Where does A is A come from?

[agrippa1]

I'm not questioning the source. I'm saying I agree that a fluid is not an entity.

If one has a block of solid ice, that is an entity. If it melts and runs all over the place, it is no longer an entity. If the block of ice sublimates, it is no longer an entity. Neither the puddle of water nor the water gases are acting as one thing. In a secondary sense, one can say that the puddle is an entity, in the sense that one can mentally isolate it from the dry areas of the floor, but it is not one thing. Likewise,if the gases tend to stay in one certain area, say near the floor if it is cold, then one can mentally isolate the fog from the clear air, but the fog is not an entity, except in the secondary sense of the term "entity."

Both the water and the fog are something, as opposed to being nothing, but neither is an entity.

Okay, so what about glass? What about caramel? What about honey? What about maple syrup? Where, in the spectrum of viscosity, do you draw the line between entities and "secondary" entities (whatever that might mean). I assert that the distinction based on "fluidity" is arbitrary and evades the principle of what an entity truly is.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'll quote myself from my post:

Where in that do you find me claiming that attributes exist with entities?

Could you please provide a definition of "primary" and "secondary" in this context?

I'm not real good with floating abstractions.

Thanks,

~A

[Robert J. Kolker]

Could you please provide a definition of "primary" and "secondary" in this context?

I'm not real good with floating abstractions.

Thanks,

~A

See Aristotle 2b 6-7. A primary substance is something that cannot be said of another substance. Which is to say that it is not a genus. It is a particular in itself. In the Greek a this (meaning -this- thing in itself and not dependent in being or meaning on another thing). An ontologically or logically prior object (sometimes Aristotle conflates ontology with semantics or semiotics). He elaborates on this matter in -Physics- and -Metaphysics-. Aristotle does a lot of heavy lifting concerning these matters in Book VII (Zeta) of his Metaphysics. Be prepared to sweat a bit.

Bob Kolker

Edited December 22, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yes, I believe I'm being rational, but no, the conclusion is merely one of the two conclusions to which a rational resolution of the contradiction leads. The other is that anything which has perceivable attributes is an entity. And that is the conclusion I chose, by putting principle above example and checking again for contradictions (do you see any?).

<snip>

* This assumes that we have the same concept in mind when using the term "rationalistic": "The doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience."

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but the two bolded entries above are saying the same thing.

The following is an example of rationalism:

Things made of matter do not have free will

Man is made of matter

Therefore man does not have free will

Even though this is "logical" in the sense of not being internally contradictory, going by the facts (example and experience) man most definitely has free will.

You are starting at a mid-level conceptualization when you say that an entity is something that has attributes, and therefore if something has attributes therefore it is an entity. Starting at the perceptually self-evident level, one perceives entities and then must abstract out the attributes; not the other way around. Entities are given in perception -- a cup, a glass, a candle,etc. -- getting to the mental isolation of its attributes is a level higher than perception.

[Marc K.]

I find it funny that this thread has continued to grow.

Agrippa: you have managed to get Thomas to argue with you about the specific nature of entities when you haven't even acknowledged that entities exist!!! As attested to here:

I see you're holding on tenaciously to the entity as the irreducible primitive of perception, although I see some cracks.

By declaring the primacy of entity is self-evident, you are eschewing any need to prove your point of view. I accept that, logically, but I remain skeptical of the asserted principle.

In order to make any sense of the questions you're asking we would first need to know what your fundamental view of reality is.

Is it: Primacy of existence or Primacy of consciousness;

do you think that existence exists, that there is one reality and that it exists independent of consciousness, that consciousness perceives what actually exists?

OR

do you think that reality only exists in the mind, that the mind constructs the reality that we see, that there is no one objective reality, that reality is different for each person?

If you need perceptual proof, just open your eyes; if you need conceptual proof, just try to frame an argument or say a sentence without accepting that existence exists.

If this question seems pedantic to you, your answer is not so obvious to me, because of what you say below (with emphasis added):

I believe Rand, in her hatred of Kant, may have overshot the mark when attacking his philosophy, and in doing so rejected his premises and any possibility of a causal (and thus vulnerable) processing chain between reality and perception, when in fact she only needed to recognize the weak links in his logic to reject his conclusions.

Are you leaving open the possibility of some sort of feedback loop in which one's consciousness can alter reality?

Also, I think you should be careful about challenging the logic of Ayn Rand's position when you have admitted that you don't know her position.

[agrippa1]

I find it funny that this thread has continued to grow.

Agrippa: you have managed to get Thomas to argue with you about the specific nature of entities when you haven't even acknowledged that entities exist!!! As attested to here:

In order to make any sense of the questions you're asking we would first need to know what your fundamental view of reality is.

Is it: Primacy of existence or Primacy of consciousness;

do you think that existence exists, that there is one reality and that it exists independent of consciousness, that consciousness perceives what actually exists?

OR

do you think that reality only exists in the mind, that the mind constructs the reality that we see, that there is no one objective reality, that reality is different for each person?

If you need perceptual proof, just open your eyes; if you need conceptual proof, just try to frame an argument or say a sentence without accepting that existence exists.

If this question seems pedantic to you, your answer is not so obvious to me, because of what you say below (with emphasis added):

Are you leaving open the possibility of some sort of feedback loop in which one's consciousness can alter reality?

Also, I think you should be careful about challenging the logic of Ayn Rand's position when you have admitted that you don't know her position.

Okay, these are fair. Entities exist. Existence exists. Reality is the source of all sensory inputs.

All entities have attributes and are identified by them. Attributes can not exist without entities.

Here's my problem with entities being primary, from the beginning of perception (i.e., birth or in utero): perception of an entity (which is being defined here as an object in reality, made of matter, with a definite boundary) requires the brain to organize the inputs of rods and cones to perceive the boundaries that define an entity. If the brain, at the moment of first perception, is able to make assumptions about the relative positions of the individual rods and cones input signals, in order to perceive shapes, it means that at that instant the brain must know the nature of the geometric relationship inherent in those neural entry points (into the visual cortex). This implies that the brain must know something, at least about itself, prior to the first input of sensory perception. This is a contradiction. To resolve the contradiction, I posit that the brain receives what appear initially to be random neural inputs from all its senses. It begins correlating movements, shapes, etc. to create a model of reality that is consistent with its sensory inputs. As we gain experience in resolving the sensory inputs into entities, we transfer that function to a subconscious so to the adult it is as if we just perceive entities. We perceive the attributes of entities and the entities themselves seemingly simultaneously.

I back this up on two fronts:

First, that it is impossible for us to make positive assertions about first perceptions by looking at our adult perceptions.

Second, that I believe I've shown at least two examples of conscious integration of heat and taste sensations into entities.

The feedback question is interesting, because there certainly is a "feedback loop" in which consciousness can alter reality. It's called "action." (But, no, perception is unidirectional from reality to the mind)

[Robert J. Kolker]

How does the child differentiate the entities from the rest of its perceptual field without already knowing what an identity is?

Here is a possible start.

Purely arithmetic processes can identify (or at least detect) boundaries. Consider a discretized field (basically a faithful mapping of the retinal output onto the primary visual cortex). Do a second order difference operation (basically a discrete Laplacian) combined with a threshold function. Boundaries will stick out all by themselves. The arithmetic operations can be done by non conceptual automata structures in the brain.

I used this technique a lot when I designed terrain tracking algorithms for cruise missiles back in the pre-GPS days. They worked fine. The blew up targets with a ninety percent or better kill ratio.

Now is a machine can spot the boundaries, why can't a living brain. Cats are better at it than we are and they are pre-conceptual.

Bob Kolker

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

This thread has continued mainly between Agrippa1 and myself, because I think it is a fascinating topic -- and besides, the other threads I'm participating in aren't very active. What fascinates me about it is it becomes obvious past a certain point that someone's mind can be directed with accepted thoughts, and be directed away from the perception of reality, such that it takes a tremendous effort to get someone to LOOK before they think (or to base their thoughts on what they perceive, as the given). It's very frustrating dealing with someone who insists on starting in mind-stream -- like the arguments I used to get into with some people who didn't think we had free will -- because I keep telling them, "Just make an observation!" and they simply don't know how to do that. It's kind of like they are trapped within their own mind and can't get out to reality, when all they have to do is to look (extrospectively or introspectively). And, I don't know, sometimes I just want to tell them what Aristotle said about the same type of people: They don't need philosophy, what they need is perception. In other words, past a certain point, arguments become futile. If you are not going to take what is right in front of your face as the given, then I'm beginning to believe that no argument will win you over. But, it's difficult for me to accept that; since I don't like to give up on people -- especially people who are intelligent. However, I cannot direct their minds.

In short, Agrippa1 (and some others), I probably cannot resolve your confusion. I've tried, but I don't know where else to go. You are confusing the automatic functioning of physiology with philosophy. How the rods and cones are connected to the brain and how it all works is a fascinating topic in and of itself, but we don't have to know any of that in order to perceive existence. It is not the knowledge of rods and cones that led to perception, but rather perception that led to the discovery of rods and cones. We did not have to figure out how it all worked before we opened our eyes and saw the world before us. It worked; it did what it was biologically meant to do -- enable us to perceive existence via vision. That's it, that is as far as philosophy goes on this topic. We perceive. Our mind does not create the reality that we perceive; it exists and we perceive it. It's the given, the starting point of all knowledge. But if you are not going to start there, then your mind is just going in circles internally.

So, take a first-hand look at reality, and build up your knowledge of Objectivism from there. Eventually, your confusions will sort themselves out, though it will take some effort.

[agrippa1]

Here is a possible start.

Purely arithmetic processes can identify (or at least detect) boundaries. Consider a discretized field (basically a faithful mapping of the retinal output onto the primary visual cortex). Do a second order difference operation (basically a discrete Laplacian) combined with a threshold function. Boundaries will stick out all by themselves. The arithmetic operations can be done by non conceptual automata structures in the brain.

I used this technique a lot when I designed terrain tracking algorithms for cruise missiles back in the pre-GPS days. They worked fine. The blew up targets with a ninety percent or better kill ratio.

Now is a machine can spot the boundaries, why can't a living brain. Cats are better at it than we are and they are pre-conceptual.

Bob Kolker

Yeah, I'm wrong in my last comments about integration of random inputs. There must be a processing element already present in the visual cortex that recognizes boundaries for us, just as the eyes focus light from reality onto sensing cells. These, in addition to the tactile, taste, smell, and hearing senses, provide a means of sensing physical interactions of reality. This all implies an innate "understanding" of the nature of reality, which has been evolved in humans over millions of years to optimize our ability to efficiently perceive. How do we consider the long-term (multi-generational) impact of perception, trial and error on our sense organs? Can we consider this a sort of "meta-perception" that has guided the evolution of our sensory capabilities and has provided us with the equivalent of experience regarding the nature of reality? (There's a trap there, in that it leaves open the possibility that other factors of human behavior, beyond perception, might be innate, though ["self-evidently"] ruled by a volitional, rational mind.)

So, if we perceive boundaries, further auto-processing could reveal shapes, and further could reveal 4-D entities directly to our perceptive consciousness...

Okay, I'll buy that we could perceive entities directly through visual inputs, and that discerning attributes could require conscious deconstruction of our perceptions. (But I still hold that the other senses present attributes that we can only transform into entities through conscious effort.)

That's it for me. I'm way over my head philosophically, and I need to go learn some basics, including terminology. Thanks, ~A

[Marc K.]

Attributes can not exist without entities.

Here's my problem with entities being primary [...]

Do you see a problem here? In one breath you positively affirm the Primacy of existence and in the very next breath you question it. Which is it? Let us focus on this question before we delve into your scientific description of how vision works (which I think is in error).

For future reference, you need to be very precise with your wording and I know that sometimes it is hard but there is far too much anthropomorphizing going on here:

requires the brain to organize [...] If the brain [...] is able to make assumptions [...] the brain must know [...] the brain must know something [...] I posit that the brain [...] begins correlating [...] to create a model

Perhaps that could be explained but the explanation becomes much harder once you change perspectives from that of a biological organ to that of a rational, volitional human being:

As we gain experience in resolving the sensory inputs into entities, we transfer that function to a subconscious so to the adult it is as if we just perceive entities.

This may have been the one place where "As our brains" would have worked better than "As we" since perception is automatic/the given.

As if? So we don't actually perceive entities? What is it that we actually perceive?

We perceive the attributes of entities and the entities themselves seemingly simultaneously.

You're still struggling here. We perceive entities. Then we identify their attributes, which is a volitional, conceptual act.

I back this up on two fronts:

First, that it is impossible for us to make positive assertions about first perceptions by looking at our adult perceptions.

Why not? Isn't this what you were just doing?

The feedback question is interesting, because there certainly is a "feedback loop" in which consciousness can alter reality. It's called "action." (But, no, perception is unidirectional from reality to the mind)

But you don't think we can actually alter reality by just thinking about it though, right?

[agrippa1]

Do you see a problem here? In one breath you positively affirm the Primacy of existence and in the very next breath you question it. Which is it?

Are you saying here that entities equate to existence, but attributes don't?

Attributes cannot exist without entities. Entities cannot exist without attributes. We sense entities through their attributes (their reflection or emission of light being the main one).

The process of perception is: An entity exists. It has an attribute which is emission or reflection of light. We receive the light (not the entity) reflected or emitted by the entity. The reception of light into our senses causes our brain to surmise the existence of the entity. We don't "re"-"ceive" entities, we "per"-"ceive" them, that is, we take or grasp them "through" something, that something being the process of sensory input.

In electronic warfare, radar reception (a strong analog to vision) can be spoofed by intentionally misleading emission of EM energy. Can I spoof your perception in the same way? Apparently: Holographs create a spoofed appearance of an entity where there is only a microscopic interference pattern. Television spoofs your vision with light patterns generated artificially on a phosphor screen by accelerated electrons. Do the entities in the holograph exist? Do the football players on my TV exist there? To my perception, the answer seems to be: yes. In "reality" I know that the answer is: no. And I don't need high tech to make this point: I can create the illusion of an entity with attributes where there is only pigments mixed with oils, spread on a cloth. How does a painting create the perception of an entity? By presenting similar attributes to the perceived entity. Similar enough so the mind is tricked into perceiving the entity.

So if two entities with similar sensed attributes, but with completely different states of existence, can be perceived identically, are entities really primary, or is the perception of entities based on the primacy of their attributes?

I don't know the answer...

In my last post, I distanced myself from these prior musings and admitted that perception of entities is a valid concept, and that we probably don't "learn" how to perceive entities, but simply perceive them directly into our consciousness. But this perception requires an automatic translation of received light into perceived entities, which implies an innate "knowledge" of the nature of entities (i.e., that they have boundaries to detect, "colors", 3-D presence and shapes). An evolutionary approach to this could be taken, that is, that the brain randomly evolved ways of translating sensory inputs into useful perception of reality, with the evolution guided by the relative efficacy of each perceptual development. Any contradictions between perception and reality would be eliminated through natural selection. Over hundreds of millions of generations, the process created a perceptive model that closely reflects reality. In that approach, the innate "knowledge" would have been developed over many million years and provided to each of us encoded in our DNA.

I was wondering if anyone had a take on this question, or if it considered in any of the literature. Or if it considered outside the bounds of philosophy, because it requires special sciences.

By the way, I admit I'm anthropomorphizing to work through a conceptual process, but I'm doing so about the human brain. Is giving man's brain human characteristics really a violation of logic?

Edited December 27, 2007 by agrippa1

[Marc K.]

Attributes cannot exist without entities. Entities cannot exist without attributes.

This is your main problem so let us settle this and then maybe someone else will comment on your further musings.

Attributes are attributes of entities. So obviously attributes cannot exist without entities.

However, since attributes are identifications made by a consciousness, entities can most certainly exist without attributes. Remove the consciousness and identification and attribution is no longer possible.

The Universe existed long before man observed or identified it.

Existence is primary not consciousness.

[agrippa1]

attributes are identifications made by a consciousness

Okay, I'm with you on attributes. I was smearing into the term the concept of sensation, or the source of sensation. I think I see the mistake now. Thanks.

(edit to reduce quote)

Edited December 28, 2007 by agrippa1

[agrippa1]

Okay, I'm with you on attributes.

The tumblers just clicked on a big chunk of this - no need to answer the other musings...

Thanks again.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

However, since attributes are identifications made by a consciousness, entities can most certainly exist without attributes. Remove the consciousness and identification and attribution is no longer possible.

I don't think it was your intention, given what else you said about entities existing regardless of consciousness, but the statement above is a primacy of consciousness approach to attributes. Even though one needs eyes and processing equipment of a certain type in order to perceive, say, the red of a ripe apple; this does not mean that the eyes and the optical processing created the red. Attributes are aspects of the entity -- aspects of what they are, an aspect of their identity. They exist whether or not there is someone there to perceive it and / or recognize and conceptualize it. A blind man, for example, cannot perceive the red, but that does not mean that the fully sighted person created the red by looking at the apple. In order to have that specific form of perception one needs eyes of a certain type, but the attribute is there even to the blind man, only he can't see it. In other words, if you want to put it in scientific terminology, the apple is radiating (due to reflection) certain wavelengths of light, and those are there even if no one is seeing it.

It's sort of like the tree falling in the woods argument: Does a falling tree make a noise in the woods if no one is there to hear it. Well, it all depends on what you mean. Sound waves are definitely generated, but if by hearing one means a consciousness capable of picking up the sound waves, then that isn't happening. But it doesn't mean that the ear hearing the tree falling created the noise. Likewise, attributes are there all of the time while the entity exists, even if no one perceives them.

Similarly, we cannot perceive ultraviolet, though it is thought that bumblebees can. The fact that man cannot see ultraviolet does not mean that there is not an ultraviolet pattern on some flowers that bees can perceive.

[agrippa1]

I don't think it was your intention, given what else you said about entities existing regardless of consciousness, but the statement above is a primacy of consciousness approach to attributes.

(WARNING: I just started reading ITOE, and have been hammering chapter one against my skull the last couple of nights.)

I pondered this issue in my sleep last night and woke up with a conclusion similar to Thomas':

Reality is the absolute. "Entity" and "attribute" are concepts implicit in our percepts of reality. So while the thing that an entity is and the aspects of that thing, which we conceptualize as attributes, exist in reality, it takes a consciousness to ascribe the concepts "entity" and "attribute" to them (with "action" being another existent associated with a thing).

The problem I see here is mainly semantics. Before I even knew who Ayn Rand was (about a year ago), I was working on a multi-layered awareness stack (from "reality" to "truth"), trying to explore the entire process of situational awareness (application being command and control common operating pictures). I quickly ran out of terms and/or ascribed new, specific meanings to existing words. Similarly, I think we've run out of words before we've fully differentiated the relevant concepts here.

In this case we are using the words "attribute" and "entity" to describe two separate concepts (each):

Entity is used to mean the concept of "entity" implicitly ascribed by a consciousness to an existent thing. It is also used to mean the existent thing itself. To claim that they are one and the same is to simply smear the meaning of the word across two concepts. That's not to say that the "entity" in our conceptual framework doesn't correspond to the "entity" in reality, only that there is a distinction that the conceptual "entity" requires a consciousness, while the existent "entity" does not. [edit] Also, I believe, the conceptual "entity" is not limited to a specific thing existent in reality, while the existent "entity" is.[\edit]

The same can be said for the dual meanings of "attribute," as Thomas points out above.

I think my own confusion with this led to a lot of bad logic and conclusions on my part, and this new understanding has allowed me to finally see that entities are the primary concept, implicit in the child's perception of an existent thing. Attributes follow, allowing identities to be ascribed, then finally units, the building blocks of rational thought. Sensory inputs, the "source" of all of this perception, are not conceptualized until much later, and while included in the sensory mechanism feeding perception, are not conceptual elements of perception.

Edited December 28, 2007 by agrippa1

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

In this case we are using the words "attribute" and "entity" to describe two separate concepts (each):

Entity is used to mean the concept of "entity" implicitly ascribed by a consciousness to an existent thing. It is also used to mean the existent thing itself. To claim that they are one and the same is to simply smear the meaning of the word across two concepts. That's not to say that the "entity" in our conceptual framework doesn't correspond to the "entity" in reality, only that there is a distinction that the conceptual "entity" requires a consciousness, while the existent "entity" does not. [edit] Also, I believe, the conceptual "entity" is not limited to a specific thing existent in reality, while the existent "entity" is.[\edit]

I can see how you are kind of moving in the right direction, but one must be careful. We do not perceive concepts, nor do we perceive the world via concepts. In other words, we are directly aware of the entity and its attributes via perception; it is not as if we perceive something before our mind (a concept) that we then have to interpret as having something to do with reality.

The entity exists, and we perceive it. The concept "entity" refers to the conceptualization that entities exist and are independent of consciousness. That is what the concept denotes or points to in reality. So, there are not two entities, one in reality and one in our mind, that the term "entity" refers to.

An easier way of seeing this is by going back to my Coke can exanple. Before you know what it is called, before you know what it's name is, you perceive it; and you do not need any conceptualization of it at all in order to be able to perceive it. You look and you see it. That is an entity. It exists idependent of any consciousness being aware of it, once it exists. However, the concept of the Coke can or the concept of that qua entity does require a consciousness. Concepts are formed by a consciousness and do not exist without a consciousness. The Coke can, once made, exists even if no one is aware of it.

In other words, concepts are a creation of the mind, and without a mind they do not exist. The entities or attributes or actions of those entities exists regardless of anyone or anything being cognizant of them.

[agrippa1]

We do not perceive concepts, nor do we perceive the world via concepts.

I agree. I think we are on the same page wrt this...

The entity exists, and we perceive it. The concept "entity" refers to the conceptualization that entities exist and are independent of consciousness.

I quibble with this, slightly. I think the fact that entities are independent of consciousness requires the concept of "consciousness," which is not required to perceive an existent thing and apply its implicit concept "entity."

Rand refers to three stages of awareness: The sensory stage (an infant's "undifferentiated chaos"); the perceptual stage, in which "a group of sensations [is] automatically retained and integrated by the brain"; and the conceptual stage, in which "the (implicit) concept 'existent' undergoes three stages of development in man's mind," from undifferentiated "entity," to differentiated "identity," to integrated "unit."

Without reading ahead, it seems that a fourth stage (or phase of the conceptual) should be made for the point at which man recognizes concepts as concepts. Until that point is reached, I would think that man is unaware of consciousness as a concept, and unable to reach a logical conclusion that reality is independent of his consciousness, or that there is a reason to consider such a possibility.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think the fact that entities are independent of consciousness requires the concept of "consciousness," which is not required to perceive an existent thing and apply its implicit concept "entity."

<snip>

Without reading ahead, it seems that a fourth stage (or phase of the conceptual) should be made for the point at which man recognizes concepts as concepts. Until that point is reached, I would think that man is unaware of consciousness as a concept, and unable to reach a logical conclusion that reality is independent of his consciousness, or that there is a reason to consider such a possibility.

No, the fact that existence exists is not dependent on the concept of consciousness. It is a fundamental fact of existence that your consciousness does not control it. One may be aware of that or not, but the fact is still there. For example, a witch doctor or other types of mystics believe that their consciousness can control existence, but that doesn't happen no matter how much they believe it.

And consciousness -- the existence of consciousness -- is an axiom, which means that one does not need a concept of consciousness in order to be aware that one is aware of existence. The awareness comes comes first and is pre-conceptual. Just as the color red is not dependent upon the conception of red -- one just perceives it pre-conceptually -- so, too the existence of consciousness is there by direct awareness and one does not need a concept of consciousness in order to be aware of it.

You might be incorrectly understanding what Miss Rand means by the term "implicit." It does not mean that concepts are there from birth, even in some primitive form, but rather that by perceiving existence one can easily grasp some things about reality. For example, we perceive entities, and only then can we conceptualize them. We don't have an implicit concept of entities that then makes it possible for us to perceive them.

So, we do not have any concepts starting off -- man is born tabula rasa, with no innate or implicit knowledge -- and it is by observing existence and noticing differences and similarities that one begins to form concepts by conceptual effort (which is easy at the beginning stages).

Our concepts do not create our perceptions, it is our perceptions that lead to the ability to create concepts based upon what we observe.

[ontological_realist]

(WARNING: I just started reading ITOE, and have been hammering chapter one against my skull the last couple of nights.)

I pondered this issue in my sleep last night and woke up with a conclusion similar to Thomas':

Reality is the absolute. "Entity" and "attribute" are concepts implicit in our percepts of reality. So while the thing that an entity is and the aspects of that thing, which we conceptualize as attributes, exist in reality, it takes a consciousness to ascribe the concepts "entity" and "attribute" to them (with "action" being another existent associated with a thing).

The problem I see here is mainly semantics. Before I even knew who Ayn Rand was (about a year ago), I was working on a multi-layered awareness stack (from "reality" to "truth"), trying to explore the entire process of situational awareness (application being command and control common operating pictures). I quickly ran out of terms and/or ascribed new, specific meanings to existing words. Similarly, I think we've run out of words before we've fully differentiated the relevant concepts here.

In this case we are using the words "attribute" and "entity" to describe two separate concepts (each):

Entity is used to mean the concept of "entity" implicitly ascribed by a consciousness to an existent thing. It is also used to mean the existent thing itself. To claim that they are one and the same is to simply smear the meaning of the word across two concepts. That's not to say that the "entity" in our conceptual framework doesn't correspond to the "entity" in reality, only that there is a distinction that the conceptual "entity" requires a consciousness, while the existent "entity" does not. [edit] Also, I believe, the conceptual "entity" is not limited to a specific thing existent in reality, while the existent "entity" is.[\edit]

The same can be said for the dual meanings of "attribute," as Thomas points out above.

I think my own confusion with this led to a lot of bad logic and conclusions on my part, and this new understanding has allowed me to finally see that entities are the primary concept, implicit in the child's perception of an existent thing. Attributes follow, allowing identities to be ascribed, then finally units, the building blocks of rational thought. Sensory inputs, the "source" of all of this perception, are not conceptualized until much later, and while included in the sensory mechanism feeding perception, are not conceptual elements of perception.

What is an entity? Please give an example of an entity.

[DavidOdden]

Please give an example of an entity.

Pig. Stick. There, you have two.

[agrippa1]

What is an entity? Please give an example of an entity.

Read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology to get a better answer.