An axiomatic paradox?

[Ellen Stuttle]

So it's not just me picking this up that Rand thinks this dichotomy is false. And if Rand is leading a "revolt against the dualism" as Sciabarra claims, then why stop at the king of them all, the mind/brain dualism?

Mind you, her "revolt against the dualism" seems to also get interpreted as a "revolt against monism", so it's deuces wild AFAICS...;-)

It's far from just you. I've had debates with staunch O'ists who think she held no form of mind/brain dualism, but I think her theory of volition at minimum has to imply property dualism. Plus she railed against both materialism and idealism. Possibly a case could be made for dual-aspect monism. But how does one limit dual-aspect monism only to humans? And how does one get her theory of volition from dual-aspect monism? Also, she more than a few times spoke of "man" as being "an integration of mind and body," but how can one have an "integration" of only one something?

I haven't time for digging up cites now, but I think quite a bit can be found which casts doubt on her having been a monist. Thus my evaluation is that she was at minimum an undeclared property dualist. And despite her negative remarks about Descartes' views, I've long thought that her "model" is a close look-alike to his: He described other animals as being automata and believed that the soul activated the human body through the pineal gland as the point of contact. She likewise drew a sharp contrast between humans and other animals (ascribing to humans alone a "level" of consciousness which needs to be volitionally activated), and she made "the choice to think or not to think" the prime determinant of human behavior. She didn't anywhere I know of say how she thought the prime choice results in action, but somehow it has to be doing this according to her theory.

Ellen

Edit: I originally wrote, being tired and muggy-headed at the time, "process dualist." I meant the term "property dualist." For a quick synopsis of the meaning of "property dualism," see.

___

Edited September 7, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[tjohnson]

In order for us to have seen Neptune we -know- that at one time it existed, even before we saw it. Telescopes do not produce hallucinations.

Telescopes produce images and so do human nervous systems, but they can't do this if there is no observer. An "object" is produced in the brain of the observer so it can't possibly exist independently. Our best guess about what does exist is what science tells us, ie. lightwaves, matter energy, etc. These are not "objects".

[tjohnson]

Did a star at the distance of a few billion lightyears exist at the time that it emitted the light that now strikes the retina of your eye? At that time there was no observer, so according to your argument it didn't exist then. And now when we can observe and measure it, it may already have disappeared in an explosion millions of years ago. So now we can finally observe it, we cannot be sure that it exists!

Perhaps it would best to say my position is that it didn't exist for us. My proposition is that existence of things depends upon an observer but we assume that if an observer was present at a different time he would have made similar observations. If there is no observer how is it possible for us to even discuss existence? 'Existence' only has meaning in the context of having an observer present.

Edited September 7, 2008 by general semanticist

[Brant Gaede]

Did a star at the distance of a few billion lightyears exist at the time that it emitted the light that now strikes the retina of your eye? At that time there was no observer, so according to your argument it didn't exist then. And now when we can observe and measure it, it may already have disappeared in an explosion millions of years ago. So now we can finally observe it, we cannot be sure that it exists!

Perhaps it would best to say my position is that it didn't exist for us. My proposition is that existence of things depends upon an observer but we assume that if an observer was present at a different time he would have made similar observations.

Yeah, but why do you believe this? Why not things exist. Observers of things come and go. They see some of the things that exist. They act on a few. Reality goes on regardless. If planets were sentient would we say Jupiter exists because it has been observed by Saturn? Since observers are as much a part of reality as anything else are we to say that reality is really only the sum of uncounted and uncountable observations that we might someday access through some cosmic library somewhere? How 'bout this: Galileo believed that everything didn't revolve about the earth (man), but you do, implicitly. You are on the side of the Church.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I don't know what you mean by 'reality'. The word implies there is an underlying structure which is the same for all observers which is not the case empirically.

[kiaer.ts]

Telescopes produce images and so do human nervous systems, but they can't do this if there is no observer.

The equivocation here is massive. But since the usage is common, I suppose I shouldn't criticize it. Instead, I'll agree that just as both minds and telescopes produce images, Victor Borge and broken word processors produce gibberish, chili and the Santa Ana produce winds, and untuned radios and general semanticists produce noise.

[tjohnson]

In order for us to have seen Neptune we -know- that at one time it existed, even before we saw it. Telescopes do not produce hallucinations.

When you say we know it existed before we observed it you mean according to our theories about how such things operate, correct? Our theories tell us that the presence of the planet has an effect on the orbits of other planets and EM energy emanates from it which we can detect, etc. Was the planet always there? Will it always be there? I think you would answer 'no' to these questions. So what does it mean to say that it is there now? It means there is something to observe now which we can study and draw conclusions from and this requires an observer.

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know what you mean by 'reality'. The word implies there is an underlying structure which is the same for all observers which is not the case empirically.

Sure it is, just different parts are tapped into it by different people. You can only observe so much. It's not reality that's the variable that way.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know what you mean by 'reality'. The word implies there is an underlying structure which is the same for all observers which is not the case empirically.

I don't know what you mean by what you mean when you keep failing to make coherent metaphysical statements which also tends to screw you up in semantical-land, your own turf.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Sure it is, just different parts are tapped into it by different people. You can only observe so much. It's not reality that's the variable that way.

Not only can you only observe so much but your abstractions/observations are entirely your own. Science represents an activity in which we attempt to put these unique takes on "reality" in some kind of order and so establish some semblance of objectivity largely through applying mathematics.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Telescopes produce images and so do human nervous systems, but they can't do this if there is no observer.

The equivocation here is massive. But since the usage is common, I suppose I shouldn't criticize it.

Oh, yes, you should! ;-) It's an equivocation which has caused havocs of confusion in theory of perception in general. (Notice that GS has now reverted to indicating that there's an observer which sees the "image" produced in the human nervous system.)

Instead, I'll agree that just as both minds and telescopes produce images, Victor Borge and broken word processors produce gibberish, chili and the Santa Ana produce winds, and untuned radios and general semanticists produce noise.

;-)

Ellen

___

[worldlogicleague]

Here's a puzzler for you Objectivist and logic hotshots. Here is a syllogism (or as near to one as I can make it), which seems to lead to a paradoxical conclusion. What's wrong with the syllogism -- or the premises?

Premise 1: Existence is independent of consciousness. Or, Every thing that exists is independent of consciousness. (This is the Primacy of Existence principle.)

Premise 2: Consciousness exists. Or, Consciousness is something that exists.

Conclusion: Consciousness is independent of consciousness.

The conclusion is literally true, but appears paradoxical because the term consciousness is being used equivocally - with two different meanings.

The conclusion is true if one says that a person's consciousness (being conscious of something) is independent of (his) consciousness (of the fact that he is conscious). In order to be conscious, one must be conscious of some thing. That thing can be, but not need be, that one is conscious. In fact, most of the time we are not actively aware of the fact that we are conscious - since most of the time we are concentrating on other matters. Premise one is ambiguous because it doesn't fully explain what this "independence" is. "Existence is independent of consciousness" can be better stated as "the existence of an existent is independent from one's consciousness of that existent." This applies even with self consciousness - since self consciousness and consciousness of self consciousness are two separate things. One can know. One can know that one knows. And one can know that one knows that one knows. (Okay, I'll stop there.) And all three levels are different. Animals and young children know things without knowing that they know them. Children who have formed a "theory of mind" know that they know things. And people who have taken the first steps of philosophy (or schoolyard Socraticism) - however explicitly or implicitly - can come to know that they know that they know things.

Roger, all this is perfectly clear, and I am sure that you know it.

Hi, very glad to have found this forum. Cool argument.

I agree that the conclusion is literally true, but would assert that the problem is with defining "objects which are independent of consciousness". I don't find anything paradoxical or illogical with this argument given this, and actually find it informative.

Given that "objects" will here be applicable to both unicorns and apples we have:

Definition: objects which are independent of consciousness -- objects which depend on no external consciousness to exist.

Premise 1: Objects which exist are objects which are independent of consciousness.

Premise 2: Objects which are consciousness are objects which exist.

Conclusion: Objects which are consciousness are objects which are independent of consciousness.

In other words: Objects which are consciousness are objects which depend on no external consciousness to exist.

I find this to be both true and rather informative, plus perhaps even the point and application of premise 1.

And now it can be seen clearly how also any existing object could replace consciousness, and the conclusion would be valid and true, given the premises are true.

Now you might say ah, but this makes premise 1 veer close to an A=A formulation, so we don't have the requisite three terms of valid syllogisms.

But I would assert that 'objects which exist' and 'objects which depend on no external consciouness to exist' refer to two separate classes.

For there could theoreticaly be members of the first class that don't belong to the second class (i.e., they do depend on external consciousness to exist)

Anyway, thanks for posting this very interesting argument!

Elwood Long

Edited September 7, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[tjohnson]

(Notice that GS has now reverted to indicating that there's an observer which sees the "image" produced in the human nervous system.)

???

[Barbara Branden]

Perhaps this discussion can best be summed up by the immortal words of that great philosopher, Woody Allen:

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? Then I definitely overpaid for my carpet."

Barbara

[BaalChatzaf]

Oh, yes, you should! ;-) It's an equivocation which has caused havocs of confusion in theory of perception in general. (Notice that GS has now reverted to indicating that there's an observer which sees the "image" produced in the human nervous system.)

Ellen

___

Mr. First Nighter attends the show at the Cartesian Theater.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? "

Can there be nothing in between?

[Brant Gaede]

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? "

Can there be nothing in between?

Sure, if one between is butt up against the other between.

--Brant

[worldlogicleague]

I think premise 1 is wrong. There is no such thing as an object without an observer.

Your point in logical form is:

No existing objects are objects without an observer.

Any single instance of an object that existed without an observer would make your proposition false.

Pluto is such an object.

Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde W. Tombaugh at Lowell Observatory in Arizona.

Was there no such object as Pluto in 1929 before it was observed by humanity?

Obviously there was - it did not just happen to magically come into existence in 1930 when it was observed, by some giant coincidence.

Therefore your proposition is false.

So this proves for me conclusively that objects exist independently of their observation.

Edited September 8, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[BaalChatzaf]

I think premise 1 is wrong. There is no such thing as an object without an observer.

Your point in logical form is:

No existing objects are objects without an observer.

Any single instance of an object that existed without an observer would make your proposition false.

Pluto is such an object.

Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde W. Tombaugh at Lowell Observatory in Arizona.

Was there no such object as Pluto in 1929 before it was observed by humanity?

Obviously there was - it did not just happen to magically come into existence in 1930 when it was observed, by some giant coincidence.

Therefore your proposition is false.

So this proves for me conclusively that objects exist independently of their observation.

Arrrrggghhhh! Smarrrrt as paint ye be!

Since you are a logician who champions the categorical syllogism could you prove using only the 19 forms of the categorical syllogism* the following:

All dogs are animals. Therefore the head of a dog is the head of an animal.

Keep in mnd that the classical categorical syllogism involved only individual variable and constants, unary predicates and their negations, the quantifiers all and some. The 19 classical categorical syllogisms did not touch binary relations or higher order relations in their full generality.

Please show all steps explicitly.

If you succeed at doing this, perhaps you can prove the theorem of Pythagoras which is Prop 47 in Book I of Euclid, solely by classical categorical syllogisms.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*For reference the 19 forms of the classical categorical syllogism can be found in

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

Edited September 8, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

Was there no such object as Pluto in 1929 before it was observed by humanity?

Obviously there was - it did not just happen to magically come into existence in 1930 when it was observed, by some giant coincidence.

You call "Obviously there was" logic?? It's not obvious at all, it's only our theories about the structure of solar systems that tell us it was there for a long time. But maybe you think science is obvious.

[tjohnson]

BTW, it's easy to show that there is no such thing as an object without an observer. Anyone who claims there is just has to produce one, which is obviously impossible.

[Brant Gaede]

Was there no such object as Pluto in 1929 before it was observed by humanity?

Obviously there was - it did not just happen to magically come into existence in 1930 when it was observed, by some giant coincidence.

You call "Obviously there was" logic?? It's not obvious at all, it's only our theories about the structure of solar systems that tell us it was there for a long time. But maybe you think science is obvious.

Your basic premise is epistemology is primary, metaphysics is secondary. Would you explain the why of this?

--Brant

PS: Bob, why aren't you in bed?

Edited September 8, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

BTW, it's easy to show that there is no such thing as an object without an observer. Anyone who claims there is just has to produce one, which is obviously impossible.

Fallacy. If the observed object existed before the observer first observed it, then it existed without an observer.

I should caution you that reading too much of Count Korzybski can cause possible irreversible harm to the prefrontal lobe of the brain.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

If the observed object existed before the observer first observed it, then it existed without an observer.

OK, to prove an object exists without an observer let's assume it existed without an observer. Talk about "possible irreversible harm to the prefrontal lobe of the brain".

[BaalChatzaf]

If the observed object existed before the observer first observed it, then it existed without an observer.

OK, to prove an object exists without an observer let's assume it existed without an observer. Talk about "possible irreversible harm to the prefrontal lobe of the brain".

Was the astronomer who first saw Pluto hallucinating? If not, Pluto existed before he saw it. An icy body does not pop into existence all of a sudden.

Ba'al Chatzaf