Clarification on Rand's Epistemology

[trivas7]

Let me see if I understand your question correctly.

"How can the outside world" - you mean external reality, right?

"How can external reality -- which is the content of consciousness" - do you mean that a;; the content of consciousness is purely made of perceptions external reality, or that only some of it is, or that the outside world is the content of consciousness?

"begin w/ content".

I don't know what you mean to say. Are you sure you've read ITOE? Could you point me to the bit where she says the outside world is the 'content of consciousness', whatever that means?

Mr. Odden references p.146 in the expanded edition.

[DavidOdden]

How can the outside world -- which is the content of consciousness -- begin w/o content?

The outside world is not the content of consciousness. Start by thinking about what "consciousness" refers to; then ask yourself what "content of consciousness" would mean.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

How can the outside world -- which is the content of consciousness -- begin w/o content?

You may be operating from the false premise that when we see the world we are looking at a model of the world created by our mind; this is why you were asking how can there be content without something making the content. But our mind does not make that content that we perceive with our senses. Existence exists, and we perceive it as it is with our senses, which are automatic and non-creative. In other words, it is not a mental model of the computer in front of you that makes it possible for you to see it; but rather it exists, you open your eyes, and you see it; the computer that you see was not created by your mind or even your mind's eye -- you see it with your eyes. All of that non-pixelated stuff you see with your eyes exists independently of your mind; but our sensory equipment (the eyes, optic nerves, visual cortex, etc.) automatically organizes the pixels, so to speak, so that you see the world in terms of objects and percepts. Percepts are not created by the mind, by the way, but rather it is the form in which we are aware of the world-- i.e. we do not see disconnected pixels, we see what is out there.

[trivas7]

You may be operating from the false premise that when we see the world we are looking at a model of the world created by our mind; this is why you were asking how can there be content without something making the content. But our mind does not make that content that we perceive with our senses. Existence exists, and we perceive it as it is with our senses, which are automatic and non-creative. In other words, it is not a mental model of the computer in front of you that makes it possible for you to see it; but rather it exists, you open your eyes, and you see it; the computer that you see was not created by your mind or even your mind's eye -- you see it with your eyes. All of that non-pixelated stuff you see with your eyes exists independently of your mind; but our sensory equipment (the eyes, optic nerves, visual cortex, etc.) automatically organizes the pixels, so to speak, so that you see the world in terms of objects and percepts. Percepts are not created by the mind, by the way, but rather it is the form in which we are aware of the world-- i.e. we do not see disconnected pixels, we see what is out there.

Tell this to Mr. Odden, since he holds that the content of consciousness is not the outside world.

[Jake_Ellison]

Tell this to Mr. Odden, since he holds that the content of consciousness is not the outside world.

Well, the content of a picture isn't the outside world either. It's just an exact copy of the outside world. Same with consciousness. Why would you dispute that the outside world isn't "contained inside"(the content of) consciousness? Or at least don't tag the world with the "outside", while claiming it's inside my head.

[Tenure]

Tell this to Mr. Odden, since he holds that the content of consciousness is not the outside world.

What do you even mean? Do you mean everything held in consciousness in total? I mean, he certainly holds, or at least I would think he would hold, that the content of consciousness, in humans, is more than just awareness of the outside world. But he certainly has not said, and I think I can say with absolute certainty, that he does not believe that when we are conscious, our perceptions are not perceptions of the outside world.

Could you explain more precisely what you mean, rather than posting these unhelpful, one-line, ridiculous assertions?

Our point is that the mind begins tabula rasa. It starts to fill (and that's a very crude word to use for what I mean) with perceptions over time, and, eventually, the mind starts working with those perceptions using the method described in ITOE. I mean, that's a very rough description, but I just don't get what you're not getting. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscatory?

Edited December 6, 2008 by Tenure

[trivas7]

I mean, he certainly holds, or at least I would think he would hold, that the content of consciousness, in humans, is more than just awareness of the outside world. But he certainly has not said, and I think I can say with absolute certainty, that he does not believe that when we are conscious, our perceptions are not perceptions of the outside world.

The outside world is not the content of consciousness.

My point is that cognitive studies since the 50's and developmental psychology show that distinctive modes of processing experience come on line early in life and that infants have a basic grasp of objects, numbers, faces, tools, language and other domains of human cognition. How one squares this w/ the proposition that the mind is a blank slate at birth is beyond me.

[DavidOdden]

Well, the content of a picture isn't the outside world either. It's just an exact copy of the outside world. Same with consciousness. Why would you dispute that the outside world isn't "contained inside"(the content of) consciousness?

Yes, exactly. (Almost). A picture is not an exact copy.

As it happens, the physical extent of a human consciousness is located within the body (we can get more specific: it's not in your toes, it is in your skull). The "content" of a consciousness is "what's in the consciousness", just as the "content" of a box is "what's in the box". So the "content of a consciousness" has to be actually in a human body -- it does not include ethereal, floating spiritual matter. It also does not include e.g. the actual apple that you see at this moment.

I can't begin to guess what bizarre notions Trivas7 is entertaining, that would allow the notion of "what is in someone's mind" to be "the actual cows and apples that they perceive". The mind does not contain actual external-world objects, and nobody not even Descartes or Plato ever thought that it did. When you perceive a specific individual such as Nixon, that percept exists in your mind, and is part of the contents of your consciousness, but Nixon himself is not part of your mind.

[DavidOdden]

My point is that cognitive studies since the 50's and developmental psychology show that distinctive modes of processing experience come on line early in life and that infants have a basic grasp of objects, numbers, faces, tools, language and other domains of human cognition. How one squares this w/ the proposition that the mind is a blank slate at birth is beyond me.

Let me repeat: you're ignoring what Rand actually said about "tabula rasa". The ability to learn has no bearing on the "content" claim that Rand set forth.

However, you are nearly implying here that prior to experience, infants have a basic grasp of objects, numbers, faces, tools, language and other domains of human cognition. This is flatly false and has not been demonstrated (in the least) by any research in cognitive studies. What has been demonstrated is that children have an ability (because of their cognitive faculties) to extract such concepts given sensory experience. You are implying that children have actual knowledge, which is untrue.

[trivas7]

Let me repeat: you're ignoring what Rand actually said about "tabula rasa". The ability to learn has no bearing on the "content" claim that Rand set forth.

"But ultimately the content of your consciousness, since it begins tabula rasa, consists entirely of your awareness of the outside world." -- Rand ITOE 146. What is it you think "it" refers to here? I say it refers to "consciousness", not "the content", which would be nonsensical.

However, you are nearly implying here that prior to experience, infants have a basic grasp of objects, numbers, faces, tools, language and other domains of human cognition. This is flatly false and has not been demonstrated (in the least) by any research in cognitive studies. What has been demonstrated is that children have an ability (because of their cognitive faculties) to extract such concepts given sensory experience. You are implying that children have actual knowledge, which is untrue.

Well, you can choose to ignore the science. I'll follow Steven Pinker re this.

Edited December 6, 2008 by trivas7

[DavidOdden]

What is it you think "it" refers to here? I say it refers to "consciousness", not "the content", which would be nonsensical.

"It" clearly refers to "the content of your consciousness". To conclude otherwise would be nonsensical.

Well, you can choose to ignore the science. I'll follow Steven Pinker re this.

I'm telling you the science. Show me your evidence -- use scholarly sources, not popular press books. I'm up for a serious scientific debate if you have the balls.

[Jake_Ellison]

My point is that cognitive studies since the 50's and developmental psychology show that distinctive modes of processing experience come on line early in life and that infants have a basic grasp of objects, numbers, faces, tools, language and other domains of human cognition. How one squares this w/ the proposition that the mind is a blank slate at birth is beyond me.

What possible science could you have read which suggests that numbers, tools and language could be something infants are born with?

What numbers? Roman numerals, binary, ten base, 16 base?

Which language? English? (which is, in its current form, a few hundred years old) Latin? Greeek? Click laguage?

What tools? Can they drive? Hammer? Use a plow?

The notion that an infant can be born with any of this knowledge contradicts everything we know about evolution, and the time it requires. Most numbers are only a few thousand years old for God's sake, languages even younger. How exactly did they become part of a human's "programming" so quickly, given all we know about the time it takes for evolution to make even small changes?

[trivas7]

Yes, exactly. (Almost). A picture is not an exact copy.

As it happens, the physical extent of a human consciousness is located within the body (we can get more specific: it's not in your toes, it is in your skull). The "content" of a consciousness is "what's in the consciousness", just as the "content" of a box is "what's in the box". So the "content of a consciousness" has to be actually in a human body -- it does not include ethereal, floating spiritual matter. It also does not include e.g. the actual apple that you see at this moment.

No, "what's in the consciousness" is a euphemism for "what one perceives"; a human consciousness's content isn't in a location like "what's in the box".

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

No, "what's in the consciousness" is a euphemism for "what one perceives"; a human consciousness's content isn't in a location like "what's in the box".

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say, but that which one perceives is not a content of consciousness; that which one perceives is existence, while it is the awareness of that which one perceives that is the content of consciousness. In other words, the apple you hold in your hand that is red, smooth, round, heavy, sweet, crunchy, etc. is not a content of consciousness; the redness, smoothness, roundness, etc. are also not the content of consciousness; the content of consciousness is your awareness of the apple and your awareness of these attributes of the apple.

Once one has that awareness of something, then one can remember it, think about it, imagine it to be different, conceptualize it, and think about what to do with it. But it is the awareness of the apple that one is dealing with in these instances.

To put it another way, the words on this screen are not a content of consciousness; they are something real in the outside world; and they remain in the outside world, never becoming the content of consciousness. The content of consciousness is the awareness of the words and the understanding of what they mean.

And we have that awareness due to the nature of our consciousness and the nature of the means of awareness -- i.e. the senses and the capacity to perceive and the capacity to be able retain the awareness of the outside world in our consciousness.

[trivas7]

I'm still not sure what you are trying to say, but that which one perceives is not a content of consciousness; that which one perceives is existence, while it is the awareness of that which one perceives that is the content of consciousness. In other words, the apple you hold in your hand that is red, smooth, round, heavy, sweet, crunchy, etc. is not a content of consciousness; the redness, smoothness, roundness, etc. are also not the content of consciousness; the content of consciousness is your awareness of the apple and your awareness of these attributes of the apple.

Yes, what one perceives is existence; my point is that consciousness IS awareness, it doesn't get reduplicated as "content of consciousness". Is this a valid point?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yes, what one perceives is existence; my point is that consciousness IS awareness, it doesn't get reduplicated as "content of consciousness". Is this a valid point?

Consciousness, in man, is more than just awareness of external reality. Man has the capability of doing something with that awareness, such as remembering it, conceptualizing it, thinking about it, having an emotional reaction to it, deciding what to do about it. In other words, for man, there is a content of consciousness -- memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. Though, in a way, it is not in a location in the same way that a ball in a box has a location. However, it is not incorrect to say that one's memories are in one's mind, or that one's thoughts are in one's head. So, there is a content of consciousness, for lack of a better way of putting it; however, we cannot specify the location, as in it is in the frontal lobe or the hearing section of the brain, or anything like that. It is more the awareness of what your mind is considering, and your awareness that you can direct it -- i.e. you can recall the memories of your fist love at will. When it comes to introspection, it is irrelevant knowing the exact place of those memories, thoughts, etc. You are able to recall them at will, and process them at will, which makes them contents of consciousness.

[prosperity]

Consciousness, in man, is more than just awareness of external reality. Man has the capability of doing something with that awareness, such as remembering it, conceptualizing it, thinking about it, having an emotional reaction to it, deciding what to do about it. In other words, for man, there is a content of consciousness -- memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. Though, in a way, it is not in a location in the same way that a ball in a box has a location. However, it is not incorrect to say that one's memories are in one's mind, or that one's thoughts are in one's head. So, there is a content of consciousness, for lack of a better way of putting it; however, we cannot specify the location, as in it is in the frontal lobe or the hearing section of the brain, or anything like that. It is more the awareness of what your mind is considering, and your awareness that you can direct it -- i.e. you can recall the memories of your fist love at will. When it comes to introspection, it is irrelevant knowing the exact place of those memories, thoughts, etc. You are able to recall them at will, and process them at will, which makes them contents of consciousness.

Along the same lines, and this may start bleeding into ethics...but, would concepts then be considered man-made facts? Or are man-made facts strictly limited to the physical world?

The reason for my asking is that on another discussion board someone had brought up the idea of "social debt", and the premise was this:

People living today are using knowledge created by others to either live their life or create new knowledge, or both. If they are using others' knowledge, then they owe a debt to Society (or at least to those that created that knowledge) that gave them that knowledge. Any wealth created by that knowledge, therefore, is not wholly the property of the individual claiming it.

This is clearly a justification for statism, but I am not exactly sure how to confront the "ownership" as it were of knowledge other than knowledge is ultimately derived from the metaphysically given, which cannot be owned by someone. Society, as such, is a concept itself not a special type of organism I understand and not subject to dues owed.

[Tenure]

Simply put, knowledge can be created by an individual, and he can freely choose to communicate that knowledge, but it still requires a first-handed integration by the person learning the knowledge. The presence of 'Society' didn't transmit that information in any automatic way. Rather, one individual (or a group of individuals) came up with that knowledge by their own effort, and another person had to re-create it for themselves.

If one were to owe a debt to society, then the fact that that knowledge were created would have to necessarily depend on society - somehow, 'society', the mere grouping together of people, would have to divine that knowledge, first in the creator's head, then again in the student learning it. As this is not the case, to claim that one owes a debt to 'society' is completely false, both in its theory of where knowledge comes from and what it means to owe a debt (one can't owe anything to undefined group of people, none of whom can be specifically said to have done anything).