An axiomatic paradox?

[Roger Bissell]

OK, I'm burned out on reading posts on induction. (And why aren't they in this folder??)

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.

I'm really interested in what O-L'ers have to say about this.

Best,

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Roger,

I say consciousness falls under existence.

In hierarchical thinking (or holonic), you have the big picture and the parts. The big picture is existence. Consciousness is one part and then there's the rest.

The rub is that you can only know this if you are conscious. But that's not such a paradox. We have to exist before we know it, not after.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

The paradox disappears if you look more closely at the meaning of the different terms. First you use "exist" in a wider sense, that is, not only for physical objects that have a certain mass-energy, momentum etc., but also for processes and structures that are realized in the physical world. That's fine by me, but it should be kept in mind, as it might give rise to misunderstandings. Second, what exactly do you mean by saying that everything that exists is independent of consciousness? It means that something that exists, say A (a physical thing or a process realized in the physical world), is something that can be verified independently of a certain consciousness, for example by another consciousness or a measuring apparatus. This in contrast to a figment of the imagination that has no reference in the physical world, like God in his heaven or a galloping unicorn. Now consciousness is a process that is realized in a physical substrate (the brain), which can be verified objectively, for example by means of the Turing test (the heterophenomological viewpoint). Therefore consciousness "exists" (in your sense of the word "exist"). Another way of saying that this phenomenon can be verified objectively is saying that it is "independent of consciousness", it is no mere figment of the imagination but has a physical basis. It's only the terse formulation "independent of consciousness" that creates the illusion of a paradox, as it suggests that a thing is "independent of itself" (whatever that means), but if you expand the formulation the paradox disappears. In other words, it is the semantic shortcut with its tendency to equivocation that creates the confusion.

Edited September 5, 2008 by Dragonfly

[Mindy Newton]

OK, I'm burned out on reading posts on induction. (And why aren't they in this folder??)

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.

I'm really interested in what O-L'ers have to say about this.

Best,

REB

To exist independently of consciousness means to exist whether or not anybody knows about it. It is a denial of Idealism. Consciousness also exists whether or not anybody knows about it. (Example: an unconscious person lost in the wilderness, rescuers don't know if he survived, and he isn't conscious at all, but as a living human possesses the faculty of consciousness. OR: Hermit whom nobody knows about, avidly reading a book, and not at all self-conscious at the time. His consciousness is active, but un-observed.)

Technically, "independent of consciousness" means independent of being the object of consciousness. Our hermit is exercizing his consciousness, his consciousness exists, but his consciousness isn't the object of anyone's consciousness, not even his own.

--Mindy

Edited September 5, 2008 by Mindy

[BaalChatzaf]

OK, I'm burned out on reading posts on induction. (And why aren't they in this folder??)

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.

I'm really interested in what O-L'ers have to say about this.

Best,

REB

Word salad can give one indigestion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

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

[Daniel Barnes]

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.

I'm really interested in what O-L'ers have to say about this.

The problem is terminological, and rests on a verbal confusion between existence and physical existence. It can be resolved as follows:

Existence=all that exists in the universe, both abstract (non-physical) and physical.

The physical part of existence =all physical objects, eg rocks, chairs, wind, brains etc.

The abstract part of existence = consciousness (and in the Popperian schema an additional subdivision of all products of consciousness, for example mathematics and language)

So long as we treat them as different and avoid the verbal confusion over existence then there is no problem.

Rand makes a clear statement about this dualism in the ITOE (don't have it with me right now) about the error of not treating consciousness and existence as separate which, if taken literally would mean that consciousness doesn't exist...;-) So we must assume that she means physical existence. Thus she is inexorably a dualist of some sort, whilst denying dualism, much as she is a skeptic whilst denying skepticism...;-)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thus she is inexorably a dualist of some sort, whilst denying dualism, much as she is a skeptic whilst denying skepticism...;-)

She didn't deny (or assert either, though some things she says appear to entail it) existential dualism; she denied ethical dualism.

Ellen

___

[BaalChatzaf]

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

What did the Planet Neptune do before it was discovered? And what about those one hundred odd extra solar planets?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

What did the Planet Neptune do before it was discovered? And what about those one hundred odd extra solar planets?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Who knows? Anything we say about something we cannot observe is speculation.

[kiaer.ts]

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.

[Brant Gaede]

What did the Planet Neptune do before it was discovered? And what about those one hundred odd extra solar planets?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Who knows? Anything we say about something we cannot observe is speculation.

Speculation doesn't evaporate because of mere observation.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

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

What did the Planet Neptune do before it was discovered? And what about those one hundred odd extra solar planets?

There is no such thing as semantics without a semanticist.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Damn, Ted, you're good! Mindy and Dragonfly, you're basically on the right track, too.

Yes, there is an equivocation in "consciousness," which makes the syllogism invalid, or at least highly suspect!

What helps to clarify the matter is a distinction between generating consciousness and observing consciousness.

In my essay on "the objective" in the Fall 2007 Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, I touched on this issue. I was also concerned with tracking Rand's use, then abandonment, of the phrase "Objective Reality," which she seems to have stopped using by 1970. Peikoff tries to defend it as a harmless usage, but it just adds to the confusion, and I think Rand was right in downplaying/abandoning it.

Here is the relevant part of my essay -- and if you sense your eyelids beginning to droop <g>, skip down to the underscored passages, which state the basic point:

[bissell from JARS 9-1]Rand spoke of “Objective Reality” in her earlier writings.29 This phrase seems to reflect the traditional, post-Kantian usage: independent of consciousness.

Fortunately, however, Rand subsequently stopped using the phrase “Objective Reality,” using instead the terms “Primacy of Existence” for independent of consciousness and “intrinsic” for apart from consciousness. At about this same time (the mid-1960s), Rand also began referring to phenomena such as the good (see 1965b) as “objective,” insofar as they were things in reality existing before the mind (viz., “aspects of reality in relation to man . . . evaluated by a rational standard of value”), thus reflecting the Scholastic concept of the objective as existential.30

So, there has been an interesting tension between Rand’s two different usages of “objective.” Earlier, in speaking of “Objective

Reality,” she referred to things existing independently of consciousness as being “objective,” in the post-Kantian sense of the term. Yet, later, as in the pre-Modern (Scholastic) and early Modern (Cartesian and Kantian) sense of the term, Rand also used “objective” to refer to an aspect of reality held as an object by an act of consciousness—the ObjectiveE, or the “out-there as perceived in-here,” to use one of Peikoff’s colloquialisms. And despite her having quietly phased out the former usage at about the same time she phased in the new usage, many of Rand’s supporters apparently believe that both usages are still in effect, and go to considerable lengths to try to reconcile the apparent contradictions or to otherwise deal with the tension between them.31

It is important and helpful, then, to clarify how this existential sense of “objective,” ObjectiveE, relates to Rand’s metaphysical

principle of the Primacy of Existence, which she expressed in her earlier writings in terms of “Objective Reality.” The Primacy of

Existence views reality as being that which is “out there,” period; it holds that existence is independent of consciousness or, as is

sometimes said, “mind-independent.”32 Existence—and that means anything that exists—can be the object of awareness, it can exist in a cognitive relationship to consciousness, but it exists even if it is not such an object or in such a relationship.

Peikoff (1991, 117) says that this latter usage of “objective,” “Objective Reality,” is “harmless,” but is it? There appears to be a

problem. Consciousness exists, too. Does this mean that consciousness is independent of consciousness? The possible implications are horrendous. Is concept-formation independent of perception? Is imagination independent of perception? Is memory independent of cognition?

Clearly, in order to avoid the disastrous implications of the notion of “Objective Reality,” we need a more detailed analysis. In particular, we need an additional distinction, that between a generating and a viewing (or, in the general sense, “perceiving”) consciousness. According to the Primacy of Existence, everything that exists is independent of a viewing consciousness; a viewing consciousness cannot create (or destroy or change) what it is viewing. A viewing consciousness is metaphysically passive in relation to its object. However, both objective and subjective aspects of reality are dependent upon a generating consciousness. And only certain intrinsic aspects of reality—namely, those that are neither viewed by nor generated by consciousness—are independent of both a viewing and a generating consciousness.

On the other hand, acts of consciousness that are not themselves being held as the object of introspection, while dependent upon a generating consciousness, are nonetheless independent of a viewing consciousness, and thus intrinsic. In other words, even though such acts are cognitively objective (i.e., ObjectiveC) in regard to reality, they are also existentially intrinsic insofar as there is no act of introspection holding them as its object.

In this connection, it is interesting to note that while Rand’s original formulation of “objectivity” (1965a) was twofold, it had

nothing to do with either Rand’s notion of “Objective Reality” or her IOS trichotomy; nor was it equivalent to the distinction in this essay between ObjectiveE and ObjectiveC. Instead, it was an ethical matter, an aspect of rationality. For Rand, rationality, the basic virtue, entailed the respect for and recognition of facts. Every other virtue was an aspect of rationality and involved, in some way, the recognition of a significant fact of reality.

Objectivity, too, was a virtue for Rand, in that it involved one’s recognition of two basic aspects of “the relationship of consciousness

to existence” (1965a, 7). To be metaphysically objective, or to possess metaphysical objectivity, one must recognize that the world exists and is what it is “independent of any perceiver’s consciousness.” Consciousness holds existence as its object; it does not create the world. To be epistemologically objective, or to possess epistemological objectivity, one must recognize that, to know the world, man must adhere to reality by using a specific means (reason) in accordance with a certain method (logic). Consciousness can know the world as it is; it is not blocked from reality and need not distort reality, but knowledge is not automatic or causeless.

In each case, however, it must be remembered that we are speaking of the objectivity not of reality, but of one’s recognition of

how reality and awareness relate to one another—i.e., not of “Objective Reality,” but of one’s objective recognition of reality’s being

independent of awareness. That is, both elements of the distinction made by Rand in her earlier 1965 essay are volitional aspects of

ObjectiveC, of a consciousness (and person) that is adhering to reality. It was not until later that year that Rand began to articulate both ObjectiveC (in its more general form) and ObjectiveE.

As for reality, as Peikoff (1991, 117) correctly noted, it does not, strictly speaking, have objectivity in itself. What he failed to note,

however, is that just as consciousness is only objective in relation to reality, so too is reality objective in relation to consciousness—and only in relation to consciousness. Thus, to speak of “Objective Reality,” i.e., of reality as being objective, apart from consciousness, is a contradiction.

Whether or not Rand actually recognized this error, she in effect corrected it by introducing the term “intrinsic” in referring to

existence apart from consciousness, and by introducing the phrase “Primacy of Existence” in referring to the independence of existence from consciousness. In this way, she was able to abandon the misleading phrase “Objective Reality,” and perhaps not coincidentally, she did so at the same time the new terminology was introduced.

The metaphysical aspect of objectivity, most commonly referred to by Objectivists as the Primacy of Existence, is sometimes also

referred to as “metaphysical objectivity” or “metaphysical objectivism” or “metaphysical realism.” Rand’s wisely abandoned phrase

“Objective Reality” has often been taken to reflect this metaphysical view, that reality is the object, not the subject or creation of consciousness.

But is this true? In one sense, no. Consciousness is real, too, and some real aspects of consciousness are generated by, created by, a person’s conscious acts. Both subjective aspects, such as dreams or imagination, and objective aspects, such as sense data, are generated by consciousness (i.e., a person’s being conscious). But in another sense, yes. Even things generated by consciousness are not generated by an act of consciousness that views them.

Thus, while consciousness (i.e., a person being conscious) helps create objective and subjective (but not intrinsic) aspects of reality,

consciousness (a person being conscious) does not create them in the process of viewing them (i.e., holding them as its object). Everything that is held as the object of an act of viewing-consciousness is independent of that act of consciousness. In other words, everything that is held as the object of an act of viewing-consciousness has metaphysical primacy over that act of consciousness. Even subjective phenomena (e.g., fantasies, etc.) have metaphysical primacy over an act of consciousness that holds them as its object!

So, “Objective Reality” is a deeply ambiguous, misleading term. In full, it means: that which, in existing (or being able to exist) as the object of an act of consciousness is not thereby the creation of that act of consciousness. Everything that exists, all of Reality, is “objective” in this sense, even subjective (consciousness-generated but non-consciousness-viewing) and intrinsic (non-consciousness-viewed) aspects of reality. As a consequence, this use of the term is vacuous, which may be another reason why Rand seems to have quietly phased it out in favor of Primacy of Existence.

Comments are welcome!

REB

[tjohnson]

Speculation doesn't evaporate because of mere observation.

--Brant

No, it sure doesn't, but at least some observations and measurements can be made and compared. This not possible in the case of something existing without an observer.

[Paul Mawdsley]

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.

Contextual certainty breaks down when we switch contexts midstream. When we start in an epistemological context-- e.g.: existence is independent of what we can know about it, then switch to a metaphysical context-- e.g.: consciousness is part of existence, we can have true premises that lead to a false conclusion. A valid argument requires the maintenance of context. This can also be expressed in terms of ambiguity in definitions.

Paul

Edited September 6, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Paul,

I understand contextual certainty to mean that one is certain that an actual existent has been identified with enough observed characteristics to open a file folder (a concept) for it. This automatically implies that more information will be learned about it (and some assumptions could be overturned with knew knowledge), but what was identified was properly pegged.

Something goes boom and destroys stuff. We call it an explosion. Later other things might go boom (like thunder) and there might be different kinds of explosions, but we know for sure that there are things that go boom and destroy stuff and they are different than things that go, "Moo," for example. We can be certain of that. No amount of doubts or word tricks will stop making things go boom and destroying stuff or invalidate the file (concept) we opened for them. As knowledge increases and becomes more complex, this procedure accompanies it and is the one that results in certainty.

Some people make much ado out of the phrase "contextual certainty" to bash Rand, but this is the way I have always understood it and understood her to mean it.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Sounds like maybe it should be called "temporary certainty".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Nope.

Explosions go boom and destroy stuff. They always will.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

Michael,

You are right. I'm using "contextual certainty" in a different way. Thanks for pointing this out. I tend to learn by developing my own concepts from my own experience, using my own images and my own principles. I then try to find words that fit what I see. "Contextual certainty" fits certain patterns I had noticed but they are different patterns, as you have pointed out, to what Rand identified. Sorry to add to the confusion.

I was using context in the sense that when we generate an idea, a theory, or an argument, we start from a given orientation, with a given set of existents, and apply a certain set of principles to create a system of thought. This system is the context, in which our words take on definitions, and in which the idea, theory, or argument is generated. Certainty can only be maintained if the system as a whole (or the context) isn't broken. Break the system and you break the validity of your conclusions.

Basically, I guess I am saying that there is more to contextual certainty than Rand expressed. All of our knowledge is not one single system. It is multiple systems, often paradoxical systems of thought. Therefore, there are multiple contexts, often paradoxical contexts. To say we can be certain in the context of all our knowledge makes no sense. We can be certain within the context of a given thinking system.

Again, we are talking about part-whole relationships. The parts give shape to the system and the system gives definition to the parts. Without the system acting as a whole, context is broken and certainty is undone.

Paul

Edited September 6, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Daniel Barnes]

She didn't deny (or assert either, though some things she says appear to entail it) existential dualism; she denied ethical dualism.

Yes, I now recall you correcting me on that point before. But I think the situation is at best, like so many aspects of Rand's thought, very unclear. For example Ari Armstrong writing about Sciabarra's "Russian Radical" says:

"For instance, Descartes view of mind-body is a dualistic position, which Rand calls a "false dichotomy" and which, when properly (dialectically) understood, can be seen as merely two aspects, two vantage-points, of the same underlying phenomenon."

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...;-)

Edited September 6, 2008 by Daniel Barnes

[tjohnson]

Explosions go boom and destroy stuff. They always will.

Brilliant.

[Dragonfly]

Speculation doesn't evaporate because of mere observation.

--Brant

No, it sure doesn't, but at least some observations and measurements can be made and compared. This not possible in the case of something existing without an observer.

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!

Further, our observations and measurements are also based on speculation (the laws of physics as we know them), and it's hardly more speculation to use the same laws to conclude that the planet Neptune existed before it was discovered, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. You cannot apply those laws in one case and then dismiss them in another one. At most there is a marginal increase in the (always existing) uncertainty, which only increases substantially when we go back to the time that the planets of our solar system were formed. If you trust the laws of physics enough to conclude that there is such a thing as the planet Neptune, with a certain mass, size, composition, orbit, etc., then you must trust those very same laws also to conclude that it did exist before it was discovered, if you want to be consistent. Sorry, but the theory that something doesn't exist if there isn't an observer doesn't hold.

[BaalChatzaf]

What did the Planet Neptune do before it was discovered? And what about those one hundred odd extra solar planets?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Who knows? Anything we say about something we cannot observe is speculation.

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.

The counter examples I gave are sufficient to falsify your assertion.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sounds like maybe it should be called "temporary certainty".

Nope.

Explosions go boom and destroy stuff. They always will.

Brilliant.

GS,

Thank you!

Are you always so enthusiastic when you learn something new?

Michael