99Percent

I have been giving a lot of thought to the Objectivist's claim that reality exists independently from the human mind, that the world and universe will exist whether I am there or not. It is obvious (but why?) that the universe existed for eons before I was born therefore it is logical to assume the universe will continue to exist when I die. However, what is existence of the universe for me if I don't have an existence myself? For all existential purposes the universe did not exist before I acquired consciousness and will not exist when I die. Existentially speaking, reality does require the mind to exist. So what gives here?

I think the key lies on what is logical. That the universe existed before I was born is logical and consistent. Reality is logical and consistent. Time and therefore existence has a constant element. When I wake up in the morning my surroundings match logically with how I remember them before I went to sleep. My memory is constantly refreshed with persistent and logical information. When I see my son, I see the face I remembered, and if it has been altered, there is a logical explanation for the changes. What my senses are telling me have a consistent quality to the information it is sensing. The objects that I am seeing don't disappear or appear without any explanation. The object that I am holding in my hand matches with what my eyes are seeing - the independent perceptions of sense and vision are logically compatible.

This is very different from what dreams and the supernatural would be. In dreams things don't make sense at all, even though they are apparently "perceived". Sometimes the non-conscious mind inside a dream seems to not realize that the dream is not making sense at all and still thinks it is really reality distorting logic to fill in the gaps. However, memory in a dream does not last long because of this. Events in dreams become foggy and are quickly forgotten. In effect the human brain seems to require a continous refresh from the senses or else things are forgotten, much like a face you only see once - you will be hard pressed to remember it weeks later.

Likewise the supernatural cannot be real because it does not have a logical and consistent quality and that is why it is called precisely supernatural.

So in conclusion, what Objectivists are saying when "reality exists independently of the mind" they are really saying that reality is logical and consistent and that it makes sense to the human mind. Reality of course ceases to be when the mind is dead, but when it is happening, it is really real because of its logical nature.

owleye

99 percent...

I disagree.

"I have been giving a lot of thought to the Objectivist's claim that reality exists independently from the human mind, that the world and universe will exist whether I am there or not."

I think there are a number of problems with considering the question of reality in this way. In ordinary usage, when we say something is real (regardless of the stance we have on what is real), we mean that it exists whether or not we are there to say it is, or perceive it, or whatever. If it were exclusively a mental construction -- say a dream or hallucination -- we would say so, and not press for considering it real (though we may insist on it seeming to be _so_ real). The problem then becomes not with what we mean by reality -- but with your phraseology that it exists "independent" of the mind. Thus, we appear to be seeking whether there is in fact anything that exists completely independent of the mind. The idea here is that since what appears to us in perception is undoubtedly a construction of the mind, this construction depends in great measure on how reality (if it exists) affects it such that the construction can proceed. If the mind is in no way affected by real objects and objects appear to us without the existence of objects themselves, then it is a very strange world that we construct. A TV image may be a way for us to understand the construction of these objects by the machinery of the camera and image making technology. Moreover, we know that the objects about which the images intend to refer need not actually be present at the time (the stars we see in the sky might not actually exist at the time and place of their observation). Despite this, it does seem that information about the objects manages to infiltrate our neural network in such a way that some sort of representation of their existence is produced and produced in a way that these representations represent reality for us. It is as if our brain intentionally hides the machinery which produces the world for us just so that it uses that production as if it were real. That it does this in near real-time and without too many errors is apparently sufficiently advantageous to us that it became a possible genetic attribute.

"It is obvious (but why?) that the universe existed for eons before I was born therefore it is logical to assume the universe will continue to exist when I die."

Logic has nothing to do with it. As Hume points out, it is as logical that the universe will come to an end tomorrow as it is to retain its existence through the end of this day. According to Hume we are only psychologically disposed to believe that things will act in accordance with the way they've always acted.

"However, what is existence of the universe for me if I don't have an existence myself? For all existential purposes the universe did not exist before I acquired consciousness and will not exist when I die. "

Different question entirely. First you have to tell me about your own purpose for existing. I think it is a good idea that you undertake such thinking. I suspect that determining your purpose depends heavily on your theory of reality. Since you cannot determine that things exist, you are undoubtedly not going to be able to determine why they exist.

"I think the key lies on what is logical. That the universe existed before I was born is logical and consistent. Reality is logical and consistent."

You're on the wrong track, I think. Logic and consistency should undoubtedly regulate your thoughts on the matter, but I wouldn't regard such a regulation necessarily applies to the content of such thought.

"Time and therefore existence has a constant element. When I wake up in the morning my surroundings match logically with how I remember them before I went to sleep."

You have a misunderstanding of what logic is all about. It is not because the universe is logical that the surroundings perceived on arousal match that before sleeping. There is undoubtedly a causal explanation for this. Causal explanations have a logical element to them, but this does not imply that it is precisely the logical element that serves as the explanation. This was how logical positivism (or logical empiricism) tried to argue. If you wish we can get into a discussion of this in more detail.

"My memory is constantly refreshed with persistent and logical information. When I see my son, I see the face I remembered, and if it has been altered, there is a logical explanation for the changes."

Again, you may seek explanations that are logical, but it is not its logic that makes the explanation explanatory. It is their causal efficacy.

owleye

Infinity Lover

In a nutshell...

You're a part of existence, experiencing your brains interpretation of it.

"Existentially speaking, reality does require the mind to exist."

(Anoying buzzer) WRONG!!
For your brains interpretation of reality to exist, your mind needs to exist.
Take a fotograph of yourself... and asume that you didn't really exist, before and after the photograph was taken, because the camera thinks so. It's a good thing my existence doesn't depend on your sense of logic, if you don't mind me saying so.
No, no, don't assume I'm I figment of your imagination, Noooooh.
(disapears in a puff of existentialism...)


[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]

on a different note...
A beginning, and what was there before, and before that, and before that...
what does it take to drop this beginning b.s. nothing never exist, so everything's (not each thing)always exists. Don't "believe" things could never be that simple. Realize they could be that simple! (actually they couldn't possibly not be that simple) We DON'T really move 'through time'... time IS a movement (the one of your clock to be precise)

[ August 24, 2002: Message edited by: Infinity Lover ]</p>