An axiomatic paradox?

[Paul Mawdsley]

Wow, you step out for a few days and everybody talks about you behind your back! I just finished catching up on all these posts. I think the problem is with the term 'existence'. The primacy of existence axiom assumes that existence is not ambiguous but I claim it is. I think that this proposition should be reformulated to something like this;

1. There are processes that occur independent of our consciousness.

2. Consciousness is a process

3. Consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

So your saying we should reframe and shift the context? Hmmmm!

[worldlogicleague]

Wow, you step out for a few days and everybody talks about you behind your back! I just finished catching up on all these posts. I think the problem is with the term 'existence'. The primacy of existence axiom assumes that existence is not ambiguous but I claim it is. I think that this proposition should be reformulated to something like this;

1. There are processes that occur independent of our consciousness.

2. Consciousness is a process

3. Consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

Your conclusion (3) would be false given the truth of your premises. The contradictory assertion would have to be true, given their truth.

Without arguing the truth, structure or definitions of your premises, you could however state your point using a Celarent type valid argument:

1. No human directed processes occur independently of consciousness.

2. Consciousness is a human directed process.

3. No consciousness occurs independently of consciousness.

Am I correct in thinking that your point is that there are some things that don't exist independently of consciousness, namely human directed processes, such as consciousness?

Edited September 13, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not sure that the main participants on this thread know where they are either coming from or going to as opposed to where they think they are. Call it A, B, C, with A being the start and C being the end. The last being something that works. Invention not required.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Wow, you step out for a few days and everybody talks about you behind your back! I just finished catching up on all these posts. I think the problem is with the term 'existence'. The primacy of existence axiom assumes that existence is not ambiguous but I claim it is. I think that this proposition should be reformulated to something like this;

1. There are processes that occur independent of our consciousness.

2. Consciousness is a process

3. Consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

Your conclusion (3) would be false given the truth of your premises. The contradictory assertion would have to be true, given their truth.

Without arguing the truth, structure or definitions of your premises, you could however state your point using a Celarent type valid argument:

1. No human directed processes occur independently of consciousness.

2. Consciousness is a human directed process.

3. No consciousness occurs independently of consciousness.

Am I correct in thinking that your point is that there are some things that don't exist independently of consciousness, namely human directed processes, such as consciousness?

OK, I didn't mean this to be a syllogism and that (3) represents a conclusion based on 1 and 2, sorry. All I meant was that there are processes that occur independent of our consciousness and consciousness is a process but consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

Edited September 13, 2008 by general semanticist

[Dragonfly]

OK, I didn't mean this to be a syllogism and that (3) represents a conclusion based on 1 and 2, sorry. All I meant was that there are processes that occur independent of our consciousness, consciousness is a process but consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

Watch out for the possible equivocation in the phrase "processes that occur independent of our consciousness". It can be interpreted in two different ways. In one sense consciousness is such an independent process (see here), in the other sense (which seems to be your interpretation) it is not. And that was of course the joke in Roger's original post, his formulation of the conclusion suggested the second interpretation (which would make the conclusion a contradiction), while the intended meaning was the first interpretation, which does not give rise to a contradiction.

[Dragonfly]

I think I just decided there is no such thing as "stolen concepts" except in the minds of Objectivists (and those who borrow, not steal, their concept of stolen concepts). It is all a misunderstanding of people who operate via a different PE mode and tend to shift contexts. It's more a matter of Objectivists generally not being good at appreciating and understanding other contexts. They are so sure their one central context is right that there can be no other way of conceiving it.

Right. See also here, here and here.

[Mindy Newton]

Wow, you step out for a few days and everybody talks about you behind your back! I just finished catching up on all these posts. I think the problem is with the term 'existence'. The primacy of existence axiom assumes that existence is not ambiguous but I claim it is. I think that this proposition should be reformulated to something like this;

1. There are processes that occur independent of our consciousness.

2. Consciousness is a process

3. Consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

How do you know these things, GS?

= Mindy

[Paul Mawdsley]

I'm not sure that the main participants on this thread know where they are either coming from or going to as opposed to where they think they are. Call it A, B, C, with A being the start and C being the end. The last being something that works. Invention not required.

Brant,

You shouldn't equate what you know or don't know about someone else's perspective with what they know or don't know. Inability to communicate can have many causes other than one's not having a clear vision and understanding. For example, there is no doubt that a baby has a clear "vision" of what stimulus (at least as experienced introspectively) causes it to cry but parents have various abilities for interpreting these cries. A parent's ability to creatively generate a context that integrates the known facts-- including time in relation to food, sleep and poop schedules, and nuances in different kinds of crying-- has a huge impact on how the cries are interpreted, on how the parent responds, on how well the child's needs are met, and on how the child's early sense of efficacy develops (the child needs to experience its cries leading to satisfaction to experience a primary sense of efficacy to carry forward into life). A child who's needs are not met predictably will experience an invisibility that can cause them to withdraw. A child who's needs are met predictably will experience a visibility that encourages the development of more complex communication skills. Visibility creates a context of expanded degrees of freedom in which the child's self expression is encouraged toward actualization.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm a crying baby who needs some interpreting.

Paul

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not sure that the main participants on this thread know where they are either coming from or going to as opposed to where they think they are. Call it A, B, C, with A being the start and C being the end. The last being something that works. Invention not required.

Brant,

You shouldn't equate what you know or don't know about someone else's perspective with what they know or don't know. Inability to communicate can have many causes other than one's not having a clear vision and understanding. For example, there is no doubt that a baby has a clear "vision" of what stimulus (at least as experienced introspectively) causes it to cry but parents have various abilities for interpreting these cries. A parent's ability to creatively generate a context that integrates the known facts-- including time in relation to food, sleep and poop schedules, and nuances in different kinds of crying-- has a huge impact on how the cries are interpreted, on how the parent responds, on how well the child's needs are met, and on how the child's early sense of efficacy develops (the child needs to experience its cries leading to satisfaction to experience a primary sense of efficacy to carry forward into life). A child who's needs are not met predictably will experience an invisibility that can cause them to withdraw. A child who's needs are met predictably will experience a visibility that encourages the development of more complex communication skills. Visibility creates a context of expanded degrees of freedom in which the child's self expression is encouraged toward actualization.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm a crying baby who needs some interpreting.

Paul

It's okay Paul; I weasel-worded it by saying "I'm not sure ...."

--Brant

[Paul Mawdsley]

It's okay Paul; I weasel-worded it by saying "I'm not sure ...."

--Brant

So what point were you trying to make?

[tjohnson]

How do you know these things, GS?

= Mindy

Not sure what you mean.

[Brant Gaede]

It's okay Paul; I weasel-worded it by saying "I'm not sure ...."

--Brant

So what point were you trying to make?

I'd like to see these discusions a little more grounded. Otherwise it's hard for me to relate to them. It might be a matter of not really having enough time to focus down on what's being talked about on my part, but the posts and counterposts seem interminable and I wonder if they are going anywhere.

--Brant

[worldlogicleague]

Am I correct in thinking that your point is that there are some things that don't exist independently of consciousness, namely human directed processes, such as consciousness?

... All I meant was that there are processes that occur independent of our consciousness and consciousness is a process but consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process.

I see. So you're saying there are existential processes that exist independently of consciousness, but consciousness, a human directed process is not one of them, i.e., does not exist independently of consciousness.

I think the problem lies in understanding Rands Primacy of Existence Axiom:

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

In logical form this becomes:

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

where:

Definition: objects which are independent of consciousness -- objects which depend on no observing consciousness to exist; they exist in their own right, independently, regardless of whether or not there is an observing consciousness, i.e., without any need of an observing consciousness.

Does consciousness itself falsify the Rand axiom, as made clear by the definition, as you propose? My answer is no. Why? Stare at an apple; do the human directed process of being conscious of an apple. Does this apple consciousness need you to be conscious that you are conscious of an apple, for that apple consciousness to exist? No, as any meditator skilled at one pointed awareness will tell you. Therefore consciousness itself exists independently, without need of any observing consciousness. And the Rand axiom is upheld.

[tjohnson]

Does consciousness itself falsify the Rand axiom, as made clear by the definition, as you propose? My answer is no. Why? Stare at an apple; do the human directed process of being conscious of an apple. Does this apple consciousness need you to be conscious that you are conscious of an apple, for that apple consciousness to exist? No, as any meditator skilled at one pointed awareness will tell you. Therefore consciousness itself exists independently, without need of any observing consciousness. And the Rand axiom is upheld.

I substituted the word 'processes' for 'objects' because according to science what we refer to as objects are actually processes. You think you are staring at an object but you are actually registering a process. it's like Paul says, you are talking metaphysics but I am talking science.

[worldlogicleague]

From Laurence and MacDonald’s Introduction to the Nature of Metaphysics:

Metaphysics, as Aristotle characterized it, is concerned with the study of ‘being qua being’. That is, it is concerned to study being as such....Other disciplines, specifically the sciences,...are not interested in being in general, the kind of being that abstracts from the nature of this or that particular thing. But metaphysics is interested in this. Metaphysics is interested in determining what is required what conditions need to be met, for something—anything—to exist.

This "anything" can be called a thing, substance, entity. But "object" is generally defined as "anything one can talk about" (Peirce) which can be processes or anything else.

Are you not saying what "what conditions need to be met for your consciousness process to exist", namely an observing consciousness?

That's closer to metaphysics then science.

Also, science (particle physics) says everything is composed of particles: air, water, earth, your body, your consciousness, everything.

Edited September 14, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[worldlogicleague]

Does consciousness itself falsify the Rand axiom, as made clear by the definition, as you propose? My answer is no. Why? Stare at an apple; do the human directed process of being conscious of an apple. Does this apple consciousness need you to be conscious that you are conscious of an apple, for that apple consciousness to exist? No, as any meditator skilled at one pointed awareness will tell you. Therefore consciousness itself exists independently, without need of any observing consciousness. And the Rand axiom is upheld.

I substituted the word 'processes' for 'objects' because according to science what we refer to as objects are actually processes. You think you are staring at an object but you are actually registering a process. it's like Paul says, you are talking metaphysics but I am talking science.

Actually an object is defined by Peirce as anything you can think about, processes, whatever. You are confusing it with entity: discrete thing having dimension. So it doesn't affect your point. I've shown that consciousness exists independently, without any need of an observing consciousness. Are you denying that apple consciousness exists independently in itself w/o any need of an observing consciousness, and if so why?

Edited September 14, 2008 by worldlogicleague

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How do you know these things, GS?

= Mindy

Not sure what you mean.

Heh.

That's a gem...

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

I'd like to see these discusions a little more grounded.

I interpret this to mean you'd like to see the discussions more grounded in Objectivism, as a central context, to which any other discussions are set relative. I can appreciate wanting this on an Objectivist site. However, OL specifically invites people to think beyond the Objectivist box. Many of the top posters (in quantity and quality) here are not Objectivists. Still most of the discussions are set relative to Objectivism. And even when they step outside the context of Objectivism it is to step into the central context of another established body of thought.

For myself, I don't just step outside the Objectivist context, I leap. Objectivism is not a central context for me; it is one amongst many. Although, I must say, it is an important one in my life. Of key importance, Objectivist epistemology does not capture many of the processes that are central to my own learning and development. And I do believe many of the problems in Objectivism, as a philosophy and as a movement, have their roots in missing epistemic elements.

Thinking, for me, is a fundamentally creative exercise. I generate causal models of existence to create contexts that fit the facts as I know them. This process is definitely not discussed in ITOE. I then use the processes discussed in ITOE to differentiate and identify the existents in my models. (I think this is closer to what Rand actually did than what she describes in ITOE.) This process makes the context I apply to a given issue fundamentally creative and flexible. My thinking will not be contained by any off-the-rack central context. And I don't want it to be. This is why you frequently see me going off on tangents and speaking from contexts that are way outside normal contexts.

Right now I am going through a process of developing a metacontext-- a context (or frame of reference for integrating and interpreting information) that integrates the perspectives of other subcontexts such as Objectivism, and starts with my own epistemic base. As Dragonfly has emphasized, the process of my developing a metacontext is causing me to look at Objectivism from the outside and see its deficiencies.

I am discovering that no one seems to be able to follow my meanings when my creative contexts take me way outside the normal central contexts of Objectivism and other established views (e.g.: Popper on a number of threads). I was initially surprised by my difficulties communicating. Now it is expected. But I am an optimistic fool. So I kept trying but it doesn't work. As NB says, "Doing more of what doesn't work doesn't work." I am concerned I might develop the reputation of someone who should be tuned out. This definitely wouldn't help my cause. I need to do something different. If I am going to communicate what I see, I have to be able to set it relative to existing central contexts that people already have used to map their thinking. I have to start with the canons and work my way out.

I feel a bit guilty for my tendency to hijack threads as a result of my propensity for shifting into creative contexts. My plan is to keep writing about my more creative contexts because it's an important means by which my understanding evolves. It plays the role of artistic expression in my life: my imagination is my canvas. I do, however, intend to write my more creative contexts in new threads so threads such as this can stay "a little more grounded." In existing threads I will try to stay close to the central contexts applied in the thread. I think this way my input will have its greatest value.

Paul

Edited September 14, 2008 by Paul Mawdsley

[Brant Gaede]

Does consciousness itself falsify the Rand axiom, as made clear by the definition, as you propose? My answer is no. Why? Stare at an apple; do the human directed process of being conscious of an apple. Does this apple consciousness need you to be conscious that you are conscious of an apple, for that apple consciousness to exist? No, as any meditator skilled at one pointed awareness will tell you. Therefore consciousness itself exists independently, without need of any observing consciousness. And the Rand axiom is upheld.

I substituted the word 'processes' for 'objects' because according to science what we refer to as objects are actually processes. You think you are staring at an object but you are actually registering a process. it's like Paul says, you are talking metaphysics but I am talking science.

Well, all objects are in motion. Take the sheet of glass in your window. If it could stay there for ten thousand years it will droop down in the center courtesy of gravity. Moral: Buy windows you can rotate to counteract this.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I feel a bit guilty for my tendency to hijack threads as a result of my propensity for shifting into creative contexts. My plan is to keep writing about my more creative contexts because it's an important means by which my understanding evolves. It plays the role of artistic expression in my life: my imagination is my canvas. I do, however, intend to write my more creative contexts in new threads so threads such as this can stay "a little more grounded." In existing threads I will try to stay close to the central contexts applied in the thread. I think this way my input will have its greatest value.

Paul

Go. Go. Go. Way to Go!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Well, all objects are in motion. Take the sheet of glass in your window. If it could stay there for ten thousand years it will droop down in the center courtesy of gravity. Moral: Buy windows you can rotate to counteract this.

--Brant

See: http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/does-glas...ld-windows.html

"Physicists who have put this theory to the test say it would take millions (not hundreds or thousands) of years for there to be any noticeable change in the glass at room temperature. A study published in the American Journal of Physics went so far as to say that the period this phenomenon would require is "well beyond the age of the universe."

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I'd like to see these discusions a little more grounded.

I interpret this to mean you'd like to see the discussions more grounded in Objectivism, as a central context, to which any other discussions are set relative. I can appreciate wanting this on an Objectivist site. However, OL specifically invites people to think beyond the Objectivist box. Many of the top posters (in quantity and quality) here are not Objectivists. Still most of the discussions are set relative to Objectivism. And even when they step outside the context of Objectivism it is to step into the central context of another established body of thought.

For myself, I don't just step outside the Objectivist context, I leap. Objectivism is not a central context for me; it is one amongst many. Although, I must say, it is an important one in my life. Of key importance, Objectivist epistemology does not capture many of the processes that are central to my own learning and development. And I do believe many of the problems in Objectivism, as a philosophy and as a movement, have their roots in missing epistemic elements.

Thinking, for me, is a fundamentally creative exercise. I generate causal models of existence to create contexts that fit the facts as I know them. This process is definitely not discussed in ITOE. I then use the processes discussed in ITOE to differentiate and identify the existents in my models. (I think this is closer to what Rand actually did than what she describes in ITOE.) This process makes the context I apply to a given issue fundamentally creative and flexible. My thinking will not be contained by any off-the-rack central context. And I don't want it to be. This is why you frequently see me going off on tangents and speaking from contexts that are way outside normal contexts.

Right now I am going through a process of developing a metacontext-- a context (or frame of reference for integrating and interpreting information) that integrates the perspectives of other subcontexts such as Objectivism, and starts with my own epistemic base. As Dragonfly has emphasized, the process of my developing a metacontext is causing me to look at Objectivism from the outside and see its deficiencies.

I am discovering that no one seems to be able to follow my meanings when my creative contexts take me way outside the normal central contexts of Objectivism and other established views (e.g.: Popper on a number of threads). I was initially surprised by my difficulties communicating. Now it is expected. But I am an optimistic fool. So I kept trying but it doesn't work. As NB says, "Doing more of what doesn't work doesn't work." I am concerned I might develop the reputation of someone who should be tuned out. This definitely wouldn't help my cause. I need to do something different. If I am going to communicate what I see, I have to be able to set it relative to existing central contexts that people already have used to map their thinking. I have to start with the canons and work my way out.

I feel a bit guilty for my tendency to hijack threads as a result of my propensity for shifting into creative contexts. My plan is to keep writing about my more creative contexts because it's an important means by which my understanding evolves. It plays the role of artistic expression in my life: my imagination is my canvas. I do, however, intend to write my more creative contexts in new threads so threads such as this can stay "a little more grounded." In existing threads I will try to stay close to the central contexts applied in the thread. I think this way my input will have its greatest value.

Paul

I am not an Objectivist maven. I am a reality maven. NB's statement isn't always true; it ignores the virtue of persistence.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Actually an object is defined by Peirce as anything you can think about, processes, whatever. You are confusing it with entity: discrete thing having dimension. So it doesn't affect your point. I've shown that consciousness exists independently, without any need of an observing consciousness. Are you denying that apple consciousness exists independently in itself w/o any need of an observing consciousness, and if so why?

I don't know what you mean by 'apple consciousness'. If a person is conscious are they not observers of their own consciousness? It doesn't seem possible to me for a person to be conscious and not be considered an observer of it in themselves.

[merjet]

It doesn't seem possible to me for a person to be conscious and not be considered an observer of it in themselves.

http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/...chat5levels.pdf

[tjohnson]

That was interesting Merlin but did you have any comment about how it relates to what we were discussing?