Hi Belaqua,
Sorry about the format. I don't know how to work all the quotes on this forum yet (yes, it's true I'm really dumb about all this computer stuff). I'll get it figured out as soon as I have time to sit and play with it.
I had written: The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.
You responded: "(This is a typo that's supposed to say "true" instead of "false".....? Or maybe I'm confused....?)"
I was attempting to demonstrate how a denial of the primacy of existence would contradict itself. The part in italics is the part that is implicitly in any statement about reality. You could tack this onto any statement anyone might make which is supposed to represent a fact. Sorry if it was confusing. If you said for instance that Apples are green, the "independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary" would be implicit in that statement. This would be true even for statements that aren't true because I doubt anyone would say their statement was true because they said so or because they want it to be true.
I had written: That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e., Consciousness is metaphysically passive.
You responded: "I'm on board with most of this. I see no reason to doubt that there is stuff "out there." Things exist independent of me, don't need my consciousness, will continue to exist when I'm gone, etc.
I think I'd dissent, though, on the idea that consciousness is passive. I don't think we evolved to perceive the world passively. Our sense organs receive input (e.g. light or sound) passively, but our minds edit and interpret all of that before we are even aware of it. This had evolutionary advantage in that we automatically picked out from the environment the things that were more important for us.
As a simple example, when you meet a friend you are far more aware of his face than of his thigh. His thigh is bigger, so if consciousness were passive it would loom larger in our awareness. But the face contains the information we are interested in, so we focus on that and pretty much ignore the thigh.
This doesn't mean that thighs don't exist, or that our minds "create" stuff in the world. Just that our relationship to that stuff isn't passive."
I should have said Metaphysically passive, but epistemologically active.
I had written: Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship.
You responded: "This I'm not seeing yet.....
In what way does every version of theism hold that consciousness is primary? Is it because God is said to be conscious? I don't understand."
No, because of the relationship that God's consciousness is said to have to its objects. It is said that existence is dependent on it, is maintained by it and can be altered by it, i.e., the doctrine of creation, miracles, its plan, etc.
I had written: They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you." Matthew 17:20.
You responded: "The idea that faith, or prayer, can perform acts on objects is doubtful, I agree. But I don't see why mental stuff influencing matter would mean that consciousness is primary over existence.
It doesn't seem right to me that in every case if X can influence or change Y, then X is in some way has "primacy" over Y.
If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something. But in what way do they have "primacy" over you? Not temporal primacy, because of course, you came before your kids. There may be a power struggle, in which there are different winners at different times, but how does this establish some kind of metaphysical "primacy"?
Objects are objects, and ESP, telekinesis, etc., are myths. That's fair. But I don't get the rest of the metaphysical claims here......"
Your kids screaming is a physical action carried out by physical means, so it would not count. If the child wished that his green beans were Apple pie and poof the green beans became Apple pie, then that would be a case of the primacy of consciousness.
If x can influence or change y, where y is some object of its awareness other than its own mental activity, purely by thinking, wishing, wanting, desiring, etc, then that would be an instance of the primacy of consciousness.
I highly recommend, if you want to understand this issue, that you do a search for David Kelley primacy of existence. He's a great speaker and he really knows how to make this stuff understandable. He can do a much better job than my feeble attempt. It isn't too long and I think you'll learn a lot.
Sorry about the format. I don't know how to work all the quotes on this forum yet (yes, it's true I'm really dumb about all this computer stuff). I'll get it figured out as soon as I have time to sit and play with it.
I had written: The primacy of existence is false independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary.
You responded: "(This is a typo that's supposed to say "true" instead of "false".....? Or maybe I'm confused....?)"
I was attempting to demonstrate how a denial of the primacy of existence would contradict itself. The part in italics is the part that is implicitly in any statement about reality. You could tack this onto any statement anyone might make which is supposed to represent a fact. Sorry if it was confusing. If you said for instance that Apples are green, the "independent of anyone's ideas to the contrary" would be implicit in that statement. This would be true even for statements that aren't true because I doubt anyone would say their statement was true because they said so or because they want it to be true.
I had written: That's a fancy way of saying that wishing doesn't make things so, i.e., Consciousness is metaphysically passive.
You responded: "I'm on board with most of this. I see no reason to doubt that there is stuff "out there." Things exist independent of me, don't need my consciousness, will continue to exist when I'm gone, etc.
I think I'd dissent, though, on the idea that consciousness is passive. I don't think we evolved to perceive the world passively. Our sense organs receive input (e.g. light or sound) passively, but our minds edit and interpret all of that before we are even aware of it. This had evolutionary advantage in that we automatically picked out from the environment the things that were more important for us.
As a simple example, when you meet a friend you are far more aware of his face than of his thigh. His thigh is bigger, so if consciousness were passive it would loom larger in our awareness. But the face contains the information we are interested in, so we focus on that and pretty much ignore the thigh.
This doesn't mean that thighs don't exist, or that our minds "create" stuff in the world. Just that our relationship to that stuff isn't passive."
I should have said Metaphysically passive, but epistemologically active.
I had written: Those who hold that the subject of consciousness holds primacy over its objects, such as every version of theism I've ever heard about, reverse this relationship.
You responded: "This I'm not seeing yet.....
In what way does every version of theism hold that consciousness is primary? Is it because God is said to be conscious? I don't understand."
No, because of the relationship that God's consciousness is said to have to its objects. It is said that existence is dependent on it, is maintained by it and can be altered by it, i.e., the doctrine of creation, miracles, its plan, etc.
I had written: They hold that consciousness has primacy over existence, the subject holds primacy over its objects. Therefore they hold that in essence, wishing does make it so, e.g., "If ye have the faith (a type of conscious activity) of a mustard seed, ye can say to the mountain (an object) move from there to over there and the mountain will move and nothing will be impossible to you." Matthew 17:20.
You responded: "The idea that faith, or prayer, can perform acts on objects is doubtful, I agree. But I don't see why mental stuff influencing matter would mean that consciousness is primary over existence.
It doesn't seem right to me that in every case if X can influence or change Y, then X is in some way has "primacy" over Y.
If your kids scream loudly enough, they can make you do something. But in what way do they have "primacy" over you? Not temporal primacy, because of course, you came before your kids. There may be a power struggle, in which there are different winners at different times, but how does this establish some kind of metaphysical "primacy"?
Objects are objects, and ESP, telekinesis, etc., are myths. That's fair. But I don't get the rest of the metaphysical claims here......"
Your kids screaming is a physical action carried out by physical means, so it would not count. If the child wished that his green beans were Apple pie and poof the green beans became Apple pie, then that would be a case of the primacy of consciousness.
If x can influence or change y, where y is some object of its awareness other than its own mental activity, purely by thinking, wishing, wanting, desiring, etc, then that would be an instance of the primacy of consciousness.
I highly recommend, if you want to understand this issue, that you do a search for David Kelley primacy of existence. He's a great speaker and he really knows how to make this stuff understandable. He can do a much better job than my feeble attempt. It isn't too long and I think you'll learn a lot.
