Would an Omniscient Mind Have Knowledge in Conceptual
Form?
Originally posted
on Incinerating
Presuppositionalism
Prologue
It is noteworthy how casually Christians assume that their god, which they
claim is omniscient, would have knowledge in the form of concepts, just
as man does. This is most curious to me, and from my perspective it indicates
not only the ad hoc nature of their god-beliefs and their intent to
assimilate non-Christian ideas into the Christian worldview, but also their
lack of understanding of the nature of concepts to begin with.
Many believers might think that, since Christianity teaches that man was
created in the Christian god’s image, man’s thinking in the form of concepts
would indicate that their god thinks in the form of concepts as well. But this
only obscures the insidious reversal which lies at the base of the thesis that
man was created in the image of the Christian god. The assumption that the
Christian god has knowledge in the form of concepts in fact confirms the
suspicion that the Christian god was concocted in the image of man,
i.e., that believers have imagined their god in the
image of man by
isolat[ing]... actual characteristics of man
combined with the projection of impossible, irrational characteristics which do
not arise from reality – such as omnipotence and omniscience. (Introduction
to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 148)
The problem is that, when we allow the imagination to inflate its
concoctions beyond the scope of the real, many of our concepts lose the context
they need to apply to reality in an objective fashion.
If it can be determined that an "omniscient" consciousness would not
possess its knowledge in the form of concepts, this would have ruinous
implications for the presuppositionalist approach to Christian apologetics
which seeks to contrive aspects of man’s cognitive experience as evidence for
an omniscient being whose thinking serves as the model for man’s mental
abilities. It would not make sense to suppose that man’s cognitive functions
are patterned after a consciousness whose awareness is so vastly superior to or
different from man’s consciousness that it would have no use for the kinds of
functions man’s mind employs.
What Concepts Accomplish
To understand how erroneous it would be to assume that an omniscient,
all-seeing and omnipresent consciousness would possess its knowledge in the
form of concepts, we need to consider what concepts accomplish for man. And to
understand what concepts do for man, we need to understand the essentials of
his consciousness. Consciousness is consciousness of something, i.e., of an
object(s). And man’s consciousness begins with perception of the world around
him. Perception does not give man awareness of concepts; it gives him awareness
of particular entities, their attributes, actions, etc. Sense perception gives
man awareness of these things in the form of percepts.
A percept is a group of sensations automatically
retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of
percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality.
(ITOE, p. 5)
But man can perceive only a limited number of existents at any moment, and
his perceptual faculty can retain and integrate only a limited number of
sensations at any moment. However, man can get “beyond” these limitations by
means of conceptual integration. Conceptual integration allows him to expand
his awareness beyond the objects of his immediate, perceptual awareness by
combining them into classes which include not only the particular entities
which he perceives in the “here and now,” but also similar entities which he
has perceived, may one day perceive and may never perceive. What makes this
expansion of man’s consciousness beyond the immediate inputs of sense
perception possible, is the process of abstraction:
integration of multiple units into categories by means of measurement-omission
according to common isolated essentials. (The mechanics of this process are
expounded in Ayn Rand’s Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology.)
Concepts thus allow man to treat as a single whole an unlimited series
of existents which he has not observed or directly perceived, on the
basis of those which he has observed or directly perceived. Concepts are
therefore a kind of mental shorthand which he needs because he does not have
direct awareness of all members of a class.
An Example of a Poor Understanding of Concepts in
Apologetic Action
Christian apologists frequently expose their poor understanding of the nature
of concepts when they try to assemble arguments for the existence of their god.
Quite often theists expose their lack of understanding just in setting up their
argument, flashing their ignorance before the world before their arguments even
get off the ground. Attending believers, anxious to find anything to confirm
their beliefs, nod in agreement regardless of whether or not they fully
understand what is being endorsed.
Examples of misuse of conceptual issues are legion in the apologetic
literature. But for present purposes, observe what Alvin Plantinga
considers as the basis from which to mount an argument for the existence of his
god (quoted from Welty here):
Suppose you find yourself convinced that (1) there
are propositions, properties, and sets, (2) that the causal requirement is
indeed true [that is, that there must be a causal connection between object of
knowledge and knower], and (3) that (due to excessive number or excessive
complexity or excessive size) propositions, properties, and sets can’t be human
thoughts, concepts, and collections. Then you have the materials for a theistic
argument (Warrant and Proper Function, 121 fn. 25).
Actually, given Plantinga's conceptions
(particularly his points (1) and (3)), what we have here is the makings of a
gap into which theistic imaginations can be inserted. But the gap is contrived
against the relief of a profound ignorance of the objective nature of concepts.
For one thing, at the very least, propositions are not irreducible; they
consist of concepts. To speak of propositions intelligently, we need to
understand propositions, and to understand propositions, we first need to
understand concepts. Also, as mathematical collections, sets concretize certain
conceptual aspects - such as treating groups of objects as single wholes, but
they too are not irreducible. Since sets consist of units, it is therefore the
formation of the concept 'unit' which needs to be understood if we are to have
a rational understanding of sets. In regard to properties, we need to clarify
if by 'properties' we mean particular attributes which exist in specific
measures (if so, which ones and which measures?), or the concepts which
integrate particular attributes into mental units, in which case we're back to
the need to understand the nature of concepts.
Let us look a little closer at this notion of "excessive number."
What quantity constitutes an “excessive number” in this respect? How does one
determine which number is "excessive," thus warranting the conclusion
that whatever exists in this quantity must not be human or graspable by the
human mind? And how would such a conclusion follow? If Plantinga
can quantify it, then obviously it is a number that man’s mind can grasp, which
would undercut his claim that an “excessive number” of “propositions, properties
and sets can’t be human thoughts, concepts, and collections.” Indeed, what
number can the human mind not grasp? Concepts allow us to bring an
"excessive number" of any type of units into the range of human
consciousness by means of unit-economy, that is, by condensing it into a single
unit which the human mind can easily retain and integrate into the sum of his
knowledge. Thus by quantifying them, Plantinga would
demonstrate that whatever he is quantifying is within the grasp of his mind.
If, however, Plantinga does not know how many
propositions, properties and sets there are, then how could he claim that there
is an “excessive number” of them, such that they
“can’t be human thoughts, concepts, and collections”? How could he know, as it
were, that the quantity of propositions, properties and/or sets has exceeded
the magic number? Plantinga’s own personal ignorance
of how many "propositions, properties and sets" there are, may be a
fact that he has to live with, but such ignorance is not
hardly a credible platform from which to argue for the existence of a
god. Similarly with “excessive complexity or excessive size.”
Either way you slice it, such a procedure is self-defeating.
Notice how theism often attempts to exploit the limitations of man’s mind -
whether actual or inflated - to validate the existence of something beyond his
ability to perceive and understand, and yet we’re expected to accept this as
knowledge. What Plantinga’s “materials for a theistic
argument” indicate is his own poor understanding of the nature of concepts. Plantinga himself uses
concepts to identify what he is talking about, concepts which the average human
thinker can grasp, and yet claims that what these concepts cannot be human
concepts. This ignores the fact that it is the task of concepts to reduce an
“excessive number or excessive complexity or excessive size” of things (be they
“propositions, properties, and sets,” or anything else), to the range of man’s
consciousness. Even indefinite descriptors, such as Plantinga
uses to state the supposed problem, reduce what he is talking about to
something easily grasped by the human mind. In this way, concepts enable man to
work extremely efficiently within the limitations of his consciousness rather
than being incapacitated by them and held hostage to the intellectual
permafrost of mysticism.
Man’s Conceptual Faculty
Leonard Peikoff explains how concepts bring that
which is beyond the reach of man’s senses (including things existing in
“excessive number or excessive complexity or excessive size”) into the reach of
man’s overall awareness:
Consciousness, any consciousness, is finite. A is
A. Only a limited number of units can be discriminated from one another and
held in the focus of awareness at a given time. Beyond this number, the content
becomes an unretainable indeterminate blur or spread,
like this: /////////////////////////
For a consciousness to extend its grasp beyond a mere handful of concretes,
therefore – for it to be able to deal with an enormous totality, like all tables,
or all men, or the universe as a whole – one capacity is indispensable. It must
have the capacity to compress its content, i.e., to economize the
units required to convey that content. This is the basic function of
concepts. Their function, in Ayn Rand’s words, is “to
reduce a vast amount of information to a minimal number of units...”
A concept integrates and thus condenses a group of percepts into a single
mental whole. It reduces an unlimited number of perceptual units to one new
unit, which subsumes them all. It thereby expands profoundly the amount of
material that a person can retain and deal with cognitively. Once the term
"man" is defined and automatized in your
consciousness, for example, the vast sum of its referents is available to you
instantly; it is available in a single frame of awareness, without the need of
your trying to visualize or describe and then somehow hold in mind all the
individual men that are, have been, or will be. One mental unit has taken place
of an endless series, and you can proceed to discover an unlimited knowledge
about the entity. (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn
Rand, p. 106)
As should be clear from the foregoing, concepts are vital to man’s
cognition because they expand his awareness beyond the immediate reach of his
senses. Concepts thus allow man to reach beyond what he is directly aware of by
giving him the ability to manage a vast amount of information in the form of a
single unit, even though he does not directly perceive all the information
which that single unit integrates at any one moment. Concepts make it so that
he can speak about all men, for instance, whether they exist now, will
exist, or existed in the past, without having seen all men; in fact, he never
will see all men. In such a way, concepts universalize classes from the small
number of units which an individual does perceive directly, which is the
essential process of induction. Thus concept-formation provides a working model
or blueprint for inductive generalization.
It should be noted here that conceptual integration holds the key to debunking
the staid objections against empiricism that are all too commonplace in
presuppositional apologetics. (See for instance Bahnsen, Always
Ready, pp. 181-182, or Michael Butler's The Pulling Down of Strongholds:
The Power of Presuppositional Apologetics.) If the human mind can
form open-ended classes of existents on the basis of the limited input of the
senses, then there is no reason to suppose that all of one’s knowledge cannot
be ultimately grounded in sense perception. After all, the content of one’s
knowledge had to be acquired somehow, and those who contend that all knowledge
is not grounded in sense experience do not identify an alternative to sense
experience which can work without the operation of the senses. Besides, an
objective theory of abstraction settles both the standard and the more refined
objections that are commonly raised against perceptually-based cognition.
Predictable Theistic Denials
The theist will most likely want to deny the first statement in Peikoff’s explanation, which is a universal statement
characterizing all consciousness. Christians imagine in their god an allegedly infinite
consciousness. They will thus deny that their god could discriminate “only
a limited number of units... from one another,” that it holds in the focus of
its awareness at all times everything that exists, has existed and will
exist for all eternity, for such “all-knowingness” is the basis of its “plan”
for mankind and the universe. It is, given such imaginations, not limited to discriminated awareness of only a small number of units at
any time.
But such denials will only play into my point, namely that the “knowledge”
which Christians claim on behalf of their god could not be conceptual in
nature. Since its awareness is not limited to only a small number of units at
any given time, it would not possess its knowledge in a form which omits
specific measurements in order “to extend its grasp beyond a mere handful of
concretes.” Such a method of cognition would actually destroy its
omniscience, for it would obliterate its immediate awareness of all the details
belonging to everything that exists save for a statistically insignificant few.
Bahnsen confirms the essence of this point when he writes:
Van Til makes the point that in nothing that God
knows is He utterly passive and receptive; He has no “percepts” from which He
constructs His knowledge. Rather, by His own original and constructive
(creative) concepts, God determines the nature of reality and all the facts of
history. (Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 353n. 180)
Since, according to this view, the Christian god “has no ‘percepts’ from
which He constructs His knowledge,” it would have no need for a faculty which
“integrates and thus condenses a group of percepts into a single mental whole”
in knowing its objects. In other words, it would have no need for concepts. It
could hold in its immediate awareness every detail of every existent that
exists, ever existed or will exist, without any need to condense that mass into
measurement-omitting units that a non-omniscient consciousness such as man has
requires.
Notice how, in spite of these points, Bahnsen errs by proceeding to affirm that
such a being would have its knowledge in the form of concepts as well as
explicitly affirming a view which entails the primacy of consciousness (see
specifically Confessions
of a Vantillian Subjectivist). Because an omniscient and all-seeing
consciousness would be conscious of absolutely everything at all times for all
eternity, the Christian god, if it were omniscient and all-seeing, would have
no use for a faculty which “reduces an unlimited number of perceptual units to
one new unit, which subsumes them all.” Since its awareness is already
absolutely maximal and all-encompassing, it would have no use for a faculty
which expands its cognition beyond what it perceives at any moment, for if it
perceives at all, it perceives maximally already; there would be nothing beyond
its perception to expand to. Thus the theist’s use of the concept ‘concept’,
when applied to his god which is supposedly omniscient
and all-seeing, becomes a stolen
concept, for it is affirmed while denying or ignoring its genetic roots.
This is clear the moment the theist denies Peikoff’s
claim that “any consciousness, is finite.” The theist will deny this because he
does not want to allow it to apply to the god he imagines.
And yes, I say imagines here, because imagination is the faculty by
which the believer conceives of such a being. For instance, we can of course imagine
a being which is not saddled with the kinds of limitations that man has. But
this is merely imagination. We can imagine a being, which we might call Wod, which “sees all” and “knows all,” from whose
voyeuristic awareness nothing can escape. Such an entity, being omniscient and
all-seeing, would not need to reduce the vast information it supposedly
possesses to a minimal number of units. As an omniscient and all-seeing being,
it would be able to hold all that information, however much there may be, in
its eternal awareness. If it did not, it would not be omniscient and
all-seeing. Although we will always be capable of imagining beyond what is
real, the problem for the theist is that the imaginary is not real.
In a Nutshell
Quite simply, one would not need concepts if he knew everything and contained
everything that exists in his immediate awareness eternally. Concepts are how a
“finite mind” economizes the enormous amount of data that it discovers
in the world throughout its life. Concepts are a form of mental shorthand that
allows a “finite mind” to treat as a single unit a massive and ever-growing
volume of information collected from its awareness of a limited number of
particular units bearing similar attributes in various specific measurements.
An omniscient mind, on the other hand, would not need such a shorthand method
of organizing the objects of its awareness, because it could retain all the
specific information about each particular at all times in its present awareness,
and it would know each particular in terms of its uniqueness – i.e.,
specifically – rather than having to lump particulars into generalized or universal
classes which omit the particular measurements of the units they subsume.
We (“finite minds”) omit measurements in order to condense specific particulars
into the form of general classes because we cannot retain the enormous amount
of data in our memory. It is, then, from a theistic point of view, a deficiency
(cf. “finiteness”) which necessitates conceptualization. An “infinite mind”
(i.e., a mind that is not hampered by the limitations that our human minds
have) would not have such deficiencies (e.g., it would be able to hold every
detail of every particular regardless of when it exists in its present and
eternal consciousness), and thus would not need a form of knowledge which is
geared to condensing that information in order to compensate for such
deficiencies.
Concepts, then, imply non-omniscience because they imply the finiteness of
non-divine minds. Thus it is incoherent to expect that an appeal to a so-called
“infinite mind” would explain the conceptual order that characterizes the form in which man acquires, validates and holds his
knowledge. Consequently, the presuppositionalist argument that knowledge as man
possesses it implies the existence of an “infinite mind” – such as that
allegedly belonging to the Christian god of presuppositionalism – simply
backfires: their own god would not possess its knowledge in the form of
concepts, so we must look elsewhere for an explanation of the relationship
between the one and the many, the conceptual and the particular. The solution,
then, lies in an understanding of how the human mind retains the data it
discovers in the form of concepts.
____________________________________________