Well, here’s installment IV of my responses that Howard demanded.

Please tell me what you mean by "this category of combinationalism".

Also, I would like to know what your working definition of ‘morality’ is. Can you give a simple, one-to-two sentence definition that isolates the essential principle of what morality is as you understand it? I’m not asking for an entire thesis on the system of morality as you understand it, but the definition that provides the foundation and framework for that system. This would be both helpful for some of us to consider your approach more comprehensively, and will make for more intriguing debate (especially if it is shown whether or not you can hold to that definition consistently throughout the system of morality you hopefully do inform). Please maintain the habit of defining your terms, and please be willing to hold to them. Would you have any problem with this that you are aware of at this point in time?

What do you mean by ‘non-concrete entity’? Can you give me an example? Is this similar to your notion of ‘nonmaterial substances’? Again, I think it would be important to define your terms here.

As a reminder, I have not said that consciousness is a concrete, but an action resulting from the relationships of concretes (a nervous system of a living being). This may end your confusion right here if you consider this point, for I have not posited something that can be called a ‘non-concrete entity’.

Please clarify exactly does what happen by chance.... ???

You may also want to clarify what you mean by ‘planner’. Is ‘planner’ a ‘personality’?

Of larger importance, this question seems to commit the fallacy of interrogation, commonly called false dichotomy (bifurcation) buried in a complex question. You have posed a question giving only two possible alternatives to choose from, when in fact there are others. You posit ‘chance’ (which I take to mean causeless randomness) and a ‘planner’ (a personality assuming causal control over nature, i.e., ‘god’) as the only two choices to pick from. I subscribe to neither.

Obviously I have no god-belief. I have declared this on many occasions in the past, so asking if I think there is a ‘planner’ is unnecessary, even provocative. Nor have I ever argued for ‘causeless randomness’, ‘chance’ or ‘accidental universe’. However, this is a typical religionist thread that I’ve heard for years now: "If there’s no creator (‘planner’) then everything must be here by ‘chance’. This is fallacious and betrays utter ignorance of Objectivism.

It’s important also to note that it is usually the religionist who posits the notions ‘chance’ and ‘planner’ or ‘designer’ when engaging in debates such as this that address metaphysical issues. This is a tired, worn-out tactic that only demonstrates the religionist’s reluctance of inability to deal with the issues on a reality-centered basis. False dichotomies are never valid, nor are they suited to establishing intellectual integrity.

The alternative that Howard leaves out is called causality. Causality is identity applied to action. It is not governed by ‘chance’ or by a ‘planner’, but by the natures of the entities involved. As such, causality is a law of nature. causality is inherent in all things that exist; it is a corollary fact of existence. For example, you take the elements hydrogen and oxygen. When they combine into a special relationship called a bond (as their natures enable them to do), they form a molecule called water. This is consistent. It is not by ‘chance’ that this happens - they do not form water today, and then DNA the next, etc. Nor is this action governed by a ‘supernatural entity’ or ‘planner’ - who can take these two elements and form water today, and DNA tomorrow, as if by design or intention. The chance/planner dichotomy is invalid; it is a rejection of objective reality.

See my statement above. You will see why this question is complex (i.e., fallacious).

Where did I say this? Are you STILL confusing the terms ‘finite’ and ‘eternal’? Go back and read my post "Responses to Howard, Pt. II" where I deal with what you called an ‘apparent contradiction’. If you confuse ‘finite’ and ‘eternal’ after reading this, then you are either dumbfounded or dishonest.

To be sure, ‘finite’ as I have used it in my metaphysics makes no statement about temporal constraints, but about existential constraints. In other words, existents are said to be finite as far as their identity is concerned. That is all. A is A. A is not non-A.

‘Eternal’ means ‘non-temporal’. Time presupposes a relationship of entities acting as a standard, and therefore time presupposes existence. Existence does not presuppose time. Again, it is strictly important to watch your definitions at every pass here.

Also, if you think that somewhere I have written that existents are not eternal, as you charge in your statement above, please show me where that was. I honestly do not believe I have ever said something like that. If that is what you understood, perhaps I made a typo - after all, we all make typos, and they are annoying, especially when you discover them after you’ve sent out your post. It’s a pain in the butt, but it does happen, so I’d like to clear up any confusion you may have.

Again, define your terms, stick to those definitions, and check your premises. You may find, as I have, that your are in error here.

Keep in mind what I have mentioned about confusing the terms ‘finite’ and ‘eternal’. ‘Infinite’ and ‘eternal’ are not synonymous, nor are they interchangeable. If you keep this in mind, your confusion should go away. (But I’m not holding my breath.)

Again, this shows that you are either dumbfounded or dishonest, possibly both, or possibly that you just do not read very carefully. I have never said that ‘consciousness’ is ‘independent from existence’. I have maintained ALL ALONG that existence is independent from consciousness. The term ‘independent’ does not mean ‘opposite’, ‘irreconcilable’, ‘separate’, or ‘incongruent’; ‘independent’ here means ‘not dependent’. That does not preclude relationships between the issues in question.

Consciousness I have identified as a function of existents, and therefore consciousness is dependent on existence. Please keep this in mind. Saying that ‘existence is independent of consciousness’ is not the same as saying that ‘consciousness is independent of existence’. If you examine the premises and axioms I have given, you will see that Objectivist metaphysics is entirely consistent, both internally and with reality, and therefore completely indisputable.

Your question is invalid, and inappropriate. Go back and read the original post again.

I have already describe my view of consciousness as a function. I do not argue that consciousness is a concrete.

You bring up the term ‘materialism’. Materialism is a philosophical doctrine. Nobody here is arguing that "all that exists is a belief doctrine of this sort or another". Existence exists. A belief doctrine, of which materialism is a variety, is a means by which man attempts to identify reality and systematize a means of knowledge, a code of ethics and politics, and a view of art and aesthetics. Asking "IF all that exists is materialism" misses the point. Go back, and edit your question.

You also declare that the ‘Christian view’ is that ‘consciousness is equated with man’s soul’. As a Christian, do you think that animals are conscious beings? Take a dog, for instance. DO dogs have a perceptual faculty? Do dogs perceive their surroundings? Do dogs see the ball you throw and run to catch it in their mouths? Are these actions dependent on consciousness? If not, how do you think dogs can do these things?

If dogs do have consciousness, do you as a Christian also thing that dogs have souls? Does your Bible support your position on this? Is your position internally consistent AND consistent with reality???? Don’t slip up here, Howard!!!

No I didn’t, and you know it. This is the fallacy of dishonesty. Your religion has a special punishment for this.

Check your premises. You’ll see that you are still confused. Your syndrome is most likely hopeless.

Well, that concludes another demolition of religious hysteria and desperation. I’m off to enjoy my beautiful Sunday (the sun came up again!! Funny how that keeps happening! LOL!)

Take care, and may you each get what you deserve,

Tindrbox

$

_________________________________