New Buddha

Thomas, I'm actually more in agreement with you than 13. But you and 13 both seem to stumble in your arguments in not being able to separate conceptual ideas from the perceptual mechanics that support them. My posts #287 & #290 attempted to interject a discussion of perceptual mechanic into this post. Below is an image taken from the web site Graphic Design: The New Basics This study illustrates the interface between the perception of tension and the conceptual understanding of tension (the string is the tensile element in the composition, while the nails are resisting tension through compression transferred to the sheathing). You can feel the objective, visceral tension in the image. You can feel the "pull" on the strings. You can imagine what would happen if you took scissors and cut the strings -- they would snap violently! The capacity to perceive this tension is directly tied to the neurological capacity to empathize with other living organisms. Evolution gave us (mammals and birds) the capacity to perceive if someone is tense (shoulders ARE in tension when someone is tense). Bodies also express if we are angry, happy, tired, frightened, etc. I want to be clear that the above study does not become "art" if one throws a frame around it and hangs it on a museum wall. Non-representational painting does exactly that. It focuses on such ideas as tension, anxiety, coolness, etc. (states that can be objectively perceived) and tries to elevate them to the level of art. I just found the web site, but it's similar to the basic design studio's I had while studying architecture in the mid-80's. If you take a look around the web site, you'll see how fascinating design can be and may gain a better appreciation of the role it plays in the production of art.

Is good art "perceptually self-evident?" Is this the objective level at which art is judged?

Regarding the work of Germoe. It's interesting that someone would put forth, as a defense of the Romantic Manifesto, a work from the Ecole des Beau-Arts. This is exactly the type of work that Howard Roark fought against. It's the type of work that would have looked perfect mounted above a fireplace designed by Peter Keating.

Daniel, My line should have read "Evolution does NOT seek to disprove ID". Sorry for the confusion. It is not necessary that Abiogenesis be part of the theory of evolution. The fact that we do not understand the origin of life does not preclude us from studying organisms -- including how they change over time. The theory of evolution is enormous, covering multiple disciplines -- and there is no one carved-in-stone THEORY OF EVOLUTION. If you were to ask 10 scientists to define evolution, you would get 10 different answers. New ideas are constantly being raised, accepted, and/or discarded. Your statement from above, "ID cannot be disproved by the evidence but evolution could be." This is not the strength of the ID hypothesis, but rather it's weakness. And gaps exist in the theory because modern science is still very much in it's infancy. We have gaps in ALL the sciences. Can you name one single science without gaps?

Thomas, there is nothing "lower" about the emotional centers of the brain. Without the ability to read emotions (empathise) a mother (human, bird, dog, etc) could not know that her offspring is frightened, or if a predator is hungry and poses a danger - and no one could enjoy any form of art. Without those centers, a person is little more than a psychopath. I stated above that aesthetics is "based upon" an "almost" pre-conceptual level of cognition. Yet you read into my post that it is "merely some reactive response...." This is not my position. And yes, architecture can be appreciated on many levels. For example, Wright's Fallingwater. I can appreciate how Wright employed vertical stone as a compressive element which physically anchors the cantilevered horizontal, reinforced concrete terraces. Stone excels in compression but has little tensile strength, while steel reinforced concrete can resist tensile forces when cantilevered. This dynamic interplay of compression vs. tension and solidity vs. plasticity was further exploited by the roughness of the stone vs. the smooth, plastic nature of the concrete. The appreciation by viewers of the interplay of the many dynamic elements employed by Wright occurs at a cognitive level that many cannot put into words. And a good artist exploits this "reactive response" in the viewer. This is true in all the arts.

Before debating what constitutes good art (or architecture, dance, music, etc.) it is useful to understand why we would have the discussion in the first place. Meaning, what is the underpinning of the aesthetic experience? My 25 year study of architecture has led me to understanding that aesthetics is based upon the neurological capacity to sense, at an almost pre-conceptual level, the "state of mind" of other living organisms. This is based primarly upon the structures located in the limbic system of the brain, a structure which is shared by both mammals and birds -- but not found in reptiles, fish or amphibians. When this neurological capacity is CONSCIOUSLY directed towards non-living objects, such as architecture, music and non-representational art, we are still capable of projecting a "state of mind" on to those objects. These states of mind can be enhanced by a cross-modal association of similar traits (i.e. openness, confinement, light, dark, rough smooth, bright, cool, etc.). The associations are capable of triggering emotive responses in us every bit as real as when we respond to the emotions projected by living organisms.

"My "faith" in ID is completely based on the invalidity of evolution. If evolution could work in theory or in practice I would have no reason to argue for ID." Evolution does seek to disprove ID. Evolution does not claim to explain HOW life began, but rather only seeks to describe how organisms change over time through various genetic and environmental mechanisms. What does disprove ID is the inability to provide a non-contradictory definition of ID which does not violate the law of identity. You are ascribing far more explanatory power to the theory of evolution than it's most ardent supporters would ever dream of doing.

"Anyway just because we don't know who designed life doesn't mean we will never discover the designer....." This is the fundamental problem with your argument. Unlike ID, evolution does not postulate some "unknown" driver in it's attempt to understand the evidence it has been presented with. Is the theory of evolution complete? No. It it without flaws and gaps? No. But focusing on the holes in the theory does not strengthen your argument for ID. And this has been your entire debating tactic in this thread.

Daniel, I'll ask again. Please give me some physical, testable, replicable evidence of ID so that I can determine if it offers a better explanation than evolution. And by the way, I agree with you that statistics is not a way to agrue for or against evolution (or ID).

You're changing the subject (again). First you deflected my original question with a question, then you deflected my response to your deflection with another question. You asked (as part of your second deflection) if I would be open to rejecting evolution in favor of ID, and I said yes -- if there is evidence in support of ID. And I mean that. Logically, your response should have been to provide me with that evidence. But this you did not do. Can you please provide me with the evidence? Or will you now create a third deflection?

"Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to conclude that evolution is not a valid hypothesis?" Yes, I would be open to rejecting "evolution" if I had evidence of ID.

My question was very clear and simple. Is there ANY evidence that would cause you to conclude that ID is not a valid hypothesis? If not, then any discussion with you would be a waste of time. Nothing would ever change your mind.

Daniel, What evidence would convince you that "intelligent design" is not a valid hypothesis?

Does Objectivism hold that the use of force in self defense is moral? Yes. But Objectivism also holds that the use of force is always destructive, and should always be the last resort. Objectivism is a philosophy of creativity and life. It does not celebrate the use of force.

I'm assuming you've read Atlas Shrugged? As a demonstration in the novel of Rands ideas on causality, remember when John Galt was held captive, and his captors were trying to "force" him to save them? They realized at that moment in time that they truly have no power to influence the behavior of other things - either living or non-living. Things behave according to their nature. Rand's unique and original position on causality is one of the most important aspects of her philosophy -- and one of the hardest to grasp. It's implications are profound and form the bedrock of her ethics.

Rand was also communicating the contradiction in "using" violence to achieve a goal. Many operate under the delusion that they can force the behaviour of others. She demonstrates in her writings on causality that this is not the case. In every instance, the person that is being "forced" to do something still has a choice available to him - to resist or die trying. This is the metaphysical power and truth behind her concept of the "sanction of the victim". We could all refuse to pay federal taxes tomorrow, but most of us do not because we don't want to face the unpleasant consequences of doing so. No one in the government truly "forces" us to do so. If you believe that you, as an initiator of force actually "cause the response in others, you would be mistaken on a casual level.

From ITOE: In the process of determining conceptual classification, neither the essential similarities nor the essential differences among existents may be ignored, evaded or omitted once they have been observed. .... For example, if one took the capacity to run as man's essential characteristic and defined him as “a running animal,” the next step would be the attempt to eliminate “non-essential” distinctions..... It would appear that there is a hierarchical relationship between essential and non-essential characteristics that transcends a given context. Meaning that there is something about an existent that most distinguishes it from all other existents, and not just within the context of comparison with a set of dissimilar existents.

From ITOE: An essential characteristic is factual, in the sense that it does exist, does determine other characteristics and does distinguish a group of existents from all others;.... From this, I've taken it to mean that an existent's essence is not contextual – but rather that it is finite, measurable and unconditionally knowable. Since all existents are composed of only a handful of elements, I believe that essence is observed in the behavior of an existent. “Characteristic” is behavior. Behavior is essence/identity. Behavior is understood conceptually, but can be known through direct observation, and in this sense is non-contextual.

Does Objectivism hold that essence is contextual? Would this not lead to the statement that Identity is contextual? I'm not disagreeing with you, that essence is contextual, but I'm not sure that I've seen it stated explicity in the literature.

I come back to my previous question: What is "sodium"? Sodium is not protons, neutrons and electrons -- because every element is composed of these. Sodium is not it's "atomic weight" -- which differs little from all the other elements. Rather, sodium is what we call the element that behaves the way that "sodium" behaves. It's behavior IS it's identity (and essence). Where I believe I differ with Objectivism (as I understand it) is that I'm not convinced that it's possible to state, in propostional form, what the "essence" of something is, since it's "essence" is all the many possible behaviors available to it (and this ties to Thomas's other post). I am however (through the validity of the senses) able to state with unqualified certainty that one thing is not another. A is not B. I belive this to be the basis of objective knowledge and that it ties in neatly to Objectivism's position that knowledge is contextual. That something is what everything else is not.

Here is what I'm trying to get at: Suppose I walk into a science lab and I see two objects sitting on a table. I may not know what those two objects "are", but I know with unqualified certainty what they are not i.e. they are not the table, the chairs, the window, the ceiling, and one is not the other. I can assign a word to them such as "object A" and "object B" but "A" and "B" are not their identity. It's not until I pick them up and begin to push buttons, hold them up to light or sound, shake them, etc. that I begin to get some understanding of their identity – and their identity is directly tied to their behavior and interaction with other things. In fact their identity might be said their behavior, and nothing "more". I qualified this last sentence because I'm still working on these ideas. I'm still trying to keep to this tied to your original post....

I do understand Objectivism well enough to know where I'm veering outside of it. Also, I'm not trying to abuse the rules of the forum by presenting these ideas. The issue I always struggle with is identity – example: what is “sodium”? I seem to keep coming back to: “sodium is not helium, is not boron, is not uranium.... is not a car, is not a cat, is not running, is not jumping....”. I believe that Rand states somewhere that essence is that characteristic which most differentiates one thing from all others. I take from what I believe to be a logical extension of that statement that “a thing is what every other thing is not”. I don't know if this is a restatement of the contextual nature of knowledge, or something else.

Thanks Steve, my background is architecture, not physics, so I was out on a limb in my description of atomic weights. I hope I didn't mangle the issue too much. Thomas, I've been toying with the idea that Identity can best be described not with the axiom A is A, but rather with A is not B (or C or D....). Knowing what something is NOT is a valid statement of it's identity. Perception seems to tell us that one thing is not another thing. This is true of two very different things (a car and a horse) and it's true of two similar things (this car and not that car). With the axiom A is not B, it's not necessary to exhaustively identify or define what something is to know something about it. At the perceptual level something is ostensibly not another thing. We may not know “what it is” but we do know what it is not. (This is not That). I hope this does not seem too far off topic. It also ties in to another post you had about whether or not a causal sequence can be seen as “one thing”.

At the atomic level there does not appear to be much difference between one element and another. Each element is composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. Their only "difference" is the number of their constituent units (their weight). What makes sodium different from all the other elements is not so much it's weight, but rather it's "behaviour" -- that is how it interacts with other elements. It's "action" appears to be it's identity. Could this not also be said to be true at the macroscopic level? That a thing's behavior is it's identity?

Regarding what I think is the original topic of discussion, I've had the question in my mind that if I'm on an asteroid, and another asteroid collides with mine, did "my" asteroid cause the collision or did the other one? Perception would tell me that the other one ran in to mine, but knowledge would tell me that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It would be perception, not physics, that would state that one was the "cause" of the action observed. Is this what you are getting at Thomas?