How is existence meaningful as an axiom?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

2 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

“Implicit knowledge” is a form of mysticism, based on a premise of a magical automatic reason machine in the human mind. . . ."

David, in some usages of “implicit knowledge”, there is nothing mystical or magical. There is a sense of implicit useful in cognitive-development research literature (viz., Gelman and Meck 1983, 344). The child is said to have implicit knowledge of the counting principles if she engages in behavior that is systematically governed by those principles, even though she cannot state them. The child has gone far beyond learning first words (roughly months 12 to 18) by the time she is learning to count. By 30 months, the basic linguistic system has become established and is fairly stable (Nelson 1996, 106). Not until around 36 months or beyond does the child have an implicit grasp of the elementary principles of counting: assign one-label-for-one-item, keep stable the order of number labels recited, assign final recited number as the number of items in the counted collection, realize that any sort of items can be counted, and realize that the order in which the items are counted is irrelevant (Gelman and Meck 1983; Butterworth 1999, 109–16).

Gelman and Meck liken this implicitness of the counting principles at this stage of cognitive development to the way in which we are able to conform to certain rules of syntax when speaking correctly without being able to state those rules. That much seems right, but there is a further distinction I should make. The child’s implicit counting principles are being learned (and taught) as an integral part of learning to properly count aggregations explicitly, expressly. In contrast, we can (or anyway, my preliterate Choctaw ancestors centuries past could) live out our lives, speaking fine in our mother tongue, following right rules of syntax, yet without being able to state those rules; indeed, without even knowing any of the terminology of syntax. Our learning of tacit rules of syntax is not for the sake of becoming able to follow them explicitly, only tacitly. 

Another sense of implicit is in more common use. That is the logicomathematical sense. It is in that sense that we say a certain theorem is implicit in a set of axioms; Hertz’ wave equation for propagation of electromagnetic radiation is implicit in Maxwell’s field equations; an inverse-cube central force law is implicit in a spiral orbit; dimension reductions are implicit in Kolmogorov superposition-based neural networks; certain measure relations are implicit in any similarity discerned in perception; or certain measure relations are implicit in a concept class. Cf. Rand (1969, 159–62); Campbell (2002, 294–96, 300–10); Boydstun (1996, 201–2).

In addition to using “implicit” in her theory of the genesis of measurements-omitted concepts (which I suppose for the concept existence requires suspension of particular measure-values along all the measure-dimensions possessed by all the kinds of existents there are), Rand used “implicit” in describing a cognitive growth in our infant comprehension from existence to identity to unit.*

References

Boydstun, Stephen. 1996. Volitional synapses (Part 3). Objectivity 2(4):183–204.

Butterworth, Brian. 1999. What Counts: How Every Brain is Hardwired for Math. New York: Free Press.

Campbell, Robert L. 2002. Goals, values, and the implicit: Explorations in psychological ontology. 

Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. 3(2):289–327.

Gelman, Rochel, and Elizabeth Meck. 1983. Preschoolers’ counting: Principles before skill.

Cognition 13:343–59.

Nelson, Katherine. 1996. Language in Cognitive Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rand, Ayn. [1969] 1990. Transcripts from Ayn Rand’s epistemology seminar. Edited by L. Peikoff and H. Binswanger. Appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Expanded 2nd edition. New York: Meridian.

22

11 hours ago, Boydstun said:

Another sense of implicit is in more common use. That is the logicomathematical sense. It is in that sense that we say a certain theorem is implicit in a set of axioms

I’m familiar with that usage. We can can find very many such examples out there, indeed we can say that the writings of Ayn Rand are implicit in the grammar of English, and the writings of Immanuel Kant are implicit in the grammar of English. “…all arithmetic and all geometry are in us virtually, so that we can find them there if we consider attentively and set in order what we already have in the mind,” “Thus it is that ideas and truths are for us innate, as inclinations, dispositions, habits, or natural potentialities, and not as actions; although these potentialities are always accompanied by some actions, often insensible, which correspond to them” (Leibniz New Essays). The problem is that I find this to be an abuse of the meaning of “implicit”, one that we find very common in social contract style ethical discussions which invoke the notion of “implied consent”.

Rather than say that all knowledge is implicit in the faculty of reason, we should say that all knowledge is created by using the faculty of reason. We can likewise arrive at valid concepts by contemplating the import of walking into walls for the concept of “solidity”. It is not valid to say that the concept of existence exclusively derives from sense perception: obviously, there is more to conceptualization that simple sense perception. Invoking the implicit obscures an important question: how exactly does one create or validate a concept? Stating the logical hierarchy is not the same as explaining the epistemological process of invention / discovery.

23

  • Author

Posted Tuesday at 07:09 PM

Hello everyone.

I know it sounds ridiculous but hear me me out if you will.

How does Objectivism counter the proposition that existence is meaningless as an axiom.

We know that it must be implicit in sense perception.

We know existence cannot be derived from being the opposite of non-existence. Non-existence does not exist metaphysically, only epistemologically.

We know existence can’t be derived from being the opposite of mental delusion. Even the mind and everything in it exists. That is the question of reality in contrast to mind.

We know existence can’t be defined as it is a metaphysical primary.

So where is it in sense perception? What makes it meaningful? I want to understand but I can’t seem to answer it.

 

From the OP , asking for explicit formulation of the ineffable, and me suggesting that a formulation will not be satisfactory unless the self is recognized as part of the ‘make up’ of the external world even when trying articulate a separation.

24

On 5/9/2024 at 6:26 AM, HowardRoarkSpaceDetective said:

Is that quote not saying that life is the standard? Or are you underscoring the “man” part? I’ve always taken that emphasis to be qualifying the means to life rather than life as an end. So, survival as the end, with reason as the uniquely human means. Honestly, I can’t keep all the terms straight – life, survival, life qua man, happiness, standard, end, purpose.

Most certainly underscoring “man”.

VoS:

“That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own".

“Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life”.

AR

All life, down to every living organism, is “an end in itself”: Self-generating, self-directing. When it comes to “value”, inseparable from “life”, each organism->animal’s own physical life(/death) is its own “standard” of value, the good(/evil).

By Rand, man has, I’d put it, an ‘elevated’ standard of value to achieve and sustain, one proper to man, beyond the reach of animal - etc.. etc.

“Survival” qua man then, is on a greatly extended range, inclusive of his (biological) life, of course.

I’d not fault anyone’s uncertainty and confusion, there is a huge amount to unpack and flesh out above from Rand, “an abstract principle” leading back to each individual’s life.

 

 

25

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?

 

26

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?

 

When you take good and evil to stand for life and death, for all organisms/animals.

“An organism’s life is its ~standard of value~; that which furthers its life is the *good*, that which threatens it is the *evil*.”

…

“It is only an ultimate goal, an ~end in itself~, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically *life* is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself; a value gained and kept by a constant process of action…” p17

A critical footnote to allay concerns that these organisms, animals, etc, evidently do NOT have consciousness of life/death, good/evil, values, morality, goal-directed purpose, and so on (apart from sensations, pain/pleasure, for many forms) - on p16:

 

AR: “When applied to physical phenomena, such as the automatic functions of an organism, the term “goal-directed” is not to be taken to mean “purposive” (a concept applicable only to the actions of a consciousness) and is not to imply the existence of any teleological principle operating in insentient nature. I use the term “goal-directed,” in this context, to designate the fact that the automatic functions of living organisms are actions whose nature is such that they result in the preservation of an organism’s life”.

“The Objectivist Ethics,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 16

 

 

27

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?

Good and evil pertain to choices by a rational consciousness, given a fundamental goal such as “to exist, qua man”. This uniquely refers to man, at least on Earth. Morality is a code guiding a rational consciousness, whereby one can reach one’s fundamental goal. Nature, i.e. “the universe”, is not a consciousness and does not make choices, so nature does not have a moral code. Morality derives from nature, specifically, the identity of a consciousness.

The concept of “supranatural”, meaning “above the laws of nature”, is not even applicable to morality for humans. Gravity is a law of nature, you cannot chose to disobey it. Morality is clearly a choice, not a law of nature, and is not absolutely and instantly enforced as laws of nature are.

28

The realization that the life of a common cockroach is also “an end in itself”, may be disconcerting at first. 

Rand’s “organism” relates to all living things - “man”, included.

“On the *physical* level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex…- are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life”

29

12 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?

 

What is wrong with you? What is good for the life of man qua man is the good and what is opposed to the life of man qua man is the evil, and this directly follows from man’s nature as a rational being. Why are you even on this forum, let alone the mass of anti-Objectivists also posting. You are lucky that I was demodded for enforcing the forums (appropriate) rules as written and in context. 

30

So volitional consciousness is the acme or apex of naturally occurring phenomenon, not ‘outside’ of nature?

Your wording seems to leave open the possibility that cancer is evil, but  I don’t think that is what you intended to express.

31

On 5/13/2024 at 5:20 PM, tadmjones said:

So volitional consciousness is the acme or apex of naturally occurring phenomenon, not ‘outside’ of nature?

 

If it’s in man’s nature, does it not exist ‘inside’ of nature?

“Is” supplies the “ought”. To turn against our nature, there’s “the evil”. 

32

“Is” is reducible or determinate assuming the ability to identify facts as existent and set, an unchangable aspect of reality(physical, objective) , “ought” is conditional , A is not A ?

33

55 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

“Is” is reducible or determinate assuming the ability to identify facts as existent and set, an unchangable aspect of reality(physical, objective) , “ought” is conditional , A is not A ?

“Is” comes first, and irreducible. The sequence: metaphysics and epistemology, then the ethics logically following (by necessity), was the unique feat AR performed in her essay. Often - the metaphysics, the general nature of life and specifically man’s life and nature, gets left behind or taken for granted. I believe the full justification of rational egoism is weakened.

Tad, I thank you for your response. But could you quote my post to alert me? In this forum, by some mutual consent or orders from high, it seems I have been excluded (“canceled”?) from debate.

1 Like
34

On 5/13/2024 at 12:59 AM, DavidOdden said:

Good and evil pertain to choices by a rational consciousness, given a fundamental goal such as “to exist, qua man”. This uniquely refers to man, at least on Earth. Morality is a code guiding a rational consciousness, whereby one can reach one’s fundamental goal. Nature, i.e. “the universe”, is not a consciousness and does not make choices, so nature does not have a moral code. Morality derives from nature, specifically, the identity of a consciousness.

The concept of “supranatural”, meaning “above the laws of nature”, is not even applicable to morality for humans. Gravity is a law of nature, you cannot chose to disobey it. Morality is clearly a choice, not a law of nature, and is not absolutely and instantly enforced as laws of nature are.

All true based on a strict materialism.

Non strict materialism has concepts like dharmic principles that incorporate ideas that allow for distinctions of relationship between consciousness and the gross physical realm. A ‘space(as the kids say)’ for nature to have an identity that allows for cognition of the appearance and experience of physicality without dispensing with the reality of the subjectivity of experience(consciousness).

When you say ‘rational consciousness’ do you see volitional as concomitant to ‘rationality’ ?

35

Sorry , yes I have a habit of not using the quote feature ‘enough’.

46 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

 

Tad, I thank you for your response. But could you quote my post to alert me? In this forum, by some mutual consent or orders from high, it seems I have been excluded (“canceled”?) from debate.

 

36

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

When you say ‘rational consciousness’ do you see volitional as concomitant to ‘rationality’ ?

That’s an interesting question. A rational being holds that knowledge derives exclusively from reason, but Rand’s concept of reason include sense perception, as well as conceptualization and logic.

Perception is non-volitional. A person may be for example physically incapable of hearing a sound above 12Khz in which case there is no question of “choosing to hear”. Or, you may hear but disregard, which is a volitional act. Reason acts on two things, the chosen and the un-chosen, the latter being direct sense perception. Reason is a human faculty, an ability that is part of the mind residing in the brain. Dogs and worms don’t have it, they have something else, even though they have sense perception.

Concept formation is 100% volitional. I take that to be so self-evident that it needs no further discussion, but if you disagree, we can pursue that topic. Although logic is vastly more compact than concept formation, I would not claim that it is hard-wired into the human brain, I would claim that it is learned and volitional. Certainly one must choose to apply logic to sensations in deriving knowledge. As you presumably see, 2/3 of reason is volitional, therefore volitionality is a concomitant of rationality.

I am satisfied with this as an answer to the question about man on Earth, but it would also be reasonable to ask about imaginary science fiction beings, such as Vulcans. Would we actually integrate other kinds of consciousness into the concept “rational”, if the content of their “faculty of reason” were hard-wired and non-volitional, and if all processing of sense data is automatic (not just bare sensation, but also concept formation and all other aspects of cognition). After all, we historically generalized the concepts “speech”, “arms” and “the press” to accommodate new existents.  ChatBot very weakly directs our attention to other imaginable kinds of consciousness, ones where logic is built in and obligatory. Could any living being have a fixed and automatic conceptual faculty? I say no, that by definition, a cognitive system with a fixed and automatic set of concepts is not a conceptual system, it is in fact a fancy form of dog cognition, a closed list of mental groupings.

1 Like
37

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

All true based on a strict materialism.

Non strict materialism has concepts like dharmic principles that incorporate ideas that allow for distinctions of relationship between consciousness and the gross physical realm. A ‘space(as the kids say)’ for nature to have an identity that allows for cognition of the appearance and experience of physicality without dispensing with the reality of the subjectivity of experience(consciousness).

When you say ‘rational consciousness’ do you see volitional as concomitant to ‘rationality’ ?

There’s no such thing as a  “dharmic” principle. You are resorting to complete arbitrary mysticism. Essentially, everything from every religion has to be dismissed instantly out of hand by moral rational people. 

38

11 hours ago, EC said:

There’s no such thing as a  “dharmic” principle. You are resorting to complete arbitrary mysticism. Essentially, everything from every religion has to be dismissed instantly out of hand by moral rational people. 

You think the principles of dharma are incorrect , but they do exist as principles and millions of people for thousands of years have lived by them.

Everything of religious origin should be shunned? Moral rational people would not or should not experience reverence for a story about the ideal man in flesh and bone , whose tenets if followed would bring one to a state nearer perfection?

 

39

13 hours ago, tadmjones said:

You think the principles of dharma are incorrect , but they do exist as principles and millions of people for thousands of years have lived by them.

Everything of religious origin should be shunned? Moral rational people would not or should not experience reverence for a story about the ideal man in flesh and bone , whose tenets if followed would bring one to a state nearer perfection?

 

No, I know with 100% absolute certainty that anything based on any type of mysticism of any type is incorrect even if they occasionally reach the correct answer for the absolute wrong reasons.  An instance off the top of my head is the Christian “thou shall not kill”. The correct principle behind that is of course respect of every individual’s right to life and not a random “commandment” from an imaginary dictorial being who even if one of these things existed would have no right to do so and would be violating morality by definition by acting as a dictator over others. 

40

1 hour ago, EC said:

No, I know with 100% absolute certainty that anything based on any type of mysticism of any type is incorrect even if they occasionally reach the correct answer for the absolute wrong reasons.

The problem with this discussion is that it is about a floating abstraction. FYI, dharma refers to “moral conduct”, and is not fundamentally different from “morality” (which too derives from mysticism). Many modern thinkers reject the concept of morality because it has been tainted by association with Christianity. The original Hindu idea is that morality is “inherent in the cosmos”, that it is the things necessary for humans to do for an orderly universe. That’s not wildly divergent from the Objectivist concept of morality as a code for men to conform to reality. A better attack would be on the specifics of the supposed dharmic principles. What principles? The Graeco-Roman concept of morality and ordering chaos into the universe is not only “very similar” to the Vedic concept, it is probably historically the exact same system of religious belief, which were certainly highly mystical. Ontogeny does not actually recapitulate phylogeny.