Nocterro's Anti-Objectivist Pseudo-Terrorism

There’s another critic of Objectivism who's hit the internet, and this guy’s got us on the run big time!! Finally someone has come along and refuted Objectivism. In his sleep, even!

No, I’m not making any of this up. Check out the original post for yourself right here: Why Objectivism Sucks

Nocterro raises numerous “challenges” (sic) against Objectivist philosophy. Let’s see how well they stand.

Problem #1: Nocterro says that Objectivism “tries too hard.” Thinkers should be so ambitious. They should cut themselves down to size, humble themselves before sovereign academic authorities who know better, or someone in the approved philosophical establishment might denounce or (gulp!) ignore them.

Nocterro writes:

Objectivism includes theories of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

That’s right – no philosophical system should attempt this. Therefore “Objectivism sucks.”

Nocterro writes:

Not only that, it is touted by some of its proponents as a massively complete philosophy that pwns pretty much everything else in existence. Nothing else in philosophy, as far as I have seen, makes such an incredibly bold claim.

Adherents of Objectivism think Objectivism is true. How preposterous! Imagine adopting a philosophical system because you’re persuaded that its principles and the application of those principles to every field of philosophy are sound! No one should dare do this! Thinkers should be contented with the intellectual shipwrecks endorsed at the college level, and never consider the possibility that a sea-worthy view of reality and life is available. Therefore “Objectivism sucks.”

Nocterro writes:

Consider, for example, metaphysical naturalism. It makes a claim regarding what sorts of things exist - nothing more. It doesn’t say ‘here’s a theory of knowledge’ or ‘here’s a political system’ - many different options are available for these things for a naturalist.

On Nocterro's view, one should never strive for an integrated worldview: he should not strive to develop an epistemology which is consistent with his metaphysics, or a theory of values which can stand on his metaphysical and epistemological views without contradiction. Rather, he should ensure that his worldview is a compartmentalized hash of conflicting elements, regardless of their discontinuity with each other. Objectivism is too principled in this regard. So instead of striving for non-contradiction among all its parts, today’s thinker should treat his philosophical needs as if it could be satisfied by channel-surfing the Ivy League – whatever demagogue happens to mesmerize him first rules the day.

Nocterro writes:

The first weakness of Objectivism lies in it’s incredible scope. Successfully challenge one part of it, and the entire thing crumbles. There’s too many possible weak points. Offer a counterexample to what its ethics entails - gone. Show that its political system doesn’t work - gone. For Objectivism to withstand any philosophical criticism at all, it must either narrow its scope, or be developed into the most mind-bogglingly airtight position philosophy has ever seen.

I’ve seen dozens and dozens of attempts to uncover any of the “many possible weak points” which Nocterro tells us afflict Objectivism. Unfortunately, almost all of them suffer from the very deficiency which characterizes Nocterro’s rant from beginning to end: a profound lack of firsthand familiarity with what Objectivism actually teaches. A telltale sign in Nocterro’s case is a complete absence of quotations from Objectivist sources. That alone ensures that he’s at a disadvantage. Additionally, he does not even interact with anything that Objectivism teaches through secondhand sources; he doesn’t address anything that Objectivism teaches. Objectivism’s great sin, in Nocterro’s mind, is that it academic philosophers do not, for whatever reason (critics love to insert their own list of complaints here), take it seriously. If the preferred group doesn’t take it seriously, then only a moron would take it seriously. This is how party insiders take care of their own. Nocterro is welcome to it.


Problem #2: Objectivism “has virtually no support in the modern-day philosophical community.” Never mind the fact that Objectivism never needed or asked for support in the modern-day philosophical community. They have their own problems (just look at today’s global mess), and Objectivism is more than happy to make a clean break from them.

Nocterro writes:

I suspect the first objection to this point will be something along the lines of “So? All those other philosophers are wrong!

Preposterous! All those philosophers have Ph.D.s! How could they possibly be wrong on anything? By the way, who are these folks? Oh yes, they remain unnamed. Nocterro has so much confidence in them that he doesn’t name one of them. Apparently they’re all supposed to be infallible thinkers whose views are to be accepted unquestionably. Otherwise, if you dispute what they say, Nocterro will accuse you of “wonkyness.” And nobody wants that!

Nocterro writes:

But consider this - there’s something else that A) Doesn’t have any support in the relevant community, and B) would have at least a moderate level of support if it were even plausibly true. So, what is this mysterious thing that’s analogous to Objectivism?

Only one other thing? What is that one other thing?

Nocterro writes:

Young-earth creationism.

Ah, guilt by superficial association. Nocterro would have us believe that everything that finds “backing” in “the relevant community” is perfectly sound and rational. That same community is what has given us the welfare state we now live in.

Now Nocterro ridicules the idea that Objectivism’s critics might be dishonest. And yet here he puts Objectivism on the same level of “Young-earth Creationism.” It should not be difficult for anyone with firsthand familiarity with Objectivism and any form of creationism to see the crass dishonesty in this. Nocterro inadvertently offers himself as confirmation of the suspicion of dishonesty (perhaps he thinks no one could ever be dishonest).

Nocterro writes:

YECism, like Objectivism, has little to no backing in the relevant community (science to Objectivism’s philosophy).

Is Nocterro saying that Objectivism has no confirming basis in the sciences? Clearly he’s not familiar with the work of David Kelley, Harry Binswanger, David Harriman and numerous others who have done their homework in this regard.

Nocterro writes:

Why is this? I think the most likely explanation is that the experts just don’t think it’s strong enough to be taken seriously, and thus dismiss it.

Yes, the high school clique of modern academia do tend to move in unison on many matters. No one wants to “stick his neck out.” If others in the academic establishment aren’t taking it seriously, then by all means, don’t touch it with a ten foot pole. You might lose tenure! You might lose your prime parking space. You might miss out on ice cream on Friday afternoons!

But where are the academic papers which present these devastating critiques of Objectivism? Oh, that’s right, the academics won’t give Objectivism the time of day. So if they denounce Objectivism, they may be doing so out of utter ignorance of what it teaches. Of course, this does not concern Nocterro. All that matters to him is that he does not find an entry on the issue of metaphysical primacy in Blackwell’s Companion to Philosophy or discussion of the hierarchical nature of knowledge in his introductory philosophy course in college. If it’s not taught in these infallible and omniscient sources, then only a kook would take them seriously.

Meanwhile, in response to Nocterro’s gratuitously uninformed rant against Objectivism, Gil S., another forum member, gave his glowing thumbs up response, saying he “couldn’t agree more” with what Nocterro has posted, and pointed to a diatribe by none other than “the Maverick Philosopher.” We’ve already seen examples of the kind of “rigor” one can expect from this inbred party-liner in examining Objectivism (see here).

Nocterro writes:

It’s a sad truth that there are many ideas posited that really aren’t worth taking seriously - see Jesus as myth, moon landing hoax, and 9/11 truthers.

So play it safe – don’t affirm any new ideas and bury your head in the crowd. If you propose an idea of your own, you might be shunned by the academic community, and for the secondhander that’s a fate worse than death.

Nocterro gives his recommendation:

We probably shouldn’t even be addressing these things - they should be ignored, or in the case of those that are immoral as well as silly (such as holocaust denial), ridiculed.

So far, it’s wholly evident that Nocterro has done precisely this in regard to Objectivism: he’s ignored it completely, demonstrating no informed familiarity with what it teaches, and showing more concern for the fact that academics joined at the click of the heel don’t like it than for interacting with its teachings intelligibly.

Nocterro writes:

Objectivism is almost certainly one of these - it’s an idea that’s been around for awhile, so the relevant experts have had a chance to look at it.

But have they? Where are the peer-reviewed papers criticizing Objectivism, tearing it apart to shreds?

Nocterro writes:

Very, very few accept it.

How many have even examined it? Nocterro gives the impression that they're all intimately familiar with Objectivism. My experience has confirmed quite the opposite in fact. Notice how unfamiliar Nocterro himself is.

Nocterro continues:

It’s certainly not “mainstream”.

I don't know of any Objectivist who has ever claimed that Objectivist is "mainstream."

Nocterro writes:

Not only that, there’s also the issue of conspiracy. What I mean by this is that to hold that Objectivism is philosophically tenable, one must posit the bizarre notion that almost every professional in the relevant field is either dishonest, or mistaken, in rejecting it.

It could be that they’re just not informed about what Objectivism actually teaches. Nocterro is a case in point. He doesn’t quote anything from Objectivist sources to make his points. His goal is simply to malign Objectivism, not to criticize what it teaches, and he does this (as has already been seen up to this point) in a manner that only a high-schooler would appreciate.

Nocterro:

So, you may ask, why am I addressing Objectivism? Simple: I’m an insomniac, and I’m bored at the moment.

Is that really why? Is Nocterro really being honest here?


Problem #3: In the next section, titled “Wonkyness,” Nocterro identifies his standard of measure:

“What”, you may ask, “is wonkyness?” Wonkyness is a measure of the amount of phrases that some idea employs that seem to be meaningless in the field of study of which the idea is a part. For example, the Intelligent Design crows commonly cites “complex specified information” or “specified complexity” as evidence. However, these terms don’t mean much to either biologists or information theorists. So, Intelligent Design has a certain level of wonkyness.

Since Nocterro styles “wonkyness” as “a measure” of something, what are the degrees by which that measurement is meted? Perhaps we could call it the “wonk.” Nocterro cites as an example theistic creationism in its latest garb, “Intelligent Design.” Nocterro does not indicate how many “wonks” can be calculated in examining Intelligent Design, but I’m sure he’d agree it is many. But notice how Nocterro thinks this system of measurement can be reliably applied: by going outside a system and seeing if that system’s terminology has any meaning to those who may very well be completely unfamiliar with the specifics of the system in question. The method of measurement he prefers makes no guarantee that those consulted will have the familiarity needed to generate a reliable wonk rating, nor does it seem to allow for an internal critique of the system in question. Also, it invites subjectivism since it provides no standard for determining the suitability of consultants. It’s essentially a method of surveying others’ opinions, a common theme in Nocterro’s remarks about Objectivism. Of course, if you ask an accounting expert about metallurgical terminology, you may find that metallurgy’s terms “don’t mean much” to the accountant. Therefore, according to Nocterro’s standard, metallurgy must have a certain level of wonkyness.

In applying this system of measurement to Rand’s philosophy, Nocterro ignores the fact that Rand was often careful to explain her terms, especially terms that are key to her system’s essential principles. She not only gave her own definitions (and that in itself bothered a lot of folks – how dare she!), she developed those definitions in accordance to her own theory of definition (a major component of her theory of concepts). Moreover, the system she developed applied those definitions consistently. Perhaps this annoys folks like Nocterro as well. After all, Nocterro thinks it’s wrong to develop a comprehensive view of life and reality that is integrated without contradiction. We learned this in his opening statement.

Nocterro writes:

Now, back to Objectivism. One example I’ve seen cited in discussion regarding Objectivism is ‘the hierarchial nature of knowledge’. I’ve not seen this idea in any literature in the field of Epistemology that I can recall, and I’ve only seen it (briefly) explained once (here: http://tinyurl.com/27w5mnf).

That’s right: Nocterro’s never seen this idea before (he’s been learning about philosophy from under a rock apparently), so it can’t possibly have any merit to it. Therefore, “Objectivism sucks.” Nocterro’s “rigor,” wit and wisdom are simply amazing! He should run for president – he’d fit right in with the Washington crowd.

You will notice that Nocterro linked to this article on the Importance of Philosophy website. Nocterro is thus aware of a source where he can go to get some introductory information on the idea. But he does not tell us why it “sucks” or why it makes Objectivism “suck.” Again, he just tells us that this idea is new to him. Perhaps he thinks it’s a bad idea because of this.

Nocterro writes:

Another example of wonkyness is the ‘fallacy of the stolen concept’. A search for “stolen concept” on http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ returns no results. The only mention of this fallacy I can find on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is on the Ayn Rand page.

So Nocterro must mean that, since he cannot find information about the fallacy of the stolen concept on the one website he’s checked, a stolen concept can’t possibly be a real fallacy. Go ahead and affirm the validity of geometry while denying the truth of basic number theory, of measurement, of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, square roots, Pi, etc.

Of course, some critics of Objectivism have insisted that Rand’s identification of the fallacy of the stolen concept is nothing new (though they have a really hard time pointing to a prior thinker who identifies it explicitly). Those same critics agree that it is a fallacy, but want to deny Rand any credit for discovering it. Nocterro pretty much put a capper on that one, all by citing a single source!

Nocterro writes:

There are most likely many other examples of wonkyness in Rand’s work; however to page through “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged” looking for them is a bit more than I can bear.

Oh, but those examples of “wonkyness” are there, Nocterro assures us. He can’t produce any for us, even though they’re on every page of Rand’s novels. Just take Nocterro’s word for it. He’s shown himself to be really informed expert on Objectivism so far, hasn’t he?

Nocterro writes:

In any case, it’s apparent that at least these two ideas, upon which Objectivism seems to depend entirely, are in fact examples of wonkyness.

Now here’s something worse than “wonkyness”: Nocterro thinks that Objectivism depends entirely on 1) the idea that knowledge has a hierarchical structure, and 2) the identification of the fallacy of the stolen concept. Nothing about a theory of perception, a theory of concepts, axioms, the issue of metaphysical primacy, unit economy, a theory of entities, and all the other things that we’d apparently be mistakenly led to think are involved in informing the fundamentals of Objectivist philosophy were we to go by Objectivist sources.

Nocterro seems to put no limit on how far he can embarrass himself:

Now, you might ask: isn’t the idea of wonkyness itself an example of wonkyness? Well, no. Wonkyness, far from being some sort of logical or metaphysical core of this critique, is merely a name, or label I’ve given to ideas which are not employed in a relevant field. You can call it whatever you like - the idea behind it is that sometimes people have no clue what they’re talking about.

As if Nocterro’s shown himself to be a real expert on the matter that he’s been talking about.

In a section titled “Final Thoughts,” Nocterro writes:

Before I get a slew of comments from Objectivists attempting to defend their pet theory, I’d just like to point out one thing. This is not entitled “why Objectivism is false” or “why Objectivism fails”; but “why Objectivism sucks”. I am well aware that I have only indirectly critiqued what Objectivism actually posits. I have not addressed, for example, ethical egoism, or the relationship between consciousness and objects. However, I don’t really see a need to.

Exactly: not only has Nocterro failed into interact with what Objectivism actually teaches, he knowingly has failed to do so, and doesn’t think it’s necessary to do so. It’s more likely the case that he wouldn’t stand a chance had he attempted a more “rigorous” examination of Objectivism (academics are always patting each other on the back for their “rigor”).

Nocterro writes:

Objectivists, like others who have “dogmas” (YECs, Mormons, etc.) will most likely never give up this philosophy - at least not because of any argument against it.

Perhaps this is what’s behind Nocterro’s resentment against Objectivism – it has a loyal following. And if “argument against” Objectivism is what Nocterro has presented in “only indirectly critique[ing] what Objectivism actually posits,” guess again. He hasn’t even done that. Really, he’s simply given us an opportunity to be entertained.

Nocterro writes:

Rather, like the other aforementioned groups, they must come to realize it is untenable on their own.

If “critiques” like Nocterro’s are the worst that are available (and I’ve seen many attempts which were actually serious), then if there really is something wrong with Objectivism, we certainly will not learn what it is from Nocterro.

Nocterro writes:

This post was written because I was bored, and for anyone considering studying Objectivism to see whether it’s a decent idea.

Nocterro wants his readers to think that he wrote his pile of slander because he was bored, as this would give the impression that it takes little effort to challenge Objectivism. And though it’s true that his spew indicates that he’s put precious little effort into examining Objectivism (has he shown that any one thing which Objectivism teaches is false? Not that I can see), someone who is truly interested in determining whether Objectivism is “a decent idea” or not would do better to examine Objectivism from its own sources rather than through third-hand and fourth-rate displays of uninformed naysaying that Nocterro serves up.


So there you have it: another devastating critique of Objectivism without one quotation from an Objectivist source modeling extravagance of attitude and scarcity of content. It all goes to confirm what I’ve said before: the only alternative to Objectivism is some form of subjectivism. For Nocterro, Objectivism “sucks” because his crowd is either ignorant of it, they don’t like it, or they resented Rand for daring to speak on philosophical matters without their approval. And while we can point to the results of the academic establishment’s ideas put into action (national stagnation, welfare statism, government confiscation of wealth, collectivization of “the masses,” the sacrifice of the individual to the in-crowd’s designs, genocidal pogroms, etc.), Nocterro cannot point to anything like this that has come about as a result of Objectivism. Objectivism provides a defense of human reason and individual liberty. It is therefore to be denounced, ridiculed, vilified and condemned by the establishment community, as reason and liberty are direct threats to their self-enthronement.

Like many secular critics of Objectivism, Nocterro gives no indication of what he considers a worthy alternative to Objectivism. Though it’s clear that any alternative must bear the academic community’s inbred stamp of approval. His profile identifies him as a “deist,” which tells us that whatever specifics his worldview affirms, he grants metaphysical primacy to consciousness at least insofar as his deism is concerned. But deists are a mixed bag when it comes to other things that they endorse. Deism has no inherent theory of concepts (in fact, Nocterro seems to think that talk of concepts is “meaningless” – a stolen concept if there ever were one), no inherent view of morality, of politics, etc.

Also, just as theists who seek to rescue their god from the problem of evil tell us about themselves, Nocterro’s tirade against Objectivism is more autobiographical than anything else: his laziness as a thinker is conspicuous, he writes in a state of drowsiness , he shirks the responsibility of honest interaction, he comes across as so preoccupied with his own bitterness against Objectivism that it’s clear that his attitude will probably get in the way of any learning he’s capable of for quite some time. He also tells us that he prefers the safety of anonymous numbers, as if the consensus of an anonymous group who presumably agree with everything he says were the key to unlocking the deeper secrets of truth.

If Nocterro were to try to put some actual content to his raging beef against Objectivism, what would the result be? If he challenged the primacy of existence, would he not be affirming his position’s adherence to the primacy of consciousness while smuggling the primacy of existence in the process? If he challenged the view that nature has a hierarchical structure, would he not be likening knowledge to “a village of squat bungalows, with every room huddling down against the earth’s surface” (Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 130), thus confirming Rand’s prediction that her critics were burdened by what she called “concrete-bound thinking” (cf. “How to Read (and Not to Write),” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 26, 5)? If he were to challenge Objectivism’s egoism, would he not be endorsing some form of sacrifice in ethics? Nocterro has learned academia’s lessons well: don’t stick your neck out, don’t take a stand, hide in the shadows, keep your head lowered in the huddle, and hope for the safety of the group.

It is no secret that Rand was an outsider who had no interest in acquiring the necessary passkeys to the prestige of inbred academia. She was a successful businesswoman, a defender of individual liberty and capitalism, an intransigent atheist and an outspoken critic of communism abroad and the New Left at home. Each of these put her in the academic establishment’s sights. How dare she question their authority!

Just take a quick look at the consistent record of intellectual bankruptcy that academic insiders have given the world, from Cartesian rationalism to Kantian idealism, from Humean skepticism to Dialectical Materialism, from Logical Positivism to Linquistic Analysis, from Anal Phil to Pragmatism, from the Existentialist worship of nausea to Post-Modernism, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Objectivism represents a clean break from this track record of disappointment and letdown which are the heritage of the philosophical establishment. A rejection of Objectivism is a vote for a continuation of the tragedies that these highbrowed failures have brought on men throughout the ages. But the Nocterro’s of the world are not concerned about the results of their philosophical views when put into practice; their chief concern is to be part of the in-crowd, to assume the role of a useful idiot and achieve a rank in some ruling class.

by Dawson Bethrick

Is the Christian God's Existence "Self-Evident"?

Below are some comments I left over at a blog post on Choosing Hats. They are presently awaiting moderator approval. I do not know if they will be published on that site, but I wanted to share them with my readers here. Don't worry, I won't be moderating any comments on my blog. Feel free to have your say if you have a response to what I've written.

*       *       *

Agreus: “There is no need to provide an argument justifying the existence of logic and in fact such an endeavor would be pointless. The same does not hold true for the existence of God.”

Zao Thanatoo responded: “Special pleading fallacy.”

Agreus’ position could occasion the special pleading fallacy only if the word “God” refers to some cognitive aspect of man’s consciousness, just as the concept ‘logic’ does. In this sense, logic is self-evident (at least its fundamental principle of identity) in the same sense that consciousness is self-evident. Consciousness is axiomatic, just as the law of identity is (i.e., the most fundamental law of logic).

But the Christian god is supposed to be an independently existing entity, not a cognitive aspect of man’s consciousness. So there is a fundamental distinction here which Zao is missing, and the fact that he’s missing it tells us something that Christians do not want to admit.

The reason why Chris Bolt thinks there’s “an opportunity to reply with the same statement substituting ‘God’ for ‘Logic’” is because the Christian god is actually imaginary, not real. It’s all in the believer’s mind, not an independently existing entity. This is precisely why apologists continually point to cognitive phenomena – such as logic, universals, moral principles, and the like – as if they were in the same class of objects as the Christian god. While logic, universals, moral principles, etc., are components of conscious operations, the Christian god seems so close to these in the believer’s understanding precisely because it is imaginary – i.e., residing in the believer’s mind.

The only way that “God” would be “self-evident” in the same sense as logic is, is that if “God” were cognitive or psychological in some sense, available to man’s awareness by means of introspection. But Christians tell us that it is a real entity, existing independent of human conscious operations. So Zao’s charge of fallacy here doesn’t stick. In fact, it is a tacit admission of the fact that the Christian god is imaginary in nature.

Agreus: “God’s existence is not self-evident.”

Zao Thanatoo: “Ipse dixit fallacy.”

I think Agreus is simply making an honest observation here. After all, by what means is he supposed to have direct awareness of the Christian god? Even the bible tells us that it is invisible, that it has no body, that it is incorporeal, immaterial, non-physical, etc. Certainly Agreus cannot perceive the Christian god through his senses. But, Agreus could *imagine* it, just as Christians do. Then it might seem “self-evident” if one subscribes to a metaphysics which allows for the distinction between the real and the imaginary to be blurred (as Christianity does).

Agreus: “The fact that Christian apologists attempt to argue for the existence of God seems to indicate that God’s existence is not self-evident.”

Zao Thanatoo: “Enthymeme suppressing premise to conceal unsoundness.”

I would agree with Agreus here, and find no compelling reason to agree with Zao’s unargued counter-retort. Agreus is right: the apologist’s own actions speak louder than his words. We do not need to argue for the existence of something which we can perceive directly – i.e., for that which is self-evident. Argument is a vehicle for articulating inference from what is ultimately directly perceived to that which is not directly perceived. So just by trying to argue for the existence of their god, Christians are in effect conceding that its existence needs to be established by means of argument, and this would not be necessary if it were in fact self-evident. Again, by what means is Agreus supposed to be directly aware of the Christian god, if not by means of imagining it (as Christians do)? By “faith”?

Agreus: “I would have no problem with the theist stating God is self-evident, if that is how they desire to express their belief in God.”

Zao Thanatoo: “God is self-evident.”

Ipse dixit fallacy. Just by saying that “God is self-evident,” along with all the other characteristics that Christians attribute to their god, Christians are in fact conceding that their god is imaginary in nature.

by Dawson Bethrick

The Storybook Worldview

Presuppositionalists prefer to deploy their apologetic devices in terms of an antithesis between Christians and non-Christians. Much of the way in which they conceive of this antithesis is imaginary in nature, as it is framed in terms of their theology, and their theology is informed by elements culled from a book of stories which only take life in the imagination of the reader. The presuppositionalist concept of antithesis consists of deliberately filtering their understandings and inferences in terms of an us-versus-them perspective, as the pitting of one collective locked in a death match against an opposed collective. In the end, on the Christian’s faith-based presuppositions, one’s ethical import is determined by which collective he belongs to. Like giddy high-schoolers anxious to be part of the clique, it’s all about belonging to a group, because validation is attainable for such persons only by being accepted by the group. (Notice how many Christian blogs have a team of contributors who have found it necessary to join forces, apparently unable to stand alone.)

But there is a hint of truth to the claim that an antithesis exists, at least between the Christian on the one hand, and the one who adheres to an objective understanding of the world on the other. Unlike the rational human being, who recognizes the fact that reality sets its own terms independent of human inventions, the Christian intentionally views everything through the prism of a collection of stories, stories which even on the his own premises the Christian could not genuinely know to be true, regardless of how strongly he believes them to be true. Indeed, it is one thing to believe that something is true, and another to know that it is true. This distinction is lost on most presuppositionalists, since they tend to construe knowledge in terms of belief in the first place (I have already criticized this view here).

Christians tend to portray themselves as a collective bound together by a story, a story which they insist is true, even when facts are brought against it. In actuality it is their acceptance of this story – which is a volitional action on each adherent’s part – which gives them this shared sense of mutual connection and commonality. Just accept the story, and Presto! you’re immediately part of the beloved clique, the 'happnen' in-crowd.

Not only does this acceptance of a story give Christians a sense of unity (mind you, a unity which crumbles into splinters very easily), it also shapes in the way they understand the world. As Cornelius Van Til puts it in the Mein Kampf of presuppositionalism:

Christians interpret every fact in the light of the same story. For them the nature of every fact in this world is determined by the place it occupies in the story. The story they cannot get from any other source than supernatural revelation. The Christian finds that his conscience agrees to the truth of the story. He holds that those who deny the truth of the story have an axe to grind. They do not want the story to be true; they do not want the facts to be what the story says they are. (The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., quoted in Hubner, Jamin, The Portable Presuppositionalist, p. 239).

It is a story, then, which serves as the believer’s filter in “interpret[ing] every fact” that he encounters and is willing to consider. The believer presumes, as an inherent consequence of his acceptance of the story as a fundamental truth about the world and as a non-negotiable premise of his worldview, that “every fact in this world is determined by the place it occupies in the story” which he has accepted as the ultimate standard of his waking cognition. Thus an implicit circularity installs itself in his outlook as the self-attesting reassurance that what he has accepted is true, in spite of its stark departure from the reality with which he interacts on a daily basis. On the Christian’s premise, the story as such supersedes facts as such, for any facts which the believer finds himself dealing with are to be “interpreted” in terms of the story’s dictates. The story provides an imaginative backdrop, an artificial overlay, which the believer actively projects onto the sum of his experiences in order to bring his mind into conformity with the prescribed devotional program of the bible.

Those who do not accept the story are characterized as willfully resisting what the believer considers an incontestable truth: “They do not want the story to be true; they do not want the facts to be what the story says they are.” Non-believers are represented in the literature as slaves to their nefarious, truth-denying desires: they don’t want the story to be true; they do not want the facts to be what the story says they are. Acceptance of the story somehow provides the believer with intimate familiarity of non-believers’ motivations. The believer is not at the same time encouraged to consider the possibilities that non-believers honestly do not believe the story is true, and that believers are the ones who are held captive by their desires in wanting the story to be true. Such proposals are kept safely out of sight, as they are not to be considered, for the believer has no rational defense against them.

As with other specimens of fiction, the bible-believer’s story takes its residence in the believer’s imagination. However, it is not a story which the believer’s own imagination creates, but which his own imagination informs as he tries to digest its contents into the sum of his cognition, whose inner workings are situated beyond his own understanding (for he does not endeavor to understand the nature of his imaginative indulgences when it comes to his theism), given his focus on seeking to enshrine the elements of the story as a guide to his understanding of the world. The more concrete elements of the story are unavoidably open to being imagined differently from believer to believer, but certain stereotypes have as a matter of tradition inserted themselves into the images which believers cultivate as they recreate biblical scenes in their minds. When Jesus commanded the water pots to be full of wine at the marriage in Cana (cf. John 2:1-11), for instance, the believer may imagine that he wore a white robe and had a long beard, was he taller than most of the other guests, had an austere sense of omniscient awareness and wisdom, spoke softly and compassionately, that he radiated with a holy glow visible to “the chosen,” etc. These images have worked their way into the believer’s imagination courtesy of earlier believers who concretized their imaginings of the same story in media such as paintings and the silver screen. But they are all imaginary just the same.

In the passage by Van Til quoted above, the Christian is explicitly encouraged to believe that “those who deny the truth of the story have an axe to grind,” which is not intended to be complimentary. The believer’s experience of the world is carefully managed by those who watch over him, who oversee the constant surveillance over his devotion to the program, as he is told specifically how to view all outsiders to the faith, given the fact that they are outsiders to the faith. The us-versus-them collectivism inherent in the religious allegiance to the Christian worldview is affirmed explicitly in the substance of the narrative itself (cf. Mt. 12:30: “He that is not with me is against me”). To put it bluntly, those who have not chosen, as the Christian believer has chosen, to accept “the story” as some incontestable cosmic truth about reality, are to be seen as stubbornly resisting truth in an irresistible fit of contempt, a product of their depravity, as a result of some fundamental choice they have made in opposition to the ethical path which only the story can offer.

So acceptance of the story as truth, regardless of actual truth value, its content and its meaning under examination, is of paramount importance to the devotional program of Christianity. The believer is expected to adopt the disposition that the story is worth dying for. And even though it is never explained how the story can benefit from the believer’s self-sacrifice, he is told explicitly that “religious faith is something to die for and something to live every moment” (Kreeft and Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, p. 14). The believer is to give priority, just as in Kreeft and Tacelli’s statement, to being willing to die for the story. The believer is not to consider the fact that differing interpretations of the same story are what has caused Christianity to implode on itself since its very inception, resulting in hundreds if not thousands of schisms, sects, denominations, factions and cultic offshoots. He is not to consider the fact that each believer’s imagination plays an essential role in his reading of the story and in his overall religious experience, a role which governs his interpretation of the story. What is important is that the believer do his best not to fall prey to the “false prophets” of other religions, and other interpretations of the same story. There is only one story, he is taught, and only one interpretation of that story. Anything else is heresy and depravity.

As Van Til states:

Scripture presents itself as being the only light in terms of which the truth about facts and their relations can be discovered. (The Defense of the Faith, p. 108)

In other words, for the Christian believer, the story comes first, and then the facts, which are admitted only after the story has been accepted as true, and which are “interpreted” in terms of the story as the believer comes to understand it. The facts themselves do nothing to inform or confirm the story. Rather, they are to be placed, by a selective process performed by the believer, into their proper role as the story is held to govern them. The story does not need to conform to facts that are independently discovered and integrated according to a rational system of cognition; rather, the facts are to be made to conform to the story. And the story is to be found in a storybook, which is to be revered as a sacred artifact having supernatural origins and supernatural content, and therefore unquestionably true no matter what it says. The storybook’s contents are to be accepted as true even before the believer has read what it says.

Christianity, then, is a worldview based on a storybook, and which requires that its adherents view the world through the prism of a storybook. For those who do interpret the world in terms of what the storybook would have them believe, those who do not take the storybook seriously and similarly look at the world in terms of what the storybook says, are to be scorned, despised, held in contempt and considered to be a threat. It is for this reason that believers always reserve for themselves the option of simply ignoring what critics of Christian philosophy have to say: since they do not accept the story, non-Christians are considered to be darkened in their understanding, given over to demonic influences, and beyond the reach of the “reasoning” which believers themselves find so persuasive and enticing.

For the Christian, the atheist is the most despicable of spoilsports. He’s a spoilsport because his very existence, given the fact that he is a non-believer, serves as a constant reminder to the believer that the storybook is actually a cauldron of deception. This is not only why non-believers are so despised, but why they are also the target of so much Christian animosity and resentment. Defeating the non-believer is of utmost priority to defenders of the Christian faith, as his very existence constitutes a lethal threat to the sanctity which they want their storybook to possess. Defeating the non-believer on his own terms is unnecessary and even to be discouraged, for it could end up in failure. Discrediting by means of insult is ultimately the only way out for believers, and they know this, which is why many internet apologists have learned to head directly for this path when they encounter criticism.

Philosophically, the storybook leads the believer into a pit of internal conundrums and contradictions, mental snares which are acknowledged to exist but characterized as “paradoxes” so as to construe them as evidence of the supernatural genius and mysteriousness of its alleged author, for “God must always remain mysterious to man” (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 14). It portrays its god as a father which allows his only begotten son to be tortured and murdered by vicious villains, and equates this same god with “love” (I Jn. 4:8). It claims that its god is uncreated and equates it with light (I Jn. 1:5), and it tells us that light was created (Gen. 1:3). It tells us that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23) and that “the law is not of faith” (Gal. 3:12), but insists that the law is not sin (Rom. 7:7). It tells us that things which are invisible are “clearly seen” (Rom. 1:20).

The story which Christians accept as truth, characterizes man as inherently defective. And yet his creator is supposedly “perfect” (Mt. 5:48), whose “work is perfect” (Deut. 32:4), whose “way is perfect” (2 Sam. 22:31). This perfect creator created imperfection (see here). The perfect creator’s greatest creation – which is man – turns out to be one of the biggest bungles of all history, according to Christian doctrine itself.

Left alone, man will – according to the storybook-informed Christian worldview – automatically deviate from “the truth,” for “the truth” is not something that he can discover on his own. According to Christianity, truth is something that must be “revealed” to man from some supernatural source. Once the priests’ underlying premises are accepted, the believer has no basis to question their propagandistic influence and manipulation, and is thus prone to sacrificing himself to their lead, believing that such sacrifice is good, moral, noble. As for the problem that results from supposing that man is inherently defective on the one hand, and created by a perfect creator on the other, the priests have an explanation for this: man chose to depart from the true path. That is, one man chose to depart, and all men were thus infected with this defect as a result. Not only does this clue us in on the collectivistic conception of guilt which Christianity fosters in the believer’s psyche, it is also an example of blaming the product rather than the producer for the product’s faults. Not only are all the products vulnerable to the defects of one, but the producer continues to produce more products after its first product has proved defective, allowing the defect to propagate throughout the general population. The storybook would have us believe that this is the choice of a perfect creator. And responsibility for the summary deficiencies resulting from the choices on the part of the producer, is laid at the feet of every product. It’s the lemon’s fault that it is a lemon.

But this distortion of justice is all part of the story which the believer is supposed to swallow hook, line and sinker. Christian apologist John Frame puts it as follows:

As Calvin said, the Christian should look at nature with the “spectacles of Scripture.” If even unfallen Adam needed to interpret the world according to God’s verbal utterance, how much more do we!... To allow Scripture this corrective work, we must accept the principle that our settled belief as to Scripture’s teaching must take precedence over what we would believe from natural revelation alone. (Apologetics to the Glory of God, p. 23)

So while, according to the story, the entire creation is saturated with defects (cf. “sin”), the creator itself is to be revered as incapable of doing wrong, and “the creature” (i.e., the believer) is to take on “the spectacles of Scripture” and “interpret the world according to” the “verbal utterance” of the one who created the mess in the first place. And rather than correcting the problem in the product, the Christian god has chosen instead to offer a patch – namely the storybook – which the believer is required to apply to himself by accepting its contents as unquestionable truth and joining a group of people seeking to do the same.

Frame insists that he is “not advocating dogmatic adherence to ideas based on half-baked exegesis and rejection of, say, scientific theories on the basis of such sloppy theologizing” (Ibid., p. 23n.26), though he does advocate the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution because of its damning threat to the biblical worldview (cf. pp. 103, 129, et al.). It is interesting that Frame characterizes evolution as a form of idolatry, saying,

Nobody can prove evolution. Evolution is a hypothesis held by faith, and all supposed facts must be made to fit into its framework. It is a “paradigm” in Thomas Kuhn’s sense, a criterion for judging other proposals, itself not subject to judgment. Indeed, evolution is necessary, once one rejects creation. For either the earth was produced supernaturally (i.e., created0 or it was produced naturally, apart from God. Any naturalistic origin of the world will involve evolution, for it will be the result of natural laws operating upon primitive matter, producing complexity over time. Thus, the concept of evolution did not begin with Darwin. Rather, it has been characteristic of every non-Christian philosophy since that of Thales in the sixth century B.C. (Ibid., p. 197)

So, for Frame, and many other Christian believers, the theory of evolution is a story competing with the storybook of the Christian bible. As with the story line of the Christian bible, evolution requires its adherents to make “all… facts… fit into its framework.” It’s okay when the guiding story involves the supernatural beings of “Scripture,” but if it involves science which man can discover and validate by his own faculties, it is an unprovable “hypothesis held by faith,” and thus, apparently, to be abandoned, even condemned.

Are you following this?

Also, Frame tells us that he is not saying

that our settled beliefs concerning the teaching of Scripture are infallible… But I repeat: those settled beliefs must take precedence over our beliefs, settled or not, from other sources. Otherwise, we do not allow Scripture to be a true corrective to our understanding of natural revelation. (Ibid., pp. 23-24n.27).

Frame speaks of not allowing “Scripture to be a true corrective to our understanding” of nature, as if there were some dismal consequence to be worried about here. But what would be wrong in allowing nature to speak for itself? What is the danger here if not the fact that nature does not conform to what the storybook says? If nature did naturally confirm what the storybook says, would Frame have such concerns? I suspect not. If nature does not naturally confirm what the storybook says, what does this tell us about the value of the storybook?

I found the following statement from Frame most curious. He writes:

there are some who claim that proof is necessary for them… Scripture does more than simply rebuke them. It provides much persuasive testimony of God’s reality and also points us to sources outside itself where more testimony can be found. (Ibid., p. 66)

Note that the storybook’s content is characterized as “testimony.” And “testimony” for Christians, at least when it comes from a Christian source, is supposed to be taken as unimpeachably factual. If there is a non-circular argument for such a self-serving view, I’d like to see it.

What I find interesting about this statement is Frame’s view of proof. Presuppositionalists insist that their “transcendental argument” is “absolutely certain proof” of the Christian god’s existence and of “the truth of Christian theism” (cf. Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed., p. 103), and that it is the only apologetic scheme compatible with the bible. So if there is a “proof” of the Christian god’s existence which is so compatible with what Christians call their god’s verbal revelation, why would that verbal revelation rebuke or condemn those who expect proof?

In regards to presuppositionalism proper, notice how it involves appeals to a storybook in order to settle age-old philosophical questions. The problem of universals, for instance, is “answered” by pointing to a triune god – i.e., to a character in a storybook which the believer has no alternative but to imagine in his own mind. It is supposedly in the mind of this supernatural triune god where “the one” and “the many” – “unity” and “plurality” – are fundamentally related. Thus, instead of understanding the relationship between the multitude of concrete objects which we perceive and the abstractions by which we unite them in a conceptual manner, the presuppositionalist approach prefers to attribute this relationship to the mind of a character found in a storybook which takes residence in the believer’s imagination. Similarly with the so-called “problem of induction” raised by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. Instead of questioning the premises of Hume’s skeptical argument, presuppositionalists prefer to take Hume’s argument for granted and point to a character from their sacred storybook as the solution to the ill-conceived problem. On presuppositionalist grounds, the problem of induction is “solved” – not by recognizing the objective nature of reality and understanding the conceptual process by which the human mind performs inductive inferences – but by pointing to a storybook character which has allegedly “created the universe in which we live (Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16), and who sovereignly maintains it as we find it to be (Heb. 1:3)” (Brian Knapp, “Induction and the Unbeliever,” The Portable Presuppositionalist, p. 132). Does this bring us any closer to a rational understanding of induction? Of course it doesn’t. But it conforms to the believer’s devotion to the view that the storybook is true, and that’s what’s important to the believer.

We cannot expect a storybook which departs from reality so radically as the bible does, to provide rational answers to such important questions. Instead, we are expected to simply don “spectacles of Scripture” and ignore its discrepancies with reality as if they did not exist, as if they would disappear if we ignore them long enough. Such is the presuppositionalist’s last resort, one which he takes more often than he’d like to admit.

by Dawson Bethrick

The Biological Nature of Consciousness

In May of this year, I got into a discussion with a Christian who posts under the moniker “danielj” over on Choosing Hats regarding the biological nature of consciousness. Throughout the discussion danielj, a Christian, was trying to find ways to challenge my view that consciousness is biological, but he never was able to demonstrate that consciousness is something other than biological.

In this post, I have pasted my contributions to this discussion, since numerous issues were raised that are of significance to the proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Since the nature of consciousness is of central concern to my anti-apologetic critique of the Christian worldview, this post will make available in one source many ideas pertaining to the nature of consciousness which inform a significant concern in the overall critique of theistic worldviews.

It all started with a question posed by danielj on 10 May 2010:

Does consciousness not exist?

My response to this was:

Yes, consciousness does exist. You need to be conscious just in order for you to ask the question. None of the points which I have raised is incompatible with this fact.

However, consciousness does *not* hold metaphysical primacy.

danielj apparently did not understand what the issue of metaphysical primacy is, for he then asked:

If consciousness exists how is it that it is exempted from the primacy extended to every other existing thing?

When did consciousness start existing if not with every other existing thing?

My responses to danielj thus follow:

Consciousness exists only in relationship to some object. Consciousness is consciousness of something, of some object. Hence we have the subject-object relationship. To affirm the primacy of consciousness is to affirm the primacy of the subject in the subject-object relationship, which is to affirm subjectivism.

There is no evidence which suggests that consciousness has always existed with every other existing thing. Consciousness is an attribute only of a certain class of existents, namely living organisms. Rocks, for instance, do not possess consciousness. Planets do not possess consciousness, nor do asteroids, quasars, protons, etc.

If you think consciousness holds metaphysical primacy, can you explain why, and point to some evidence which supports your view (especially without committing the fallacy of the stolen concept)?

Danielj wrote: “How exactly did things without any sort of proto consciousness (rocks, protons, etc.) combine to form consciousness and where does this ‘consciousness’ reside?”

Generally speaking, they did this by means of causality. What is the specific process? That is a scientific question. I am not a scientist, and I do not profess to know. I don’t see what relevance it has to the issue. Regardless of how some biological organisms developed the attribute of consciousness, consciousness is still consciousness of something and therefore still exists in a relationship with an object (or many objects, as the case may be). Do you suppose there’s such a thing as consciousness of nothing? How could it qualify as consciousness?

Danielj: “It must reside outside the bounds of ‘existence’ since the things that human beings are made of have no consciousness in and of themselves.”

The notion that something “reside[s] outside the bounds of existence” is incoherent. This is saying that something exists but yet is not included in the sum total of what exists. Also, that consciousness “must reside outside the bounds of ‘existence’” does not follow from the fact that the various parts which make up human beings are not themselves conscious. My spleen, for instance, does not have its own consciousness, and neither does my elbow. These are attributes of me as an entity, just as consciousness is. Consciousness, mind you, is not an entity in itself, but an attribute of some entity (namely biological organisms).

Danielj wrote: “How does the combination of biology and causality produce consciousness?”

The question essentially answers itself: The process by which an organism develops consciousness of objects is both biological and causal. You have flat out denied that consciousness develops, but did not provide an argument for this. When a fetus develops in the womb, it develops from a fertilized egg. At the stage of a fertilized egg, there is no heartbeat, but eventually it develops a heart. At the stage of a fertilized egg, it has no sensory organs, so it has no means of perceiving anything, and thus has no capacity for consciousness. But it does develop these organs, and these organs are what give it the capacity to perceive, to be conscious of objects. Why would you think that a biological organism does not develop consciousness? Do you think that an organism was conscious before it existed?

Danielj: “If consciousness is indeed reducible to biology…”

I don’t think consciousness “reduces” to biology; to say this would imply that consciousness is non-biological. Consciousness *is* biological. How could it be otherwise? All organisms which possess consciousness have in common the fact that they have sensory organs which give the organism the capacity to be conscious of objects.

Danielj: “and it is merely a scientific question then we are just plants.”

Human beings are not plants. But both human beings and plants are biological organisms. I don’t think there are any plants that possess the attribute of consciousness. But many species in the animal kingdom do.

Danielj: “Concept formation is photosynthesis and free will is an illusion.”

Incorrect. Concept-formation is not photosynthesis. Anyone who understands both would know this. Concept-formation is volitional and requires a consciousness capable of selectively isolating specific objects and integrating them into mental units. This is not the task of photosynthesis.

Danielj: “You’ve denied proto consciousness and proto intentionality as well."

Hmmm… I don’t recall doing so. Where do you think I “denied proto consciousness and proto intentionality”?

Danielj: “There is no 1/2 consciousness or self-consciousness by your own method.”

Specifically, what do you know of my method? What makes you suppose that there’s no self-consciousness “by my own method”? With higher organisms (such as human beings), consciousness can be a secondary object – i.e., consciousness of itself. We are exhibiting this ability right here in our discussion. What makes you think my position denies this? Or do you find it expedient to put words into my mouth for some reason?

Danielj: “It does not follow from the intentionality of consciousness that existence has metaphysical primacy no matter how many times and in how many ways you repeat it.”

The primacy of existence is not a conclusion of prior inference. It does not “follow” from some prior set of affirmations. Rather, it is implicit in any affirmation (which is part of the reason why theism is self-contradictory at the fundamental level.) I’ve written much on axioms. Apparently you’ve not examined what I’ve said, or you did not read it very carefully.

Danielj: “Consciousness is not a sufficient condition for existence? So what?”

Existence is not borne on conditions. Those conditions would have to exist. To say that certain conditions had to be met for existence to exist, would be to say that those conditions had to exist in order for existence to exist. The idea commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Danielj: “Existence isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness either.”

So, you think something other than existence needs to exist in order for consciousness to exist? Please elaborate.

Danielj: “If existence isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness than [sic] consciousness simply could not have sprung into existence since no thing can ‘begin’ to exist according to your own philosophy.”

Consciousness begins the same way that other types of activity begin. When an organism senses an object, this is an action which begins at a certain point in time. The same for when an organism perceives. The same for when a man thinks. These are all species of a type of action. Consciousness is inherently active.

Danielj: “If you refuse to attribute eternal existence to consciousness you render your own system incoherent,”

How so? What would justify attributing eternal existence to consciousness? I know consciousness only as an attribute of some biological organisms, including but not restricted to man. Where do we find an eternally existing consciousness? Biological organisms procreate and die. Find one that is eternally conscious.

Danielj: “but, if you do attribute it, then you’ve admitted its ‘co-primacy’ at the very least.”

Even if you assume that consciousness is eternal, this would not validate the notion that the subject and object share metaphysical “co-primacy.” I suspect that you do not fully understand the issue of metaphysical primacy. Perhaps you could explain what “co-primacy’ between consciousness and its objects would be like.

Danielj: “Please correct any errors in my thinkin’ here.”

I’ve pointed out quite a few already.

I wrote: “Consciousness, mind you, is not an entity in itself, but an attribute of some entity (namely biological organisms).”

Danielj: “In light of the above – should you let it stand unrefuted – I consider this begging the question.”

How so? How is consciousness not an attribute of the entity which possesses it? Also, what conclusion am I assuming in the premises of any argument that I have presented?

Danielj: “Either consciousness exists or it doesn’t. If it does, than [sic] it has always existed like everything else in existence.”

Can you explain how you think this is supposed to follow?

Danielj: “How is it that only the ‘universe’ is eternal? What exactly do you even mean by ‘existence’ exists if things like biology and consciousness are allowed to simply spring into existence out of non-existence?”

I’ve written on many of these topics on my blog. You might want to check it out as you’ve stumbled quite severely if you think your statements have been representative of my position.

I wrote: “You have flat out denied that consciousness develops, but did not provide an argument for this.”

Danielj responded: “You denied it. There is nothing in between consciousness and unconsciousness so there can be nothing that leads up to consciousness.”

Where did I deny that consciousness develops? Didn’t you read what I wrote?

I wrote: “When a fetus develops in the womb, it develops from a fertilized egg. …. Why would you think that a biological organism does not develop consciousness?”

Danielj responded: “You’re missing the point.”

Which point am I missing? Please be specific, especially if you’re going to level accusations like this.

Danielj asked: “Does consciousness equal sensation like you appear to be saying here?”

Sensation is one form of consciousness. Do you think that sensation is not a form of consciousness?

I wrote: “Consciousness *is* biological.”

Danielj responded: “Then the will is not free.”

What do you mean by “free,” and how does your claim follow from the fact that consciousness is biological? It’s not self-evident.

I asked: “How could it be otherwise?”

Danielj responded: “Well, gee…. Think about that for a second. How could the universe possibly be otherwise? Does ANYBODY here have any theories?”

Do you have any arguments to back up your claims? Or just questions? If you do not think consciousness is biological, what is it? Do you think it’s supernatural? If so, just say so. Let’s see how well you understand the matter. It’s clear that you do not accept the primacy of existence. Why not go all the way?

I wrote: “All organisms which possess consciousness have in common the fact that they have sensory organs which give the organism the capacity to be conscious of objects.”

Danielj asked: “So? How do you know that consciousness follows sensation?”

Sensation is a form of consciousness. If an organism is sensing something, it is conscious of that something in sensory form. It’s not a matter of consciousness “following” sensation.

Danielj asked: “Or are you equating the two?”

Again, sensation is a form of consciousness. So is perception. So is conceptualization. There are many forms of consciousness. This is basic stuff. Ask yourself this, Danielj: Are you conscious of your surroundings? By what means are you conscious of them? In what form are your conscious of them? How are you conscious of them? Do you perceive them? When you are perceiving, are you still unconscious? What is your understanding of consciousness? Get it out in the open. Quit hiding.

Danielj wrote: “Even if it does, it doesn’t mean that is the only possible way that it could.”

What else do you have in mind? Again, please be specific. Inform your point.

Danielj continued: “One does not necessarily follow from the other.”

And as you can see, now that you’re learning a little more about my position (perhaps for the first time), I am not arguing that.

I wrote: “Anyone who understands both would know this. Concept-formation is volitional and requires a consciousness capable of selectively isolating specific objects and integrating them into mental units. This is not the task of photosynthesis.”

Danielj asserted: “If it is simply biology it cannot be volitional.”

Why not? What is your argument for this? What assumptions of yours are driving conclusions like this? I’m biological, and I have a volitional form of consciousness. Why can’t it be biological? Is it just that your conception of biological is so narrow that it arbitrarily excludes volition? Or do you think there’s a legitimate reason for this? If so, please state it.

Danielj asked: “How do the fetus’ organs add up to volition?”

I don’t understand the question. I don’t think I said that “organs *add up* to volition.” The sensory organs are the means by which an organism senses an object. This activity – sensation – is a form of consciousness.

Danielj asked: “How does biology give rise to volition?”

Are you asking for a blow by blow explanation of all the causal activity which allows a consciousness to regulate itself? If so, that’s well beyond the scope of a comments section discussion. You might start with Binswanger’s The Metaphysics of Consciousness at least to clear up some profound misunderstandings about consciousness. Once that’s done, there are other sources available for you to start investigating. But until you’ve corrected some of your more fundamental misunderstandings, you’re not ready for that.

Danielj asked: “Were there ever non-volitional humans?”

I don’t think so, given my definition of man. But on a broader definition, perhaps. But you’re asking about something which written history has not recorded, so this would require a lot of input from the sciences which I do not have at my disposal.

Danielj asserted: “Biology isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness.”

Got any argument for this? Oh wait, take a look at what you wrote next:

Danielj wrote: “Do you understand this? Biology isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness. Biology isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness. Let it sink in…”

I guess you’re a student of the Sunday School understanding of reality: repeat a claim long enough until it “sinks in” and you *believe* it. You’re showing us your preferred method. No wonder you have so many misunderstandings.

Since you know so much about the necessary conditions for consciousness, can you identify them for us? If biology is not a sufficient condition for consciousness, can you tell us what is? Watch the stolen concepts!

I asked: “Specifically, what do you know of my method? What makes you suppose that there’s no self-consciousness ‘by my own method’?”

Danielj responded: “From what I read on your blog and in objectivist ‘literature’.”

Where did anything I write or that you found in the Objectivist literature deny man’s capacity for self-consciousness? That is the view you attributed to me. Where did you read this? Please, show me. I want to see.

Danielj wrote: “From henceforth, I shall refrain from attributing anything to you. It was hasty and wrong of me and bordering on a violation of the 9th.”

You’re showing that you’re at least a little teachable. But seriously, where did I deny man’s capacity for self-consciousness? If you did not read this in something that I wrote or that some other Objectivist wrote, why did you attribute this position to me? If you’re having difficulty being honest in our discussion, please say so. I see no reason to continue on with someone who will not be honest.

I wrote: “With higher organisms (such as human beings), consciousness can be a secondary object – i.e., consciousness of itself.”

Danielj: “Now you are defining into existence ‘secondary’ objects.”

You seem to have a real difficulty understanding my position. Do you understand what I mean by “secondary object” in the context of what I stated? I’m not “defining into existence ‘secondary’ objects.” My point is that consciousness must first be conscious of objects other than itself in order for it to be possible for consciousness to have itself as an object. This again is basic Objectivist 101 stuff. I don’t think you’ve read much Objectivist literature. Perhaps you’ve read criticisms of Objectivism; I have too: it’s not a good way to learn about what Objectivism really teaches.

Danielj asked: “Do these secondary objects exist?”

Consciousness exists. In the context of what I stated, consciousness would be the secondary object – an object of itself, consciousness turned inward on itself, just as we do when we contemplate how we became aware of something. But first we had to become aware of that something before we could contemplate how we became aware of it. There’s a hierarchical sequence of activity here. I didn’t realize that you needed such rudimentary information about what Objectivism teaches. What specifically have you read on Objectivism? (You intimated above that you’ve read Objectivist literature. Is that true?)

Danielj asked: “Is consciousness an object?”

It can be. Just as it is in our discussion. Do you understand what Objectivism means by ‘object’? Or, are you again trying to interpret Objectivism on your own unstated assumptions? What will that profit you?

I wrote: “We are exhibiting this ability right here in our discussion. What makes you think my position denies this? Or do you find it expedient to put words into my mouth for some reason?”

Danielj wrote: “Of course putting words into your mouth would be expedient (and I’ve got some very choice words for you) and funny, but I’ll refrain.”

Now that you’ve been caught red-handed, you’ve decided to refrain from this bad habit. Let’s see how long you can control it.

I wrote: “The primacy of existence is not a conclusion of prior inference.”

Danielj wrote: “It isn’t a valid conclusion”

It’s not a conclusion to begin with, Danielj. Do you not understand such basic issues?

Danielj wrote: “and is certainly, at the very most, a trivial ‘axiom’ as I pointed out in my last comment.”

Do you not recognize that you’re assuming the primacy of existence right here in this statement? Do you understand what the primacy of existence is?

Danielj wrote: “It is a stolen concept.”

Actually, the very charge that the primacy of existence is a stolen concept itself commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I suspect that you really don’t understand what you’re talking about, otherwise you’d not make such blunders.

Danielj had written: “If you refuse to attribute eternal existence to consciousness you render your own system incoherent,”

I asked: “How so?”

Danielj responded: “Then it wouldn’t be an object, wouldn’t fall under the ‘existence exists’ axiom and it wouldn’t exist.”

Are you assuming that something must be eternal to be an object? I’m not sure how else to understand where you’re coming from here. It’s certainly not what Objectivism teaches. So again I suspect you’ve not really ever read any Objectivist literature, at least on the present topic.

I wrote: “Even if you assume that consciousness is eternal, this would not validate the notion that the subject and object share metaphysical ‘co-primacy’. I suspect that you do not fully understand the issue of metaphysical primacy. Perhaps you could explain what ‘co-primacy’ between consciousness and its objects would be like.”

Danielj wrote: “Consciousness either exists or it doesn’t.”

It does.

Danielj wrote: “If it exists then it is just as ‘prime’ as existence. If it isn’t an object than it doesn’t exist.”

Danielj, you clearly do not understand the issue of metaphysical primacy. It’s important for you to recognize this now before you go on making such blunders like this.

Danielj wrote: “Consciousness is not a sufficient condition for existence and neither is existence a sufficient condition for consciousness, therefore, they are co-prime.”

Again, you’re not addressing metaphysical primacy here. None of this is. The issue of metaphysical primacy pertains to the proper orientation between a subject and its objects in the subject-object relationship. What you’re talking about here has nothing to do with this. You’re not even in the ball park, let alone on the playing field.

I asked: “How is consciousness not an attribute of the entity which possesses it?”

Danielj asked: “What kind of attribute is it?”

A kind which belongs to the entity which possesses it. Consciousness is its own type of attribute.

Danielj wrote: “I already brought this up and you chose not to address it.”

I’ve addressed everything you’ve stated that seem to bear on the topic at hand. Much of what you have stated suggests very strongly that you’re unfamiliar with even the basic tenets of Objectivism on the topic at hand. It’s unclear even what your position is, if it were laid out explicitly. For instance, when asked how consciousness is not an attribute of the entity which possesses it, you fail to deliver any kind of reasoning for your view, and instead just ask a question (“What kind of attribute is it?”).

Danielj wrote: “It isn’t observable in anyway [sic]”

Do you mean that consciousness is not observable “in *any* way”? Why do you suppose this? I’m observing my own consciousness introspectively. If I were not able to do this, I’d never be able to form concepts of consciousness. But clearly I have.

Danielj wrote: “and does not exist by that standard.”

Well, that just blew your position out of the water.

Danielj asked: “Does it smell funny? Is it orange? Is it hot?”

You seem to be assuming that only concepts which pertain to the level of sensation should be allowed to apply. But why? Are you stuck at that level of consciousness? Have you not explored your own consciousness beyond the level of sensations? I almost feel sorry for you.

Danielj : “Either consciousness exists or it doesn’t. If it does, than [sic] it has always existed like everything else in existence.”

I asked: “Can you explain how you think this is supposed to follow?”

Danielj wrote: “Firstly, please don’t pull that [sic] crap unless it is truly essential to your argument.”

I’ll do whatever the hell I want, even if you disapprove. Don’t get sore at me if you don’t understand the difference between “then” and “than.”

Danielj wrote: “It follows from your axiom Dawson. Existence exists. The universe exists and has always existed. Nothing can ‘begin’ to exist, come into existence, or ‘develop’. Maybe you need to better explain what you mean by existence exists instead of just sweeping your arms around in a grand gesture?”

I’ve explained this in numerous places on my blog. It’s in the Objectivist literature that you said you’ve read. And still you make some very boneheaded blunders. I thought you said you had read up on this stuff. Your statements clearly show otherwise.

I wrote: “I’ve written on many of these topics on my blog. You might want to check it out as you’ve stumbled quite severely if you think your statements have been representative of my position.”

Danielj wrote: “Well, maybe they aren’t then. I certainly don’t wanna misrepresent you and I’m sorry if I did.”

What is that you thought you were doing? What is that you want to do, if not misrepresent my position? I would accept your apology if you showed some genuine interest in avoiding this bad habit. But I’ve not seen it yet. You haven’t got any of the basics down, and flail away at straw men.

Danielj: “I’d prefer to watch objectivists struggle for dear life over at the Maverick Philosphers page.”

Yes, I remember that guy. He had a lot of trouble getting the basics of Objectivism correct. See for instance here: http://katholon.com/Vallicella.htm

You’ll see that even Vallicella is prone to misrepresenting Objectivism.

Danielj: “I don’t have any time to waste on your blog.”

You’re like a lot of theists. Suddenly you’re out of time when it comes to interacting with a position that poses a challenge to their theism.

Next?

I asked: “Where did I deny that consciousness develops? Didn’t you read what I wrote?”

Danielj responded: “What are the necessary elements of consciousness Dawson?”

Notice that Danielj does not show where I allegedly deny that consciousness develops. He said that I denied “proto consciousness,” but anyone who examines the record will see that I did not do this. It’s not even been discussed beyond his broaching of the notion.

As for the necessary elements of consciousness, I would list the following as bare minimums:

- To be conscious, an organism needs some means by which it acquires awareness of objects, e.g., sensory organs, a nervous system, a brain, etc.

- Consciousness requires an object to be conscious of (the notion of “consciousness of nothing” is a non-starter)

- Consciousness requires a purpose, e.g., as a means of survival for the organism possessing it.

Danielj asked: “Do you, or do you not agree that biology is not sufficient for consciousness?”

It’s not entirely clear to me what exactly this question is asking. Since consciousness is a biological phenomenon, an organism must have certain biological structures in order for it to be conscious. But not all biological organisms have these structures. So saying “biology is sufficient for consciousness” is somewhat broad and may be misunderstood. But if the biological organism has certain structures which give it consciousness of objects, then its biology is clearly sufficient in such cases.

I wrote: “Where did I deny that consciousness develops? Didn’t you read what I wrote?”

Danielj responded: “You didn’t explicitly deny it.”

No, I didn’t. I didn’t implicitly deny it either. My points about a fetus developing the organs needed for consciousness should clearly indicate that consciousness does develop, just as do heartbeat, respiration, circulation, etc. Consciousness is a biological function, just as these other functions are biological functions. Show us a non-biological entity which has consciousness (and actually exists). I am unaware of any.

Danielj wrote: “You equated sensation with it, then, you proceed to declare sensation a type of consciousness.”

My points have all along been consistent with the view that sensation is a type of consciousness.

Danielj wrote: “I believe that you do it implicitly and unintentionally.”

I asked you to show me where I denied a position, not what you happen to believe. At any rate, I hope you understand now.

I asked: “Do you think that sensation is not a form of consciousness?”

Danielj wrote: “No. I believe sensation is a part of and not a form of consciousness.”

For developed human beings, sensation is definitely part of our conscious experience. But this does not constitute a point of evidence against the recognition that sensation is a form of consciousness. Many organisms have not reached the perceptual level of consciousness, and have only sensation as their means of acquiring consciousness of objects. On Danielj’s view, these organisms are apparently not conscious. But this is arbitrary.

I asked: “What do you mean by “free,” and how does your claim follow from the fact that consciousness is biological? It’s not self-evident.”

Danielj responded: “I mean that biology is not sufficient for volition (or, freedom) which means that biology is not sufficient for consciousness.”

Notice that Danielj does not address my question. Instead, he simply asserts that “biology is not sufficient for volition,” without argument, perhaps because he “believes” that “biology is not sufficient for consciousness,” again a position for which he has provided no argument at all. I’m guessing that’s because he has a faith to defend.

Danielj continued: “I don’t think consciousness is biology. I’m accusing you of that belief which I believe to be an absurd belief.”

Either you do not understand what you read, or you are simply careless. I stated very clearly that consciousness is biological, not biology proper. Biology includes many other things, such as musculature, circulation, respiration, etc. So it’s unclear what you’re calling “an absurd belief.” Besides, on theistic grounds, what could possibly be “absurd”? You must be borrowing from my worldview. That would account for your clumsy use of the concept.

I asked: “Do you have any arguments to back up your claims? Or just questions?”

Danielj responded: “You know the arguments. You’ve proved you are capable of transcendental argumentation.”

I was specifically asking for you to provide some sort of argument (something more substantial than merely your belief or unsupported assertion) for the view that *if* consciousness is biological, “then the will is not free.” I’ve asked you to define your term “free,” which you failed to do, and I asked you to provide an argument for the view you have affirmed. But you produce no argument. Are you stalling so that you can think of one?

I wrote: “If you do not think consciousness is biological, what is it?”

Danielj responded: “It is a God given soul that supervenes on biology, or something. I don’t know exactly.”

Your god is imaginary, Danielj. If you choose to be honest to yourself one day, you will recognize this. I realize that it’s difficult right now.

I wrote: “It’s clear that you do not accept the primacy of existence. Why not go all the way?”

danielj stated: "You’re a genius! I’ve already tipped my hand in a wildly gesticulatory manner. I don’t accept the unequaled primacy of existence but I don’t go all the way on a first date Dawson.”

Again, I find I need to ask this: do you know what the primacy of existence means? To say that the primacy of existence is not true is in fact to assume its truth. Do you understand why? I’ve explained this from a variety of perspectives in a variety of contexts on my blog.

I wrote: “Sensation is a form of consciousness.”

Danielj asked: “How do you know that?”

By means of reason.

I wrote: “It’s not a matter of consciousness ‘following’ sensation.”

Danielj wrote: “Then it is a matter of consciousness following biology, which, as I’ve already tried to explain, is a dog that doesn’t hunt because biology isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness.”

Your “explanation” has so far consisted simply of your unsupported denials. Do you think that dog hunts?

I wrote: “Again, sensation is a form of consciousness. So is perception. So is conceptualization.”

Danielj responded: “So one could sense without perceiving or conceptualizing?”

Yes. Many organisms have not reached the perceptual level of consciousness (and therefore not reached the conceptual level of consciousness as well). Moreover, many organisms have reached the perceptual level of consciousness, but have not achieved the ability to conceptualize.

Danielj wrote: “Conceptualize without seeing or perceiving?”

Human beings who have been blind from birth have been able to conceptualize without seeing, but they had to perceive in some form in order to conceptualize. Rand’s study of Helen Keller is remarkable on this topic.

Danielj wrote: “It seems to me that they all ‘add up’ to consciousness.”

You’re assuming strictly human consciousness. Human consciousness is not representative of the type of consciousness which all organisms possess. All biological organisms which possess consciousness have at least the level of sensations; many have the ability to perceive objects qua objects; so far as we can firmly establish, only human beings have achieved the conceptual level of consciousness. But all three levels are types of consciousness. Sensation is the most primitive species of consciousness; perception is more primitive than conceptual consciousness. Perceptual consciousness would not be possible without sensations, and conceptual consciousness would not be possible without perceptual consciousness.

I wrote: “There are many forms of consciousness.”

Danielj asked: “What else besides those three?”

When you get to the perceptual level, there is memory. Dogs, which operate on the perceptual level of consciousness, can remember how to get back to their owners homes, for instance. When you get to the conceptual level of consciousness, in addition to memory there is something called imagination. Many worldviews fail to equip their adherents to distinguish between reality and imagination properly.

I asked: “Are you assuming that something must be eternal to be an object?”

Danielj responded: “No.”

Then I’m having difficulty understanding what you stated.

Danielj asked: “Are do you assume that existence must be eternal for objects to be temporal?”

No. Did you think I was?

Danielj asserted: “If it is simply biology it cannot be volitional.”

I asked: “Why not? What is your argument for this? What assumptions of yours are driving conclusions like this? I’m biological, and I have a volitional form of consciousness. Why can’t it be biological? Is it just that your conception of biological is so narrow that it arbitrarily excludes volition? Or do you think there’s a legitimate reason for this? If so, please state it.”

Danielj wrote: “Biology is not sufficient for consciousness. Do you deny this?”

See above.

Danielj wrote: “If you do then I would suggest to you that plants are sentient and conscious and that alone serves as a reductio of your entire worldview.”

Again, see above.

Danielj wrote: “If you don’t then I would suggest to you that consciousness is biology in addition to something else.”

No, organisms which possess consciousness are still biological organisms. There’s no “in addition” here.

I wrote: “You might start with Binswanger’s The Metaphysics of Consciousness”

Danielj wrote: “I’ll check it out.”

You will?

Danielj wrote: “I was thoroughly disappointed with your last recommendation to me (or perhaps it was recommended by somebody who frequents your blog), Piekoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.”

That’s a great book!

I asked: “Where did anything I write or that you found in the Objectivist literature deny man’s capacity for self-consciousness? That is the view you attributed to me. Where did you read this? Please, show me. I want to see.”

Danielj wrote: “Let’s get off this whole train. I was simply affirming in my own way that you (and all objectivists) deny the ‘primacy of consciousness’ as you call it. It was unimportant and isn’t truly germane.”

So, are you taking back your claim that I deny man’s capacity for self-consciousness?

I wrote: “My point is that consciousness must first be conscious of objects other than itself in order for it to be possible for consciousness to have itself as an object.”

Danielj wrote: “Please define object.”

For the purposes of the topic of our conversation, an object is any thing (be it an entity, an attribute, an action, a relationship, etc.) of which one is conscious, whether by means of sensation, perception or conceptualization.

Danielj asked: “Do believe in proto consciousness of any kind?”

It depends on what “proto consciousness” refers to. This has not been explained.

Danielj wrote: “Do you believe in proto consciousness now?”

Again, it depends on what it is taken to refer to. At this point it is just as undefined as when you first introduced it. Do you ever explain your terms?

Danielj wrote: “Strange, since you are an objectivist, that you didn’t start with two here.”

Why do you find that strange? I was not listing them in any particular order. All three are necessary elements.

Danielj asked: “So consciousness is biology plus an object (which would reduce to existence in my opinion) plus a purpose?”

Purpose is concurrent with biology, Danielj. Non-living things are not inherently purposive.

Danielj wrote: “That is still just biology Dawson.”

Yep. As I said: consciousness is biological. I’ve asked for you to name one non-biological thing which actually exists and possesses consciousness. You’ve not produced it.

Danielj wrote: “You’ve also introduced the superfluous notion of ‘purpose’ as well.”

You asked me to identify the criteria necessary for consciousness. How is purpose superfluous? Purpose is concurrent with biology because goal-orientation is inherently biological. Living organisms pursue goals; this is part of their living condition. It is not superfluous in any way. Non-living things do not pursue goals.

Danielj wrote: “Purpose isn’t an object and it does not exist. It is a convenient, ad-hoc invention of yours.”

You’re speaking autobiographically here, showing us how little you understand about purpose. Purpose refers to a condition which is present in biology.

Danielj wrote: “The extremely simple question: Is biology alone a sufficient condition for consciousness?

And I addressed this. Let me spell it out for you: if an organism possesses consciousness, then clearly its biology is a sufficient condition for consciousness. Try to understand that there’s a context here.

I wrote: “But not all biological organisms have these structures. So saying “biology is sufficient for consciousness” is somewhat broad and may be misunderstood.”

Danielj wrote: “That is because it isn’t a sufficient condition for consciousness.”

Again, you’re misleading yourself. We can only address the question on a case by case basis, taking into account the particulars of an organism’s biology (since that’s what the question is asking about). A plant for instance lacks the necessary biological structures for sensation. Thus, its biology is insufficient for consciousness. A dog, however, does have the biological structures which give it the ability to perceive. Thus its biology clearly is sufficient for perception. You’re arbitrarily looking for a one-size-fits-all rule which ignores the context of various situations found in nature.

It’s like asking: “Is biology sufficient for flight?” Well, some organisms’ biology is sufficient for flight, while others are not. To salvage any hope for objective meaning to your question, it should be revised. For instance, *which* organism’s biology is sufficient for consciousness? Answer: those organisms which possess consciousness. Show me an organism which possesses consciousness and yet whose biology is insufficient for consciousness. If you can’t do this, then my position on the matter remains unchallenged.

I wrote: “But if the biological organism has certain structures which give it consciousness of objects, then its biology is clearly sufficient in such cases.”

Danielj responded: “That just does not follow from the simple fact that it is not sufficient in other cases.”

Again, you’re looking for something completely arbitrary here. Why wouldn’t we take into account the particulars of each case, from species to species, in considering the question? Each organism has its own biological identity. Why arbitrarily ignore this fact?

I wrote: “For developed human beings, sensation is definitely part of our conscious experience. But this does not constitute a point of evidence against the recognition that sensation is a form of consciousness. Many organisms have not reached the perceptual level of consciousness, and have only sensation as their means of acquiring consciousness of objects. On Danielj’s view, these organisms are apparently not conscious. But this is arbitrary.”

Danielj wrote: “So, sensation isn’t a sufficient condition for perception or concept-formation? Sensation, in addition to what, is sufficient for perception?”

There is a profound distinction between sensation and perception, just as there is a profound distinction between perception and conceptualization. A minimum requirement for perception is the ability to integrate sensations into a single unit, giving an entity awareness of entities qua entities. This ability is biological, but not all organisms have this. A minimum requirement for conceptualization is the ability to integrate percepts into open-ended unities by a process of abstraction. This ability is biological, but not all organisms have this.

I asked: “So, are you taking back your claim that I deny man’s capacity for self-consciousness?”

Danielj responded: “No, because what I ultimately meant was that you deny, what you would call, the primacy of consciousness.”

Oh, of course I deny the primacy of existence. Performatively, you do too. Only you don’t realize it yet.

But if you’re equating self-consciousness with the primacy of consciousness, or somehow think these are one and the same, or suppose that denying the primacy of consciousness entails or is tantamount a denial of self-consciousness, then clearly you’re confused on the meaning of at least one of these concepts. From what I’ve seen, it’s very possible that you’re confused on both.

I asked: “No. Did you think I was?”

Danielj wrote: “You don’t believe that existence exists and has done so eternally?”

Of course, existence is eternal. Time presupposes existence.

But that is not what you were asking. You asked: “Are do you assume that existence must be eternal for objects to be temporal?” And in response to this question, I answered no, because I don’t assume that existence must be eternal (in order) for objects to be temporal.

I wrote: “the notion of 'consciousness of nothing' is a non-starter."

Danielj asked: “I’m not sure I agree with this either. Isn’t ‘nothing’ a concept? Isn’t ‘things that don’t exist’ a concept as well?”

You’re confusing yourself. I was not stating that consciousness *of the concept ‘nothing’* is a non-starter. Rather, my point was that the notion of a consciousness without an object to be conscious of is a non-starter. It’s a contradiction in terms. You wouldn’t say that an organism is conscious, and then say “Well, it’s not conscious of anything.” If it’s not conscious of anything (i.e., no objects), how can one say it’s conscious?

I wrote: “Purpose is concurrent with biology, Danielj. Non-living things are not inherently purposive.”

Danielj asked: “Purpose, like purposeful? Like volitional?”

Not all purpose is volitional. In fact, statistically speaking, very little is volitional. For instance, your heart beats for a purpose, but it is not regulated by volition. A plant’s roots pull water and nutrients from the ground for a purpose, but this action is not volitionally initiated.

I wrote: “And I addressed this. Let me spell it out for you: if an organism possesses consciousness, then clearly its biology is a sufficient condition for consciousness. Try to understand that there’s a context here.”

Danielj asked: “You’ll now admit that consciousness reduces to biology?”

I’ve addressed this already. My position has not changed. Scroll up and read again if you did not catch it the first time.

I wrote: “For instance, your heart beats for a purpose, but it is not regulated by volition.”

Danielj asked: “What purpose is that? To pump blood? For what purpose is the heart pumping blood? Are you admitting final causes here?”

I thought you said you had read Objectivist literature. You don’t seem familiar with Objectivism at all.

“…admitting final causes…”? What do you mean “admitting”? With rhetoric like this, you make it sound like you think I’m making some kind of concession here. But if you were familiar with Objectivism, you wouldn’t do this (unless you simply insisted on being dishonest).

According to Objectivism, life is an end in itself. The organism’s actions are purposive in that they serve to meet the goal of living life.

Danielj wrote: “If human beings are purely and entirely circumscribed by their biology,”

I’m not sure what you mean by “purely and entirely circumscribed by their biology.” You make it sound as though human beings were some kind of alien substance encased in meat, implying that they are really something other than biological. If you do not think human beings are biological organisms, would you state this explicitly for the record? You don’t have to explain why – I already know that you embrace the primacy of consciousness.

Danielj wrote: “I fail to see how you aren’t just a run-o-the-mill materialist.”

Yes, there is much that you fail to see, Danielj. I submit that this is because you ascribe to a worldview which systemically stifles your understanding of reality.

by Dawson Bethrick