Is there really such a concept as "Existence"?

[Xray]

Now I think that what Rand in fact wanted to say was something like "there exists a physical reality that is independent of our consciousness", but that doesn't make a good slogan of course. It would make more sense however and is far less ambiguous and it can be a point of departure for further theorizing.

Yes, I said something similar a while back. If she meant that "existence is meaningful and is not a figment of our imagination" then at least we could investigate further what exactly it does mean.

Go right ahead.

--Brant

I'll give it a try and will start referencing to Rand's own words when she got something right, but later abandoned it in deference to illusion that suited her feelings.

Rand on entity:

To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing ofnon-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." (AR)

Rand on identity:

"A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity" (AR)

"All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature." (AR)

Other than adding causal reactions of non volitional entities, as opposed to volition-directed actions, I couldn't agree more. This takes in the whole shooting match. Agree? If not, why not?

Let's set aside all the abstract stuff about "existence exist" and the "primacy of existence over consciousness", etc., and get down to the nitty gritty of the real world.

The whole idea of survival and accomplishments is to identify entities and relationships between entities to utilize the knowledge to select a goal and means to achieve it. Right?

So, the first order of business is to identity an entity. Right? How is this to be done? "A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. " (Rand)

Bingo! A finite entity is known to exist by mentally abstracting it via its limiting and differentiating set of characteristics. Of course, the next question is, how is this done?

It starts, but does not end with, sensory perception. With the tip of your finger, touch an object. Suppose the first sensation is that the object is rough. At this juncture, you have a perceptual identity (sensory perception)of the object. Now add a bit of pressure at the tip of the finger and notice the object is rigid. Mind integrates the sensory perceptions of rough and rigid to arrive at a conceptual (conceived idea) identity of the object.

Repeat the process with another object. The first sensation is rough. The second sensation is soft and yielding. Mind integrates rough and soft to arrive at a conceptual identity different from the conceptual identity of the first object which was rough and rigid, not rough and soft; ergo, it's a different object, hence, a different relationship.

The identity is found in the difference, not similarity.

Using one or more of the senses, this process is utilized in all primary identifications. Furthermore, by using the appropriate technology, this mentally abstracting and identifying by difference can go far beyond the sensory such as identifying an electron, differentiating an electron from a proton, and all else.

This knowledge acquired did not begin with an axiom. It began with sensory input as the very root source of information to be integrated, differentiated and evaluated.

In the course of events, certain conclusions emerge so consistently, (or just commonly believed) they are often referred to as axioms.

They are often falsely referred to as "self-evident truth" not subject to proof or disproof. This misconception is a consequence of ignoring the natural laws of learning rooted in entity identity by difference.

How do categories fit into the epistemology of entity identity? So simply that even dogs, cats, horses and other animals categorize without conscious effort. After all, how can you talk about similarities without first individually mentally abstracting two or more entities by difference?

Since similar characteristics indicate similar entities, hence, similar relationships, this eliminates the necessity of starting at square one with every encounter of a different entity.

However, keep in mind that one must first know a given entity to exist BEFORE categorical information is

accessed and utilized; and in the end, each entity has its own separate identity. No matter what the similarities, or how many, category IS NOT OBJECTIVE ENTITY IDENTITY. A category is subjective mental invention (not discovery) and exists only in mind.

The trouble comes with linguistically trying to breathe life into an abstract to create a "universal entity". I'm afraid all the mental machinations and word games of illusion and self delusion failed to create an entity from the categorical amorphism, "man."

Edited November 8, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray: You're accepting "existence exists"?

You aren't investigating existence but an epistemological construct. That's okay if you come up with something you can then use to investigate existence. The pay off and validation is an improvement on scientific methodogy.

--Brant

Edited November 8, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

We have been investigating existence for thousands of years. The best example of it is called science.

[Xray]

"A lion perceptually focuses on the gazelle. The number two by itself is abstract."

The perceptual focus of eyesight takes in and integrates a host of perceptions such as size, color, etc., to create and function upon conceptual identity.

The conceptual identity of a gazelle is far different than the conceptual identity of an elephant. It is this differentiation that prompts a lion to pursue a gazelle rather than an elephant. By this conceptual identity, the lion knows the difference in relationships.

MJ: "Two coins, two eyes, and so on, are concretes."

No, EACH coin is a concrete whether two or two millions concretes.

MJ: I happen to agree that one cannot "measure love", but not for the same reasons. Ranking is not measuring, but it is a kind of quantifying.

What is "kind of quantifying?"

MJ: However, distances can be measured because there are standard units (mile, kilometer), but I am not aware of any standard unit for measuring love.

One can say 'I love X more than Y' analogous to 'New York is farther from Chicago than is Cleveland'.

One can say anything, like claiming an analogy that does not exist.

Quantifying necessarily references something objective, not subjective valuations. Ergo, the distance between geographical locations (objective) can be quantified and set by reality-referenced numbers. Does there exist a number for "love per mile?

Edited November 8, 2009 by Xray

[Guyau]

I am not a big fan of "Existence exists." I find it neither useful nor profound, like Parmenides' "What is, is."

Merlin, some functions of existence exists as philosophical axiom that I have noticed are the following:

Merely as a truth, so also as axiom, existence exists is said by Rand to be what the moral code she is trying to overturn and replace tries to escape (AS 1015). At that point, she has already said that the code she means to overturn comes in a variety based on dictates of a supernatural being known as God (AS 1011-12). One of the purposes of Rand's axiom existence exists is to foreclose the possibility of the existence of God.

In her later essay "The Metaphysical v. The Man-Made" (1973), she tells us that her axiom existence exists means that the universe exists independently of consciousness (24) and that the universe as a whole "cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence" (25). She says that her fundamental axiom invalidates the question "If there is no God, who created the universe?" Ditto for the question “Why is there something, rather than nothing?”

Rand’s axiom existence exists functions also as statement-content whose affirmation in statement brings notice of two other axioms and, in their articulation, a particular fundamental conception of consciousness.$

One way in which Rand’s axiom existence exists differs from Wittgenstein’s starting-point “The world is everything that is the case” is that Rand’s statement includes that, for sure, some cases are cases of existence and these are ultimate starting- and stopping-places. (Wittgenstein adds as his second thesis that what is the case is combinations of entities, of things [Tractatus].) And, as Brant has intimated, Rand’s statement, like Parmenides’ affirms more than “Whatever, if anything, is; then it is.”

Rand’s axiom existence exists functions as (part of) the basis for logic (AS 1016). Logical possibility never floats entirely free of real possibility in Rand’s theoretical philosophy.$ Then too, existence exists functions also as the most primitive source of normativity in logic in Rand’s system. On precedence of the descriptive over the normative, we have the exchange: A, B

Rand’s axiom existence exists as axiom functions in latching all notions of the real into one common sense of existence. Consider Barbara Branden’s note and others in the thread “Existence Isn’t Everything” by Andrew Durham.

Rand’s selection of existence exists rather than being be is sensitive to the history of philosophy, and this choice indicates a tighter restriction in the limits of widest being than was countenanced in ancient and medieval philosophy. Similarly with Rand’s selection of entity in place of substance.

What work is done by the redundancy in existence exists as a axiom is addressed by Tibor Machan in §II of Evidence of Necessary Existence.

[Xray]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

Ms. Xray:

Did you happen to notice that there are only two words in Ayn's statement?

Additionally, did you happen to notice that there are three words in your statements?

Finally, do you think that the number of words might change the meaning and import of the statements, relative to each other?

Adam

curious about pathology

[Dragonfly]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

Ms. Xray:

Did you happen to notice that there are only two words in Ayn's statement?

Additionally, did you happen to notice that there are three words in your statements?

Finally, do you think that the number of words might change the meaning and import of the statements, relative to each other?

Then what about "hunger hungers" and "tiredness tires"? What a big difference!

[tjohnson]

Finally, do you think that the number of words might change the meaning and import of the statements, relative to each other?

Then what about "hunger hungers" and "tiredness tires"? What a big difference!

I guess DF doesn't think it makes much difference

[Selene]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

Ms. Xray:

Did you happen to notice that there are only two words in Ayn's statement?

Additionally, did you happen to notice that there are three words in your statements?

Finally, do you think that the number of words might change the meaning and import of the statements, relative to each other?

Then what about "hunger hungers" and "tiredness tires"? What a big difference!

Dragonfly:

I understand it makes little difference.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Hunger and tiredness are states of living entities. They are not entities (prime causes) in themselves, as your formulations suggest. Hunger does not happen to hunger. It happens to a living entity. Ditto for tiredness.

Existence is a far broader concept since it deals with everything. Existence happens to existence because it is the only thing that can happen to it. This fact is the root of discussing everything that exists.

It's no use complaining that "existence exists" is too simple to be of use, because the nature of this proposition is simple. There's nothing complex about it at all. And logic needs simple rules before the complex ones can be valid.

I dare you to claim logical validity to discussing something that exists (or even imagined) without first accepting that existence exists. The moment you refuse to accept that, you eliminate the thinker, thus your entire discussion is invalidated at the "too simple to be of use" root.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I've explained the problems with the statement "existence exists" here. My last post was only a reply to Selene's criticism that Xray's examples used 3 words instead of 2, by indicating that her examples can easily be changed into statements with two words. That's all.

[merjet]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

They are nonsensical, as I already explained here and and similar to MSK's first paragraph. They are also Xray's nonsensical creations.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Xray]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

Ms. Xray:

Did you happen to notice that there are only two words in Ayn's statement?

Additionally, did you happen to notice that there are three words in your statements?

Finally, do you think that the number of words might change the meaning and import of the statements, relative to each other?

Adam

curious about pathology

Mr: Selene

Yes I notice that Rand's "existence exists" has only two words. Also, "exists" is a verb, whereas hungry, tired, are adjectives.

I just wanted hear your opinion about the phrases: Nonsensical or not?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

I agree up to a point with your phrase for Rand's meaning of existence exists: "There exists a physical reality that is independent of our consciousness." Now here is the point where I believe your statement is incomplete. I would phrase it as follows: "There exists a physical reality that includes our consciousness, but it has a part that is independent of our consciousness."

There are other ways of saying it. Here is another, more concise, way: "The human mind is part of reality."

Michael

[Xray]

Question to all:

What do you think of phrases like "Hunger is hungry". "Tiredness is tired".

Do you think they are nonsensical? If yes, why?

They are nonsensical, as I already explained here and and similar to MSK's first paragraph. They are also Xray's nonsensical creations.

Indeed they are nonsensical creations of mine, posted for demonstration purposes.

Would you agree that they are as nonsensical as the phrase "consciousness is conscious/unconsciousness is unconscious"?

MSK: Hunger and tiredness are states of living entities. They are not entities (prime causes) in themselves, as your formulations suggest. Hunger does not happen to hunger. It happens to a living entity. Ditto for tiredness.

Consciousness/unconsciousness too are states of living entities. They are no entities in themselves, as the formulation suggests.

From this one can infer that Ayn Rand's phrase "Consciousness is conscious" is nonsensical too.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

You have apparently not yet learned what a stolen concept is. It is not a metaphor contra your interpretation of it.

Can you give an example of what you think is a "stolen concept" and explain it?

MJ: "Note: Rand's meaning of "axiom" does not coincide with its meaning in math

and logic."

Obviously not. The thing is, "Rand's meaning" does not correspond with reality. That's the problem. In realistic use of the term, axiom, it means nothing more than generally assumed to be true.

Indeed, the whole thing about axioms is that they were and are established on the basis of what is generally believed to be true.

An "axiom" may be true, or may be false. For instance, "Man cannot create the world, therefore, God did it" is an "axiom" for millions of believers.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Can you give an example of what you think is a "stolen concept" and expain it?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept--fallacy_of.html

Expain it? Try aspirin.

[Xray]

Can you give an example of what you think is a "stolen concept" and expain it?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept--fallacy_of.html

Expain it? Try aspirin.

Good one.

I've corrected the typo, looked up the link but can't make head or tail of what is written there. If you would be so kind to translate it for me and illustrate with a simple example, TIA.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Can you give an example of what you think is a "stolen concept" and expain it?

http://aynrandlexico...fallacy_of.html

Expain it? Try aspirin.

Good one.

I've corrected the typo, looked up the link but can't make head or tail of what is written there. If you would be so kind to translate it for me and illustrate with a simple example, TIA.

Ms. Xray, here is the explanation:

Poof you are an axiom.

Does your pitiful billionth request for an easily accessible link to Ayn's precise words which you could have looked up yourself establish that you, much as you claim to have read many of Ayn's books, you are incapable of search the lexicon site. Got it.

Now you successfully avoided answering a number of my prior questions, but let us ask a simple one for the second time:

What are the five basic principles of Ayn that you agree with? 1)___________________________________; 2)__________________________; 3) ________________________;

4) _____________________________; 5) ___________________________.

Adam

[Xray]

Poof you are an axiom.

Per Rand, an axiom identifies the base of knowledge.

Does your pitiful billionth request for an easily accessible link to Ayn's precise words which you could have looked up yourself establish that you, much as you claim to have read many of Ayn's books, you are incapable of search the lexicon site. Got it.

But Rand's words are not precise at all, that's the problem. If you list what she says about axioms in ITOE, it is sheer chaos. I can give you quotes so you can see for yourself.

Now you successfully avoided answering a number of my prior questions, but let us ask a simple one for the second time:

What are the five basic principles of Ayn that you agree with?

I did not avoid answering them, I only found it hard to find 5 principles I agree with.

"Check your premises" is on the top of my list. More later.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

See now normally this would be contradictory. However, we now have some scientific basis for Ms. Xray's lack of thinking skills, logical sequencing from premises, the use of Inductive reasoning, combined with deductive reasoning, or even possibly analogical reasoning.

"I did not avoid answering them, I only found it hard to find 5 principles I agree with.

'Check your premises' is on the top of my list. More later."

Ms. Xray is a self confessed vegetarian.

From the Times of India:

MELBOURNE: Scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.

Vegans and vegetarians are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

The link was discovered by Oxford University scientists who used memory tests, physical checks and brain scans to examine 107 people between the ages of 61 and 87.

When the volunteers were retested five years later the medics found those with the lowest levels of vitamin B12 were also the most likely to have brain shrinkage. It confirms earlier research showing a link between brain atrophy and low levels of B12.

Brain scans of more than 1,800 people found that people who downed 14 drinks or more a week had 1.6% more brain shrinkage than teetotallers. Women in their seventies were the most at risk.

Beer does less damage than wine according to a study in Alcohol and Alcoholism.

Researchers found that the hippocampus-the part of the brain that stores memories - was 10% smaller in beer drinkers than those who stuck to wine.

And being overweight or obese is linked to brain loss, Swedish researchers discovered. Scans of around 300 women found that those with brain shrink had an average body mass index of 27 And for every one point increase in their BMI the loss rose by 13 to 16%.

Tsk Tsk maybe we should all sacrifice some brain matter for her.

Nah.

Adam

Edited November 23, 2009 by Selene

[Xray]

See now normally this would be contradictory. However, we now have some scientific basis for Ms. Xray's lack of thinking skills, logical sequencing from premises, the use of Inductive reasoning, combined with deductive reasoning, or even possibly analogical reasoning.

...

Ms. Xray is a self confessed vegetarian.

...

Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

It looks like reasoning is not your long suit, Selene. For you again put the cart before the horse, jumping to conclusions before checking premises.

I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian, which is why your vitamin B12 defiency claim is invalid.

I happen to know quite a bit about nutrition, so rest assured I can take good care of myself in that field.

To continue with your questions re Rand: Number 2 on my list is her correctly identifying "selfishness" as "concern with one's own interests " (Introduction to TVOS, p 7).

(Imo the better term for selfishnesss would be the more neutral sounding "self-interest").

Edited November 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

See now normally this would be contradictory. However, we now have some scientific basis for Ms. Xray's lack of thinking skills, logical sequencing from premises, the use of Inductive reasoning, combined with deductive reasoning, or even possibly analogical reasoning.

...

Ms. Xray is a self confessed vegetarian.

...

Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Yeast extracts are one of the few vegetarian foods which provide good levels of the vitamin.

It looks like reasoning is not your long suit, Selene. For you again put the cart before the horse, jumping to conclusions before checking premises.

I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian, which is why your vitamin B12 defiency claim is invalid.

I happen to know quite a bit about nutrition, so rest assured I can take good care of myself in that field.

To continue with your questions re Rand: Number 2 on my list is her correctly identifying "selfishness" as "concern with one's own interests " (Introduction to TVOS, p 7).

(Imo the better term for selfishnesss would be the more neutral sounding "self-interest").

Ms. Xray:

Once again, your inability to actually understand that I am chuckling as I posted that article continues to amuse me.

So, for the record: 1) check your premises 2) selfishness properly defined except as you Ms. Xray decides to what ? correct it? improve it? I know Germany is close to Switzerland, so does that mean that "neutral sounding" [whatever in God's or Nature's mind that means] has bled across the border and that is somehow better?

Come on girl, you can do it:

Three more to go!

Here is some inspiration:

Adam

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

Once again, your inability to actually understand that I am chuckling as I posted that article continues to amuse me.

Mr. Selene,

It sticks out a mile that you resort to "chuckling" whenever you have run out of arguments.

That is, you use ridiculing sideshows to distract from the issue at hand.

Three more to go!

# 3 is :

"Value" is that which one acts to gain or keep. The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative.

Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." (Rand)

Which of course rules out any plants attributing value.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Xray