Ayn Rand and dualism

[QuidProQuo]

I know that Ayn Rand does not reduce the consciousness to the brain, but what is the metaphysical status of it in her view? Not reducible to the brain but an emergent property of the brain? Where can I read more on this topic specifically in Objectivism? 

[Reidy]

The Objectivist ran a 4-part article "Biology Without Consciousness - and its Consequences" by Robert Efron, a physician / neuroscientist, in 1968. (He's apparently still in practice.) It's available, paywalled, online, presumably the text that ran in The Objectivist.

I gather that an Objectivist would say consciousness is an activity of a person and that a functioning nervous system is a necessary condition of this activity.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Reidy
Add citation

[EC]

Put simply, but not how Miss Rand stated it. The mind is the self-programmed emergent "software" that "runs" on the "hardware" of the brain. Why do people have such an issue understanding something so self-evident when they don't associate the "mind" of Siri with the "brain" of their iPhone? There's more to it, of course, and I wrote about the "how" on this very site. It is neither "dualist" nor "monist". The brain is born with the ability to self-program an emergent mind and it does so in the vast majority of cases where there was no birth defects, etc.

Edited December 5, 2023 by EC

[necrovore]

The metaphysical status of consciousness is that it is an axiom -- it must be used and asserted even in any attempt to deny it.

The existence of consciousness is known to be conditional; determining exactly what the conditions are, and why, is a task for science.

[QuidProQuo]

4 hours ago, Reidy said:

The Objectivist ran a 4-part article "Biology Without Consciousness - and its Consequences" by Robert Efron, a physician / neuroscientist, in 1968. (He's apparently still in practice.) It's available, paywalled, online, presumably the text that ran in The Objectivist.

I gather that an Objectivist would say consciousness is an activity of a person and that a functioning nervous system is a necessary condition of this activity.

Thank you for the reference. Is there still a way to get The Objectivist?

[QuidProQuo]

3 hours ago, EC said:

Put simply, but not how Miss Rand stated it. The mind is the self-programmed emergent "software" that "runs" on the "hardware" of the brain. Why do people have such an issue understanding something so self-evident when they don't associate the "mind" of Siri with the "brain" of their iPhone? There's more to it, of course, and I wrote about the "how" on this very site. It is neither "dualist" nor "monist". The brain is born with the ability to self-program an emergent mind and it does so in the vast majority of cases where there was no birth defects, etc.

Interesting, but isn't siri simply the output of the information that is located in the code, making siri physical still in that sense? What would be the correspondence with Siri and subjectiveness as it relates to consciousness?

 

Also, where did you write on this?

 

Thanks.

[QuidProQuo]

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

The metaphysical status of consciousness is that it is an axiom -- it must be used and asserted even in any attempt to deny it.

The existence of consciousness is known to be conditional; determining exactly what the conditions are, and why, is a task for science.

Thats fair. However, does that mean that consciousness then could be purely physical? If so what does that mean for volition?

[necrovore]

 

Thats fair. However, does that mean that consciousness then could be purely physical? If so what does that mean for volition?

Volition is also an axiom -- a corollary axiom, rather than a fundamental one, because the idea of "volition" depends on consciousness. It is self-evident, and you also have to use and assert it in any attempt to deny it. You have no choice.

Everything that exists, including consciousness, acts according to its nature. How consciousness gets its nature is an open question -- but, philosophically speaking, it doesn't matter.

If you learn that a wall is made out of protons and neutrons and electrons, that doesn't make the wall go away. It's still there. You just know more about it. The same sort of thing applies to consciousness. If we learn what consciousness is made of, it is still there, and everything we already know about it is still true.

[Reidy]

You might be able to find The Objectivist in a library, perhaps through interlibrary loan. The link at online in my previous post leads to some other sources for the article.

CORRECTION: Turns out you can buy it: The Objectivist (1966-1971) (Hardcover) – The Ayn Rand Institute eStore

Edited December 6, 2023 by Reidy

[Grames]

Consciousness is indeed an axiomatic concept.  However all axioms and axiomatic concepts belong to epistemology, because they provide certain guidance about how to think and know.  "Consciousness exists", which affirms that it is real and of this world.  Rand claims that consciousness is "the faculty of perceiving that which exists", so it is not only thinking humans that have consciousness but anything alive possessing a faculty for perceiving what exists.  

It is the year 2023.  "Purely physical" now includes information theory: bits, bandwidth, coding and compression theory and all the rest of it.  It is not a problem to assert consciousness is purely physical.

 

[tadmjones]

9 hours ago, Grames said:

 

It is the year 2023.  "Purely physical" now includes information theory: bits, bandwidth, coding and compression theory and all the rest of it.  It is not a problem to assert consciousness is purely physical.

 

Do you mean that the concept of 'purely physical' now includes abstraction being in the same category as 'physical'?

 

[StrictlyLogical]

25 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Do you mean that the concept of 'purely physical' now includes abstraction being in the same category as 'physical'?

 

I think he is saying that we quantify how "purely physical" things act or are arranged in ways more sophisticated and with what we associate with "information".. as such we use concepts like bits, bandwidth, coding and compression theory to characterize what we observe in the physical world, the same way we have used number and classical mathematics to quantify more intuitively observables of the physical world.

Just like numbers, as such, do not exist independent of the things we count with them, so too these concepts only identify characteristics of physical things, but are not themselves physical. 

But insofar as things for centuries "possessed" quantifiable attributes, properties, etc. which we describe with numbers, so too in 2023 purely physical things of sufficient complexity "possess" functional capacities and arrangements which we can quantify in terms of "information" and specifically in terms of "bits, bandwidth, coding and compression".


It is another matter entirely, whether consciousness itself can be equated with "computation" or an information processing "algorithm".  Although not an objectivist, I like the recent musings of Roger Penrose on the issue.

Edited December 6, 2023 by StrictlyLogical

[Grames]

On 12/6/2023 at 10:10 AM, tadmjones said:

Do you mean that the concept of 'purely physical' now includes abstraction being in the same category as 'physical'?

 

Abstraction must occur by some physical means.  The products of abstraction are not necessarily error free or true.

Bits are metaphysical, ontological.  They exist.  Information is an attribute of matter and energy.  Manipulation of bits has energy requirement.  A given bandwidth has a finite data rate that can be transmitted through it.  Studying the potential paradoxes of black hole physics suggests a need for a "conservation of information" law to prevent logical impossibilities.  

[StrictlyLogical]

3 hours ago, Grames said:

Abstraction must occur by some physical means.  The products of abstraction are not necessarily error free or true.

Bits are metaphysical, ontological.  They exist.  Information is an attribute of matter and energy.  Manipulation of bits has energy requirement.  A given bandwidth has a finite data rate that can be transmitted through it.  Studying the potential paradoxes of black hole physics suggests a need for a "conservation of information" law to prevent logical impossibilities.  

Our brains use physical means in order abstract and to form abstractions.

Do you contend our physical brains CONSIST of abstractions?

 

If you contend information exists as a physical part of any physical system, does it exist independently of, over and above , or in addition to, all the other physical characteristics we can observe but traditionally have not identified as "information" as such?

What happens to physical system we observe when the information is removed from the physical system?

What is the distinction between a first universe where we merely identify and perceive information about a physical thing, the information existing only in our minds as and because we create it by thinking of and referring to those things, and a second universe where the information is in the things themselves?

Specifically, what is different about those things themselves which we observe in those two universes?

  

Edited December 7, 2023 by StrictlyLogical

[Easy Truth]

What is the difference between knowledge vs. information? Is information the symbolic representation of knowledge? Is information being used to mean "valid information"?

[Easy Truth]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:19 PM, EC said:

Put simply, but not how Miss Rand stated it. The mind is the self-programmed emergent "software" that "runs" on the "hardware" of the brain. Why do people have such an issue understanding something so self-evident when they don't associate the "mind" of Siri with the "brain" of their iPhone?

I have trouble with it because the physicalness of the brain implies "deterministic" i.e. the brain of Siri determines what Siri will do.

[EC]

5 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

I have trouble with it because the physicalness of the brain implies "deterministic" i.e. the brain of Siri determines what Siri will do.

Then you didn't read the rest everywhere which eliminates that contradiction and allows for non-deterministic volition.

[StrictlyLogical]

8 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

What is the difference between knowledge vs. information? Is information the symbolic representation of knowledge? Is information being used to mean "valid information"?

Pretty much.

In the real world you can gain that knowledge from things by observing the thing directly (in any way through a causal chain without intervening third parties).  You can also gain knowledge from information which has been generated by third parties observing the thing and essentially telling you about it.  This information is recorded in any symbolic form of communication or record keeping and it represents the referent to which it is directed.  We also use the term information to identify the representations conveyed by nonliving causal intermediaries between the thing and our minds... e.g. eyes, provide the information we know... video recording provide information about what the camera was aimed at...the photons travelling from galaxies give us information about the galaxies.

Both knowledge and information are about or refer to things, they have referents in reality.  Knowledge is in your head, information is encoded in some, any medium, or causal intermediary.  You can get knowledge about referents directly or from information.  Both knowledge and information is valid when there is both a causal connection to the referent and when they identify the referent or whatever is relevant about it,without contradiction with that reality.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by StrictlyLogical

[StrictlyLogical]

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

What is the difference between knowledge vs. information? Is information the symbolic representation of knowledge? Is information being used to mean "valid information"?

In addition to what I said above here is something to think about:

 

Old school mailboxes at the end of the driveway are a nice example of the interplay between things, causation, information, and knowledge.

If you have outgoing mail, you ensure the flag is up, the outgoing mail is in there and the mail carrier is supposed to put it down and take your outgoing mail.

 

If you see the flag down, it should be an indication the carrier took your outgoing mail and dropped off any incoming mail. 

BUT that assumes the carrier knows the convention, she could have opened and closed the box without taking your mail (thinking it incoming mail from yesterday).  She could have lowered your flag out of spite, and not done anything with your mail.

You can't even be sure if she came, the flag could have failed... a mechanism finally rusting through, a branch from a tree may have fallen on it, or a squirrel or a racoon could have fiddled with your box... or a mischievous neighbor or child in your neighbor hood is playing prank on you... or in some cases (depending on the mechanics) some snooping person may have merely opened the mailbox and closed it again.

 

If you see the flag still up, it should be an indication the carrier did not take your outgoing mail nor dropped off any incoming mail. 

BUT again that assumes the carrier knows the convention, she could have opened and closed the box took your outgoing mail and dropped off your incoming mail and put the flag up again.  

If the flag is "still" up you can't even be sure nothing happened with the flag since you last put it up, although that is your assumption.

 

So, if you see the flag up, you literally have no certain information, although statistically you can draw inferences... and

If you see the flag down you are certain only about causality, something or someone (including failure) caused the flag to move, although statistically you can draw inferences.

 

In the end, you behave as though the carrier does what was supposed to be done and generally nothing else interacts with the flag, and statistically speaking you end up use that information as efficiently as possible, even if thing sometimes surprise you.

[Grames]

On 12/7/2023 at 4:18 PM, StrictlyLogical said:

Do you contend information exists as a physical part of any physical system, does it exist independently of, over and above , or in addition to, all the other physical characteristics we can observe but traditionally have not identified as "information" as such?

What happens to physical system we observe when the information is removed from the physical system?

What is the distinction between a first universe where we merely identify and perceive information about a physical thing, the information existing only in our minds as and because we create it by thinking of and referring to those things, and a second universe where the information is in the things themselves?

Specifically, what is different about those things themselves which we observe in those two universes?

Information exists as a physical part of any physical system in addition to all the other physical characteristics we can observe but traditionally have not identified as "information" as such.  

All matter and energy is also information, and no information can exist apart from matter or energy.  Information is an attribute of everything that exists.  If "the information" of a system refers to the total of all information of a system then the answer is that it cannot be completely removed, only partially reduced.  Reducing the information of a system makes it more uniform and orderly in the same sense as used in thermodynamics.  The ultimate possible reduction of a system's information is reducing it to or very near the temperature of absolute zero.  For some forms of matter the removal of even the most miniscule differences of energy/information distinguishing one atom from another can provoke the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, multiple atoms all having the same position and the same momentum and described by a single wave function of quantum physics.  

Your "two universes" questions rely upon a premise that information is either "out there" or "in here" but which is a false dichotomy.  Information is everywhere, "out there" and "in here".  Knowledge is when the information "in here" exists in a certain relation to the information "out there", a relation broadly referred to as correspondence.  Correspondence is created by the causal chain of sensing, perceiving and finally conceiving.

[tadmjones]

I am not well versed in correspondence ‘theory’ so perhaps the following observations may not pertain to a rigorous understanding. But..

If knowledge is a correspondence between awareness, consciousness, or experience, the ‘in here’ portion or side cannot be a mirroring of the ‘out there’ side, because of the cause and effect nature of entropy, no?

If the ‘in here’ side of the equation equals the ‘out there’ side of the equation , the states of entropy would be equal and there ain’t enough ‘in here’ anywhere to contain all the ‘out there’. And especially if all abstraction has a physical base, no?

The ‘in here’ must be delimited in some fashion from what is ‘available’ ‘out there’, that feels a little Kantian.

[EC]

55 minutes ago, Grames said:

Information exists as a physical part of any physical system in addition to all the other physical characteristics we can observe but traditionally have not identified as "information" as such.  

All matter and energy is also information, and no information can exist apart from matter or energy.  Information is an attribute of everything that exists.  If "the information" of a system refers to the total of all information of a system then the answer is that it cannot be completely removed, only partially reduced.  Reducing the information of a system makes it more uniform and orderly in the same sense as used in thermodynamics.  The ultimate possible reduction of a system's information is reducing it to or very near the temperature of absolute zero.  For some forms of matter the removal of even the most miniscule differences of energy/information distinguishing one atom from another can provoke the formation of a Bose-Einstein condensate, multiple atoms all having the same position and the same momentum and described by a single wave function of quantum physics.  

Your "two universes" questions rely upon a premise that information is either "out there" or "in here" but which is a false dichotomy.  Information is everywhere, "out there" and "in here".  Knowledge is when the information "in here" exists in a certain relation to the information "out there", a relation broadly referred to as correspondence.  Correspondence is created by the causal chain of sensing, perceiving and finally conceiving.

Yes, for the most part. Remember though that the "uncertainty" principle does not allow for temperatures of absolute zero (nor information complete non-existence). The true answer to why is deeper than that and involves the quantum gravitational computation of data on the surface of event horizons that *must* always exist because of the fact that existence exists. The full justification of this involves concepts and ideas of Quantum Gravity and an eternal multiverse of multiverses that make up the entirety of the actual Universe which as a whole exists in a single Planck scale area and Plank Time. It is only local "quantum dioramas" representing broken symmetry "universe's" (such as our own) that allows for the observance of the broken time symmetry as we experience it. Also explore the fact that ER = EPR and along with various other statements I've made and it immediately follows*how* existence exists eternally and is primary. When understands those facts and the fact that consciousness and volition exist, it immediately follows that volitional consciousness is the ability to self-select between the available multiverse options given the full context when an individual possessing arrives at a certain "decision point" in the "local quantum diorama" they happen to currently exist within.

Edited December 12, 2023 by EC

[Grames]

26 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

I am not well versed in correspondence ‘theory’ so perhaps the following observations may not pertain to a rigorous understanding. But..

If knowledge is a correspondence between awareness, consciousness, or experience, the ‘in here’ portion or side cannot be a mirroring of the ‘out there’ side, because of the cause and effect nature of entropy, no?

If the ‘in here’ side of the equation equals the ‘out there’ side of the equation ,

"Mirroring", "equation", "equals".  Yes, you are correct that this kind of thinking leads to serious problems.  But these are not describing Rand's thinking, or Peikoff's or Kelley's (or mine.)   When you are sufficiently motivated to find a more rigorous understanding of what is wrong and right in correspondence theory then I would strongly suggest Kelley.

[DavidOdden]

Are existents distinguished for those that “are physical” vs. “are not physical”? For example, is the number “3” physical, is the concept “dog” physical, is that specific dog that I’m pointing at physical? If “physical” has any meaning, it clearly must be true of the dog that I am pointing at. Is “physical” distinct from “mental”: if so, are there things that are mental but not physical? Every existent can be reduced to many physical facts, does that render all existents physical?

Where exactly is the physical dogness in a dog?

 

[EC]

13 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Are existents distinguished for those that “are physical” vs. “are not physical”? For example, is the number “3” physical, is the concept “dog” physical, is that specific dog that I’m pointing at physical? If “physical” has any meaning, it clearly must be true of the dog that I am pointing at. Is “physical” distinct from “mental”: if so, are there things that are mental but not physical? Every existent can be reduced to many physical facts, does that render all existents physical?

Where exactly is the physical dogness in a dog?

 

I don't think anyone's issue here is not being able to distinguish between physical existents and conceptual existents and how they are objectively formed. The point is that everything (or in the case of concepts, how they are*stored*) is via data ultimately. When one speaks of this or any "local universe" being a holographic projection of quantum gravitational computation processing on the surface of an event horizon they are not speaking of the type of hologram that exists within the "local universe" such as on a credit card (although the idea is the same except in that case the projection is lower dimensional) but of the projection of quantum gravitational data computation "projecting" what is directly perceivable as our actual "local" spacetime, actual reality. Think of this as the answer behind Peikoff's "metapuffs" analogy. Except instead of the fictitious "metapuffs" reality as such is quantum gravitational qubit processing.