Epistemologically we must recognize that our rational minds and the empirical world are interconnected and mutually affecting. The world shapes the mind though its agencies and the mind, through its own agencies, in turn shapes the world. We must put away the notion that we and the world are somehow independent entities; in doing so we can more readily discover the truth that the process and product of the universal evolutionary process is one, a polymorphic monad, a diamond with many facets. Our epistemology ought not be a matter of exclusive either/or, but rather an inclusive also/and understood as interconnected parts of one whole. We receive the world as it is, inasmuch as our capacity for perception is developed. The world receives and is shaped by us inasmuch as our capacity for action is developed. We are neither as weak and enslaved as radical materialism would have it nor as powerful and free as radical idealism would have it, though in ages past we have been more of the former and in ages future we will likely be more of the latter.
It must be stressed that reality is independent of consciousness. The function of consciousness is to perceive reality, not create it. Nothing can change the fundamental axioms of existence, what man can do is rearrange the matter that already exists. In saying that reality is independent of consciousness I will point out that necessarily existence existed prior to consciousness, first prior to any individually existing consciousness, such as yours or mine, and also to all consciousness, in the time before life arose on the planet.
Yes, I agree. I hope I didnt give the impression that I think the case is different. What I mean to express is that we must view ourselves as part and parcel of the world, that is, necessarily and unavoidably one with it. As I said earlier, the world shapes the mind though its agencies (that is, through our environment as it is recieved by our sense organs) and the mind, through its own agencies, in turn shapes the world (meaning that by our abilities we reach into the world and transform it, as is the case with mans harnessing of the ecosystem to assist in the creation of civilization). We must recognize that this universal system is intimately interconnected, and the process of our interaction with the universe is transactional; we transform and are transformed, we affect and are affected, and such being the case, we actively (be it consciously or subconsciously) participate in the evolution of the universe.
I think this point of view simplifies the problems of mind/body, of qualia, of not knowing ‘the thing itself’, of the nature of truth. The perception of truth or of things isn’t as indirect as some think, like there is this impassible barrier between our minds and ‘what’s out there’, with only our senses giving us a clue as if our qualia are also just a part of the atomic self–we could have as close to direct apprehension as is conceivable given that we and the truth or thing in question are two parts of the same whole and as such interact as directly as any two things in the universe. Our qualia are just the the nexus of, the fusion between, the part in the middle of the part of reality we call subject and the part we call object. So sight, hearing, touch, etc. are all kinds of marriages.
Not exactly what i truly believe… just what logically follows from this thread’s premise i think
I think what he’s saying is that reality is not dependent upon our minds. Of course, our perception of reality is. I myself once thought that reality was perhaps a shared dream. However, I have since realised that I was in error.
I don’t agree. “Reality” cannot exist without consciousness and cognition. The abstract concept “reality” is a man made idea that attempts to make sense of his existence and surroundings. Man has constrcued the concept “reality” to give himself some kind of certainty and security in a world that appears chaotic.
Here are a couple of examples of how existence is independent from consciousness.
The planet had to exist before a consciousness could be developed on it, and also all the other elements that support life (the sun, moon, etc), therefore existence preempts consciousness.
People disagree on all kinds of matters. Their disagreement does not change the nature of reality. For example, if you think a “tree” is a "rock,"that will not give it the characteristics that defines a rock. (if you choose to call a tree a rock, that does not change the actual properties of the entities, it changes the label, and its meaning, that you use to describe it)
No amount of wishing, thinking, praying, or any other form of trying to change the fundamental nature of reality, will not work. Sure, matter can be rearranged, and made to fit human needs, but only if one works within the laws of nature to do so.
for example, a man can “change reality” by building a dam. But the only way he can is by obeying fundamental laws. If he ignores them and decides, “water pressure is whatever i want it to be,” that will not stop a flood from crashing through his structure.
I am not discussing the concept “reality.” I am talking about that concepts referent, which is everything which exists. Of course, concepts are a function of the human mind, abd do not exist apart from us, however what those concepts refer to, do exist, independently of mans mind. For more on the Nature of consciousness and of concepts, please see “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff
Stop. You’re making a HUGE mistake by validating your opponents position (i.e. biting the bait of the charge “begging the question”). So what if you’re charged with “begging the question”! Some positions are attained by reference to such obvious facts that no further evidence is needed. Here is a thought experiment: argue against solipsism without “begging the question”. You simply can’t; does that mean that solipsism must be true? Forget the fact that you were asked for empirical evidence that the planet existed before consciousness developed and then cited that we have such empirical evidence, and so in reality did not “beg the question”. What would the correct answer have been if not the one you gave? You were set up.
“Do you have X to provide evidence for Y?”
“Yes, here is X.”
“X begs the question and is invalid.”
“But didn’t you just ask for X?”
etc, etc, etc.
We, as civilized human beings attain knowledge and ratify that knowledge as truth, ultimately, by empirical correspondence, the rational version of which is coherence . It is by this method that man has exited the caves of pre-history and erected for himself the towers of modern life; run with it. Don’t get caught up in sophistic word plays and mind games that muddy the waters of progress. A square has four sides…period, even if to cite such a fact is a kind of tautology.
I agree that there is a physical world that exists independent of the human mind, yet any concept used to interpret the physical world will always be a human interpretation and not an all-persuasive objective theory. This is why there has been so many interpretations of the world across various cultures throughout time. Even the idea that “concepts” exist is a human invention.
I take “Objective” to denote a certain class of concepts, specifically concepts whose referent is reality, or that which exists.
So if you use the concept “tree” and define it as a type of plant with a trunk, leaves etc, and then use it to refer to such an object in existence, when the definition of the concept and the referent are the same, then that is an objective concept. However, you you define the concept in such a way, and then use it to refer to, for example, what we have denoted as a rock, the concept loses its relationship with reality,and because subjective (that is, the concept has relevance for the subject using it, not the object it refers to.)
Certainly, many cultures have disagreed on a great many things, but if reality is an absolute and the truth is the recognition of reality, whoever actually describes reality with their viewpoint is correct, and the on whose view contradicts the facts of reality is wrong.
“The idea that “concepts” exist is a human invention…” I take this to mean that you think that “concepts” exist independent of the functioning of mans mind… like the absolute “Forms” of Plato? If that is or is not the case please clarify, then I will follow up further, because if that is or is not what you meant, of course, i dont want to waste either of our time discussing it in an inappropriate context.
