Stop complaining...change it
Posted by Isapinky76 13 years, 6 months ago to The Gulch: General
I must say that I am quite amused, and somewhat disappointed by the laundry list of complaints, whining and negativity that plagues this "discussion" board. You create your own reality...if you don't like it, change it. Live your life the way you want it. Let's discuss ideas we have about change and the way we want things to be instead of pointing out all of the flaws we find.
The real question is how do you know that the primacy is existence and not consciousness. Primacy is the state of being first or foremost. How do you know that existence came first and consciousness second? What method of objectivity led you to this knowledge?
I doubt that everything in existence is unknowable, and if we can clearly identify, and effectively measure consciousness then I will gladly agree with you on the primacy of existence, but first we must clearly identify and measure consciousness.
Consciousness is something.
Therefore
Consciousness can't exist outside of existence.
What you are doing is relying upon logic alone to deduce the primacy of existence. There is certainly no inductive logic being used. You cannot observe the primacy of existence merely deduce it through logic. Logic is a subset of reason. Logic is a fine tool as long as the data being used is correct. It is logically correct to state that nothing can exist outside of existence, but without proving that consciousness actually exists, the logic breaks down once a deduction is reduced to "therefore consciousness can't exist outside of consciousness."
Logic is merely the tool, and reason is the faculty by which we use that tool. Who is using the tool? What is consciousness other than some abstract idea that "can't exist outside of consciousness"?
In order to know existence you have to be conscious of it. We can logically say that the falling apple knows the top of Newton's head in the relation that the top of Newton's head stopped the apple from falling further, but even this does not disprove the primacy of consciousness.
If we are going to be truly objective, we must necessarily confront our own subjectivity or become hopelessly the effect of it.
If you went to sleep one day and existence changed around you without your consciousness changing would you notice?
If you went to sleep and your consciousness changed without any change of existence would you notice?
If you went to sleep and both your consciousness and existence changed would you noticed?
Then next I pick your are in a alien body on another planet and everyone tells you that you name is zorg and they have know you for years.
2. Reality is still reality.
2. Reality is still the same. If you use different telescopes, you're still observing the same solar system.
3. Your third hypothetical is a combination of the answers to 1 and 2.
It's impossible for the rules of metaphysics to change.
"If you went to sleep and your consciousness changed without any change of existence would you notice?"
The term "change in consciousness" would need to be defined and studied extensively. This is the job of the field of psychology.
"If you went to sleep and both your consciousness and existence changed would you noticed?"
Still a combination of the answers to 1 and 2, as it is a combination of the scenarios.
Please clarify what you mean by a "changed consciousness." Consciousness is simply being conscious, so how could it change aside from being unconscious?
Now, is this the point? Are you making the point that consciousness is our means of awareness of existence, but not a means of changing existence? Am I misunderstanding something here?
This a thought experiment to shed some light on the issue. They are straightforward. Do not fudge the answers. If the premise is false answer the question on that basis.
I asked three questions, you answered one. The experiment needs three answers I think to draw a conclusion.
Oh and watch out for axioms they hide some truths.
1. WE exist, so if existence as a whole changes, we would change too. Our consciousness, our awareness of reality, would have to change if WE change.
2. Answered above.
3. The question is moot; if they both change, who is going to notice what? Both the "observer" and the "content" are different; you can't notice a change in reality and a change in your consciousness. In order for you to notice that your existence or consciousness has changed, "you" still have to be there, and you still would have to know what existence was and what it changed into.
The problem is the same: if existence "changed" overnight, then WE changed as well, because we exist. Our awareness would change, so in order to notice a change, there would have to have been an "objectively true" reality that we can compare to the new one.
One more thing.
Rand gave an explanation in her book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" (which every commenter on this thread should read, regardless of what side of the debate you fall on) as follows:
"Something exists, of which I am conscious, I must identify it."
This is a clear expression of the Objectivist idea of the primacy of existence: something has to exist first before we are aware of that something (in fact, that something exists whether we are aware of it or not), at which point we can identify it. These questions about "what if this changed" or "what if that changed" would be much more clearly shown to be the stolen concepts they are if people would keep their axioms in check.
This statement in itself assumes consciousness and existence are two separate things, thus disproving the primacy of consciousness.
Existence - "the state or fact of existence"
Consciousness - " denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action"
Good luck!
So no "Lathe of Heaven"
Also remember, the key part of objective reality is that we all share it. Even if observation changes the behavior of electrons, that does not mean that objective reality is subject to whims. That's exactly the mysticism that Rand warns against in Atlas Shrugged.
When the Wright Brothers first flew the notion they could fly flew in the face of the reality everyone shared and many declared that if man were intended to fly, God would have given us wings. It was, of course, the conscious reality all shared that believed that people couldn't fly, but the reality always was that people could certainly build a construct that carried human passengers to fly. In that regard that people could always fly was a reality all shared, but few knew it. They had no knowledge of it until some individuals dragged the collective ignorance into reality and in doing so shaped our conscious reality. There is such a thing as conscious reality and this reality can and is all too often created by individuals on the plus side and all too often on the negative side created by groups.
While positive thinking alone will not accomplish anything, positive thinking used to act is a stronger strategy than negative thinking used to act. Micheal Jordan missed far more shots than he made and yet he is not remembered for all the shots he missed but instead remembered for all the shots he made. Those shots were all shot in a physical reality where the law of bodies in motion holds true, but Jordan also spent much time thinking positively always visualizing the shot before he made it, and again, while he missed more than he made, he is not remembered for the shots he made because they were few, and he wasn't the go to guy to make a shot because he missed too much, Micheal Jordan is remembered because he made more shots than most. He made his reality as much as lived in it.
Your inference that I am arguing definitions of "reality" is erroneous. I am arguing that both existence and consciousness have realities, and that positive thought leads to a stronger consciousness capable of dealing with existence than does a negative conscious mind. Mans existence is determined by their state of mind as much as by the physical nature of that existence.
It makes no more sense to be at war with existence than it does to surrender to it. It makes more sense to be at peace with existence and shape ones own reality. This makes for a better productive person than one who is at war with existence and merely the effect of their own feeble mind.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primac...
We have to be careful of terms here. The Wright brothers did not create reality; they obeyed the laws of reality and as a result created something new - but observe that even their creation had to follow certain laws, such as gravity and aerodynamics.
Your comment that "both existence and consciousness have realities" is precisely the concern I have with keeping our terms defined. There is only ONE objective reality, which we all share, and that is existence. Consciousness is our awareness of existence (i.e., of reality) but it is NOT its own reality. It is an existent (as a process), but it is not a separate reality from existence.
I'm also not certain that one can describe the brain as an "effect of existence"; the brain simply exists.
The result of this neuroscience has become an arbitrary drugging of people based upon brain imaging and other research but it eventually becomes even more arbitrary and the man who has just suffered a heart attack will be put on anti-depressants because he is likely to suffer depression because of the heart attack. As if feeling depressed is an irrational choice of emotion after a heart attack.
I certainly agree with you and your concerns but suspect that your concerns are not the same as my concerns in some regards.
I believe it is wholly possible that the results of brain imaging showing the brain affected by depression and highlighting certain chemical reactions can still be a result of consciousness and not the brain. By consciousness I mean the decision made - which neuroscientists would ascribe to the "executive" portion of the brain, and I am ascribing to mind...consciousness.
I have not found any studies at all that have monitored depressed people who by choice overcame their depression and what that looked like on their brain imagining scans. There is only ONE objective reality but in order to be OBJECTIVE one must necessarily be cause over their own inherent SUBJECTIVITY.
Just like lsapinky did this one. Looking forward to hearing from you all.