Axioms are a special subclass of self-evident truths.
âAxioms are self-evidencies that express a primary fact at the base of all knowledgeâ.
Example: âThe grass in front of me is greenâ is not fundamental and not contained in all subsequent claims to knowledge despite being self-evident.
An axiom must be cognitively inescapable, as all knowledge is dependent on it.
The attempt to deny an axiom must tacitly rely on itâs truth.
Re-affirmation through denial is a test for axiomaticity. It determines whether some self-evident truth is implicitly contained within all others, which would give it the status of axiom within the class of truths.
Re-affirmation through denial does not prove the truth of an axiom as they are self-evidencies.
âAn axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny itâ.
âTo posit a property of âbeinghoodâ characterizing existents is to imply that there are non-existents which lack this property. But there are no non-existents: what is, is; what is not, is not.â
ââExistenceâ here is a collective noun, denoting the sum of existentsâ.
In order to even get truth or falsehood we need to have consciousness, so it must be the case that it is true that we are conscious when answering this question.
External existents, apart from any relationship they have to consciousness, are not âtrueâ or âfalseââthey just are;
Truth pertains to a certain relationship between consciousness and reality.
Consciousness is not an attribute of a given state of awareness.
âJust as a chairâs existence is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the chair, so the awareness provided by seeing the chair is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the seeing. To be a chair is to exist; to see a chair is to be aware of it.â
The state of awareness, like existence, is a primary, irreducible fact, meaning it cannot be analysed.
The state of consciousness, is irreducible, however the faculty of consciousness is not.
The physical elements of the faculty of consciousness can be analysed.
What it is to be aware of something, rather than being unaware, is a primary fact that cannot be analysed.
Different varieties and forms of states of awareness may be distinguished, as can different varieties of existence.
âOne cannot ask âwhat is it to exist?â nor âwhat is it to be aware of something?â Existence and consciousness are irreducible primariesâ.
The base of all knowledge consists of axiomatic concepts.
The base of the axiomatic proposition âexistence existsâ is the axiomatic concept âexistenceâ.
The base of the axiomatic proposition âI am consciousâ is the axiomatic concept âconsciousnessâ.
A long standing dilemma about axioms is that many people are unaware of such axiomatic propositions as âexistence existsâ and yet are still able to go on to further knowledge, which contradicts with the idea of axioms being the base of all knowledge.
This dilemma is resolved with this understanding of the separation between axiomatic propositions and their concepts.
The required knowledge is not the propositional knowledge (existence exists) but the conceptual knowledge (existence).
The fact of an axiom is not grasped through proposition but perception, as they are self-evident.
Axiomatic concepts are the base of cognitive development.
Consciousness: Four Fundamentals
There exist four fundamental and undeniable properties of consciousness.
One then infers that other people and higher animals share this consciousness.
This inference is based upon the anatomical and behavioural similarities possessed by these entities.
One cannot simply discover that consciousness itself exists without knowing of it through their own experience of consciousness.
A consciousness with nothing to be conscious of (no object) is a contradiction in terms, as consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
The same applies to the subject; consciousness without some conscious being is a contradiction in terms, as there must be something to do the perceiving (the subject).
2. Existence has primacy over consciousness
Consciousness is a secondary phenomenon as it has an object. It must be of something else.
Consciousness is a secondary phenomenon, i.e an organism can only be conscious of that which exists.
The primacy of existence is the recognition that existence is independent of consciousness.
Things exist regardless of whether one is conscious of them, but consciousness is dependent on existence.
Primacy of consciousness reverses the correct order, placing consciousness as the self-sufficient primary, and holding that existence is derived from consciousness.
Existence is known before consciousness.
In order to understand any concept of consciousness (e.g seeing, thinking), one must first accept the primacy of existence, as these concepts require that one distinguish between their awareness and the object of which they are aware.
It requires one notice that which is dependent on them, and that which exists independently.
Self-consciousness rests upon the existence of consciousness.
Any introspected object, such as a thought, must have itâs own object. A thought must be of something.
An object of thought does not have to be an external existent, e.g one can think of their dream, but this dream is of something. Itâs content derives from the perception of reality.
âA consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of somethingâ.
Descartes pushed the primacy of consciousness viewpoint into post-renaissance philosophy.
He recognised that consciousness must have an object, however asserted that said object may be internal, rather than external.
He thought consciousness was axiomatic, yet existence was not.
Holding that everything is internal is contradictory, as without the external to contrast the internal, the internal loses itâs meaning. âEverything is internalâ, but to what?
Holding that everything is simply in the mind leads to the same problem, with âmy mindâ being rendered meaningless.
Only the contrast between existence and consciousness can make consciousness possible.
Specifically, the logical fallacy identified within the primacy of consciousness viewpoint here is that of the stolen concept fallacy.
Concepts must be formed in a specific order, and their meaningful use requires this order not be violated (one cannot grasp âpetâ without first having the concept of âanimalâ).
To state that pets exist, and animals do not would be an example of this stolen concept fallacy. It can be refuted on the grounds that pets require the existence of animals as a pet is a type of domesticated animal.
A concept is only stolen upon retaining a concept whilst denying its hierarchically prior concept.
All versions of the primacy of consciousness are a stolen concept fallacy, where the concept of consciousness, or some particular concept pertaining to consciousness, is being stolen from the prior concept of existence.
Scientifically, the nervous system must be engaged in constant physiological action in order to have perception of something.
Pre-scientifically, it is evident to anyone that perception requires active use of the senses.
Perception is not passive registration of input.
Ones relationship with something must constantly change in order for awareness of it to continue.
A constant smell in the background ceases to be perceived after a certain period, however one could introduce a change by an act of attention, popping it back into awareness.
Consciousness requires change. Itâs primary purpose is differentiation.
Detect means to have differentiated awareness of.
Consciousness as an axiomatic concept can only be defined ostensively.
Consciousness is metaphysically passive, and epistemologically active.
Consciousness is metaphysically passive as it does not alter or create itâs object.
Consciousness is epistemologically active as it achieved by an active process.
An organisms actions are adapted to securing its survival.
Awareness is a biological activity that evolved because it promotes survival.
Consciousness is an activity of a person involving their bodies interaction with the external world.
Conscious activities (sensory or perceptual) have a biological function.
Sense modalities (eyes, ears, etc.) provide one with life-sustaining information regarding the world.
Distinguishing characteristics of animals are the faculties of locomotion and consciousness.
Animals perceive and move through the world, unlike plants.
Plants synthesise their own nutrients.
Animals feed on plants (or animals, which feed on plants).
Animal life depends on basic nutrients photosynthesised by plants.
Animals eat.
Regardless of whether they graze or hunt, they generally must move to find their food.
Consciousness is the means of doing this, it enables animals to locate food, which is the fundamental.
It also enables them to avoid being eaten.
Consciousness does several things, each contributing to the organisms survival.
Consciousness enables the animal to integrate its various body parts to pursue itâs overall goal in relation to the perceived environment as a whole.
Consciousness enables animals to bridge space (i.e they can sense and respond to distant objects).
Consciousness enables animals to bridge time (i.e they can respond now or over a span of time to a goal that will only be reached or realised at a later time).
Consciousness enables animals to guide their actions according to continual changes in goal and the requirements for attaining it (i.e a lion uses integrated perceptual awareness to adjust to the changing position of its prey in the perceived terrain).
Consciousness enables animals to expand their range of action. Perceptual awareness allows the animal to respond to entire situations in their environment, rather than just separate stimuli.
The ability to learn reduces the time required for adaption of the organism to its environment compared to natural selection, which takes many generations to develop.
Consciousness involves cognition, evaluation, and initiation of bodily action.
Consciousness can be distinguished into those three functions, however they all work together as parts of the faculty of consciousness.
Human thought is a tool of survival in both essential function and biological origin.
Before a computer could understand the world, it would need to be capable of understanding concepts. In order to understand concepts, it would have to be capable of perceiving the world and feeling emotions. Before it could do either, it must be alive.
To be alive it must be engaged in action to sustain itself.
If the âcomputerâ is alive, it is no longer a computer but a living organism. A man-made organism.
Pragmatists divorce action from ideas, holding that ideas are nothing but a âplan of actionâ.
An idea, while for the sake of planning action, is actually an awareness of some fact of reality.
Pragmatists hold a primacy of consciousness viewpoint. They place not existence as primary, but âexperienceâ, which is an undefined jumble of existence and consciousness.
Conscious actions can be subdivided, separating different kinds (e.g. into seeing, hearing, etc).
One cannot get beneath the fundamental fact of consciousness in the same way as they canât with the fact of existence. One cannot reduce conscious action to something else.
What makes conscious processes âconscious actionsâ as opposed to physical actions is that they are actions of consciousness (awareness); they involve awareness of something.
The irreducibility of consciousness is required to qualify its status as an axiomatic concept.
Irreducible here means âcannot be analysedâ.
âIf you try to analyse what it is to be aware, you will soon discover that no analysis is possible. Aside from giving synonyms, the only terms that are available for your analysis are much too general. For instance, you might say that to be conscious of something is to be âin contactâ with it. But chairs are in contact with the floor without awarenessâso, what kind of contact is conscious contact? Or, you might try saying that awareness is a causal response. But the earth is causally responding to the sun. So, what makes something a conscious causal response? Consciousness. Thatâs all we can say. There is no further analysis.â
Whole entities can be reduced to their parts (e.g. a box consists of its six sides).
Said reduction is possible as a physical whole is the sum of its parts.
A physical object can also be reduced into the materials it is made from (e.g. the box is made from wood and nails).
Consciousness is not a candidate for either type of reduction. Awareness does not have partsâthough it does have aspects (consists of seeing things, hearing things, etc.)
Such aspects cannot be physically separated, unlike parts.
The parts of something physical can be taken apart. The seeing, hearing etc. can only be separated mentally through selective focus or abstraction from the organic whole of consciousness.
Awareness isnât composed of components: spiritual or physical.
An overall conscious activity such as a thought process can be analysed into stages or aspects.
Conscious activities cannot be analysed into physical, or even brain events.
âTake your reading of these words. You first see a word or phrase, then process it and âhearâ the words in your mind, and you understand the meaning of those words. There are indeed, non-conscious components, such as eye movements and the physical page-turnings, but there is no way to reduce the seeing, or the internal âhearingâ, or the understanding to one or more physical sub-actionsânot without leaving out the essential, conscious aspect. Seeing the words involves physical and physiological processes but is not reducible to just the physical processes.â
There are unconscious sub-process that occur, such as the brain processes that underlie reading. Neurons fire in different regions of the brain.
These individual brain processes donât add up to awareness, seeing, or understanding; they add up to a larger-scale brain process. The sum of a small-scale physical process is merely a large-scale physical processâleaving out the state of consciousness.
Q: If consciousness is an action, an activity, what is the entity that acts?
None of the two possible answers allow for a reduction of conscious actions to physical actions.
One can say that the conscious entity is the mental entity, the self.
This is not reducible into sub-selves or anything of the sort, as the self is an indivisible whole.
Awareness is an organic unity; it has aspects but no components.
An entity is its attributes, and a state of awareness is its aspects.
One can say on a deeper level that the conscious entity is the being as a total organism, and the organism has physical parts.
These physical parts are not components of its state of awareness.
Lets say that when a being is engaged in conscious activity, the physical organ that acts is the brain (maybe not necessarily true). The parts of the brain and their individual actions are still not parts of the beings awareness.
Mental means pertaining to consciousness.
Parts of a brain process add up to a whole brain process, not to consciousness.
Brain actions are a necessary condition of consciousnessâbrain actions underlie and are involved in the operation of consciousness, however they are still distinct from the awareness which they underlie.
âEven if, someday, consciousness were to be explained scientifically as a product of physical conditions, this would not alter any observed fact. It would not alter the fact that, given those conditions, the attributes and function of consciousness are what they are.â
Discovering that matter in certain combinations gives rise to consciousness doesnât permit consciousness to be equated with those combinations of matter or their physical actions. Mental actions are different from brain actions.
This can be analogised to the example of a magnetic field being produced by an electric current moving in a wire. The electric current and rising magnetic field are two different, though causally related phenomena. The current produced the field, yet they are not identical. Brain actions may produce awareness in a similar way, yet they are not identical to awareness.
Nothing can be exactly analogous to consciousness as it is sui generis (of itâs own class/itâs own kind).
The objection that consciousness, if not physical, would be an exception to everything else in existence can be dismissed, as it would apply to any distinctions one could make, e.g âHow can spoons have a distinct nature, that would make them an exception to everything else in existenceâ.
Consciousness and matter both exist, and neither is a form of the other.
Matter is metaphysically primary, as without it there would be nothing to be conscious of, and nothing to be conscious or means of being conscious.
They are regardless two irreducibly different phenomena.
Materialism is the denial of the existence or causal efficacy of consciousness.
An implicit materialist may question why mans actions, such as playing chess, happen to be accompanied by conscious experiences. After all, computers do so by purely physical means, so why is human chess playing accompanied by consciousness.
The mistake in this questioning is the failure to understand that computers do not act, they do not âdoâ anything. A computer is a physical mechanism in which the flow of electrical current flips switches. It is a switching device, at its core, and nothing more.
Computers donât play games, check spelling, process information, etc. All of these are actions that involve consciousness and can only be performed by conscious beings, even if said conscious being may be aided by a computer in these tasks.
Mathematical truths do not exist for computers. There are not even bits or bytes in a machine, just high and low voltages.
âMen can use a computer to help them add by using the physical state of the switches to control screen pixels to form patterns that, to us, represent numbers. Computers themselves no more add than do the old-fashioned, mechanical adding machines.â
Computers donât add, addition is a conscious action.
A good example is that you can count using your fingers, but your fingers canât count.
Information is not a physical phenomenon, but a mental one.
Computers therefore cannot process information.
Only electricity, not information, has causal impact on the workings of a computer.
One can say that computers do these things in a colloquial sense, but that isnât actually the case.
âComputers donât follow programs, they simply obey the laws of physics.â
If all humans vanished from earth, but their computers remained running, there would be no information processing. The computers in this case would simply be combining electrical currents and lighting pixels on screens.
In the slogan âthe brain is the hardware, the mind is the softwareâ software is a stolen concept. Software only exists in relation to the mind.
âJust as books contain only patterns of ink, so apart from manâs mind, software exists only in the form of some physical patterns, such as the patterns of magnetised iron particles on a hard driveâs disk.â
The similarity between computers and brains is that both combine and switch electrical pulses.
What differentiates the two however is that brain processes can be described as dealing with ideas or information only in relation to the mind of the person whose brain it is. If there was no mind operating the brain, there would only be physical states and changes.
Materialism holds that conscious actions are purely physical processes.
Materialism eliminates mind, or consciousness altogether.
They are not able to see a difference between man and machine for this reason, it is not an elevation of machine to the level of the conscious, but a degradation of the conscious to the level of machine.
âWhat people believe to be mental is really non-mentalâ < Believe is a concept of consciousness. To believe, one must first be conscious. Stolen concept.
âConscious is a myth/illusion/invalid conceptâ < All are concepts of consciousness. Myths, illusions, and invalid concepts do not exist without consciousness. Stolen concepts.
âA Reason to Doubt the Existence of Consciousnessâ < Essay title. Reason and doubt are stolen concepts from consciousness.
The definition of materialism exhibits the stolen concept fallacy.
Materialism is the theory that consciousness does not exist.
Theory is a concept of consciousness, the definition relies on that which it claims does not exist.
Materialism is the idea that there are no ideas.
Consciousness is an axiom, so it must be accepted in order to deny it. Denial is an action of consciousness.
Materialists take their understanding of consciousness from spiritualists.
It is the spiritual notion that consciousness is supernatural that materialists adopt as their concept of consciousness. And then reject on this basis.
They ignore alternative views of consciousness, such as the naturalistic, causal, biological conception of consciousness.
It is proper to reject the spiritualist, mystical conception of consciousness as a âfragment torn from godâ, however materialists assume they have rejected consciousness by doing so. All theyâre rejected is a straw man.
The rational question is âAm I aware of something? Do I see, hear, think, remember, feel pleasure and pain?â That question answers itself.
The efficacy of consciousness in guiding bodily action is what explains the selection-pressure that favoured its evolutionary development.
The position that consciousness has no causal efficacy holds consciousness as an epiphenomenon, that it is an effect produced by the brain that does nothing by itself.
Epiphenominalists might analogise awareness to smoke coming from a car. They see it as a by-product that doesnât act on the locomotive.
They view actions of consciousness (pains, pleasures, feats, thoughts, plans, etc.) as simply being by-products of the actions of the brain.
Epiphenomenalists are opposed to consciousness, and so exempt it from causality, which governs everything else in the universe.
The analogy fails because smoke leaving a car does have an effect, however small, on the car, and other aspects of existence.
Nothing in existence acts without effects.
Any view of consciousness that allows for exceptions can only be mystical.
In asserting such a view, one is assuming that their thoughts are the cause of the sounds coming from their mouth.
The same can be stated for an internal assertion, as this requires thought, which requires memory, which requires retrieving what has been stored by consciousness in the brain. Conscious storage and retrieval of memories evidences the ability of consciousness to interact with the physical brain.
Epiphenominalism is a form of materialism.
It is the form maintaining that consciousness cannot affect anything.
It has the same significance as someone denying the existence of consciousness.
This doesnât account for observed facts, as conscious experiences have been fine-tuned over time to fit the needs of survival.
An epiphenomenalist must assume these things are just coincidences.
Positive acts, such as eating food, gaining shelter, etc. produce pleasureâwhereas negative physical conditions, such as starvation, produce pain. If a conscious beings actions are not affected by these experiences, why are they correlated with survival needs?
There has been selection-pressure in evolution to align pleasure and pain with actions promoting or impairing survival. This selection could only occur if these things tend to have an effect on the beings behaviour.
Someone may point to a case such as alcohol, in which the pleasure or pain does not correlate with survival. Some people receive pleasure from alcohol despite being unhealthy.
Alcohol is not part of the environment to which man became adapted through evolution. Finding exceptions like this doesnât help explain the general correlation for the epiphenomenalist.
The evolutionary explanation of pleasure and pain illustrates what is known by direct introspection. Consciousness does something (it has causal efficacy).
As consciousness is the cause of voluntary action, and the physiological cause of action is a brain process, it follows that consciousness is capable of changing the physical state of the brain.
This conclusion doesnât contradict the primacy of existence, despite meaning that consciousness alters the state of something in the physical world (the brain).
The brain is not the object, when raising an arm, one doesnât make their brain into the object of awareness.
When reaching for a pencil, the object of awareness is the pencil.
Simply being aware of the pencil doesnât alter it. Awareness affects the subject, not the object.
The decision to reach for and handle the pencil is an act of consciousness based on awareness of the pencil and a desire to utilise it, however the consciousness itself is not affecting the pencil.
The instrumental value of the pencil to ones purpose is an objective fact, not alterable by consciousness.
Awareness never alters its object.
Self observation isnât an example of awareness altering its object.
One may argue that focusing on a feeling alters it in some cases.
What actually happens is that the inward focus changes what one is attending to, and then ones consciousness is responding to a different object or changed context.
Consciousness is not moulding the feeling as feelings are not entities, but processes.
âChanging a feelingâ is really one process ceasing and another starting.
Feelings are always a dynamic state.
Different feelings being produced by selecting a different object of attention/awareness expresses the primacy of existence, not the primacy of consciousness. The object attended to causes the response in consciousness.
Psychotherapy would be unnecessary if emotions could be changed or altered on a whim through merely being aware of them.
To cease feeling a certain way about an object, the cause of the feeling must be changed (the automatised value-judgements and beliefs).
Simply learning the true nature of an object may be enough (e.g someone seeing a gun, feeling scared of it, and then realising it is only a toy gun, changing their feeling with regards to the object).
It may other times take a longer period of time for one to change an automatised evaluation.
Introspecting on a thought process is also not awareness altering its object.
One focusing their awareness on a thought process, scrutinising it, will influence the subsequent train of thought; however, the awareness is not altering the introspected thought as if it were static. Itâs a case of awareness altering the subject in a way that results in it having different thoughts.
Emotions and thoughts are generated by the brain (the subconscious).
Ones brain is independent of ones awareness/consciousness.
The brain isnât a creation of consciousness.
The state of the brain can be altered by awareness of something, however simply wishing that ones brain be different does not change it, nor can one escape the effects of what they do with their consciousness on their brain.
Ones consciousness affects their brain.
One has to put forth conscious effort to get ones body in motion in the proper way to perform a desired action. Merely wishing doesnât make it so. Wanting to perform an action doesnât mean one will perform it: one has to focus their attention on the right factors and give correct orders to oneself.
Ignorance is not bliss.
Ignorance of the consequences on the brain of making a certain choice does not affect those consequences.
âA policy of giving in to oneâs whims, for example, has long-term, inescapable consequences on oneâs motivational systemânotably, in producing what we call a weak-willed psychology. Or, on the positive side, a policy of seeking mental clarity, defining oneâs terms, and adhering strictly to logic develops a brain that is efficient, well-organised, and disciplined.â
The causal efficacy of consciousness in regard to its brain does not erase the independent identity of the brain, nor that of the object which one is aware.
The minds causal efficacy is an instance of the primacy of existence, not an exception to it.
âThere is no alternative to accepting the fact that consciousness can causally affect the physical state of brain processes. For how else are we to describe the fact that it is my current conscious thoughts and perceptions that are causing the movements of my fingers on the computer keyboard?â
Materialists may claim there to be a problem with causal interaction between the mental and physical, because the two are radically different types of phenomena.
The image evoked is two objects interacting. They must have a surface at which they can meet in order to interact; if they donât contact each other, there is no collisionâno interaction.
There is no principle requiring interacting existents to be similar.
Similarity is not a place where two existents meet.
Difference is not a failure to make contact.
Wildly different things interact. Rivers with rocks, plants with light, man with rainbows, bio-technicians with DNA molecules.
All that is required for something to interact causally with another thing is for both to exist, have a definite nature, and act accordingly.
Both ones thoughts and body exist, and have a definite nature; action follows accordingly.
Mind and body being different types of phenomena does not provide grounds for denying their interaction.
Materialists may try to accuse any who recognise the existence of consciousness of âCartesian dualismâ.
This does not apply to the Objectivist formulation, of course, and thus the accusation fails to hold weight.
Consciousness is not an entity, it is a faculty of an entity, its operation (awareness) is a process of the entity.
Descartes mistake lies in being too affected by materialism: he attempts to determine consciousness as being a physical substance or entity.
He divides reality into res cogitans and res extensa, however res means âthingâ, a concept that derives from perceiving physical objects.
Nothing but contradiction and confusion arises from likening consciousness to physical objects.
Materialists are correct in rejecting Descartesâ reification of consciousness, and are correct to reject the notion of a free-floating soul. They are wrong to reject the self-evidentâthat man is conscious.
Consciousness is undeniable (contrary to materialism).
Consciousness depends on the organism as a whole (contrary to spiritualism).
Conscious organisms have two aspectsâa body and a consciousnessâa physical aspect and a mental one.
In a sense, ones consciousness depends upon the body, and ones body depends upon its consciousness.
A body without a faculty of awareness is not a functioning body.
A severed human hand is not a hand because its essential function is absent. It is what used to be a hand.
To call a severed human hand a hand is an equivocation.
A corpse is not a body in the same wayâit is what used to be a body.
A persons consciousness is an aspect of the whole person, abstracted out for separate consideration.
The entity is the person as an integrated whole. Both body and mind.
The Validity of Introspection
Introspection is a cognitive process of understanding oneâs own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world.
To deny that one is self-awareâthat they can introspectâis self-refuting. To deny self awareness one must hold the invalidity of the concept of consciousness, as this concept must be formed through introspection.