humanities.philosophy.objectivism

It's apparent you're not reading what I'm writing, so I'll
respond to this and you can either choose to get it or not.


On Mar 24, 4:56 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> On Mar 24, 7:41 am, Jim Klein wrote:
>
> > We /choose/ how to "cut up" reality, in the sense that you mean.
> > If we say the corona is part of the Sun, then its existential
> > referent goes along with . If not, not.
>
> Absolutely. The corona is part of the Sun if and only if we choose to
> make it part of the Sun. The corona can be part of the Sun or not part
> of the Sun, and the deciding factor is conscious necessity and
> convenience. Absent consciousness, it is neither part of the Sun nor
> not part of the Sun. The designation "part of the Sun" ceases to have
> meaning.

The thing is, the Sun is larger than the Earth whether or not you
count the corona. Agree or disagree?

You could say the Sun is exclusively its center 3 inches; then it
would be smaller than the Earth. But nobody means that when
they say "the Sun."


> > What you're missing is the existential referent of > > referent>. Classification is an act of consciousness; being a
> > certain way is not.
>
> Being a certain way is not,

Right, and we're talking about how that way is.


> but being considered a certain way is.

Right, but we're not talking about how something is considered.

I mean, if you want to be technical, I guess the claim is, "The
object that is referenced when most English speakers say 'the
Sun' is larger than the object that is referenced when most
English speakers say 'the Earth'."

Does that make it any easier for you to understand?


> Some properties are only properties of this kind, for example being
> "pleasant".

That's a particular sort of property, one that is explicitly
determined
by a consciousness. The size of the object most English speakers
refer to when they say "the Sun" is not.


> > The corona is as it is and the Sun is as it is,
> > and so is every other drop of the universe.
>
> Nobody disputes that. But there are no "pleasant days" without
> consciousness.

There aren't thoughts either without consciousness...so fucking what?


> > That we may choose
> > whether or not to classify the corona as part of the Sun has
> > absolutely nothing to do with the state of those existential
> > referents.
>
> It certainly has something to do with whether the corona has the "part
> of the Sun" property or not.

Look, David...you can define things any ol' way you want. You can
call the Earth "the Sun" and vice versa. That's why I called those
"definitional properties." It's still the case that what most of us
call
"the Sun" is larger than the object most of us call "the Earth."


> > And even though their existence as referents does
> > rest upon consciousness, the identity of their existence does
> > not.
>
> Agreed.

Well then, the thing that's referenced as "the Sun" by most
English speakers...is the identity of its size rest upon
consciousness or not?

There are only instances of reference, so don't confuse yourself
by recognizing that different references might have different
sizes. Take one particular reference, one particular instance of
someone calling the Sun "the Sun" and answer if THAT particular
object being referenced, has a particular size or not.

Or does its size depend on the person referencing it?


> > "Being a referent" is not a similar attribute as "manifesting
> > as such-and-such, when a referent." WE make it be a referent;
> > IT makes it manifest as such-and-such. Yes, that manifestation
> > is part of a process that includes our sensory and cognitive
> > apparati, but those are in RESPONSE to ITS identity, not made
> > up because of the identity of our appariti.
>
> I agree. Once we consider the corona part of the Sun, it has
> properties we cannot choose. However, it simply does not "somehow"
> have the property of being part of the Sun without consciousness.
> Without parts, how can the Sun have a size?

Golly...maybe you're right David, and the Sun has no size.


> > This is very, very fundamental to ANY sort of objectivism, the
> > fact that the identity of the object DOES NOT rest upon its
> > identification.
>
> You are using the term "rest upon" to conflate very different kinds of
> relationships. The size of the Sun rests upon its identification in
> the sense that we will get different sizes for different
> identifications. However, for any given identification, the Sun is
> whatever size it is.

THAT'S THE POINT!! So take a particular reference of "the Sun,"
and take a particular reference of "the Earth." You say, "for any
given identification, the Sun is whatever size it is." I trust that
you'll say the same for a particular identification of the Earth.

So using those two particular identifications, if they came from
standard English speakers...is "whatever size" the Sun is,
greater or less than "whatever size" the Earth is?


> In other words, the Sun's size rests upon its identification because
> different identification result in different Sun's. There is a "one
> true Sun", but its identification depends upon cognitive necessity.

That doesn't even make sense. The one thing you've got right
is that there ISN'T "one true Sun" in the absence of (what I call)
context. The one point we agree about is that without "cutting up"
the universe, there really aren't even any fully discrete objects.

But now you say there's "one true Sun."


> > The best you've got is, "Its identity as a
> > referent is wholly determined by the state of our
> > consciousness." Well yes, but that's really a statement
> > about what our consciousness is doing, not about the
> > identity of the referent.
>
> No, I have more than that. Not only is its identity as a referent
> determined by the state of our consciousness, but what the "it" is
> that we're talking about is. What determines what is part of the Sun,
> other than what we refer to?

Yeah, you must be right...there simply are no determining factors
that allow two English speakers to refer to the same object. The
Sun is whatever the hell we make it to be, and we can make it
revolve around Jupiter while we're at it.

No? Why not?

Let's see you answer THAT question while remaining consistent
with your silliness. Why can't we make the Sun revolve around
Jupiter, if we choose to make it so, as a matter of "cognitive
convenience"?

Most people would say, "Because the Sun doesn't revolve
around Jupiter." I wonder what pearls you'll offer.


> > While identification is a process that presupposes
> > consciousness, identity is not. It's not EVEN a
> > process; it's just...well, it's just identity. And except
> > for those existents that are themselves existents
> > of consciousness, then it's very basis--A is A basic--
> > that the identity of identified (non-epistemological)
> > existents, is absolute. This means it's INDEPENDENT
> > of consciousness---it is absolute and prior to its
> > identification by a consciousness. Prior in the
> > sense of "more fundamental," not through time.
>
> I agree.

I think I'll name your theory the Revolving Door Theory.
One minute everything's identity rests upon
consciousness; the next minute it doesn't.


> > On such a primary point, shouldn't you find out first
> > whether it's true, before you go talking about stuff
> > that you acknowledge may have no truth to it?
>
> I think we are on a quest to do exactly that. We start out with
> information that we think is not dependent on our perception,

Who does that? I've never even heard the assertion, and
I can't imagine it in Objectivist circles. Of course whatever
information we conceptualize is dependent upon our perception.

That doesn't mean it's DETERMINED by our perception.


>but it
> the universe how it is independent of consciousness. Then we find out
> that we were, in a sense, incorrect. The information was contaminated
> by how we see, or how we think.

No, that's wrong. It's LIMITED but not CONTAMINATED. This is the
whole damn point of Objectivism.


> I don't think we've gotten as far as you think we've gotten.

I don't know why you say that. I don't think we've gotten
hardly an ant step's worth, in the whole scheme of things.

But I'd say we've gotten far enough to understand some
basic relationships, like that the damn Sun is larger than
the damn Earth.

You and Betsy are the only ones so far, to say that we really
don't know that. Betsy says we first have to "create" the
relationship with our consciousness, and I doubt that
anyone has any idea what you're really saying.


> Atoms, by
> definition indivisible, turned out to be a model -- they don't really
> exist.

ALL conceptualization is a model of sorts. That doesn't imply that
it's not a model of SOMETHING.

You have it all exactly backwards. You think the state of the
object rests upon our identification of it, and how we choose
to model it.

In fact, our models are a response to the state of the objects.


> Particles with definite positions turned out to be a model.

EVERYTHING COGNITIVE IS A MODEL. A model can be
accurate or it can be inaccurate. It can be inaccurate
in some respects, while being accurate in others.

That's because it's NOT THE THING ITSELF. You are saying
that how the thing itself is, rests upon the model. That's
such a farcical assertion, that it begs no reasonable
response.

You are quite literally claiming that the state of a
territory rests upon how we map it. Case closed.


> What if objects, as the contents of a defined region of space, is just
> a model as well?

The surface of the Earth has, among its characteristics, a peninsula
we call "Florida" distinguished from an ocean we call "Atlantic." If
you take a satellite picture, you won't see any line drawn between
the two, even though maps have that line. Where we put the line
on the map DOES NOT affect where Florida ends and the Atlantic
begins.

Now you could draw a line 50 miles out on the map and DEFINE
the area as "Florida;" then the Atlantic wouldn't start until that
point. You could call Maine "Florida" and Florida "the Atlantic"
and the Atlantic "Mississippi." Then you'd have Florida north
of Maine and both adjoining Mississippi. You could even call
Europe "Cuba" and then Cubans would be using Euros.

You can call anything, anything you want. But if you take that
picture again of the current Floridian coast, you will see that
NOTHING has changed. That is the only point here, and you
are being insanely stubborn for refusing to see it.


> I think at some point we will reach rock bottom

Trust me, David. When it comes to epistemology, you
have reached rock bottom!


> and we will know it.

And only then will we know whether the Sun is larger
than the Earth...is that your point?

Until then, we only have a "model" and so therefore
can't know such a fact. Is that it?


> But right now, we have a set of successive approximations.

So with more precision, maybe the Sun will turn out to
be smaller than the Earth? Is THAT your point?


> They really
> refer to something, but that something is not the way they are
> modeled.

Then stop building a theory that rests fundamentally on
the stipulation that they are.


> > Stop making a mountain out of this molehill. Objects
> > exist and are as they are, completely independently
> > of their identification.
>
> Just like indivisible atoms did, but don't anymore?

No...indivisible atoms never existed. But something that
does exist, is able to be modelled as if it were comprised
of indivisible atoms. It's THAT which exists and has identity.


> Just like
> particles with precise positions at all points in time did, but don't
> anymore? Is that really your position? That whatever we think reality
> consists of at any particular time is how reality really is,
> independent of our modeling?

Nothing we think "is independent of our modeling."

Thinking IS modeling. It's what we're thinking ABOUT
that is independent of our modeling.

The map is not the territory. The territory is as it is; the
map is a model of it. Florida really does border the
Atlantic, you know, except for those screwy speakers
who choose to call California "Florida."

Those folks, if there are any, would be hopeless and
could NEVER find Miami. Do you really want to be
like that?


> > > Absent consciousness, the universe does not
> > > have any properties that can only be assigned by a consciousness. That
> > > means, certainly, that there are no referents. So the question becomes
> > > what properties are dependent on consciousness -- what properties are
> > > really about how we consider things due to our cognitive requirements.
> > So you take a referent and ask, "Does this referent rest upon
> > consciousness for its nature?" The ones for which the answer
> > is "yes," you apply your theory to. For everything else in the
> > universe, you flush it down the crapper where it belongs.
>
> The problem is, what is "this referent"? What is the nature of an
> indivisible atom of argon, apart from consciousness?

Why...what's its nature, with it? Are you telling me that by
modelling it that way, we actually CREATED indivisible
atoms of argon? That would be Betsy's claim, were she
to be consistent. If we create relationships, we might as
well create indivisible atoms of argon.

For crissakes, David...the argon is just as it is, that's all.
If its identity is such that it can be MODELED as indivisible
atoms, then so be it. That doesn't CREATE indivisible
atoms; it just means that its identity is such that it can
be modeled that way. We can meaningfully speak of
"atoms of argon," not because there necessarily are any,
but because it acts as if there were. Further, we can
know plenty more, and come up with lots of uses...not
because there are the indivisible atoms that we incorrectly
modeled, but because argon acts consistently with the
model that it's comprised of indivisible atoms. When our
models become advanced enough, that will no longer
be the case.

BUT THE ARGON WILL STILL BE THE SAME. This is nearly
too much insanity to take. Take a few more shots, but
be prepared to take the ridicule that your position
implies. You can start by calling the North Pole "the
Atlantic" and taking a refreshing dip in the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, there's been nary a whimper about
Betsy's screwy claim that "relationships [such as
the Sun being larger than the Earth] are CREATED
by consciousness." I guess that's not a very
important point to "Orthodox Objectivists;"

Gee, I wonder why that is.


jk