@knowledgeispowerfful If I say that "existence is [something]" I've had to use the word "is". is=existence. Existence exists. It think existence has always existed. To say otherwise is to say something came from nothing. If you assume that a consciousness "created existence" how did the consciousness come to exist in the first place if there was no existence?
this is like the chicken or the egg. If there was a supreme consciousness he/she/it would simultaneously exist and be conscious. so one wouldnt come before the other
@pricesmithmusic Thanks for your comment. I think that's a big "if". I consciousness implies existence. I think it makes more sense that consciousness evolved out of existence.
You're on the "earth plane" too. Some people just look for evidence to support their beliefs, other's don't. They just make it up--making themselves the creator while blaming it on some supernatural being they also made up.
(4) ..atoms of our environment for positive or destructive purposes. The goal is for the mind/spirit to move upward, back toward and aligning itself with its Creator. There are levels/dimensions/or realms after this life. Crash course aside, ...Whatever happens here, in the end, is not so important in the scheme of things. Just try to resonate with kindess, and not let life's hardships cause you to devolve into something you wish you hadn't become. But even still, you will be lifted by the...
turn, direct the atoms of our body (often failing to love ourselves..thus ordering the atoms to bring illness/or form tumor for example). Your thoughts direct atoms which act or group to create matter, as His did, to form creation. Each moment, we are the instant continuous creation of His mind. Consciousness is: an active creative expression. And, we, ...are co-creators, each second as our minds direct the atoms of our bodies, and seek to manipulate the atom
(PART 2) the past, present and future occur simultaneously (ponder that), and that He created the atom, the material which he created to form the universe. His consciousness directs and shapes the matter of his creation (all the universe and what's in it), since He set it into motion. We are like the atoms of His body, whom He directs to love themselves and move toward health and life. Thoughts and words direct atoms
and so shape matter. He says to His body (us) "I love you." to move His atoms
Error: You are analyzing from the standpoint of being on the earth plane, and so are limiting creation to the confines of your human understanding of mortal physics. God is of a higher vibration and is a consciousness that exists where time, as just one example, is irrelevant. Even as I describe this, I am just like a monkey attempting to reach outside my limited realm and mental abilities, therefore, God cannot be totally defined by me. However, we
I remember dying in my last life and being consciously born into this life, and the period before I was born into this life. Your argument shows a lack of understanding. Find a good esoteric school and do some serious studying and becoming. You are obviously curious. All initiates are self-initiated. Remember that.
You assume consciousness exists. But in reality, we only see that which is manifest as existing. Just think about all the different possibilities of things we could conceive of existing, but don't. So we would say they don't exist, yet we are consciously aware of them in some form. It wouldn't be so far fetched, in my opinion, to simply say conscious is arbitrary. After all, where is your awareness? Where is your experience? What doesn't make sense is to talk of consciousness as existing
Any "Thing" that is a "thing" is only how you choose to refer to what part of "every thing". "Things" will not always be here, but "Everything" will. Everything is just changing it's location, or shape.
There was no beginning, as there is always an outside, as there is always an inside.
Anything put on a two-sided beginning-end scale, or spectrum, is nothing but a ripple effect of the illusion of order and time.
I am referring to which came first, existence, or consciousness.
Everything is everything.
Everything is existence, existence will always be existence, even if you don't have labels for things, doesn't mean there is a such thing as nonexistence.
Nonexistence exists only in the subjective reality, therefore there is no such thing as nonexistence, as it wouldn't be truthful anyways. Fact = Objective existence.[truth]
This logical contradiction, I believe, is a hint at fractals.
following that, do consciousness and existence go hand in hand? are they the same thing, or are they two seperate things (as in you can't have one without the other)?
consciousness is an act..meaning to be aware..so the question is..aware of what? for consciousness to identify itself as conscious there must be something for it to be conscious of.
well unless you believe in magic lol any person place or thing has to exist so according to evolution man existed before he became aware of his own existence.
That is not the same thing as a property like color or shape.
Properties either exist (or they don't).
Why was my first response insufficient? What more did I claim? My video is simple: existence is a requirement for consciousness, but consciousness is not a requirement for existence.
It's a relief you don't view existence as a property, but you still seem to be reifying the idea of "the sum total of all that is."
Do you believe the idea of a sum somehow exists, like in Platonic Form? I hope the answer is no...
Simply because we talk about something having existence, this could be reduced to talk of a thing having location, shape, and mass. What we are acknowledging about a thing, after all the fat is trimmed off, are concrete properties, rather than abstract "existence."
If you accept that properties exist, if you say something [is] (a certain property), you have accepted the phenomenon of existence.
Every time you use the word [is] or some variant of "to be" you acknowledge existence.
My background is in science not philosophy. Things either exist or they don't. The job of science is to distinguish between existence from non-existence.
Perhaps you can answer a couple of more questions:
1) Can existence exist by itself, without specific things?
2) It's news to me that the job of science is to distinguish existence from non-existence..so what field of science discusses non-existence or this distinction between what exists and what does not?
Honestly, I have better things to do with my time.
There are now 89 comments on this video and if you still don't get my message or just don't like the way I view things, then I'd suggest you go watch another video, or make one of your own. This is obviously not the place for you.
I think you've got far too much free time on your hands.
Existence is Identity not existence has identity. To say existence has identity is like saying a cake has icing, in other words it makes identity and existence seperate. To existence is to exist as something, some-thing is a specific thing, with limited attributes and characteristics, in other words a nature. A thing with no nature is no thing at all. To exist is to have identity, making it possible to answer, "what exists?".
Existence is an abstraction, the widest abstract concept in Ayn Rands Philosophy of Objectivism. "The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." - Ayn Rand Because existence is an axiomatic concept 'there is nothing antecedent to existence.' So to answer your question no.
Well the definition of consciousness is basically self-awareness. Other matter compared to humans has LESS consciousness, but it's still conscious. That's where most of the confusion is. I could argue that for an atom to function it needs some degree of self-awareness for it to interact with other atoms. This can be applied to things other than matter like dark matter and dark energy also.
You can argue but where's the evidence? Atoms interact because of their structure and the charges on them. "Self-awareness?" NOT!
Does an object fall back to earth because it is "aware" of the law of gravity and "think" it's supposed to fall? This is a function of physical laws, not consciousness. The same goes for atoms and how they interact.
An awareness requires an ability to conceptualize it in some way. to identify things, not just bump into it in space.
The evidence is they bond and react to each other. That's it. That's all consciousness is, one thing being somewhat aware of itself and affecting another. How is Human Self-awareness different other than its more complex? We react to our environment in the same fashion as atoms, within constraint of our environment. Consciousness is within physical laws. Just like everything else.
Actually, your attempt to derive a reasonable conclusion is entirely flawed from a logical perspective. When you say that consciousness would have to exist therefore existence is primary, you are only proving that consciousness is existence as another name. If you would like to clarify explain what you mean by existence by separating it from consciousness- proving that it can stand alone.
Existence is everything that exists. Consciousness is something that exists and is made up of things that exist like cells.
It is incorrect to say that consciousness "is existence as another name." It is something that exists. A chair exists, but it is not the sum total of everything that exists, nor is it existence as another name.
The chair as phenomena is very different from existence/consciousness. Think about it. The chair can be said to exist. Can existence be said to exist. What is left to call existence if the phenomena, like the chair, are removed. The same can be said of consciousness. Do you understand?
Yes. Existence exists. Every time you say "existence is (something)" you are acknowledging its existence. If it didn't exist, the concept of "is" would be meaningless.
that makes very logical sense. But understand our creation can not be explained through logic alone. Existence and Consciousness can be likened to the brain and the heart. There is no point in trying to decided which came first, since both would be rendered useless without the other. They both are one in relation to the whole.
The existence of your body and consciousness are counter-dependent, but there's no reason why things cannot exist without consciousness.
The stuff that rocks are made of doesn't require consciousness and evidence tells us that matter existed long before awareness of it. Consciousness is only required for awareness of the rock not the existence of the rock.
Consciousness on the other hand requires existence to exist.
Err..you assert that you are true when nobody knows for sure. I know your idea makes logical sense and all but you can't tell if its 100% true or not. So don't say you are completely right when you aren't
I only maintain that it's correct in light of the evidence we currently have. The unfortunate thing about those who asset the opposite, that consciousness comes before existence, is that they don't have any evidence and their position makes no sense logically.
Do you know your philosophers? I am thinking of Kant here because you talk of existence being TEMPORALLY prior, not logically (which I dont think anyone can). Kant was one of the first "Enlightenment" philosophers to suggest we create time. It is a way we interpret the world, nothing more. It has no objective reality. What do you think about this?
I once knew them, but switched my major to biology (pre-med) when in college.
Physicists like Einstein treat time like a very real dimension, not just something we make up.
Evidence and reason tell us time has objective reality. When somebody comes up with a better way to interpret it, which also actually produces something (like scientists do), something other than a bunch of words (like philosophers and clerics do), then I'll be more interested.
Be friendly. I know you are passionate about this but please can we stay away from murderous analogies in future? Evidence and reason both stem from consciousness, so that argument is circular. Objective reality is mutually agreed upon subjective reality - which is consciousness.
My analogy just lays bare your intellectual dishonesty. You could just voluntarily jump off a building and the building will still exist. If all other consciousnesses jumped off that building, the physical structure will still be there as well as the earth they all fall to.
The ability to conceptualize it will be gone, not the structure or Objective Reality.
OR is more than mutually agreed upon SR. Just because everybody believes the world is flat doesn't make it flat.
I see reality as being infite. Pure potential, between existence and non existence, expressed in an eloquent symphony of vibrational geometry. It is perfect, but also imperfect because it changes, continuously evolving, however its actual existence is perfect. There is nothing outside of this conscious existence, for to observe "nothing" requires an observer.
An elegant argument. I think the strongpoint of the argument is that logical - unlike the weak challenges I've been reading. Most simply use wordplay to satisfy their ideas.
Consciousness IS existence... Nice. Throwing two words together like it's meant to prove anything.
I found it a totally meaningless statement as well. I also agree with you that most throw together a lot of words and paint an image of existence that is emotionally satisfying to them but can't be supported with any evidence.
There is no evidence for existence before consciousness... they are one and the same. It is so simple it is meaningless to people who define themsleves as intellectuals. Not that I presume you do this.
Yes I did hear about carbon dating. When I was conscious. I assume you did too. Carbon dating didnt exist before that. And neither did anything else. Nothing can unless it is made conscious.
What if we take you behind the barn and kill you? You're no longer conscious. In a few days, you'll decay into nothing.
The barn still exists as does the gun we shot you with. Guess what? I'm still here, too! None of those things was dependent upon your consciousness for its existence.
Again, I addressed this before and I'm not going to discuss it any further.
I would suggest, that you are limiting your thinking to a linear view. If you can, imagine an existence where there is no before or after, but a consciousness, infinite, unbounded by space or time or self.
From the infinite source comes our finite universe, of finite space, finite time, finite energy, finite matter. Any finite thing must be caused by something that transcends it. If the cause is itself finite, then that cause also must be caused. The ultimate cause must be infinite.
As it is infinite, there can be only one. As consciousness is a property of this reality, and as something cannot come from nothing, then the cause must be conscious.
The source of everything must be monistic, conscious, uncaused and infinite.
I would suggest that you like to imagine things that are not connected to reality because you don't like the idea that your life is finite.
I can totally buy that existence is infinite, that before the big bang there was something else and before that something else. Just because something can't come from nothing doesn't require any consciousness.
Our lives are finite in the sense that the self dies with us. The self is a psychological construct necessary for survival of the machine in this reality. But it limits our view of reality. Aldous Huxley spoke of it as a "reducing valve" limiting our view of a much larger reality.
I do indeed like the idea that life, in this sense, is finite. Everything is exactly as it is supposed to be.
You concede that there may be an infinite source, but doubt that consciousness is required. In my view if you understand the nature of consciousness, you understand that it is fundamentally different "stuff" than matter or energy. I must disagree with you on the basic logic that something can come from nothing. It is logically required that the source has consciousness as a property.
Their is no source, no beginning and no end in infinity. Existence exists. It is the eternal state of being, the "isness" of all things, including consciousness.
If consciousness created us then another consciousness more complex had to create that and so on. It is endlessly recursive. Nice idea but not supported by evidence or logic.
Consciousness implies existence. If consciousness exists, existence exists.
The only REAL model we have for consciousness is that belonging to living things on planet earth. It is made up of biological matter and energy. There is no evidence of any other form of consciousness, but that doesn't stop people from making it up.
I'll expand. Awareness and existence are HARD to separate. How do you have proof for the universe unless you, yourself, are already conscious of the universe? You may know from Descartes that the only thing that cant be doubted is consciousness. So at least in this sense, consciousness is primary and is the source of the universe.
So I really think that deserves a response. You are obviously not a dummy and I am open to your opinions, but I do not agree with you on this at all. On logical grounds if nothing else...
You are making a similar argument that has already been made in the more than 70 comments that have been left on this video and I have responded many times.
I go back to the evidence. Our consciousness and the science that results from that tell us that our planet and the universe existed long before animal/human consciousness did. Check out the earliest comments on this video.
I don't remember much about Descartes except "I think therefore I am." He's also saying that if my consciousness exists, then existence exists. You can't talk about consciousness without implying existence.
this is the chicken and egg question. and you know what man, I'll take my quote from fckn harry potter. circles don't have a beginning. life isnt random its circular. I don't disagree at all with your interpretation of what existence is, but I think that is a simplification of the extent of the universe.
Why do you say that life is circular? It appears very linear. We are born at some place and some time and then we die at a totally different place and time.
Actually, this isn't necessarily true. If you look at theoretical physics, there are many implications that time is just an illusion, and reality exists on an orthogonal axis, to where all points of time as we perceive them line up on another transcendental axis. Your argument assumes far too much, and therefore it is an ignorant one. (continues in next comment)
Your argument is simply that consciousness has to exist before it can create anything else - but are you not assuming that consciousness is a material thing? What does it mean to exist? Consciousness does not exist the same way we exist. If you fail to see this, then you understand nothing.
How does consciousness exist if it is not a function of our physical being and what evidence do you have to support it?
Lacking any credible evidence that I had consciousness before my physical life began, it is a safe assumption that it is a function of my physical being and as well as other physical beings. To assume otherwise requires faith and mystical thinking not supported by evidence.
"I don't disagree at all with your interpretation of what existence is, but I think that is a simplification of the extent of the universe."
You just baked yourself with that comment, bud. There is NO SUCH THING AS EXTENT without EXISTENCE. Just like there is no such thing as consciousness without existence. Get it yet?
You haven't explained why..you have asserted your truth. K. Marx, a quaint German Victorian chappy [did they have Victorians in Germany Mr Radio? Yes of course they did..shut up at the back stop interupting] used the same couplet to good effect...
i could say that existence 'beyond the veil' could not exist without consciousness, and the idea or form behind matter could not exist without it; an evolving form matter behind which a grand consciousness creates, and is still evolving today.
"Whoever you are - you who are alone with my words in this moment, with nothing but your honesty to help you understand - the choice is still open to be a human being, but the price is to start from scratch, to stand naked in the face of reality and reversing a costly historical error, to declare; 'I am, therefore I'll think.'
OMG, that is such nonsense. There is an objective reality (existence) that is not dependent upon your mind or anybody else's. All the evidence shows that the universe existed long before the human mind came up with concepts to describe it.
Existence is a concept that refers to something objective, all that exists, and is not dependent in any way upon consciousness. Many animals don't have words for it, but it's still there, just like they're still there even if we didn't name them.
Existence is an abstract concept, a word and no more. Existence applies to those objects we can state 1 truth about. Objectivity does not determine if something exists or not, as 2 of 3 belief types are objective... assumption or inductive logic and myths are both objective, but beliefs and beliefs do not show us what exists.
Your comments is self-contradictory. If existence is just an abstract concept then it applies to NOTHING, it has no objective referent. It is a floating abstraction. Yet you go on to tell us what it refers to.
If existence is total abstraction, referring to nothing in reality, then every comment you make about it is untrue. There is no truth about things that don't exist.
Correct there are no truths for that which doesn't exist. Truth is abstract as well as it is not a physical item. All of language and mathematics are too. Existence refers to what is real, for physical objects it is done via empirical truth and for abstract concepts it is done via tautologous truth.
Existence is a mental concept, an idea only found in a mind. It is not a physical object we percieve with the 5 senses, it is an analytical object we concieve in the mind. We create the word existence, and grant it meaning via mental abstraction. There is no evidence of the concept existence independant of a mind. Therefore human consciousness did in fact come before "existence", as "existence" is a language dependant concept.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is a false dichotomy. Anything in your mind was at one point from reality. You must take your percpts of the world and integrate them into concepts. It's quite the opposite. Without existence, there is no consciousness needed to integrate existents.
In every object we percieve. Most importantly in the first perception. Existence exists is the very first concept derrived (the foundation of all knowledge) from the very first sensation or perception. It is the undeniable fact that there is something as opposed to nothing. It's the widest of all concepts meaning it subsumes all others.
It's not a property. You're working the opposite way here. The first fact is the most general of all. Everything is within the context of existence. It would be wrong to say something could have a property of IS as opposed to IS NOT. Identity and Existence are merely 2 perspectives on the same thing. Existence tells you that there IS something.
Identity tells you that there is SOMETHING (in particular). Claiming some that a thing has a property of existence suggests that there is some thing without such a property. There is no such thing. Anything that lacks existence, does not exist.
The law of identity allows us to distinguish one object from another and is "A = B if and only if all that is true for A is true for B". Existence applies to those objects we have 1 truth for. If you have 1 truth for an object it must exist. Truths are about objects, no object has truth as it's property. The only objects true or false are propositions ABOUT objects.
Correct it is not a property and all that composes empirical things are it's facts, facts being a property of the object. Existence is not a physical thing at all, it is an abstract concept we use to describe objects as real.
Incorrect. There is no valid dichotomy between things and concepts. A concept properly formed refers only to reality. Because knowledge is contextual does not make it non-absolute. Existence is the first fact and the base of all others. It refers to everything. To say that the fact that there IS something has no relationship to reality is to claim nonexistence which is self-refuting.
If you claim there is no existence because it is abstract, you might as well claim there is no furniture, only tables. One of course can not point to furniture in reality, only the particulars that are tables or chairs. So this concept 'furniture' which exists nowhere must be invalid. How about a scientific law such as the law of charges? Surely this law exists nowhere in reality. You can not point to it, only to instances in which it is used.
This must be invalid too. The very electronics and computer you are using must be based on magic. Because the're clearly not based on a valid law which has been observed. But it must be invalid since it is a law, is abstract, and is absolute.
State 1 truth about a computer and it must exist. Absolute truth contradicts what truth is, which requires proof. Absolute truth must exist always, eternally, before mind, before language and before statements even exist. The only object true or false is a statement.
I do not claim there is no existence. I claim existence applies to those objects we can state truths about. A table or a chair is resolved to exist via an empirical truth about it. 1 truth for it and it must exist. Abstract reality like mathematics or logic exist provably with tautologous truth for them. Empiricisms are percieved and tautologies are concieved. Both show existence, one for physical reality and one for abstract reality like the objects existence, truth, reality.
You said in your first comment, "Existence is a mental concept, an idea only found in a mind."
Now you say, "existence applies to those objects we can state truths about."
If you're going to continue to leave comments on my videos, have enough respect for my time and the time of my viewers to be somewhat honest and consistent. Otherwise I will block future comments.
Existence is a mental concept, an abstraction of mind and so is truth and so are all words, all of logic, all of mathematics and more. There is no inconsistency at all. No concepts existed prior to consciousness and existence is a concept. So is truth.
Existence is a concept that represents everything that exists including physical objects and the relationships between them. So existence existed before the consciousness that came up with the word for it. I will grant you that the word required consciousness, but the word is NOT existence itself, only an abstraction for it. Physical existents were there first as were the relationships between them, before man came along to name them.
Existence is a concept correct. All concepts are mind dependant, if there are no minds there are no concepts. Existence is just a word in a language with meaning we invent for it and nothing else. So is reality, so is truth, so is all of mathematics and logic. Statements about physical objects prior existing prior to mind are belief statements not truth statements, by logical necessity. Existence applies to those objects we can state 1 truth about.
Rephrase: to say something exists prior to mind is necessarily a belief statement. This requires a lot of inductive logic to say. If we state a truth about something we prove it exists, not that it did exist or will exist. That it does exist in the present is what we mean by "exist". All "did exist" statements are beliefs, since if they were truths they would exist now.
Everything is a belief. The question is whether your beliefs are rational and backed by evidence or not.
We have evidence from the past and therefore knowledge and truth about the past. My birth certificate (and my mother) show I was born on a certain at a certain place. My belief is consistent with that evidence and therefore correct, lacking better evidence.
They're beliefs, but they're beliefs based on evidence we have about the origins of the universe and the evolution of life (and consciousness).
Everything we know and understand is of course within the context of our own consciousness. That is the human experience and the only way we have knowledge. Compared to religion, evidence-based beliefs have a much better record in helping us understand our existence.
Yes. To say it is justifiably believable that something existed prior to mind/language existing (and therefore the concept existence) can be inductively argued far better than the notion that nothing existed before consciousness. The religious would disagree by saying Gods consciousness is eternal, and I'd say to them that too is a belief. :)
If something exists, it is a thing. Numbers exist, truth exists, existence exists... and none of them are physical items. They are concieved to exist, inventions of mind, not percieved to exist and discovered. What does the object truth smell like? How tall is it? What is it's melting point? Have a co-ordinate for the letter A? These things are real, do exist and only exist as concepts.
There is no truth apart from a mind. There is only existence which has primacy over the mind. The truth is a fact grasped by man's mind. Truth is an epistemological concept, not metaphysical. Mathematics like everything else has its base in perceptual concretes.
Forming the concept of a number is one of the simplest of all. You grasp the ammount and leave out every other characteristic. These concepts are real as you say. But what makes them real is the fact that they dont exist "only as concepts" if what you mean by that is that they don't refer to what IS. They do.
About absolutes. Proof is NOT fundamental. Proof requires a process that presupposes certain knowledge already. Most importantly proof presupposes the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity, and consciousness. Any attempt to prove any of these concepts is a contradiction. To argue against them would be self-refuting. They are implicit in every statement and thought.
Most importantly, and in Ayn Rand's own words - "The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power - and it is the only meaning of the concept "creative." "Creation" does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing
"Creation" means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before. (This is true of any human product, scientific or esthetic: man's imagination is nothing more than the ability to rearrange the things he has observed in reality.)
The best and briefest identification of man's power in regard to nature is Francis Bacon's "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." In this context, "to be commanded" means to be made to serve man's purposes; "to be obeyed" means that they cannot be served unless man discovers the properties of natural elements and uses them accordingly"
Proof requires a process yes, a system. Truth is relative to that system of proof. An absolute truth would have to be true always and truth only can exist when mind and language does.
If you have a property of the number 1 you can say it is a physical thing, there is no such thing. Numbers like letters are made up and granted meaning. We discover physical reality and invent abstract reality. Nonetheless numbers exist with meaning, truth exists, reality exists. They are simply ideas and not physical items.
Proof IS a process. A reduction to perceptual concretes. The grasping of a fact of reality or truth is one thing. The existent itself that you grasped is another. Your mind depends on the existent, and will integrate the perception into truth, but existence is indpendent of such grasping. You did not grasp it into existence.
Do not blank out the fact that knowledge is contextual, and so are absolutes. If you have a higher level concept such as furniture, your formed it from lower level concepts such as table, and chair. At the base of the chain is always the most fundamental concretes.
Numbers have no similar standard shared with letters. There is no fundamental component both share. We have particular symbols for them but the symbol is not the essential characteristic of the concept of numbers. Numbers refer directly to a fact of existence. The fact that there are ammounts of things.
Agreed that a symbol is not the number. The symbol has empirical truths for it and is not only written of course it is also spoken. The symbol refers to the concept, like the symbol car is not a car and refers to something material. The concept car is not a car, but the concept one is the number one.
"It's raining out or it is not raining out" is a tautologous truth, true independant of the fact of whether or not it is raining out. All facts are true, not all truths are facts. Look up tautology. See my video on tautologies for atheists as well.
No, the truth value of such a thing depends fundamentally on facts and you could not have reached it without observation of reality. Because it refrences the fundamental principle (of noncontradiction/identity) doesn't mean anything special.
Percieved to exist objects, what is material if you like, are shown to exist by stating empirical truths for them. No statement exists eternally so no absolute truth is possible. All propositions exist only after mind does. Show me thought without mind or abandon absolutes. I don't invoke the impossible.
Learn what a tautology is. Tautologies are true independant of the fact. If it is a fact that it is raining out it is true and if it is a fact that it is not raining out it is still true. No matter what the fact is, it is true. "P or not P" is true for every P, and has no factual basis, cannot be sensually percieved. No concept is percieved, they are concieved. Empirical truths are percieved, not concieved.
Sure, existence is eternal. A person isn't, and the concept he holds he will die with. Existence will not die with him. The mind is not a tool of distortion, but of perception. Do not make reason the impossible, you'll find yourself left unarmed. The fact that you are using logic, and concepts such as rain presuppose all of the perceptions necessary. None of that is independent of a reasoning mind. There is no non-factual basis to stand on.
Logic is an understanding of the facts of reality, particularly of the necessary method of your own consciousness by its certain nature. A concept is an integration of perceptual material. Your volition is in that you will integrate, misintegrate, or disintegrate your perceptual material into higher and higher abstractions, remains at some low level, or make your attempt at pure insanity.
It is the fact that a conceptual level is entirely dependent on a perceptual base that denys you any attempt to seperate the two. Conception is what you do with perception.
Wittgenstein proved that not only are there two different truth types, but that they do not cross. His example used planets, I use the NHL.
There are 30 NHL teams (true)
30 is necessarily greater than 27 (true)
Therefore it is necessary there are greater than 27 NHL teams. (false)
The first statement is empirically true, the second statement is tautologously true, the conclusion cannot be made because the example uses empirical truth and tautologous truth. T and T is F?
Necessity applies to logical truths and explain abstract reality. No fact is necessary. Facts apply to contingent (converse to necessary) truths. If a concept was material we would have empirical truths for objects like numbers or letters or words or meanings or propositions or logic. There is no such thing. We'd have as much proof of the existence of the number 1 that way as we do for God, none.
"As far as metaphysiccal reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no "facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise" as against "facts which must be." There are only: facts which ARE.... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance.
The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it WILL do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are "necessary." In this sense, to be IS to be "necessary."
The concept of "necessity," in a metaphysical context, is superflouus."(Leonard Peikoff)"A typical package-deal, used by professors of philosophy, runs as follows: to proce the assertipon that there is no such thing as "necessity" in the universe, a professor declares that just as this country did not HAVE to have fifty states, there could have been fourty-eight or fifty-two--so the solar system did not HAVE TO have nin planets, there could have been seven or eleven.
It is not sufficient, he declares, to that something IS, one more also prove that it HAD TO BE--and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes. The technique of undercutting man's mind consists in palming off the man-made as if it were the metaphysically given, then ascribing to nature the concepts that refer only to men's lack of knowledge, such as "chance" or "contingency," then reversing the two elements of the package-deal.
From the assertion: "Man is unpredictable, therefore nature is unpredictable," the argument goes to: "Nature possesses volition, man does not--nature if free, man is ruled by unknowable forces--nature is not to be conquered, man is." (Ayn Rand)
Correction: Name the first fact that has been the case since language and mind existed, not eternally. :) I exist is true, it is proven via empirical truth, and is not necessary. There are greater than 27 NHL teams is not necessary. Tautologies are necessary and not contingent on facts, empiricisms are contingent on facts and not necessary. You can always read about it.
If existence exists before consciousness, then how did existence get here, who created it? What is your definition of existence? Thanks for sharing.
knowledgeispowerfful 2 months ago
@knowledgeispowerfful If I say that "existence is [something]" I've had to use the word "is". is=existence. Existence exists. It think existence has always existed. To say otherwise is to say something came from nothing. If you assume that a consciousness "created existence" how did the consciousness come to exist in the first place if there was no existence?
sfmonkeyc 2 months ago
Yes, existence was definitely here before we were.
anatureperson 4 months ago
this is like the chicken or the egg. If there was a supreme consciousness he/she/it would simultaneously exist and be conscious. so one wouldnt come before the other
pricesmithmusic 7 months ago
@pricesmithmusic Thanks for your comment. I think that's a big "if". I consciousness implies existence. I think it makes more sense that consciousness evolved out of existence.
sfmonkeyc 6 months ago
could the consciousness not be "divine" or otherworldly?
pricesmithmusic 7 months ago
You're on the "earth plane" too. Some people just look for evidence to support their beliefs, other's don't. They just make it up--making themselves the creator while blaming it on some supernatural being they also made up.
sfmonkeyc 2 years ago
(4) ..atoms of our environment for positive or destructive purposes. The goal is for the mind/spirit to move upward, back toward and aligning itself with its Creator. There are levels/dimensions/or realms after this life. Crash course aside, ...Whatever happens here, in the end, is not so important in the scheme of things. Just try to resonate with kindess, and not let life's hardships cause you to devolve into something you wish you hadn't become. But even still, you will be lifted by the...
supersuperrich 2 years ago
(3) upward toward Him. And we, in
turn, direct the atoms of our body (often failing to love ourselves..thus ordering the atoms to bring illness/or form tumor for example). Your thoughts direct atoms which act or group to create matter, as His did, to form creation. Each moment, we are the instant continuous creation of His mind. Consciousness is: an active creative expression. And, we, ...are co-creators, each second as our minds direct the atoms of our bodies, and seek to manipulate the atom
supersuperrich 2 years ago
(PART 2) the past, present and future occur simultaneously (ponder that), and that He created the atom, the material which he created to form the universe. His consciousness directs and shapes the matter of his creation (all the universe and what's in it), since He set it into motion. We are like the atoms of His body, whom He directs to love themselves and move toward health and life. Thoughts and words direct atoms
and so shape matter. He says to His body (us) "I love you." to move His atoms
supersuperrich 2 years ago
Error: You are analyzing from the standpoint of being on the earth plane, and so are limiting creation to the confines of your human understanding of mortal physics. God is of a higher vibration and is a consciousness that exists where time, as just one example, is irrelevant. Even as I describe this, I am just like a monkey attempting to reach outside my limited realm and mental abilities, therefore, God cannot be totally defined by me. However, we
know enough to perceive that in His realm...
supersuperrich 2 years ago
I remember dying in my last life and being consciously born into this life, and the period before I was born into this life. Your argument shows a lack of understanding. Find a good esoteric school and do some serious studying and becoming. You are obviously curious. All initiates are self-initiated. Remember that.
kentgolding 2 years ago
I'm still pondering reincarnation. but "RIGHT ON !" Kentgolding. Would like to hear your story.....
(supersuperrich)
supersuperrich 2 years ago
vow, did you do some therapy to recall those memories? Please share more about your experiences... i would appreciate
sadhu1987sadhu 2 years ago
You assume consciousness exists. But in reality, we only see that which is manifest as existing. Just think about all the different possibilities of things we could conceive of existing, but don't. So we would say they don't exist, yet we are consciously aware of them in some form. It wouldn't be so far fetched, in my opinion, to simply say conscious is arbitrary. After all, where is your awareness? Where is your experience? What doesn't make sense is to talk of consciousness as existing
cruelfate45 3 years ago
Heres an opinion I would regaurd as something a bit more.. directly relevent to what you talk about in this video.
I believe, Existence created consciousness which creates existence which changes consciousness..
Mathixkoa 3 years ago
Any "Thing" that is a "thing" is only how you choose to refer to what part of "every thing". "Things" will not always be here, but "Everything" will. Everything is just changing it's location, or shape.
Mathixkoa 3 years ago
There was no beginning, as there is always an outside, as there is always an inside.
Anything put on a two-sided beginning-end scale, or spectrum, is nothing but a ripple effect of the illusion of order and time.
I am referring to which came first, existence, or consciousness.
Everything is everything.
Everything is existence, existence will always be existence, even if you don't have labels for things, doesn't mean there is a such thing as nonexistence.
Mathixkoa 3 years ago
Nonexistence exists only in the subjective reality, therefore there is no such thing as nonexistence, as it wouldn't be truthful anyways. Fact = Objective existence.[truth]
This logical contradiction, I believe, is a hint at fractals.
Mathixkoa 3 years ago
existence / consciousness......a consciousness would be an existence...your argument is about semantics, not reality
istheretruth 3 years ago
true that. A universe would be pointless without intelligent observers....We deff are the universe trying to understand its self.
bhn45r 3 years ago
following that, do consciousness and existence go hand in hand? are they the same thing, or are they two seperate things (as in you can't have one without the other)?
PolyhymnianMuse 3 years ago
consciousness is an act..meaning to be aware..so the question is..aware of what? for consciousness to identify itself as conscious there must be something for it to be conscious of.
j3rdog 3 years ago
well unless you believe in magic lol any person place or thing has to exist so according to evolution man existed before he became aware of his own existence.
TerminalNonsense 3 years ago
You sound very sure of what you're saying.
I certainly wouldn't want to say that consciousness created existence...I'm not sure that such a statement would mean very much.
But I also don't think it's very intelligible to say that consciousness comes out of existence.
I suppose I should just ask: Do you believe existence is a property?
wilthiswork 3 years ago
Do I believe existence [is] a property?
I think existence [is] in the brackets.
sfmonkeyc 3 years ago
That's an insufficient response, since you've claimed more than just that in your video.
So I'll ask again, but more pointedly:
Do you believe existence is a property, like shape or mass?
wilthiswork 3 years ago
Existence is the sum total of all that [is].
That is not the same thing as a property like color or shape.
Properties either exist (or they don't).
Why was my first response insufficient? What more did I claim? My video is simple: existence is a requirement for consciousness, but consciousness is not a requirement for existence.
sfmonkeyc 3 years ago
It's a relief you don't view existence as a property, but you still seem to be reifying the idea of "the sum total of all that is."
Do you believe the idea of a sum somehow exists, like in Platonic Form? I hope the answer is no...
Simply because we talk about something having existence, this could be reduced to talk of a thing having location, shape, and mass. What we are acknowledging about a thing, after all the fat is trimmed off, are concrete properties, rather than abstract "existence."
wilthiswork 3 years ago
If you accept that properties exist, if you say something [is] (a certain property), you have accepted the phenomenon of existence.
Every time you use the word [is] or some variant of "to be" you acknowledge existence.
My background is in science not philosophy. Things either exist or they don't. The job of science is to distinguish between existence from non-existence.
sfmonkeyc 3 years ago
Perhaps you can answer a couple of more questions:
1) Can existence exist by itself, without specific things?
2) It's news to me that the job of science is to distinguish existence from non-existence..so what field of science discusses non-existence or this distinction between what exists and what does not?
wilthiswork 3 years ago
Honestly, I have better things to do with my time.
There are now 89 comments on this video and if you still don't get my message or just don't like the way I view things, then I'd suggest you go watch another video, or make one of your own. This is obviously not the place for you.
I think you've got far too much free time on your hands.
sfmonkeyc 3 years ago
Existence is Identity not existence has identity. To say existence has identity is like saying a cake has icing, in other words it makes identity and existence seperate. To existence is to exist as something, some-thing is a specific thing, with limited attributes and characteristics, in other words a nature. A thing with no nature is no thing at all. To exist is to have identity, making it possible to answer, "what exists?".
TheAtheistChrist 3 years ago
Existence is an abstraction, the widest abstract concept in Ayn Rands Philosophy of Objectivism. "The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." - Ayn Rand Because existence is an axiomatic concept 'there is nothing antecedent to existence.' So to answer your question no.
TheAtheistChrist 3 years ago
lol i think your getting in over your head.
everything has some consciousness
leephysics 4 years ago
Hos is it that "everything has some consciousness" and what's the evidence to support it?
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Well the definition of consciousness is basically self-awareness. Other matter compared to humans has LESS consciousness, but it's still conscious. That's where most of the confusion is. I could argue that for an atom to function it needs some degree of self-awareness for it to interact with other atoms. This can be applied to things other than matter like dark matter and dark energy also.
leephysics 4 years ago
That's what I expected.
You can argue but where's the evidence? Atoms interact because of their structure and the charges on them. "Self-awareness?" NOT!
Does an object fall back to earth because it is "aware" of the law of gravity and "think" it's supposed to fall? This is a function of physical laws, not consciousness. The same goes for atoms and how they interact.
An awareness requires an ability to conceptualize it in some way. to identify things, not just bump into it in space.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
The evidence is they bond and react to each other. That's it. That's all consciousness is, one thing being somewhat aware of itself and affecting another. How is Human Self-awareness different other than its more complex? We react to our environment in the same fashion as atoms, within constraint of our environment. Consciousness is within physical laws. Just like everything else.
leephysics 4 years ago
That is some really sloppy thinking and I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Actually, your attempt to derive a reasonable conclusion is entirely flawed from a logical perspective. When you say that consciousness would have to exist therefore existence is primary, you are only proving that consciousness is existence as another name. If you would like to clarify explain what you mean by existence by separating it from consciousness- proving that it can stand alone.
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
Existence is everything that exists. Consciousness is something that exists and is made up of things that exist like cells.
It is incorrect to say that consciousness "is existence as another name." It is something that exists. A chair exists, but it is not the sum total of everything that exists, nor is it existence as another name.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
The chair as phenomena is very different from existence/consciousness. Think about it. The chair can be said to exist. Can existence be said to exist. What is left to call existence if the phenomena, like the chair, are removed. The same can be said of consciousness. Do you understand?
bigdaddydylan 4 years ago
Yes. Existence exists. Every time you say "existence is (something)" you are acknowledging its existence. If it didn't exist, the concept of "is" would be meaningless.
Enough of this nonsense already!
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
that makes very logical sense. But understand our creation can not be explained through logic alone. Existence and Consciousness can be likened to the brain and the heart. There is no point in trying to decided which came first, since both would be rendered useless without the other. They both are one in relation to the whole.
tlwhitey 4 years ago
The existence of your body and consciousness are counter-dependent, but there's no reason why things cannot exist without consciousness.
The stuff that rocks are made of doesn't require consciousness and evidence tells us that matter existed long before awareness of it. Consciousness is only required for awareness of the rock not the existence of the rock.
Consciousness on the other hand requires existence to exist.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Err..you assert that you are true when nobody knows for sure. I know your idea makes logical sense and all but you can't tell if its 100% true or not. So don't say you are completely right when you aren't
Dan4157 4 years ago
I only maintain that it's correct in light of the evidence we currently have. The unfortunate thing about those who asset the opposite, that consciousness comes before existence, is that they don't have any evidence and their position makes no sense logically.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Do you know your philosophers? I am thinking of Kant here because you talk of existence being TEMPORALLY prior, not logically (which I dont think anyone can). Kant was one of the first "Enlightenment" philosophers to suggest we create time. It is a way we interpret the world, nothing more. It has no objective reality. What do you think about this?
Cartwrao 4 years ago
I once knew them, but switched my major to biology (pre-med) when in college.
Physicists like Einstein treat time like a very real dimension, not just something we make up.
Evidence and reason tell us time has objective reality. When somebody comes up with a better way to interpret it, which also actually produces something (like scientists do), something other than a bunch of words (like philosophers and clerics do), then I'll be more interested.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Be friendly. I know you are passionate about this but please can we stay away from murderous analogies in future? Evidence and reason both stem from consciousness, so that argument is circular. Objective reality is mutually agreed upon subjective reality - which is consciousness.
Cartwrao 4 years ago
My analogy just lays bare your intellectual dishonesty. You could just voluntarily jump off a building and the building will still exist. If all other consciousnesses jumped off that building, the physical structure will still be there as well as the earth they all fall to.
The ability to conceptualize it will be gone, not the structure or Objective Reality.
OR is more than mutually agreed upon SR. Just because everybody believes the world is flat doesn't make it flat.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
And hows this... does existence exist if you are not aware of it? :)
Cartwrao 4 years ago
Consciousness requires existence. Existence does not require consciousness.
This has all been covered before. Over and over and over in previous comments.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
I see reality as being infite. Pure potential, between existence and non existence, expressed in an eloquent symphony of vibrational geometry. It is perfect, but also imperfect because it changes, continuously evolving, however its actual existence is perfect. There is nothing outside of this conscious existence, for to observe "nothing" requires an observer.
The tube torus is your answer
shrunkensimon 4 years ago
An elegant argument. I think the strongpoint of the argument is that logical - unlike the weak challenges I've been reading. Most simply use wordplay to satisfy their ideas.
Consciousness IS existence... Nice. Throwing two words together like it's meant to prove anything.
hellcat059 4 years ago
Thank you.
I found it a totally meaningless statement as well. I also agree with you that most throw together a lot of words and paint an image of existence that is emotionally satisfying to them but can't be supported with any evidence.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
There is no evidence for existence before consciousness... they are one and the same. It is so simple it is meaningless to people who define themsleves as intellectuals. Not that I presume you do this.
Cartwrao 4 years ago
Have you ever heard of carbon dating?
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Yes I did hear about carbon dating. When I was conscious. I assume you did too. Carbon dating didnt exist before that. And neither did anything else. Nothing can unless it is made conscious.
Cartwrao 4 years ago
That's nonsense.
What if we take you behind the barn and kill you? You're no longer conscious. In a few days, you'll decay into nothing.
The barn still exists as does the gun we shot you with. Guess what? I'm still here, too! None of those things was dependent upon your consciousness for its existence.
Again, I addressed this before and I'm not going to discuss it any further.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
I would suggest, that you are limiting your thinking to a linear view. If you can, imagine an existence where there is no before or after, but a consciousness, infinite, unbounded by space or time or self.
From the infinite source comes our finite universe, of finite space, finite time, finite energy, finite matter. Any finite thing must be caused by something that transcends it. If the cause is itself finite, then that cause also must be caused. The ultimate cause must be infinite.
dralberthofmann 4 years ago
cont...
As it is infinite, there can be only one. As consciousness is a property of this reality, and as something cannot come from nothing, then the cause must be conscious.
The source of everything must be monistic, conscious, uncaused and infinite.
dralberthofmann 4 years ago
I would suggest that you like to imagine things that are not connected to reality because you don't like the idea that your life is finite.
I can totally buy that existence is infinite, that before the big bang there was something else and before that something else. Just because something can't come from nothing doesn't require any consciousness.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Our lives are finite in the sense that the self dies with us. The self is a psychological construct necessary for survival of the machine in this reality. But it limits our view of reality. Aldous Huxley spoke of it as a "reducing valve" limiting our view of a much larger reality.
I do indeed like the idea that life, in this sense, is finite. Everything is exactly as it is supposed to be.
dralberthofmann 4 years ago
cont...
You concede that there may be an infinite source, but doubt that consciousness is required. In my view if you understand the nature of consciousness, you understand that it is fundamentally different "stuff" than matter or energy. I must disagree with you on the basic logic that something can come from nothing. It is logically required that the source has consciousness as a property.
dralberthofmann 4 years ago
I said that something cannot come from nothing.
Their is no source, no beginning and no end in infinity. Existence exists. It is the eternal state of being, the "isness" of all things, including consciousness.
If consciousness created us then another consciousness more complex had to create that and so on. It is endlessly recursive. Nice idea but not supported by evidence or logic.
Consciousness implies existence. If consciousness exists, existence exists.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
The only REAL model we have for consciousness is that belonging to living things on planet earth. It is made up of biological matter and energy. There is no evidence of any other form of consciousness, but that doesn't stop people from making it up.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Let me clear this up for you. Consciousness IS existence. Dummy.
Cartwrao 4 years ago
Once again we have the lack of evidence problem.
There is no evidence of any consciousness before life existed in the universe.
Please explain how you arrived at your conclusion. Since you're so much smarter than everybody else that should not be a problem for you.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
There is no evidence for the universe before consciousness. Please respond.
Cartwrao 4 years ago
That doesn't deserve a response.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
I'll expand. Awareness and existence are HARD to separate. How do you have proof for the universe unless you, yourself, are already conscious of the universe? You may know from Descartes that the only thing that cant be doubted is consciousness. So at least in this sense, consciousness is primary and is the source of the universe.
Cartwrao 4 years ago
So I really think that deserves a response. You are obviously not a dummy and I am open to your opinions, but I do not agree with you on this at all. On logical grounds if nothing else...
Cartwrao 4 years ago
You are making a similar argument that has already been made in the more than 70 comments that have been left on this video and I have responded many times.
I go back to the evidence. Our consciousness and the science that results from that tell us that our planet and the universe existed long before animal/human consciousness did. Check out the earliest comments on this video.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
I don't remember much about Descartes except "I think therefore I am." He's also saying that if my consciousness exists, then existence exists. You can't talk about consciousness without implying existence.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Richard Darkins agree with you, and i pretty muc agree with him on this issue.
DJLorenzen 4 years ago
The chicken or the egg, the chiken or the egg? My truth your truth and the truth.
UnlimitedSag 4 years ago
this is the chicken and egg question. and you know what man, I'll take my quote from fckn harry potter. circles don't have a beginning. life isnt random its circular. I don't disagree at all with your interpretation of what existence is, but I think that is a simplification of the extent of the universe.
ultimategoobah 4 years ago
Why do you say that life is circular? It appears very linear. We are born at some place and some time and then we die at a totally different place and time.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Actually, this isn't necessarily true. If you look at theoretical physics, there are many implications that time is just an illusion, and reality exists on an orthogonal axis, to where all points of time as we perceive them line up on another transcendental axis. Your argument assumes far too much, and therefore it is an ignorant one. (continues in next comment)
ArcadianGenesis 4 years ago
Your argument is simply that consciousness has to exist before it can create anything else - but are you not assuming that consciousness is a material thing? What does it mean to exist? Consciousness does not exist the same way we exist. If you fail to see this, then you understand nothing.
ArcadianGenesis 4 years ago
How does consciousness exist if it is not a function of our physical being and what evidence do you have to support it?
Lacking any credible evidence that I had consciousness before my physical life began, it is a safe assumption that it is a function of my physical being and as well as other physical beings. To assume otherwise requires faith and mystical thinking not supported by evidence.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
And you are right it very much a simplification of our very complex universe.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
"I don't disagree at all with your interpretation of what existence is, but I think that is a simplification of the extent of the universe."
You just baked yourself with that comment, bud. There is NO SUCH THING AS EXTENT without EXISTENCE. Just like there is no such thing as consciousness without existence. Get it yet?
SupermanRox 4 years ago
You haven't explained why..you have asserted your truth. K. Marx, a quaint German Victorian chappy [did they have Victorians in Germany Mr Radio? Yes of course they did..shut up at the back stop interupting] used the same couplet to good effect...
radiotrackstar 4 years ago
i could say that existence 'beyond the veil' could not exist without consciousness, and the idea or form behind matter could not exist without it; an evolving form matter behind which a grand consciousness creates, and is still evolving today.
iamelectro666 4 years ago
"Whoever you are - you who are alone with my words in this moment, with nothing but your honesty to help you understand - the choice is still open to be a human being, but the price is to start from scratch, to stand naked in the face of reality and reversing a costly historical error, to declare; 'I am, therefore I'll think.'
(ThisIsJohnGaltSpeaking\AynRand)
AynRandOeuvre 4 years ago
Good clear argument.
jwoodswce 4 years ago
OMG, that is such nonsense. There is an objective reality (existence) that is not dependent upon your mind or anybody else's. All the evidence shows that the universe existed long before the human mind came up with concepts to describe it.
Existence is a concept that refers to something objective, all that exists, and is not dependent in any way upon consciousness. Many animals don't have words for it, but it's still there, just like they're still there even if we didn't name them.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Existence is an abstract concept, a word and no more. Existence applies to those objects we can state 1 truth about. Objectivity does not determine if something exists or not, as 2 of 3 belief types are objective... assumption or inductive logic and myths are both objective, but beliefs and beliefs do not show us what exists.
gklr 4 years ago
Your comments is self-contradictory. If existence is just an abstract concept then it applies to NOTHING, it has no objective referent. It is a floating abstraction. Yet you go on to tell us what it refers to.
If existence is total abstraction, referring to nothing in reality, then every comment you make about it is untrue. There is no truth about things that don't exist.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Correct there are no truths for that which doesn't exist. Truth is abstract as well as it is not a physical item. All of language and mathematics are too. Existence refers to what is real, for physical objects it is done via empirical truth and for abstract concepts it is done via tautologous truth.
gklr 4 years ago
Existence is a mental concept, an idea only found in a mind. It is not a physical object we percieve with the 5 senses, it is an analytical object we concieve in the mind. We create the word existence, and grant it meaning via mental abstraction. There is no evidence of the concept existence independant of a mind. Therefore human consciousness did in fact come before "existence", as "existence" is a language dependant concept.
gklr 4 years ago
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is a false dichotomy. Anything in your mind was at one point from reality. You must take your percpts of the world and integrate them into concepts. It's quite the opposite. Without existence, there is no consciousness needed to integrate existents.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Where in reality is the synthetic object we identify as "existence"?
gklr 4 years ago
In every object we percieve. Most importantly in the first perception. Existence exists is the very first concept derrived (the foundation of all knowledge) from the very first sensation or perception. It is the undeniable fact that there is something as opposed to nothing. It's the widest of all concepts meaning it subsumes all others.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
So are you claiming the object existence is a property of every object? If so what does this property look like?
gklr 4 years ago
It's not a property. You're working the opposite way here. The first fact is the most general of all. Everything is within the context of existence. It would be wrong to say something could have a property of IS as opposed to IS NOT. Identity and Existence are merely 2 perspectives on the same thing. Existence tells you that there IS something.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Identity tells you that there is SOMETHING (in particular). Claiming some that a thing has a property of existence suggests that there is some thing without such a property. There is no such thing. Anything that lacks existence, does not exist.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
The law of identity allows us to distinguish one object from another and is "A = B if and only if all that is true for A is true for B". Existence applies to those objects we have 1 truth for. If you have 1 truth for an object it must exist. Truths are about objects, no object has truth as it's property. The only objects true or false are propositions ABOUT objects.
gklr 4 years ago
Correct it is not a property and all that composes empirical things are it's facts, facts being a property of the object. Existence is not a physical thing at all, it is an abstract concept we use to describe objects as real.
gklr 4 years ago
Incorrect. There is no valid dichotomy between things and concepts. A concept properly formed refers only to reality. Because knowledge is contextual does not make it non-absolute. Existence is the first fact and the base of all others. It refers to everything. To say that the fact that there IS something has no relationship to reality is to claim nonexistence which is self-refuting.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
If you claim there is no existence because it is abstract, you might as well claim there is no furniture, only tables. One of course can not point to furniture in reality, only the particulars that are tables or chairs. So this concept 'furniture' which exists nowhere must be invalid. How about a scientific law such as the law of charges? Surely this law exists nowhere in reality. You can not point to it, only to instances in which it is used.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
This must be invalid too. The very electronics and computer you are using must be based on magic. Because the're clearly not based on a valid law which has been observed. But it must be invalid since it is a law, is abstract, and is absolute.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
State 1 truth about a computer and it must exist. Absolute truth contradicts what truth is, which requires proof. Absolute truth must exist always, eternally, before mind, before language and before statements even exist. The only object true or false is a statement.
gklr 4 years ago
I do not claim there is no existence. I claim existence applies to those objects we can state truths about. A table or a chair is resolved to exist via an empirical truth about it. 1 truth for it and it must exist. Abstract reality like mathematics or logic exist provably with tautologous truth for them. Empiricisms are percieved and tautologies are concieved. Both show existence, one for physical reality and one for abstract reality like the objects existence, truth, reality.
gklr 4 years ago
You said in your first comment, "Existence is a mental concept, an idea only found in a mind."
Now you say, "existence applies to those objects we can state truths about."
If you're going to continue to leave comments on my videos, have enough respect for my time and the time of my viewers to be somewhat honest and consistent. Otherwise I will block future comments.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Existence is a mental concept, an abstraction of mind and so is truth and so are all words, all of logic, all of mathematics and more. There is no inconsistency at all. No concepts existed prior to consciousness and existence is a concept. So is truth.
gklr 4 years ago
Existence is a concept that represents everything that exists including physical objects and the relationships between them. So existence existed before the consciousness that came up with the word for it. I will grant you that the word required consciousness, but the word is NOT existence itself, only an abstraction for it. Physical existents were there first as were the relationships between them, before man came along to name them.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Existence is a concept correct. All concepts are mind dependant, if there are no minds there are no concepts. Existence is just a word in a language with meaning we invent for it and nothing else. So is reality, so is truth, so is all of mathematics and logic. Statements about physical objects prior existing prior to mind are belief statements not truth statements, by logical necessity. Existence applies to those objects we can state 1 truth about.
gklr 4 years ago
Rephrase: to say something exists prior to mind is necessarily a belief statement. This requires a lot of inductive logic to say. If we state a truth about something we prove it exists, not that it did exist or will exist. That it does exist in the present is what we mean by "exist". All "did exist" statements are beliefs, since if they were truths they would exist now.
gklr 4 years ago
Everything is a belief. The question is whether your beliefs are rational and backed by evidence or not.
We have evidence from the past and therefore knowledge and truth about the past. My birth certificate (and my mother) show I was born on a certain at a certain place. My belief is consistent with that evidence and therefore correct, lacking better evidence.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
They're beliefs, but they're beliefs based on evidence we have about the origins of the universe and the evolution of life (and consciousness).
Everything we know and understand is of course within the context of our own consciousness. That is the human experience and the only way we have knowledge. Compared to religion, evidence-based beliefs have a much better record in helping us understand our existence.
sfmonkeyc 4 years ago
Yes. To say it is justifiably believable that something existed prior to mind/language existing (and therefore the concept existence) can be inductively argued far better than the notion that nothing existed before consciousness. The religious would disagree by saying Gods consciousness is eternal, and I'd say to them that too is a belief. :)
gklr 4 years ago
If something exists, it is a thing. Numbers exist, truth exists, existence exists... and none of them are physical items. They are concieved to exist, inventions of mind, not percieved to exist and discovered. What does the object truth smell like? How tall is it? What is it's melting point? Have a co-ordinate for the letter A? These things are real, do exist and only exist as concepts.
gklr 4 years ago
There is no truth apart from a mind. There is only existence which has primacy over the mind. The truth is a fact grasped by man's mind. Truth is an epistemological concept, not metaphysical. Mathematics like everything else has its base in perceptual concretes.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Forming the concept of a number is one of the simplest of all. You grasp the ammount and leave out every other characteristic. These concepts are real as you say. But what makes them real is the fact that they dont exist "only as concepts" if what you mean by that is that they don't refer to what IS. They do.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
About absolutes. Proof is NOT fundamental. Proof requires a process that presupposes certain knowledge already. Most importantly proof presupposes the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity, and consciousness. Any attempt to prove any of these concepts is a contradiction. To argue against them would be self-refuting. They are implicit in every statement and thought.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Most importantly, and in Ayn Rand's own words - "The power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses. It is an enormous and glorious power - and it is the only meaning of the concept "creative." "Creation" does not (and metaphysically cannot) mean the power to bring something into existence out of nothing
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
"Creation" means the power to bring into existence an arrangement (or combination or integration) of natural elements that had not existed before. (This is true of any human product, scientific or esthetic: man's imagination is nothing more than the ability to rearrange the things he has observed in reality.)
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
The best and briefest identification of man's power in regard to nature is Francis Bacon's "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." In this context, "to be commanded" means to be made to serve man's purposes; "to be obeyed" means that they cannot be served unless man discovers the properties of natural elements and uses them accordingly"
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Proof requires a process yes, a system. Truth is relative to that system of proof. An absolute truth would have to be true always and truth only can exist when mind and language does.
gklr 4 years ago
If you have a property of the number 1 you can say it is a physical thing, there is no such thing. Numbers like letters are made up and granted meaning. We discover physical reality and invent abstract reality. Nonetheless numbers exist with meaning, truth exists, reality exists. They are simply ideas and not physical items.
gklr 4 years ago
All concepts are metaphysical, including epistomology. All objects are either physical or metaphysical and concepts are not physical things.
gklr 4 years ago
Proof IS a process. A reduction to perceptual concretes. The grasping of a fact of reality or truth is one thing. The existent itself that you grasped is another. Your mind depends on the existent, and will integrate the perception into truth, but existence is indpendent of such grasping. You did not grasp it into existence.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Do not blank out the fact that knowledge is contextual, and so are absolutes. If you have a higher level concept such as furniture, your formed it from lower level concepts such as table, and chair. At the base of the chain is always the most fundamental concretes.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Numbers have no similar standard shared with letters. There is no fundamental component both share. We have particular symbols for them but the symbol is not the essential characteristic of the concept of numbers. Numbers refer directly to a fact of existence. The fact that there are ammounts of things.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Kess,
Agreed that a symbol is not the number. The symbol has empirical truths for it and is not only written of course it is also spoken. The symbol refers to the concept, like the symbol car is not a car and refers to something material. The concept car is not a car, but the concept one is the number one.
gklr 4 years ago
There is no non-empirical truth.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
"It's raining out or it is not raining out" is a tautologous truth, true independant of the fact of whether or not it is raining out. All facts are true, not all truths are facts. Look up tautology. See my video on tautologies for atheists as well.
gklr 4 years ago
No, the truth value of such a thing depends fundamentally on facts and you could not have reached it without observation of reality. Because it refrences the fundamental principle (of noncontradiction/identity) doesn't mean anything special.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
You havent escaped the realm of perception and existence by any means there. You merely invoked its absolute foundation (which is also percieved).
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Percieved to exist objects, what is material if you like, are shown to exist by stating empirical truths for them. No statement exists eternally so no absolute truth is possible. All propositions exist only after mind does. Show me thought without mind or abandon absolutes. I don't invoke the impossible.
gklr 4 years ago
Learn what a tautology is. Tautologies are true independant of the fact. If it is a fact that it is raining out it is true and if it is a fact that it is not raining out it is still true. No matter what the fact is, it is true. "P or not P" is true for every P, and has no factual basis, cannot be sensually percieved. No concept is percieved, they are concieved. Empirical truths are percieved, not concieved.
gklr 4 years ago
Sure, existence is eternal. A person isn't, and the concept he holds he will die with. Existence will not die with him. The mind is not a tool of distortion, but of perception. Do not make reason the impossible, you'll find yourself left unarmed. The fact that you are using logic, and concepts such as rain presuppose all of the perceptions necessary. None of that is independent of a reasoning mind. There is no non-factual basis to stand on.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Logic is an understanding of the facts of reality, particularly of the necessary method of your own consciousness by its certain nature. A concept is an integration of perceptual material. Your volition is in that you will integrate, misintegrate, or disintegrate your perceptual material into higher and higher abstractions, remains at some low level, or make your attempt at pure insanity.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
It is the fact that a conceptual level is entirely dependent on a perceptual base that denys you any attempt to seperate the two. Conception is what you do with perception.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Wittgenstein proved that not only are there two different truth types, but that they do not cross. His example used planets, I use the NHL.
There are 30 NHL teams (true)
30 is necessarily greater than 27 (true)
Therefore it is necessary there are greater than 27 NHL teams. (false)
The first statement is empirically true, the second statement is tautologously true, the conclusion cannot be made because the example uses empirical truth and tautologous truth. T and T is F?
gklr 4 years ago
Necessity applies to logical truths and explain abstract reality. No fact is necessary. Facts apply to contingent (converse to necessary) truths. If a concept was material we would have empirical truths for objects like numbers or letters or words or meanings or propositions or logic. There is no such thing. We'd have as much proof of the existence of the number 1 that way as we do for God, none.
gklr 4 years ago
"As far as metaphysiccal reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no "facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise" as against "facts which must be." There are only: facts which ARE.... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it WILL do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are "necessary." In this sense, to be IS to be "necessary."
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
The concept of "necessity," in a metaphysical context, is superflouus."(Leonard Peikoff)"A typical package-deal, used by professors of philosophy, runs as follows: to proce the assertipon that there is no such thing as "necessity" in the universe, a professor declares that just as this country did not HAVE to have fifty states, there could have been fourty-eight or fifty-two--so the solar system did not HAVE TO have nin planets, there could have been seven or eleven.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
It is not sufficient, he declares, to that something IS, one more also prove that it HAD TO BE--and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes. The technique of undercutting man's mind consists in palming off the man-made as if it were the metaphysically given, then ascribing to nature the concepts that refer only to men's lack of knowledge, such as "chance" or "contingency," then reversing the two elements of the package-deal.
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
From the assertion: "Man is unpredictable, therefore nature is unpredictable," the argument goes to: "Nature possesses volition, man does not--nature if free, man is ruled by unknowable forces--nature is not to be conquered, man is." (Ayn Rand)
Kesshutsu 4 years ago
Name a fact, the proof it is not necessary is that it wasn't always the case. Name the first eternal fact if you like.
gklr 4 years ago
Correction: Name the first fact that has been the case since language and mind existed, not eternally. :) I exist is true, it is proven via empirical truth, and is not necessary. There are greater than 27 NHL teams is not necessary. Tautologies are necessary and not contingent on facts, empiricisms are contingent on facts and not necessary. You can always read about it.
gklr 4 years ago