Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Doesn't reality require a singular consciousness?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even when only one part of X has an attribute, that attribute can be said to be an attribute of X as a whole.

Therefore Existence is Conscious.

This all sounded kind of familiar to me, and I couldn't remember where I'd heard it before, but now I remember. A while ago (several years), in an issue of Popular Science, they had an interview with a man named Chris Langan. He is supposed to be (IQ wise) the smartest person alive. He has this theory of everything called the Cognitive-Theoretical Model of the Universe. From what I remember of the article, his theory claimed that the universe as a whole behaves just like a mind, and he claims that, therefore, the universe as a whole is the mind of god. One of his arguments was something like what this Metaphysicist guy said: since human beings are part of reality, and since they are conscious, reality is conscious of itself. I just thought I'd point that out, in case anyone was interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An atom in my big toe has the property of being an atom.  It is part of me.  Therefore, I have the property of being an atom?

It's possible that i have made a logical error in claiming that

" If part of X has proprety z, then X has proprety z"

What i thought was that X does not have the property of being X, it simply is X. Maybe that is the same thing.

In any case, i reasoned that if consciousness exists in one part of an object (i.e. the brain) then one can rightly say that the entire system of which the brain is one part has the attribute of consciousness.

So if Man is part of existence and he is conscious, then existence has the quality of being conscious. That is not to say that Existence is Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. "Existence" is "all existents". Existence is not an existent itself, but a numeric tabulation OF existents. Put simply, 'existence' references a specific quantity of existents. Nothing more.

2. Because it is NOT an existent, but is simply a specific quantity of existents, 'existence' therefore does not possess ANY attributes. Existence is not wet - or dry. Existence is not soft - or hard. Existence is not hot or cold. Existence is not conscious or unconscious. Existence has no attributes because there is no THING to possess them.

For instance, when one says "Existence exists" one is saying "All existents exist". One is NOT saying there is a thing which is made up of all existents. Just as when one says "six" or "many" one is saying "six of X things" or "many Y things". One is NOT saying there is a thing called 'six" or a thing called 'many'. One does not claim 'six' is conscious, or that 'many' is tall. ALL such measurements are OMMITTED in these quantitative concepts - INCLUDING the "existence".

3. Because one existent possess X attribute, it is not true that "all existents" possess X attribute. Some existents will not possess that attribute. And others will possess the OPPOSITE attribute.

It is only by deifying a QUANTITY and ommitting its reference that one comes to other conclusions. That is what M is doing.

amor - that is why you are confused. But your confusion is a result of an error on M's part, not on any mistake you have made or some failure of yours to grasp an aspect of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"For instance, when one says "Existence exists"  one is saying "All existents exist".  One is NOT saying there is a thing which is made up of all existents.  Just as when one says "six" or "many" one is saying "six of X things" or "many Y things".  One is NOT saying there is a thing called 'six" or a thing called 'many'.  One does not claim 'six' is conscious, or that 'many' is tall.  ALL such measurements are OMMITTED in the concept "existence". 

3. Because one existent possess X attribute, it is not true that "all existents" possess X attribute.  Some existents will not possess that attribute.  And others will possess the OPPOSITE attribute.

It is only by deifying a QUANTITY and ommitting its reference that one comes to other conclusions.  That is what M is doing.

amor - that is why you are confused.  But your confusion is a result of an error on M's part, not on any mistake you have made or some failure of yours to grasp an aspect of reality.

RadCap:

Thank you for your interesting reply.

You said that "Because it is NOT an existent, but is simply a specific quantity of existents, 'existence' therefore does not possess ANY attributes...... Existence has no attributes because there is no THING to possess them."

What you appear to be doing is ruling out the possibility of existence being a thing, simply because it is a quantity of existents.

However, any particular Man is also a quantity of existents yet i'm sure you would regard him as a thing.

I'm asserting that it is at least logically possible that all existents together form the body of a Being which is superior to all others in the universe. I'm not hoping to prove such an assertion, but merely suggest it as a possible alternative.

Unless i'm mistaken, you haven't actually proven that such a theory is impossible. If millions of existents can form a thing in one case, then surely all existents can together do the same. If there's some sort of error in my reasoning, i'm not sure what it is.

"Because one existent possess X attribute, it is not true that "all existents" possess X attribute. Some existents will not possess that attribute. And others will possess the OPPOSITE attribute."

This is correct, as long as "all existents" do not share a common identity. Whether or not they do is unprovable in my opinion, and so the question remains an open one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not possible. Contradictions do not exist in reality.

Even if Objectivism were wrong in part or in whole, there can be only one true philosophy.

What i meant was that having accepted the basic axioms of objectivist metaphysics, one may derive alternative interpretations from them.

Discovering the absolute truth can be harder than it looks. For example, even accepting the premise that "self-interest is the highest good" can lead to radically different conclusions. (e.g. Is there a higher Self or merely atomised individual selves?)

If it can be demonstrated that a variety of competing assertions can logically be made from the same axioms, it disputes the notion that the political and ethical ideology associated with objectivism is absolutely correct beyond a doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm asserting that it is at least logically possible that all existents together form the body of a Being which is superior to all others in the universe. I'm not hoping to prove such an assertion, but merely suggest it as a possible alternative."

This is an error in logic. It is what is called an "arbitrary assertion". This means an assertion which is not based on fact - ie on reality. Such an assertion is not 'possible', 'probable', 'improbable' or anythign else, because all these concepts require an evaluation of FACTS about reality. To make the claim that it X is 'possible', you must provide evidence OF x. You have not done so (ie you have not provided any evidence of a number being a thing. You have not provided evidence that the thing is conscious. etc etc).

Such an assertion has NO content because it LITERALLY references nothing.

"Unless i'm mistaken, you haven't actually proven that such a theory is impossible."

This is another error in logic. BECAUSE your assertion is arbitrary, there is nothing - LITERALLY - for me to prove OR disprove. And it is also the logical error of demanding someone prove a negative.

"Whether or not they do is unprovable in my opinion, and so the question remains an open one."

To be BEYOND proof (UNprovable) is to claim a thing is not understandable. it can not be grasped. It cannot be identified. If you CANNOT identify a thing, then you have NO basis to speak of it. You have no basis to reference it. In fact, without some form of identity, there is (as I have said) literally NOTHING to speak of. There is no IT at all. This simply supports the contention that you are making ARBITRARY - ie UNREAL - assertions. You speak of the unreal - the non-existant. And you treat it as real. As such, the ONLY thing one can LOGICALLY do is dismiss the statements without ANY consideration (because such consideration would be VIOLATING the laws of logic and identity - because such consideration would be treating NOTHING as if it were something).

In other words, you would be violating the principle that you began with - that existence exists (and thus has identity).

THESE are just some of the "errors in reasoning" you are committing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'm asserting that it is at least logically possible that all existents together form the body of a Being which is superior to all others in the universe. I'm not hoping to prove such an assertion, but merely suggest it as a possible alternative."

RadCap:

"This is an error in logic. It is what is called an "arbitrary assertion". This means an assertion which is not based on fact - ie on reality. Such an assertion is not 'possible', 'probable', 'improbable' or anythign else, because all these concepts require an evaluation of FACTS about reality....To make the claim that it X is 'possible', you must provide evidence OF x.

1. Beings exist (and are therefore existents)

2. Beings are composed of many existents

3. It is possible for a Being to exist which is composed of all existents

The evidence is contained within premises 1 & 2. The problem with asking for further evidence, is that it may not be practical to obtain.

Imagine if a human cell was capable of thought. It might think to itself "i am an individual, working together with other individuals."

If it was of a philosophical bent, it might wonder "What if i and my fellow cells are merely particles of a much greater Being?"

The only evidence available would be the fact that the cell is itself composed of multiple organelles. The cell is simply not in a position to be able to "prove" the existence of this vast superstructure called a Human Being. But that doesn't make it any less REAL.

That is the problem with you claiming that something is not possible just because it is not proved. That seems to be taking a subjective view that unless you can perceive something, it doesn't exist.

btw: I'm not claiming that a number is a thing. To say that a human body is composed of "many cells" does not mean that "many" is a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1. Beings exist (and are therefore existents)

2. Beings are composed of many existents

3. It is possible for a Being to exist which is composed of all existents"

1 and 2 are facts. 3 is an arbitrary assertion. BY DEFINITION it is a FANTASY (as is your 'thinking cells' analogy) because, as you EXPLICITLY state, there is NO evidence for it and you dont know if there will EVER be evidence for it (just so you know - since you seem WEAK on the laws of logic or how to form a logical premise - an ANALOGY is NOT evidence. ANOTHER fantasy is also NOT evidence). What you reference is the NON-REAL because there is NO THING being referenced whatsoever. Therefore, its metaphysical status is: NOTHINGNESS. Epistemologically, it is an INVALID concept. It is not true. it is not false. It is NOTHING.

Since nothing is NOT something - 'it' has NO potential - 'it' has NO possibilities (because possibilities requires IDENTITY of a THING). There is NO thing at all.

This CANNOT be made clearer.

To continue to assert that something is possible WITHOUT evidence is to assert your REJECTION of logic. Doing so ALSO asserts your inability to speak with us, because logic is the ONLY means by which man can grasp identity and thus existence.

IF you continue to assert this, I suggest you leave, because we do NOT accept the irrational here.

--

oh - and YES you ARE trying to make a NUMBER into a THING. "All cells" is a number. It is NOT ALSO the concept BODY. BODY is a DIFFERENT concept. You seek to IGNORE this difference. You can ADD *that* to your list of logical errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noted that you do reject logic ("love and logic"), along with identity. Whether you know it or not (and I now believe you DO know it) you thus reject existence itself, despite your claims to the contrary (I gave you the benefit of the doubt until you made that explicit rejection of reason).

You are no longer welcome here. If you persist in posting, you WILL be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's logically possible that ..." means "I'm asserting it, even though I know perfectly well that it's arbitrary and that my position is inherently subjectivist."

"having accepted the basic axioms of objectivist metaphysics, one may derive alternative interpretations from them"

There is no deriving existence from axioms. You've got it all backwards! and you're still laboring under the primacy of consciousness! Instead, whenever I state a fact, as in "the sky is blue today", I am implicitly asserting the axioms, and I can't help but do that. I implicitly assert that the sky exists and that it has identity, that I exist and have identity, that part of my identity is the attribute of consciousness which exists and has identity, and that it is that consciousness which is aware of the sky. But the axioms tell you absolutely nothing a priori.

"Discovering the absolute truth can be harder than it looks"

Au contraire. Pointing is quite an easy thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would like to know is what possible benefit would pursuing this line of "imagining" have to your life? When you assert "I'm not hoping to prove such an assertion, but merely suggest it as a possible alternative..." you invalidate the very reason why anyone looks to the unkown - which is to prove or disprove a theory. If you have a hypothesis you then seek through scientific inquiry facts to prove or disprove your assertion. When you yourself admit that this is not possible what possible benefit can you gain?

Perhaps a better approach to such questions could begin w/questions and hypothesis' that can be proved. You can learn a great deal about yourself, what sort of purpose there can be to life, and larger questions about the universe by starting with rational assertions rather than unprovable imaginings. I think that great things can be accomplished by asking great questions, but only within the realm of what could reasonably be pursued. Otherwise, you will always be unhappy because you will always view the world as unknowable and unexplainable which is a very uncomfortable way to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaphysicist has in interesting trick... he twists his concepts in a way that makes it hard to see the flaw in them.  He implies a lot of things which are true--existence contains all that which exists, consciousness contains all that which is conscious, etc...--he then defends his claims with these truths when questioned. 

When I was a little kid I used to try and defend myself on the premise that what was right was situational (I was probably trying to justify stealing my sister's clothes or keeping frogs under my bed). Fortunately, that argument didn't last long with my Dad around. I think I remember a quote that was something like "The most dangerous lie is the one that is 90% true."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 is an arbitrary assertion.  BY DEFINITION it is a FANTASY (as is your 'thinking cells' analogy) because, as you EXPLICITLY state, there is NO evidence for it and you dont know if there will EVER be evidence for it (just so you know - since you seem WEAK on the laws of logic or how to form a logical premise - an ANALOGY is NOT evidence.  ANOTHER fantasy is also NOT evidence).  What you reference is the NON-REAL because there is NO THING being referenced whatsoever.  Therefore, its metaphysical status is:  NOTHINGNESS.  Epistemologically, it is an INVALID concept.  It is not true.  it is not false.  It is NOTHING.

To continue to assert that something is possible WITHOUT evidence is to assert your REJECTION of logic.  Doing so ALSO asserts your inability to speak with us, because logic is the ONLY means by which man can grasp identity and thus existence.

Here in the world of science we often refer to this as a 'hypothesis'. They're generally considered to be essential to any significant advance in knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...