Ifat Glassman

How else would you suggest to learn about mental processes of another living creature than watching it's behavior? Similar brain activity of an animal that watches concretes that have similar characteristics. Recording such brain activity has been done, BTW. And observing an animal identify a group of objects that is based on more than one characteristic of that object. You have to be careful here... Every thought every animal has is "highly biochemical" and it does have representation in the brain as a neuronal-circuit. If it doesn't, it cannot exist (the thought). What you meant was that the process of identification is based on certain chemicals, but (and here is the main difference) this identification involves no mental connection at all between the chemical (smell) and other features of that animals such as shape, color etc' in ants. I agree that if an animal is following a chemical, without being able to connect between the chemical and other features of that object, then it did not identify "the object". But if an animals is able to connect a chemical with other (at least one) feature of the object, then it identifies "the object". Just like we humans are able to connect between smell, texture, and visual data of an object. Be sure that there are other ways to measure that object, that are not accessible to you as a human being (such as perceiving a 3D image created by a sonar, like some animals have). Just because some animals have more limited senses than human beings, does not mean that by relying only on their limited resources they are not identifying "the object". If rats use their moustache and smell to identify an object then they identify the object. Just because you can also see the object very clearly does not mean that you are identifying the object and they are not. (I know you didn't say anything about this, I'm just expressing my thought here, the last part is not an answer to something you said). The way mammals identify females of their own species is not pheromone based and nothing more. Animals also identify members of their own species based on visual data. How else would they stay as a herd? And there is a lot of difference between members of the species: some are young, some are mature, some have horns, some do not, some have white spots, etc'. Animals still distinguish members of their own species from other species, despite of individual differences. that is a fact. Another example is how animals identify human beings (despite the fact that human beings come in different shapes). Animals learn either to be afraid of human beings, or to trust them. Human beings are a group of different concretes. Same things for enemies of the species. The concretes are different from one another, but an animal will still identify it and call "danger" (or "food"). Yes! Thank you for saying that! This is indeed the difference between human beings and animals. Animals (except maybe for smart species, like apes) do not conceptualize abstractions. However, animals do seem to think in concepts when grasping concretes. They are able to form a concept from a group of concretes, but not from a group of abstractions.

Well, Maybe if you used words that can be found in my dictionary (not like "slouchy"), we wouldn't have a problem And I disagree big time about slouching. Example: Howard Roark's description of sitting down or walking. Unfortunately, I don't have the book to quote from (Gave all my books to people I value that don't glance at them for months cause they're too busy), but in The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand gives a description of Roark as viewed from Keating's eyes: sitting like a cat, very loose and relaxed, like he doesn't have a single bone in his body. Another description is of the way he walk. I believe Rand described it as "lazy"? Now, I don't know, maybe you think confident people should walk and sit like soldiers in formal ceremonies, but when I take a nice relaxing stroll in the sun, I usually enjoy dragging my legs and fooling around than walk like a board is stuck in my pants. Slouching (if I understand it correctly) can imply someone who feels so secure about themselves, that they stand in a relaxed manner, or a lazy manner (in the good sense of the word...). But it would be a relaxation of someone ready to switch to active mode at any moment.

Sorry, didn't mean to dishonor your species, Gorilla person . In Hebrew we have just one word for "apes" and "monkeys", hence my mistake. Now, about animals and concepts: Taken from Objectivism wiki. I was thinking about Squirrels. (Wikipedia). Squirrels collect more than one type of nut. They deal with a lot of Objects in their life, but they treat nuts (all the different types of nuts) the same. Wouldn't this be like a child able to sort objects according to shape or color? Moreover, if a squirrel will be introduced to a different type of food, I believe they will be able to learn that this is "food" and treat it like they treat other objects in the group (Like they learn to eat bread and other man-made stuff). Another example, much more basic, is animals' ability to identify a member of their species of the opposite sex. We know they are able to do that since animals reproduce. The concept "member of the same species of the opposite sex" unites a group of entities with some common characteristics. Wouldn't this show that animals sort entities in groups as well? And if so, would that be conceptual thinking?

Of course individuals of the same country are very different from one another, but to discover those differences it would usually require a deeper acquaintance with those people. A culture is more visible when you examine people's behavior without knowing them personally (in depth), such as the way they greet other people (smile, remain with a frozen expression), The way they act when they are talking to you (tell jokes or regard jokes as rudeness, stand close to you or in a greater distance, act chummy or coldly-polite). Stuff like that are usually inherit in the culture. Sure there are exceptions (people who do not behave stereotypically), but my experience taught me that cultural differences do exist. Example: a lot of Russians immigrated to Israel in the last 2 decades (or so). You can clearly see a difference between a Russian student and an Israeli student. A Russian will never ever tell a joke to the teacher in the middle of a lesson. I think they would rather bury themselves under a table than do that, since they consider it to be disrespect. However, some Israeli teachers consider such jokes OK, since... well... they grew up in Israel as well.

Found an adorable video about a monkey doing Karate. It seems like the monkey is able to connect between certain words and required actions: Monkey Ninja Another video that shows a monkey playing around with some stuff: Orangutan does housework. I also discovered that some monkeys enjoy teasing other animals: Monkey teasing dog. Notice how he comes back after the first time to pull on the dog's leg. And... (video quality rather bad, and edited, but still funny): Monkey with a death wish

!!! What I want to know is, how are you going to go through the exam (and the course, too)? When I was in High school I was taking psychology+sociology (had no choice about sociology). And let me tell you, the crap they had me eating there did not taste good at all! During the year I didn't pay much attention to the class. But when the test arrived me and my friend (who is also intelligent and critically-thinking) were sitting down to prepare for the exam. I remember reading some theories in sociology: at first, I could not understand what the writer is trying to say at all. Then, with great focus and efforts I went through it again. Then, I started noticing contradictions, stating them aloud. Then I started cursing the idiot who wrote those things. Then, we needed to remember the theories. Normally, you have no problem remembering something that you can understand. But try to remember a bunch of things that make no sense at all - that's a nightmare! We used to read it paragraph by paragraph, provide interpretation to try to summarize the content, and then I would usually swear the author again after each paragraph. I remember one time we learned about some theory that stated that we (the human race) should brainwash children from when they are born to want to live for the happiness of others, and this would be the way to achieve the perfect world. I was so completely, overwhelmingly appalled by the evilness of that theory, that I didn't forget it until this day. I was shocked that the teacher just keeps on reading it, and everyone in the class just keep on reading as if nothing terrible has just happened. We also learned the basics of communism (from things that Karl Marx wrote), but I remember it simply made no sense to me (I didn't think it was evil back then). In short, it was <insert three puking emoticons here>. If I had to take such a course today, I would not agree to go through it. I would appeal to whomever necessary, I would make demonstrations, I would do whatever necessary to get a "pass" grade. However, if you don't mind much about your grade I guess that just passing the test would also be good enough for you. So how are you going to handle this irrationality?

If definitions are statements of truth - how can they be "realigned"? How it is true to use the same word for a modified concept? How is it true at all to use a word to denote a concept in the first place? What is a statement of truth, and how is a definition a statement of truth? I think I'm going to start a new thread about definitions (Or look for an existing one).

I was comparing Canadians to Americans, and in case you haven't noticed (hint: first post) I am not Canadian. Your post makes 0 sense (as an answer to my post). [Edited to add a small clarification.]

Common, the only thing missing were a poll of favorite bodybuilders and links to great gyms in the neighborhood . I agree that a discussion of what makes people Aesthetic is most relevant, as long as reasons are provided (like some have done). But talking about how to accomplish those tasks on individual level, or how many people in the world are attracted to X is not very relevant to art. I liked The gun Slinger. He rocks! But I didn't like the rest so much. Too colorful and toy-ish. Naa, I prefer paintings with less people in one painting. It gives me a feeling that individuals are the main thing and not "events" like war.

Would you consider the definition of a dog to be ostensive? If "ostensive" includes pointing out to abstractions as well (mental symbols), then all definitions are created ostensively. If it only includes pointing out to some concrete, then an ostensive definition would be pointing out to a certain location on the street and saying to my friend: "meeting place", Or pointing out to a certain puppy and saying "lucky". However, those two examples seem to me more like naming than defining, because they don't include a genus, or unite several concretes. You also raised an interesting question about the difficulty of trying to classify "dingo" as a wolf or a dog, based on common definitions (instead of scientific definitions that include more detailed characteristics of a dog and a wolf). This also relates to your next statement: I would appreciate an example of this A and B business. Not sure if I understood what you're trying to say... Did you mean that both A and B are (supposedly) definitions of the same concept? If so then this would be the same problem when considering the common definition of a dog, and a scientific definition of a dog. If definitions are statements of truth, which definition is right and which one is wrong? I have a long answer for this, but I'll wait for your reply first. (I think they are distinct concepts with the same name, for starters)

When I visited a friend from the USA, his mentality drove me crazy: never crossing the street where there is no crosswalk, or when the light is red (even if there were no cars), not trying to appeal on a parking ticket, never daring to park, not even for a minute, in a forbidden parking space, or a suspected-to-be forbidden parking space, writing letters to deal with injustice instead of going over there and raising hell... I could simply not comprehend what seemed to me like a passive behavior. But then again, when on the plane back I was sitting next to young Israeli punks who set with feet up high on the seats in front of them, loudly asking for more free ice-cream, I couldn't help of missing the good manners of Americans . Do most Americans obey the law so strictly? Another thing I noticed about Americans is that they are very friendly, smiling people. This difference was made very clear because I was taking a flight in a Canadian airline and then in an American one. The Canadian stewardesses were very cold, impersonal and polite, but the American ones were smiling and easy to participate in a joke (about some emergency procedures) or a short conversation.

Ayn Rand:

Yeah, you are right: I didn't phrase my question well. I meant that a concrete that would be composed of several other concretes that are perceived at different times/places, in the way that all the pieces that compose a unicorn are perceived in different places/times (the body is taken from a horse, the horn is taken from some other animal, and then changed to a white color, and other magical powers are added from some legends...). What about the nature of definitions is missing in your view?

I agree that a woman can be confident and feminine at the same time, but this one is somehow unfeminine, and it is because of her confidence (that's how it seems to me). As for her elegance, it's not in her clothes, it's something in the manner that she smiles (just slightly) and in the way she is standing. I think the right word is that she looks very polite to me, hence her elegance. You misinterpreted "direct": By "direct" I mean someone who looks other people straight in the eyes and examines them carefully without "giving them a slack", and not someone who expresses their thoughts and moods openly to everyone. I disagree about contemptuous expression. It is examining and curious. However, each person interprets things like expressions and body language a bit differently according to their experience and premises, and may arrive at different conclusions. As for being "slouchy" - I consider these to be just comfortable clothes (especially on hot days). More than that, short clothes show more of the body (naturally) which may be beautiful.

Concepts are an abstraction, so I agree that they are not perceived in reality. I never said that the pieces of what creates a unicorn didn't come from reality, but that a unicorn, as a whole, as one entity, as one concrete, was not observed in reality when a person first thought of it. I was talking about the first person who invented "unicorn". As for using other concepts to build another concept - that goes without saying. No need to point it out. To bring some order into this, allow me to ask some leading questions: 1) Do you think that all concepts have to be formed by first perceiving concretes, when "perceiving" means getting external data from the senses? 2) Do you agree that a concrete is a whole entity, and not an entity that is a mixture of other concretes that are perceived separately (separate concretes)? If the answer to both is yes, then: 3) Do you agree that a unicorn did not exist as a whole concrete before someone first invented it (by drawing a sketch, describing it's appearance, creating a statue etc')? If you agree to #3 then that contradicts #1, since this would be a concept that was formed in a different way than #1 describes. It was invented by putting together several different concretes, and not perceiving many concretes of the same "type" (with similar characteristics). All I want to find out here, is whether or not Peikoff does not mention how ALL concepts are formed, but just how SOME of them are formed? Hope I am more clear now. If not, please ask questions so I can clarify further.

I would like to remind you all that this is the Visual arts section, and not the physical fitness section! Thank you! Here is one painting of Julie Bell that I really adore: The wildness of it, the deliberation: it's just beautiful: The competition

I'm curious to see how people here present the culture of their country, and explain what, in their opinion, influenced their culture the most (History, a certain meaningful event, Religion, the weather, another culture etc'). I would start by talking about Israelis . The best word I can use for Israelis is "survivors". Israelis are usually alert, shrewd in bargaining (Don't suggest buying a car from an Israeli, unless you have another Israeli with you), stay calm in times of danger and deal with it bravely, value human life a lot, behave very openly and friendly with one another (even with strangers), very assertive when trying to get what they want, speak up their minds, get mad easily (and sometimes start to swear if it's serious), have little respect for the law (and constantly think of ways to get around it), address other people as being on the same level as them, even if they address someone in higher position than them or someone they admire for something (something like bold-standard's attitude), might become vulgar when getting something for free (and ask for nonstop refills ), usually thin people, rational (in general, which means you can start a conversation with one and not feel like you're talking to a rock in most cases), Might approach one's troubles dismissively to their face (telling them to stop complaining), direct about asking personal questions ("what happened sugar? troubles with your boyfriend?"), Take initiative and take crap from no-one (usually). The Israeli culture is also influenced from the USA culture, since a lot of our TV content is american, and from Arab culture (especially about hospitality to strangers, cutting to the chase, and food). That's it, I think. Israelis also cut lines like there's no tomorrow, and don't engage in "idol worshiping" (like in the USA). I think what shaped Israelis' alertness and reactions to danger and common sense is our History (and present), that give you no other option but protecting your life and valuing it, or perish. The constant danger does not leave room for melancholic pondering about "Are life actually real, or: is death just another experience?". The dismissive attitude toward the law is a result of poor enforcement, and lack of parking spaces in some cities (like Tel Aviv). The crowded roads and lack of parking spaces also make people easy to get mad. This is why there is a lot of difference between Israelis in the north and in the center of the country. The way of talking very openly to one another (people here call each other by "my brother/sister") comes, perhaps, from being a small country, so people have a lot in common. So how would you describe your culture? and what shaped it?

The reason I put that drawing here is because it describes a very different "type" of woman than what has been presented here. Her exaggerated, complete confidence, and her directness do make her appear unfeminine. However, I think this is the way every human being should be: confident and direct. I think I over-did her left arm a bit. It gives her confidence an appearance of potential violence ( ) which was not the intention. I find her appearance very elegant, which is why I named this "Elegant Lady".

No, that would be wrong, though your line of though does seem logical. The fact that reflexes can be controlled or changed does not mean they are not reflexes: From "Essentials of Neural science and behavior" - Eric R. Kendal, James H. Schwartz, Thomas M. Jessell

Where is that stated in OPAR?

RationalBiker: I'm not going to quote your whole post, just to answer it: I am not a biologist (though I am a student of biomedical engineering, so I do have some knowledge in biology), I have not been experimenting in this field. I am no more qualified than Miss Rand to determine the nature of cognition of animals, as of today. My point was, that she, as a philosopher and nothing more, is not qualified. If she was not relying on researches done in this field with actual results, or present facts to support her assumptions about how animals' cognition works, then her theory on this subject, is just a theory, her opinion, and not necessarily a statement of truth. Since none of us know how an animal perceives the world, there should be an organizes study of what animals can or cannot perceive, what is automatic in them and what is not, before any conclusions are reached. The same thing is true about my hypothesis about humans having drives. And I stated that it is a hypothesis of mine and not a truth. To verify if something is true or not one has to compare it to reality. Which is why I gave examples about animals' behavior, and provided facts about brain development and it's implications on the adult animal. I stated a few times that the facts that I did provide are not proofs that humans have drives, but that it is merely a hypothesis that needs further study. A hypothesis that I will hopefully get to do a research on, in the future (since I want to be a brain researcher, and am currently on my path to get there). As for the definition of an "instinct". I stated that in my opinion the definition describes something that does not exist in mammals. The definition remains what it is even if what it describes isn't actually true. Theories remain theories with all of their definitions and terms even after a theory has been proven wrong. So I really have no idea what you mean by "the definition is wrong". I agree with you though that I cannot refute an idea that someone is making if we are not using the same set of definitions. This is why I was talking about "drives" in my next posts. You can see that in the post where I summed up my position I never used the word "instincts" even once, but instead described exactly what I mean by using lower level concepts.

Actually most Israelis thought that a more massive air stirkes backup (instead of the "house to house" method of fighting, where soldiers have to go into a house which is known to have Hizbalists in it) should have been used. And also that a wider ground military operation should have taken place a lot sooner. The "house to house" method did have some limited advantages though: going into houses also used Israel for intelligence, and to understand the way the enemy operates, and land forces were the only way to destroy bunkers buried 40 meters underground. Only there were too little of them and too late. And changes are taking place in Lebanon. Here is a part of a conversation of mine with someone from Lebanon that tells me what is going on there, according to his impression. Of course this is just his optimistic impression, but he has lived in Lebanon most his life, he is over 40, he has gone through the civil war and everything, so I listen to his impression about things inside Lebanon. His English isn't very good though : how things are going on at your side? here it is very bad In Israel? there were a lot of accusations about who's fault is it that Israel didn't accomplish much in this war. very bad? in what way? they start to wake up and see how much it was strong the impact and they start an argue between themselves in the Shiite community what is the argument about? the cost of that war whether or not it was worth to kidnap the soldiers? 130 000 place to live are dust sure no Nasrallah himself said that more that 1000 company destroyed, 500 is closing, 1000 is surviving till now but what are they arguing about? it is a fact that the damages are huge all the Shiite area is totally dust, yes. and did that worth the price of kidnapping and making a war with Israel guess they wont be kidnapping soldiers any time soon ha? look it is very complicated. hisbullah is starting to be squeezed they stooped the money flow to them from Iran and Syria. and the weapons. the army is very strict in that every day he is getting armor from there depots and hezbullah wasn't expecting that they are destroying all the tunnels they have plus that the IDF is doing that 2. It is attacking some depots in the area it is still occupying and now the Shiite they start to feel the taste of loosing Where does the army get weapons from? the Lebanese army didn't enter all the southern area yet really he don't need that strong weapons coz he is not going to a war. he is officially going to keep peace and calm in the area yeah, but what about all the speeches about the heroism of Hizballah made by commanders in your army? it is all propaganda my dear. be calm and wait propaganda for what purpose? u will see hezbulla soon will be zero if u say the contrary u will be against them. but if u say what they want to hear they will cool down till the time they feel that they are nothing let me tell u about hezbulla. it is not an army they don't have places. every Shiite is a hezbullah, they get salary from the hezbullah org, but he don't have place to stay. he goes normally to his work and house and when they have something to do they go to some place they choose at the last moment every person who lives in the southern area and Shiite and get paid from hezbullah have rockets and armor in his house depot or car. so they do the attack and go normally to work. this why it is hard to fight hezbullah. Did you learn this only after the war? Did you know about the rockets just after the war? yes. people here start to talk. funny how it works. how thing were going on. talk about what? all the mens found in the south in the time of war were hizbullah, not civilians. they wear normal closes. u cant distinguish them from fighters. very organized and very secret. The only way to fight them now after more than 50% of their power has been attacked is by the way it is going on now which is? stop all the funds so they cant be able to pay. and in the coming weeks when all the troops arrived it will be totally controlled. any way nasrallah is dead. and now his peoples start to insult him. How can you control the money that is transfered to private citizens? we have a new rules in here if u get more than 10000 $ u have to prove that it is from a clean source and the cache money from Iran direct to hezbullah from the border has been stopped. patrols on the border with Syria? yes. weapons and money. they have already stopped many attempt how was the cash delivered in the first place? directly to the account of the Party Hizballa? no, cache. hand to hand in the last days it appears. and it seems that it was this way all the time passed. who was passing cache? Syria I want to know something else. how is your business doing? ohhhhhhhhhhhh very bad. lot of losses ..... I agree with that completely. This would be a painful case if our politicians will fail to insist on this, like they failed so badly at negotiation and at shaping the final version of the UN resolution.

Another thing I want to add is the difference between identification and definition. suppose I say "a horse is a chicken with no wings". I actually said: horse = chicken with no wings Since horse relates to a certain animal which is already defined, and a chicken with no wings relates to another animal (in a certain physical state) This would be a case of wrong identification. But if I say: "definition: horse - chicken with no wings" I actually said: horse /\=chicken with no wings. In this case I used an already existing name ("horse") as a name for a new concept. This is a very bad choice of a name for a concept because the name is already used for something entirely different, but it is possible to use one name for different concepts. This would make my definition pretty crappy to use, and very uncomfortable but the question of whether or not it is true is inapplicable here. Something can be true or false only if it an attempt at an identification of reality. If I visualize a horse (creature that looks like this) and I see a chicken with no wings and say "those are the same" then I misidentified: my statement contradicts reality. But when I define something I am naming it. And as a name it cannot be true or false. "f=x^2+9x+8" is not a statement of truth (or false) unless "f" was defined to mean that, or defined to mean something else, first.

Need to add something important: OPAR page 75 But this is what I base my question on: OPAR, page 77 (bold emphasis is mine). "A concept" means every concept (even though later on concepts of reality and sensations are stated to be essentially different from this, but I saw no mention for other types of concepts). And since we have to form it [a concept] based on perceptual data, then that dis-includes things that were invented and were not "perceived" since "perception" can only relate to something that already exists. Am I missing something?

Page, 96, OPAR Percept relates to "perceptual". Anyone else mind explaining how this is resolved?