Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Posts

    5208
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    202

Everything posted by dream_weaver

  1. 400 replies in this thead to date. Obviously answering EasyTruth resurrection of an idle topic has taken a back seat to roasting whYNOT. <sarcasm intended>Sad. Such an objective approach to handling disagreement.</sarcasm> In the spirit of Charles Ives, and The Unanswered Question . . . Would you consider it suicide? As far as I can see, both questions highlight the difference between the somatic application and volition as it applies to the conceptual faculty.
  2. Just got done cutting the grass to the tune of "Basic Logical Theory" by Leonard Piekoff. There are two contexts of volition at play in this thread being applied from two different sciences. The autonomic and somatic is something no pre- or non-conceptual consciousness would be aware of. With regard to the knowledge of a non-conceptual consciousness, would either of the two advocates of prefacing non-conceptual consciousness with volitional consider the critter capable of making an error with regard to exercising any of the choices offered thus far?
  3. To elaborate more on the choices available, when nature presents it with prey, it can pursue it or not. If it pursues it, it can select from the "arsenal in its toolbox". Drawing upon episodic recollection may guide it in its selection. Presented with two or more prey to "select" from, episodic recollection may provide guidance, in both cases provided it is part of the cognitive package nature provided the always what has remained a hunter-gatherer lifestyle it has not been able to alter generation after generation.
  4. So both uses of preconceptual in that passage are referencing human preconceptualness. In other species, there appears no conceptual realm. So to extend a minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of an animals senses, that is going to result in the perception that is automatically provided by them. An animal sees, hears, tastes, smells and feels the immediacy of the moment. It is an integrated cognition that can provide it the awareness of entities, without the awareness that it is entities of which it is aware of. The extent of what can be done with such cognition is delimited to the nature of the particular animal at that point. The self-generated motion, without a sense of self has to be based on the environment. The power to alter the environment is limited to its particular nature.
  5. Another paragraph relevant to the one posted from the appendix to ITOE earlier. This is from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 17 May 21, 1973, The Missing Link--Part II I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent. But a certain hypothesis has haunted me for years; I want to stress that it is only a hypothesis. There is an enormous breach of continuity between man and all the other living species. The difference lies in the nature of man's consciousness, in its distinctive characteristic: his conceptual faculty. It is as if, after aeons of physiological development, the evolutionary process altered its course, and the higher stages of development focused primarily on the consciousness of living species, not their bodies. But the development of a man's consciousness is volitional: no matter what the innate degree of his intelligence, he must develop it, he must learn how to use it, he must become a human being by choice. What if he does not choose to? Then he becomes a transitional phenomenon—a desperate creature that struggles frantically against his own nature, longing for the effortless "safety" of an animal's consciousness, which he cannot recapture, and rebelling against a human consciousness, which he is afraid to achieve. For years, scientists have been looking for a "missing link" between man and animals. Perhaps that missing link is the anti-conceptual mentality. I note the preface of hesitancy to discuss volition on the preconceptual level in the ITOE reference. Why the need to qualify the second preconceptual reference with infant? Surly it is not to segregate infants from adult chimpanzees. Why the hesitancy to discuss volition on the preconceptual level at all? The minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of [a human infant's] senses - as in contrast with what extemporaneously omitted delivery? An animal has no conceptual consciousness that has been demonstrated except for perhaps a couple of extreme borderline cases. Borderline cases are generally exceptions to the rule and indicators of some deeper underlying factor.
  6. Some personal notes from the following recording https://youtu.be/HtXQTVYrBuQ State of awareness, Faculty of awareness. Form/Object distinction 19:00 Awareness in terms of concepts is volitional. "Awareness as volitional at the conceptual level." 50:00 Perception as distinct from visualization (visualization, which unlike perception, is fallible) This point is not addressed by Ayn (Alissa) Rand (Rosenbaum) (1905-1982), but is by Greg Salmieri and Aristotle of Stagira, Greece (384BC-322BC). What perception is and isn't, and why perception cannot be wrong. Visualization is the perceptual projecting of how an object will act or respond based on prior perceptual knowledge of it or similar objects. Visualization is the perceptual projection of how an object will act or respond which is based on one's prior perceptual knowledge of it or like objects. An animal which jumps around in trees, say a chipmunk, has landed on branches of various sizes before throughout its life. In each case they perceived how they supported him. This is an example of perceiving causality. The animal jumps, it lands, the branch, the branch bows, it feels it bow, and it feels the rush of the wind in its face, it feels it spring back: and what it is doing is perceiving the branch supporting it.
  7. For those who have a searchable CD, the term "volitional" brought to light the following passage from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in the Appendix—Abstraction as Measurement-Omission: [A]lthough I hesitate to talk about volition on the preconceptual level—because the subject isn't aware of it in those terms—even a preconceptual infant has the power to look around or not look, to listen or not listen. He has a certain minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of his senses. But volition in the full sense of a conscious choice, and a choice which he can observe by introspection, begins when he forms concepts—at the stage where he has a sufficient conceptual vocabulary to begin to form sentences and draw conclusions, when he can say consciously, in effect, "This table is larger than that one"—that he has to do volitionally. If he doesn't want to, he can skip that necessity, and you can observe empirically that too many people do, on too wide a scale. I would contend, per the Salmieri lecture referenced earlier, that certain "low hanging fruit" of causal connections are likely provided for by instinctive means. You might find an interesting introduction into a genetic approach to the domestication of animals in this link.
  8. People are capable of holding false beliefs. The tenets of Objectivism "speak" for themselves. Volitional, conceptual minds make their own characters. Per the law of excluded middle, the higher animals, excluding man, are either volitional or they are not. I think of Francisco line to James Taggert prefacing his request to be properly and formally introduced to his bride.
  9. Between the insults and failure to identify common ground to precede from, and now stretching into 14 pages to be used as a shining example for whom, about what? I don't see the lions and tigers and bears frittering away their time bickering about their position on such matters. I would suggest that the animals chose otherwise, but I know better. Positions have been indicated. Are you (collectively) not men enough accept that an impasse has been reached, that minds may not be changed on the basis of what has been presented? This is not the first issue that the charge raised that Rand is deficient on. Rand would also declare that you not take her say so on matters, but to identify the relevant factors within the scope of your own capacity.
  10. Clearly animals use the results of perception for bodily movements. A reformulation, or a supplement? Again, no disagreement here. What science guides physiology in drawing their conclusions? What state is that science currently in? Are those the only suggested alternatives? Perception is automatic. I have no issue with an animal having the capacity to automatically act on its perception. It acts within the scope of its instincts, and each successive generation has continued to bear this out. I'm more inclined to wonder about the physiologist's epistemic justification for his conclusions, especially with the weight volition provides to the morality inferred on being right or wrong on the matter.
  11. Man's consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. The pre-conceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional; volition begins with the first syllogism. Man has the choice to think or to evade—to maintain a state of full awareness or to drift from moment to moment, in a semi-conscious daze, at the mercy of whatever associational whims the unfocused mechanism of his consciousness produces. From page 15 of my paperback edition of For The New Intellectual, highlighted, the portion that is central here. The nonconceptual level of consciousness is nonvolitional by extension.
  12. With the restrictions placed on the producers in the past year, I did hear once the notion to take government to task for deprivation of property without compensation. On the other hand, many handouts where extended, some across the board, some to first come first served, and some by submitting the request in writing. The looters currently cloak theft by repackaging it and are abetted in the process by the current philosophic climate. The Eddie Willers' in this context ring of the Dave Mitchems' of the world, again, show up to work, do their job, and hold a vague sense of justice, sense something is not quite right, but the struggle to put it into perspective keeps taking a back seat to the immediacy of any distraction of the moment that competing for attention.
  13. HBTV-6: The use and misuse of experts Judge for yourself. (1:07:00) So, did I make this up? (Rhetorical inquiry.) As this thread drifts into page 12, my inquires drift more toward what Greg Salmeiri is exploring in his presentation of Preliminaries - Objectivist Epistemology in Outline: Lesson 1 in particular as he touches base at around 19-20 minutes, distinguishing where the level of volition begins and later expanding with an example of a chipmunk leaping to a branch deemed by experiential knowledge of a 'expectation' that it conform to previous experiences at the 50-60 minute mark.
  14. HBTV-6: The use and misuse of experts Judge for yourself. (1:07:00) Still the philosophic payoff is yet to be tendered here. Is volition philosophic or a matter to be delegated to the realm of microscopes and corpuscular dissection and comparison?
  15. Before Plato (citation would be needed), plants had not been considered alive (as a life form.) Plato had observed that they move and grow, albeit rooted in place, hence they were alive. Ayn Rand had cats. She accepted the damage they can inflict on their surroundings as part of the "price" of owning them. I wonder if the archives or some of the inner circle recollect if this discussion of volition arose in their midst. An example in Harry Binswanger's "How We Know" referenced a horses foal being able to walk at birth (or very shortly thereafter—think within hours.) He disagrees with the sensory stage in human development. While cell's act to live, the process is innate. A continuum exists in many considerations, but if volition is introduced at the conceptual level, where is the conceptual continuum in the tree of life. Nervous systems carry signals originated by volition in man. Why couldn't a similar nerve structure also carry signals by non-volitional means in other animals. The lion, looking at the potential prey, and by innate means, identify and chase the one likely to serve as lunch by an instinct that serves it in such a matter. There is a video of a polar bear that comes on a pack of sled dogs where the two breeds go into a stage of play for the camera that recorded the encounter. I consider this fringe or marginal, not the black and white clear cut example needed to base principles upon for deeper development. So far Merjet, you've offered interesting biological studies that may be lost on my philosophical inquiry. My cat gives me pause to wonder at times about its capacity for volitional behavior, but in general it has acted pretty consistently for the five years it has had to persuade me otherwise.
  16. In the episode Who Mourns for Adonais, a gods strength was measured by the quantity of its followers. The Roman goddess Libertas, or her Greek predecessor Elutheria, do not need to shrug under such a premise. In J.R.R. Tolkien's book, Gollum's possession of the ring of power had generated whispers of a shadow growing in the area of the mountain he was harbored within. Note the focus on the gods, placing them at the center of interest, the object of veneration and love, provides the metaphorical increase in power and influence. When the 'god' is made to be the loss of liberty, its degradation, its erosion — to what would the conversed 'metaphorical increase' apply? Yes, what goes on in the world need be taken into consideration. There is also the the adage regarding one finding what one seeks, i.e.; if one is focused on finding negative, is it any surprise that negative is found?
  17. The most insightful article on QAnon dealt with game theory, of the stones on the floor that many gamers considered an arrow. Many gamers spent time seeking to understand what that programmer had never intended as a clue. Creating Christ: How Roman Emperors Invented Christianity outline James Valliant's and Warren Fahy's quest for the origins of a religion that has had an incontrovertible had influence on the course of history. L. Ron Hubbard is the author and instigator of Dianetics and Scientology. Thanks to some investigative reporting, Ron Watkins has been traced as an origin of 'Q-Level Clearance leaks'. How many 'movements' can be traced back to their origins? Karl Popper pontificated about how difficult some conspiracies are to keep secret, while others can persist for generations. Hopefully the thread that runs loosely through these also bind them somewhat together. The play on words "Q" gives rise to in existing cultural entertainment and can contribute to the amusement we indulged in flitting from Q of James Bond to Q of Star Trek: Next Generation, to John de Lancie who plaed Q, to a role he played in Murder, She Wrote that has been playing an a screen by pure intention, compliments of the local public library here. Hopefully this will help place some of this into better perspective.
  18. For a while it was if QAnon had gone dark. Early June, Real Clear Science resurrected Karl Popper regarding the conspiracy theory of society. With regard to Q, the discovery of a Ron Watkins is a rare find in a movement that has gained the degree of notoriety attributed to QAnon. And to think L. Ron Hubbard signed his name to many of the tenants he put forward.
  19. Given the efforts to foist the point here, the anthropomorphic explanation continues to provide the most salient grasp. Years ago I discussed with someone about plant growing toward the sun as evidence for having a sense organ. Sometime a conclusion gets in the way being able to keep the final arbiter's say on the matter in perspective. What's the philosophic payoff on this matter?
  20. When John de Lancie materialized on an episode of Murder, She Wrote, the implications you bring up here make me wonder if you're in cahoots with the Q-man himself.
  21. Interesting. This establishes a clear distinction between self-initiated motion and the application of volition to the arena of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition. In this context, a resort to the principle of two definitions is appropriate with the distinction drawn between volition as applied extrospectively to the observable self-initiated motion contrasted against the introspectively observable self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition. Such leaves the animal kingdom free to volitionally repeat their self-initiated motions generation after generation while mankind demonstrates his difference by applying volition to the self-initiated motions available to him in the cognitive realm.
  22. By all means. Pursue the intent.
  23. Point taken. She obviously set a distinction by contrasting a volitional consciousness to what would have to be implied as an instinctive consciousness. Perhaps better stated as a volitional conceptual consciousness contrasted with the animal mind amounting to "here now tree", "here now food", "here now master." If the intent is to apply it solely to man and how it relates to his conceptual faculty as set apart from the animal, it is difficult to square with her usual precision and particularization with the English language.
  24. I would say thanks for pointing that out, but I think I alluded to that already.
×
×
  • Create New...