One true philosophy or not

[anthony]

I’m digging, not picking. I want to get the the root of the issue. What if my idea of life proper to man happens differ from Rand's in several respects? One of my highest values (empathy) does not not figure in the Objectivist list - would I be called 'irrational' then?

She has heard my own and others' arguments countless times, but hasn't stopped looking for ways to 'refute' Rand.

Very often the argumentation was circular, like listing Objectivist values and virtues "proper to man".

The last attempt - that Rand deliberately didn't use 'must' because it would counter the individualist ethics, is one of her most ludicrous.

I have been trying to attribute rationality to Rand here, interpreting her choice of words accordingly. But when I think it over, you do have a point: possibly she did not really make a precise distinction between "must" and "ought to", but used "ought to" interchangeable with "must". Her "fish" example from biology seems to indicate this.

Xray: It's not that anyone can or can't have a different idea to Rand's; it is, what is real?

If she mis-identified reality in any way, then she is wrong.

In this case, it is all to do with the true identity of Man. His attributes, capabilities, his lacks, etc.

Simply, if man possesses a brain which contains his consciousness, the mind - and that also possesses some fairly benign instincts for group cohabitation and co-operation... which is of higher importance and efficacy?

If you assiduously practise "empathy" (by which I assume you mean compassion) for people, what certainty is there that it will be returned equally by others?

How do you measure compassion, or its effects? How do you propogate it?

You can't, why, because it is predominantly subjective. The question then is, are there any objective, measurable values man has?

Which works best for his life, his own chosen objective values applied to it, or other people's subjective ones?

Those are the 'practical' questions.

I think that without this sense of hierachicalism in man's identity, everything is up for grabs. One person identifies man as 'spiritual', another as a primitive, another as individualist; morality therefore becomes 'anything goes'- for who knows best? Self-evidently, the 'rational animal' contains it all, from primitive instincts, to highest consciousness (and self-consciousness.) What takes priority? There isn't any doubt about which he 'ought to' direct his life from, that I can see. Just as any animal utilizes its highest attributes to live, so the rational animal should, too.

Simultaneously, man must be aware of his other attributes, and ought to acknowledge and appreciate them - to as much as possible objectify them, and use them. Objectively, respect, good-will and benevolence are of higher value to compassion, I believe - but that doesn't negate or eliminate compassion, or any 'finer feelings'.

Xray, I grant that I may have misread you, but remember we have had dozens of such debates. Look at it impartially please : can you fault me for doubting your sincerity, when you pose precisely the same objections and queries a year or two on, as though you had ignored every word I replied?

Tony

[Dglgmut]

Edit: Tony, I think your point about people putting consciousness before existence is the most important thing. I think it's true, but I still can't explain how/why people would do that. Perhaps it comes from a misconception of self. But that wouldn't be a choice, would it?

I'd like to know how/why as well. I have been wondering about it for ages. I can only make reasonably informed guesses about philosophically flawed premises, combined with psychological disorder. One strong contender is the basic need for self-esteem common to us all - but here, perverted into "me, me, always and first - and never mind about reality". Counterfeit self-esteem, that places consciousness ('self-importance') before reality.

The genuine article is rational, and earned - founded upon your past and present dealings with existence.

I do believe there is choice in the matter : metaphysically, one made the wrong choice at some stage. Once understood (without evasion) the choice to change, and change itself, can follow.

I think it may have to do with our way of life. As we get more comfortable (a higher standard of living), it becomes easier to separate our experience from reality; to get more and more out of touch.

Children aren't allowed to make mistakes, or experience any independence before they are off on a career path (or a decade in university/college). I think they ask themselves, "What do I want?" and get no reply. Reality should be the one to ask the question, and then the answer will come naturally.

People look at themselves not as a part of existence, but as separate. "Why am I here?" Why are you where? In existence? As if you could be anywhere else?

Or hey, maybe subjectivity is a natural condition that has proven useful for survival. Fear is a result of subjectivity, I feel.

[anthony]

Edit: Tony, I think your point about people putting consciousness before existence is the most important thing. I think it's true, but I still can't explain how/why people would do that. Perhaps it comes from a misconception of self. But that wouldn't be a choice, would it?

I'd like to know how/why as well. I have been wondering about it for ages. I can only make reasonably informed guesses about philosophically flawed premises, combined with psychological disorder. One strong contender is the basic need for self-esteem common to us all - but here, perverted into "me, me, always and first - and never mind about reality". Counterfeit self-esteem, that places consciousness ('self-importance') before reality. The genuine article is rational, and earned - founded upon your past and present dealings with existence. I do believe there is choice in the matter : metaphysically, one made the wrong choice at some stage. Once understood (without evasion) the choice to change, and change itself, can follow.

I think it may have to do with our way of life. As we get more comfortable (a higher standard of living), it becomes easier to separate our experience from reality; to get more and more out of touch. Children aren't allowed to make mistakes, or experience any independence before they are off on a career path (or a decade in university/college). I think they ask themselves, "What do I want?" and get no reply. Reality should be the one to ask the question, and then the answer will come naturally. People look at themselves not as a part of existence, but as separate. "Why am I here?" Why are you where? In existence? As if you could be anywhere else? Or hey, maybe subjectivity is a natural condition that has proven useful for survival. Fear is a result of subjectivity, I feel.

Whoever you are, I demand to know what you have done with Calvin!!

He never made this much sense, so you can't fool me!

Calvin, if you can read this, it's OK bud, we're going to find you.

Tony

[Xray]

Xray: It's not that anyone can or can't have a different idea to Rand's; it is, what is real?

If she mis-identified reality in any way, then she is wrong.

This is a common ground all discussion participants here can agree on, I think: All assertions, no matter by whom they are made, have to be tested as to whether they conform to reality. One could call it the "epistmemological litmus test". Epistemology is the fundamental discipline of all philosophical reasoning.

The beauty of epistemology lies in its objectivity, in its clarity.

But as for ethics, things are more intricate. For ethics is about personal choice, it is about attributing value, and we humans tend to be a good deal more emotional when we attribute personal value to this or that, or to living beings.

This is the reason for a frequent fallacy in discussions on ethics: values are often presented as if they were objective, timeless, unquestionable facts.

Any ethics igoring basic facts can be rejected as irrational. That way, e. g. every ethics based on a "god's will" falls through the epistemological sieve, since it is irrational to claim existence of a will on the part of a being for whose existence no evidence whatsoever exists.

Whoever you are, I demand to know what you have done with Calvin!!

He never made this much sense, so you can't fool me!

Calvin, if you can read this, it's OK bud, we're going to find you.

Tony

May all OLers with whom Calvin has been exchanging posts have "done something with Calvn" in that the way arguments are laid out here is beginning to rub off on him. This kind of 'productive osmosis' is not to be underestimated.

[Xray]

Xray: If someone acts out of a fear of being rejected, who are they? They are not a person at this point, they are a byproduct of other personalities.

Calvin: But of course they are a person. The fear of being rejected is actually part of the human condition, and the reason why it is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche has its roots in our biology: since as group beings, our survival depends on others, rejection could be perceived as potentially life-threatening.

What purpose does a lie serve?

A lie serves the purpose to conceal a truth which an individual wants to keep hidden because s/he fears negative consequences for himself/herself in case the truth is exposed.

Let me put it simply: I don't think it's possible to lie to oneself.

This is the most fundamental single new thing I took from Rand: That people can, and often do, lie to themselves.

I agree with Calvin on this. One cannot lie to oneself. The very nature of the lie makes this impossible.

A lie is a conscious attempt on a person's part to keep a truth hidden. A truth of which the liar has knowledge.

A lie differs from being in error about a fact in that the liar is not in error about a fact. The liar is fully aware of a fact, but doesn't want others to have knowledge of this fact

One cannot know something and not know it (this would be a contradiction); from this it follows that one cannot lie to oneself.

[anthony]

Xray: It's not that anyone can or can't have a different idea to Rand's; it is, what is real? If she mis-identified reality in any way, then she is wrong.

This is a common ground all discussion participants here can agree on, I think: All assertions, no matter by whom they are made, have to be tested as to whether they conform to reality. One could call it the "epistmemological litmus test". Epistemology is the fundamental discipline of all philosophical reasoning. The beauty of epistemology lies in its objectivity, in its clarity. But as for ethics, things are more intricate. For ethics is about personal choice, it is about attributing value, and we humans tend to be a good deal more emotional when we attribute personal value to this or that, or to living beings. This is the reason for a frequent fallacy in discussions on ethics: values are often presented as if they were objective, timeless, unquestionable facts. Any ethics igoring basic facts can be rejected as irrational. That way, e. g. every ethics based on a "god's will" falls through the epistemological sieve, since it is irrational to claim existence of a will on the part of a being for whose existence no evidence whatsoever exists.

Xray,

You must be aware that O'ist ethics rest on epistemology AND metaphysics.

But interesting that you should mention "god's will"

Something I've noticed with atheists or agnostics I know.

With only one exception, (who is Objectivist) they all resist and avoid any metaphysical dialogue.

It's as if they rejected it, along with the god premise, and any form of perceived floating abstraction.

i.e., I think they rejected rationalism, and have subsequently gone to the other extreme - of 'logical' empiricism.

I suppose it makes a kind of sense, when one has been too long imbued by the rationalistic mysticism of a Church.

Unsurprisingly, they are concretist and literalist, and have no philosophy, beyond a vague humanism.

Would you agree with them, and my assessment?

Epistemology isn't the full story.

[Dglgmut]

Xray, what I meant was that the derivation of one's own values from the perceived values of others is not an expression of personality. Yes, it is in our biology to cooperate with others in order to survive, but there are a lot of instinctual tendencies that do nothing to represent us as opinion forming individuals. If I get scared by the crash of a picture falling off my wall, is that reaction descriptive of my personality?

Thanks for clearing up the self-lie thing. I think people may get away with oversimplifying personal responsibility by insisting that people consciously lie to themselves. It's logically impossible, as you pointed out.

And Tony, don't worry about Calvin. He's with the rest of the enquiring minds.

[Xray]

Xray,

You must be aware that O'ist ethics rest on epistemology AND metaphysics.

But interesting that you should mention "god's will"

Something I've noticed with atheists or agnostics I know.

With only one exception, (who is Objectivist) they all resist and avoid any metaphysical dialogue.

It's as if they rejected it, along with the god premise, and any form of perceived floating abstraction.

i.e., I think they rejected rationalism, and have subsequently gone to the other extreme - of 'logical' empiricism.

I suppose it makes a kind of sense, when one has been too long imbued by the rationalistic mysticism of a Church.

Unsurprisingly, they are concretist and literalist, and have no philosophy, beyond a vague humanism.

Would you agree with them, and my assessment?

Epistemology isn't the full story.

Tony,

I can think of reason why they might reject it: for as opposed to epistemology, the term metaphysics is quite fudgy actually. In some contexts, it is even used as referring to transcendence (which is the exact opposite of Rand's usage: "that which pertains to reality"). To Kant, metaphysics deals with the question "For what may I hope?"

The fudginess of the term metaphysics is the reason why I avoid using it.

As for "That which pertains to reality" - isn't this covered by epistemology?

Imo the same goes for issues like "man's nature".

Here are some interesting critical assessments on metaphysics:

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Metaphysics

Proceeding from Kant's statement about antinomy, A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth and Logic using the verifiability theory of meaning concluded that metaphysical propositions were neither true nor false but strictly meaningless, as were religious views. However, Karl Popper argued that metaphysical statements are not meaningless statements, but rather not fallible, testable or provable statements^[19] i.e. neither empirical observations nor logical arguments could falsify metaphysical statements to show them to be true or false. Hence, a metaphysical statement usually implies an idea about the world or about the universe, which may be reasonable but is ultimately not empirically testable.

Rudolf Carnap, in his book Philosophy and Logical Syntax, used the concept of verifiability to reject metaphysics.

Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense.

— Rudolf Carnap

John Locke, a founder of empiricism, expressed that most of the doctrine of innate ideas in the metaphysics, such as Cartesian dualism and the Platonic realm were ridiculous and nonsensical.^[20]

I can imagine that your above-mentioned atheistic/agnostic discussion partners would agree with most of the above criticism.

[anthony]

Xray,

First, no, definitely it is not covered by epistemology.

Good overview in Wiki. But I think, with all due respect to those brilliant thinkers, they missed the boat badly.

How can you build a philosophical system without metaphysics?!

"That whch pertains to reality, to the nature of things [and of man], to existence."

"meaningless", "non-logical", "unverifiable", "not testable" (!!)

Of course, it then follows that none of them derived an ethical system of any merit.

In rejecting the rationalism of Plato, correctly, they veered to empiricism, incorrectly.

Metaphysics is, to a large degree "the given". Related to the primacy of existence, so axiomatic.

Actually, I think a large amount is inductively, rather than deductively apprehended, which is why the expert inductivist, Rand, began from there.

She asked: "Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws, and therefore is stable, firm, absolute - and knowable?

Or are you in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux, which your mind is impotent to grasp."

That question sorts the men out from the boys: yes, or no; no in-between.

I believe we all have a pre-logical, pre-philosophical "sense" which answers the questions - according to our inductively-gained knowledge of things and Self, AND, to our vision of how man's life can and should be. AR's "metaphysical value judgment". The base of ethics, she calls it.

This sense of life, of *metaphysics*, is what a first-time reader of hers grasps, and responds to positively, immediately - before appreciating her epistemology, ethics, rights, etc.

Or sometimes doesn't.

(btw, to avoid ambiguity, would you provide your definition of empathy?)

Tony

[Dglgmut]

I think I have an explanaition for the source of our free will.

We can't evade knowledge we have. We can't lie to ourselves. This is out of the question.

The choice has not to do with belief, or even acknowledgement of reality. The choice is the effort to seek information, in it's unknown state.

E.g. people who "don't want to know" what has happened to their fastfood before they got it.

The choice has to do with risk, I think. Do we risk our state of emotion to possibly attain something higher? The greater the challenge we face, the greater the accomplishment in overcoming it. Some people don't want a challenge...

The choice is, perhaps, simply between easy and hard. To seek knowledge, even though it may make the pursuit of happiness more difficult, and the goal more great, or to protect ourselves from our own intelligence.

This would explain how intelligent people can be irrational. They don't want to know.

[john42t]

We can't evade knowledge we have. We can't lie to ourselves. This is out of the question.

The choice has not to do with belief, or even acknowledgement of reality. The choice is the effort to seek information, in it's unknown state.

I appreciate that it's out of the question to you.

I believe in the opposite none the less.

I even believe that human being's minds are "designed" (by natural selection) to allow lying to oneself, since total honesty, even to oneself, is harmful in the presence of hypocrites.

[caroljane]

We can't evade knowledge we have. We can't lie to ourselves. This is out of the question.

The choice has not to do with belief, or even acknowledgement of reality. The choice is the effort to seek information, in it's unknown state.

I appreciate that it's out of the question to you.

I believe in the opposite none the less.

I even believe that human being's minds are "designed" (by natural selection) to allow lying to oneself, since total honesty, even to oneself, is harmful in the presence of hypocrites.

We can't evade knowledge we have. We can't lie to ourselves. This is out of the question.

The choice has not to do with belief, or even acknowledgement of reality. The choice is the effort to seek information, in it's unknown state.

I appreciate that it's out of the question to you.

I believe in the opposite none the less.

I even believe that human being's minds are "designed" (by natural selection) to allow lying to oneself, since total honesty, even to oneself, is harmful in the presence of hypocrites.

What kind of hypocrites were our evolving ancestors being threatened by as they hauled themselves out of the primordial ooze and made the trek towards bipedalism?

[john42t]

In reality, the hightech job market is finite. [...]

This is marxism.

I dunno about that. She had an orange and you threw in an apple, without explanation. Also, a part of Marxism is not Marxism.

The belief that there is a finite amount of work to be done and workers who are to do that work and each worker should therefore dislike qualified competition under capitalism, that is a part of marxism. It's not all of marxism, but it's part of that ideology, and one of the most important parts. And it's wrong.

People like to believe it because the unemployed then becomes the victim. Sentences like "They are qualified, but there are not enough jobs." rest on this.

I didn't expect to have to spell something like this out - I would have thought that everybody's marxism alarm to go through the roof on "...job market is finite...".

[Xray]

Xray,

First, no, definitely it is not covered by epistemology.

Good overview in Wiki. But I think, with all due respect to those brilliant thinkers, they missed the boat badly.

How can you build a philosophical system without metaphysics?!

"That whch pertains to reality, to the nature of things [and of man], to existence."

"meaningless", "non-logical", "unverifiable", "not testable" (!!)

But in our modern (non-mythical) times, all these issues are have to do with epistemology because they deal with knowledge.

She [Rand] asked: "Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws, and therefore is stable, firm, absolute - and knowable?

And what philosophical discipline deals with "the knowable"? Epistemology.

The Wiktionary article on metaphysics offers ample evidence of the term's 'fudginess'. It's so fudgy actually that religion can be subsumed under it too.

metaphysics

Etymology

From Latin metaphysica < Byzantine Greek μεταφυσικά (metaphusika) < the title of the collection by Aristotle μετὰ τὰ φυσικά, a collection that comes after (μετά (meta)) Aristotle's collection entitled τὰ φυσικά < φυσικός (phusikos, “natural”).

[edit] Pronunciation

• IPA: /mɛtəˈfɪzɪks/
  
• enPR: mĕ'təfĭziks
  

[edit] Noun

metaphysics (countable and uncountable; plural metaphysics)

1. (philosophy, uncountable) The branch of philosophy which studies fundamental principles intended to describe or explain all that is, and which are not themselves explained by anything more fundamental; the study of first principles; the study of being insofar as it is being (ens in quantum ens). Philosophers sometimes say that metaphysics is the study of the ultimate nature of the universe.
   
2. (philosophy, countable) The view or theory of a particular philosopher or school of thinkers concerning the first principles which describe or explain all that is. The metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas holds that all real beings have both essence and existence. In Aristotelian metaphysics physical objects have both form and matter. In his Pensées, Pascal mentioned some first principles recognized within his metaphysics: space, time, motion, and number.
   
3. (uncountable, by extension from the philosophical sense) Any fundamental principles or rules.  
   
4. (uncountable) The study of a supersensual realm or of phenomena which transcend the physical world. I have a collection of books on metaphysics, covering astral projection, reincarnation, and communication with spirits.
   
5. (uncountable), Displeasingly abstruse, complex material on any subject. This political polemic strikes me as a protracted piece of overwrought, fog shrouded metaphysics!
   
6. (countable) Plural of countable senses of metaphysic.

From the Wiktionary article on Epistemology:

Etymology

From Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistēmē, “science, knowledge”) < ἐπίσταμαι (epistamai, “I know”) + -λογία (logia, “discourse”) from λέγω (legō, “I speak”). The term was introduced into English by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier (1808-1864).

[edit] Pronunciation

• (US) IPA: /ɪˌpɪstəˈmɑlədʒi/
  
• Audio (UK)
  (file)
  

[edit] Noun

epistemology (plural epistemologies)

1. (uncountable) The branch of philosophy dealing with the study of knowledge; theory of knowledge, asking such questions as "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", "What do people know?", "How do we know what we know?". Some thinkers take the view that, beginning with the work of Descartes, epistemology began to replace metaphysics as the most important area of philosophy.

[john42t]

She [Rand] asked: "Are you in a universe which is ruled by natural laws, and therefore is stable, firm, absolute - and knowable?

And what philosophical discipline deals with "the knowable"? Epistemology.

Metaphysics. Epistemology deals with how to go about knowing it.

[caroljane]

In reality, the hightech job market is finite. [...]

This is marxism.

I dunno about that. She had an orange and you threw in an apple, without explanation. Also, a part of Marxism is not Marxism.

The belief that there is a finite amount of work to be done and workers who are to do that work and each worker should therefore dislike qualified competition under capitalism, that is a part of marxism. It's not all of marxism, but it's part of that ideology, and one of the most important parts. And it's wrong.

People like to believe it because the unemployed then becomes the victim. Sentences like "They are qualified, but there are not enough jobs." rest on this.

I didn't expect to have to spell something like this out - I would have thought that everybody's marxism alarm to go through the roof on "...job market is finite...".

But, at any given time, the amount of work to be done might be infinite, but the actual number of existing jobs is not. We may not be able to count them, but that does not mean they are not countable. There's nothing philosophical about it. Similarly with workers, for each job opening there are X number of applicants, plus Y number of non=applicants who are qualified - we don't count Y, but X+Y is a real number.

If that viewpoint is marxist, marxism is sensible.

[john42t]

If that viewpoint is marxist, marxism is sensible.

That viewpoint is marxist. It comes of no surprise to me to see you assume it.

[Dglgmut]

We can't evade knowledge we have. We can't lie to ourselves. This is out of the question.

The choice has not to do with belief, or even acknowledgement of reality. The choice is the effort to seek information, in it's unknown state.

I appreciate that it's out of the question to you.

I believe in the opposite none the less.

I even believe that human being's minds are "designed" (by natural selection) to allow lying to oneself, since total honesty, even to oneself, is harmful in the presence of hypocrites.

John, you have to look at what a lie is; it's a conscious act. If our brains are withholding information from us in order to protect us, it is not a lie.

Maybe that's not what you meant... maybe you meant we have the ability to see truth, and consciously form a contradicting belief that would benefit us more.

Now we have to look at what a belief is: A belief is the inference one draws from experience (and memory of experience).

I believe I see what I see, in this moment, because of overwhelming evidence. There's an infinite amount of experiences I could imagine better than this one, but I can't believe that I am experiencing them, because I'm not.

"Everything is going to be okay." That's a lie many people may tell themselves... It's not a belief, though. It's the same as people sitting in front of the TV when they get home to escape reality. Their beliefs aren't really changing, they're just distracting themselves from their beliefs.

The only reason you can consider a self-directed message a lie is because it contradicts one's own beliefs. The message is a lie, but it does not change the beliefs of the individual.

The choice is to ignore reality, not to create a new reality. There can be many reasons to make the choice of ignorance, and they all have to do with the unknown factor.

If we don't know what we're missing, how do we choose whether or not to look?

[john42t]

John, you have to look at what a lie is; it's a conscious act. If our brains are withholding information from us in order to protect us, it is not a lie.

Yes it is. A lie can be subconscious.

If you restrict the definition of the word lie to the conscious plane, you lack a word for the subconscious variant. Also, there would be few liars left - most people are deluded rather than conscious liars. Therefore, I must apply the word to both.

[Dglgmut]

Well, in that case, fine, but you still have to explain how, if it's subconscious, we can choose whether or not to do it.

[john42t]

Well, in that case, fine, but you still have to explain how, if it's subconscious, we can choose whether or not to do it.

What you can avoid is evading contradictory information. For example, you discover something about yourself that contradicts your self-image and evade it (good or bad, both happens). Or you figure something about someone else that doesn't fit your image about him and evade it (again, good or bad).

Those things are possible to avoid.

Once you evaded, you will "honestly" claim what you believe to be true, so after the evasion the chance for honesty has passed. I would still consider it to be a lie.

When I say "God is a lie." I'm talking about a subconscious lie.

[Dglgmut]

Okay, I think I see where the difference in our arguments lies.

What I'm saying is that the information we avoid is not clear to us; we don't "know" it. We don't evade knowledge, we evade discovery.

This is to say: I'm happy with the beliefs I have, so I won't go looking for more information.

I wouldn't call it a lie, but if you agree that this is basically the extent of our control over our beliefs, then we are on the same page.

[john42t]

Okay, I think I see where the difference in our arguments lies.

What I'm saying is that the information we avoid is not clear to us; we don't "know" it. We don't evade knowledge, we evade discovery.

This is to say: I'm happy with the beliefs I have, so I won't go looking for more information.

I wouldn't call it a lie, but if you agree that this is basically the extent of our control over our beliefs, then we are on the same page.

The worst form is: I realize that my beliefs contradict each other, but I don't want to give up either because each is important to my ego. So I decide that I'm fine with that, it's probably nothing serious.

If this is a form of what you call "control over our beliefs", then we're on the same page.

[Dglgmut]

How do you all of a sudden have two contradictory beliefs? One must have come about before the other...

And as far as harmful beliefs, I think subjectivity is definitely the result of dualism. When we started learning that different parts of our brain were responsible for different aspects of our experiences and behavior, most of us would have assumed that we were not our brains.

The simplest way I can define us is as collections of existence and divisions of existence at the same time. We're just sort of floating in the middle of infinity.

[anthony]

John, you have to look at what a lie is; it's a conscious act. If our brains are withholding information from us in order to protect us, it is not a lie.

Yes it is. A lie can be subconscious. If you restrict the definition of the word lie to the conscious plane, you lack a word for the subconscious variant. Also, there would be few liars left - most people are deluded rather than conscious liars. Therefore, I must apply the word to both.

Calvin and John,

I can't see how the brain can lie - withhold information, distort facts - to itself.

It takes in everything via - and within range of - our senses, like any mechanical recorder, but it takes consciousness to apply itself to that information.

Therefore, choice and volition.

What to focus on, what not. Metaphysically, a person can choose to avoid focusing on some critical data, to concentrate on other less important or superfluous data.

"Lie" is misleading here, since it is usually "other-people targeted". The concept you guys are discussing is "evasion".

So, John, I disagree that lying to oneself was ever "designed" and hard-wired for survival among our fellows, but agree with you that evasions always are held sub-consciously.

Calvin, every single thing in the sub-conscious had to be acquired by conscious means, at one time - it can also be accessed the same way, to a varying degree.

It comes back to the question : are we faking reality to ourselves, and how? That it is possible, self-evidently, is a metaphysical identification of man's consciousness. To choose effort, or not. It precedes rational thought, epistemology. (Getting in a commercial, here!)