Axiom of Existence: Something exists. This is the starting point of all thought—there is something rather than nothing.
Axiom of Consciousness: We are aware that something exists. Consciousness is the faculty of awareness, and this axiom affirms that awareness is possible.
Axiom of Identity: Whatever exists, exists as something specific. A thing is itself. This is the law of identity: A is A.
Primacy of Existence: Existence exists independently of consciousness. Reality is not created or altered by awareness—it simply is. Consciousness is relational, not creative. It does not make reality; it perceives it.
The conversion is from what a man independently perceives to what a man is collectively told, what they’ve heard or read.
…for the Hebrew the most important of his senses for the experience of truth was his hearing (as well as various kinds of feeling), but for the Greek it had to be his sight; or perhaps inversely, because Greeks were organized in a predominately visual way and the Hebrew in a predominately auditory way, each people’s conception of truth was formed in increasingly different ways.
-Boman, Thorleif
They are socially engineering men who have lost trust in their own senses, and placed their trust in words, spoken or written.
Yep, the system is designed to create concrete-bound anti-conceptual mentalities in people. Not being able to think for themselves beyond the directly perceptually derived concepts, they look to someone else for the answers. They are ripe for manipulation. But the first-hand thinker is much more difficult to control.
One of the things that Dakat said was that evolution has given us a brain that "gives us what we need”, not necessarily an accurate picture of reality. But this assumes that man doesn’t need accurate information about reality in order to survive. Man has to know that the Tiger is real; he has to know that his spear is sharp. He has to know that the water is safe to drink.
Evolution does not reward failure or useful illusions; it rewards functional awareness. Man’s awareness is a matter of life and death, not just a convenience.
The individual isn’t thoughts which consist of sounds and visions, that’s all.
“I think,therefore I am” is such a naive philosophical statement.
Rene Descartes was clearly stuck in his head and not acknowledging the rest of his physical body when he made this claim.
The problem he had was that he wasn’t aware at all.He was totally unaware not understanding his relationship to consciousness which is separate from awareness.
The difference between the in and out of the moment consciousness states is TOUCH.
The in the moment consciousness state being a full body consciousness experience.
Reality….is experiential…..it’s about being aware of the vibratory nature of the two consciousness states and your relationship to them and controlling them also understanding the philosophy and the science which explains it all.
Not so. When philosophical views are incompatible, the basis for discussion shifts from finding a single “right” answer to clarifying assumptions, exploring the reasons behind each view, identifying points of fundamental disagreement, and examining the implications of holding those incompatible positions. Discussion becomes a process of mutual understanding and articulation of different conceptual frameworks, rather than a negotiation to achieve shared belief. But I can understand why you might not want to go there if you’re satisfied with your present understanding of things. You might even be aware of you philosophical vulnerability and not want to risk it. You posed your challenge to theism with confidence expecting that you would be able to defeat them. But, only if they accept your presuppositions. The strength of your philosophical system is in its internal consistency and logical coherence. But, its epistemology is already outmoded in terms of neuroscience and the philosophy of mind. Better to just not go there. Okay, no problem.
My evidence is your consciousness. I claim that everything is explained by consciousness or nothing at all. Consciousness is the unexplainable foundation by which everything must be explained including the concept of God. You know, like Schopenhauer saw it.
Consciousness only proves that life is aware and willful…nothing more.
Every age has had the unknown to place their superstitions….and you are no different.
Schopenhauer placed an unconscious Will, as his groundless grounding of what he called Will…not god’s will….and this was a mistake. It allowed desperate people like you to now make absurd claims with no evidence.
Right. You skate on the surface, afraid to dive in. Schopenhauer advocated renouncing the will to live. That’s why Nietzsche considered him a nihilist. Shame, hatred and fear are the biggest obstacles to realizing God.
Your superstitions do not affect me.Your anxieties guide your emotional thinking.
I know what Schopenhauer said and why Nietzsche broke with his pessimism, not with his metaphysics.
His groundless grounding - Will - was not conscious…..but you want it to be. You are desperate so you imagine everything is conscious.
You no different than a stone. Panpsychism.
Listen, believe whatever you need to cope….but until you can show me evidence, or a reason, then you remain another one of the crazies.
Every age had its mysteries and made them gods….first there was fire, then earthquakes, then solar and lunar eclipses, then the dead, then the sun, then natural forces and then consciousness.
God or metaphysics is where desperate souls, like yours, project their hopes.
It’s not about beating anyone; it’s about clarity. I desire clarity, and every interaction I’ve ever had with theists only strengthens my commitment to rational philosophy. I ask my questions to tease out the basic premises that people hold, even though they are not aware of them. I note that no theists bothered to answer my questions, which is telling. The strength of my philosophical system lies in its internal consistency, logical coherence, and correspondence to reality. Because it begins with reality and never loses track of it. What philosophical vulnerability? If you can refute my airtight case against representationalism, I’d like to hear it.
I’ve assumed, because you are a conventional mind, that you’ve adopted the conventional definition of ‘god’ - which is always biblical (Abrahamic) - omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, good, loving, caring, word and only word… right?
Silenus ……you exist because you claim things……so at the very minimum you are a binary processing biological machine bot. which exists and doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life…..You exist because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.You can claim that you don’t exist if you want but that would make you a liar that exists.You can even claim that you are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) if you want to persist with your psychotic claims but nobody is interested in misrepresentations of reality anymore, it’s yesterdays fake news.They are only interested in reality now.Stop wasting your time posting atheistic nonsense.You need to get out of your head because you’re not thoughts.
yep, Descartes started with the prior certainty of consciousness; the belief that an external existence must be deduced from the contents of one’s mind. This means that whatever random contents he has in his mind becomes the standard to which reality must conform. It’s an expression of the primacy of consciousness, which is false.
What are you talking about? I answered your questions, point by point.
True the strength of objectivism is it’s coherence, but to maintain that it has to reject science. Neuroscience, for example, which it ignores with impossible naïve realism.
I already did. You have argued that humans can perceive and know objective reality directly through the senses. While reality exists independent of individual consciousness, neuroscience shows that our perception of it is inherently, limited and shaped by our brain’s filters. The brain processes sensory data and filters it through existing cognitive structures. This means that scientific inquiry is a process of interpreting sense data within an a priori framework not simply collecting objective facts. This was the epistemological argument of Kant and the argument has only been strengthened and refined by science since he propounded his theory. Rather than a blank slate, the brain activity constructs our perception of the world.
I apologize. I didn’t see your answers. Thank you for participating.
What? Neuroscience must accept and use every premise of the Objectivist metaphysics. They must assume that something exists, that they are conscious, and that A is A. They must also assume the primacy of existence as the basic structure of reality. You’ve got it backwards. And you also must accept and make use of these fundamental truths in every statement you make, including the ones that deny these very truths.
I see no argument here. You appeal to Kant, who himself denies that man is conscious. He claims that there is a reality, but you can’t know anything about it. He’s making the same errors: Implied presumption of omniscience: How does he know these things? He infers this, starting with the false assumption that because consciousness has identity, it is invalid. He substitutes the form in which we perceive for the object of perception. He makes every error I highlighted. He famously wrote in the preface to the second edition of the Critique of Pure Reason that he had to “deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” That is exactly what you are doing. Neuroscience must start with he recognition that existence exists independent of consciousness and that man is conscious and his mind is capable of knowledge of reality. Otherwise, what’s the point of doing science? Blank out. So what you’ve presented is hardly a refutation; it’s just a restatement of the assertions you’ve been making, which also presuppose the axioms and the primacy of existence while denying them. The axioms and the primacy of existence are not optional. They are the foundation of all knowing.
