Visiting Leftists

[Styles2112]

This is probably an absolutely poor time to get into this conversation, but is the idea of big and small only relative to each other, and set by a social standard/average?

In the cases presented

A big word is 7 letters in length

A small word is 3 letters in length

Big is defined as being more than small? I.e. 7 > 3? What about in terms of smaller gaps of numbers? 5>4 Is 5 letters big and 4 letters small? Or is it because on average most common words are around 5 letters long so a range of 6- whatever # is large, and 4 or less is small, based on a standard?

[Iakeo]

This is probably an absolutely poor time to get into this conversation, but is the idea of big and small only relative to each other, and set by a social standard/average?

In the cases presented

A big word is 7 letters in length

A small word is 3 letters in length

Big is defined as being more than small?  I.e. 7 > 3?  What about in terms of smaller gaps of numbers?  5>4  Is 5 letters big and 4 letters small?  Or is it because on average most common words are around 5 letters long so a range of 6- whatever # is large, and 4 or less is small, based on a standard?

You're right.

Bad time!

Bad bad bad....

-Iakeo

[Styles2112]

So, I should shut up then, huh?

[dougclayton]

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.

It would have been better if I had called it a characteristic, rather than a measurement, because that is misleading. To quote from the source:

The same principle directs the process of forming concepts of entities--for instance, the concept "table." The child's mind isolates two or more tables from other objects, by focusing on their distinctive characteristic: their shape. He observes that their shapes vary, but have one characteristic in common: a flat, level surface and support(s).  He forms the concept "table" by retaining that characteristic and omitting all particular measurements, not only the measurements of the shape, but of all the other characteristics of tables.

Substitute "woman" for "table," and "fetus growing in their uterus" for "shape," and you have the principle of "pregnancy" formation. To answer your question, it is the particular measurements of the fetus (weight, length, shape, DNA, etc) that are omitted, as well as all other measurements of the woman. But the characteristic of having a fetus is retained.

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.

In truth, I don't think Ayn Rand would have agreed with the terminology I used in previous posts. What I said was that (in the case of tables), the measurements that established it as having a "flat level support" were retained: in other words, the angle between the tabletop and the ground is 0 degrees. I don't think that's the the right way to describe it--it can confuse the issue. Here is her definition:

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.

I prefer her term "distinguishing characteristics." At any rate, some aspects of the instance have to be "kept" in forming the concept--that's what keeps every single existent from qualifying as a particular concept. If you omitted every single measurement while forming every concept, they would all end up meaning the same thing as "existent"--nothing would be excluded from them.

[dougclayton]

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?

How someone knows that they have selected the most essential distinguishing characteristic is a difficult question, and I don't see how it is relevant to the role of measurement-omission in concept-formation. So I am going to defer answering this question until the previous issues are resolved.

[dougclayton]

This is probably an absolutely poor time to get into this conversation, but is the idea of big and small only relative to each other, and set by a social standard/average?

You decide what is big by observing the nature of the entities in question; in the case of words, it comes from the typical size of words in that language; in the case of babies, it comes from the typical size of babies. Neither of these are "social standards," although in the case of social concepts like "salaries," you would observe what typical salaries are, which obviously depends on the society in question.

As for the implication about borderline cases, they don't really matter as much as some people try to make them, and there doesn't need to be a sharp line to make a valid concept. You simply do what Crayola does, and make a "blue-green" crayon. The fact that kids have no trouble understanding what that means indicates just how little the "difficulty" borderline cases present.

[Eddie]

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.

That’s an interesting thread, although it doesn’t say really add anything to what we’ve been discussing. Some of the other threads on that site are interesting, too, especially the one headed “godless”. So which one of us is confused?

Anyway, now that you’ve had expert advice, you should be able to answer with ease the original question, which was to verify the formation of the concept “godless” using measurement omission.

Eddie

[Eddie]

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

It sounds like a living nightmare. You do have a very creative nightlife. I can’t say I’ve ever had that sort of nightmare, but then I don’t get out very much.

As for your claim that perception creates the concepts, Miss Rand would be very displeased with you. After all, she spent a good deal of time and effort writing a book that outlines a specific method of concept formation. In that book she makes it quite clear that it’s the mind that creates the concept, and perception that provides the raw materials.

Eddie

[EC]

That’s an interesting thread, although it doesn’t say really add anything to what we’ve been discussing. Some of the other threads on that site are interesting, too, especially the one headed “godless”. So which one of us is confused?

Anyway, now that you’ve had expert advice, you should be able to answer with ease the original question, which was to verify the formation of the concept “godless” using measurement omission.

Eddie

Ahhhhhhh....I give up. Did you actually read (and absorb what you read) those threads or just skim them. And the thread I linked to does completely answer what you asked and in an earlier post here I listed a proper definition. I think you just need to read ItOE a few more times maybe?

[dougclayton]

Anyway, now that you?ve had expert advice, you should be able to answer with ease the original question, which was to verify the formation of the concept ?godless? using measurement omission.

I have a better idea, Eddie. Why don't you tell us how you think the concept of "godless" is formed, according to your own understanding (whether this involves measurement-omission or not). I'm curious how you see it, and besides you can't expect people here to do all your work for you, can you?

If you give me a description of how you think it is formed, I'll answer the original question in as much detail as you provide.

[Eddie]

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.

I’m sorry, I can’t follow what you’re trying to do here. It may pay to see what Rand says in the summary to IOE: “The process of concept-formation consists of mentally isolating two or more existents by means of their distinguishing characteristic, and retaining this characteristic while omitting the particular measurements…”

Applying that to your word example, the existents are the two words, the particular measurements are 7 and 3. The words are mentally isolated according to their distinguishing characteristic. The outcome of this process is that the particular measurements 7 and 3 are omitted. The retained characteristic -- one that is common to all words -- would then be something like “some number of letters”.

But “some number” is not equivalent to “big” or “small”, and it’s these concepts that we’re trying to form. The important point in Rand's summary is that the measurements that are omitted are those of the distingushing characteristic. But in your equation above you have retained those measurements, not omitted them

Regarding the Y as verb, my bad. Hasty reading.

Eddie

[Eddie]

Substitute "woman" for "table," and "fetus growing in their uterus" for "shape," and you have the principle of "pregnancy" formation.  To answer your question, it is the particular measurements of the fetus (weight, length, shape, DNA, etc) that are omitted, as well as all other measurements of the woman.  But the characteristic of having a fetus is retained.

This is a reasonable explanation, although of course not all women are pregnant. But if we agree that the existents in this case would be pregnant women, we could go on to form the concept as you outline. The distinguishing characteristic would then be: "fetus growing in the uterus".

The snag is that "fetus growing in the uterus" just is the state of pregnancy, so the terms are synonymous and the distinguishing characteristic is the same as the concept. The procedure merely begs the question, since the conclusion – “pregnancy” – has been smuggled into the premise.

Another way to look at this is to ask: why do we mentally isolate – ie, group – pregnant women? Because they’re pregnant, of course. That is, the act of grouping pregnant woman presupposes a common characteristic. The common characteristic is posited in order that we can group some existents. Rand has it the other way round. She thinks we group existents in order to find the common characteristic, but how is that possible unless we have an idea of why we’re doing the grouping?

Eddie

[dougclayton]

This is a reasonable explanation, although of course not all women are pregnant. But if we agree that the existents in this case would be pregnant women, we could go on to form the concept as you outline. The distinguishing characteristic would then be: "fetus growing in the uterus".

Yes, I should have said substitute "pregnant woman" for "table." All pregnant women have that common characteristic. Should have proof-read one more time.

The snag is that "fetus growing in the uterus" just is the state of pregnancy, so the terms are synonymous and the distinguishing characteristic is the same as the concept.

No, the distinguishing characteristic (in this case) is an attribute; the concept refers to existents. In other words, the characteristic is the state of being pregnant; the concept is pregnant women. One is a an attribute or property; the other are people.

The procedure merely begs the question, since the conclusion ? ?pregnancy? ? has been smuggled into the premise. Another way to look at this is to ask: why do we mentally isolate ? ie, group ? pregnant women? Because they?re pregnant, of course. That is, the act of grouping pregnant woman presupposes a common characteristic. The common characteristic is posited in order that we can group some existents.

If I substitute the concept of "redness" for your argument, I get this:

Whe do we mentally isolate red things? Because they're red, of course. Thus, the act of grouping red things presupposes a common characteristic.

But this is how it should be, so I don't understand how you think this is an objection.

Rand has it the other way round. She thinks we group existents in order to find the common characteristic, but how is that possible unless we have an idea of why we?re doing the grouping?

Could you provide a source for that claim? I would say her point is that we group existents by finding the common characteristic; or, to put it another way, discovering the commensurable measurements is discovering the concept.

[EC]

No, the distinguishing characteristic (in this case) is an attribute; the concept refers to existents. In other words, the characteristic is the state of being pregnant; the concept is pregnant women.  One is a an attribute or property; the other are people.

I'm obviously not an expert on epistemology, but I think this is wrong; the concept is pregnant not "pregnant women" which is a phrase.

[Bryan]

Applying that to your word example, the existents are the two words, the particular measurements are 7 and 3. The words are mentally isolated according to their distinguishing characteristic. The outcome of this process is that the particular measurements 7 and 3 are omitted. The retained characteristic -- one that is common to all words -- would then be something like “some number of letters”.

I give up . The example is about the concepts of "big" and "small" and the measurements omitted in the formation of those concepts, not the concept of "word". I was simply trying to demonstrate, in a given context, what could qualify as a big word and what could qualify as a small word.

But “some number” is not equivalent to “big” or “small”, and it’s these concepts that we’re trying to form. The important point in Rand's summary is that the measurements that are omitted are those of the distingushing characteristic. But in your equation above you have retained those measurements, not omitted them

Big is defined as "of considerable size, number, quantity, magnitude, or extent; large."

"some number" is equivalent to "big" or "small" in relation to another word that is either less than or greater than it.

What are you trying to accomplish in this thread? Are you trying to invalidate measurement omission in the process of concept formation?

People give you reasonable explanations and you misinterpret them, distort them, or ignore them completely.

[Bryan]

If I substitute the concept of "redness" for your argument, I get this:

Whe do we mentally isolate red things? Because they're red, of course. Thus, the act of grouping red things presupposes a common characteristic.

But this is how it should be, so I don't understand how you think this is an objection.

I'm beginning to believe that he's creating objections simply for the sake of argument.

[EC]

I'm beginning to believe that he's creating objections simply for the sake of argument.

I'm beginning to believe him and GWDS are intimate friends.

[dougclayton]

I'm obviously not an expert on epistemology, but I think this is wrong; the concept is pregnant not "pregnant women" which is a phrase.

This is an excellent point, Eric, although the problem is not that I said the concept means a phrase, but that I said a concept of an attribute means entities, whereas in truth a concept of attributes means those attributes.

When I wrote that, I was primarily thinking of Rand's point that the concept means the existents it refers to. In the case of concepts of entities, that means that the distinguishing characteristics are not the concepts, which is what Eddie implied, since the concepts mean entities but the characteristics are attributes. For example, the distinguishing characteristic of man is possession of a rational faculty, but the concept "man" means actual men, not "possessions of rational faculties."

This is also an opportunity for a follow-up question. In the case of concepts of attributes (i.e., adjectives), is the distinguishing characteristic the same as the concept? I don't think so, although in this case they are both attributes. I will have to think more about this tomorrow.

[Styles2112]

You decide what is big by observing the nature of the entities in question; in the case of words, it comes from the typical size of words in that language; in the case of babies, it comes from the typical size of babies. Neither of these are "social standards," although in the case of social concepts like "salaries," you would observe what typical salaries are, which obviously depends on the society in question.

As for the implication about borderline cases, they don't really matter as much as some people try to make them, and there doesn't need to be a sharp line to make a valid concept. You simply do what Crayola does, and make a "blue-green" crayon. The fact that kids have no trouble understanding what that means indicates just how little the "difficulty" borderline cases present.

Which was a much better way of saying EXACTLY what I was getting at. Thanks.

[Iakeo]

I'm beginning to believe him and GWDS are intimate friends.

Ya' THINK....!!!!?

Hae ae ae ae ae..!

And it's "HE", not "HIM"...

-Iakeo ( Who never makes mistakes. Or lies. Much. Do'h..!)

[Eddie]

No, the distinguishing characteristic (in this case) is an attribute; the concept refers to existents. In other words, the characteristic is the state of being pregnant; the concept is pregnant women.  One is a an attribute or property; the other are people.

Could you provide a source for that claim?  I would say her point is that we group existents by finding the common characteristic; or, to put it another way, discovering the commensurable measurements is discovering the concept.

Aren’t pregnant women the referents of the concept? The concept would be pregnancy, ie, the state of being pregnant.

I don’t have a source for my claim that Rand thinks we group existents in order to find the common characteristic. It’s just my opinion. Actually, your phrasing -- that we group existents by finding the common characteristic -- is better than mine, but it doesn’t change the argument I’m making, which is that finding presupposes the object of discovery.

Here’s an example of what I mean. Take three objects: a red circle, a blue circle, and a blue square. Now, group two of these objects according to their common characteristic. Which would you choose and why?

Eddie

[Eddie]

I have a better idea, Eddie.  Why don't you tell us how you think the concept of "godless" is formed, according to your own understanding (whether this involves measurement-omission or not).  I'm curious how you see it, and besides you can't expect people here to do all your work for you, can you?

If you give me a description of how you think it is formed, I'll answer the original question in as much detail as you provide.

I can’t provide you with a method for forming this concept, or any other concept for that matter, because I don’t think there is any specific method for forming concepts. Concepts are groupings of general ideas. If I knew nothing about the concept of godless, I would “form” it in the usual way, by reading or otherwise learning about the general ideas that are labeled by the term.

In the course of that learning process, I would discover that the term refers to an absence of a supreme being, and that some people deny the existence of such a being. I would also learn that “god-fearing” people regard the godless as impious and wicked. What I wouldn’t find is an essential attribute, nor would I perform measurement omission. But the information I learned would be quite sufficient for me to claim that I had the concept “godless”.

Eddie

[Iakeo]

...Concepts are groupings of general ideas. ...

That is the method. Thanks for stating what everyone has been saying.

Adios, dude.

-Iakeo

[Eddie]

I give up  .  The example is about the concepts of "big" and "small" and the measurements omitted in the formation of those concepts, not the concept of "word".  I was simply trying to demonstrate, in a given context, what could qualify as a big word and what could qualify as a small word.

In the previous post you said: “You can replace "baby" with any noun, you can replace "weighs" with any verb applicable to the noun and "kg" with any applicable measurement.”

Are you saying these are measurements? If so, I think that’s mistaken. “Baby” is an organism, “weighs” is an attribute, “kg” is a unit of measurement. None of them are specific measurements.

Here is what Ayn Rand says about measurement omission in ITOE. “If a child considers a match, a pencil and a stick, he observes that length is the attribute they have in common, but their specific lengths differ. The difference is one of measurement. In order to form the concept "length " the child's mind retains the attribute and omits its particular measurements.”

The measurements apply to the common attribute. You could very easily settle this matter of forming the concept "big" by taking three big things, words will do, and: 1) Identifying the common attribute; 2) Identifying the measurements. Then you should have your concept.

Eddie