Brief Thoughts on the Ontological Argument

Click here to get more!

The ontological argument...

Anselm defined God as "a being that which no greater can be conceived", and argued that this being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality because if it exists only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. 

---- From Wikipedia

The first issue I have with this argument is the use of the word "being". Is a being a conscious creature? Is a being a sentient thing? Is a being a type of person? Is a being an alien? Anyway...

The use of the term "greater" is an issue as well. The term greater makes no sense by itself. Greater than what? Greater just means bigger or better or more, which all require context. There has to be a standard to refer to. Maybe Anselm created this context in his works and defined a standard "being" in which to compare his notion of a greater being and then went so far as to infinitely extend the idea until he just ended with the word God. As in the same God that is the vague term used to describe any unknown or unknowable thing personified as an agent. 

Essentially the argument is...

If I can think about something it can exist outside the mind if I  just ad the word "better" to it. With the word better I can argue that it is better to exist outside the mind and therefore if a thing I think about is the best of its category (for example a "being") then it must exist because it would be better to have that thing in existence outside the mind than limited to just inside the mind. 

This argument is shit. It allows for existence to arise from thoughts alone and for anything thought of to exist in reality. 

Example: If I can think of the best guitar and it exists in my brain then the best guitar must exist in reality because the best guitar is only made the best by existing outside the brain. Because it is better to exist then to simply be imagined. But the concept of better and the concept of existence have little to do with each other. 

Something can exist without being better than anything else. Being better only occurs when comparing two things and not all things require comparison to understand. It can simply have a purpose or a relationship with other things or it might be something that simply exists with no discernable interaction with anything you understand. Maybe you see a cloud a few miles away. It makes no difference to you in any practical way but you see it and it exists. It is not better or worse than anything. It's just a noteworthy cloud. 

Any argument that puts human consciousness as the basis for reality seems needlessly vain. The idea that nothing would exist without humans is ridiculously presumptuous because it presumes that before humans existed there was nothing. This is stupid. Before you existed plenty of things existed. Unless you don't believe that things exist outside of your mind. If you think that the only existence that exists is the existence of thoughts and that you have a singular existential experience and that is what matters seems too insular. The history of life is the history of interaction. From when single cells began to combine with each other all biology has been an interconnected network of communication, metabolism, and other ecological concepts. To distill all of existence to what exists in human minds seems limited. 

Humans attempt to describe reality based on their sensory and communicative capabilities. Because humans observe reality and have the ability to see themselves as a part of that reality they can describe themselves in the same way they describe other things. Just because you exist and your brain exists doesn't mean that something you thought of exists outside your synapses. I would imagine that it would be easier to think of things that don't exist rather than think of things that do exist. Even if you had a complete list of things that actually exist in the universe you could still think of combinations or exaggerations of those things that would exponentially increase the things you can think about. Most of those things would not exist. 

For example: If I know of all the animals that exist I can imagine each of those animals with a chair growing out of their back and I just doubled the amount of bullshit in my head but that doesn't mean that each animal exists with a chair growing out of its back in reality. It makes no sense. Being able to think about something or imagine something has almost no relation to what actually exists in the world. 

It seems like ontological arguments are actually just arguments designed to satisfy an already-held view. It puts too much value on cognitive capacities and conjures up reality out of thin air which is not scientific or rational. If one wants to justify their irrational beliefs one can use the ontological argument.

I'm reminded of the argument, "I think, therefore I am." The problem with this is that in isolation you can't really determine that you exist scientifically. There is nothing to test against. You need others to verify a hypothesis and engaging in experiments. I think that if others think you exist and you can interact with external objects then you probably exist. Or at least exist in some context.

The concept of God exists but that doesn't mean that there is a perfect "being" running around doing things.  

Questions about Panpsychism

Click here to get more!

After listening to Sean Carol debate Philip Goff about panpsychism and materialism I had a few questions about panpsychism.

Are animals conscious? 

If so, how would we find out? 

Wouldn't we have to use external observation in the form of some material mechanism? 

Maybe one would think that animals could tell us what it is like to be them. Maybe we could interpret their languages and understand that they are experiencing what we are experiencing.

How would you explain to a foreign person that has never heard the word consciousness what consciousness is? How would a dolphin explain to us that it is conscious? How would we ask it? 

Saying that humans have consciousness is a fact and then postulating that that fact is an indicator that all things are conscious seems like a very big leap. If consciousness is at the root of all physical reality then many entities would experience the world in a similar way as humans and should at least experience some form of consciousness. 

How is consciousness defined? If the definition comes from the only thing we know is conscious then the definition must include the aspects that are linked to the human we experience of it. This means that it would include characteristics such as a self-concept or self-representation, a stream of present tense external and internal stimulus that includes some form of symbolic representation such as a language that interprets, analyses and integrates stimulus in a meaningful and expressible manner.

If the only way we know that something is conscious is to ask them and if we ask someone if they are conscious and they say yes why should we believe them? Why should we trust our own perception of consciousness? How, other than appealing to physical reality, would we ground our confidence that consciousness exists?

Philip also relies on the difference between quantity and quality but I didn't get a good definition of quality. Maybe it is just another term for subjective valuation and has no objective base. If that is true and "quality" can not be judged then there is no reason to study it as it can neither be wrong or right. So how does someone who thinks consciousness is only qualitative expect to study it?

Is there a way to evaluate quality in the form of quantity such as a degree of happiness, or a degree of redness? Also, I'm not sure if "redness" is a qualitative characteristic. Experiences can be quantified such as how many times one experiences something or the amount of hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical activity that exist before, during and after an experience.

If you care about science then you must care about the means in which we verify intuitions. Also, Philip repeats the idea that neuroscientists can only get at a correlation between brain activity and conscious accounts but that correlation does not disprove causation as much as it proves causation. Also, neuroscience is not the only science that studies consciousness. 

Philip keeps asking Sean to explain what a particle is as opposed to what it does but he doesn't explain how if everything is conscious how would we ever prove it if materialism or scientific methods or empiricism is on a different level as consciousness. It is a kind of unmoved mover kind of argument. It's not that physical reality includes consciousness it is that consciousness is what physical reality actually is and therefore cannot be explained by physical reality. Saying that what we do when we do math or science is just describe the behavior of consciousness doesn't explain consciousness or prove its existence at all. It is the same argument that God is before time and space and therefore one can not prove its existence using science. 

Why should consciousness be on a different ground than any other concept? It should not be held up higher than any other hypothesis or theory. We should be skeptical of our assumptions regardless of how real they feel and we should be skeptical of our willingness to separate things because they seem mysterious and miraculous. We should ask questions about what we are talking about when we use the word consciousness and why it's important.

I suppose what I mean is I should ask these questions and look into the subject more. 

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2019/11/04/71-philip-goff-on-consciousness-everywhere/

Munk Debate about Political Correctness and Podcast Link

On May 18th the organization known as Munk Debates held a debate with the premise: be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress. On the pro side were Michelle Goldberg and Michael Dyson and on the con side were Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry. Unfortunately, the premise was a bit vague and neither side gave great definitions or examples of how political correctness is either a force for good or bad in the world or how people call progress political correctness in an effort to limit progress.

On the pro side, Michelle Goldberg was the only participant to attempt to argue for progress as she explained that it is important for marginalized groups to voice their concerns and that while it may be uncomfortable for others it is an important aspect of progressing rights to those who may not have had them in the past. Michael Dyson made little to no effort to talk about censorship, free speech or political correctness and instead hijacked the debate to talk about historical racial oppression as if he were giving a sermon to inner city black kids in an attempt to incite hatred and blame toward all white people in America. He personally attacked Jordan Peterson as being a "mean mad white man" which seemed to come from his insistence to make the conversation about white supremacy, targetting Peterson, who at no point was particularly mean, mad or white.

On the con side, Jordan Peterson lectured about the negative consequences to collectivist theories and identity politics. He discussed the potential for hierarchies to become corrupt and the how treating each other as individuals is the best way to organize social interactions and society. Stephen Fry eloquently talked about the failure of the left to accomplish the goal of championing progressive values and that the left's insistence on political correctness has led to a resurgence of the right. He called for fighting for rights using civility and decency as opposed to attempting to control words and shaming those who think differently. My favorite quote from Fry was, on the left, "they are somehow undiverse in their call for diversity, you can be diverse but not in your opinions, language, and your behavior".

I think that the con side would have been better off introducing examples of how the left has gone too far with political correctness such as Antifa at Berkely rioting, along with other riots, and how staff members were taken hostage at Evergreen College. Or examples of people being shamed or compelled speech in Canada. The pro side could have brought up examples of how the certain words or phrases should be made taboo or how speech can incite violence. Michael Dyson could have brought up examples of modern racism and how language allows for a lack of consequence for those who perpetrate racist behavior.

Ultimately the debate was a success but not in addressing political correctness. I think it was a good example of how conversations about controversial things can go wrong and how hard it is for two opposing sides the get on the same page and actually discuss solutions. By the end, the two who were supposed to be pro political correctness essentially denied that political correctness is a force for good which is a failure of the organizers of the debate to come up with a good premise and to find people who can argue each side of that premise.

This is a short synopsis but if you want to hear more about my thoughts I posted a three-part podcast where I listen to and commentate on the entire debate. Check that out here:

Part 1: http://fleetingthoughts.libsyn.com/episode-131a-munk-debate…
Part 2: http://fleetingthoughts.libsyn.com/episode-131b-munk-debate…
Part 3: http://fleetingthoughts.libsyn.com/episode-131c-munk-debate…