Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

frank harley

Regulars
  • Posts

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by frank harley

  1. Perhaps a fertile way of defining the issue would be to say that each species of animal has a 'cosciousness' particular to its own genre. In other words, dogs and homo sapiens are each conscious in their own way.

     

    To extend this a bit, i might suggest that consciousness is, by definition, those learning traits specific to a particular species. In the very least, this perspective would abolish the 'next to god' or 'spark of godliness' assumptions that underlie and sabotage much of the inquiry into animal learning.

     

    Of course, those of philosophical; bent will recognize this as the Cartesian issue of dualism redux...speaking of which...a good arrticle would be Nagel's "What's it like to be a bat?"....

  2. @Plasmatic

    "You didn't answer my question. Nothing in what you quoted addresses the idea that anyone was looking for "reified" knowledge independent of the mind , or what such string of symbols even means."

     

    The term "reified" knowledge, as I used it, is along the lines of Kant's "because we have eyes, we cannot see...."  It's ties into philosophers who devalue knowledge that has been gained by a "process".  The belief that our perception has distorted reality as it really is.  That's ALL I meant by the use of term.  Knowledge that is a priori. 

     

    Hume's attempt to naturalize knowledge, by discarding the theory of innate ideas, was fairly radical and exposed himself to claims of his being an Atheist.  However because he did not understand that essence is epistemological and that the senses are valid, he could only conclude that induction was justified psychologically  (by "habit"). 

     

    I'm not presenting anything radical here, or a new interpretation of Hume.

    First, i believe that it's important to understand that Hume's attack on induction was against Bacon: his 'new method was insufficient, not wrong.

     

    For Hume, Innate ideas belong within the realm of imagination, as does the existencof god. This diovision between the sensible 'is' and the imaginitive 'ought' is what is referred to as 'Hume's fork'.

     

    They are simply incommensurate domains--hence the Kantian challenge to re-unite them, so to speak. Is metaphysics, defined as the synthetice a priori, possible?

     

    The twist to Hume was to have doubted the verifiability of sensory data to begin with. So yes, for better or worse, this puts him at odds with 'existence (as sensory data) exists (as a true entity)'..

     

    But he knew this all along, and his critique of Bacon was made precisely on these grounds. Induction is 'true' if and only if all of the paerticular empirical facts are themself true. In other words, inductively, 'tuna, salmon, bass= fish, yes; tuna, salmon, whale=fish, no.

     

    So what kind of background information do we neeed to tell us thqat a whale is not a species of fish?.

  3. The theory of relativity (both general and special) states that all measurements of time and space are relative- specifically relative to the speed of whoever is measuring.  A "measure of motion" is a speed!

    So for your information, not only was Dream Weaver's  statement compatible with the relativistic conception of time; it was actually synonymous!

     

    I won't give you any rhetorical questions because that would be deceptive.  I'm simply indicating, for the sake of anyone else who reads this, not to take you seriously- because you don't, either.

     

    This final response is a negation of objective truth, on the basis of disagreement.  This means that something can only be true if everyone agrees that it's true.  This means that in Frank's own mind, not only does he substitute the opinions of other people as his own- he considers that the proper method of coming to any sort of conclusion (because he didn't hesitate to mention it, explicitly and with moral authority).

     

    And Frank could not possibly have missed so much of the content he was responding to here, if he had anywhere near the scientific familiarity which he pretends to.  It is worth noting that no matter how blatant or numerous his factual errors, he has yet to drop the grandiosity.

    It is worth noting that because it lends further insight into the epistemology he, himself, confessed to holding.  He places higher importance on tones and impressions than whatever he happens to actually say.

     

    Doubtful.  It's more likely that he simply wants to express that he has one (since he really couldn't care less which).

    After all, the only title which carries more authority than "scientist" is "philosopher". 

    . . . . .

     

    So Frank, if you feel inclined to answer anything, please respond to this:

    I will disagree with anything else you have to say.  And since I would disagree with it, nothing you could say could possibly be true.

     

    How would you respond to that?

    . . . . .

     

    To everyone else who reads this: 

    I'm sorry for derailing this thread so completely; this will be its final off-topic post from me.  I simply wanted to say it once because the pretense of "science" was driving me insane.

    First, there are two relativities--not 'a' theory with two parts.

     

    Special says that the Lorentz contraction is present as a third coefficient in all Newtonians. 

     

    General calculates how gravity bends light.As the velocity of light serves as a standard © by which both time and distance can be measured, gravity 'reletivizes' this measurement.

     

    Now i'll be happy to go into greater detail, but my basic point is that before you 'do' philosoophy, you need to grasp the science.

     

    * The two relativities are first of all...equations. If you don't understand the equations, all further commentary is useless.

     

    * 'Space' isn't empty

     

    * The universe, while expanding, has finite boundaries, or an 'edge'. Weyl geodesics explains how gravity works in these far reaches, absent of any mass.

     

    * In sum, there is not an 'Objectivist' physics, rather objectivist insights as to what physics means. Fierts, know the physics, Or as Kant said, 'Dare to know'.

     

    FH

     

     

     

    FH

  4. Julian Simon's "Ultimate Resource" is a good book. Even within fossil fuels, the fears about peak-oil etc. have been overblown. Oil from sands and shale is not something new; people have known about it for decades. It was just that getting it from conventional wells was easier. We have enough fossil fuels to last a long time.

    And, you're right, if one expands the field to all energy, then for all practical purpose, we have access to infinite amounts (i.e. compared to what humans will want under any foreseeable scenario). Nukes have been kept in check by fear and politics. Technically, most developed countries could produce a large fraction of their energy from nuclear plants the way France does.

     

    A lot of the thinking around energy gets frozen around current technology and current prices. Oil from shale showed that this is poor thinking. Solar might do the same some day. Some people think it will be competitive with conventional sources by 2030 or so. Even if not, the point remains: it is not a question of shortage of energy, but the price of energy. 

    U-238 'yellowcake' is a as finite a resource as oil. For the french, it's primarily mined in the 'Azwan', or the northen flood plain of the Niger River in the upper part of Mali.

     

    It's inhabited by Tuaregs, and the seasonal farming there goes back some 20,000 years.

     

    French exploitation will become far more expensive now due to the influx of modern weapons; the Tuaregs have always fought back, since 1900.

     

    Herbert used this struggle as the basis for his novels, 'Dune'.

  5. Waves of kinetic energy?  Or have you not considered what would happen to physical objects?

    And how quickly are these microwaves travelling, to arrive at Earth from the very edge of the universe?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)     

     

    A=A, you know; meaning that "light" travels at the "speed of light".  Even if you wanted to get technical about speeds relative to the observer (in this case, Earth) we would have to be moving towards the edge of space in order to see its light across such distances.

    Band shifting towards red indicate that galaxies are moving apart.

     

    As for the bounce-back, they already have, from the time of the universe's creation. With hearing devices that are sufficiently sensitive, we can listen to the primordal echo of the big bang...

  6. 1.) Does that explanation elucidate why a 10mm line, 10mm x 10mm area and a 10mm x 10mm x 10mm cube contain the same number of points without taking into consideration point densities?

     

    2.) I find time as a method of recognition or establishing a unit of motion with which to measure other units of motion quite satisfactory. And you are quite correct about Parmenides. He did not do Physics, He addressed a basic philosophic issue with its basic philosophic answer.

     

    3.) Thank-you for stating your assessment (your implicit philosophic position) on this philosophic premise so succinctly.

     >>>why a 10mm line, 10mm x 10mm area and a 10mm x 10mm x 10mm cube contain the same number of points<<<<

     

    Cantor wrote that because the infinities of line and space are different, they  are therefore real. 

     

    >> find time as a method of recognition or establishing a unit of motion with which to measure other units of motion quite satisfactory.>>>

     

    You could not do the math or either of the two relitivities with this notion of time.

     

    My explicit philosophical position is the orthox one in this regard: A+A is logic, not epistemology. It's statement cannot justify truth because everyone feel that their own A's equal real A's.

  7.  

    1. This is an appeal to authority (and the authority of a referee, at that).
    2. Just as the prior assertion, this is using "knowledge" on a strictly comparative basis; my knowledge versus your knowledge; without reference to reality.
    3. This is simply an arbitrary assertion, taken out of context and treated as if it were self-evidently true.

    This means that "epistemology" is the study of why other people's opinions are wrong.

     

    Until you reexamine your own concept of "truth" you have no right to slander its champions, the way this statement does.

    The "practice of science" is predicated on the belief that there is only one correct answer; that the theory of Relativity does not have equal validity with the myths of the ancient gods (or the modern ones).

     

    If you have the slightest shred of respect for those who have made modern life possible then you will think on that.

     

    My respect for the practice of science was given in my three statements listed above. All practitioners of science appeal to authority, reference reality, and take prior scientific knowledge to be self-evidently true.

     

    That being said, again, the epistemological standard would reside elsewhere...

  8. 1.) It is commonly accepted that Cantor proved there are many actual infinities.  Knowledge, however, is not something acquired by how commonly accepted it is, i.e., that the earth is flat.

     

    2.) The universe, or existence, is not in time, rather time is in the universe. It was Parmenides who correctly identified the philosophic position with "What is, is." and the correct converse of "What is not, is not."  While there are no regions of non-existence within existence, the term space is a relational notion, so if you are referring to no "space" in the sense of a tangible concrete, it would fit.

     

    For your last two assertions, the formal logic derived from Aristotle, later, its essence put into the short tautology of "A is A" is not so much to do with the understanding of science per se, but to serve as an epistemological framework to guide one's self if proper thinking leading to knowledge is the desired goal.

    1) Abbot is free to look up Cantor's proofs at his own convenience. So are you. If, after reading,either of you decide that it's within the 'flat earth' genre, i'll be happy to explain. Otheriwse, you're statement is empty rhetoric.

     

    2) No, according to both Relativites, time is a basic constituent as to what the universe consists. Parmenides did not do Physics.

     

    :"Space" is not 'relational' as far as Physics goes. Rather it's a meaphor that's basically nonsense.

     

    3) A=A is not epistemology. rather. logic. As epistemology is abouit how we justify statements as true, to claim that such statement is A-true  because it's A is a hopeless tautology.

     

    FH

  9. Firstly, let me state that I am not denying existence; of course things existence. Rather, this is an issue of semantics.

    I was watching a video on Youtube, by a Post-Modernist critical of Objectivism, wherein he contended that existence no more exists than life lives. Obviously, he was not impugning that things exist, but that "existence" doesn't exist. Again, he compares this to the statement that "life lives," which is absurd, as living things--and not life--live.

    So, isn't saying that "existence exists" comparable to saying that "running runs" or "eating eats"?

    I'm sure that I am confused, and would appreciate some clarification, if anyone would be kind enough to proffer it.

    Thanks, all. =]

    It would seem to me as if such statements are made by those who want to sound 'philosophical' in a cocktail party.

     

    According to my eldest in her pre-teen years, a character from Saved By the Bell, replied to "I think, therefore i am", with "And if i think not, am I not?" I had to tolerate that one for about two weeks!

  10. I understand that their are no actual infinities. The infinite in mathematics is just a potentiality. I understand that the universe has to be eternal, meaning outside of time or always existing, because the opposite, that it was "created" is nonsense and violates A is A, etc. Same thing with its finiteness, there can't exist an actual infinite amount of things.

     

    I don't understand, however, why the universe has to be a plenum, that every nook and cranny has to be "filled" with existents. I just don't see why that is necessary, from how I believe LP explained it, that to say their is "empty space" is to say that nothing exists. I don't see it that way, when saying no thing (i.e. nothing) occupies a volume you are not saying that a unit(s) of nothingness exist in that volume, you are just saying that at that given point in time, no actual existents are occupying it, and that can change, some thing can move into it.

     

    The universe being a plenum, to me brings up a very complicated problem, namely that question that is always brought up, what is outside of it. What happens when you approach the "edge", because the universe is finite. Then LP will of course reply with, well you can't ask that, that question is invalid, etc. I think he or some Objectivist said the universe will have a way to make it so you can't reach the edge, which I thought was a bit outside the purview of metaphysics, describing how the universe works physically.

     

    A finite and non-plenum universe would have no edge, it would be just a bunch a finite matter interacting within a void. And that void would stretch out infinitely in all directions, infinite because the infinite can be applied to a non-entity, really just a concept used in relationships of existents, "space".

     

    That was my tirade on a plenum.

     

    Now back to eternality, and finiteness, from the beginning.

     

    But when picturing this it seems somewhat odd, or you can't really wrap your head around it. Wouldn't an eternal universe have an infinite amount of events, happening within it. Doesn't that violate A is A?

     

    I guess there isn't really anything wrong with the finite part, it would seem a bit odd though when thinking about it in both a non-plenum or plenum universe. The non-plenum being the fact that if you "left" the universe, there being no edge, just leaving the vicinity of all those other existents, and kept looking back at it the scale of the universe would look pretty small a ways out there. And I think I explained earlier the weirdness of the plenum finiteness, there being an edge, what is outside, and so forth.

     

    If anyone can share their thoughts on the subject that would be great.

    Yes, Cantor proved that there are many actual infinities.

     

    The universe is not outside of time, and is filled with 'things' as an astro-physical fact. ther is no void, hence, no 'space'.

     

    That the universe is relatively flat with an edge enables microwaves  to bounce back, from said edge, thereby offering big-bang evidence.

     

    Lastly, I'm really not sure as to whether statements of formal logic such as A=A have much to do with the understanding of science.

  11. Whichever account explains all relevant observations without contradiction, and in the least cognitive steps (of all valid theories), is the best hypothesis.  Whichever hypotheses have no valid alternatives are undeniable truths.

    That this is a summary of what I have already said, is one such truth.

     

    Any differences of opinion result from ignorance, either intentional or not.

    Honest errors of ignorance stem from the fact that, at any given time, the range of observations available to each person cannot be exhaustive.  Nobody knows everything; when you do not know something important (for any given theory), the absence of that knowledge will cause an error of ignorance.

    Intentional ignorance stems from the fact that knowledge does not exist in a normative vacuum.  We feel things about various facts that we know.  And when such evaluations are given higher priority than the accuracy of your knowledge, you're prone to wilfully refuse to learn.

    This is called "evasion".

     

    Errors of ignorance and evasion jointly account for every difference of opinion that can be found between anyone, at any time.

    . . . . .

     

    To integrate all information which is relevant to any given question, in the simplest non-contradictory way possible, is the most effective method of finding the true answer.

    There is no guarantee that you are not missing some crucial part of the answer, at any given time, and that's just the way it is.  You must make educated guesses, by virtue of being human, and so long as you must do so the best method is the one I have described.

     

    Now, I have given you (in condensed format, even) every important thing I know about Objectivist epistemology.  If you do not consider this sufficient for your purposes then I can offer you nothing else.

     

    Live long and prosper.

    You're assuming that there is only one possible explanation that does not involve contradiction, ignorance, or evasion.

     

    Yet the practice of science refutes your assumption on a daily basis.

     

    *As what passes as contradictions are those statements of one's rivals, in most cases an informed outsider is unable to refereeas to  which party is the more contradictive.

     

    * As the knowledger base is shared, no one can be said to be 'ignorant".

     

    * All parties act openny, and without evasion.

     

    So again, the matter of truth-belief justification remains up in the air, in so far as Rand wrote of 'epistemology'. All she's said are that some people are ignorant, some contradict themselves, and some are evasive.

     

    This is as helpful as opposing welfare on the grounds of a welfare Cadillac.

  12. . . . . .

    "Truth" is awareness of reality.

     

    Conscious awareness is an activity by which multiple contents, ultimately composed of sensations (which are self-evident), are either integrated or differentiated.  Sensory content itself cannot be "true" or "false" because, as our primary link to reality, it is the very standard of truth.

    But any given contents may be integrated or differentiated freely, while only one option is correct.

     

    "Reality" is the interpretation of sensations as being caused by something quantifiable, predictable and open to your comprehension- but not subject to your opinions.

    The axiom of existence is simply the knowledge that "sensory evidence" is evidence.

     

    This is the significance of the fact that reality is non-contradictory.  Epistemologically, this tells us that we must infer reality from our own senses- and that our inferences cannot be contradictory.

    Now, as some skeptics have been so eager to mention (Popper, Hume) there is more than one way to interpret any given set of observations without contradiction.  And that much is true.  In fact, there is nothing empirical which could ever conceivably contradict the possibility of an after-life; such a belief is technically (implications and corollaries aside) non-contradictory.  However:

     

    To treat evidence as epistemologically equal to the absence of evidence, and proof as equal to not-proof, is a Reification of the Zero- and furthermore, it prohibits the very possibility of certainty in knowledge.  And for all of the infinite non-contradictory theories that are possible, only a tiny subset are also unambiguously supported, empirically.

    And the truth may change as new evidence is found; today's truth may well be proven wrong tomorrow.  But just as evidence is different from non-evidence, knowledge is different from the hypothetical possibility of knowledge.

    You cannot count your black swans before you find them.

     

    So any proposition or theory is true if:

    1. It neither contradicts sensory evidence nor any logically prior knowledge (which is why the hierarchy of knowledge is important).
    2. It is actually supported by logically prior information and/or evidence.
    3. It is the simplest and best-supported possible theory.
    • If there is no other non-contradictory and non-arbitrary theory for any given observations, the one remaining belief is not only true; it is a certain truth.

    . . . . .

    Now, if you respond that everything I explained is simply "common sense" and that no rational person could possibly disagree with it, you would be right.  That's the elegance of Objectivist epistemology; it's only a formalization of the way every fully-functional adult already thinks.

     

    So your alternatives are to accept Rand's ideas and continue using them, with a newfound mastery of what you've been doing all along- or to reject Rand's ideas and remove yourself from the meme pool.

    And on that note, live long and prosper!  B)

     >>any given contents may be integrated or differentiated freely, while only one option is correct.<<,

     

    The point of having an 'epistemology' is to distinguish which one is true. I don't see arnd as having offered any criteria for this.

     

    >>>Reality" is the interpretation of sensations as being caused by something quantifiable,<<<

     

    We all know that what is is that which is either caused or causal. Aristotle has been around for a long time; we don't need Rand to tell us this.

     

    Aristotelian accounts were challenged in these gronds, in any case: many contradicting cauusal accounts are given, only which one is true. Again, epistemology is spozed to indicate which, noyt offer us a primer in Aristotle.

     

    >>>the elegance of Objectivist epistemology; it's only a formalization of the way every fully-functional adult already thinks.<<<

     

    That's my point in having brought in neuro sci: it's what everyone does because we're all rigged this way.

    But this isn't 'epistemology', which accounts for a) differences in reason(s) and B) which reason is correct, assuming, again, all reasonable candiidates are causal?

     

    FH

  13. Bill said:

    Nope...conceptualization is not a passive process done by the "brain" for Ms. Rand. The "bundleing" is an active process of volitional, conditional method. The science that answers the question of how we form concepts is epistemology, not neuroscience. You are conflating the two, ergo your "brain" comment.

    Well, I obviously agree that epistemology cannot be reductable to neuro sci.

     

    My point, however, is that in default of critera as to how 'correct' bundleing of perceptions is done in order to create concepts that are 'true', Rands's account sounds like...neurosci. perhaps, for the sqake of argument her story as been amended by other of whom i'm not aware.

     

    I likewise agree that volition plays a huge role in not only how we bundle,, but also what gets bundled to begin with. Kany said as much.

     

    His dogmatic slumber, as it were, was to have assumed in a Baconian sort of way that scientific-grade sensory data  was automatically induced into causal statements. In passing, this indicates that no real 'epistemology would be needed: we sense, we process, we just form the right concepts,and that's that.

     

    FH

  14. This is false. Objectivism doesn't use such terminology as 'bundling of perceptions.' Objectivism readily recognizes imagination. I can perceive man's torso, head and arms, and a horse's body and create centaur. However, this is not a concept formed in the way required for concepts to be tied to reality.

     

    Epistemology is not the study of neuroscience. How the brain processes concept or percepts is not part of her theory.

    It would be nice if you actually demonstrated having read what she wrote by citing where you're getting your interpretation from. None of what you attribute to her is in her theory.

    Dream and A,

     

    According to Rand,sensory data as 'perceptions' are processed into concepts by the brain. 'Bundleing is my term whic adequately describes how snmll  bits of data become a general idea, or 'concept'.

     

    So yes,, my point is that neuroscience-- true, false, or otherwise is-- not epistemology. But this is theonly account of epistemology that Rand seems to offer.

     

    We all derive concepts from putting data bites of experience together. To a certain extent, this might be called 'induction'.

     

    Yet this sameness works against Rand's epistyemology as such: what, in her book, counts for a 'true' concept versus a 'false' one in sofar as all concepts derive from the process of reasoning?

  15. The point being to prohibit any sort of coherent pattern; right?

    If so then, in devising a truly random function, what you're attempting to do is to create an algorithm that eliminates patterns.

     

    Some areas of cryptography might help you make a function for apparent randomness but I'm not sure actual randomness can be procedurally generated; hence the definition.

    Because if you can mathematically define your goal then you can make a function for it.  I just don't think it can be defined, except as the absence of other concepts.

    ---

     

    Edit:  Although, if it is possible, you'd have to embrace that 'absence of a pattern' like:

     

    For any Ai in set X, do a or b or c UNLESS i-1 did a or b or c. . .

    Yes, indeed, there are real arguments as to whether generated randomness is really 'random'. Again, from a mathematician's pov, the issue of predictability.

     

    So yes, to 'Dream Weaver': 'non-predictibility' stands as a sufficient definition without genus classification and yes, perhaps, Harrison that 'arbitrary might easily stand for 'random', It's just that the later has always been in current use.

  16. Part of the fallacy issue as described is that objectivist 'epistemology' assumes that all concepts that are created by the bundleing of perceptions are necessarily true.

     

    But in reality, many different people employ the same  'perception bundling' method to derive concepts that are different.

     

    Likewise, there is obvious dispute as to what the perceptive inputs are, varying as it were from person to person.

     

    In this sense, Rand's 'epistemology' is only a rough outline as to how the brain processes and derives concepts fronm sensory inputting. But again, this is what everyone does.

     

    As such, it cannot account for the justification of beliefs, whci is what 'epistemology is supposed to do.

×
×
  • Create New...