Jake
-
Posts
349 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Jake
-
-
Also, please do not jump to conclusions. I did not say or imply that an entity or group can not have any of its parts removed without still being the whole. Paint is a part of a car but I can remove the paint and still have a functioning car, although it may not last as long. But I cannot remove the gas tank, or radiator, and still have a car.
Please see these concrete examples of cars without a gas tank and without a radiator. Have you tried to take this method of concept-building to its logical conclusion? I will...
Your claim here is that an object which cannot perform the primary function of a car is not a car. The logical conclusion is that the 3,000 lbs of metal sitting in your driveway magically becomes a car when you sit in the driver's seat and turn the key, because prior to that time it is not a "functioning car". I don't think you believe this, but it is consistent with the method of concept-formation that you are asserting.
Evidence:It is customary to provide evidence and argument when making an assertion. Exactly what is the contradiction that you claim to see?
Argument:"Man" does not mean "all men" in any context I can think of, and it is a logical fallacy to use it that way....
Since the meaning of a concept is its units or referents, if any particular man can do something, then man can do it.
It is because the meaning of a concept is its referents that "man" means all men who have been, are, and will be.I will be more explicit. You stated both:
1) you could not think of a context where "man" means "all men", and
2) the meaning of a concept is it units or referents.
Those statements are contradictory (the 2nd is true). The units or referents of "man" are all men. "Man" means all men. You cannot claim to have digested and integrated ItOE and not agree with this.
Which concept are we discussing? Baby, child, infant? It's a logical fallacy to change the meaning of a concept in the middle of an argument. I'm not sure what it's called to change the word in the middle of an argument.Read the definition of "baby" you posted. The primary definition was:
1 a (1) : an extremely young child; especially : infantYou asserted that "baby" refers to the very young of any animal, and I disagreed on the grounds of the etymology, definition, and connotation of "baby". You attempted to counter my assertion of the definition by pulling from Webster's. I defended my assertion by showing that the definition of "baby" relies on the concepts "child" and "infant", both of which are defined as a special case of "human" or "person". At no time did I change the concept in the middle of the argument. I only attempted to correct your misunderstanding of the word "baby".
-
An entity is a sum of its parts in the same way as a group is.
By equating the relationships of entities/parts and groups/individuals, this statement can only be interpreted as meaning either:
1) an entity is merely the sum of its parts (i.e. not deserving of an independent concept), or
2) a group is more than a collection of individuals (i.e. a group is an entity requiring a separate concept).
As I said above to Grames, I did not say that an entity is its parts.So I must interpret your sentence as meaning (2), but groups are not entities. Grames already identified this fallacy.
-
It most certainly applies to groups. An entity is a sum of its parts in the same way as a group is. Society is a group of individuals and if you apply a true statement about society that is not true of the individuals, then it is the fallacy of division. After all, a group, or a concept, is a mental entity. Are not individual people a part of society? Are not particular customs a part of society? Are not particular laws a part of society?
The only reason we can designate an object composed of more primitive parts as an 'entity' is because it is more than the sum of its parts. You can't just throw billions of atoms in a box and call it a person. Or, to refer to Rand's famous concept example (ItOE): One 18"x36"x2" and four 2"x2"x20" pieces of wood are not a table. You can't even call the pieces a "flat surface" and "supports" until they are attached in a certain manner or until a human intends to attach them.
Please provide an example of a statement which is true of society, but could not also be true of two people.
1. Society has customs.
2. Society is composed of people.
3. People have customs.
Sounds good.
1. A person has rights.
2. A person is composed of atoms.
3. Atoms have rights.
Not so good.
Do you see the contradiction within that one paragraph?"Man" does not mean "all men" in any context I can think of, and it is a logical fallacy to use it that way....
Since the meaning of a concept is its units or referents, if any particular man can do something, then man can do it.
It is because the meaning of a concept is its referents that "man" means all men who have been, are, and will be.
I don't see "human" in the definition here.I see your Webster's pull and raise you two:
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe \ˈchī(-ə)ld\ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : descendant
1 : a child in the first period of life2 : a person who is not of full age : minor
-
The fallacy of division: When a premise gives you information about the group and reasoning is applied that the information is true of the individuals in the group. That some men cannot see color is not omitted from the generalization "man can see color." The generalization would be true if only one man on earth could see color and everyone else could not. An equally valid generalization is "man cannot see color." The two generalizations simply apply to different sets of men. Remember, generalizations are statements of causality, and both color and color-blindness (or complete blindness) are caused processes.
The fallacy of division refers to the mistaken conclusion that what is true of the whole is true of its parts. It is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It does not apply to groups/individuals, but to entities and their parts.
"Man can see color" is a valid (true) generalization, because the vast majority of men can see color. "Man cannot see color" is not a valid generalization due to the same fact. I don't see how you would think otherwise.
I don't know what you mean by the bolded phrase above. Are you saying that a particular man can see color, because he is a man?
One does not form the concept 'man' by studying babies. One does not only study man to form the concept 'baby'. Perhaps you mean a baby human is an instance of 'man'. But 'baby human' is not a concept. Every baby is not a qualified instance of the concept man. Baby.Actually, "baby" refers to any very young human, "baby human" is redundant, and one must specify the type of animal (e.g. "baby gorilla") only if one is not talking about a human. "Very young human" is the etymological source of, the primary definition of, and the most common connotation of "baby". How many times have you talked about a baby and had the listener ask you "do you mean a baby human?".
Edit: Note that we have separate concepts for the young of more commonly seen animals (e.g. pups, kittens, calves, etc.)
-
This discussion reminds me of Rand's explanation of concepts and their definitions. She describes one possible evolution of the definition of the concept 'man' as a child grows and gains experience. (I think it's early in ITOE, but I'm in an airplane without the book. It would be great if someone would pull the relevant quote.)
She talks about how the definition of 'man' would change from 'things that move and make noise' to 'things that talk' and eventually to 'rational animal'. The key point I understand from her example is that the concept 'man' does not change during this process (and neither do its referents). Only the definition which allows the child to economize his mental energy and hold all referents in his mind changes. She also states that the essential characteristic is an epistemological choice and should be the charachteristic on which the most other common characteristics depend. In this sense 'essential' means 'that which best captures the essence of the referents' commonalities', not 'that which is required for an existent to be a referent of the concept'.
-
Language is abstract and some animals can utilize language.
This has been discussed at length in other threads on this forum. Language requires words; words require concepts; animals do not have concepts. Animals communicate, but not with language.
-
It seems to me that such an important distinction should not be made by means of two words having the same Latin root (voluntary vs. volitional).
-
Dude... checkout the Forum Rules (especially 1.)
-
Would I be correct in identifying the "cookie-replacement" morality as pragmatism?
-
e. So now that practising homosexuality/bisexuality for some or many is volitional again, does one go back to condemning it - if only for those who choose this ?
Volition is necessary, but not sufficient to deem something immoral. The act must also be against one's rational self-interest.
-
It seems to me that the total lack of attraction that the vast majority of people have towards their siblings (of either gender) is an indication that the emotions of sexual attraction can be conditioned through cultural influences.
-
What are liberals listening to, extra-terrestrial radio?
I think the "terrestrial radio" comment was typical liberal academic/intellectual snobbery. I read the comment as implying that intelligent people listen to satellite radio (or streamed internet radio, podcasts, etc.)
-
My basic argument is that there's two ways to arrive at .333... One, by simply stating that you have a series of repeating 3's. Two, by division and/or fraction.
Those aren't really two different ways. I think I can show you why.
Consider that if you divided 1 by 3, and only did short division, your answer will be .3 with a remainder...The remainder was lost in the infinity, but technically, that remainder is there somewhere...
The long division process that you are talking about can be expressed as a series (see expression below).
I've shown the result of this finite series for n = 4. You can see the (finitely) repeating 3s and the remainder. Note though that 1/3 is equal to the repeating 3s plus the remainder divided by 3. I think this might be something you missed.
Below is the same expression with limits added. While for any actual (finite) n, the remainder is non-zero, the limit of the remainder as n approaches infinity is zero.
To any mathematicians, my apologies for using the radical symbol. I wanted to show that I was representing the math behind long division, but the MS Word equation editor lacks the proper symbol.
Any complex mathematical concept is going to be vastly more difficult to tackle if you don't have a good grasp of the formal definitions first. The expression below shows the equivalence of the three different notations, their definition (as the limit of an infinite series), and the result of calculating that limit.
These three notations are all shorthand and are defined as the limit as n approaches infinity of the series. The well-defined, calculable value of this limit is 1, therefore 0.(9) = 1 (because it is defined as the limit). 0.(9) is NOT equivalent to actually summing the series to infinity; this is not possible in reality, and is therefore a poorly constructed expression* (see below). It's really important to understand that the notation represents a limit, not an actual summation.
I've never thought about this equality, and I was unconvinced by many of the "proofs" offered in previous posts, but once I took a few minutes to write out the problem formally, it was clear. The wikipedia page.. that another poster mentioned does indeed have a great bit of info on this.
*I'm not a professional mathematician, so I'm not sure that this is considered an invalid expression (it should be though).
Edit: Fixed an error in the first two equations
-
Don't confuse the mathematics (GR) describing the approximate effects of gravity on the universe as the universe itself. A map describes a place it is not the place itself. GR is a close approximation of how matter and energy interact within the universe. It can not describe the universe as a whole.
I'm not aware of any experimental results that indicate GR is not an exact description of gravitational effects. What aspect of GR do you think is only an approximation?
-
Brian, Here's how I might relate various exponents to reality:
Exponents can be used to describe cell division. Starting with x cells, the number of cells after any number of divisions can be calculated by x · 2^n, where n is the number of divisions that have taken place.
Say you have x cells and you want to know how many cells there were n divisions ago. You can calculate this by x · 2^-n. So negative integer exponents are instructions for sucessive division in the same way that positive exponents are instructions for successive multiplication. In order for the process to be continuous and mathematically sensible, you must define x^0 = 1 (the multiplicative identity). This too can be related to reality though: how many cells are there after 0 divisions (i.e. now)... x · 2^0 = x · 1 = x.
Now, say you didn't know that the number of cells doubled with each division. The only information you have is that you started with w cells and ended with x cells after n divisions. The cellular multiplication per division can be calculated by (x/w)^(1/n).
That covers positive, zero, negative, and (simple) rational exponents. As one's math training advances you can discuss formalities/identities like a^(m+n) = a^m · a^n and more complex concepts like irrational exponents (these are tough). It's been a while since I studied it, but I believe irrational exponents are only truly calculable through series expansion.
Does that help?
-
I don't have time to Google-up the reference right now, but there was a similar case in Maryland decades ago. Article IV of the Consitution requires that no religious test shall be required for public office. I believe the result of the Maryland case was that the Constitution trumps any state attempt to enforce religious belief.
-
I replied to a post of Thomas Miovas in a thread over in the Metaphysics and Epistemology section. My reply included a quote from Einstein, which sparked another reply. I don't want to hijack that thread more than I already have, and I've been meaning to post in this thread (one of my favorite on OO.Net).
I've been re-reading Relativity by Albert Einstein. I can't recommend this book enough if you want a good understanding of Special and General Relativity. It's written by the man himself and has a refreshingly logical flow. I have not read the edition of the book for sale on Amazon, and I'm dubious of the:
but it appears Einstein's (translated) content is un-molested.introduction, by science writer Nigel Calder, [which] guides the reader through the work section by section, even giving advice on which sections to skip, or at least not to worry about, if you can't "accompany Einstein through the forest of tricky ideas contained in this slim volume."Here's the quote:
Italics originalIn this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning.Here is the response from 'A is A'; replies from me are new:
...there is no necessity, Objectivist or Physical, for something C to be between A and B just because A and B are not co-located. The attempt to fulfill such a false necessity leads to infinite regress.
I can't state it better than DavidOdden did in posts #14 and #23.I haven't read that thread you reference, but how can it lead to an infinite regress? Provided you keep out Zeno's paradoxes, there should be no infinite regress.
No, it replaces "in space" with "spatially extended." If physical objects are in space, it means space exists independently of those objects as a sort of background into which the objects are placed and in which they move. Spatially extended means that light takes a non-zero time to reach one entity from another.I don't find Einstein's statement helpful. It eliminates a noun, space, and replaces it with an adjective, spatial.
The concepts 'position' and 'place' require a reference point (i.e. another entity). In Math, one uses the origin of a given basis as the reference point, but origins and bases are concepts of method, not physical entities. There is no absolute reference or primary entity of the universe. Any given entity only has a 'position' or 'place' in reference to, or as observed from, another chosen entity.And the concept of distance is related to position or place more than it is to space.
IMO, this is a major pitfall in writing layman's or popularized versions of modern physics. There is no natural requirement that fundamental physical events be easily visualized by everyday perceptual means. AFAIK, Einstein never said that space is a physical entity like a membrane which bends or stretches in the presence of mass/energy. I think the quote above shows that he did not believe space was an entity. That is just how it is usually described to people (like me) who don't know have all of the requisite mathematical skills to comprehend the theory at the proper level.Exactly, relativity theory seems to treat space as an entity. For the longest time I had trouble understanding it until I realized that when it says space curves, it actually means that space curves. I just can't see that...if it's just "shorthand" then shorthand for what? What's going on if there isn't an entity called space that bends with the mass of the objects in it? -
I don't want to hijack the thread. I will reply to you in the Space thread I linked to above (I will quote you in full).
-
Thomas,
I agree with the main point of your reply, that 'nothing' means 'no thing' or an absence of existence. However, the example you used is an exercise in reifying space, as in the Of What Does Space Consist? thread. As was thoroughly hashed out in that thread, there is no necessity, Objectivist or Physical, for something C to be between A and B just because A and B are not co-located. The attempt to fulfill such a false necessity leads to infinite regress.
Distance is a relationship of entities, not a metaphysical primary. Here's a relevant quote I found last week while reading Relativity by Albert Einstein.
Italics originalIn this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and on the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic view-point. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept "empty space" loses its meaning. -
Thanks for posting this. I haven't watched the whole video (yet), but I watched the last few minutes as you suggested. I may be psychologizing, but watch from 1:24:53 to 1:27:50 and look at the difference in the facial expressions of Epstein vs. Schiff. While Epstein is talking, Schiff is generally (almost unfailingly) attentive and appears to be focused on Epstein's content, he wants to respond, but waits until Epstein is finished. Epstein, on the other hand, doesn't look at Schiff and seems to be in a generally dazed state broken by bursts of facial contortions when Schiff states something with which he doesn't agree.
This is definitely pscyhologizing, but it seems that Epstein doesn't want to be there and exhibits automatized responses to concretes stated by Schiff; he's not evaluating Schiff's comments as a conceptual whole.
I certainly don't mean to say that the validity of a person's argument can be discerned by their body language, but this debate reminded of the two times I was able to see Dr. Yaron Brook talk. There is an emotional value to be gained by watching someone speak to a point with which you rationally agree, and to have the logical concord reinforced by the emotional experience of their voice and body language - especially when juxtaposed with the logical and emotional opposite.
-
I’ll lay my cards on the table—Ayn Rand and her followers have given me the creeps since high school. Rand herself always looked to me like Lotte Lenya’s Rosa Krebb in From Russia with Love, and her disciples like extras from Village of the Damned.
Sounds like my least favorite type of person. I work with a guy who would rather argue by flaunting his knowledge of movies and literature via similes/metaphors than by actually putting forth rational points.
-
Sorry for the lack of references; I'm replying from my phone...
I think "action" is nearly synonymous with "change", but from the point of view of, or at least with particular attention paid to, an entity changing or effecting change. It seems to me that common connotations of the word are wrapped up with volition, which we know is not necessary for action.
If a moving cue ball collides with a stationary 8-ball, you can say with equal validity that either:
- the cue ball acts by stopping and acts on the 8-ball, causing it to move, OR
- the 8-ball acts by moving and acts on the cue ball, causing it to stop.
Either description is right, as long a one realizes that neither ball caused the changes independently of the other.
Dr. Peikoff's definition is probably best, because the concept of action is so close to the perceptually self-evident. I'm having trouble forming a more thorough definition.
-
One word: RUSH.
Agreed - and I'm surprised none of the people who mentioned Rush songs mentioned Anthem.
-
I think you missed his point. It sounded like he was saying neither lying nor killing in self defense is wrong.I was indeed...
This is what I thought upon first reading the post, but then I couldn't figure out why you would include the first two sentences.
The Nature Of Broken Units
in Member Writing
Posted
And what are the units of a concept, if not their characteristics? An entity is its attributes. Existence is Identity. You can't have units without all of their characteristics.