Vik
-
Posts
258 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Vik
-
-
Cognitively, propositions apply concepts to particular problems.
What is the psycho-epistemological function of propositions? They seem to help "document" the nature of the mental connections one needs to make and maintain. They seem to help ensure attention and manage the crow. I'm wondering what else they do. And I'm wondering what fundamental function explains the most benefits.
Any psychology majors out there?
-
21 hours ago, happiness said:
In a field of interest to me, it's common for people make arguments like "the empirical evidence shows such and such" and proceed to ascribe their uncontrolled observations to whatever cause they want. Isn't all evidence based on observation, and aren't uncontrolled observations not really evidence at all?
I read a question on Quora today that asks what would happen if children were raised with "empirical science" instead of religion. I was going to answer by saying that all science is empirical, but then it hit me that philosophy isn't—is it? So while all physical science is empirical, the statement I was going to make would not be true. Correct?
Some people use "uncontrolled observation" to refer to how researchers examine responses of people without properly recording behavior. In THAT context, "empirical evidence" could include the product of guessing based on superficial similarities (non-essentials).
Now obviously that woozy kind of thinking should NOT be grouped together with precisely valid conceptual identification. So I have to wonder whether "empirical evidence" is a package deal.
I would want a tree of conceptual identifications. I would want to know how to move, step by step, from perceptible changes to their alleged "observations" (which are actually the end products of a long, complex process of identification). I would want to know how they used their conceptual abstractions to reach their "observations". I expect that such information would help me detect invalid concepts or errors of identification.
-
I wonder whether anyone here in the forum has gathered material for producing a better definition of "quality" than what I've seen elsewhere:
The ordinary dictionary definition of "quality" is a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something.
Latin scholastics translated Aristotle's "poion" as "quality" but Joe Sachs translates poion as "of-this-kind" and emphasizes that poion should NOT be thought of as synonymous with "quality".
Anything along these lines would be helpful.
-
On 12/22/2015 at 10:18 PM, Plasmatic said:
Vik I posted this paper in your other thread but it is relevant here too:
I spend a lot of time on the topics you are addressing. Particularly the quantitative-qualitative distinction you are hovering over. Will have some input to come.
I haven't thought much about "quality".
I wonder whether anyone here in the forum has gathered material for producing a better definition of "quality" than what I've seen elsewhere:
The ordinary dictionary definition of "quality" is a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something.
Latin scholastics translated Aristotle's "poion" as "quality".
Joe Sachs translates poion as "of-this-kind" and emphasizes that poion should NOT be thought of as synonymous with "quality".
-
19 hours ago, Plasmatic said:
Only time for this:
Vic said:
Seriously? Yes it does!
to which she said "certainly"
Bricks are perceptible but the question is about the imperceptible constituents being granted the metaphysical status of entities.
She answered that it is possible for an entity to be composed of constituents which are themselves also entities. That does NOT say whether there are imperceptible entities.
And seconds later, she said that an entity is that which you perceive and which can exist by itself.
As for her remarks on ultimate constituents, I think you should look over these:
Pg. 291:
QuoteIf you use macroscopic terms which do not apply on that level, the misapplication will destroy all your perceptual level and your whole conceptual structure.
Pg. 293:
QuoteYou cannot say philosophically what conditions you will ascribe to that which is not known. We cannot know by what means we will grasp something not known today. A hundred years ago you couldn’t have conceived of the cloud chamber, the first instrument by which scientists could observe atoms simply by observing their effects on something. You couldn’t have made the rule that unless you can touch, see, smell, and measure a given entity with a ruler, it cannot exist. That would have been crude materialism of some kind. You couldn’t, a hundred years ago, have prescribed the means by which you would discover twentieth-century knowledge. And yet in making any kind of conclusions about the ultimate stuff of the universe, you are necessarily committing that error. You are prescribing conditions of what something not known to you now has to be.
In the face of that, what do you now think she's saying below?
pg. 264:
QuoteFor example, is it in principle possible for a perceptual entity to be composed of constituents which are metaphysically themselves also entities, such as a brick wall with the individual bricks also retaining their status as entities?
AR: Certainly. What about human beings? Heads, arms, and legs can be cut off and they are entities. But I was speaking here in the context of entity as against attribute or action. Actually, I was speaking here in the Aristotelian sense of the primary “substance”—which is a very misleading term, but what he meant was that the primary existent is an entity. And then aspects of an entity can be identified mentally, but only in relation to the entity. There are no attributes without entities, there are no actions without entities.
An entity is that which you perceive and which can exist by itself. Characteristics, qualities, attributes, actions, relationships do not exist by themselves. -
On 12/24/2015 at 8:59 PM, Eiuol said:
What do you mean by subtler parts then - do you mean a threshold would only make sense if a subrange exists near absolute zero, say?
http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-gas-goes-below-absolute-zero-1.12146
This sort of thing is why we shouldn't try to apply an equation outside of its conceptual context. (Kelvin scale was established in part by the Ideal Gas Law, which was formulated on the basis of knowledge of matter under MUCH warmer conditions)
Whatever CCD unites what's "above" and "below" the theoretical "Absolute Zero", we need to form concepts appropriate to THAT sub-range of temperatures.
I would like to see more people trying to figure out what happens near the theoretical "Absolute Zero".
-
1 hour ago, Plasmatic said:1 hour ago, Plasmatic said:
Making mountains from mole hills would be taking the word "perceptible" and then treating everything else she said about entities as though it didn't matter.
ITOE said
This is why its a bad idea to not consider everything an author said about a subject.
The perceptible part is just to stress the ostensible nature of first level concepts.
Bricks are perceptible. They are NOT imperceptible.
What you quoted says nothing about whether "entity" can be imperceptible.
QuoteIf you think Rand advocated using "entity" to mean ANY "primary" physical existent, perceptible or not, you will need to show me the exact context in which you think she used the term that way, you will need to convince me that your interpretation is right, and you will need to convince me that it is more appropriate for philosophy of science than what she stated above.
-
7 hours ago, Plasmatic said:
ITOE saidAt NO point in those quotes did Rand say that there are imperceptible entities. And again, on page 246, Rand stated explicitly that an entity is what you can perceive.
QuoteQuoteWe have no right to act as if electrons are like the separable parts of a table.
We have every philosophical right
I told you several things about electrons that are NOT true of tables. You CANNOT apply everything you know of tables to "electrons".
Rand advocated showing how "electron" acts in such a manner on atoms which act in such a way on molecules and so on ultimately resulting in perceptible entities -- which is EXACTLY what I advocate.
Quote"abstraction from abstraction" is a description of what human substantial entities DO and a concept of method is not a valid category for
I never said that an electron was a concept of method.
Furthermore, not all abstractions from abstractions produce concepts of method. Rand was crystal clear on how concepts of method work in Concepts of Consciousness.
I said that we cannot blindly attribute to electrons what we attribute to perceptible entities because they are on different levels of abstraction.
Quotethe science that discovers what KINDS of entities there are and how they act
If you want to re-define the concept of physics, you're going to have to show me how this is a characteristic, let alone the fundamental one.
QuoteElectrons are "theoretical entities" and that means we use concepts to explain hidden causes.
Is this your definition of "theoretical entities"?
QuoteA realist philosophy of science does not hold that electrons are abstract constructs but a discovery of an existential cause via induction.
I'm not going to bother debating whether Objectivism implies a realist philosophy of science. It seems like there are as many versions of realism as there are realists and anti-realists.
But I'm happy to name some contentions which might make discussion more productive.
I hold that the concept of "electron" has referents in reality.
I hold that we can discover an aspect of what it is to be an effect under investigation.
I hold that the concept of "electron" can be used to identify an aspect of a perceptible change under investigation.
I hold that conceptual identification involves a process of measurement-inclusion.
I hold that the concept of "electron" can be used to explain macro-scale change by identifying an aspect of the macro-scale change through a process of measurement-inclusion.
QuoteQuoteIf you think Rand advocated using "entity" to mean ANY "primary" physical existent, perceptible or not, you will need to show me the exact context in which you think she used the term that way, you will need to convince me that your interpretation is right, and you will need to convince me that it is more appropriate for philosophy of science than what she stated above
Objectivism holds to an "Entity based causation"
Of course.
QuotePhilosophy tells us that "to be is to be an entity" (where "be" is referring to metaphysical primaries).
This needs clarification and support.
QuotePhysics tells us what kinds of entities there are and how they act.
You need to concretize this.
QuoteThe onus is on you to show me anywhere Mrs. Rand claims that there are actions, relationships, or processes that are not OF entities in the "primary" sense.
I noticed you didn't quote the essential phrase "perceptible or not".
I'm going to put it back:
If you think Rand advocated using "entity" to mean ANY "primary" physical existent, perceptible or not, you will need to show me the exact context in which you think she used the term that way, you will need to convince me that your interpretation is right, and you will need to convince me that it is more appropriate for philosophy of science than what she stated above
QuoteYou will also have to show me that you can use ANY concept meaningfully that is not derived from perception.
Why? Every valid concept is derived meaningfully from perception. I have no desire to use invalid concepts.
QuotePhilosophers of science know this debate and have tried to find a semantics that can make "non material entity" meaningful. You cant do it with Oist semantic theory!
Do you think it's necessary to talk about a non-material entity?
I have yet to see why we would need such a concept.
QuoteYou also cannot justify the current dualist view of light with an objectivist epistemology.
Are you trying to bring up wave-particle duality?
QuoteWe do not run experiments to determine what "entity" means!
I never said that we do.
I have repeatedly referred to Rand's definition:
QuoteAn entity is that which you perceive and which can exist by itself. Characteristics, qualities, attributes, actions, relationships do not exist by themselves.
What I said was that we shouldn't be in a hurry to call every imperceptible existent an entity.
An existent is something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute, or an action.
QuoteLength does exist in reality, only it doesn’t exist by itself. It is not separable from an entity, but it certainly exists in reality. If it didn’t, what would we be doing with our concepts of attributes? They would be pure fantasy then. The only thing that is epistemological and not metaphysical in the concept of “length” is the act of mental separation, of considering this attribute separately as if it were a separate thing.
How would you project a physical object which had no length? You couldn’t. And therefore if to say it is epistemological rather than metaphysical is to say it exists only in relation to your grasp of it, or it requires your grasp of it in order to acquire existence—it doesn’t. Surely, if anything is metaphysical, attributes are.I emphasize: Attributes DO exist in reality.
QuoteCan you get from identity to causality without the concept "entity" in the primary sense?
Can you demonstrate that some concept we form about something imperceptible implies an imperceptible entity with all the properties that perceptible ones do?
Because that's what under discussion. NOT causality as the law of identity applied to action.
-
Rand said:
QuoteWhen you talk about discovering the ultimate constituents of the universe, remember that in order to discover them, no matter by what calculations or by what machinery, you had to bring them to your perceptual level. You would have to say "this particle" is that which acts in such and such a way on subatomic particles, which act in such and such a way on atoms, which act in such and such a way on molecules, and all of that results in a material object such as this glass as distinguished from other material objects such as this ashtray. Unless you bring it back to the perceptual level, it's not knowledge.
This is what I mean by having to "traverse a suspension bridge of knowledge" every time you try to interpret an observation.
-
7 hours ago, Plasmatic said:
Vik said:
But you are disputing that the primary-metaphysical status of the concept entity is objective. You just don't realize it yet. See my response in the "electron" thread.
I said that I was using "entity" to mean what Rand meant.
If you try to use "entity" to mean something else, you're going to have to tell me what you're talking about.
-
8 hours ago, Plasmatic said:
louie said:
And I have dealt with this claim extensively when you did so. Object and entity are synonyms in both the "primary sense " and in the "derivative sense" the only two sense Oism holds to. Your failed to give a differentia for you supposed category distinction.
Rand explicitly stated that an entity is perceptible.
-
2 hours ago, Eiuol said:
I don't see why a quantitative threshold implies anything more subtle, unless there are phenomena near a threshold which cannot be explained by existing concepts or by behavior of existents you're aware of. Then again, it might not be due to a subtler constituent, it may be something unique about the existent itself or an interaction effect.
If one side of the quantitative "threshold" cannot be explained by what is currently known, must there be some sort of activity responsible, regardless of whether or not there are subtler constituents than those observed? What does it take to conclude that some activity unites both sides?
-
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 2nd edition pg. 264:
QuoteAn entity is that which you perceive and which can exist by itself. Characteristics, qualities, attributes, actions, relationships do not exist by themselves.
Rand is absolutely right to ground concepts of entities in what is perceptible within the context in which this quote appears. All other concepts are traceable to concepts of perceptible entities so she MUST advocate this definition here.
Historically, many false scientific theories have resulted from people trying to treat imperceptible constituents of matter as if they had the same properties as perceptible entities. I have no desire for anyone to repeat such a blunder.
Furthermore, we know of things that are too different from perceptible entities for us to dare use the concept. If you try to fire electrons one after another at a double slit, you get a wavelike pattern of arrival sites on the screen behind the double-slit. If you shine a light on whatever has just passed through the slits, you get two dense rectangles of arrival sites on the screen. If you feel really perverse, you can condense valence electrons into a certain state by means of a magnetic field at low temperatures. Then you have to say that you did NOT find whole-number charged things but instead found things with fractional electron charges.
The concept of electron is an abstraction from abstractions. We have no right to act as if electrons are like the separable parts of a table.
As for scholarship:
If you think Rand advocated using "entity" to mean ANY "primary" physical existent, perceptible or not, you will need to show me the exact context in which you think she used the term that way, you will need to convince me that your interpretation is right, and you will need to convince me that it is more appropriate for philosophy of science than what she stated above.
-
34 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:
Vik said:
Here again it seems that there is a category problem. All existents are entity dependent. There are no substances that are not instantiated by entities. There are no generalizations that are not attributable via reduction to entities.
It's mandatory to focus on perceptible categories because all the concepts applied to imperceptibles are derived from perception. There is no class of predicates that are semantically excluded from this epistemic fact.
Edit: I do realize that you said :
"Whether or not the entities responsible for a specific effect are known, there is something acting in a certain manner.
Any concept we form on the basis of concepts of entities can be applied to those kinds of entities going forward."
I do NOT dispute that every valid concept is reducible to perceptual-concretes. I do NOT dispute that all concepts rest ultimately on a concept of entity.
I'll re-cap before going forward:
- Every time you try to interpret an observation, you have to traverse a suspension bridge of knowledge until you reach the concept of the effect you're trying to learn about.
- Man is NOT immune to error at any level of abstraction.
- It takes time to validate a link.
- The longer the suspension bridge, the more links you have to validate.
- Man can only hold so much in his mind at once, despite the unit-economy gains from concepts.
My question is about efficiency. If you're trying to select an effect to investigate, is it better cognitively to focus on concepts as close to the perceptual level as possible to minimize the time spent validating links?
-
The concept of weight is a concept of a relationship.
-
A volume of mercury in a tube having uniform cross-section records temperature expands or contracts to some level.
We know WHAT is moving: the mercury.
We know that two things can be equal in measure of temperature despite their different compositions,
And let's pretend we don't know about chemical atoms. We'll pretend our conceptual context goes as far as "pure substance" and "subdivision". So we'll say we know mercury is divisible on the perceptible scale, but we don't know what happens if you keep trying to divide a sample of the stuff.
Do we have sufficient grounds for applying the concept of "activity" in some small way even if we don't know what pure substances were made of or how they gave rise to expansive motion?
For example, is it proper to ask: "What imperceptible activity is giving rise to perceptible motion?"
In other words, is it proper to conclude: "We know there is SOME kind of activity giving rise to the expansive motion, but we do NOT know what is happening on an imperceptible level."
-
49 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
The 10° C should be a shared quantitative relationship. The measurement-inclusion is along the axis of X° C, where a ° C is spread incrementally across the span referencing the freezing and boiling point of water (later incorporating an altitude) divided into 100 equal parts using a volume of mercury in a tube having a uniform cross section, along which the increments are specified. The range of the inclusion would be ascertained by the solid/liquid/vapor state of mercury.
Unless, of course, we're all referencing something completely different.The use of "shared" is throwing me off. I wouldn't say that two things "share" weight or "temperature". I'd say they are equal in weight or equal in temperature.
Is there a better term for this?
-
3 minutes ago, Vik said:
what it is to be made of parts subtler than entities and what that means for causal inference.
For additional clarity: We have concepts of constituents BECAUSE we have concepts of entities.
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
What do you mean by subtler parts then - do you mean a threshold would only make sense if a subrange exists near absolute zero, say?
Ordinary liquid phase of water and ordinary gas phase of water are separated by a mere degree. That's a dramatic qualitative difference for the price of a tiny quantitative difference.
If you plot that special temperature for every ordinary pressure, you will find a sharp boundary between liquid phase and gas phase. That is a quantitative "threshold".
In order to explain how liquid can become gas, you'll have to find some characteristic (of the constituents) differing quantitatively between the two phases.
Question:
Does the discovery of a quantitative "threshold" imply the existence of parts subtler than what is perceived?
Towards an answer:
In order to determine that, we will have to know something about what it is to be made of parts subtler than entities and what that means for causal inference.
After all, we take great pains not to neglect this in our thinking:
QuoteAn entity is that which you perceive and which can exist by itself. Characteristics, qualities, attributes, actions, relationships do not exist by themselves.
-
> It looks to me you're wondering if two things share a measurement of a particular type, is it sufficient to say that the same measurement reflects a quantitative relationship that both things share. So, if object A is measured as 10 degrees celsius, and object B is measured as 10 degrees, it is sufficient to say both objects share a quantitative relationship.
No, I'm saying that you apply a concept through a process of measurement-inclusion.
-
5 minutes ago, Vik said:
To illustrate how to deal with "Absolute Zero", I will have to do some hierarchical reduction.
Part of the antecedent knowledge for understanding the Kelvin scale includes all knowledge antecedent to the Ideal Gas Law. (In this context, I'm using "antecedent knowledge" to refer to that knowledge which is less abstract, historically earlier, and without which the more advanced knowledge could not have been attained)
The Ideal Gas Law was formulated by applying various concepts about units within a certain "sub-range" of temperatures and pressures. (By "sub-range", I mean a range that is narrower than and within the range of the CCD)
Do we need new concepts for cases "close" to the theoretical Absolute Zero? Scientists have implied "yes":
The concept of a "superfluid" (frictionless fluid) was applied to helium below 2.17 K.
The concept of "Bose-Einstein condensate" (single quantum state) was applied by JILA at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1995 to some behaviour they observed which was uncharacteristic of ordinary solids.
I say "theoretical" Absolute Zero because it lies outside of the context of how it was defined.
-
20 hours ago, Eiuol said:
It looked to me that Vik was asking about a threshold by which to measure such that anything past some point of measurement will lack a certain attribute at all. Absolute zero is an example, and Kelvin is used to measure that. It serves a particular cognitive function, and also important is that it's a measurement of an object itself. I was not saying the border is whatever you'd like it to be.
To illustrate how to deal with "Absolute Zero", I will have to do some hierarchical reduction.
Part of the antecedent knowledge for understanding the Kelvin scale includes all knowledge antecedent to the Ideal Gas Law. (In this context, I'm using "antecedent knowledge" to refer to that knowledge which is less abstract, historically earlier, and without which the more advanced knowledge could not have been attained)
The Ideal Gas Law was formulated by applying various concepts about units within a certain "sub-range" of temperatures and pressures. (By "sub-range", I mean a range that is narrower than and within the range of the CCD)
Do we need new concepts for cases "close" to the theoretical Absolute Zero? Scientists have implied "yes":
The concept of a "superfluid" (frictionless fluid) was applied to helium below 2.17 K.
The concept of "Bose-Einstein condensate" (single quantum state) was applied by JILA at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1995 to some behaviour they observed which was uncharacteristic of ordinary solids.
-
> Weight is invariant with respect to shape. Also two things can weigh exactly the same despite being composed of different materials.
The conceptual context at that stage is: entities, attributes, actions, relationships, weight. Anything outside of that context is beyond the scope of what we can conclude.
The questions are:
Does the concept of quantitative relationship get activated by these facts? Or not? I'm not trying to apply any other concepts at that THIS stage of knowledge but the concept of quantitative relationship. And I'm trying to apply the concept of quantitative relationship to entities.
If the concept of quantitative relationship DOES get activated, can we or can we not say that weight is a quantitative relationship, even if we don't know much else beyond that at that stage of knowledge?
-
> However, since entities are their attributes how could the ontological-qualitative differences not be relevant? Likewise, without the qualitative differences we would have no differentia, no foil epistemically.
A pound of oranges and a pound of apples will balance a scale.
In forming the concept of weight, can we leave unspecified the materials as if they were measurements?
the psycho-epistemological function of propositions
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Louie, I'm thinking about the interaction between the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious. I'm thinking about the subconscious as an integrating mechanism. I was specifically thinking of how propositions help maintain focus and attention, but I didn't want responses to be restricted to only that.
Psychology matters to the extent that they are using epistemologically proper methods. Cognitive psychology has a bit to say about "concept learning", i.e. gaining the knowledge of how to apply a particular concept correctly, e.g. knowing what it is to be a triangle to correctly determine whether a particular thing has a qualifying aspect.
But I haven't found anything in cognitive psychology on what propositions do for problem-solving, working-memory, and so on. I've only found stuff on "personal epistemology".
I didn't bother with linguistics because the cognitive role of grammar is already evident to me. (BTW I recommend Leonard Peikoff's lectures on grammar and an old book entitled Writing and Thinking by Foerster and Steadman)
I'm glad about how much Objectivist writings cover. Ayn Rand remarks that a concept can be said to stand for a number of propositions. And she knows that a proposition applies a concept to something particular in a "determinate" way. Harry Binswanger devotes a chapter of How We Know to the nature of propositions.