Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ilya Startsev

Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

[...]

 

I agree. To conceptualize is part of our DNA. Oth, there is nothing that assures us that our concepts will lead to science.

 

Speaking of which....my experience in science indicates that its practitioners have a really hard time with the c-word. Rather, a 'concept' to science is nothing but an idea, or generalized thought that hasn't found it's usable form as a hypotheses. to this end, a 'naturalized concept is one that corresponds to how nature works,by way of the possibiity of forming a hypotheses.

 

[...]

 

If numbers are not real, then you fall into the obligation of explaining your way out of the 'Wigner conundrum'. As a truly great QM Physicist, his later book questioned how QM can explain nature, insofar the match between QM results and the math is far too intimate. So if math is mind-dependent,  so is QM!

 

In other words, the results of QM would not exist independently of our minds...

 

A good example of his claim came ten years ago--after his passing-- with Dyson's discovery that the algorythmic sequence of spectral lines matched the infamous Z-function of Riemann, created in 1824!

 

In any case, yes, there's a strong argument for the naturalization of math--that it's discovered like everything else in nature. First developed by Quine, the latest is by Penny Maddy, who's actually out at U Cal irvine, a short walk from the Rand Institute, btw.

 

In fact, Dyson is convinced that Maddy offers the best epistemic explanation for his self-labeled 'discovery'. Wigner, for his part, died a hard -core Platonist.

Beautiful. Naturalized concept is Conception that precedes Sensation, and hypotheses are its free expressions. That's change in the making and evolution toward true knowledge (scientia).

As for math being fundamental to nature, I have my own understanding. I have mentioned that conception is fundamental to a reality. The reality I meant was the Reality of realities, that is, our physical reality (Body--Environment) is a subset of this absolute, superset Reality. It is the metaphysical Reality of absolute everything and absolute nothing, also simply known as Existence--Nonexistence. This is as much philosophy as I can master.

 

I did not say that numbers are not real. In fact, numbers are reality. They are pure consciousness. They are not things. They and their geometries help us visualize our context. They also help (re)connect Perception with Conception and to Sensations. I have no problem with mathematics, especially structural math, but I do have a problem when others are confusing concepts for actual things.

 

As for consciousness affecting things, there is no such scientific consensus in QM. It's like saying that space causes change in objects. What space does cause though is the context where the objects can exist. Once objects exist, they can adapt to space and integrate themselves within it, changing it to match their will as they go along. Objects with consciousness that allows them to extend throughout space. This is not quackery; it is real. Particles and galaxies do it, and all we need is to apply it to our human philosophy and life and off we go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beautiful. Naturalized concept is Conception that precedes Sensation, and hypotheses are its free expressions. That's change in the making and evolution toward true knowledge (scientia).

As for math being fundamental to nature, I have my own understanding. I have mentioned that conception is fundamental to a reality. The reality I meant was the Reality of realities, that is, our physical reality (Body--Environment) is a subset of this absolute, superset Reality. It is the metaphysical Reality of absolute everything and absolute nothing, also simply known as Existence--Nonexistence. This is as much philosophy as I can master.

 

I did not say that numbers are not real. In fact, numbers are reality. They are pure consciousness. They are not things. They and their geometries help us visualize our context. They also help (re)connect Perception with Conception and to Sensations. I have no problem with mathematics, especially structural math, but I do have a problem when others are confusing concepts for actual things.

 

As for consciousness affecting things, there is no such scientific consensus in QM. It's like saying that space causes change in objects. What space does cause though is the context where the objects can exist. Once objects exist, they can adapt to space and integrate themselves within it, changing it to match their will as they go along. Objects with consciousness that allows them to extend throughout space. This is not quackery; it is real. Particles and galaxies do it, and all we need is to apply it to our human philosophy and life and off we go!

Well. no: naturalized concepts are those that purport to explain how nature works. The problem is that scientists don't like the term because it sounds philosopihical (mirable dictu!).

 

Wigner spoke for himself, not for the community. His point, internally speaking, was that while most of his fellow QMers took a Godel-influenced Platonic view of math, they nevertheless insisted that their discoveries were subject-independently real.

 

Again, Wigner's point was that the match was too close. There comes a point (long-crossed in his opinion) at which math ceases to become only a tool, rather, begins to direct the outcome.

 

This has nothing to do with our conscious minds bending an outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You get circularity, where you need the concept before acquiring the concept.

You have Objectivism for that. Remember that we learn many concepts directly through S and P. Our whole reality is conceptual. Everything you read or see on TV or on a computer screen are not real things. They may refer to real things, but really they are just conceptualizations like art as metaphysical concretes selectively re-created by someone.

 

That is not the Objectivist view.

Are you sure? I want you to question it. Analyze it. Categorize. And integrate. I hope you are right, though. Because if you are, we can yet reconnect Objectivism with the current sciences.

 

The rest is you coming up with a narrative to argue against a misconception.

I have much to have learned from Miss Rand.

 

I have theories of my own that I think are not Objectivism

I am very interested to hear more about this :)

 

a theory of epistemology will change, just not *specific* theories on epistemology.

You mean not Objectivist epistemology then.

 

they can be made into something connected/isomorphic/related to reality as a mental unit

As long as there is a connection to physical reality, I have no problem. However, Objectivism just doesn't connect to everything that is going on.

 

Not true. The concept "man" consists of instances/units which are referred to by the word "man" in English, or whatever language applies to you.

These instances/units are still concepts (within concepts) unless you visualize them from memory as real "men." Objectivism indeed has circulary nature, if you haven't figure this out yet. You are just going, spiraling down in your own circles, separate from others, except I decided to join you as well. Mind that I am not circular outside of Objectivism. This loop of constant falling inside a singularity is fascinating. I think that in order to live a normal life in America, you cannot show that you are an Objectivist or act like an Objectivist. If this is so, it's the same dichotomy of private and (fake) public self that Rand fought against and tried to uncover her whole life. Ironically, events repeat and return back at you when you push too hard against them.

 

They key point Rand makes is that during abstraction, all the underlying "parts" are still retained, yet not part of what you focus on.

Yep, you focus on philosophical concepts afterwards. I get the flow.

 

That makes the individuals always present at least implicitly acknowledged in any concept you use. Unless you came up with your concept by invalid or poor means, that's the theory Rand poses for all people.

Implicit acknowledgement reminds of implicit concepts in S and P. Once everything is so implicitly and explicitly objectified, there is no way out. The consensus of Objectivism based on her ideas becomes the whole truth, right? What about experimentation?

 

"Visuals" are not really how anyone thinks, despite how it "feels" visual - it is mostly relational and conceptual, which are best described in visual terms.

I always thought visually, and the more I think about words as objectified concepts, the more I lose the ability to access the right side of my brain, and get stuck in just the left one. It should not be a wonder that concepts are described best in visual terms. It's because concepts are not things, and visualization is inherent in understanding spacetime. Remember Einstein and his brain. Rand is the opposite of him. What needs to be more in Objectivism is this harmony of left and right hemispheres, the logical and the visual.

 

All Rand means by unit is noting an individual entity is grouped with other entities, so don't make it into something more than that.

What does it mean to be grouped with other entities? Can Objectivists be grouped under this philosophy without sharing the nonphysical, conceptual, spacetime relationships? Or are you just a collection of bodies, as if existing on different worlds in an unknown wild galaxy? You create some distance by objectifying everything, but you can never separate things from each other truly. You can only ignore it, forget, try by all means to cut the connections out of your consciousness, and at the end still come back to it. The question is: when?

 

No, numbers don't exist "out there" but they have a direct connection to reality.

In all the books I have read on Objectivism, there wasn't a single instance when there were numbers that actually connected to reality. Zero.

 

In fact, numbers and counting are basic concepts all children develop, so I'd say numbers tend to be isometric to material reality.

Praise mathematics for that, not Objectivism.

 

isometric to material reality

Correct. But not as independent objects.

 

Rand is no materialist

Physicists are just as bad nowadays. We have two camps: structuralists and objectivists. The first say it's all about spacetime, relationships, waves, etc., the others say it's only about objects. Hence the conflict of metaphysics and physics is also inherent to physics.

 

Read ITOE further, especially where Rand discusses forming concepts of emotion, where changes of degree are crucial.

Will do. I won't abandon this.

 

Again, Wigner's point was that the match was too close. There comes a point (long-crossed in his opinion) at which math ceases to become only a tool, rather, begins to direct the outcome.

 

This has nothing to do with our conscious minds bending an outcome.

We are living in a hyperconceptualized reality and forgetting that it's not physically real. So, instead, you would rather become a slave to it, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illya , your wasting your time. As before, your hoped for integrations are a result of your own misintegrations.

Your (and Blavatsky and Sheldrakes) desire to be accepted by advocates of reason will never be obtained. Mystics have nothing to trade with. 

 

You have no idea what reason or mysticism is and that's why you want to fit the square peg of mysticism, the attempt to gain knowledge through means besides reason, into the round hole of science, the systematic use of reason to identify facts.

 

Illya said:

 

 

All of these quotes, and I am sure that you can find more (as well as the instances of not understanding by Roark, Dagny, and Rand herself), are judgements of mystics. However, it should also be clear that these judgements are based on insufficient understanding of mysticism. In fact, it is slander. I have studied mysticism for 10 years, and I can tell that, for example, Blavatsky's theosophy is about integrating science and religion where the integration is based on the premise that "there is no religion higher than the truth."

 

The misunderstanding is yours! If you and Blavatsky, Armour and whoever else, want to redefine mysticism and religion as something that uses reason to obtain truth, then you will have to remember that you are attacking a straw man when you use your nonsensical usage as a foil against the Oist position on mysticism!

 

Science is the method of obtaining truth via the identification of the facts of reality using reason. Religion is the belief in supernatural nonsense that is the result of using an invalid method of justification. Mysticism is differentiated from reason by its method of justification in particular the use of emotions as justifiers.

 

Illya said:

 

Indeed, they claim that "love is a matter of "the heart," " and I totally agree with that and, more than that, provide you evidence for it from the Institute of HeartMath's research, especially their book Science of the Heart and other related books, such as Neurocardiology: Anatomical and Functional Principles by J. Andrew Armour, M.D., Ph.D. What is completely clear, though, is that none say that love (or heart, sense of life, soul) is in conflict with reason (or mind, philosophy, consciousness). This is a totally groundless claim by Rand herself who implanted it into mysticism against reason.

 

 

What is groundless is your attack of a strawman. You don't know what mysticism is. Oist don't accept your categorization of mysticism or religion.

 

Illya said:

 

Rand came up with new ideas, but she differentiated herself negatively from others. She did not want to be a mystic, so she called others mystics, implying something completely evil and irrational, even though most of those I named are also scientists. Please, keep in mind: it is very hard to accept those who hate you. In fact, it is very hard to even consider (not even speaking of love) those who only hate you in return. And for most people, who are non-Objectivists and therefore labeled mystics, the fact that they are hated and harshly and unfairly criticized remains whether they put an effort into studying Objectivism or none, where the second is a more obvious choice. It has been difficult for me as well, but I think that I am finally breaking through the barrier of hate that Rand has created around Objectivism

 

 

listen carefully Illya. Oist regard mysticism as EVIL. A moral individual hates evil! A moral man wants no part of evil ideas or those who practice them. Its called sanction. Mysticism is a destroyer of civilization. The practice of mysticism prevents one from identifying the values required of ones life. Ms. Rand stated things as they are and let others confront the facts reality how they choose. Her indictment of mystics is an expression of her moral courage and integrity.

 

 

Illya said:

 

love as an experience goes through the heart, but is originally generated by the brain. The confusion is in this quote: "Love is the expression of philosophy" (1971:27). I want to differentiate love as an experience and love as an idea or an impulse. Love comes or is generated from the brain, where, in my words, philosophy is the content of the mind. Since love is generated from the brain, it is also an expression from philosophy but an expression through the heart, where, in my words, the sense of life is the content of the soul. Such expression is indeed proven by neurocardiologists. The heart has neurons and complex neurological nets that are independent from the brain. The heart also has more and stronger connections to the brain than the brain has to the heart, and this explains why emotions have greater effect over thoughts than vice versa.

 

 

This is complete nonsense. " The heart has neurons and complex neurological nets that are independent from the brain. The heart also has more and stronger connections to the brain than the brain has to the heart" is a completely irrational and contradictory statement. My toe is connected to my foot exactly the same way my foot is connected to my toe. You don't know what a connection is either.

 

 

Illya said:

 

Any kind of hate by Rand is baseless because it is directed at what she did not understand, at that in which she saw no value, which is still inherently there. Just because you do not see a value in something, it does not mean that it has is no value.

 

 

You are equivocating on value here. Your values are not hers because in this instance you are not talking about the same thing! You are attacking a strawman....

 

Illya said:

 

 

Others see value in mysticism because they can understand it. They are also logical, but their logic is different because it is many-valued. I can understand both Objectivism and mysticism because the two-valued and many-valued logics in my head do not conflict.

 

Another instance of you categorizing science and reason differently from Oist. Many-valued logic is not scientific or reasonable to Oist. This is your rationalization for embracing contradictions via misintegration.

 

Illya said:

 

 

Now tell me that Rand did not use the rhetoric of hate in relation to "mystics."

 

Oh, she did indeed, and righteously! The attempt to turn the law of identity into a "habit" (Sheldrake) is evil. The attempt to make the irrational and the rational the same thing is evil, one could not survive doing so.

 

Your barking up the wrong tree. We eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil around here.....Judge and prepare to be judged....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illya , your wasting your time. As before, your hoped for integrations are a result of your own misintegrations.

Your (and Blavatsky and Sheldrakes) desire to be accepted by advocates of reason will never be obtained. Mystics have nothing to trade with. 

 

You have no idea what reason or mysticism is and that's why you want to fit the square peg of mysticism, the attempt to gain knowledge through means besides reason, into the round hole of science, the systematic use of reason to identify facts.

 

Illya said:

 

 

The misunderstanding is yours! If you and Blavatsky, Armour and whoever else, want to redefine mysticism and religion as something that uses reason to obtain truth, then you will have to remember that you are attacking a straw man when you use your nonsensical usage as a foil against the Oist position on mysticism!

 

Science is the method of obtaining truth via the identification of the facts of reality using reason. Religion is the belief in supernatural nonsense that is the result of using an invalid method of justification. Mysticism is differentiated from reason by its method of justification in particular the use of emotions as justifiers.

 

Illya said:

 

 

What is groundless is your attack of a strawman. You don't know what mysticism is. Oist don't accept your categorization of mysticism or religion.

 

Illya said:

 

 

listen carefully Illya. Oist regard mysticism as EVIL. A moral individual hates evil! A moral man wants no part of evil ideas or those who practice them. Its called sanction. Mysticism is a destroyer of civilization. The practice of mysticism prevents one from identifying the values required of ones life. Ms. Rand stated things as they are and let others confront the facts reality how they choose. Her indictment of mystics is an expression of her moral courage and integrity.

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

This is complete nonsense. " The heart has neurons and complex neurological nets that are independent from the brain. The heart also has more and stronger connections to the brain than the brain has to the heart" is a completely irrational and contradictory statement. My toe is connected to my foot exactly the same way my foot is connected to my toe. You don't know what a connection is either.

 

 

Illya said:

 

 

You are equivocating on value here. Your values are not hers because in this instance you are not talking about the same thing! You are attacking a strawman....

 

Illya said:

 

 

Another instance of you categorizing science and reason differently from Oist. Many-valued logic is not scientific or reasonable to Oist. This is your rationalization for embracing contradictions via misintegration.

 

Illya said:

 

 

Oh, she did indeed, and righteously! The attempt to turn the law of identity into a "habit" (Sheldrake) is evil. The attempt to make the irrational and the rational the same thing is evil, one could not survive doing so.

 

Your barking up the wrong tree. We eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil around here.....Judge and prepare to be judged....

>>> Many-valued logic is not scientific or reasonable to Oist.>>>>

 

...etc... The key to science is the possibility that 'any' concept can be converted into a testable hypotheses. This would include those brought about by a mystical vision. To this end, we speak of science using 'null hypotheses' that 'all' hypothese are equally null from the start. it would therefore stand to reason that concepts, that form hypotheses, are all null in equal measure. 

 

Science does not favor binary logic. Rather the opposite case can be better made that tested results and internal competition  for the best answer indicates fuzzy logic of the 'sort of-kind of' variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank said:

>>> Many-valued logic is not scientific or reasonable to Oist.>>>>

...etc... The key to science is the possibility that 'any' concept can be converted into a testable hypotheses. This would include those brought about by a mystical vision. To this end, we speak of science using 'null hypotheses' that 'all' hypothese are equally null from the start. it would therefore stand to reason that concepts, that form hypotheses, are all null in equal measure.

Science does not favor binary logic. Rather the opposite case can be better made that tested results and internal competition for the best answer indicates fuzzy logic of the 'sort of-kind of' variety.

Its clear by now that the argument clearly lies in what science is. The hypothetical deductive method relies on a rejection of the "arbitrary as unworthy of consideration" mindset.... Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our whole reality is conceptual.

Understanding of reality is conceptual... concepts are as real as any mental state.

 

Once everything is so implicitly and explicitly objectified, there is no way out. The consensus of Objectivism based on her ideas becomes the whole truth, right? What about experimentation?

Huh? Experimentation is not excluded. What does consensus matter here when discussing if the Objectivist theory is any good?

 

However, Objectivism just doesn't connect to everything that is going on.

Fails to, or doesn't try to?

 

These instances/units are still concepts (within concepts)

The individual units and instances are not themselves the resulting concept (I argue something similar throughout here). First level concepts are formed by operating on percepts. Anything past that is formed by operating on concepts, the ladder of abstraction as you put it. Concepts for Rand are not Lockean Ideas.

 

It should not be a wonder that concepts are described best in visual terms. It's because concepts are not things,

err, you keep using the word concept, I'm starting to doubt it means what you think it means. >_> Even if they are visual, that doesn't change anything.

 

there wasn't a single instance when there were numbers that actually connected to reality.

It's easy to do though...  I mean, do you sincerely not understand how "1" can be connected to reality in the same way Rand ties the concept "length" to reality? I don't want to sound mean, but I'm bewildered.

 

but you can never separate things from each other truly.

That is definitely an Objectivist position with the way it treats concepts in a hierarchical structure, and in how it treats all concepts as still keeping all the information abstracted. So everything is connected in some way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank said:

Its clear by now that the argument clearly lies in what science is. The hypothetical deductive method relies on a rejection of the "arbitrary as unworthy of consideration" mindset....

Well, no. the arbitrary is just as good as any other notion...or 'concept'!

 

That's because the philo-epistemo-metaphysical-logical status means nothing. What's only of importance is if the statement can be made into a testable hypotheses. Again, 'null hypotheses' means all unproven hypotheses are equally void of content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, no. the arbitrary is just as good as any other notion...or 'concept'!

 

That's because the philo-epistemo-metaphysical-logical status means nothing. What's only of importance is if the statement can be made into a testable hypotheses. Again, 'null hypotheses' means all unproven hypotheses are equally void of content.

Void of content. Hmm. That pretty much summarizes why Objectivism advocates dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Once a hypothesis has been validated, i.e., logically proven, it is no longer consider a hypothesis, but a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Void of content. Hmm. That pretty much summarizes why Objectivism advocates dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Once a hypothesis has been validated, i.e., logically proven, it is no longer consider a hypothesis, but a theory.

The scientific method says that the only real content is that of a tested & supported hypotheses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illya , your wasting your time. As before, your hoped for integrations are a result of your own misintegrations.

Your (and Blavatsky and Sheldrakes) desire to be accepted by advocates of reason will never be obtained. Mystics have nothing to trade with. 

 

You have no idea what reason or mysticism is and that's why you want to fit the square peg of mysticism, the attempt to gain knowledge through means besides reason, into the round hole of science, the systematic use of reason to identify facts.

You claim that I am in the unit of "mystic," and, partially, I am. You are so bold and confident, Plasmatic, in your claims. It honestly surpises me. You think you understand everything. But your claims do not have sufficient support and no solid ground on which they can stand. What you fail to grasp is that some units overlap. For example, mystic is in the unit of "ideology" and in the unit of "man." I am both, correct? Otherwise, provide your own categorization of the unit "mystic." Do some productive Objectivist work. Unless you think that the units of "mysticism" or "religion" do not exist? About existence, see the questions at the end of this post.

I can also say that I am as much a mystic as you are an Aristotelian. And then here is an Aristotle's quote all of you should admire:

"[The following things are all honorable:] things for which the rewards are a kala, especially those that bring honor rather than money; and whatever someone has done not for his own sake; and things absolutely good and whatever someone has done for his country, overlooking his own interest; and things good by nature and that are not benefits to him, for such things are done for their own sake; and whatever can belong to a person when dead more than when alive (for what belongs to a

person in his lifetime has more the quality of being to his own advantage); and whatever works are done for the sake of others (for they have less of the self ); and good deeds done for others but not for the self and acts of kindness (for they are not directed to oneself ); (Aristotle's Rhetoric, 1367a16-9).

 

Oist regard mysticism as EVIL.

That's an evaluation (a highly emotional one, I should add), not a statement of fact of existence.

 

Mysticism is a destroyer of civilization.

Let's equate civilization with the industry and hence with industrialists. You would rather take the stance of industrialists than real scientists, am I right? So, in the climate change debates, you consider scientists mystics? Are you kidding me?

 

The practice of mysticism prevents one from identifying the values required of ones life.

Let me differentiate between evil mysticism (one that resulted in deaths of many lives, like Marxism) and good mysticism. A good mysticism does not conflict with the values required for one's life. In fact, in addition to those values, good mysticism tells you that the values in your life are not enough for the betterment of mankind. Hence you learn that whatever you valued will die with you, but the legacy that you built for humankind will live on. Hence, please differentiate between merely individual values and shared values.

 

Her indictment of mystics is an expression of her moral courage and integrity.

She did conquer the Marxists, for which I am grateful.

 

This is complete nonsense. " The heart has neurons and complex neurological nets that are independent from the brain. The heart also has more and stronger connections to the brain than the brain has to the heart" is a completely irrational and contradictory statement. My toe is connected to my foot exactly the same way my foot is connected to my toe. You don't know what a connection is either.

You do not know how conceptual units relate or connect. Look at my model and tell me that it conflicts with the theory of concepts. First, I was talking about the neurological connection since it involved neurons. Second, I was talking about autonomous organs, not merely parts of your limbs. You confuse Cells that make some part of Tissue (e.g., a toe) with Organs (such as heart and brain). In case you believe your senses and physical reality, here is photographical proof that there is an autonomous system of neurons in the heart.

 

Many-valued logic is not scientific or reasonable to Oist.

Is physics not scientific too? In case you did not know, you are living with knowledge from the eighteenth century. I realize that you may want to exist then, but I have to disappoint you, it is the 21st century now and humankind and the world is much different from the way they were back then. Here is a quote by Nathaniel Branden about Ayn Rand's knowledge (and yours too): "With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference -- this is only a slight exaggeration -- to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton." (From "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand").

 

This is your rationalization for embracing contradictions via misintegration.

I ask for the specific evidence of my "misintegration." You may believe that I "misintegrated" concepts of Units in my model (and I have proven it already on countless occasions), but I counterclaim that it is simply your belief, not knowledge. Prove me otherwise.

 

The attempt to turn the law of identity into a "habit" (Sheldrake) is evil.

Again, your personal, Objectivist evaluation as a torrent for your hate. And the law of identity is not in your habit? Maybe you are not using the law of identity then. Or using it too much, such as when you think that every thing is a "thing=thing=thing=thing=..." Also, how can your sense and perception be conceptual, yet we know that senses and perceptions are also in addition to conception (a concept of itself), so you have conception=sense+perception+conception. This constradictions the law of identity, for, in Objectivism, conception=/=conception.

 

The attempt to make the irrational and the rational the same thing is evil, one could not survive doing so.

I don't understand how you survive. Are you living on an uninhabited island? With some Galtesque wireless internet connection, I might add.

 

Judge and prepare to be judged....

Excellent. Bring it on! Now, would you judge me rationally and with supporting evidence, please?

 

Frank said:

Its clear by now that the argument clearly lies in what science is. The hypothetical deductive method relies on a rejection of the "arbitrary as unworthy of consideration" mindset....

Frank, thank you for at least some rational support. Hypotheses start from concepts, not necessarily from actual facts. If we only had actual facts, we would then not need hypotheses or science, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Experimentation is not excluded.

Read Plasmatic's comment above. He said that hypotheses cannot be based on arbitrary acts. Are experiments arbitrary? What if we get actual results by accident, like it happens many times (e.g., the discoveries of Penicillin and the Periodic Table of the Elements)?

 

Fails to, or doesn't try to?

In your case--doesn't try to. In the case of some other Objectivists--fails miserably.

 

The individual units and instances are not themselves the resulting concept (I argue something similar throughout here).

Ok, what is "conception" then? The way I understand is that Rand's theory of concepts is a concept and a specific conception about other concepts as well as specific conceptions. The loop is original to her theory of concepts. We have C=S+P+C, and without differentiating C's we have an infinite loop. Because of this, the funny thing in O-ism is that "thing"s are also C's (they become so with the second instance of the loop). If I am right, such instances may also be considered levels. In other words, Cn=Sn+Pn+Cn+1, where n is a conceptual level and n>=0 (n is greater or equal to zero).

 

More reasoning:

From that thread, dream_weaver said: "A word is a symbol which can represent one or more concepts." The thread was called "words are not concepts." We have concluded that word is a concept as sense data (implicit), perception (when we identify the word but do not necessarily know what it means), and purely conceptual understanding. You think in words and numbers, right? Both words and numbers are concepts. A letter is a concept. A symbol is. At the end we still have C=S+P+C. Don't take it that it contradicts reality. It is merely a redefinition of concepts that happened in Objectivism. But S and P (in C) are not physically real in this redifinition. It's like looking at a word, rather than looking at what that word depicts. It follows the law of identity, but it's not efficient, and does not refer to reality directly. Existence is a concept (if you understand it) when it does not refer to anything other than itself, like "existence exists." If a word denotes a concept, then what is it and how can we integrate it into the conceptual hierarchy?

From the same thread: Grames said: "Concepts are contextual." Plasmatic said: "Invalid concepts exist as failed integrations."

What is meant by "failed" here is the context. I want to specify that if there is no consensus on a context of a concept, then it is a failed concept.

Questioner said: "the structure of a sentence adds another layer of meaning that is not strictly contained within the concepts/words used in a sentence. I have no problem with that."

Indeed, without space, you wouldn't read this sentence. However, I want you to differentiate the space inherent to words and the space around them. Space is a concept that refers either to reality or to mentality (or both, as Objectivists seem to try to do).

Nicky said: "symbols stand for concepts"

Indeed, but would you have concepts without symbols (i.e., words)? Visually, you can, though. But you cannot visualize your concepts without such symbols, so, therefore, words are concepts for Objectivists, but not necessarily so for everyone else. A word is a container for you as it symbolizes a visual symbol, but itself does not exist. This is different from body/consciousness, where the first exists and the second merely identifies with it. If a word is not a concept, you need to convert it into a concept in Objectivism, otherwise that word will not exist in your especially favorite "existence exists." How do you think about "existence exists"?

As Harrison said, quickly changing from his previous view of "words as concepts": "But each new act of cognition generates new introspective 'stuff' which could be organized into concepts BY another cognitive act which would immediately create more unlabeled 'stuff'."

Then how the hell do you think about it, if you do not visualize in pictures or words? In numbers?

He continues: "So while ALL words refer to concepts, SOME concepts CANNOT be referred to."

Like Existence exists, for example, right? Maybe you like to ignore what is going on in your mind as well.

Seemingly, there is no consensus on this most fundamental topic among Objectivists, as you said: "You need a word to finish concept formation."

This dichotomy between "word is a concept" or "word is not a concept" or vice versa is simple to resolve with my formula. Word is not a concept (or vice versa) when C(n)=S(n)+P(n)+C(n+1), when n=0 (i.e., a child before the first concept-as-a-word formation, although this does not include the first word, which is based on visual and hence spatial, contextual, "pre-conceptual" thinking that is so neglected in O-ism). Word is a concept (or vice versa) when n>0 (i.e., an Objectivist or an adult).

Indeed, for n=0, as Questioner quoted from ITOE: "In order to form the concept 'length,' the child’s mind retains the attribute and omits its particular measurements"

Seconding my view, Questioner also said: "it is nonsense, if we take her original position seriously, that a word represents the [[CONCEPT]-1 & 2] when it is not possible for 1 & 2 to be a concept in the first place. A [CONCEPT], according to her definition, entails the presence of a word; thus, why would I need a word  for a word? [...] Once more, in this first instance, we have a non-mental entity that "contains" a mental entity. Is this equivalent to saying that a mental nothing contains a mental something? [...] Nothing contains something?"

Except, mental landscape does not consist of things; all ways of thinking, whether visual or conceptual, are equal. But if you look at it physically, not conceptually, you will know that we have particles ("things") firing in our brains, embodying our thoughts and concepts. However, as in the case with words, our thoughts are not merely collections of particles. Nothing indeed contains something. More so, as you already know my metaphysical views, absolute nothing is contextual to absolute everything.

You said: "So it's fair to say word(1 + 2 + otherStuff) = concept."

1 is sense data of actual thing, perception of it, and conception, 2 is sense data of dictionary term, perception of it, and conception

Either way you get an infinite mix of S+P+C in C. An easier way to look at it is that

Questioner said: "it is definitely true that some mentally apprehended words themselves (i.e. — mental concretes, not perceptual concretes) are not concepts. For example, any mentally apprehended word itself might not be a concept, in the sense that I might know a word without knowing how it is related to and/or united with [1 — a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated by a process of abstraction] and/or [2 — a specific definition]. In this case, I merely know the word, but not its meaning."

These would be either S (like in 2) or P (or both) in C. However, partially, C=/=S+P in O-ism.

From Questioner's same post: "One integrates, then introduces a sensuous concrete holding the integration. At that point the sound or the sensuous concrete becomes a word whose meaning is the objects integrated. [...] And at the same time one has for the first time a concept."

This will be fine for the first concept formation. But notice how integration already within, for example, the conceptual O-ism framework or hierarchy, and is automatically C (as integration is not only P now but also relates to other "units" as a start of connection) and is before actual S+P. This means that S+P is already in C (already the Objectivist view), and then we need to conceptualize it (finalize the integration, complete the connection within conceptual contexts) to make it into a new C (i.e., C=S+P+C). Yet, having no official hierarchical model in O-ism, each C is wasted as it is the same as a C. You do not differentiate between C's.

Questioner said about this differentiation of undifferentiation: "if, generally, a concept is NOT given the form of a single, specific, perceptual concrete, then it CANNOT be used as a single unit. In such a case, this merely means that a concept CANNOT be used as a single existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members."

You said: ""otherStuff" conveys the nonessentials of concept formation." You see? This otherStuff can only be contextualization within the C hierachy of Units and is deemed by you as "nonessential," but without it, there will be no C, only C=S+P, which is false. You also said: "by nonessential, I mean the things different from a philosophy discussion." But that means you ignore scientific data and do not create an O-ist model of conceptual Units that refer to actual things.

P implies S (S+P, also conceptually for Rand, since she is not a child), ibid.: "a child becomes ready to form the concept fully, which happens when he finds a word for it. [...] remember that a sound or the visual shape of a word is a percept" (from ITOE).

What rowsdover said is very important: "It is important to distingish between what is conceptual or conceptualizable, and what is itself a concept."

Dream_weaver said: "As you continue to dice, slice, and discard what you consider to be irrelevant to what you are trying to discover, you may find yourself with nothing left to analyze, and conclude that it all sums up to nothing at all."

Yes, that is why it is important not to forget about existence, not get lost in merely the context of existence.

You said: "Each word is a concept, but the meaning of the sentence is not merely adding up concepts."

This "every concept" is like "every thing." You differentiate undifferentiated concept. What's the difference between C or C or C or C? When you talk about contexts then include contexts in Objectivism. Objectivism ignores the fundamental context of spacetime. If you call concepts by levels, then it is important for you to show me your model of concepts. A model has contexts inseparable from its distinct elements.

Plasmatic said: "both the word and the "symbol" are symbols in different context. In both cases the meaning is the actual existents being symbolized."

What actual existents? Actual are those that exist physically in our reality. When you are referring to a collection of atoms, it is not the same as your referring to a word. If you do see them as the same, then it's like referring to one's heart by a toe (as in the previous discussion with Plasmatic also in this post). Another way to look at it: it is a word that only exists in your mind, but it will not exist as a word in a mind that does not have a mental apparatus to conceive of it as a word.

Questioner said: "I think that we can all agree that visible/audible symbols/words (e.g. — the written word "THIS") are existents that are perceivable to the senses."

What you see does not necessarily exist. You may see a word, but that exists in your mind (P), not in actual reality as a word. For example, if there is no actual P, then there are no words in reality. "Words" that are recorded but are never read do not exist as words but as collections of atoms. A word is a perceptual concept in this context. If there is no one to perceive, it does not exist. On another hand, a conceptual word would be the word in one's mind that refers to a concept, not physical reality. It also does not exist outside one's mind, and ceaces to exist metaphysically at one's death.

Questioner continued: "mentally apprehended symbols/words (e.g. — the thought of the written word "THIS") are existents that are *NOT* perceivable to the senses"

These are metaphysical existents, in contrast to physical existents, which are like a collection of atoms that make up a written word (atoms, not word!).

Questioner also confirmed my earlier definition: "[CONCEPTS] = [WORDS]"

Notice how there are no [NUMBERS]. And even if there were, it won't change the idea that Objectivism is not a science and not visual.

Questioner said: "It is also worth noting that this kind of perspective is not totally unrelated to philosophical accounts of [CONCEPTS]."

You said: "How to structure a sentence isn't a concept"

If it is not a concept in Objectivism or Objectivism does not know about it, it does not mean that it is not a concept somewhere. Also, a concept in "null hypothesis" can lead to the development of a new concept. Otherwise, we won't be able to talk about it, if it is not in any of our heads.

You said: "Concepts are more than their definition; it's not quite right to equate a representation with what it represents."

Again, going back to C=S+P+C. If representation does not represent an actual thing, it may be merely a concept.

You said: "A concept isn't "that which will destroy the meaning of a sentence if removed", since sentence meaning is not a sum of concepts within a sentence."

As an example of a symbol that can destroy the meaning of a sentence if removed: "Pardon[,] cannot be executed" or "Pardon cannot[,] be executed."

Plasmatic said, from the Searle's video: " "world to word" vs "word to world" "

So, conceptually, S+P is "world to word" and P+C is "word to world." Is this correct?

Is this what you meant by separate yet connected? Questioner's "([A] of [A]) is the ([A] of ) and the ([A] of [A]) also maps onto itself as the ([A] of ), [A] = " It's still metaphorical, and if sets overlap, then they are not separate.

 

First level concepts are formed by operating on percepts.

So the first level is C operating on P. What about the implicit concepts in sense data and precepts? Are they the zeroeth level?

 

Concepts for Rand are not Lockean Ideas.

Locke said: "all of our knowledge and ideas arise from experience" (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4l.htm). If this is not the case for Objectivists, then your knowledge and ideas also arise from concepts. Again, C=S+P+C.

 

Even if they [concepts] are visual, that doesn't change anything.

So, concepts for you are mere numbers then? Numbers that you cannot see, I might add.

 

I mean, do you sincerely not understand how "1" can be connected to reality in the same way Rand ties the concept "length" to reality?

That's the point: numbers, length, distances, space, time, context, a particular nothing are all fundamentally the same. Let me give you an actual example. Take an orange into your hand. We call it "orange." That is: we, as social creatures, share the common word (meaning, concept, whatever you call it) "orange." However, let's say that you call it "1." Will "we" understand you? We all know that orange and "1" are not the same thing even in the context of other oranges. A quantity is not all that the orange is. However much law of identity you wish to apply to it, the expression will still be metaphorical, that is, we define things by that which they are not.

 

That is definitely an Objectivist position with the way it treats concepts in a hierarchical structure, and in how it treats all concepts as still keeping all the information abstracted. So everything is connected in some way or another.

I said that Objectivists separate their units (e.g., "mystic" from "man," see the conversation with Plasmatic in the beginning of this post), you said you confirmed that "definitely an Objectivist position with the way it treats concepts in a hierarchical structure," and then you said "everything is connected in some way or another." How is it connected and at the same time "separated truly" exactly?

 

Again, 'null hypotheses' means all unproven hypotheses are equally void of content.

"null hypotheses" is the link to Science that Objectivism is missing. Objectivist need to understand the importance of "null hypotheses." Put it easier: Objectivists, understand that space plays a role in existence. "Existence exists" cannot be true if there is no space. From Wikipedia: "the null hypothesis refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena [exactly the Objectivist basis . . .] the null hypothesis is generally assumed true until evidence indicates otherwise." So, if there is evidence, there is a hypothesis. My hypothesis is Neo-objectivism. Therefore, you need to abandon the position of "existence exists" without reference to reality.

 

Void of content. Hmm. That pretty much summarizes why Objectivism advocates dismissing the arbitrary out of hand.

The arbitrary evidence (whether true or false) is not void of content. It is "evidence." When there is no evidence or no grounds for evidence, we have Objectivism, or "null hypothesis." Why are you ignoring space, Greg?

 

Once a hypothesis has been validated, i.e., logically proven, it is no longer consider a hypothesis, but a theory.

Once a hypothesis has been validated, i.e., logically proven, it is no longer consider a hypothesis, but a theory.

We haven't yet arrived at the actual hypothesis stage with Objectivism. Don't think about theories; it's too early.

 

Generally, to all Objectivists:

Since you are overconcerned with describing all the minute details of physical reality, and yet you know that it is impossible to do, the physical and the metaphysical clash in your philosophy, and you are stuck in a never ending spiral. You want to be specific, and yet you cannot be. You wanna, but cannot. But I wanna! - you say, - But I cannot! - you add. What you want to do conceptually is impossible unless you live in a metaphysical, conceptual reality that has nothing to do with the physical, actual reality. I am pushing you in the direction of Science, and you are pushing back, implicitly saying that it is impossible to connect with Science for you. You are like a physicist who is torn between relativism and quantum mechanics, the Universe and the quanta. Yet you prefer the Universe, and leave humans to the domain of background-independent particles. What I suggest is accept both, but differentiate. Accept that you are complete in metaphysics, but incomplete in physical reality. That you are a god in the first, but a human in the second. And the way to reconnect them is to add a time inverval between the two. This time will potentially span greater than your lifetime. But then you would know now that you are contributing to the evolution of humankind.

Do you know why Neo-objectivism is better than Objectivism? Because Neo-objectivism provides true answers to the following questions:

1) What are you and how are you related to everything physically? In other words, what are your physical existence, physical facts, physical reality, and physical identity. You do not have to mention all, just mention some. If you cannot do so, go to the next question.

2) How can Existence (i.e., absolute everything) be measured physically? Do you at least have a theory of measurement of actual things? Otherwise, what you are talking about, in Rand's own words (ITOE, 1990:30): "in short, it would not exist." If you cannot manage this also, go to the last and simplest question.

3) Does a point exist? I am not talking about space or anything. I am just asking whether a point (a dot, a bit, a period, a mark) inherently exists within itself. And remember than "Existence exists"! And then is the existence of God less real than the existence of a point on top of "i"?

 

Do you care to take a stab at what tests and supports the scientific method? 

Humans who relate to physical reality like children and learn new things about it through the formula that starts with Conceptual level n=0, Conceptionn=Sensationn+Perceptionn+Conceptionn+1.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand is that Rand's theory of concepts is a concept and a specific conception about other concepts as well as specific conceptions.

 

I'm spending too much time explaining Rand's theory when you are at the same time criticizing her theory. I don't feel it is productive anymore for me. You are building up a strawman theory so much that I'm also taking time to understand the strawman in addition to your "neo-Objectivism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Void of content. Hmm. That pretty much summarizes why Objectivism advocates dismissing the arbitrary out of hand. Once a hypothesis has been validated, i.e., logically proven, it is no longer consider a hypothesis, but a theory.

 

I'm not in the habit of responding to a barrage of disparate points. I will select one point here that strikes close to what I perceive near the heart of the matter.

 

I said "dismissing the arbitrary", not "arbitrary evidence (whether true or false)".  Evidence is simply evidence. It is neither true nor false, but can be used to established veracity of another claim. Starting from the direct data of sense, it can be used to establish premises connecting to the direct data of sense.

 

If you are here seeking information and/or feedback to assist you in grasping Objectivism - there are several here that may be willing to assist you, proivded it is perceived to be honest inquiry. Repeated appeals to "neo-objectivism" do not aide and abet you in such a quest.

 

I don't know how to do the spoiler button here, but I'll gratuitously (read benevolence) point you to a short excerpt on

space provided by Leonard Peikoff, if you are so inclined.(Ok, I figured out how to work the spoiler button here.)

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol and Greg, Gentlemen, I am an idea person. I also learn from mistakes. Your philosophy is generating a lot of new ideas from me, and I would also love if you find mistakes in them. I indeed criticize Objectivism, but that is simply my bold way of trying to understand it better as well as my own views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To recognize a mistake is to recognize a contradiction. To recognize a contradiction is to recognize that something cannot be A and non-A at the same time, and in the same respect. To borrow the example provided in Introduction to Logic: A table cannot be red and non-red at the same time, and in the same respect. The qualification of "at the same time" is added because the table can be red on Monday, and then repainted to be non-red on Tuesday. The qualification of "in the same respect" is added because the top of the table can be red, while the sides and/or bottom of the table could be non-red. But if you add the qualifications, the table cannot be red and non-red, when you've specified the time and respect. (This, incidentally, also invokes the law of excluded middle.)

 

I would hope this is more or less self explanatory to you, given your implied familiarity with the subject suggested by your former distinctions of two-valued logic vs.. "multi-valued logic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank said:

 

 

Well, no. the arbitrary is just as good as any other notion...or 'concept'!

 

That's because the philo-epistemo-metaphysical-logical status means nothing. What's only of importance is if the statement can be made into a testable hypotheses. Again, 'null hypotheses' means all unproven hypotheses are equally void of content.

 

Are we gonna keep asserting what science ought to be, or are we gonna stop question begging and start discussing the two different views of how we know what science is? Essentially yours and Uncle Willard's view is a rejection of foundationalism. What experiment are you gonna run to test if you exist or if you are conscious? What experiment are you gonna run to find out if all those linguistic-speech acts your making are necessary and inescapable? What experiment are you gonna run that's gonna tell you if the content of your communication is meaningful? How are you gonna do any of these experiments without presupposing and employing the very result you are testing? And if you cannot escape these facts, then how is that fact contentless? How would you run a non existent, unconscious experiment that did nothing in particular and gave two different non-answers? Justification terminates in and rests on the non propositional foundation of perception. Can you test the basis of your test?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illya said:

You claim that I am in the unit of "mystic," and, partially, I am. .

I claim that your categorization of mysticism is not mine and that makes you waste time beating strawmen. Your essential characteristic of mystic is not mine, and you don't understand the generative context of differentiation that the units of mysticism and religion presuppose and this makes you a context dropping misintegrater on this issue. You have made these units synonymous with the difference that made them necessary and that they presuppose.

Illya said:

You are so bold and confident, Plasmatic, in your claims. It honestly surpises me. You think you understand everything. But your claims do not have sufficient support and no solid ground on which they can stand.

You have come to a forum based on objectivism after reading Ayn Rands works and you are surprised by the boldness of an Oist expression of that same philosophy? You don't even seem to have grasped my claims. The fact that your response is completely lacking a response to the relevant charge of strawman is evidence of this. And boldness on a particular issue is not synonymous with , or evidence of the belief that one is omniscient. Another strawman.... The solid ground is that Ms Rand clearly was talking about something different than you are criticizing.

Illya said:

What you fail to grasp is that some units overlap. For example, mystic is in the unit of "ideology" and in the unit of "man." I am both, correct? Otherwise, provide your own categorization of the unit "mystic." Do some productive Objectivist work. Unless you think that the units of "mysticism" or "religion" do not exist?

What you fail to grasp is that the context of differentiation that mysticism and religion presupposes cannot be a source of "overlap" because difference is antithetical to similarity. What's more is you are ignoring that Ms Rand's criticism of mysticism is one that presupposes that difference. I gave you that basis already, the difference in the method of justification.

Illya said:

Otherwise, provide your own categorization of the unit "mystic." Do some productive Objectivist work. Unless you think that the units of "mysticism" or "religion" do not exist? About existence, see the questions at the end of this post.

I already did the work but you have your eyes on a strawman.

Illya said:

I can also say that I am as much a mystic as you are an Aristotelian.

Your point?

Illya said:

That's an evaluation (a highly emotional one, I should add), not a statement of fact of existence.

Beg the question much? Oist don't separate fact and value and the quote you opened this thread with should have told you that you and Oist don't agree on the relation of emotions to facts... Until you figure this out you will never understand why "HeartMath" is nonsense to Oist.

Illya said:

Let's equate civilization with the industry and hence with industrialists. You would rather take the stance of industrialists than real scientists, am I right? So, in the climate change debates, you consider scientists mystics? Are you kidding me?

You love to create strawmen based on your own equivocations and impute them to others condescendingly. Its pretty funny really. Civilization and industry are not synonymous. The rest is you affirming the consequent of a nonsensical strawman.

Illya said:

Let me differentiate between evil mysticism (one that resulted in deaths of many lives, like Marxism) and good mysticism. A good mysticism does not conflict with the values required for one's life. In fact, in addition to those values, good mysticism tells you that the values in your life are not enough for the betterment of mankind. Hence you learn that whatever you valued will die with you, but the legacy that you built for humankind will live on. Hence, please differentiate between merely individual values and shared values.

You can make whatever arbitrary differentiation you want but that doesn't make it correspond to facts or provide you with the ability to define a concept in a way that makes the generative context the units were abstracted from valid. What essential characteristic of your categorization makes "mysticism" responsible for these alleged goodness's?

Illya said:

You do not know how conceptual units relate or connect. Look at my model and tell me that it conflicts with the theory of concepts. First, I was talking about the neurological connection since it involved neurons. Second, I was talking about autonomous organs, not merely parts of your limbs. You confuse Cells that make some part of Tissue (e.g., a toe) with Organs (such as heart and brain). In case you believe your senses and physical reality, here is photographical proof that there is an autonomous system of neurons in the heart

No, you do not know how to identify when your units are not someone else's when you address their comments.(context dropping) A connection is a connection, neuronal or not. There is no such thing as a unidirectional connection neuronal or otherwise. Are you actually claiming that organs are not connected to the rest of your body? You confuse the difference between cells and organs with the difference between a connection and autonomy and therefore create more strawmen! I never claimed that the heart doesn't have neurons!

Try again?

Illya said:

Is physics not scientific too? In case you did not know, you are living with knowledge from the eighteenth century. I realize that you may want to exist then, but I have to disappoint you, it is the 21st century now and humankind and the world is much different from the way they were back then. Here is a quote by Nathaniel Branden about Ayn Rand's knowledge (and yours too): "With regard to science, this led to an odd kind of scientific conservatism, a suspicion of novelty, an indifference -- this is only a slight exaggeration -- to anything more recent than the work of Sir Isaac Newton." (From "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand").

Some physical theories are unscientific and their age has nothing to do with that! This cute little century stawman is meaningless. Truth is timeless. My view of controversial issues in science is in the category of novelty and a recognition of the differences between fact and theory. Try again?

Illya said:

I ask for the specific evidence of my "misintegration." You may believe that I "misintegrated" concepts of Units in my model (and I have proven it already on countless occasions), but I counterclaim that it is simply your belief, not knowledge. Prove me otherwise.

Already have...

Illya said:

Again, your personal, Objectivist evaluation as a torrent for your hate.

Newsflash, there is no other kind of evaluation! Appealing to the values of consensus is simply a failure to evaluate on that issue. Again you fail to address the Oist justification-position for judgment-sanction. You gonna enter this fight?

Illya said:

And the law of identity is not in your habit? Maybe you are not using the law of identity then. Or using it too much, such as when you think that every thing is a "thing=thing=thing=thing=..." .

You clearly don't understand what Sheldrake said that I am referring to. His nonsensical view that things don't do what they do because of what they are but because they currently have that "habit" is a rejection of the law of identity as it relates to causality. A habit is something you can fail to do, is contingent, Identity is not something that can fail to obtain.....However the differences between you, Sheldrake, the heartmath nonsense and Oism is indeed centered around Ontology. The graph in this videos snapshot

Shows the essential problem with this difference. The video is full of instances of making false differentiations based on terrible ontological distinctions.

Illya said:

Also, how can your sense and perception be conceptual, yet we know that senses and perceptions are also in addition to conception (a concept of itself), so you have conception=sense+perception+conception. This constradictions the law of identity, for, in Objectivism, conception=/=conception

Quote me stating any such stupidity!

Illya said:

Now, would you judge me rationally and with supporting evidence, please?

It would help if we had the same criteria for evidence, Illya. This is central to our differences and the debate you are failing to engage in.

Illya said:

I said that Objectivists separate their units (e.g., "mystic" from "man," see the conversation with Plasmatic in the beginning of this post),

Nowhere did I claim that mystics are not men. What's more is these are two different units nonetheless! You are mixing your to's and from's all together in your equivocation on concepts-units=misintegration.

ITOE said:

Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents..........The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were differentiated—by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s)—from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a "Conceptual Common Denominator." A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated.

The distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units becomes the differentia of the concept's definition; the existents possessing a "Conceptual Common Denominator" become the genus.

Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents.

Edit: I want to add to the essential trait of mysticism the treatment of emotions as tools of cognition. This is implicit in the use of them as justifiers in the "pure conscious experience" notions of mystics... (And the heartmath bullshit)

Edited by Plasmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eiuol and Greg, Gentlemen, I am an idea person. I also learn from mistakes. Your philosophy is generating a lot of new ideas from me, and I would also love if you find mistakes in them. I indeed criticize Objectivism, but that is simply my bold way of trying to understand it better as well as my own views.

You're not criticizing Objectivism, you're criticizing Strawjectivism. It's better to first seek what a philosophy's stance is before building up a criticism. I'm glad to clarify Objectivist epistemology and engage in criticism, but I'm not glad to correct your misconceptions when you're criticizing the misconception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What essential characteristic of your categorization makes "mysticism" responsible for these alleged goodness's?

Transcendental philosophy. Mystics and scientists think about the progress of humankind and help attain it. I will give you an obvious example: Isaac Newton. Such progress throughout centuries is a transcendental advancement toward a higher goal. The goal is known but very hard to reach: it is Existence.

 

No, you do not know how to identify when your units are not someone else's when you address their comments.(context dropping) A connection is a connection, neuronal or not. There is no such thing as a unidirectional connection neuronal or otherwise. Are you actually claiming that organs are not connected to the rest of your body? You confuse the difference between cells and organs with the difference between a connection and autonomy and therefore create more strawmen! I never claimed that the heart doesn't have neurons!

Try again?

You ignore the units in the Model.

 

Some physical theories are unscientific and their age has nothing to do with that! This cute little century stawman is meaningless. Truth is timeless. My view of controversial issues in science is in the category of novelty and a recognition of the differences between fact and theory. Try again?

If you have a model, I will be interested in seeing how you constructed your hierarchy. Maybe then I will understand how your statement "Truth is timeless" is related to the actual, physical reality where we live right now.

 

Newsflash, there is no other kind of evaluation! Appealing to the values of consensus is simply a failure to evaluate on that issue. Again you fail to address the Oist justification-position for judgment-sanction. You gonna enter this fight?

Sure. You said that there is only one kind of evaluation, right? And then you said that (Objectivist) "consensus is simply a failure to evaluate on that issue." So, is there an Objectivist consensus or isn't there? Mind that you check your definition of "consensus."

 

Quote me stating any such stupidity!

You do not state anything that's actually connected and continuous. Are they merely isolated words in a dictionary with multiple meanings?

 

[iTOE:] "The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents [actual existents]; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents [conceptual existents--not physically real]."

So, you separate units from physical reality and plug them into metaphysical reality, in which you think you exist.

 

You are right, HeartMath have a pretty simple ontological model, overly abstract, and not connected to Existence. After all, they are scientists, not philosophers. They will probably be happy when I'd support them with my Model, which I finally can formalize and connect to Neo-objectivism.

 

The following is Part IV of Neo-objectivism. The Theory of Nested Concepts.

 

Let us start with the Theory of Concepts of Objectivism.

It is the following:

The whole undifferentiated concept of the theory consists of three differentiations: 1) concept of sensation (S); 2) concept of perception (P); 3) concept of conception ( C ).

We have the following simplified formula:

concept = concept of (S + P + C) (this is a crucial step in order to differentiate sense data like colors from concepts)

C=C(S+P+C)

1 = S+P+C. (formula base)

This does not change, but if we make the "1" a variable, we can allow expansion into a model of everything, such as my Model (M).

 

Call a critical point on M an undifferentiated concept Cn (it's interesting to note that C0 is the epistemological philosophic equivalent to the null hypothesis in science). Then we have:

Cn= xCan+Cbn = xCn(a+b ), where an and bn are sub-subscripts to x, x is "a percent concentration," a - "a left part of M," b - "a right whole of M," n - level, n >= 1.

 

The undifferentiated concept of level n is Cn and it is equal to the conceptual level of Mn. Thus, we have:

Mn = S  n(a+b )   + P n(a+b )  + Cn(a+b )   = (S+P+C)n(a+b )

The formula for Cn is substituted for Mn, and we get what is equivalent with the base formula of Objectivism except transferred to Mn:

xCn(a+b ) = (S+P+C)n(a+b )

if x > 1, then n = n + 1

if n >= 1 > x, then n = n - 1

 

The entire Model will be:

M = Σn=1, 16 Mn = Σn=1, 16 xCn(a+b ) = Σn=1, 16 (S+P+C)n(a+b )

 

EDIT: Got rid of the smilies with glasses. I wonder how to disable those from showing up instead of "b )"

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is not a criticism of the concept "space" in ARL. It is a correction.
 

 

“Outside the universe” stands for “that which is where everything isn’t.” There is no such place. There isn’t even nothing “out there”; there is no “out there.”

 

There is indeed "nothing" out there. And nothing is a spacetime, and, in other words, a place. By the general relativity, we know that spacetime curves around matter. Such spacetime would curve around the Universe, as it is inherent to the Universe, which exists in spacetime. It should not be ignored, for without it we won't even have concepts of the Universe, not even speaking of the actual Universe.

 

P.S. Also, from ITOE (1990:52):

 

"It may be said that existence can be differentiated from non-existence; but non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact"

It is indeed a metaphysical fact, a spacetime, like in the theory of general relativity.

 

"it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship"

Yes, a 1-place relationship based on the attribute of spacetime.

 

"i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist"

It can also be grasped from the actual existent, from its inherent existence, for there cannot be existence without the context of spacetime.

 

"(One can arrive at the concept “absence” starting from the concept “presence,” in regard to some particular existent(s); one cannot arrive at the concept “presence” starting from the concept “absence,” with the absence including everything.)"

Indeed one can, if the absence includes everything.

 

"Non-existence as such is a zero with no sequence of numbers to follow it, it is the nothing, the total blank." Non-existence is a zero, nothing, the total blank that is related to existence, a sequence of numbers, the presence, or however you want to call it.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the irony. Both Newton's Optik's and Principia are used in Harriman's book "The Logical Leap" as models for an objective approach to inductive reasoning done along proper lines.

 

Even White's mystic-minded biography of "Newton: The Last Sorcerer" made him out to be intolerant of rash claims. Of his work, the only critiques he was interested in where those that could demonstrate an error in his reasoning, or provide demonstrable evidence that he was amiss.

 

Regarding consensus, it is the mystic's tool - a substitution for reaching conclusion through rigorous reasoning, guided by a method of logic. A "Let's don't prove it, but rather let's take a vote, or a poll, or let the elders, or the men in the robes decide" approach.

 

Like the Principia, Objectivism requires no consensus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh the irony. Both Newton's Optik's and Principia are used in Harriman's book "The Logical Leap" as models for an objective approach to inductive reasoning done along proper lines.

 

Even White's mystic-minded biography of "Newton: The Last Sorcerer" made him out to be intolerant of rash claims. Of his work, the only critiques he was interested in where those that could demonstrate an error in his reasoning, or provide demonstrable evidence that he was amiss.

 

Regarding consensus, it is the mystic's tool - a substitution for reaching conclusion through rigorous reasoning, guided by a method of logic. A "Let's don't prove it, but rather let's take a vote, or a poll, or let the elders, or the men in the robes decide" approach.

 

Like the Principia, Objectivism requires no consensus.

I never read those books, although it is well known that Newton was an occultist. White's reasoning seems similar to mine. Why should we tolerate critiques that are not rational or scientific?

 

The definitions of consensus are:

1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.

2.general agreement or concord; harmony.

Therefore, you do not need general agreement or harmony in Objectivism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...