Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

A subject cannot logically posit that a world without subjects exists.

Now if you admit that it is logically impossible for a subject to posit the being of a world with no subjects, then who can posit the logical possibility of the being of such a world? If no one, where does this logical possibilty come from? Does the logical universe extend beyond the subject-world structure? And if so, if logic precedes the being of the world, so that some Platonic principle says that there can be worlds without subjects, what relevance can such a principle have? How can we ever use that kind of logic? We can only use logic within the subject-world dipole. That basic ontological structure defines the limits of our logical universe. That the being of x is logically possible means that it is possible for a subject or other unknown principle to posit the being of x into the logical universe. And if it is not possible, it is impossible.

You are so wrong! I can easily imagine a logically possible word devoid of subjects.

The (realistic) ontological concept of an object is not the (idealistic) concept of an object-for-a-subject. Given the former, (real) objects (natural, material ones at least) are independent of subjects, of being (intentional) objects of perception, cogitation, or imagination.

[Tamminen]

The (realistic) ontological concept of an object is not the (idealistic) concept of an object-for-a-subject. Given the former, (real) objects (natural, material ones at least) are independent of subjects, of being (intentional) objects of perception, cogitation, or imagination.

Yes, their being is independent of the being of an individual subject, but not independent of the being of the subject in one form or another. Have you ever thought about what the limits of our logical universe are, the logical space where we can posit the possibility of objects and possible worlds? If you read my recent posts, you see what I mean.

[RJG]

A subject can logically try to posit a possible world of any kind, but because that world must fit into the logical space within the structure of 'subject-world', which is our logical universe, so to speak, the possible world we really posit cannot be without subjects.

Not so.

1. It is NOT impossible for me (a "subject") to posit a subjectless world.
2. If I do not exist (i.e. am "subjectless"), then yes, it is impossible for (the 'non-existent') me to posit a subjectless world.

Therefore, the claim -- "A subjectless world is logically impossible". -- does not logically follow, nor equates.

The weak point which I challenged you to attack on, is the question of where logic itself stands in our reality, and if it stands in our reality at all.

Logic/math is our innate (a priori) means of "making sense" of reality. It precedes our (a posterior) 'experiential' view of reality. X=X, and 1+1=2, are still true, regardless if anyone (any experiential being) is around to witness/experience it.

So if you look what Wittgenstein says about it, you can oppose him or not. But if you agree with him, as I do, the logical conclusion should be clear. Or is it?

Not so. Your claim/conclusion is not logically valid, and therefore not "sound", nor "clear" at all.

Now if you admit that it is logically impossible for a [non-existing] subject to posit the being of a world with no subjects, then who can posit the logical possibility of the being of such a world?

I've added the "[ ]" above to correct your error.

Again:
1. It is NOT impossible for a "subject" to posit a subjectless world, though...
2. It IS impossible for a non-subject ("subjectless being") to posit a subjectless world.

Neither case, separately or jointly, validates your claim that -- "a subjectless world is logically impossible".

When we speak about the logical possibility of a being, we must define the logical space in the logical universe where the possibility of that being can or cannot be posited. If the possibility of that being lies outside of the limits of the logical universe, it can be said that positing the possibility of that being is logically impossible or absurd, or that it makes no sense to speak of its possibility. Which one of these expressions we should use, we can discuss, but I think they all lead to the same: impossibility.

Here are the logical limits:
1. If the "being" does not exist, then he CANNOT logically "posit" about his being.
2. If the "being" does exist, then he CAN logically "posit" about his being.

My position, and also Mr. Wittgensteins's, is that the logical universe coincides with our logical universe, which means that the subject-world relationship defines the limits for what is logically possible.

Not so. The "subject-world" is post-experiential, and the "logic-world" is pre-experiential. The "subject-world" therefore cannot "define" the "logic-world". For any attempt to do so, would be through the pre-defined means of logic; given by the logic-world.

A unicorn is an abstraction that fits perfectly into our logical universe, and makes sense as part of a possible world.

A Christian's Heaven is a beautiful abstraction and extension of our world, and makes a perfect example of a possible world, with all its inhabitants, although only some of us believe it is real.

A world without inhabitants is an abstraction of our world that does not belong to the group of possible worlds, because its possibility of being lies outside of the limits of our logical universe, outside of the subject-world relationship. It is a "forbidden" world.

1. "Unicorns", "heavens", and "subjectless worlds" can ALL be abstracted by a subject.
2. Without subjects, "unicorns, "heavens, and "subjectless worlds" CANNOT be abstracted; and therefore are ALL logically "forbidden".

Again, neither of these statements logically imply -- "A subjectless world is logically impossible"!

[Tamminen]

It is NOT impossible for me (a "subject") to posit a subjectless world.

Yes, it is, for reasons I have given. You can posit an abstraction of it, as if floating in the air, but that is not a possible world, because a possible world can be posited only into the logical universe limited by the subject-world relationship, the logical space where we can use logic. As I wrote, a world cannot be an object for the subjects of another world, because there is only one world. We must speak of alternate or possible worlds. We cannot posit the possibility of a subjectless world in place of our world, because logic itself defines that it must be posited within the subject-world relationship. I think you just did not get this. And even if there were parallel worlds, as in the multiverse scenario, those parallel worlds would be parallel in relation to our world, a world with inhabitants, and the world as I define it would be our world + all the parallel worlds. So there is one world, by definition, and that world is inhabited.

Logic/math is our innate (a priori) means of "making sense" of reality.

True.

It precedes our (a posterior) 'experiential' view of reality.

True.

X=X, and 1+1=2, are still true, regardless if anyone (any experiential being) is around to witness/experience it.

Those logical statements are valid only within the logical universe, which in my view is limited by the subject-world relationship, because that is the logical universe where we can use logic. Logic does not reside in a Platonic heaven. It precedes the facts of the world, but not the being of the world. And its use presupposes the being of the user. So the being and use of logic presupposes the being of an inhabited world.

If the "being" does exist, then he CAN logically "posit" about his being.

So what can a subject posit into the logical universe if that logical universe is limited by the subject-world relationship - which is a limitation you apparently do not accept?

We posit possibilities, because that is what we do in logic. We can posit the possibility of the being of a material object, like a stone, into an arbitrary place in the pysical universe, even if we have no causal connection with that place. We can also posit abstractions like the being of a unicorn into arbitrary places in the physical universe. We can posit all kinds of possible worlds and extensions of our world as long as they are inhabited, because they fit into the logical universe delimited by the subject-world relationship, which defines the basic ontological structure of reality. But we cannot consistently posit a possible world without subjects, although at first sight we think we can, because that kind of a world is an abstraction from our own universe grounded perhaps on our knowledge of the uninhabited regions and early stages of our universe, and this abstraction lies outside of our logical universe for reasons I have given. Therefore its being is logically impossible, whereas the being of unicorns is only physically impossible. As I said, it is a "forbidden" world.

Not so. The "subject-world" is post-experiential, and the "logic-world" is pre-experiential. The "subject-world" therefore cannot "define" the "logic-world". For any attempt to do so, would be through the pre-defined means of logic; given by the logic-world.

I disagree. Logic cannot precede the being of the world or the subject-world structure, it only precedes facts. Logic cannot be used outside of the subject-world relationship, and what cannot be used, has no use. Such logic would have no relevance. We can limit the logical universe from within logic, by reductio ad absurdum, just because we can use logic.

"Unicorns", "heavens", and "subjectless worlds" can ALL be abstracted by a subject.

Sure, but only unicorns and heavens can be logically posited as parts of possible worlds.

Again, neither of these statements logically imply -- "A subjectless world is logically impossible"!

After all this discussion I still claim that you do not really get my point, but don't worry, you are not the only one on this forum. My fault of course, but this seems to be very difficult to explain in spite of its self-evidence for me. It seems to demand some kind of change in the way of thinking, a more reflective attitude. And I also think that we are here at the core of what idealism really means, its logical foundation. And I do not mean subjective idealism.

[Sy Borg]

My understanding is that you do not claim that the plasma, molecular clouds and black holes were conscious, but the configuration of that reality was such that the emergence of consciousness was made possible. So, while there was no visceral sense of being within these pre nervous system entities there was ...

My interpretation is that the laws of physics are such that they make the cosmic and biological evolution possible and necessary, also the evolution towards consciousness. So the essential nature of consciousness is the driving force of the universe. That matter behaves according to the principles of causality and randomness does not conflict with this. I am trying to answer the 'why' questions without getting in conflict with the 'hows' of science.

How are you with replacing "consciousness" with "awakeness"? Awakeness seems to align okay with the "sense of being" definition.

So then you are basically saying that awakeness is the driving force of the universe. That reality is inherently awake? As far as I can tell, awakeness - consciousness - is a phase that alternates with dormancy, both spatially and temporally. Work and rest.

[Tamminen]

You are so wrong! I can easily imagine a logically possible word devoid of subjects.

The logic of imagining is the same as the logic of having a dream. You can have a dream about unicorns, you can have a dream about Heaven if you are a Christian and believe in Heaven, but what would it be like to have a dream about the world without inhabitants? Perhaps it would be something like a desert with nobody anywhere - except you. Imagining a universe without subjects is like looking at the universe from outside, saying: "Wow, there is a universe with no inhabitants!" But you are not outside. You are doomed to be an insider. You cannot cry: "Stop the world, I want to get out!"

How are you with replacing "consciousness" with "awakeness"? Awakeness seems to align okay with the "sense of being" definition.

So then you are basically saying that awakeness is the driving force of the universe. That reality is inherently awake? As far as I can tell, awakeness - consciousness - is a phase that alternates with dormancy, both spatially and temporally. Work and rest.

In my definition consciousness = the subject's immediate experiencing the world = presence = the content of present experiencing. Other versions are also available. But it is on-off: the subject is or the subject is not. And the world where the subject is not, is not logically possible, and the being of the subject keeps the universe existing. Where the subject is in nature is irrelevant in this context.

[Consul]

The (realistic) ontological concept of an object is not the (idealistic) concept of an object-for-a-subject. Given the former, (real) objects (natural, material ones at least) are independent of subjects, of being (intentional) objects of perception, cogitation, or imagination.

Yes, their being is independent of the being of an individual subject, but not independent of the being of the subject in one form or another.

You're wrong, because the respective subject matters of physics, chemistry and biology depend neither rigidly on the existence of one particular subject nor generically on the existence of at least one subject.

Please explain: What is it about planets and stars that makes them ontologically dependent on subjects?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Please explain: What is it about planets and stars that makes them ontologically dependent on subjects?

This is my take, so I am not trying to represent his take. Subjects experience things via time and location (vantage). Let's say for example that really we live in a block universe - four dimensional and static. The subject experiences this block as unfolding over time, from various locations (and also via the way the subjects perception (with qualia involved) skews/interprets this.

When we imagine a star without a subject present, we imagine it the way we conceive of a subjects, perhaps in spaceship or via a telescope looking at the star. We take ourselves out of the imagining, but then pretty much put in the type of experiencing we normally have again.

I am not saying that the star does not exist if there are no subjects. But I am not sure what we are describing as a star exists. What is a star in a block universe with no one experiencing it.

What if it is a block multiverse? where many or all possible stars exist and do not change, since time is a dimension and there is no unfolding.

So on some very fundamental ontological level, something exists, but to associate this with stars or even as some specfiic portion of the block with certain qualities might be very confused. Since we simply have everythign at all times in the block. There would not be a separate star and certain not one in, say, its red dwarf stage. There would be all stages and the before and after all at once.

Now I am not sure there is a block universe, nor am I sure there is a multiverse.

But I think a certain kind of ontological caution should make one at least agnostic that we can say anything meaningful about ding an sich, or things without subjects.

Science works by subjects in time returning to phenomena or repeating them. This does not take the subject out, though it reduces the effects of individual subjects. In practical terms we an work with science

but at the level of fundamental ontology, I am not sure we know what is there without all the facets of subjects present, including time. Now time may exist without us or it may be inextricably be tied to subjects.

[RJG]

Tam, how did 'subjects' come into being?

Don't we need the pre-existing 'objects' (the earth, sun, water, etc) for subjects to come into being?

But, if the existence of 'objects' are dependent on 'subjects', then there would be no objects to birth any subjects, ... right?

...or are you further claiming that subjects live forever (always existed) like floating spirits? ...and if so, then what are these spirits composed of? ... nothing, or something?

No offense, but I think you are painting yourself into a logical corner.

[RJG]

When we fall asleep at night, does our bed, our house, our planet, and the oxygen that we breathe all vanish? If so, then how do we survive the night, and come back into life (back into subjectiveness) the next morning? Furthermore, what/who and how are replacement objects recreated, when we wake back up? Are we magical God's that can somehow create all these replacement objects each time we go in and out of consciousness? If so, I'm never conscious of saying "shazam!" and recreating my reality every time I wake up. If not me doing it, then what object is creating all my objects?

Without pre-existing 'objects' we can't be 'subjective beings', ...right?

[Tamminen]

Please explain: What is it about planets and stars that makes them ontologically dependent on subjects?

The being of the universe depends on the being of subjects, because 'being' makes no logical sense otherwise. Did you understand my reasoning with the logical universe and its limits?

RJG:

I am sorry but we speak about different things. I have answered your questions many times, and I cannot see any fruitful way of continuing this discussion if you do not address the main points I have made. They have been untouched by you as well as others.

[RJG]

I am sorry but we speak about different things. I have answered your questions many times, and I cannot see any fruitful way of continuing this discussion if you do not address the main points I have made. They have been untouched by you as well as others.

You are missing MY point. You are discarding the logical impossibility of your claim, that states -- "A subjectless world is logically impossible". If you wish to adhere to your "logical universe", then you should fully adhere to it! And not just "cherry-pick" the limited logic of your pleasing.

What is it about planets and stars that makes them ontologically dependent on subjects?

The being of the universe depends on the being of subjects…

...or does the being of subjects depend on the being of the universe??? ...which is it?

Tam, it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a 'subjective being' to exist without a 'pre-existing' place/universe to exist in. Closing your 'subjective' eyes to this piece of logic does not make it disappear!

[RJG]

Is the subject himself an 'object'?

1. If YES, then does he himself disappear when he's not consciously experiencing? And if so, then how is it possible for him to 'reappear' so as to do his experiencing. Once the light switch is out, what subjectless being is there to turn it back on; and put existence back into the non-existence?

2. If NO, then who/what is doing this experiencing? Can experiencing happen, without an experiencer? Can something happen without some-thing happening?

[Tamminen]

If you wish to adhere to your "logical universe", then you should fully adhere to it!

I have explained my point as well as I can. Sorry if it is not enough.

...or does the being of subjects depend on the being of the universe??? ...which is it?

A good point. Both.

You are discarding the logical impossibility of your claim, that states -- "A subjectless world is logically impossible".

We cannot prove or disprove this kind of a statement logically, using a formal procedure, only through showing the limits of logic, showing that the positing of the possibility of a subjectless world is without any meaning because it lies outside of the limits of logic.

Tam, it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for subjects to exist without a 'pre-existing' universe to exist in.

You are perfectly right on this. I have not claimed anything else.

[Tamminen]

Is the subject himself an 'object'?

No, it gets its objective form from the world, so that we see others and also ourselves as objects. This leads us again to the endless mind-body problematic.

Can experiencing happen, without an experiencer?

No, logically we need the concept of 'subject' that experiences the world. But it is not a "thing", it gets its properties from the world, being itself without properties.

This is how I see it.