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.  

I'm not a workaholic!

"Your grandfather died on a toilet at work at 55. He had a heart attack because he was a workaholic."

Someone told me that once or at least that is how I remember it. The idea of the dangers of being a workaholic has always stayed with me and I became sensitive to the idea of "working to death" at an early age. My grandfather was a successful businessman and inventor. Supposedly he helped invent the first color printer or something like that. In attempting to write this out I realize that my knowledge of the man is muddled and I am probably making some of this up based on old memories of conversations with my mother. None the less it is a related memory.

Speaking of my mother, she is a borderline workaholic. I would call he a straight up workaholic but she does take the time to visit and socialize with family and she had a long-term boyfriend. She is also calm, open to conversations about most topics, and enjoys the occasional movie out. I call her a workaholic because the vast majority of the time for the past 30 or so years has been working.

From my earliest memories, she has always put work above anything else. She was barely home and when she was she was busy doing household things and arguing with my father. She was a speech pathologist, then she worked in special education and then went on to administration jobs such as Dean and she is now an administrator for an entire school district. During her time in education, she went back to school and got her Ph.D. and taught college courses as well. She is very accomplished and has won an award in education recently. I am very proud of her as far as this is concerned. She is good at what she does and I think she has made the education system better although I have had only a glimpse into her career and I am biased.

She has been a positive role model for her work ethic, and the ability to support our family, but she has been a negative role model for how to balance work and family, nurturing, affection, and parenting in general. When I was younger I appreciated that she worked so hard and that people seemed to appreciate her work but I also felt the lack of attention and personal bonding that occurred due to her prioritization of work. This has taken its toll on our relationship and I would have rather had her in my life more than at work more.

This is all to say that I am cognizant of the impact that a workaholic can have on those around them and that while there is a lot to be gained in terms of financial freedom when one works more I am not interested in forgoing the pleasures of life either. Taking time to talk with friends will not gain much in the way of long-term financial wealth but as I get older and my friends begin to die I doubt I will wish I had spent less time in their company. The same goes for swimming, playing games, smoking weed and the myriad other activities that only hold fleeting intrinsic value for me.

At the same time, I have a deep guilt that wells up in myself when I neglect to be productive. If I play for too long, waste too much time in pleasure seeking or spend too much time stagnating and not seeking some goal then my self-esteem rots away leaving despair, depression, and anxiety. The few times that I have been unemployed I have felt the worst. I once had a mental breakdown right out of high school when I spent about three months out of work in a new town and with no friends. Obviously, this was a recipe for disaster but had I kept myself busy with a job or hobbies I might not have been so existentially confused.

In attempting to have balance in my life I try to be aware of the two competing forces in my mind. One voice telling me to "slow down, don't worry, have fun, you're just going to die in the end anyway," and another voice saying, "hurry up, you're just getting older, man up, you don't want to die with nothing." This dichotomy winds back and forth in my mind like two rocking horses battling to the death at high speeds. All the while constantly recalibrating for new goals, new ideas of pleasure and new ways of attacking the problem of existential angst that is never satisfied and never quite certain. 

Who's Playing Cards Right Now?

While sitting across from my brother at a picnic table in a rural campground in Oregon we discussed free will. At one point, mid circular logic loop, I looked down at my hands and tried to imagine that it was all due to prior states and that no agent was responsible for the actions "I" was witnessing. That there might not be a "me" inside. That "I" is just a name for an observer with no real control over anything. If this is true then "who" was playing cards? The universe? I don't think so.

I think that I was playing cards because both "I" and anyone who would watch me would also say "I" was playing cards. "I" is not only the current contemplation of the present and subconscious analyzation of incoming stimulus, it is also the conglomeration of developing cells communicating, learning, recalling and developing. With consciousness, the ideal self is developed and conceptualized, and becomes refined and altered over time as biology and environment shape the mind, the mind also shapes the mind. The mind is part of the body and just as one arm can chop off the other the mind acts to integrate new information, such as the desire to quit smoking, from consciousness to subconsciousness. Focusing on a goal and training the body through repetition and experience the ideal self can be slowly but surely realized over time.

SO, does this mean that I trained myself to play cards in the woods with my brother? I think so. I think that I used my physical brain to reach out into the physical world in the same way that the world reaches out to effect my brain. I knew that being out in the woods and talking with my brother would effect my body and mind in a way that I imagined would increase my perception of peace and happiness. So I decided to go and do those things both consciously and subconsciously.

Assuming that the mind is unable to effect the body and the outside world through the body is to assume the mind is nonphysical and passive like the liver. Just ingesting the world and spitting out perception. If the mind is a computer then consciousness is a programmer making subtle and significant changes to the code. Adjusting toward an ideal is what free will is all about. It's about being able to see two outcomes and deciding that one is better than the other based on internal values.

It seems that determinism is a bottom up approach to explaining physical forces and free will is a top down approach. I am not sure why we can't have both. It is in the midst of physics the conscious mind appears and stretches out to shape the future.

https://youtu.be/xxo-GA6WUZA

Concepts and Existence

The main difference between things that exist in objective reality and concepts, which can not be empirically verified, is that concepts can only have an indirect effect on physical reality while things that exist objectively can have both direct or indirect effects on physical reality. For example, the concept of math doesn't directly make 2 pencils added to 2 pencils equal 4 pencils. It takes a human hand or something physical to move the objects together and a physical brain to evaluate the experience. The concept of math exists only in the brains capacity to generate a rule from the sense data coming from reality. The concept isn't even observable in the brain because the brain is made up of neurons and it is a combination of neurons that produce what we call math. For an alternative example, a rock exists in physical reality and can fall down a hill and smash into a tree that then falls on a car. It has a direct effect on the tree and an indirect effect on the car. This example is easy to understand but I think the distinction I'm proposing might be helpful in understanding how specific concepts and thoughts can have effects on reality while they do not exist in objective reality.

Specific concepts are tools that only exist in conscious minds and in the language of consciousness. They are not empirically verifiable but they can effect how we choose to live our lives and how we view the world. The concept of God has a huge effect on millions of people and I am sure some would point to this as some sort of proof of the existence of a God but just because people make decisions based on concepts doesn't mean an all powerful, all knowing and logically contradictory entity is pulling strings and saving souls. Our ability to generate concepts and communicate them is a product of evolutionary forces that have benefited humans in their ability to survive and procreate. Some concepts are so useful in these two purposes that they last for centuries. Belief in gods was a way for primitive humans to understand the mysteries of life and create life saving rules and engender social conformity. People rely on the tribe and communicating reasons for occurrences allows for learning and the development of better survival tools that can be passed on to subsequent generations.

Let's take the concept of love for instance. If you were to open up a human's brain and search it you would never be able to point to or pull out a thing that is, on its own, love. Love is a concept we attach to a series of behaviors brought on by different physical activities. Hormones, neurotransmitters, muscles, blood, and all sorts of other biological functions take place in the body and brain which produce different behaviors leading toward sexual arousal, mate selection, sexual activity and bonding. In no certain order. In time humans began to communicate and try to understand these behaviors and the subjective feelings that they experienced. The word "love" was invented and used to communicate the general concept related to these behaviors. Now that the concept of love exists in minds people use this concept to inform their decision making and their behaviors are indirectly effected by their formulation of the concept and it's definition. The expectation that love is "blind " or that love is "unconditional" is based on the individual's formulation of the concept and has the ability to indirectly effect the person's behavior and thinking process in general. When a person defends an abusive partner and claims it is because they love them it is not love that is directly manipulating the interactions but the person's behaviors that has a direct effect on the situation. A person could acknowledge that they believe they love someone and that love means unconditional acceptance but still choose not to defend them when confronted due to another conflicting concept such as justice or self-protection.

If we were to take a person and study their brain activity and have them focus on the concept of love and all its general principles we would find a myriad of neural connections that fluctuate and fire based on differing thoughts related to the concept. Memories, smells, sights, sounds, frontal lope processing all might be witness by the observer examining the brain but at no point would a physical thing called "love" appear to the observer. The word love is just a word people use to communicate complex human behaviors and experiences. The word can be written down or represented in a multitude of physical mediums but can not be empirically validated as an objective physical entity. It is not matter and energy. While neurons directly cause physical changes in he mind and body could be scientifically examined concepts do not directly effect anything because they do not have matter or energy to effect things with matter and energy. The person making the decision to act or not act is responsible for the behavior and the repercussions are real.

Although concepts are indirect players on behavior they can still be powerful forces for both good and evil. Even the concepts of good and evil and the definitions thereof are relentlessly debated and their effects can not be denied. Even if you deny the existence of good and evil you would still be relying on a concept to communicate that idea which effects your behavior. Concepts such as communism, democracy or libertarianism are very instrumental in human societies and have lasting effects on the lives of billions on humans as well as the earth and possibly all the universe. Many people have claimed these concepts as justification for murder, torture, and all manner of cruelty or have tried to spread the concepts on compassion, responsibility and bravery as well.

It is in the scrutinizing, honing and rejecting of bad concepts that human societies make progress toward universal prosperity. While concepts might not fit into the category of things that exist in objective reality they might be the most important things that humans rely on for survival and might be the only thing that will allow humans to continue their actual existence. Concepts are a product of consciousness which is what separates humans from all other biological creatures. It is this difference that allows us to examine new ways of cooperating and understanding ourselves and each other. We rely on concepts every day and because they are not fixed in physical reality they are flexible and our ability to adjust and communicate ever better concepts can allow humans to succeed in the future where no other society has achieved.