What Are We?

[Dglgmut]

I don't doubt that we are not consciousness; we are simply conscious. A banana is yellow, though it is not yellowness.

Correct.

Rand's sentence "Consciousness is conscious" (ITOE, p. 59) makes no sense either. It's like saying "Hunger is hungry".

You say that we are brains, and we have consciousness.

To clarify: I did not state it like that.

We possess highly developed brains that enable us to have consciousness, but I don't equate our brains with what we are.

However, like I said in my last post, we are singular. In reality, there is likely no singular thing, as everything is made up of smaller things. So really, there are no "things," there is only "stuff."

This addresses the issue of categorizing. Again, I'd suggest approaching this from a biological basis.

Categories are groupings by similarity, and the ability to categorize is essential for our survival.

It is true that every entity can be divided into smaller entities, but in order to survive, ruminating about this while being faced with a dangerous animal in the jungle (instead of choosing either fight or flight), would have disastrous results.

So what you call "stuff" is actually pretty organized into categories in the human brain, and not only there: For example, a lion perceiving both a rat and a gazelle has no problem identifying which category is more likely to yield a copious meal.

The question is, where does unexplainable movement, let alone life, comes in? How do we interact with a world of which we are not a part? Logic can't really be used to understand these sorts of things...

And to Ba'al: Yes, but what causes the physical cause?

Another question: What is possession?

Edited August 18, 2011 by Dglgmut

[BaalChatzaf]

I don't doubt that we are not consciousness; we are simply conscious. A banana is yellow, though it is not yellowness.

Correct.

Rand's sentence "Consciousness is conscious" (ITOE, p. 59) makes no sense either. It's like saying "Hunger is hungry".

You say that we are brains, and we have consciousness.

To clarify: I did not state it like that.

We possess highly developed brains that enable us to have consciousness, but I don't equate our brains with what we are.

However, like I said in my last post, we are singular. In reality, there is likely no singular thing, as everything is made up of smaller things. So really, there are no "things," there is only "stuff."

This addresses the issue of categorizing. Again, I'd suggest approaching this from a biological basis.

Categories are groupings by similarity, and the ability to categorize is essential for our survival.

It is true that every entity can be divided into smaller entities, but in order to survive, ruminating about this while being faced with a dangerous animal in the jungle (instead of choosing either fight or flight), would have disastrous results.

So what you call "stuff" is actually pretty organized into categories in the human brain, and not only there: For example, a lion perceiving both a rat and a gazelle has no problem identifying which category is more likely to yield a copious meal.

The question is, where does unexplainable movement, let alone life, comes in? How do we interact with a world of which we are not a part? Logic can't really be used to understand these sorts of things...

And to Ba'al: Yes, but what causes the physical cause?

Another question: What is possession?

[BaalChatzaf]

And to Ba'al: Yes, but what causes the physical cause?

There are only a few answers to that question.

1. Something came into existence without a cause.

2. Something has always exist, and there was an eternal primordial thing which gave rise to all else.

3. The causal chain can be extended backwards in time infinitely. "Turtles all the way down"

4. A variation of #2. A causal cycle forward which extent to to earlier causes. In short a cause and effect cycle which is finite by count but eternal by time.

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

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

The question is, where does unexplainable movement, let alone life, comes in? How do we interact with a world of which we are not a part? Logic can't really be used to understand these sorts of things...

So now we are not only alienated from our own sub-conscious, but also from the world? A dim view.

I don't know much about the subject, but do you know of "emergent properties"? I think it was Aristotle who wrote something like the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

That may help.

Objectivists refer to the 'sub-conscious', btw - identifying, as L. Piekoff put it : - "There is nothing in the sub-conscious besides what you acquired by conscious means".

iow, knowable (if not always known.)

If that's not self-evident to you, it is to me.

[Dglgmut]

The question is, where does unexplainable movement, let alone life, comes in? How do we interact with a world of which we are not a part? Logic can't really be used to understand these sorts of things...

So now we are not only alienated from our own sub-conscious, but also from the world? A dim view.

I don't know much about the subject, but do you know of "emergent properties"? I think it was Aristotle who wrote something like the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

That may help.

Objectivists refer to the 'sub-conscious', btw - identifying, as L. Piekoff put it : - "There is nothing in the sub-conscious besides what you acquired by conscious means".

iow, knowable (if not always known.)

If that's not self-evident to you, it is to me.

If you want to call it alienation... When you're born and you get your first dose of reality, would you not be introduced to something totally different from you? You must believe that we are creations, and therefor just as much a part of this world as everything else. And I've still yet to use the word sub-conscious, because I'm not talking about something that goes on in your head.

And to Ba'al: None of those are explanations, though. It's also very possible that the "rules" of existence are only here to affect our awareness. Like the observer effect from the double-slit experiment..

What is nothing? If something has no physical form, can it exist? We're trying to explain the cause of something with that same thing... It doesn't really make sense. You can't use the information you have to figure out where that information came from... It's like watching a movie to try to learn who invented motion pictures...

[Xray]

[bolding mine]

The question is, where does unexplainable movement, let alone life, comes in?

Those were the long-bygone days when Aristotle could simply state that an immovable mover must act as the force behind it ...

Interesting to ask would be if there could have been any such thing as movement in the hypothetical stage preceding the Big Bang where matter was concentrated to unimaginable density.

As for "life", the 1950 Miller-Urey experiment might interest you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

[bolding mine] ... the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]

<...>

Experiment

The experiment used water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), and hydrogen (H2). The chemicals were all sealed inside a sterile array of glass tubes and flasks connected in a loop, with one flask half-full of liquid water and another flask containing a pair of electrodes. The liquid water was heated to induce evaporation, sparks were fired between the electrodes to simulate lightning through the atmosphere and water vapor, and then the atmosphere was cooled again so that the water could condense and trickle back into the first flask in a continuous cycle.

At the end of one week of continuous operation, Miller and Urey observed that as much as 10–15% of the carbon within the system was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed amino acids that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars and liquids were also formed. Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction. But the common 20 amino acids were formed, in various concentrations.

How do we interact with a world of which we are not a part?

But we are part of the world, of the whole cosmos.

[BaalChatzaf]

But we are part of the world, of the whole cosmos.

We are made of stuhr-stuff --- Carl Sagan.

ruveyn

[Dglgmut]

But we are part of the world, of the whole cosmos.

We are made of stuhr-stuff --- Carl Sagan.

ruveyn

Once again, though, how can one thing be made up of smaller things? You believe that we are a collective? I certainly feel that I am singular.

Can any physical thing become conscious? Why don't you consider your computer to be conscious? Are our brains not preprogrammed in a similar fashion?

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

[Selene]

Can any physical thing become conscious? Why don't you consider your computer to be conscious? Are our brains not preprogrammed in a similar fashion?

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

Calvin:

FYI:

In building this new generation of chip, IBM combined principles of nanoscience, neuroscience and supercomputing. It has been awarded $21m (£12.7m) of new funding by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA****) for the next phase of the project, which it terms "Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable

Read more: http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2102735/ibm-unveils-chips-mimic-human-brain#ixzz1VQ5IvVMI

**** DARPA is very "black budget" type of R & D.

[Dglgmut]

Can any physical thing become conscious? Why don't you consider your computer to be conscious? Are our brains not preprogrammed in a similar fashion?

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

Calvin:

FYI:

In building this new generation of chip, IBM combined principles of nanoscience, neuroscience and supercomputing. It has been awarded $21m (£12.7m) of new funding by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA****) for the next phase of the project, which it terms "Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable

Read more: http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2102735/ibm-unveils-chips-mimic-human-brain#ixzz1VQ5IvVMI

**** DARPA is very "black budget" type of R & D.

That's crazy.

I guess the question is whether there is a difference between a physical object creating consciousness or being conscious.

[Xray]

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

My brain is no more "me" than my arm is. Both are parts of my body. After death, the decomposition process dissolves and transforms the living entity that I was.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

My brain is no more "me" than my arm is. Both are parts of my body. After death, the decomposition process dissolves and transforms the living entity that I was.

One can amputate an arm and still retain a sense of self. The same is not true for amputating one's head.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

My brain is no more "me" than my arm is. Both are parts of my body. After death, the decomposition process dissolves and transforms the living entity that I was.

One can amputate an arm and still retain a sense of self. The same is not true for amputating one's head.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Cells could be removed from your brain and you would still retain that sense, though. If you are a collective, losing any part of you should change you...

[Xray]

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

My brain is no more "me" than my arm is. Both are parts of my body. After death, the decomposition process dissolves and transforms the living entity that I was.

One can amputate an arm and still retain a sense of self. The same is not true for amputating one's head.

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

[Dglgmut]

Why is your brain "you" while your arm is not? When your brain is not conscious, is it still you? Is it still you when it decomposes after death?

My brain is no more "me" than my arm is. Both are parts of my body. After death, the decomposition process dissolves and transforms the living entity that I was.

One can amputate an arm and still retain a sense of self. The same is not true for amputating one's head.

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

Actually, I'm not doing that. It seems it's an objectivist belief that we are all brains.

We have bodies, but brains are not a possession of ours, but truly us.

This is not my belief; I'm arguing against this idea.

I'd like to come to a logical conclusion, building off of the idea that we are aware of something. I'd also like to figure out whether it is possible for something to exist without being subject to awareness.

Is there any point to the question, "What am I aware of?"

Edited August 20, 2011 by Dglgmut

[Xray]

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

Actually, I'm not doing that. It seems it's an objectivist belief that we are all brains.

This is not the case.

What Ayn Rand did point out is the primacy of rationality and reason as the basis of the Objectivist philosophy.

From this premise follows e. g. the objectivist rejection of any faith in a god as the source of ethical and moral principles.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

Actually, I'm not doing that. It seems it's an objectivist belief that we are all brains.

This is not the case.

What Ayn Rand did point out is the primacy of rationality and reason as the basis of the Objectivist philosophy.

From this premise follows e. g. the objectivist rejection of any faith in a god as the source of ethical and moral principles.

This is not correct, epistemological girl. The basis of Objectivism is reality and reason, you forgot the metaphysics, as usual. Rand certainly wouldn't have made such a sloppy statement as "rationality and reason."

--Brant

[Xray]

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

Actually, I'm not doing that. It seems it's an objectivist belief that we are all brains.

This is not the case.

What Ayn Rand did point out is the primacy of rationality and reason as the basis of the Objectivist philosophy.

From this premise follows e. g. the objectivist rejection of any faith in a god as the source of ethical and moral principles.

This is not correct, epistemological girl. The basis of Objectivism is reality and reason, you forgot the metaphysics, as usual. Rand certainly wouldn't have made such a sloppy statement as "rationality and reason."

--Brant

You had better check your sources first.

Ayn Rand: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html

[Dglgmut]

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

Actually, I'm not doing that. It seems it's an objectivist belief that we are all brains.

This is not the case.

What Ayn Rand did point out is the primacy of rationality and reason as the basis of the Objectivist philosophy.

From this premise follows e. g. the objectivist rejection of any faith in a god as the source of ethical and moral principles.

This is not correct, epistemological girl. The basis of Objectivism is reality and reason, you forgot the metaphysics, as usual. Rand certainly wouldn't have made such a sloppy statement as "rationality and reason."

--Brant

You had better check your sources first.

Ayn Rand: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html

Any belief is based on rationality, if people could see their assumptions, they wouldn't believe in anything but the present moment.

If we are not brains, then we are aware of our minds, NOT the physical universe. And if that's the case, then how can you argue for an objective reality or free will?

We are aware of the electrical signals inside our brains, that provide us information. We have no choice but to receive this information, and our reaction is dependent what information we receive. Really, it's just a chain of events.

The question is, why would questioning our own existence be part of that chain of events?

[Xray]

Any belief is based on rationality, if people could see their assumptions, they wouldn't believe in anything but the present moment.

But there exist enough beliefs that are not based on rationality, this applies e. g. to in many religions, especially dogmatic ones.

If we are not brains, then we are aware of our minds, NOT the physical universe.

We have consciousness, and this consciousness is necessarily limited. But it is developed enough to make us aware that we too are part of the physical universe.

Our senses are also limited; e. g. our sense of smell is far less developed than that of dog's.

But when you smell, let's say, at a fragrant rose, then you are aware of a part of the physical universe which presents itself to you via the filter of your senses.

And if that's the case, then how can you argue for an objective reality or free will?

I'm no Objectivist and therefore use the term "objective reality" in a more pragmatic way: as that shared common denominator among us humans necessary for our survival and functioning.

A few examples:

If I happen to stand in the street and see a car coming in my direction at top speed, my awareness of the objective reality of what is happening directs me to move away from the place of danger.

If I buy an airplane ticket to London, it is based on the premise that London exists, and that the airline exists.

If I refer to a recent post of yours on OL, it is based on the idea that both OL and your post are part of objective reality.

We are aware of the electrical signals inside our brains, that provide us information. We have no choice but to receive this information, and our reaction is dependent what information we receive. Really, it's just a chain of events.

Do you claim 'objective reality status' for your statement [bolding mine]: "Really, it's just a chain of events". ?

Edited August 21, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

That's correct, but imo Dglmut's error lies in claiming that "your brain is you", thus equating with the person the part of the body that makes consciousness possible.

Actually, I'm not doing that. It seems it's an objectivist belief that we are all brains.

This is not the case.

What Ayn Rand did point out is the primacy of rationality and reason as the basis of the Objectivist philosophy.

From this premise follows e. g. the objectivist rejection of any faith in a god as the source of ethical and moral principles.

This is not correct, epistemological girl. The basis of Objectivism is reality and reason, you forgot the metaphysics, as usual. Rand certainly wouldn't have made such a sloppy statement as "rationality and reason."

--Brant

You had better check your sources first.

Ayn Rand: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action."

http://aynrandlexico...ationality.html

Your ability to not comprehensible read what you are responding too isn't terribly remarkable; it's practically a human universal these days. Thanks for the reference, though; a lot of what she says about focus and rationality is stupid, ignorant and just plain wrong. There are various good and moral reasons to let one's focus go up and down the scale when one is awake. It can aide creativity. Etc. And reason is not the only source of knowledge. A cat learning not to jump up on a hot stove twice is an example of that. People can learn it too that way. The cat doesn't learn the difference between the hot and cold stove the way we do. We can reason it out and acquire a higher level of knowledge. Rand wrote that paragraph as if she were on her fifth cup of coffee--or speed.

--Brant

[Dglgmut]

Xray: I could have said, "Everything in reality is just a chain of events."

I still think it's accurate.

[Xray]

Your ability to not comprehensible read what you are responding too isn't terribly remarkable; it's practically a human universal these days.

You obviously have not bothered to consider the context of the exchange between poster Dglgmut and me.

But patient as I am, I'll go through it step step for you here again:

1) Dglgmut assumed that the Objectivist position is that "we are all brains".

2) This is not the Objectivist position, and I was going to inform D. of that.

3) But I also asked myself how D. could have formed this opinion at all, i. e. I asked myself if there was anything in the Objectivist philosophy that could have lead D. to the wrong interpretation "that we are all brains".

4) The answer suggested itself to me that Objectivism's strong emphasis on rationality and reason could have led D. to his wrong conclusion.

And given statements by Rand where it says that "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action."

I was well justified in replying to D. (especially in the context of this discussion where focus is on thinking processes) that the primacy of rationality and reason is the basis of the Objectivist philosophy.

A for your accusing me of sloppiness, the sloppiness was on your part since you obviously had forgotten how inconsistent Rand herself often was in what she wrote. Hence your surprise on being confronted with the above quote.

Re your statement: Rand certainly wouldn't have made such a sloppy statement as "rationality and reason." (BG),

I think one can consider what you have written below as the correction of your own error:

Thanks for the reference, though; a lot of what she says about focus and rationality is stupid, ignorant and just plain wrong.

And reason is not the only source of knowledge. A cat learning not to jump up on a hot stove twice is an example of that. People can learn it too that way. The cat doesn't learn the difference between the hot and cold stove the way we do. We can reason it out and acquire a higher level of knowledge. Rand wrote that paragraph as if she were on her fifth cup of coffee--or speed.

This criticism even touches areas beyond mere sloppiness.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Xray

[Dglgmut]

Actually, the only reason I thought that was because Ba'al was arguing that... And he's an objectivist isn't he?

[Xray]

Actually, the only reason I thought that was because Ba'al was arguing that...

Dglgmut,

Can you retrieve the post where Ba'al said that "we are all brains"?

And he's an objectivist isn't he?

I think while Ba'al does endorse certain Objectivist principles, he is also very critical of other Objectivst tenets, especially if they don't meet the high standard of mathematical and physical knowledge he requires to be met.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Xray