For TheBorg,
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2016, 01:29 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 12:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 08:07 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Reality is 1 of 2 things; it can't be both?

*Either reality is there for all our consciousnesses to perceive, regardless of what a consciousness wishes, or even how well the consciousness perceives it.
*Or it is dreamed up (was created) by a consciousness.

If you believe this reality is completely impervious to your wishes, does not respond to your prayers, and will continue to exist beyond the cessation of your senses, you can't believe that it was created by a consciousness?

Did I get it, T-Scots?

Pretty much that is it, yeah. I would word it: either consciousness is dependent on reality or reality is dependent on consciousness. We know which is dependent on which. Consciousness presupposes the question consciousness of what? A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is dependent on existence in several ways. First consciousness is not an entity itself but an action performed by an entity. It is an attribute of certain kinds of entities, namely biological organisms that possess the structures necessary whether it be light sensitive cells or a full blown brain and nervous system like ours. Just as fishing requires a fisherman and dancing requires dancers, consciousness requires an organism capable of consciousness. Second, consciousness requires an object to be conscious of. Consciousness is consciousness of something as opposed to nothing. Third, consciousness must exist before it can be conscious of anything. So you can see that in each of these things, existence is a prerequisite of consciousness. To say that consciousness comes first and then existence is it's product commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Again consciousness of what?

This fact of primacy of existence is something that anyone can observe and test at any time and any place. No one needs to take it on faith. No one needs to accept it without validation and the validation is the simplest of all, sense perception.

Now to be clear, I'm of the fairly firm opinion that consciousness is entirely a product of the material brain.

That said, and strictly in the spirit of the devil's advocate... isn't there a bit of a false dichotomy here? What about a hypothetical scenario in which the consciousness resides outside of reality and is not dependent upon reality, but has a "window" into reality through the brain. However, due to a degree of self-awareness of its own thoughts, it is conscious of something (itself) outside of reality, even if many of the things it is conscious of are within reality. Here the two would exist independent of each other, but be able to influence each other to a degree.

Also, if you're defining the universe as the collective set of everything that exists.... how are you defining "exists"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 01:36 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  [quote='true scotsman' pid='1054232' dateline='1472708026']
The distinction between the real and the imaginary only obtains on the basis of metaphysical objectivism, the view that things exist independent of anyone's conscious actions such as wishing, wanting, liking, praying, believing, hoping, etc.

I think we all agree that there are things we can experience with our five senses. We’d all agree that these things are real. Air is real, the trees in my backyard are real…[/quote]

Agreed.

(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I’d even go so far as to say that emotions are real because we all experience them even if we don’t experience the same ones or at the same times. The concept of hope is real. People do feel it. It’s the same for wanting, wishing, liking and praying.


Yes emotions are real. They are a type of conscious activity. They are our minds automatic response to our values. We can't choose not to feel them, they are not volitional, but we can choose the values that we hold that our emotions are a response to.

(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  The act of praying and the emotional response it can give a person is real, but whether or not there’s a consciousness on the other end of the line to actually listen remains unknown to all of us.

Here's where we disagree. It's embarrassingly simple to prove that there isn't or at least that the claims that there is are false.
(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  [quote='true scotsman' pid='1054232' dateline='1472708026']
Your worldview takes a position on this issue that is incompatible with the basis for the distinction between the real and the imaginary.

But when I look at your worldview, I see the same being applied to you. We each have our own opinion on the realness (or lack thereof) of a G-d, and we’ve both based our conclusions on conjecture, not on facts that can be agreed upon by all of us. It is possible that you are imagining that there is no god even if one does exist. Neither of us is basing our conclusion on evidence. [/quote]

No. My worldview is premised exclusively on the primacy of existence principle. I recognize that "wishing doesn't make it so". I don't alternate between affirming the POE on the one hand and the POC on the other as you do and every theist does. I've based my conclusion on facts which are what they are independent of consciousness. Even if every person who has ever existed disagreed with the POE it would still be true. That's because have primacy over thoughts. In order to consider gods at all, either that it exists or doesn't, I have to use my imagination but I recognize that there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. This distinction rests logically on the POE. So it's not true that I don't base my conclusion on evidence. All of the evidence affirms the POE. None affirms the POC. I don't need to imagine that gods do not exist. All I need do is look around me. Everything I perceive is evidence that the claims of theism are false.
(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  [quote='true scotsman' pid='1054232' dateline='1472708026']
So the question is, given theism's inherent subjectivism how does a theist make that distinction, a distinction which is foundational to truth, logic, knowledge and reason while staying consistent with theism's fundamental premise.

I don’t understand what truth and logic have to do with this. We don’t know the truth. Neither of us knows it and both of us are capable of arriving at our personal conclusions about the existence of G-d through a logical process. Whether we agree with the other's conclusions or not, the process used to arrive at them is logical.[quote]

What is truth? Truth is the identification of reality based on facts and facts are what they are independent of consciousness. What is logic? Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. Logic rests on a single law, the law of identity, A is A, and its corollaries. Logic is the tool of reason. It's how we determine true from false. But if consciousness has metaphysical primacy, then truth and logic have no meaning at all. There'd be no such thing as true or false or non-contradictory identification. consciousness would be the faculty that creates reality not that perceives and identifies it. There'd be no need for logic if facts conformed to intentional actions. You can not arrive at a conclusion by logic that affirms the primacy of consciousness because logic is only compatible with the primacy of existence. It would be using logic to refute logic, more stolen concepts.


It's been six days now since I posed my question and so far no theist has answered it in the way I asked it. You answered a different question than the one I asked. You dropped the context of the first part of it where I said "given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism". This is crucial. I can make the distinction between the real and the imaginary without contradicting myself because I hold exclusively to the POE. Theists can not. The moment you make a distinction between the two you are dropping the context of your worldview's most fundamental premise, the POC, and borrowing from my philosophy in order to make that distinction, perhaps unwittingly but borrowing just the same and then abandoning the POE as it suits you. That is why I started my question with "given theism's commitment to the primacy of consciousness". On theism's premises it is clear that there is no basis for distinguishing between the real(objective) and the imaginary (subjective).

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
03-09-2016, 01:48 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 01:29 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 12:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Pretty much that is it, yeah. I would word it: either consciousness is dependent on reality or reality is dependent on consciousness. We know which is dependent on which. Consciousness presupposes the question consciousness of what? A consciousness conscious of nothing is a contradiction in terms. Consciousness is dependent on existence in several ways. First consciousness is not an entity itself but an action performed by an entity. It is an attribute of certain kinds of entities, namely biological organisms that possess the structures necessary whether it be light sensitive cells or a full blown brain and nervous system like ours. Just as fishing requires a fisherman and dancing requires dancers, consciousness requires an organism capable of consciousness. Second, consciousness requires an object to be conscious of. Consciousness is consciousness of something as opposed to nothing. Third, consciousness must exist before it can be conscious of anything. So you can see that in each of these things, existence is a prerequisite of consciousness. To say that consciousness comes first and then existence is it's product commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. Again consciousness of what?

This fact of primacy of existence is something that anyone can observe and test at any time and any place. No one needs to take it on faith. No one needs to accept it without validation and the validation is the simplest of all, sense perception.

Now to be clear, I'm of the fairly firm opinion that consciousness is entirely a product of the material brain.

That said, and strictly in the spirit of the devil's advocate... isn't there a bit of a false dichotomy here? What about a hypothetical scenario in which the consciousness resides outside of reality and is not dependent upon reality, but has a "window" into reality through the brain. However, due to a degree of self-awareness of its own thoughts, it is conscious of something (itself) outside of reality, even if many of the things it is conscious of are within reality. Here the two would exist independent of each other, but be able to influence each other to a degree.

Also, if you're defining the universe as the collective set of everything that exists.... how are you defining "exists"?

Hi Reltzik,

Existence, being an axiomatic concept, can not be defined in terms of prior concepts. It must be defined ostensively, by pointing to it and saying there it is. Existence is the widest of all concepts. It can not be analysed or broken down. There's nothing that is more fundamental. To what would it refer except to something that exists? It is conceptually irreducible. That's why it really is the only viable starting point. You can't drill down any further. Existence is the first fact, the first thing we could be aware of even before we are aware that we are aware. We could not be aware that we are conscious until we are conscious of something other than ourselves. There can be no facts primary to existence. That's a stolen concept.

Your hypothetical scenario is easy to refute. If gods exist outside of reality then they aren't real. If they are real, why exclude them from reality? The concept "outside of reality" is an invalid and meaningless concept. We can imagine that there is a god that exists and somehow exists outside of existence, but there is a fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary, one that rests exclusively on the POE.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
03-09-2016, 02:26 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(28-08-2016 09:12 AM)adey67 Wrote:  To be honest he's seems to have disappeared as I said before on another thread this time it looks like resistance was far from futile Laugh out load Big Grin

He's currently entertaining us over at AF.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 03:20 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
Since when did you forget how to use paragraphs?

Yeah, yeah, I know, toooo busy ...

Rolleyes

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
The problem I see with this DLJ is that it relies on an arbitrary and self serving definition of universe.
...

Well, hello! We are talking about gods here ... "arbitrary and self-serving" by definition.

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
I define the universe as the sum total of what exists.

This definition is open ended and conceptually irreducible so it makes for a valid starting point. Defining the universe as all matter, energy, space and time renders the concept universe conceptually reducible and destroys it as a starting point.

It's like defining the universe in such as to make a place for gods to live outside it and thus to remove gods from the realm of cognition and reason and logic. None of us can go outside the universe to perceive such a thing.
...





(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
What then is the concept which is your starting point?
...

Me! Obviously.

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
Also consciousness, so far as I know, is neither matter nor energy nor space nor time. It is its own special kind of existent.
...

Is it?

Question to you: What is software made of? It exists, right? If not, tell me how the fuck Bill Gates got so rich!

Tell me what an IT system's self-monitoring applications are made of and I'll tell you what consciousness exists as.

Wink

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
Existence is the immovable mover, the first cause. Where did everything come from? Why from existence of course.
...

Yabut! Where did that come from?

Angel

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-09-2016, 04:06 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 12:17 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I'd just like to say that I'm loving this conversation.

Or at least, I think I am. It's an emotional response ... not a reasonable one.

Big Grin



I think you did.

The only thing I can think of to refute it is akin to the argument someone (Dark Pheonix? I'm not sure) gave against the cosmological argument's first premise regarding "beginning to exist" which may apply to things within the set but not necessarily to the set itself (i.e. the universe = the set).

So it's possible that things within the set require the primacy of existence but the set itself (the universe) could have been caused by some disembodied consciousness (Aliza's god or Girly's sim-game).

:goes off to cuddle my pragmatism:

Yes

The problem I see with this DLJ is that it relies on an arbitrary and self serving definition of universe. I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. This definition is open ended and conceptually irreducible so it makes for a valid starting point. Defining the universe as all matter, energy, space and time renders the concept universe conceptually reducible and destroys it as a starting point. It's like defining the universe in such as to make a place for gods to live outside it and thus to remove gods from the realm of cognition and reason and logic. None of us can go outside the universe to perceive such a thing. What then is the concept which is your starting point? It can't be a god because the concept god is not conceptually irreducible either. The concept universe so defined is not universal. Also consciousness, so far as I know, is neither matter nor energy nor space nor time. It is its own special kind of existent. What reason is there for excluding it from the universe and placing it outside the universe. None that I can see. The requirements of cognition forbid the multiplying of concepts beyond what is necessary. We have a real need to have a concept for the everything and existence is the widest of all concepts. It denotes everything that exists in whatever form it exists. Every entity, attribute, action and every relationship is included. So as far as I can tell the concept existence is the only viable starting point. The only alternative to starting with existence is starting with non-existence. It should be clear that on the all inclusive definition of universe there can be nothing outside of it and no cause of it because causes presuppose the existence of something to do the causing. The question "who created the universe" then becomes invalid. Existence is the immovable mover, the first cause. Where did everything come from? Why from existence of course. If anyone wants to argue that it came from non-existence I'm willing to listen but watch those stolen concepts!

I had the same objection in mind as DLJ, but your explanation seems legit to me...so far. Thumbsup

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 07:17 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 03:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Since when did you forget how to use paragraphs?

Yeah, yeah, I know, toooo busy ...

Rolleyes

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
The problem I see with this DLJ is that it relies on an arbitrary and self serving definition of universe.
...

Well, hello! We are talking about gods here ... "arbitrary and self-serving" by definition.

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
I define the universe as the sum total of what exists.

This definition is open ended and conceptually irreducible so it makes for a valid starting point. Defining the universe as all matter, energy, space and time renders the concept universe conceptually reducible and destroys it as a starting point.

It's like defining the universe in such as to make a place for gods to live outside it and thus to remove gods from the realm of cognition and reason and logic. None of us can go outside the universe to perceive such a thing.
...





(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
What then is the concept which is your starting point?
...

Me! Obviously.

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
Also consciousness, so far as I know, is neither matter nor energy nor space nor time. It is its own special kind of existent.
...

Is it?

Question to you: What is software made of? It exists, right? If not, tell me how the fuck Bill Gates got so rich!

Tell me what an IT system's self-monitoring applications are made of and I'll tell you what consciousness exists as.

Wink

(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ...
Existence is the immovable mover, the first cause. Where did everything come from? Why from existence of course.
...

Yabut! Where did that come from?

Angel

Are we not forced into conceding an infinite characteristic of existence?

Should we concede that all arguments for existence come down to acceptance of an infinite aspect to existence. Can we even define existence in a useful manner?

Ok, fuck you DLJ! My mind is a pretzel now, quite a miracle you manufactured there. Big Grin

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
03-09-2016, 07:39 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 04:06 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(03-09-2016 12:45 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The problem I see with this DLJ is that it relies on an arbitrary and self serving definition of universe. I define the universe as the sum total of what exists. This definition is open ended and conceptually irreducible so it makes for a valid starting point. Defining the universe as all matter, energy, space and time renders the concept universe conceptually reducible and destroys it as a starting point. It's like defining the universe in such as to make a place for gods to live outside it and thus to remove gods from the realm of cognition and reason and logic. None of us can go outside the universe to perceive such a thing. What then is the concept which is your starting point? It can't be a god because the concept god is not conceptually irreducible either. The concept universe so defined is not universal. Also consciousness, so far as I know, is neither matter nor energy nor space nor time. It is its own special kind of existent. What reason is there for excluding it from the universe and placing it outside the universe. None that I can see. The requirements of cognition forbid the multiplying of concepts beyond what is necessary. We have a real need to have a concept for the everything and existence is the widest of all concepts. It denotes everything that exists in whatever form it exists. Every entity, attribute, action and every relationship is included. So as far as I can tell the concept existence is the only viable starting point. The only alternative to starting with existence is starting with non-existence. It should be clear that on the all inclusive definition of universe there can be nothing outside of it and no cause of it because causes presuppose the existence of something to do the causing. The question "who created the universe" then becomes invalid. Existence is the immovable mover, the first cause. Where did everything come from? Why from existence of course. If anyone wants to argue that it came from non-existence I'm willing to listen but watch those stolen concepts!

I had the same objection in mind as DLJ, but your explanation seems legit to me...so far. Thumbsup

In the last four or five years I've heard every objection you could think up.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2016, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2016 01:14 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(02-09-2016 08:07 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Reality is 1 of 2 things; it can't be both?

*Either reality is there for all our consciousnesses to perceive, regardless of what a consciousness wishes, or even how well the consciousness perceives it.
*Or it is dreamed up (was created) by a consciousness.

If you believe this reality is completely impervious to your wishes, does not respond to your prayers, and will continue to exist beyond the cessation of your senses, you can't believe that it was created by a consciousness?

Did I get it, T-Scots?

Have we mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation yet which Chas does not accept because he won't admit wavefunction collapse:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
04-09-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(03-09-2016 12:48 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-09-2016 08:07 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  Reality is 1 of 2 things; it can't be both?

*Either reality is there for all our consciousnesses to perceive, regardless of what a consciousness wishes, or even how well the consciousness perceives it.
*Or it is dreamed up (was created) by a consciousness.

If you believe this reality is completely impervious to your wishes, does not respond to your prayers, and will continue to exist beyond the cessation of your senses, you can't believe that it was created by a consciousness?

Did I get it, T-Scots?

Have we mentioned the Copenhagen Interpretation yet which Chas does not accept because he won't admit wavefunction collapse:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wavefunction collapse.

The Gulegon,

This is one of those objections I constantly run into. No, quantum mechanics does not refute the primacy of existence. People who make this point of rejection are equivocating. Perception is not synonymous with measurement. Measurement involves instruments. I know of no one who can perceive things at the quantum level but let's say for argument's sake that we could perceive a single photon with our naked eye. The eye is a physical thing and of course it effects the photon and the photon effects our eye. If it had no interaction at all we'd have no way to perceive it.

So there's no contradiction here. Physical things interacting with each other and effecting each other does not mean that consciousness has primacy. In fact it only confirms that existence has primacy because we need some physical means in order to be aware. Without these physical means there'd be no awareness. If we had no senses, no brain and no central nervous system, much less something to be aware of, there'd be no consciousness. The mental component of perception does nothing to effect what comes in through the senses other than to process it, form an image and store it away as a percept with which we can go on to form concepts.

Now the skeptics who make such attempts to refute the primacy of existence could only mean that their point refutes it because they want it to. If they claim that there refutation is true regardless of what anyone wants then they would affirm the vary thing they are trying to refute.

And a word on Skepticism. They claim that we can't be certain of any of our knowledge, which they claim as knowledge. So this knowledge claim suffers from the same problem and they cannot be certain that no one can be certain which means it's possible to be certain. Consciousness is an axiom. Any attack on the validity of the mind refutes itself by retortion.

A word about certainty. If one validates a conclusion by logic then one can be certain that one's conclusion is true within the context it was validated. This is the key to an understanding of certainty, that all knowledge is contextual. The skeptic holds omniscience as the standard of certainty. But this drops the context of man's kind of consciousness. They are saying in essence that because we have a particular kind of mind with specific means that we can't know anything for certain. Only if we had an omniscient mind could we be certain.

If one proceeds with honesty, considering the entire range of relevant facts, validating one's conclusions and not evading or dropping contexts, then one can have certainty. One will not discover new facts which overturn his knowledge withing the original context it was validated. This is because the universe is a consistent whole. No part of the universe can contradict itself or the total. If it did it could not exist.

Knowledge gained in such a way can not be refuted by anyone's manufacturing possibilities out of their imagination. But this is what the skeptic tries to do. He has a fallback: You can't be certain of that or anything, it may be that in the future we will find something that refutes your knowledge. But the arbitrary is inadmissible as evidence against a claim of certainty.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: