Visiting Leftists

[Bryan]

Takeo, I’m pleased we agree that the concepts “big” and “small” cannot be formed via measurement omission, the reason being, as I mentioned, that these concepts depend on a specific range of measurements 

The concepts of big and small indicate a degree of magnitude. The omission is the context of what is being measured. Lots of things can be big; a big number, a big galaxy, a big drinker, a big bug.

Mind you, “big” and “small” seem to be relatively easy compared to the original concept we looked at: “godless”. Several people offered a smorgasbord of measurements for that concept: the universe, the arbitrary, the god's attributes, godless itself, and zero.

Given the answers provided in this thread, are you still in the dark about the concept of "godless"?

I think the answer is that like other concepts such as “pregnant” and “death”, it also can’t be formed via measurement omission, this time because no measurements exist.  You’ve been claiming that these concepts are based on a binary measurement, “either”, eg: pregnant or not, alive or not.

I think you are taking the word "measurement" too literally. It doesn't always have to be a well-defined unit of measurement (i.e. mile, pound, degree Fahrenheit), it is just the attributes that can be applied to a certain concept.

For example, here is one definition of death : the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism; "the animal died a painful death".

The measurement omitted is the specific organism that's dead.

But such a binary measurement contradicts Ayn Rand's understanding of measurement. As she points out in ITOE: “All conceptual differentiations are made in terms of commensurable characteristics (i.e., characteristics possessing a common unit of measurement).”

“Pregnant” is not commensurate with “not pregnant”. This can be easily tested by omitting the measurement “pregnant or not pregnant”. What is left? Nothing, since “pregnant or not" exhausts the options.

Not pregnant is not a single concept; it is the combination of two different concepts.

So it seems that a potentially large pool of everyday concepts are not amenable to measurement omission.

This is simply not true, every concept, as a concept, has its measurements (meaning the applicable attributes) omitted.

If you really want a better understanding of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, I recommend reading/rereading Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. IMO, the epistemological aspects of Objectivism are by far the most intriguing attribute of the philosophy. And, as shown in this thread, the aspect that I understand the least .

[dougclayton]

The measurement omitted is the specific organism that's dead.

Very well said. There is no such existent as "death" or "dead"--it's not like you can come along it while walking on a path. What you come upon is a dead animal of some specific type (because, again, there is no such thing as "animal" in reality--there are only concrete existents which we classify as animals). All of these dead animals have one thing in common: a heart rate of 0 bpm, an EEG that is flat, etc. You ignore the size and shape of the animal, the position it is in, the state of decomposition, etc, and retain just a few ranges of measurement, pertaining to the vital systems of an animal.

The fact that death can be construed as an absence does not make it less a valid concept.

[dougclayton]

Takeo, I'm pleased we agree that the concepts "big" and "small" cannot be formed via measurement omission, the reason being, as I mentioned, that these concepts depend on a specific range of measurements

This is a mistake, and indicates a shallow understanding of Miss Rand's theory. In fact, in my 10 years of studying Objectivism, I have yet to find a single example of a word (that is not a proper noun) which is not formed via measurement omission.

"Big" and "small" omit the measurements of the things being called "big" or "small," as Bryan accurately pointed out. "Pregnant" omits not just the measurements of the woman who is pregnant (her name, her hair color, etc), but even the measurements pertaining to her species, since all (most?) female animals can pregnant.

One thing to remember is that the process of measurement omission always includes "measurement retention" as well. In the case of "pregnant," there is one measurement that is included, and that is the presence of a fetus in the uterus. In the case of "big," it is the size range of the dimension being called "big." (The single exception might be words that are all-inclusive, like existent, though I think even then one retains the fact of existence.)

I think the answer is that like other concepts such as "pregnant" and "death", it also can't be formed via measurement omission, this time because no measurements exist.  You've been claiming that these concepts are based on a binary measurement, "either", eg: pregnant or not, alive or not.

But such a binary measurement contradicts Ayn Rand's understanding of measurement. As she points out in ITOE: "All conceptual differentiations are made in terms of commensurable characteristics (i.e., characteristics possessing a common unit of measurement)."

"Pregnant" is not commensurate with "not pregnant". This can be easily tested by omitting the measurement "pregnant or not pregnant". What is left? Nothing, since "pregnant or not" exhausts the options.

This is like saying "big" is not commensurate with "small" because you can't be both at the same time and in the same context. In truth, the measurement behind "pregnant" is perfectly commensurate with "non-pregnant"--both are measuring the presence of an alive fetus in the woman's uterus. Two things that are properly opposites are always commensurate in this respect--that's what makes them opposites. This is the reason that "big" is the opposite of "small" but not the opposite of "red."

So it seems that a potentially large pool of everyday concepts are not amenable to measurement omission.

You have yet to demonstrate this.

[Iakeo]

This is a mistake, and indicates a shallow understanding of Miss Rand's theory. In fact, in my 10 years of studying Objectivism, I have yet to find a single example of a word (that is not a proper noun) which is not formed via measurement omission.

I was defining "big" AS measurement, which is a mistake. It is the "result" of a

measurement.

"Big", defined this way, can't have measurement omited because it IS

measurement. (A<>not:A)

"Measurement omission" seems to actually mean "omission of specific unit-like

measurement" and not "not comparing".

If you can't compare two existents in any way, you can't generalize any concepts

from them.

The concept "big" is generated by omiting the specific unit-like information while

comparing two existents of "the same kind of thing."

What the two things are is omited, as are all other qualities not pertinent to

the "relative size" of the two things. The concept "big" IS a "relative size".

-Iakeo

[Eddie]

First I give you this proper definition given by Betsy Speicher at her forum.

Second I was not "boasting" I could immediately "verify" all my knowledge. What I meant and sorry the meaning wasn't clear to you is a person in principle can verify all of his proper knowledge via Objectivism. That I couldn't immediately give what you consider a proper definition for godless only implies that I normally don't define every common word without a reason to do so. In this case it was because you insist on annoying me for whatever reason. How about next time instead of playing a game of "gotcha" you just state your purpose right off the bat.

If the concept “godless” means “absence of a belief in god” – and I agree that’s one of its meanings – how could the measurements be particular gods? After all, although the measurements are omitted, they still exist. The resulting concept should be something like "God", "gods" or "supreme beings.

I’m not trying to annoy you, and I didn’t claim you could “immediately” verify your knowledge. Nor did I ask for a definition of godless. I wanted to know what measurements are omitted in its formation.

As to my purpose, among other things, you originally asked: “Do you understand why we claim that not only is knowledge possible, but we can verify it?” I for one don’t understand why you made that claim, so I wanted to find out if it were true. I have yet to be convinced

Eddie

[EC]

Eddie-- I don't understand. Is it you don't think all proper knowledge is verifiable and certain within a certain context? Or is it you think that I haven't demonstrated that I can personally do it? If its the latter I have already freely admitted I do not verify every concept on a regular basis, but that does not mean I couldn't do it if I for some reason had the initiative. Objectivist epistemology and proper science following from its principles allows for that. Or do you disagree for some reason? Are you an Objectivist? Maybe you need to study the philosophy some more before making blanket statements of what it can not do without understanding it in detail. Maybe you are a skeptic? If so can you not verify that you yourself, exist? And if so why do you think other knowledge is not possible and verifiable?

[DavidOdden]

There is no such existent as "death" or "dead"--it's not like you can come along it while walking on a path.

That's a diagnostic (more or less) of entity, not existent. Existents are all things that exist: entities, attributes and actions. From p. 5 of ITOE: "The building-block of man's knowledge is the concept of an "existent"—of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action". This is an extremely important distinction.

[Eddie]

The concepts of big and small indicate a degree of magnitude. The omission is the context of what is being measured. Lots of things can be big; a big number, a big galaxy, a big drinker, a big bug.

Given the answers provided in this thread, are you still in the dark about the concept of "godless"?

I think you are taking the word "measurement" too literally. It doesn't always have to be a well-defined unit of measurement (i.e. mile, pound, degree Fahrenheit), it is just the attributes that can be applied to a certain concept.

For example, here is one definition of death : the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism; "the animal died a painful death".

The measurement omitted is the specific organism that's dead.

I’m not sure what you mean by “context” above, and in what way the context can be measured.

Even if one cannot specify a well-defined unit of measurement, the attribute must be in some way commensurable across similar objects, in order to demonstrate its commonality, and therefore "ground" the concept in reality.

Are you also saying that a specific organism can be a measurement? That doesn’t sound right. Measurement requires a common unit shared by several particulars.

Eddie

[Eddie]

This is a mistake, and indicates a shallow understanding of Miss Rand's theory. In fact, in my 10 years of studying Objectivism, I have yet to find a single example of a word (that is not a proper noun) which is not formed via measurement omission.

"Big" and "small" omit the measurements of the things being called "big" or "small," as Bryan accurately pointed out.

A big baby weighs 7 kg; a small baby weighs 3 kg. Omit the measurements, and you get X kg, ie, “weight”. So “big” = “weight” and “small” = “weight”. Therefore, if measurement omission is a viable way to form concepts, “big” and “small” must be the same concept. But this is not the case; therefore, measurement omission cannot be a viable way to form these concepts.

As for measurement retention, how do you know which measurements to omit and which to retain?

In the case of “pregnant” and “not-pregnant”, measurement implies a range. No range, no measurement, no omission. Pregnancy is not a range. It’s a state. You’re either pregnant or not. It’s true that the notion of non-pregnancy is the opposite of pregnancy, but if these states are commensurate, I guess you can start counting the non-existent dollars in your wallet, because they’re commensurate with existing dollars.

Eddie

[Iakeo]

A big baby weighs 7 kg; a small baby weighs 3 kg. Omit the measurements, and you get X kg, ie, “weight”. So “big” = “weight” and “small” = “weight”. Therefore, if measurement omission is a viable way to form concepts, “big” and “small” must be the same concept. But this is not the case; therefore, measurement omission cannot be a viable way to form these concepts.

Now you're just being silly. You know what "big" and "small" mean, and they don't mean the same thing, therefore they are not the same thing. Period.

Your algebra is wrong, as 7 <> 3. You don't OMIT the measurement, you omit the units.

As for measurement retention, how do you know which measurements to omit and which to retain? 

You omit the measurements of that which you find non-pertinent to the comcept.

If you don't know what it is that your try to conceptualize, which implies you know what the pertinent qualities are, then the whole exercise is meaningless, as you've so expertly shown.

In the case of “pregnant” and “not-pregnant”, measurement implies a range. No range, no measurement, no omission. Pregnancy is not a range. It’s a state. You’re either pregnant or not. It’s true that the notion of non-pregnancy is the opposite of pregnancy, but if these states are commensurate, I guess you can start counting the non-existent dollars in your wallet, because they’re commensurate with existing dollars.

Eddie

You certainly can count the non-existent dollars in your wallet. And you can TRY to

spend them as well.

Tell me what you can buy with them?

Once again,.. you're not omiting measurement, your omiting the non-pertinent.

Measurement of some quality is always pertinent, but only measurement of the

pertinent.

Now, ask a sensible question, if you have one.

-Iakeo

[Bryan]

I’m not sure what you mean by “context” above, and in what way the context can be measured.

For something to be described as "big", it must be larger in magnitude in comparison to something else. That X is bigger than that X. It doesn't matter what the X is. That's the omission. The relationship could be used to compare anything regardless of their relative sizes. There are big planets compared to other planets, there are big bugs in comparison to other bugs. The context of "big" between a big planet and a big bug are completely different.

Even if one cannot specify a well-defined unit of measurement, the attribute must be in some way commensurable across similar objects, in order to demonstrate its commonality, and therefore "ground" the concept in reality.

Are you also saying that a specific organism can be a measurement? That doesn’t sound right. Measurement requires a common unit shared by several particulars.

What do all dead objects have in common? They were all organisms that were once alive. Organism is a well-defined standard. For the concept of death, it doesn't matter what the specific organism is; it is omitted.

[Eddie]

Now you're just being silly. You know what "big" and "small" mean, and they don't mean the same thing, therefore they are not the same thing. Period.

Sure, you and I know that, but what about someone who hasn’t yet formed the concept? We’re trying to show how the concepts are formed, so we must assume we are in the position of the person who has yet to do so.

Since I don't seem to be grasping this process, why don’t you show me how you would form the concepts “big” and “small” by omitting the measurements, in a way that makes clear what those measurements are.

While you’re doing that, take care not to presuppose the concept, as you do when you say that we omit the measurements that are not pertinent to the concept. To do that, you must have formed the concept, which would merely beg the question. As you will know, Ayn Rand insists that the mind is tabula rasa, that is, is devoid of any particular concept until that concept is formed via her method.

Eddie

[Bryan]

A big baby weighs 7 kg; a small baby weighs 3 kg. Omit the measurements, and you get X kg, ie, “weight”. So “big” = “weight” and “small” = “weight”. Therefore, if measurement omission is a viable way to form concepts, “big” and “small” must be the same concept. But this is not the case; therefore, measurement omission cannot be a viable way to form these concepts.

A big "X" "Y" 7 "Z"; a small "X" "Y" 3 "Z". X is the noun being measured, Y is the verb decribing the context of measurement, and Z is the unit of measurement. You can replace X Y and Z with anything you want, as long as the attributes are applicable, and the concepts of "big" and "small" are still valid.

A big cat eats 7 mice a day; a small cat eats 3 mice a day.

[dougclayton]

That's a diagnostic (more or less) of entity, not existent. Existents are all things that exist: entities, attributes and actions. From p. 5 of ITOE: "The building-block of man's knowledge is the concept of an "existent"?of something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute or an action". This is an extremely important distinction.

Thanks for the correction. I was being sloppy. I will make sure I don't confuse the two again.

[Iakeo]

Sure, you and I know that, but what about someone who hasn’t yet formed the

concept? We’re trying to show how the concepts are formed, so we must assume

we are in the position of the person who has yet to do so.

No human being could survive "reality" if they couldn't form the concepts of "big"

and "small". It is an inherent capacity of humans (and I dare say any creature for

which those concepts are useful).

The concepts are formed by a human (in this case) being presented (not

necessarily simultaneously) with two things that vary only in relative size, in a

context where differentiating size is of some value to the conceptualizer.

This "value judgement" creates the concepts of "big" and "small".

Since I don't seem to be grasping this process, why don’t you show me how you would form the concepts “big” and “small” by omitting the measurements, in a way that makes clear what those measurements are.

While you’re doing that, take care not to presuppose the concept, as you do when you say that we omit the measurements that are not pertinent to the concept. To do that, you must have formed the concept, which would merely beg the question. As you will know, Ayn Rand insists that the mind is tabula rasa, that is, is devoid of any particular concept until that concept is formed via her method.

Eddie

Your concept of "measurement" is too narrow.

Perception IS measurement. The measurement refered to in "measurement

omission" is specific unit measurement.

With the concept "big", you disregard all measurement except the pertinent

measurement of "larger than".

On your "don't presuppose the concept" question:

Let's take "bigger" in weight, as the initial perception comparison. A human

percieves the weight of two things. One of them has more weight. The concept

of "bigger" (aka bigger in weight) is implicit in the thought of the comparison of

the two things weights.

What you are asking by "don't presuppose the concept" is for a method whereby a

being without perception could form the concept "big".

Such a being couldn't, but luckily there are very few beings without perception.

-Iakeo

Edited March 15, 2005 by Iakeo

[dougclayton]

A big baby weighs 7 kg; a small baby weighs 3 kg. Omit the measurements, and you get X kg, ie, ?weight?. So ?big? = ?weight? and ?small? = ?weight?. Therefore, if measurement omission is a viable way to form concepts, ?big? and ?small? must be the same concept. But this is not the case; therefore, measurement omission cannot be a viable way to form these concepts.

What you are describing is not measurement omission, but (maybe) measurement evasion. The whole point of measurement omission is that the attribute must have some measure, but it may be any particular measure (usually within some range, though). In the case of big as it applies to babies, the proper approach is this: "big" is a baby whose weight is greater than 6kg; "small" is a baby whose weight is smaller than 4kg (assume those are accurate numbers). In this case, the weight is said to be omitted because it need not be one exact value. It doesn't mean you act like the baby has no weight.

To use your terminology, then, you end up with X < 4kg, and X > 6kg. Those aren't the same at all.

Consider the concept quadriped: in that case, the number of legs must be 4--no more, no less. But the fur/skin can be any color, and thus is said to be omitted. The concept of big is somewhat in between, in that the attribute that is "big" must be in some range. The exact value is still omitted, but there still some restriction on what it can be.

In the case of ?pregnant? and ?not-pregnant?, measurement implies a range. No range, no measurement, no omission. Pregnancy is not a range. It?s a state. You?re either pregnant or not.

That doesn't matter. The "measurement" can be integral, and it can even be binary. What matters is whether or not it has anything to do with the concept. When you talk about a pregnant woman, you are not stating what her hair color is, and thus that measurement is omitted, but you are stating a fact about the existence of a certain structure in her body, and that fact ("measurement") is not omitted.

If you are worried about the use of the word "measurement" for this, I think it is misplaced worry. A Geiger counter, for instance, measures the number of decaying particles. If you had one accurate enough, it could measure the difference between no particle and one particle. Just as that should be called "measurement", so can the determination of fetus-existence.

[dougclayton]

As for measurement retention, how do you know which measurements to omit and which to retain?

You omit those measurements which are not essential to the concept, and retain those that are. In the case of "pregnant," for instance, the fact of having a fetus or not is all-important, and thus retained. The hair color or race of the woman (and even her species) are not important. A rough test for this is to consider the following argument form:

A: This X is an instance of concept Y.

B: No, that can't be, because X has this attribute Z!

A [looking oddly at B]: So? What does that have to do with what I just said?

As applied to pregnancy:

A: This person is pregnant.

B: No, that can't be, because she has brown hair!

A: So? Why does that mean she can't be pregnant?

As applied to a red thing:

A: This thing is red.

B: But it can't be, because it's round!

A: So?

On the other hand, if Z was important and therefore needed to be retained, the conversation would go like this:

A: This person is pregnant.

B: No, that can't be, because it is a man.

A: Oh, you're right. Forget what I said.

This is only an informal standard, of course, but I have found it to be useful. Just imagine what arguing with someone who was knowledgeable in the field, but not epistemology. They tend to have an "instinctive" understanding that some attributes are relevant to a concept, and some are not. Those that are relevant are retained, and those that are not are omitted.

[Eddie]

A big "X" "Y" 7 "Z"; a small "X" "Y" 3 "Z".  X is the noun being measured, Y is the verb decribing the context of measurement, and Z is the unit of measurement.  You can replace X Y and Z with anything you want, as long as the attributes are applicable, and the concepts of "big" and "small" are still valid.

A big cat eats 7 mice a day; a small cat eats 3 mice a day.

I know what big and small mean. I’m asking how the concept is formed. I don’t follow the above. When you say “the noun being measured” you seem to be saying that a word is being measured. I’m sure you mean that the object is being measured.

That aside, I’m also not clear on what you mean by “Y is the verb [actually the adjective - E] describing the context of measurement…”. In relation to “big” and “small”, what is the context you are referring to? It can’t be “big” or “small” without falling into a tautology. So what is it?

Eddie

[Eddie]

Let's take "bigger" in weight, as the initial perception comparison. A human

percieves the weight of two things. One of them has more weight. The concept

of "bigger" (aka bigger in weight) is implicit in the thought of the comparison of

the two things weights.

What you are asking by "don't presuppose the concept" is for a method whereby a

being without perception could form the concept "big".

That’s more like it, except for the stuff about “bigger” being implicit in the thought. “Bigger” just is the thought. Besides that, you haven’t omitted any measurements, have you? In fact, you have necessarily included them as a basis for comparison between two objects. So you can’t omit the measurements to derive “big”, or at least “bigger”. (Strictly speaking, the concept should be “heavier”, but hey, let’s not go there.)

Presuppositions are a matter of logic, not perception. You can’t assume your perceptions.

Eddie

[Eddie]

What you are describing is not measurement omission, but (maybe) measurement evasion.   The whole point of measurement omission is that the attribute must have some measure, but it may be any particular measure (usually within some range, though).  In the case of big as it applies to babies, the proper approach is this: "big" is a baby whose weight is greater than 6kg; "small" is a baby whose weight is smaller than 4kg (assume those are accurate numbers).  In this case, the weight is said to be omitted because it need not be one exact value.  It doesn't mean you act like the baby has no weight.

I’m talking about the formation of the concepts “big” and “small” via measurement omission. All you’re doing here is applying an existing concept to the weights of babies. Since the mind is tabula rasa, those concepts must have been formed by someone in the first place. How would they have formed them?

In regard to the range of measurements, if the measurements must be within a range, they must be “some” rather than “any”. Babies can’t be any weight.

Eddie

[Eddie]

That doesn't matter.  The "measurement" can be integral, and it can even be binary.  What matters is whether or not it has anything to do with the concept.  When you talk about a pregnant woman, you are not stating what her hair color is, and thus that measurement is omitted, but you are stating a fact about the existence of a certain structure in her body, and that fact ("measurement") is not omitted.

So a “certain structure in her body” is a measurement, presumably of pregnancy, and this is not omitted. But the theory says the measurements have to be omitted in order to form the concept. As for “certain structure in her body”, I assume this refers to the fetus and supporting tissue. So the measurement is a physical organism, and it’s not omitted. You’ve done away with the entire theory of measurement omission.

And if “pregnancy” is a concept that does not require measurement omission, why do we retain the measurement in this instance and not in others? If the answer is that we need to retain the measurement because we can’t form the concept without it, that would seem to cast a great deal of doubt over the value of measurement omission.

Eddie

[Eddie]

You omit those measurements which are not essential to the concept, and retain those that are.  In the case of "pregnant," for instance, the fact of having a fetus or not is all-important, and thus retained. 

As I understand it, it’s the non-essential attributes that are ignored, then the measurements of the essential attribute are omitted. Otherwise, your argument merely begs the question. If you haven’t yet formed the concept, how do you know which measurements are essential and which are not?

Also, previously you said a “certain structure” – ie, “having a fetus” -- is the measurement. Now you seem to be saying that the measurement is “having a fetus or not”. So which one is it, is it a measurement or an attribute, and why is it not omitted?

Eddie

[EC]

Eddie-- you seem to be very confused on how concept formation works check out http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?s...st=0entry3179 @ the "other" forum. Maybe it will help solve your confusion problem.

[Iakeo]

That’s more like it, except for the stuff about “bigger” being implicit in the thought. “Bigger” just is the thought. Besides that, you haven’t omitted any measurements, have you? In fact, you have necessarily included them as a basis for comparison between two objects. So you can’t omit the measurements to derive “big”, or at least “bigger”. (Strictly speaking, the concept should be “heavier”, but hey, let’s not go there.)

Presuppositions are a matter of logic, not perception. You can’t assume your perceptions.

Eddie

Once you untangle your logic, get back to me.

What are you trying to prove to yourself again?

"Big" is a concept. It is formed (spontaneously) by the act of comparing two

perceptions. Period.

The unit-measure of the perceptions are not pertinent. The fact that they are

different is the only pertinence.

When someone asks the "concept former" for the bigger thing, once the concept

former is shown that "bigger" means "the one with MORE of something", they can

give the requester the "BIGGER" one.

..and you will complain that this is circular logic. And you see it so because you

are asking for concept creation without perception.

The perception creates the concept. No perception, no concept. And that's as it

should be, as a perceiver without perception but WITH concepts would be a

horrible horrible thing. It's also known as the nightmare scenario of dying and

being buried in utter darkness, encased in a body with no senses, yet remaining

conscious FOREVER.

Not fun..!

-Iakeo

[Bryan]

I know what big and small mean. I’m asking how the concept is formed. I don’t follow the above. When you say “the noun being measured” you seem to be saying that a word is being measured. I’m sure you mean that the object is being measured.

I was trying to demonstrate the possible omissions using your example "A big baby weighs 7 kg." You can replace "baby" with any noun, you can replace "weighs" with any verb applicable to the noun and "kg" with any applicable measurement.

I'll do it with the word "word", as you seem to imply that words can't be measured.

X = word, Y = is, Z = letters in length

A big word is 7 letters in length.

A small word is 3 letters in length.

That aside, I’m also not clear on what you mean by “Y is the verb [actually the adjective - E]

No, Y is the verb, review your 3rd grade English.

describing the context of measurement…”. In relation to “big” and “small”, what is the context you are referring to? It can’t be “big” or “small” without falling into a tautology. So what is it?

It can be any context, that's part of what is omitted.