How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2017, 04:08 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(14-06-2017 05:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 04:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Objectivism is intrinsically subjective.

Again how so? Statements like this tell me you don't have any familiarity with what Objectivism teaches. I remember once you said something about Objectivism being a form of materialism. It isn't. Not in any way shape or form. In order to demonstrate that it is intrinsically subjective you'd have to show where Objectivism affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. It doesn't do this. It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence. Theism is inherently subjective because it affirms the POC. So how can Objectivism be inherently subjective?

When I accuse theism of being inherently subjective, I at least back up what I say about it. I don't simply make the assertion and expect people to take it on my say so.

the inputs and processors are human. Just because its claims reality is separate from us it doesn't show that we don't describe everything in human terms only. So everything we describe is human. that kind of makes it subject, but I also get that we can only do "least subjective", we can't remove it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 04:18 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 07:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I can't imagine anything existing without consciousness because I can't imagine at all without consciousness. This establishes the primacy of consciousness.

And you can't be conscious if you don't exist and if no objects exist for you to be conscious of.

if we isolate your brain in a glass jar, it is not conscious?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 05:14 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
If it sucks it's probably reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like pablo's post
16-06-2017, 07:02 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 03:57 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Is it possible to "self consciously" do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?

By self consciously I mean with awareness, not implicitly. That means that the whole philosophy is integrated with its starting point. As to consciousness being axiomatic, it is. The axiom of consciousness identifies the fact that we are conscious of something. It is self evident, it is conceptually irreducible, it is fundamental, it is implicit in all knowledge, therefore it satisfies all the requirements of a philosophical axiom. It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it. The concept is axiomatic. To deny it would cause one to contradict one's self, since denial is a kind of conscious activity. We don't assume it since we percieve that we are conscious directly. It does not need to be proved. The validation is by means of sense perception. You either accept it or deny it but denying it would be absurd.

Axioms are at the base of any system of logical analysis. We know from Gödel that any logical system at or beyond a certain level of complexity is necessarily either inconsistent or incomplete. If inconsistent, then there is reason to suspect the validity of one or more axioms. If incomplete, then it is possible to postulate a metasystem in which the original system is embedded, and in which one or more axiom(s) of the original system may be either invalidated, or found to no longer be irreducible. It is not clear that the axiom of consciousness should or would be immune to this.

But I admit that you did answer my question. Yes

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
16-06-2017, 07:26 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(16-06-2017 04:08 PM)AB517 Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 05:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Again how so? Statements like this tell me you don't have any familiarity with what Objectivism teaches. I remember once you said something about Objectivism being a form of materialism. It isn't. Not in any way shape or form. In order to demonstrate that it is intrinsically subjective you'd have to show where Objectivism affirms the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. It doesn't do this. It self consciously and consistently affirms the primacy of existence. Theism is inherently subjective because it affirms the POC. So how can Objectivism be inherently subjective?

When I accuse theism of being inherently subjective, I at least back up what I say about it. I don't simply make the assertion and expect people to take it on my say so.

the inputs and processors are human. Just because its claims reality is separate from us it doesn't show that we don't describe everything in human terms only. So everything we describe is human. that kind of makes it subject, but I also get that we can only do "least subjective", we can't remove it.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here AB. But If I describe the tree in my front yard as a mountain, a human term to be sure, it remains a tree none the less. It does not conform to my description of it. If I want to know it, I have to know it on its terms, i.e., I must identify it by its characteristics which are what they are independent on my conscious activity. The fact that we use a Human process to identify objects, that does not make them subjective. The same would hold true for Wolf consciousness. If a wolf uses a wolf process to perceive a tree, then that does not make the tree subjective. By Human terms I take you to mean concepts. Concepts are the form in which we identify and retain knowledge of the objects of out awareness. It sounds a lot like you think that for knowledge to be objective, it must not be obtained by any process. This is a mistake that many, many philosophers have made throughout history. They've held that consciousness should not have any identity, it should be like a characterless mirror or a diaphanous film that contributes nothing to the experience of awareness. If so then you are asking for knowledge nohow

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
16-06-2017, 07:40 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(16-06-2017 07:02 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  By self consciously I mean with awareness, not implicitly. That means that the whole philosophy is integrated with its starting point. As to consciousness being axiomatic, it is. The axiom of consciousness identifies the fact that we are conscious of something. It is self evident, it is conceptually irreducible, it is fundamental, it is implicit in all knowledge, therefore it satisfies all the requirements of a philosophical axiom. It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it. The concept is axiomatic. To deny it would cause one to contradict one's self, since denial is a kind of conscious activity. We don't assume it since we percieve that we are conscious directly. It does not need to be proved. The validation is by means of sense perception. You either accept it or deny it but denying it would be absurd.



Axioms are at the base of any system of logical analysis. We know from Gödel that any logical system at or beyond a certain level of complexity is necessarily either inconsistent or incomplete. If inconsistent, then there is reason to suspect the validity of one or more axioms. If incomplete, then it is possible to postulate a metasystem in which the original system is embedded, and in which one or more axiom(s) of the original system may be either invalidated, or found to no longer be irreducible. It is not clear that the axiom of consciousness should or would be immune to this.

But I admit that you did answer my question. Yes

I think you're making a big mistake here. Mathematical axioms are a very different thing from philosophical axioms and Godel himself by making his statement must assume my starting point. Just by referencing his theory he affirms the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity. His theory exists according to him and by identifying his theory as opposed to a ham sandwich, he makes use of the axiom of identity and theorizing is a type of conscious activity. No matter how complex a system of analysis is it must implicitly affirm these axioms. Now you are welcomed and invited to try to show how any one of these axioms are invalid or untrue.

For clarity let me state them formally:

The axiom of existence: existence exists

The axiom of consciousness: consciousness is consciousness of something, an object.

the axiom of Identity: to exist is to be something specific.

Go ahead and show how any of these axioms is false, but be very careful that you do not affirm them in the attempt. That means you can not use the concepts of existence, identity,or consciousness in your argument.

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
16-06-2017, 07:44 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 07:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 06:43 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I can't imagine anything existing without consciousness because I can't imagine at all without consciousness. This establishes the primacy of consciousness.

And you can't be conscious if you don't exist and if no objects exist for you to be conscious of.

I don't find those entailments as compelling as you do. But I've done a lot of drugs so it may be that I've just become accustomed to seeing shit that isn't there. Smile

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
16-06-2017, 07:55 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(16-06-2017 07:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 07:03 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  And you can't be conscious if you don't exist and if no objects exist for you to be conscious of.

I don't find those entailments as compelling as you do. But I've done a lot of drugs so it may be that I've just become accustomed to seeing shit that isn't there. Smile

It's not that I find them compelling but that I find them to be inescapable.

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
16-06-2017, 07:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2017 08:11 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(15-06-2017 03:57 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Is it possible to "self consciously" do anything, without axiomatically assuming consciousness?

By self consciously I mean with awareness, not implicitly. That means that the whole philosophy is integrated with its starting point. As to consciousness being axiomatic, it is. The axiom of consciousness identifies the fact that we are conscious of something. It is self evident, it is conceptually irreducible, it is fundamental, it is implicit in all knowledge, therefore it satisfies all the requirements of a philosophical axiom. It would have to be true in order to attempt to deny it. The concept is axiomatic. To deny it would cause one to contradict one's self, since denial is a kind of conscious activity.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  We don't assume it since we percieve that we are conscious directly.

I'll have to think on that. It doesn't seem prima facie to me.

(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It does not need to be proved. The validation is by means of sense perception.

Not a wholly reliable means of validation in my experience. In fact I can intentionally cause faults.

(15-06-2017 06:44 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You either accept it or deny it but denying it would be absurd.

Bah, I can do both. I can accept it on pragmatic grounds but, not so much deny as suspect any ontological basis.

This is not to say I'm not absurd.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-06-2017, 08:11 PM
RE: How can you tell the difference between reality and delusions?
(16-06-2017 07:55 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(16-06-2017 07:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I don't find those entailments as compelling as you do. But I've done a lot of drugs so it may be that I've just become accustomed to seeing shit that isn't there. Smile

It's not that I find them compelling but that I find them to be inescapable.

So that's an interesting question. I have training in formal systems and methods and recognize logical entailment when I see it. It must be that I know longer find deduction as compelling as I once did. I appreciate the issues raised with C.D. Broad's glory of science of scandal of philosophy, but why do I have an issue with deduction? I think it's because as a computer programmer I work with both open and closed world assumptions where the fundamental axioms of truth change. Once you throw away the law of the excluded middle it's a brave new world. That could be one explanation at least.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: