Doesn't reality require a singular consciousness?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

amorparatodavida: 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.

His flaw lies, not in his premises, but his conclusion. He says that, because we may consider all consciousness at once, that group consciousness has control of each individual consciousness. The fact is, the ocean is merely a convenient way of viewing a large group of water molecules at once… just as water molecules are merely a convenient way of viewing a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons. Each molecule of water in an ocean does its own thing; it acts according to its nature weather it is singled out in a lab, or in an ocean.

The ocean is a bad analogy though, since it is a physical object and the discussion is actually about concepts, particularly: a state, an attribute. To translate Metaphysicist’s claim into another attribute: blueness (or ‘the one blue’) is an object, and all blue things are a part of blueness; we only see separate blue objects because we are ignorant. Surely you can see the absurdity of this, and see how replacing “blue” with “consciousness” changes nothing.

22

Somtimes when something doesn’t make any sense it just doesn’t make any sense.

And, in most cases, it isn’t meant to make sense.

Read Kant, Hegel and Marx’s obscurantist drivel for documentary evidence of this.

23

BlackSabbath , and I quote, Read the incomprehensible just for the sheer pleasure of not understanding it.

24

richard, thanks for clearing that up for me. it’s an interesting concept, just like communism. however, both are absurd and i completely agree with you.

25

His flaw lies, not in his premises, but his conclusion.  He says that, because we may consider all consciousness at once, that group consciousness has control of each individual consciousness.  The fact is, the ocean is merely a convenient way of viewing a large group of water molecules at once… just as water molecules are merely a convenient way of viewing a collection of protons, neutrons and electrons.  Each molecule of water in an ocean does its own thing; it acts according to its nature weather it is singled out in a lab, or in an ocean. 

The ocean is a bad analogy though, since it is a physical object and the discussion is actually about concepts, particularly: a state, an attribute.  To translate Metaphysicist’s claim into another attribute: blueness (or ‘the one blue’) is an object, and all blue things are a part of blueness; we only see separate blue objects because we are ignorant.  Surely you can see the absurdity of this, and see how replacing “blue” with “consciousness” changes nothing.

That’s not quite what i’m saying.

What i’m proposing is that Existence has an identity. It’s constituent parts, existents, also have identities. (Although there is no fixed number of identities, given that any object can be sub-divided infinitely).

Why does Existence have an identity? Because anything that exists must have an identity. Existence is not merely an abstraction, it is a set of real phenomena.

Some existents have the attribute of consciousness.

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.

As mere “individuals” within this potentially infinite superstructure, how can we pretend to know the exact distribution of Consciousness?

We can look at an insect and see that its consciousness (if it has any, which i’ll leave as an open question) is so minute that human beings appear as gods before it.

Our reason tells us that consciousness has something to do with complexity of organisation. The molecules of the human being are arranged in such a way that he can perceive, think and imagine far above the level of the lower animal races.

The universe is surely the most complex system that we can perceive. Is it not then possible, at least theoretically, that this sytem possesses a consciousness of its own? It is after all, a highly organised arrangement of particles which possesses an identity.

It’s at least worth considering.

26

If the universe is concious, what is it concious of?

27

If the universe is concious, what is it concious of?

Itself.

28

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.

29

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?

30

Gentlemen, we are now at the stage where Metaphysicist is reduced to repeating himself.

And we all know that the idea that existence is consciousness is false.

He has already failed the Rand’s Razor test.

What more is there to say?

31

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?

No, you are obviously a collection of atoms.

32

And we all know that the idea that existence is consciousness is false.

He has already failed the Rand’s Razor test.

Please show me what sentence of mine indicated that “existence = consciousness”

I said existence is conscious. There’s quite a difference.

33

My foot has the property of being a foot. My foot is part of me. Therefore, obviously, I have the property of being a collection of feet?

34

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.

35

Please show me what sentence of mine indicated that “existence = consciousness”

I said existence is conscious. There’s quite a difference.

That was a typo on my part.

But your quote of Existence is Conscious is still wrong.

36

  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”.

  1. 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.

37

The way i see it, Objectivism is not the only “true” philosophy but there are others that may be possible as well.

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.

38

“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”. 

  1. 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.

39

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.

40

“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.