Evidence versus Proof

@fast,

Reconstructo wrote:

Can anything exist for me, that I am not conscious of? Or is consciousness, on a subjective level, equivalent to being?

You may not be conscious of many things which exist for you. You may not be conscious of your heart beating, or your digestion, or even the way you pronounce certain words. You may not be conscious of how bad you smell (go take a shower).

If by being you just mean existing, then of course consciousness doesn't equate to being, because there are many things which exist but are not conscious. Like a rock.

kennethamy wrote:

Or, if Earth did not exist before Man existed, where did Man begin to exist? The notion that Man existed before Earth existed is incoherent.

It sounds incoherent to me too. But, there must be some reason he is saying such a thing. I'm trying to find out the reason. I fear he's taking subjectivism and running amok.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;108626 wrote:

It sounds incoherent to me too. But, there must be some reason he is saying such a thing. I'm trying to find out the reason. I fear he's taking subjectivism and running amok.

Even if he has a reason, it may still be incoherent, as it seems to be. How could Earth exist before it existed?

@fast,

My ideas are hardly new. Hegel, Heidegger, Rorty...

"Earth" is the name of a concept, a mental-model. We call it a planet. This concept of the Earth has evolved throughout history. Did it objectively exist before man? Yes. But no one was conscious of it. In that sense it did not exist. What experience have either of you or anyone ever had that was not conscious? The word "conscious" is almost equivalent to being. Of course I understand the mental-model of Earth existing before humanity, but it wasn't "Earth" then, but a ball in space.

Subjective consciousness is the root of all existence. This is hardly a new thought. It seems pretty obvious. I doubt my conversation partners are big on afterlife. What is objective reality to a dead man? Presumably nothing, a nothingness it is difficult for us to conceive as living beings.

What would existence be without consciousness? What is objectivity but a mental-model in relation to sense-data and consensus?

Know anything about quantum physics? Wave/particles? I think that's a good example where traditional mental-models start to appear obsolete.

@fast,

Reconstructo wrote:

"Earth" is the name of a concept, a mental-model. We call it a planet.

Earth is the name of a planet. Earth is not the name of a concept. There is a concept of Earth, though (one would conceptualize a green and blue planet, I suppose). Just as there is a concept of Joe (one would conceptualize the man that is Joe), but we would not say that Joe is the name of a concept. Joe, is, in fact, a name of a man.

Quote:

Did it objectively exist before man? Yes.

The planet Earth existed before man. The concept of Earth did not.

Quote:

But no one was conscious of it. In that sense it did not exist.

I don't see how our not consciously perceiving the Earth has anything to do with the Earth's existence.

Quote:

Of course I understand the mental-model of Earth existing before humanity, but it wasn't "Earth" then, but a ball in space.

No mental-models existed before humanity. Why would you think this?

Quote:

What would existence be without consciousness?

It would be existing. Because, presumably, that's what existence does -- it keeps on existing! Our consciousness has no bearing on existence. I still don't see why you think this.

Quote:

What is objectivity but a mental-model in relation to sense-data and consensus?

Objectivity is in reference to reality, independent of our beliefs. What is objectively true has nothing to do with what we believe.

Quote:

Know anything about quantum physics? Wave/particles? I think that's a good example where traditional mental-models start to appear obsolete.

I know a little about quantum physics (I did some research when I started hearing about the LHC). But, I don't know any of the mathematical backing, nor would I say I'm very versed, if that's what you're asking. What has this to do with what we're discussing? Sorry, I don't see the connection.

@Zetherin,

I'm saying that you have a mental-model of the Earth before man's appearance. It's impossible for us to conceive of the Earth before man before man. So no, it did not exist in the human sense of the word exist before man. But now that we exist, we can project backward by means of a mental -model of the past. (Or do you think the past is present? No, sir, the past and future both are mental-models.)

When you say you don't see how consciousness and existence are related, this sounds absurd to me. A bump on the head will erase your subjective experience of "reality" and "reality" is only experienced subjectively. It takes a gang of subjectivities to cook up the notion of objectivity. And they get so caught up in their little invention that they forget they created it.

How did you like existence before you were born? Was it cozy? You only think the Earth was here before you because there is a consensus on the matter that you find persuasive. Or were you here, somehow, before you were born?

What is a planet without its concept? As soon as you picture it in your mind it is a mental-model. It's being is derived from your consciousness.

To make it clear, of course there were no mental models before man, that is half my point. Objective reality being precisely the mental model in question.

I wonder if you have truly considered this word "existence"? I see that you call yourself a demystifier. I identify with that sort of role. But scientific objectivity is something I consider easy and obvious. Too easy. Too obvious. Boring.

Religious superstition, racial bigotry, sexism....these opponents are beneath my ambition. It's more exciting to sniff out the prejudices of philosophy.
I think "objective reality" functions for some as a quasi-religious idol. Their intellectual pride is anchored in their connection to this objectivity. And this irrational identification with Reality comes with a certain amount of prejudice.

It's your consciousness that makes this conversation possible, and yet you deny the role of consciousness in existence. You are so wrapped up in this mental-model of objectivity that you forget that it's only your willing participation that makes it so. Or so it seems to me at moments....
Nothing personal.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108647 wrote:

What is a planet without its concept?

Its? Planets do not have concepts. People have concepts.

The planet Earth was a planet before our capacity to conceptualize, and now that we are able to conceptualize, the planet Earth is still a planet. Our ability to conceptualize the planet Earth does not alter what the planet Earth is.

@fast,

No, Earth was not a planet before we invented the concept of a planet. Earth was nothing without a consciousness to disclose its being.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108635 wrote:

My ideas are hardly new. Hegel, Heidegger, Rorty...

"Earth" is the name of a concept, a mental-model. We call it a planet. This concept of the Earth has evolved throughout history. Did it objectively exist before man? Yes. But no one was conscious of it. In that sense it did not exist. What experience have either of you or anyone ever had that was not conscious? The word "conscious" is almost equivalent to being. Of course I understand the mental-model of Earth existing before humanity, but it wasn't "Earth" then, but a ball in space.

Subjective consciousness is the root of all existence. This is hardly a new thought. It seems pretty obvious. I doubt my conversation partners are big on afterlife. What is objective reality to a dead man? Presumably nothing, a nothingness it is difficult for us to conceive as living beings.

What would existence be without consciousness? What is objectivity but a mental-model in relation to sense-data and consensus?

Know anything about quantum physics? Wave/particles? I think that's a good example where traditional mental-models start to appear obsolete.

If "Earth" is the name of a concept, then what is "the concept of Earth" the name of? The same concept that you say "Earth" is the name of? Dubious. No, "Earth" is the name of a planet. The concept of Earth is not a planet, of course. It is a concept. And "the concept of Earth" is, of course, the name of a concept. We really have to keep concepts, things, names of things, and names of concepts of things, straight. Else, confusion reigns.

@fast,

If Earth is the name of a planet, the signifier "Earth" includes the concept of a planet.

And names themselves do not exist without man's consciousness. There are no names, concepts, planets, or anything except as they are disclosed by consciousness. Good luck on finding an exception.

It's consciousness that makes this argument exist for you in the first place.
.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108972 wrote:

No, Earth was not a planet before we invented the concept of a planet.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about the word, "Earth", nor am I talking about the meaning of the word, "Earth." I'm talking about the referent of the term, "Earth". In other words, I'm talking about the object that dinosaurs roamed on back when there were no people with the capacity to conceptualize the object they eventually came to call "Earth."

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108979 wrote:

It's consciousness that makes this argument exist for you in the first place.

You can pretty much trounce any argument with that one liner, can't you?!

@fast,

And the referent does not exist unless we are conscious of it.

That dinosaurs roamed is just something humans dreamed up. Sure, I think they roamed. But they have only ever existed as a mental-model. Nothing exists for man that is not conscious.

And consciousness is a synonym of being and existence.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;108979 wrote:

If Earth is the name of a planet, the signifier "Earth" includes the concept of a planet.

And names themselves do not exist without man's consciousness. There are no names, concepts, planets, or anything except as they are disclosed by consciousness. Good luck on finding an exception.

It's consciousness that makes this argument exist for you in the first place.
.

Of course it was a planet, Just no one knew it was. Don't you think there were germs before anyone had the concept of germs (or there was the word, "germs"?) If not, how did the Bubonic Plague occur? And, please don't tell me there was not Bubonic Plague before the term, "Bubonic Plague" or the concept of the Bubonic plague.

@fast,

Reconstructo wrote:

And the referent does not exist unless we are conscious of it.

The planet existing, and our being conscious of it existing, are two different things entirely. What you say here is, simply put, not true.

Quote:

That dinosaurs roamed is just something humans dreamed up. Sure, I think they roamed.

You think we dreamed it up?

My mother was just in the kitchen. Since she is not in the kitchen anymore, and I cannot directly verify she is in the kitchen anymore, should I just write it off that I dreamed it up?

Quote:

Nothing exists for man that is not conscious.

But we're not conscious of many things. And many things exist that we're not conscious of.

@fast,

They were created by human consciousness. Yes, there is also an objective pole, and a world outside our head, but nothing exists without the subjective pole. The brain is God. The brain, for us, makes the entire show exists.

You cannot even think without a human social language. Your entire post relies on words that would be impossible without human consciousness. There is no thought without society. Think on it.

@fast,

Reconstructo wrote:

Yes, there is also an objective pole, and a world outside our head, but nothing exists without the subjective pole.

Can you please explain to me how this sentence is consistent?

@fast,

It's from Hegel's Phenomenology.

We know well enough that there is an objective reality. But we also know that this objective reality is founded upon pure subjectivity. So we constantly go back and forth between our sense-impressions and our mental-models of both reality and the empirical ego, editing our concepts as necessary.

But I'm immersed in studying the man at the moment. I'm no expert on Hegel but certainly a fan, and certainly fascinated.

Substance is also subject.

@fast,

I am not versed in Hegel's Phenomenology, but do think that you're doing what kennethamy pointed out earlier:

kennethamy wrote:

It is fallacious to argue that because our experience is subjective, that what we experience must also be subjective. It is like arguing that because we kick with our feet, what we kick must also be our feet. It is a variant of, the worst argument in the world. http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/worst.pdf

@fast,

You're wrong there. No one is denying the "objective pole." But the objective camp seems to be blind to the suggestion that consciousness is the ground of being. Also the objective camp seems to be a little slow in admitting that objectivity is a mental model projected on sense-data and consensus.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;109017 wrote:

You're wrong there. No one is denying the "objective pole." But the objective camp seems to be blind to the suggestion that consciousness is the ground of being. Also the objective camp seems to be a little slow in admitting that objectivity is a mental model projected on sense-data and consensus.

The ground of being what?

Philosophy Forum

Evidence versus Proof

Quick Links

My Account

able2know