science is a priori

[Plasmatic]

As to the alleged lack of an explanation by Ms. Rand concerning the differentiation and integration that takes place on the pre-conceptual level.....

 

Ms. Rand makes very clear that the pre-linguistic stage of implicit knowledge is done via the mechanism of the perceptual content being held in memory. For example, for sighted persons, the method of recalling visual similarities in ones mind instance by instance. This process taxes a heavy load on the bandwidth of consciousness, if you will. The limitations of this method drive one to find a method of integrating these sensory images held in memory by condensing them into a single concrete symbol.

 

 

The first words a child learns are words denoting visual objects, and he retains his first concepts visually. Observe that the visual form he gives them is reduced to those essentials which distinguish the particular kind of entities from all others—for instance, the universal type of a child's drawing of man in the form of an oval for the torso, a circle for the head, four sticks for extremities, etc. Such drawings are a visual record of the process of abstraction and concept-formation in a mind's transition from the perceptual level to the full vocabulary of the conceptual level.

 

There is evidence to suppose that written language originated in the form of drawings—as the pictographic writing of the Oriental peoples seems to indicate. With the growth of man's knowledge and of his power of abstraction, a pictorial representation of concepts could no longer be adequate to his conceptual range, and was replaced by a fully symbolic code.       [...]

 

When, in the process of concept-formation, man observes that shape is a commensurable characteristic of certain objects, he does not have to measure all the shapes involved nor even to know how to measure them; he merely has to observe the element of similarity.

 

Similarity is grasped perceptually; in observing it, man is not and does not have to be aware of the fact that it involves a matter of measurement. It is the task of philosophy and of science to identify that fact.-----------

 

Centuries passed before science discovered the unit by which colors could actually be measured: the wavelengths of light—a discovery that supported, in terms of mathematical proof, the differentiations that men were and are making in terms of visual similarities.--------

 

When a child grasps the concept 'man,' the knowledge represented by that concept in his mind consists of perceptual data, such as man's visual appearance, the sound of his voice, etc.

 

ITOE

Edited December 27, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

As to the alleged lack of an explanation by Ms. Rand concerning the differentiation and integration that takes place on the pre-conceptual level.....

Those quotes support what I said. That is, Rand didn't show -exactly- the requirements to differentiate, and then how -exactly- to make sure the meaning created corresponds to reality. Clearly, though, Rand had a good idea and start.

[Plasmatic]

Those quotes support what I said. That is, Rand didn't show -exactly- the requirements to differentiate, and then how -exactly- to make sure the meaning created corresponds to reality. Clearly, though, Rand had a good idea and start.

louie, everyone knows that is not what you said:

Louie said:

How does differentiation work prior to a first experience, or for first-level concepts? Rand doesn't answer how it happens.

Feel free to keep up the revealing pretense though.

Clearly she had an "answer"....

What exactly is missing from Ms. Rands account of correspondence Louie?

Edited December 27, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

What exactly is missing from Ms. Rands account of correspondence Louie?

I think there is a major reading comprehension issue going on here. "Said" was used as synonym for "meant", with clarification that you're right that Rand has good points, it isn't enough to answer my question about -exact- details. The missing part is specifically what it is that a mind does to in fact differentiate prior to any other knowledge. Not just that there is a mechanism, but what allows a mechanism to "grab" onto anything in the world. "Science is a priori" at least appeals to the idea we can justify without "grabbing" anything for science, so it's relevant.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Eiuol

[Plasmatic]

How does differentiation work prior to a first experience[...]

 

I think there is a major reading comprehension issue going on here. "Said" was used as synonym for "meant", with clarification that you're right that Rand has good points, it isn't enough to answer my question about -exact- details. The missing part is specifically what it is that a mind does to in fact differentiate prior to any other knowledge. Not just that there is a mechanism, but what allows a mechanism to "grab" onto anything in the world. "Science is a priori" at least appeals to the idea we can justify without "grabbing" anything for science, so it's relevant.

 

I fully agree that there is a reading comprehension problem here, along with other things.... Like using words like they are musical chairs...

 

1). You did'nt say anything about "exact" details. As I quoted, you said, "didnt answer" and then went on to claim that you said "exact details"

 

2). It's true Ms. Rand didn't "answer" the question "How does differentiation work prior to a first experience?" because the question is nonsense. There is no such thing as differentiating what you are not experiencing. Differentiation is a species of the genus experience.   

 

3).What you appear to be packaging into the discussion about how one justifies axiomatc concepts is questions about the physiology of sense perception. Objectivism rejects the notion that the phyisiology of sense perception is a philosophical topic. And also the notion of that having any bearing on the questions philosophy answers. Again, John's question is about  the general, foundational, or "basic" grounds of the special sciences.

 

What allows a mouse trap to catch and kill a mouse?.... Material causation.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

1) I was asking a question that needs exact details. Rand didn't give exact details. Therefore, Rand failed to answer my question.

2) There is a such thing as differentation occurring without experiencing the act of differentiation. This is notable when distinguishing figure/ground, or when a passing object "grabs" your attention. Indeed, it is a pre-conceptual question, but I see no explicit philosophical theory presented by Rand as to the nature of the thing in reality that is grabbed. It is your assertion that all differentiation is conscious, and I don't see anything in the Rand quote that says it is or isn't. Integration is, but not necessarily differentiation.

3) The sort of answer I think would work is linking abstract mechanisms (sort of like how math works) to first-level concepts. It is not a question of the neuroscience or physiology. My previous link is one way to look at what I mean.

[Plasmatic]

Louie, your last response is self evidently evasive and inconsistent with your previous comments. I'm not interested in filling your nets further.

John, if any of the exchanges between Louie and I are important to your questions about Objectivism, just ask specifically about what it is you would like clarification about.

[Eiuol]

Louie, your last response is self evidently evasive and inconsistent with your previous comments. I'm not interested in filling your nets further.

Nah, you just didn't understand at first. If you didn't understand my question yet (if you thought I meant physiology, well, I didn't) , then there's no way what I said would look consistent. Enough of that though, I think I clarified as far as possible.