"'I daresay your philosophers have argued whether the sound of a stone falling in the desert, unheard by any ears, is a real phenomenon.' Herktaskor nodded. 'It is an old conundrum, found on countless planets...'" (p. 251)
Surely the answer is easy, though? "Sound" can mean either vibrations of air molecules or an aural experience. In the example given, the first is present but not the second.
Schuster, subverting Ivanhoan theology by introducing the Kabbalah, argues that God creates in order to be known but surely, on this hypothesis, He was already known by Himself? But there is something in the argument. I suggest that consciousness requires a self-other, subject-object relationship, which could not have existed in a pre-cosmic unity. Therefore, creation, in the sense of differentiation, was necessary for consciousness - although it cannot have been preceded by a conscious creator.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Ah, shades of the Anglican Bishop Berkeley and how Dr. Sam Johnson derisively "refuted" him by kicking a stone.
Yes, the sounds made by a falling tree as it crashes are real, even if no one is around to hear them.
And I simply don''t believe God needs others to exist before He can be said to exist. God is infinitely eternal, happy, and self sufficient. And needs no one or anything else to be those things.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I stand by my argument that self is recognized as such only by contrast with other. They are like up and down, left and right, north and south.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I believe God has no need to "contrast" Himself to any other being to know He exists. I don't think the idea you argue for even makes logical sense.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course it is logical. Every self-conscious being thinks of him/herself as "I." First, s/he is conscious of something. The "something" can be literally anything. With us, it is the environment that we see, hear etc. A completely different being will be conscious of completely different objects of consciousness. But consciousness has some objects. Without them, we are unconscious. In our case, if we do not see, hear etc anything, then we have not become conscious yet. Having become conscious of whatever it is, we then reflect, "I am conscious of that." The "I," the subject of consciousness is conscious of itself being conscious of the "that." Without a "that," the "I" is empty, does not even begin to exist.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I was talking about GOD, Who, logically, cannot be said to be as bound and limited in the ways human beings are. I think your comments here can apply only to human beings. And to intelligent beings living on other worlds.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My comment applies to any consciousness. I argue that self-consciousness requires consciousness which requires objects. If the proposition, "I am conscious of -" has no object, then what is the "I"?
If you assume a concept of GOD, then you cannot engage in dialogue with anyone who does not accept or who questions that concept. We just talk past each other. I find this with street Evangelicals.
Paul.
As Kant argued, the "I" is simply the unification of experience. The thought, "I remember that," involves the application of the concept of a temporally enduring subject distinct from its temporally enduring objects. Without that concept, there would merely be immediate sense impressions and, if there were no memory, then the sensations would begin and end simultaneously. Thus, there would be no consciousness.
Remove objects and temporal endurance and you remove the subject, like removing the sides of a square but saying that the square is still there.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly. I don't agree with your premises, in this case about God, so no agreement is possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So you think that there can be a self-conscious subject of consciousness that has no body, surroundings, environment, external objects of consciousness or passage of time?
Paul.
Sean,
BTW, if you assume first that GOD is a coherent concept and secondly that a discussion can commence from the premise that that concept corresponds to ultimate reality, then it is me disagreeing with your premise, not vice versa.
Paul.
13 billion years to make man, btw.
13, not 5! Big difference.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes. And that Being is also omnipotent and omniscient and eternal, without beginning or end. And that all time is eternally present to God.
Agree, we have different premises. And I believe mine to be the correct one. As you do yours.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I have no reason to accept the existence of God as so defined. The existence of God is a premise. Seeing no reason to accept that premise is nit in itself an equal and opposite premise. It is simply the absence of that particular premise.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't think Plato or Aristotle would agree with you. They worked out arguments or premises for the existence of God.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Sure. Plato and Aristotle would argue to a conclusion, not just state a premise. I am a philosopher like them even if not in their league. Philosophy is not a set of doctrines but the ability to discuss any doctrines. Thus, a fellow graduate student who followed his Master's degree with training for the Presbyterian ministry and I were both, and still are, philosophers.
Paul.
Sean,
Omniscient? But a subject without objects would have nothing to know.
Without beginning or end? But that means beginningless and endless time. There would be no time if there were no changing objects of consciousness and no past experiences to remember.
Paul.
Post a Comment