AOL willing, I will attempt to reconstruct the post that was originally going to answer some of Howard’s points here.

[That evening, my computer crashed when I was about finished with what is represented with this installment. The portion that I lost was well-crafted, and the attempt to reconstruct it, for the most part, failed. An act of God? If so, why then did he let all these other posts go forth without his intervention?]

What ‘apparent contradiction’ do you mean here?

I know of no contradiction or inconsistency between the concepts ‘eternal’ (which indicates a lack of applicability of temporal restraints) and ‘finite’ (a component of the Law of Identity: A is A, A is only A, A is not non-A).

When I state that existence is eternal (i.e., uncreated, indestructible), I refer to the fact that time is not a presupposition to existence, but rather existence is a presupposition to time. Time presupposes existents which are engaged in a relationship. This is consistent with Objectivism’s metaphysics as I have provided. Again, it is important to bear in mind one’s definitions. Observe:

"Time is a measurement of motion [which presupposes that entities exist]; as such, it is a type of relationship. Time applies only within the universe, when you define a standard - such as the motion of the earth around the sun. If you take that as a unit, you can say: ‘This person has a certain relationship to that motion; he has existed for three revolutions; he is three years old.’ But when you get to the universe* as a whole, obviously, no standard is applicable. You cannot get outside the universe. The universe is eternal in the literal sense: non-temporal, out of time" (L. Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism, lecture series [1976]).

* ‘Universe’ here is defined as the sum of existence, i.e., all that exists. According to Objectivism, the universe contains every entity said to exist. If something exists, it is naturally part of the universe.

Hence, time, since it is dependent on the relationship of existent entities, presupposes existence. There is no such thing as ‘something outside the universe’. Therefore, there can be no temporal standard that can apply to the universe as a whole. The universe exists, existence exists. Existence as such is not bound to temporal constraints for this reason: temporal constraints presuppose existence, not the other way around. Therefore, since existence exists, and temporal constraints are dependent upon existent entities in relationship to each other, time only exists within the universe, and the universe itself (i.e., existence) is eternal, i.e., non-temporal, or untethered to temporal constraints. The notion ‘temporal constraints’ has no meaning when applied to the universe as a whole.

Now contrast this term ‘eternal’ with the term ‘finite’. When one says that an existent entity (such as an apple or a shoe) is ‘finite’, he recognizes the Law of Identity, that A is A, and that A is only A. A shoes is not a horse, a lizard is not a telephone, a mountain is not a bowl of rice krispies (though it can be compared to one, when one is excessively hungry), and a chopstick is not a political doctrine. Entities are finite in the sense that they possess identity, and therefore a finite nature. There is no entity (i.e., existent) that possesses an ‘infinite’ nature. This would be a direct violation of the axiom of identity, which presupposes the fact of existence. This is the primary problem with the definitions of ‘god’ - they violate the Law of Identity. There is no justification for this.

When Objectivist metaphysics makes the statement that something is ‘finite’ in nature, it is not a statement of temporal finiteness - in the sense that entities are bound to temporal constraints, but of existential finiteness. By ‘existential finiteness’ I refer to the Law of Identity (A is A). Again, Objectivist metaphysics is completely consistent with its identification of reality.

Therefore, there is no ‘apparent contradiction’ between these terms. As long as one does not confuse the principles involved, no confusion should result from the use of these terms. If you review my original statements, you will see that the statement I give above as clarification is completely consistent with the former.

Good question, though. I hope you understand now.

This is a serious non sequitur. Is consciousness concrete? No. Is consciousness dependent on concretes? Yes.

Consciousness is the faculty of awareness. As such, it is a function of man’s brain. Just as digestion is the function of the stomach and the intestines (bodily organs), consciousness is the function of the central organ of the nervous system - the brain.

Consciousness does not exist in the same sense that an apple or a shoe is said to exist. Consciousness, like digestion the digestive organ track, or carburetion in the carburetor of an automobile engine, is an action, not a concrete.

The human body is capable of many varieties of action, including perception, digestion, reproduction, perambulation, urination, defecation, etc. The action that makes consciousness possible takes place in the brain. Consciousness cannot function without the existence of the senses or without the organ whose purpose is to integrate those senses, i.e., the brain. Hence, consciousness presupposes existence: by his consciousness, man perceives objects (existent entities) by use of his senses (sense-perception). This confirms the Primacy of Existence, which is central to Objectivist metaphysics.

Therefore, the idea of a ‘bodiless soul’ or ‘poltergeist’ or ‘god’ (i.e., any notion of a consciousness independent of existence) is invalid. I have explained how this problem (the irreconcilability of the Primacy of Existence with the notion ‘god’) is one of the points in my Argument From Existence which I included in my post answering BKNewton’s first point in his e-mail titled "Thoughts on Objectivism". The problem is the religionist’s abnegation of the fact that consciousness presupposes existence. Positing ‘god’ is an attempt to reverse this fact, and it crumbles into fallacy as I have shown. Consciousness, as we have seen, is consciousness of an ‘object’. Without this ‘object’ to be conscious of, there is no consciousness. Consciousness, also as we have seen, requires an organ in order to function, as consciousness is an action dependent on the functions of a central nervous system (i.e., consciousness is dependent on existence, again!).

Without existence, there is no such thing as consciousness. Existence exists. Therefore, consciousness is possible.

I think I’ve covered this already, but I will answer the question. Consciousness is not a concrete, but a function of a concrete (the brain). Therefore, it is an action (the action of perceiving and integrating percepts, i.e., the action of thinking). Consciousness does not exist in a concrete form, any more than digestion or perambulation (walking around) exists in concrete from; they are all functions of living organisms (specifically man).

How do I distinguish consciousness from the rest of the body? How do I distinguish digestion from the stomach and the intestines? How do I distinguish walking around from the legs?? By concepts; i.e., by identifying the concretes in question (sense-perception, concept-formation, reason) and distinguishing them from the concretes in question from their functions. Hence, I can dissect a body and discover (identify) the body’s stomach and intestines, and determine their function. This can be done in the case with the brain and its function, consciousness. Hence, neural science and neurology.

Well, it’s time to go and do some errands.

I will continue my response to Howard later, AOL permitting.

Tindrbox

$$

_________________________________