Libertarianism, Objectivism and the Hard Problem

Discussion in 'Consciousness & Science' started by Esben GOldstein Vinsnes, Jan 15, 2016.

  1. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    Recently I engaged a bunch of so-called political consequent liberals in a discussion about objectivism, as that seems to be the dominant dogma of the party. But when I called it dogma all hell broke loose. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, I just assumed that people were familiar with basic 20th century notions beside objectivism. Now the problem arose when I tried to explain that I agree with their first axiom (that we have consciousness) but not with the inference that "reality exists", as they put it, in an external material state outside consciousness. After that the whole discussion just slid into absurdity, because they would not get the question I was asking about whether consciousness is primary or not - they simply skipped over it or misunderstood no matter how many times I reformulated it. It seemed to have something to do with how they define "reality". My intention was to explore how people can arrive at libertarianism coming from radically different angles. Now I'm perplexed as to whether I should continue the debate or not. Are there any idealists in here who can explain to me how this Randism works through her disciples? And how to speak to them?
     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  2. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    That happens even on here. lol. To me the clear is terms and our associations with them. For many people "consciousness" means human/animal awareness. There's phrase like "she lost consciousness." If that's the only definition one has known as valid then when someone offers "consciousness is primary" one might want to tell them to go take their meds.

    I've tried a few times on here to get a discourse about (re)defining terminology but so far to no avail. Because part of the problem is that each of us is often convinced that the associations we have with a term are both the only correct ones and the ones most "sensible people" use.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  3. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    Yes I getya, but I explicitly asked them if they thought, as objectivists, that consciousness is a product of matter. Isn't that quite clear semantically?
     
  4. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    ??? Given what I stated above, it's like inquiring "is water wet?" And if a person is a committed objectivist, it's almost like asking the Pope if God exists. Don't you see that?
     
  5. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    Well, given the answers I got to this question, you are not stating something obvious. You see, they didn't reply to that as you are implying with your pope example. They completely failed to register the question, simply because they refused to define their terms. They just kept saying that "reality exists" as if that solves anything. Of course reality exists, but when I try to come to terms with what they mean with reality by asking the fundamental question... nothing. It has nothing to do with my associations as I was the one reaching out in order to define the terms so that I could understand what they mean with reality, morals, and not to mention "objective art".
     
  6. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    I'm almost as puzzled by your responses to me as you seem to be by theirs. :) With what I already mentioned about definitions, I just don't see how their "failing to register" what you mean is surprising. If you look up objectivism, what they mean by reality is clearly defined.

    Perhaps it may help you to re-visit your own assumptions about who others "should" assess your statements. If discourse with them is important to you then I'd think coming up with new ways to phrase things could be a start.
     
  7. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    This is only tangentially related, but I have been thinking about it for a couple of days, so I will add it to this discussion. I find that my beliefs and understanding are somewhat affected by what media I am currently concentrating on. It's like I have a kind of core understanding location, but it begins to get more conservative if I am taking in more conservative media. And vice versa. And I also think that gaining an understanding of "paradigm" shifting ideas like Kastrupian Idealism takes a kind of mental practice akin to learning to play the piano. The "mind" (or wherever understanding rests) must be limbered up and exercised in order to really "grok" alternative viewpoints.

    So if these folks are in the habit of continually reinforcing their current worldview with more of the same, it makes perfect sense that they would be basically unable to even begin to understand the ideas you were presenting. They haven't even begun to develop any chops for it.

    On a side note that is somewhat related, this is why I really enjoy listening to podcasts like TheHigherSide Chats. Listening to super fringe ideas for me is like exercise scales for the imagination. I don't need to believe them or not believe them. I can just listen to people present their ideas and I can practice suspending disbelief during the presentation. (Or maybe not depending on how kooky.) But I feel like entertaining "out there" ideas stretches my mind a bit. I doubt your average objectivist really does this in the same way. At least not about the nature of reality, which is what you were asking them to consider. They already know the nature of reality. It is what they can see and what they can touch. Obvious.
     
  8. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    It's not that I think they should. I wanted to have a discussion about how fundamentally different motivations can arrive at the same political conclusion. Phrasing it differently was exactly what I asked for.
     
    Ian Gordon likes this.
  9. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    Apart from you being influenced by what you read, I don't see it as tangential. It's right on point. In fcat, it states in another way what I've been expressing Hence my conclusion that if discourse with committed objectivists is important to him, he'll be well-served by coming up with a different approach.

    Oh and in this case, I don't see any of this as "alternative". Just ,more accurate and encompassing.
     
  10. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    Okay man. I give up. Maybe FarFromHere can explain it to you in a way you get.
     
  11. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    Why give up? Couldn't you be an example for me to follow, by providing new phrasing so that I can see your point?
     
  12. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    I could but recall one phrase I used - "if it's important to you." This isn't important to me.
     
  13. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    Saiko resides here:

     
    Hurmanetar likes this.
  14. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    ?? What is your problem man? My stating that this isn't important to me and that you might do a better job explaining it is something you see validity in launching an attack about?
     
  15. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    I doubt my one silly quip outweighs your near constant rudeness and condescension.
     
    Hurmanetar, brooke and Ian Gordon like this.
  16. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    Okay, let me rephrase the original question as this seems unproductive. Can anyone help me phrase the question of primaries so that objectivists might understand it?
     
  17. Esben GOldstein Vinsnes

    Esben GOldstein Vinsnes New

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    26
    I agree with your points, but I'm still hoping for a way to bridge this thing.
     
  18. Far.From.Here

    Far.From.Here New

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2015
    Messages:
    932
    I'm not sure that it is even possible. They would need to be receptive and hungry for the new information. The vessel must be ready to receive the transmission. Otherwise the seed is wasted. ;)
     
  19. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,369
    Home Page:
    I like FarFromHere's answer. Our thinking evolves in gradual paradigm busting epiphanies. It generally takes a while of doing mental gymnastics to get from one place to the other. We have mental structures and these are what keep us sane. We cannot tear them down all at once or we risk going off the deep end.

    I think there are many avenues for busting up objectivism but they all come down to boundary dissolution. Maybe one of the best ways to get people there is through deconstruction. "Now slices" might work... The old double slit experiment... I hear psychedelics might be of use. Maybe introduce them to the Skeptiko podcast? :)

    I think I've given up on arguing that consciousness must be "prime". First of all we don't know what consciousness is and I think if/when we figure it out the implications on causality will render the statement nonsensical. Second of all, consciousness as I understand it is subjective experience and it means nothing without an objective reality to experience.. even if that objective reality is said to be a creation of the subconscious mind. Subject implies object. Inner implies outer. That said.. I would also argue that objective material cannot be prime. I think both subject/object inner experience / outer world arise together.
     
  20. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,369
    Home Page:
    Also, I recommend Dean Radin's book, Supernormal. He lists the tenets of objective classical materialism (locality, causality, etc) and provides multiple experiments that contradict them.
     

Share This Page