dream_weaver

It is pretty obvious that you are not convinced. Reading a text, is not going to make anyone effortless out-think anyone. As to your reasons for leaving Objectivism, lurking on a forum developed for Objectivism for nearly four years, it brings to mind a variant that one's actions speak so loudly, it is difficult to hear what is being typed. Things tend to dissolve when put into a liquid, not under a microscope. If you're examining Miss Rand's writing with a microscope, you might consider a large print edition. While you are being metaphoric, your selection of concepts to convey that metaphor certainly back up your opening statement about the theory of concepts. Without a theory of concepts, identifications of "floating abstractions", "invalid or stolen concepts", have been cast aside as semantics in my past, and this by a man who had gone to a seminary to become proficient at hermeneutics.

Returning to the earlier evaded point: Learning how to validate one's concepts, and how to relate them hierarchically and contextually to the perceptually given is not a skill that is taught in today's society. Yet it is precisely this skill required to anchor one's thinking to reality, to double check the validity of the concepts involved and by extension to ensure that one's propositions are in alignment with what may be induced from observations, and establish the criteria and methods of proof. By submitting a statement which asserts that an object which cannot be demonstrated to exist via the aforementioned methods reveals the arbitrary, the absurd, the invalid. Those who argue about God for either a living, or for free on an Objectivist forum demonstrate that they have not grasped the necessity for a reality based theory of concepts to guide their rational faculties.

Grames post a concise summary in this thread entitled Primacy of Existence. Please note that the Primacy of Existence cannot be proven (deduced), rather it is induced from the observation of the facts your consciousness provides you with of existence every moment of your life. Edited to add

Do any of these developments include any discourse on their theory of concepts?

Another argument ad nauseam.

Is it a problem? No. The arbitrary requires no response. As you become more knowledgable of Objectivist literature, you come to understand that it is not about refutation.

As in this case, the threads which have been propagated which assert the existence of god(s) are predominantly started by non-objectivists. An Objectivist who has cultivated a theory of concepts which are premised based on a solid epistemological basis premises have no need for such arbitrary assertions.

The two quotes that could be searched from "outside" near "universe" yeilds the following: and

Physicists Store Antimatter Atoms for 1,000 Seconds Part of the quest to understand something requires the ability to study it. Previous attempts to contain antimatter have provided less than a second to make observations. It appears that a little more study time is now on the horizon.

The last paragraph: Our cognitive processes operate “at a very high level of abstraction,” the authors write. And those abstractions may apply in similar fashion to all kinds of thinking—in numbers, words, or perhaps even music. The cognitive processes start with the role of the senses, according to Peikoff. Determining how the cognitive processes operate requires many abstractions from abstractions. A very high level of abstraction certainly suggests the distance this understanding would be from the perceptual level. It might be clearer if it stated, we identify the principles discovered of how the cognitive processes operate, and those principles may then apply in similar fashion to all kinds of thinking. The use of abstractions comes across awkwardly in the last sentence. Mathematics being largely implicit in language has me wondering if some day it will be discovered that language is actually the sub-field. Edited

Be It Numbers or Words – The Structure of Our Language Remains the Same “The structure of a math equation correctly solved is preserved in memory and determines the structuring of a subsequent sentence that a person has to complete.” Neuroscientists have found evidence suggesting a link between math and language,, “but this is the first time we’ve shown it in a behavioral setup.” Who would have guessed. And from the Psychological Scientists to boot. Miss Rand pointed out in 1966, forty five years ago: "With the grasp of the (implicit) concept "unit" man reaches the conceptual level of cognition, which consists of two interrelated fields: Conceptual and the Mathematical. The process of concept-formation is, in large part, a mathematical process." Did she forget to appeal to evidence?

Galt's Speech and the Notes While Writing Galt's Speech are referenced as well. This appeared more relevant to your question.

I was not aware of that nuance.

I found this doing a search for zero near worship on the Objectivism CD.

Looking at my earlier comments in retrospect, the neurological processes referenced show a metaphysical basis for difference and similarity on the perceptual level that conceptual consciousness then uses as the raw materials to build with.

5. Designate the class with a word that serves as a perceptual-symbol to retain it in your mind as the mental-entity which is related to (derived from, refers to) the particular(s).

Would these be considered physiological processes, or strictly neurological? In regard to perception then, difference and similarity is "given" or automatic.

If the government would steer clear of regulating the insurance business, would the insurance companies have raised the flood coverage in high risk areas high enough to discourage individuals from deciding to build in such a potentially hostile flood-prone environment? The dilemma that is being faced is one that has been exacerbated by years of 'well-meaning' intervention, without grasping the scope of the influence of that intervention.

Wayne, You have been added to my quote of the day in my Franklin Planner Software. I would like to have voted you +1 on this, but it is not available as an option. Nice categorization and contrast.

Matress stuffing, I forgot to include that one.

Focus! (O'Sensei Frost) Ikken Hissatsu. (One blow, one kill.) Dot your i's. Cross your t's. The gold owner makes the rules. (He, who has the gold, makes the rules.) Would'a, could'a, should'a . . . or, 'Hindsight is 20/20.' God helps those who help themselves. Who protects us from our protectors? (Who will protect us from our protectors?) The response to a sign a building in Ohio near I-75. "Jesus is the answer." "What was the question again?" Over six words: Say what you mean. Mean what you say. I love my country but I fear my government. If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Egoism is the ethical base of Objectivism. As such, it is based on what each individual chooses as a value for themselves, why they choose to value it, and to delegate the effort to achieve it. Every individual must do this for themself. The application of reason to the problem of survival results in production. DDT nearly eliminated malaria on the planet. When individuals choose something other than reason to guide their activities, causality dictates the results. Can the basis for the banning of DDT be fully and objectively validated? Capitalism is the system of abundance. Do those who use poverty to generate tears for their support advocate capitalism or socialism as their proposed solution? Empathy is something that is earned. The price is friendship and loved ones. For the rest of the world out there, the price of reducing needless suffering is simple. Think.

That water freezes, is liquid, or boils is directly perceived. As Harriman pointed out, Newton or Galileo when it came to the ball rolls when pushed can only appeal to look and see for yourself. Water freezes when placed in a freezer. Look and see. Ice in a glass on the table melts into a liquid. Look and see. Water boils when heat is applied. Look and see. The 32°F and 212°F points as well as the hydrogen bond are further refinements of knowledge, application of the relationship of temperature supplimenting the observation, or principles discovered via chemistry in the case of the hydrogen bond. I realize that I am pointing out what Harriman pointed out as causal axioms, but it is the only portion given in the direct observation. The latter is inferred, or inter-relating to other perceptually based abstractions or abstractions from abstractions.

Miss Rand's point, quite cogently.

Harriman states at the conclusion of chapter 1 that deduction essentially takes the conceptualization process for granted, that the conceptual issues are resolved. Induction, however is the process of concept formation in action. Asking a person how they formed a particular concept tends to take them off guard. At the same time, instead of offering an explaination, and then being peppered with a series of "well, what about this and what about that" - the challenge to have them tie their concepts back to the perceptual level, perhaps for the first time in their lives, can expose them to Rand's method of concept formation while truncating futile debate over issues that tend to be merely polemical in nature. Nicely stated Eiuol. added