Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex From: wex@milano.UUCP Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Dwyer's Response to Templeton on Objectivism (parts 2 & 3 of 9) Message-ID: <2456@milano.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Sep-86 16:01:42 EDT Article-I.D.: milano.2456 Posted: Tue Sep 30 16:01:42 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 2-Oct-86 20:28:44 EDT References: <151@vixie.UUCP> Sender: wex@milano.UUCP Distribution: world Organization: MCC, Austin, TX Lines: 94 In article <151@vixie.UUCP>, dwyer@vixie.UUCP writes: > > A Response to Brad Templeton's Criticisms of Objectivism > > This criticism arises from a failure to focus on what Objectivism means by > stating that consciousness is an "irreducible primary", a statement which > does not mean that there are no preconditions for consciousness. This is one of the problems that people often have with objectivism: it seems that words tend to have different meanings to objectivists than to their critics. Fortunately, William defines what the words mean (below). First some asides: > Consciousness requires a brain and sense organs. It also requires something > (an external world) to be conscious of. I disagree with both these points. Although we have not seen any examples of consciousness absent from brains, there does not seem to be a logical necessity. I can make this argument in a separate article, if necessary. The second sentence is also problematic. Surely we can conceive of a self-aware consciousness? Why is an outside world required? > ... the "primacy of existence" ... is the view that consciousness is > metaphysically dependent on, and its content determined by, existence. In > other words, according to Objectivism, existence can get along without > consciousness, but consciousness cannot get along without existence. In > this sense, existence not consciousness is metaphysically primary. (Note: how is "metaphysically primary" different from "primary"?) Again, two points. I have in my consciousness an image of a chimera. How is that bit of content "determined by existence"? Second, "get along with" is a very loose phrase. It seems certain that in some ways the very presence of consciousness affects existence (I am thinking here of quantum-mechanical effects). Could you please nail down this definition a little more firmly? > What Objectivists mean by saying that consciousness is an "irreducible > primary" is that one cannot analyze or "prove" consciousness as such. Any > attempt to "prove" it is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to prove > consciousness by means of unconsciousness -- since "proof", strictly > speaking, is a process of derivation from other evidence. This does not > mean, of course, that consciousness cannot be "validated". One validates > its existence by showing that consciousness is epistemologically > inescapable -- that one must use consciousness even in the process of any > attempt to deny it. I'm sorry to quote so much, but this really confuses me. What does it mean to "prove consciousness"? Do you mean "prove that consciousness exists"? Do you mean "prove that I have consciousness"? Or "prove that you and I both have consciousness and that they are not connected or identical"? Did you see my previous note about Descartes? > [Objectivism]'s position, ... is that time is the measurement of motion. This, I'm afraid, shows a lack of understanding of relativity. If I take a trip at some significant fraction of the speed of light (say >75%), then even an instrument as coarse as a wall-clock will show the differences. You here on earth will think that my trip took significantly longer than I thought it did. If we want to use quite precise instruments (say, atomic clocks) we can show that "eight hours" does not have the exact same meaning on the ground as it does at the top of the World Trade Center. What motion is involved here? On another front, behaviorists have shown that there is a definite correlation between intelligence and "time sense." Animals which we agree (do we?) are conscious, such as dogs, do not have such a sense. For example, you can train a dog to do something when he hears a bell. You cannot train him to wait 2 seconds and then do something. > Of course, the universe (meaning existence) has not existed for a finite > period of time, because existence had no beginning. To have a beginning, > it would have had to come into existence out of nothing, and from nothing > comes nothing. I wonder how you know this. Were you there? What is it about the universe that makes you say it has always existed? And what do you mean by "from nothing comes nothing"? > ... since the universe is literally everything, it can have no relationship > to anything else -- neither a temporal one nor a spatial one. Once again, you are using a word differently. I have heard astronomers and astrophysicists use the term "other universe" (when talking about black holes). What do you mean by "universe" such that there can be nothing else? Do you include these other universes? Possible universes? Awaiting answers eagerly... -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "True victory is victory over oneself."