What Are We?

[Xray]

An illusion cannot exist separate from existence, because then it wouldn't exist.

So every kind of conscience (including illusion as a form of conscience not in accordance with reality) preupposes the concept of existence.

Rand, in ITOE, wrote:

"One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or "prove") existence as such, or consciousness, as such. These are irreducible primaries.

What Rand said there cannot be refuted.

And when you think about it - how would a discussion be possible at all with an individual who does not accept the primacy of 'existence' as an axiom?

Rand considered naming her philosophy existentialism, but since the name had already been taken by another branch of philosophy, she chose Objectivism istead.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

How would one deal with the axiom "Existence is illusion", which can't be proved either?

No idea. I've been having a tough time proving to friends that the far side of the Moon is made of camembert.

They want evidence, for chrissakes!

[Dglgmut]

Wait... Doesn't a physical process depend on material?

There is a scant distinction between a quantum field and a quantum particle.

And from relativity theory we learn mass and energy are equivalent in that they can convert one to the other.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But what is energy without material?

[BaalChatzaf]

But what is energy without material?

Mass is congealed energy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

But what is energy without material?

Mass is congealed energy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That doesn't explain anything. If our definition of energy depends on material, we can't use energy to then define material.

I asked, "What is energy without material?" and you replied that even material is energy. Then let me ask: What is energy at all?

Edited August 27, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

I asked, "What is energy without material?" and you replied that even material is energy. Then let me ask: What is energy at all?

E = m*c^2. I can't make it plainer. When the Big Bang occurred there was no material, there was only energy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dglgmut,

There is no real theory of memory in Objectivist literature. That makes answering your post more speculation than anything else. In other words, how can there be any understanding about anything at all--much less what are we--within a philosophy unless there is some kind of explanation of memory and a minimum way of validating it?

That's a question I have been grappling with for a long time. Here are some thoughts.

In metaphysical terms, I hold there is a top-down control on things as well as a bottom-up control. What this means is that there are organizing forces that can be identified when you look down--all the way down to sub-particles, but there are also organizing forces that group subparticle in certain manners and this goes all the way up to galaxies and beyond.

Reductionist science has been very good at breaking stuff up, looking at the characteristics of the rubble and putting stuff together in different manners. We get man-made atomic energy that way, for example. It has not been so successful at explaining why human will (or free will) can do that and choose to do it--which is a top-down idea.

The most you will find (or, at least, I have found) substance-wise in Objectivist literature is "law of identity" coupled with "it exists." I would have to look up the quotes, but I remember Rand using this kind of argument several times to explain consciousness.

I have been a bit frustrated with this, so I have gone off in some directions that I find fascinating.

There is a pioneer cell biologist named Bruce Lipton who went in the top-down direction when the rest of his peers went on a reductionist path, and now he has ended up keeping company with some pretty new-agey folks (like at the Institute of Noetic Sciences). But he has some solid stuff under his belt--like removing DNA from cells to see if they continue behaving according to their observed programming (they do). His theory is that memory is thus not in DNA or even controlled by DNA. It is actually recorded on cell linings. And since cell linings are made up of subparticles, and as many subparticles that interact with it are not necessarily constrained by the cell's boundaries, there is more stuff going on than appears on the surface--stuff coming from outside the boundaries actually helping make them be the boundaries they are. Something like "will," however you wish to define it.

I like many things in his approach. Google him and you can come across some really cool videos of lectures he has presented.

On the other side, I have also been fascinated with recent findings in neuroscience, which is more bottom-up thinking. You can find many posts of mine here on OL about this.

Another top-down idea I like a lot is holons. I need to study this topic more, but I am familiar with what Koestler and Wilber said about them. The thing is, when you look around--on all levels of size from macro to micro--you see forms behaving in a holon-like manner.

Fractals are also on my "look deeply into this" list. They are way beyond weird and way beyond cool.

And there's more top-down stuff I have been looking at (quantum physics, anyone?), but the question always comes up, which is right--or at least, which is more important? Top down or bottom up?

I have come to the conclusion that both are part of the same thing. And I have come up with a couple of analogies that illustrate this.

1. The first is a gem stone and its facets. Imagine each facet representing something fundamental about an existent--one facet is top-down organization, another is bottom up, another is the time-space background, and another is the universe as the ultimate context.

Now think of the analogy. Can you remove one specific facet from a gem stone and have it exist apart from the stone?

You can't.

The facets can be cut into other facets on the stone--and focused on to the exclusion of the others (which is an epistemological issue), but they have no metaphysical existence apart from the stone.

I believe the organizing factors I mentioned are like that. They are all part of the whole.

2. This analogy is even clearer in terms of approach.

Imagine a circle on a page. Where does the boundary of the circle (the circle's line) start and where does it end? The answer is that it starts at any point you choose and it always ends where you started.

Now imagine running this counterclockwise and calling this bottom up thinking (i.e, forms ultimately emerging from their constituent subparticles). By this, I mean you take the start point and imagine it is the "whatever we find" in subparticles and you go along the circle until you arrive forms--which is right back where you started. Does this work? Is it true? Yup.

Now do it the other way--clockwise--and call this top-down thinking (i.e, formal forces ultimately governing the nature, behavior and grouping of subparticles). By this, I mean you take the start point and imagine it is the formal forces in nature and you go along the circle until you arrive subparticles--which is right back where you started. Does this work? Is it true? Yup.

Is one true to the exclusion of the other? Nope. They both hold and you can observe stuff using both approaches.

How's that for circular reasoning? (groan... )

If you try to ask, "What am I?" and make the "what" metaphysically independent from the "I," it's like looking only at one facet of the gem stone and saying that it can exist apart from the stone, or starting somewhere on the circle and saying only one direction is possible or you will not end where you started.

If you look at many discussions on these ideas, you will often see a person going in one direction (to stay with the circle analogy) and trying to force-fit the approach of the other direction on that path, and all kinds of similar confusion. I think if people agree on the idea frame before they argue over the details, there would be less misunderstandings in the world.

This is for starters. Don't even get me going on the individual as a member of a species...

Michael

[Dglgmut]

I asked, "What is energy without material?" and you replied that even material is energy. Then let me ask: What is energy at all?

E = m*c^2. I can't make it plainer. When the Big Bang occurred there was no material, there was only energy.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Energy is primarily understood as an interaction between material, though, you must agree. To imagine energy as an object, well, it doesn't make sense to us because it goes against our definition of energy.

Also, I don't see the point in using the big bang in any metaphysical argument, as nothing was created at that point, and therefor it was not a beginning in any sense.

Michael: Thanks for the reply. I'll check out that scientist; it does sound very interesting. It's a chicken/egg type question to ask whether we have will to live because of an evolutionary development or we have evolved because of our will to live... I am leaning towards will being the most fundamental part of existence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am leaning towards will being the most fundamental part of existence.

Dglgmut,

Just to be clear about my own views, I don't think the universe works this way.

I think the fundamental parts are all fundamental, which means--relative to existence--that one is not more important than the other.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

I am leaning towards will being the most fundamental part of existence.

Dglgmut,

Just to be clear about my own views, I don't think the universe works this way.

I think the fundamental parts are all fundamental, which means--relative to existence--that one is not more important than the other.

Michael

Yeah, I figured as much from your circle analogy. I guess you see it as nothing really being a cause, but a few things being the essential building blocks that have always been necessary.

With my theory I was more referring to the unexplained force in the experiment you mentioned.

[Steve Gagne]

Take your pick. None of the above is empirically testable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yup. Thank you, Bob.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I guess you see it as nothing really being a cause...

Dglgmut,

Not quite.

I believe we don't have the scope of observational equipment to know.

Claiming a cause and claiming no cause for the universe are both speculations. And at the present evolutionary level of human beings, they can't be anything more.

Once in a very dark moment of my life, I came to three realizations:

1. I don't know everything.

2. I will not be able to know everything within my lifetime.

3. The universe is a very big and very small place.

Sounds like obvious stuff, I know, but I accepted this and found peace of mind in the thought.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I guess you see it as nothing really being a cause...

Dglgmut,

Not quite.

I believe we don't have the scope of observational equipment to know.

Claiming a cause and claiming no cause for the universe are both speculations. And at the present evolutionary level of human beings, they can't be anything more.

Once in a very dark moment of my life, I came to three realizations:

1. I don't know everything.

2. I will not be able to know everything within my lifetime.

3. The universe is a very big and very small place.

Sounds like obvious stuff, I know, but I accepted this and found peace of mind in the thought.

Michael

The first cause is the compiler of raw data. All else is interpretation and public consumption.

--Brant

wool over our eyes

[Xray]

How would one deal with the axiom "Existence is illusion", which can't be proved either?

No idea. I've been having a tough time proving to friends that the far side of the Moon is made of camembert.

They want evidence, for chrissakes!

Such ignoramuses, those Anti-Camembertians! I think I'll have to pour me a cup of Russell's Teapot to calm me down.

But kidding aside, Tony - Dglgmut has given a very interesting answer:

An illusion cannot exist separate from existence, because then it wouldn't exist.

So while the axiom "existence is illusion" cannot not be proved either, it is claimed that the illusion exists.

So every kind of conscience (including illusion as a form of conscience not in accordance with reality) preupposes the concept of existence. The concept "illusion" only makes sense against the backdrop of something which is regarded as non-illusionary.

So even extreme subjectivists cannot escape the idea of 'existence' since they claim that 'illusion' [objectively] exists.

In Objectivism, this is called the 'stolen concept' fallacy (Rand, ITOE, p. 59/60): the opponents of philosophy X, in an attempt to deny the validity of the axioms of X, smuggling into their arguments axioms from X which they profess to negate.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Xray

[anthony]

But kidding aside, Tony - Dglgmut has given a very interesting answer:

An illusion cannot exist separate from existence, because then it wouldn't exist.

So while the axiom "existence is illusion" cannot not be proved either, it is claimed that the illusion exists.

So every kind of conscience (including illusion as a form of conscience not in accordance with reality) preupposes the concept of existence. The concept "illusion" only makes sense against the backdrop of something which is regarded as non-illusionary.

So even extreme subjectivists cannot escape the idea of 'existence' since they claim that 'illusion' [objectively] exists.

In Objectivism, this is called the 'stolen concept' fallacy (Rand, ITOE, p. 59/60): the opponents of philosophy X, in an attempt to deny the validity of the axioms of X, smuggling into their arguments axioms from X which they profess to negate.

Aaahh, my aching head.

Dunno Xray: the one way I'd go about it is to assume men needed a word for the concept "That Which Does Not Exist" - so lets say they named it "Illusion."

It would take an extreme and slightly insane subjectivist to claim that "TWDNE" - exists - in reality - has an identity - of which we are able to be conscious.

Then, if "Illusion" is an existent, which proper noun would our mad subjectivist like to use for the concept of what HE considers does NOT exist?

Then, to be consistent, if illusion is real, he must also argue that reality is illusion. A is R, therefore, R is Q.

And so on round and round and I need an aspirin...

(btw, agreed: stolen concept fallacy - also p.o.c., and I'd add 'stolen definition' to that.)

Tony

Edited August 29, 2011 by whYNOT

[Dglgmut]

Uh, an illusion is something that is perceived by something... The perception exists. To say existence is an illusion makes no sense what-so-ever. To say reality is an illusion is a completely different assertion.

What is reality? Objectivity depends on consistency between multiple angles of observation... To say something is real is to say it would be perceived in the same way from infinite points of view.

There's no way to prove that reality is an illusion or the contrary.

What we should recognize is that our awareness is limited to the present, and to a single point of view.

[Brant Gaede]

Uh, an illusion is something that is perceived by something... The perception exists. To say existence is an illusion makes no sense what-so-ever. To say reality is an illusion is a completely different assertion.

What is reality? Objectivity depends on consistency between multiple angles of observation... To say something is real is to say it would be perceived in the same way from infinite points of view.

There's no way to prove that reality is an illusion or the contrary.

What we should recognize is that our awareness is limited to the present, and to a single point of view.

Slick.

--Brant

you don't prove axioms: an attempt to disprove them catches you in a contradiction: ergo, reality exists and I exist with a consciousness capable of apprehending reality while you are saying you and I don't know shit about that and you are right (see: reality) about that!

[Xray]

Ba'al (and others),

I'd like to ask this again because I'm very interested in your replies:

We are physical natural objects. Everything about us is physical (electrodynamic mostly) and material. There is nothing about us to which the laws of physics do not pertain. Life itself is a physical process.

And this process produces countless 'intelligent' solutions without a conscience, like for example blood circulation.

Leaves show elaborate mathematical structures, etc.

Or just think of the fascinating world of fractal structures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

So if elaborate mathematical structures in nature and all the intelligent solutions can exist without a conscience, what is it that guides those processes?

Don't think I'm arguing from some religious 'argument from design' position here.

On the contrary, I would like to explore the issue from the opposite angle:

If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without a conscience?

Edited September 2, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al (and others),

I'd like to ask this again because I'm very interested in your replies:

We are physical natural objects. Everything about us is physical (electrodynamic mostly) and material. There is nothing about us to which the laws of physics do not pertain. Life itself is a physical process.

And this process produces countless 'intelligent' solutions without a conscience, like for example blood circulation.

Leaves show elaborate mathematical structures, etc.

Or just think of the fascinating world of fractal structures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

So if elaborate mathematical structures in nature and all the intelligent solutions can exist without a conscience, what is it that guides those processes?

Don't think I'm arguing from some religious 'argument from design' position here.

On the contrary, I would like to explore the issue from the opposite angle:

If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without a conscience?

By "without a conscience" do you mean without consciousness?

בעל חוצפה

Edited September 2, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Xray]

בעל חוצפה

What is the English translation?

Ba'al (and others),

I'd like to ask this again because I'm very interested in your replies:

We are physical natural objects. Everything about us is physical (electrodynamic mostly) and material. There is nothing about us to which the laws of physics do not pertain. Life itself is a physical process.

And this process produces countless 'intelligent' solutions without a conscience, like for example blood circulation.

Leaves show elaborate mathematical structures, etc.

Or just think of the fascinating world of fractal structures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

So if elaborate mathematical structures in nature and all the intelligent solutions can exist without a conscience, what is it that guides those processes?

Don't think I'm arguing from some religious 'argument from design' position here.

On the contrary, I would like to explore the issue from the opposite angle:

If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without a conscience?

By "without a conscience" do you mean without consciousness?

בעל חוצפה

Sorry about my language mistake; I meant "without consciousness", yes.

Edited September 3, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

בעל חוצפה

What is the English translation?

Ba'al (and others),

I'd like to ask this again because I'm very interested in your replies:

We are physical natural objects. Everything about us is physical (electrodynamic mostly) and material. There is nothing about us to which the laws of physics do not pertain. Life itself is a physical process.

And this process produces countless 'intelligent' solutions without a conscience, like for example blood circulation.

Leaves show elaborate mathematical structures, etc.

Or just think of the fascinating world of fractal structures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

So if elaborate mathematical structures in nature and all the intelligent solutions can exist without a conscience, what is it that guides those processes?

Don't think I'm arguing from some religious 'argument from design' position here.

On the contrary, I would like to explore the issue from the opposite angle:

If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without a conscience?

By "without a conscience" do you mean without consciousness?

בעל חוצפה

Sorry about my language mistake; I meant "without consciousness", yes.

I still don't understand Ba'al's argument.

We are physical, conscious things. We are made up of tiny things that are not us. Those tiny things are made of energy.

In other words:

We exist as physical beings, yet all the physical components of us are not us. But that stuff is just energy.

It is very confusing and seems inconsistent.

[BaalChatzaf]

I still don't understand Ba'al's argument.

We are physical, conscious things. We are made up of tiny things that are not us. Those tiny things are made of energy.

In other words:

We exist as physical beings, yet all the physical components of us are not us. But that stuff is just energy.

It is very confusing and seems inconsistent.

We are what we are made of. What else can we be? We are stuff, matter and energy. We are subject to the same physical laws as wood, water and stone.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I still don't understand Ba'al's argument.

We are physical, conscious things. We are made up of tiny things that are not us. Those tiny things are made of energy.

In other words:

We exist as physical beings, yet all the physical components of us are not us. But that stuff is just energy.

It is very confusing and seems inconsistent.

We are what we are made of. What else can we be? We are stuff, matter and energy. We are subject to the same physical laws as wood, water and stone.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bottom line, isn't it all energy?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Bottom line, isn't it all energy?

--Brant

In a way. Mass and energy can be converted one to the other under certain circumstances.

E = m*c^2.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

בעל חוצפה

What is the English translation?

We are physical natural objects. Everything about us is physical (electrodynamic mostly) and material. There is nothing about us to which the laws of physics do not pertain. Life itself is a physical process.

And this process produces countless 'intelligent' solutions without a conscience, like for example blood circulation.

Leaves show elaborate mathematical structures, etc.

Or just think of the fascinating world of fractal structures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Ba'al (and others),

I'd like to ask this again because I'm very interested in your replies:

So if elaborate mathematical structures in nature and all the intelligent solutions can exist without a conscience, what is it that guides those processes?

Don't think I'm arguing from some religious 'argument from design' position here.

On the contrary, I would like to explore the issue from the opposite angle:

If matter can organize itself in what we would call an 'intelligent' manner, e. g. blood circulation, is it correct to say that 'intelligent actions' can exist without consciousness?

Edited September 5, 2011 by Xray