Objectivism does not Hold that Consciousness is an Entity

Pessimistic Idealist has written an article which attempts to refute Objectivism on the grounds that it is simultaneously committed to the stance that consciousness is not an entity and that consciousness is an entity.

The Evidence

PI provides the following quotations to evidence his claim that Objectivism is committed to the position that a man's consciousness can perform actions and is therefore an entity. There are two general uses of "consciousness" in the below quotes:

1. those where "consciousness" is being used as a noun to describe a conscious organism, and;
2. those where "conscious" is being used to describe the action done by the conscious organism.

For type (1), "consciousness" is being used to generalise some statement beyond mankind---these may all be happily substituted for "an organism that possesses consciousness" or "an animal," which is plain to see. For type (2) it is analogous to if I were to see a cheetah running past me and I said, "woah! That was an act of great speed!"---here I am not saying that the action itself is acting, or that the speed is acting in a way that is fast, I am saying that the action which the cheetah is performing is one "of great speed." Similarly, if I say something like "summing up and collecting sensations into percepts is an act of consciousness" I am not saying that the consciousness is the thing acting, I am saying that whichever creature is doing said summing up is acting in a way that is conscious---I am describing the action.

In the following quotes I have indicated in square parenthesis which sense of consciousness is being used, and how it is not being used to demonstrate that consciousness is an entity in the usual sense of the word. Note, that I am taking the quotes provided on face value---it would be quite a task indeed for me to dig out the entire context of every quote presented especially considering how tightly integrated Rand's philosophy is. If for any of these quotes the additional context changes how specifically "consciousness" should be viewed, then I can address those individually, but not for the entire set.

“It may be supposed that the concept “existent” is implicit even on the level of sensations---if and to the extent that a consciousness [an animal] is able to discriminate on that level.” (ITOE, 6)

“Note that the concept “unit” involves an act of consciousness [an act which is related to the conscious faculty of the creature in question]…it is not an arbitrary creation of consciousness: it is a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality.” (ITOE, 7)

“[U]nits are things viewed by a consciousness [a creature that is conscious] in certain existing relationships.” (ITOE, 7)

“In considering the nature of concepts and the process of abstracting from abstraction, we must assume a mind capable of performing (or of retracing and checking) that process. [read: a brain with the requisite conscious apparatus such that it may engage in that process---it is still the brain which is the entity doing the acting here]” (ITOE, 21)

“It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness [an animal] can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated.” (ITOE, 29)

“Just as, extrospectively, man can abstract attributes from entities—so, introspectively, he can abstract the action of his consciousness [conscious organ] from its contents [the contents of his consciousness], and observe the differences among these various actions.

[This just appears to be an example of using less autistic word choice---you can see that my re-wording is less elegant. She elaborates in this section that the "actions" described are things such as "perception" "emotion" "thought" "reminiscence." Here, it is precisely speaking the brain, or the conscious organ, that is doing these things---on this point I can understand the "aha!" feeling, but really it is quite trivial to replace "consciousness" with "conscious organ" here and this causes absolutely no problems for Objectivism---sloppy word choice does not a death blow make.]” (ITOE, 30)

“He can also observe the similarities among the actions of his consciousness [conscious organ] on various occasions, by observing the fact that these same actions—in different sequences, combinations and degrees—are, have been or can be applicable to other objects…

[This is the same thing again, we can imagine an analogous phraseology by saying "his libido was really acting up" or "his sexuality was on fire"---it is clear that it is his sexual organs that are actually doing the acting there]” (ITOE, 30)

“A special, separate act of consciousness [act which is related to the conscious faculty of the creature in question] is required to draw these [conceptual consequences]…” (ITOE, 159)

“One’s own consciousness [conscious organ] serves as the observer and the processes of consciousness as the observed, as the object which one observes and integrates.” (ITOE, 166)

“Now, since it is an exact measurement, it presupposes a consciousness [a man] that is doing this.” (ITOE, 194)

“The CCD for all concepts of consciousness is: actions of consciousness [acts that are related to the faculty of awareness of organisms]. That is the common denominator.” (ITOE, 223)

“Therefore, you could compare thought to an emotion by the process which your consciousness [conscious organ] performs in either…” (ITOE, 223)

I believe this is enough, I am disinterested in doing this for every quote PI lists on his blog, if he finds a new one that does not correspond to one of the above-outlined types then I can address it.