Existence exists?

[Dragonfly]

Are you a Closet Platonist? (If you do mathematics, you almost have to be).

I don't know what a Closet Platonist exactly is, but if most mathematicians are CPs, it can't be too bad.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't understand why Michael has a problem with "existence exists."

Brant,

There is nothing to understand. I don't have a problem with it.

I don't understand how a different way of processing knowledge is ever going to invalidate logic and reason as such. If humans were generally much smarter they might come to understand things we now cannot, but that's not the same thing.

I never said a different way of processing information would invalidate logic and reason. My meaning (and it is only a speculation based on thinking about an evolutionary pattern) is that logic and reason as we currently understand them and use them could be processed differently by an intelligence that processes more of reality than we do and has the brain power to do it. This could contradict things on the surface, i.e., contradict things as we see them from our perspective. This is more of an appearance than anything else, but the appearance can be strong.

Here are two examples to help you understand what I mean.

Let's forget about Martian spiders and think about a good ole fashun earthling spider. In its understanding of reality, spinning webs is what it does. This is intimately tied to its identity and even knowledge of the universe. It knows how to spin webs and does so without exception.

Some volition is available, like where to spin a web, but once certain external conditions are met (and that is the knowledge part), no further volition is possible to it. Conditions met. Check. Web-spinning starts. Double-check.

If it could verbalize and we explained to it that there was an intelligence that was capable of spinning webs, but this intelligence included the ability to not spin webs for no other reason than it did not feel like it, the poor spider would feel like its very understanding of the world was contradicted. A would no longer be A. One simply does not choose whether to spin a web or not. This is what spiders do and cannot not do. To spin a web to a spider means to have to spin a web.

Now apply this same thinking to humans, except in the place of spinning webs and choosing where to spin them, we have conceptual thinking based on axiomatic concepts and the ability to consciously engage our concept-forming process. What would happen to that manner of cognition if telepathy ever became a reality?

But let's leave aside telepathy since the poo-pooers would say this smacks too much of mysticism. Let's look at some real science. So here is a doosey for you as the second example. Suppose that some scientific speculations like time flowing both ways or those gazillions of parallel universes from quantum physics actually end up existing and a brain evolves to perceive these things. What would "existence exists" mean to a person who could hop on over to a parallel realm or go back in time at will, or at least perceive these things directly?

In this case, the law of identity is not violated, but it takes on an entirely different meaning than what we mean at our present mental level. At our level, "I exist" means one thing only. In this new scenario, it means countless whole organisms calling themselves "me" all doing something slightly different at the same time.

Just like the spider's difficulty in imagining volition as spinning a web when it felt like it, it is hard for us to imagine what something like the above feels like inside as a cognitive process. We can project and dream like in science fiction, but ultimately, we view the world with our current equipment.

What I object to is claiming as a absolute that evolution in this sense cannot exist and will never happen. On the contrary. What I have observed by thinking over the history of life is that this is the way the evolution of awareness works in living beings. When living things are not aware of a part of reality, new living things evolve to develop awareness of it.

(And I object to the claim as an absolute that an abstract realm exists in parallel to, and slightly entangled with, the physical universe. That one is easy since there is no evidence, but that is beside the present point.)

I see no reason to believe that human beings have stopped evolving and that our present level of intelligence is all there is to the universe. This interrupts the big-picture pattern without saying why. That is vanity, not a conclusion drawn from observation and analytic thinking. I refuse to be a spider (even an Objectivist spider ) claiming that spinning webs means not being able to stop at will and no other way of existing is possible.

All concepts are open-ended, even axiomatic concepts. The category part of the concept might be permanent and closed, but the referents from reality and information about those referents can change so much that a lower mentality might view them as a contradiction of the category itself.

That is what I mean.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Dragonfly's Platonic realm for abstractions is inappropriately mixing up epistemology and metaphysics by positing this parking or storage place for abstractions and is an unnecessary conjecture that explains something already explained.

It is not really a new conjecture, it's only saying in other words that the content of mathematical theories (simple examples: the value of pi, the fact that 2+2=4) is independent of human consciousness, even if such a consciousness is necessary to realize its expression in the physical world. There is no consciousness that can come up with a different result (without making an error). So I think we can be justified in saying that such theories (and not just arbitrary abstractions) do exist in a sense, even if that is not existence in the physical sense. When we say that Pythagoras' theorem exists, this has a deeper meaning than merely saying that it is represented in millions of brains and in books etc. (like the notion of God for example), it means that it is an universal truth (supposing it is embedded in a proper axiomatic system), and not just an arbitrary abstraction. Herein "truth" does not refer to any physical fact, but to an abstract logical evaluation. That we need physical elements, like our brain, to make that evaluation is not relevant, the theorem is in itself not physical, even if it is represented in a physical substrate (or can be applied to situations in reality). It is important make a distinction between the abstract thing itself and its representation. If the human race becomes extinct and in millions of year another intelligent animal evolves that is clever enough to invent mathematics they will find the same results, they will also discover Pythagoras' theorem (and give it a different name), which has not disappeared with the extinction of the human race, it has merely become invisible as it was no longer represented in the physical world during that intelligenceless interval. Its invariance and eternal validity is sufficient reason to assign existence to it, even if it is not an existence in the physical world.

Well, I don't believe in God. I do believe in the idea of God. I think it's a very useful idea. One of collective human psychological genius. The need for this idea may be species' specific. When we humans are all gone the idea will be all gone too--maybe forever. Reality makes abstractions possible having made people possible. Take away people the abstractions are simply gone. Abstractions are not discovered; they are created, all of them, out of reality referents. Humans are abstraction factories.

--Brant

Edited April 9, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

Reality makes abstractions possible having made people possible. Take away people the abstractions are simply gone. Abstractions are not discovered; they are created, all of them, out of reality referents. Humans are abstraction factories.

Very true! Abstractions may be gone but relations will still exist, assuming the universe still has some structure.

[Brant Gaede]

Be careful there, Michael. You are sort of implying that evolution must result in higher intelligence. While that is the partial story of human evolution, we may have reached a biological limit because of the brain/birth canal-size ratio. I personally think humans are going to self-evolve. Maybe in 200 years there won't be any more male pattern baldness. (Too late for me.) Nutrients and drugs and implants might make people a lot smarter. If my IQ genius father (189) can get all that brainpower into a size 7 1/4 hat, I should be able to get almost as good results into a size 7 1/8 with a few tricks. Instead, I have to struggle on with only a few hundred misfiring neurons, never having had his fantastical memory skills.

--Brant

[Christopher]

Michael,

Really great post with the spider analogy. I agree.

Chris

[galtgulch]

Well, I don't believe in God. I do believe in the idea of God. I think it's a very useful idea. One of collective human psychological genius. The need for this idea may be species' specific. When we humans are all gone the idea will be all gone too--maybe forever. Reality makes abstractions possible having made people possible. Take away people the abstractions are simply gone. Abstractions are not discovered; they are created, all of them, out of reality referents. Humans are abstraction factories.

--Brant

Brant,

I prefer the idea of individual freedom. As evidence that freedom sells observe that the membership in the Campaign For Liberty has reached 141,004 and counting.

www.campaignforliberty.com

gulch

[tjohnson]

I never said a different way of processing information would invalidate logic and reason. My meaning (and it is only a speculation based on thinking about an evolutionary pattern) is that logic and reason as we currently understand them and use them could be processed differently by an intelligence that processes more of reality than we do and has the brain power to do it. This could contradict things on the surface, i.e., contradict things as we see them from our perspective. This is more of an appearance than anything else, but the appearance can be strong.

The phrase "processes more of reality" is interesting. This is precisely what we humans do when we create instruments that increase the scope of our natural senses. We are, in a sense, evolving ourselves already except its taking place outside our bodies.

[BaalChatzaf]

I never said a different way of processing information would invalidate logic and reason. My meaning (and it is only a speculation based on thinking about an evolutionary pattern) is that logic and reason as we currently understand them and use them could be processed differently by an intelligence that processes more of reality than we do and has the brain power to do it. This could contradict things on the surface, i.e., contradict things as we see them from our perspective. This is more of an appearance than anything else, but the appearance can be strong.

The phrase "processes more of reality" is interesting. This is precisely what we humans do when we create instruments that increase the scope of our natural senses. We are, in a sense, evolving ourselves already except its taking place outside our bodies.

Evolution is biological descent with modification. It is a change to the gene frequency of a breeding population.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Evolution is biological descent with modification. It is a change to the gene frequency of a breeding population.

You mean, of course, that this is how the term is usually used. The meanings of words evolve over time.

[BaalChatzaf]

Evolution is biological descent with modification. It is a change to the gene frequency of a breeding population.

You mean, of course, that this is how the term is usually used. The meanings of words evolve over time.

No. This is the technical meaning of the term. This is the meaning that biologists give to the term. Prior to Darwin, Evolution mean development. After Darwin the term acquired a specific and well defined meaning.

Changing our erroneous ways is called learning, not evolution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Well, I don't believe in God. I do believe in the idea of God. I think it's a very useful idea. One of collective human psychological genius. The need for this idea may be species' specific. When we humans are all gone the idea will be all gone too--maybe forever. Reality makes abstractions possible having made people possible. Take away people the abstractions are simply gone. Abstractions are not discovered; they are created, all of them, out of reality referents. Humans are abstraction factories.

--Brant

Brant,

I prefer the idea of individual freedom. As evidence that freedom sells observe that the membership in the Campaign For Liberty has reached 141,004 and counting.

Gulch, your non sequitur posts are really annoying.

--Brant

Edited April 10, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Guys:

Since I appreciate both of your inputs and posts, I have to agree with Brant on this one, that was superfluous, annoying and if I were on this forum and actually considering making the plunge and joining C4Liberty, I would start to rethink the decision.

Come on Gulch! lol

Even you would have to agree, if you were willing to step back and be objective on an objectivist forum.

Adam

[tjohnson]

After Darwin the term acquired a specific and well defined meaning.

Terms are ascribed meanings by people. If enough people use a word in a certain way then it gets into the dictionary. "Evolution" has many meanings, the biological one is just one of them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... be objective on an objectivist forum.

Adam,

Good Lord!... What a novel idea!

Michael

[Selene]

Thanks. Yeah I think some really smart Russian woman should write it.

lol

[Christopher]

I would argue that man is certainly still developing, even if man is no longer biologically evolving. This development cannot be written off. There have been developments in human rights, developments in science, developments in education (every new generation measures one standard deviation above the previous generation's IQ score), etc.

Here's the best analogy I can think of: Man's biology is analogous to the laws of the physical universe. These laws represent boundaries. Within these boundaries, man used physics to increase his transportation ability. First, man built a sled; next he built a bicycle; afterwards he built an automobile. The laws of the universe never changed, but as man's collective knowledge grew, his ability to use the laws of the universe developed tremendously. Equally, although man may have biological boundaries, man has yet to push up against those boundaries.

[BaalChatzaf]

Gulch, your non sequitur posts are really annoying.

--Brant

Cato the Elder ended every speech with:

Cartago est delenda!

For example:

The corn crop in Tivoli is plentiful this year and the rains are good.

Cartago est delenda!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Alfonso Jones]

Guys:

Since I appreciate both of your inputs and posts, I have to agree with Brant on this one, that was superfluous, annoying and if I were on this forum and actually considering making the plunge and joining C4Liberty, I would start to rethink the decision.

Come on Gulch! lol

Even you would have to agree, if you were willing to step back and be objective on an objectivist forum.

Adam

LOL!

Bill P

[Rich Engle]

If you've been around any length of time it is perfectly normal for the barf reflex to start whenever someone seems to have felt a driving need to get out a shovel and dig up threads like this.

Although, as this coffin-stink of a thread topic developed, there were variations. Meaning, sometimes there were those that sought to educate (at gunpoint), those that just didn't know anything and were asking honest questions (waiting to be eaten), and then there were those that just jumped in for the eff of it again (me being in this category, which I consider, at this point, a character fault).

Does existence exist?

Sure! I just ordered pizza, and I'm going to exist a 12-inch pepperoni into my non-existent corporeal being.

rde

Hey, we found good pizza even in effing Florida! Yay!

[Selene]

Rich:

See if there are any Moroccan enclaves there. The best pizza I ate in four years in Virginia was a small Moroccan place less than 1/2 mile from the cottage!

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Rich:

See if there are any Moroccan enclaves there. The best pizza I ate in four years in Virginia was a small Moroccan place less than 1/2 mile from the cottage!

Adam

Yeah, but, you only ate there. No?

--Brant

[Selene]

No actually on an equal par with this place was in a small town above Gloucester in Mathews the Trade Winds - great pizza - small with an ala carte add ons.

I should qualify my statement - Newport News Gluocester Mathews section of Va.

[Rich Engle]

There's this place in N. Olmsted, OH that I've known since a teenager growing up there, it's called Frankie's Pizza. I've had all kinds of pizzas all over the place, but there's something about their sauce (tightly locked secret of course)... Over the years we've analyzed it, tried to recreate the stuff; get close but never there. Of all places, that sauce is one of my rigid standards of comparison, go figure.

Makes me nuts!

[Xray]

Brant,

You seem to have had enough of that understanding on the battlefield to have survived.

Here's the more technical version. All concepts have referents. The most basic ones have referents that can be defined only by pointing and saying "that is what I am referring to."

This is not "pretend understanding."

Bullets exist.

Bullet is bullet.

Michael

"Bullet is bulllet" is a tautology.

You think Rand meant "Existence exists" in a tautological sense too: "Existence is existence", so to speak?