objectivism. However, in order to face such anti-individualistic forces as are present around us today, we need to decide--and decide fast--what we want to do with our future. Talking on the forums needs to formalize in a real action.

 

Of course, you can think that my talk here is empty. However, I want to warn you that there is something very definite that I have against Objectivism. But now I am wavering as whether uncovering it would be a proper form of action or it would be as shooting myself in my right foot. You know that I have been doing rhetorical research into Objectivism. My primary motivation is to subvert Objectivism in order to instate Neo-objectivism. This sounds totalitarian, but it's really not. I just like pompous speeches, as you can tell. But, really, we got to get this weak spot of Objectivism out as soon as possible, so your philosophy does not crumble into a heap of rubble before people even learn of Neo-objectivism. So, as directly related to what I have just written, I want each of you to define for me your understanding of "definite universe." Be as specific as you can.

[dream_weaver]

Actually, the "I' and the "mind" are quite separable from a living body - leaving a corpse behind in its wake.

[Ilya Startsev]

Actually, the "I' and the "mind" are quite separable from a living body - leaving a corpse behind in its wake.

There is no "I" and no "mind" after a body dies. And a corpse is not a body. A corpse is a collection of decaying organic matter that's becoming inorganic molecules.

 

P.S. And a skeleton is an inorganic fossil structure that is a record of previously organic tissues.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

That is essentially what I meant. I should have more carefully crafted my expression.

[Ilya Startsev]

That is essentially what I meant. I should have more carefully crafted my expression.

You confused it with an impossible fantasy in which many people believe today: zombies and skeletons.

[Ilya Startsev]

The reason Objectivists make these mistakes and confusions is that you do not have a detailed model of actual reality. Peikoff's model refers to purely mental concepts. The theory of concepts is excellent, but it is not detailed enough. What happened in our conversation there, Greg, is the distintegration of awareness, that is, perception lost to sensation. This happens a lot in Objectivism. For another example, when you think of things as molecular matter. In these instances, you actually give in to D₁ (from Peikoff's DIM model based on the theory of concepts) scientists who fragment our perception of the environment and objects in it. There is a way out of this: my Model. Quantum physics is only limited to the first level (Particle--Void, or pure sensation S). Unphilosophical and unscientific people are limited to the eighth level (Body--Environment, or pure perception P). And rationalistic philosophers--and there are a lot of those among Objectivists--are limited to level 14 (Source--Vacuum, or pure conception C, as you see it). The latter also includes string and general relativity theorists and theists.

 

I am going to stress again that my Model is integrative. It shows the integration from S to P to C. It does not favor any one of the three, except the starting point of our reality--P. But P is only a beginning.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

You confused it with an impossible fantasy in which many people believe today: zombies and skeletons.

This is going nowhere. 

 

Of course, you can think that my talk here is empty. However, I want to warn you that there is something very definite that I have against Objectivism. But now I am wavering as whether uncovering it would be a proper form of action or it would be as shooting myself in my right foot. You know that I have been doing rhetorical research into Objectivism. My primary motivation is to subvert Objectivism in order to instate Neo-objectivism. This sounds totalitarian, but it's really not. I just like pompous speeches, as you can tell. But, really, we got to get this weak spot of Objectivism out as soon as possible, so your philosophy does not crumble into a heap of rubble before people even learn of Neo-objectivism. So, as directly related to what I have just written, I want each of you to define for me your understanding of "definite universe." Be as specific as you can.

You might want to reconsider your primary motivation here. 

 

So far your criticisms of Objectivism that I've been able to make any sense of have been attacks on your little self constructed field of strawmen. Any of my investigations into supposed attacks of Objectivism have only ever resulted in the strengthening of my own convictions.

[Ilya Startsev]

Any of my investigations into supposed attacks of Objectivism have only ever resulted in the strengthening of my own convictions.

Contradicting reality? You are going to say "no," of course. Einstein also liked his "E=mc²." Objectivists similarly like their axioms. Just because you have one perceptual and one conceptual level (which is the most important to you) does not necessarily make you a full-fledged "I" (from DIM).

[dream_weaver]

What is contradicting reality?

[Plasmatic]

To all Objectivist, Rand's Razor is a useful tool (name your starting points). This conversation cant make it past "existence exists" on that basis.

[Ilya Startsev]

What is contradicting reality?

To all Objectivist, Rand's Razor is a useful tool (name your starting points). This conversation cant make it past "existence exists" on that basis.

Your purely mental conception of "existence exists." It has nothing to do with perceptual reality as we have found out through our discussion. On the other hand, it is our bodies that exist, our bodies that are living, and our bodies that relate to other bodies.

 

P.S. Oh, and your claim of my supposed ignorance of Objectivism does not matter. It is merely a fightened way of hiding and ignoring new ideas.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

Where am I saying something both is and is not, at the same time, and in the same respect?

What I said was:

 

Any of my investigations into supposed attacks of Objectivism have only ever resulted in the strengthening of my own convictions.

 

What is contradicting reality?

Edited July 19, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

Where am I saying something both is and is not, at the same time, and in the same respect?

What I said was:

 

Any of my investigations into supposed attacks of Objectivism have only ever resulted in the strengthening of my own convictions.

 

What is contradicting reality?

My attacks of Objectivism expose the contradiction of your unification of "existence exists" and "A is A." In other words, your view of consciousness is contradictory. By ignoring my arguments, you similarly contradict reality.

 

P.S. To counterpose your contradiction, I offer the noncontradictory postulate of Neo-objectivism: people are their relationships.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[dream_weaver]

Where am I saying something both is and is not, at the same time, and in the same respect?

What I said was:

 

Any of my investigations into supposed attacks of Objectivism have only ever resulted in the strengthening of my own convictions.

 

What is contradicting reality?

 

Since you choose to point out that your accusation of a contradiction does not refer to the quoted portion you made the accusation after, then answer me this.

 

What is my "view of consciousness"?  And n what way am I saying that consciousness simultaneously is, and is not - at the same time, and in the same respect?

 

I'm not looking for what Ilya's claim of what my view is. Reference the post(s) that substantiate your claim.  

Edited: removed, added.

 

P.S.: Ignoring baseless claims are not examples of contradicting reality. Even a case of ignoring a valid argument is not an example of holding a contradiction.

Edited July 20, 2014 by dream_weaver

[Ilya Startsev]

 

Since you choose to point out that your accusation of a contradiction does not refer to the quoted portion you made the accusation after, then answer me this.

 

What is my "view of consciousness"?  And n what way am I saying that consciousness simultaneously is, and is not - at the same time, and in the same respect?

 

I'm not looking for what Ilya's claim of what my view is. Reference the post(s) that substantiate your claim.  

Edited: removed, added.

 

P.S.: Ignoring baseless claims are not examples of contradicting reality. Even a case of ignoring a valid argument is not an example of holding a contradiction.

Consciousness is Identification. We all agreed on that. So we need to look specifically into the theory of concepts and see what is being identified. Perception is the stage when identification happens. However, there are two completely different types of perception: the perception of existing objects or contexts and the perception of words and symbols. The latter is used for concept-formation, but not the former. An actual existent cannot be itself and its word/symbol at the same time. A lamp is a lamp that you see directly, but it is not the word or symbol that you associate with it. The confusion, thus, is between actually existing percepts that are perceived directly and concepts that indirectly refer to them.

[dream_weaver]

Consciousness is Identification. We all agreed on that. So we need to look specifically into the theory of concepts and see what is being identified. Perception is the stage when identification happens. However, there are two completely different types of perception: the perception of existing objects or contexts and the perception of words and symbols. The latter is used for concept-formation, but not the former. An actual existent cannot be itself and its word/symbol at the same time. A lamp is a lamp that you see directly, but it is not the word or symbol that you associate with it. The confusion, thus, is between actually existing percepts that are perceived directly and concepts that indirectly refer to them.

Who is saying an actual existent is itself and the word/symbol at the same time? Cite the post I made, or cite where in the literature Ayn Rand wrote this, stated as such, explicitly.  

[Plasmatic]

We can add the Oist view of objectivity to the list of things Ilya completely misunderstands....

Edited July 20, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Ilya Startsev]

Who is saying an actual existent is itself and the word/symbol at the same time? Cite the post I made, or cite where in the literature Ayn Rand wrote this, stated as such, explicitly.  

It's not stated explicitly anywhere; it is a conclusion I made from analyzing the way you relate existence to actual reality and vice versa. Otherwise, how would you consider existents in your concepts while you have omitted all their measurements except for the properties of existence and time?

 

P.S. I know that Objectivists are trying to escape any Kantian equation of epistemology and metaphysics, but, frankly, I do not think you can avoid this unless you have two hierarchical models of epistemology and metaphysics that correlate. I have accomplished the latter, and it's working out pretty well, avoiding any pitfalls of the previous philosophers.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Plasmatic]

llya said:

Otherwise, how would you consider existents in your concepts while you have omitted all their measurements except for the properties of existence and time?

Omitting measurements does not mean forgetting or obliterating measurements. Representation is not nullification. A non-sequitur...

Edit:

the way you relate existence to actual reality and vice versa.

Existence IS actual reality not the symbols e x i s t e n c e. Edited July 21, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Ilya Startsev]

llya said:

Omitting measurements does not mean forgetting or obliterating measurements. Representation is not nullification. A non-sequitur...

Ok, fine. How would you explain the following quotes:

“AR: What is the distinction between the practical and the theoretical? That’s a distinction which I do not recognize” (ITOE, 1990:135).

“AR: the concept “existence,” at least the way I use it, is in a certain way close to the concept “universe”—all that which exists” (167).

“[AR:] But now what’s the difference between saying “existence exists” and “the physical world exists”? ” (170).

"[Peikoff:] once you say “existence,” that implies it’s something (Understanding Objectivism, 2012:149).

"[Peikoff:] Everything is something; it is what it is; it is definite, it has a nature, it is something specific" (Objective Communication, 2013:26).