So where's the solution to the 'Problem of Universals'?

[softwareNerd]

You have to point to a concept in reality. Or how about a percept? You cannot do it. Therefore, it is a figment of your imagination.

Well, you forger the possibility that instead of being figments of your imagination, concepts could be ventazix.

[agrippa1]

Perceptual knowledge is thus direct -- straight from the eyes to the mind, without intermediate projections on the brain or anything like that.

You must mean "straight from reality to the mind." Otherwise, it's not "direct."

[DavidOdden]

You must mean "straight from reality to the mind." Otherwise, it's not "direct."

No, I do mean to include the eyes. I am certain that the mind is not part of the eyes, and I also am certain that a man without eyes cannot see.

[DavidOdden]

Do you consider my bringing up "class" a part of some concerted assault on the rational faculty?

I haven't decided if you have sinister motivations, or are simply deluded as to what's important. I have concluded that, at best, your questions are an exemplar of the standard low-level intellectual dishonesty that pervaded academic philosophy. If you understood Objectivism, you would understand that cooking up terminology (or serving up pre-cooked terminology) without first clearly identifying those aspects of existence that are subsumed under those terms, and focusing on the things rather than their names, is the correct way to address any question. If you don't understand Objectivism, then you ought to work on your study skills and try to learn something from the responses. If you reject Objectivism and intend to argue for something else, then you should clearly say so.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I am still looking for the epistemology, the theory of knowledge in a book with 'epistemology' in the title but in which cog. sci. theory can be found in great abundance.

You have a lot of confusions about philosophy in general and about Objectivism in particular. You seem to be very familiar with Objectivism, or at least Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but you have no comprehension of it. Up to a certain point, I have been willing to try to untangle your misunderstandings, but these essays I have written are not comprehended by you, as you continue to present your own amalgamation of whatever philosophic background you have had and continue to project these onto Objectivism.

Objectivism is a new philosophy, it is only partially based on Aristotle. It rejects entirely the Platonic line of reasoning that culminated in Kant. So, if you want to understand Objectivism, you need to check your premises and start with the perceptually self-evident. If you start there, then ITOE is the answer to the problem of universals.

We perceive reality directly via the senses. There is not an intermediary that you want to make percepts into. By percepts, Miss Rand means things like observing books and their colors and shapes, and weights, etc. These are not something that we observe in the mind, but rather is our means of being aware of reality directly via the senses.

However, since you continue to want to twist Objectivism into whatever your philosophic mangling has become, then I don't see the point in discussing this with you further.

Perhaps, your confusions are genuine and you just have to think about it some more. I have had confusions in the past regarding Objectivism that seemed like real confusions to me -- or rather questions that needed answers -- until I realized that I was thinking about it in the wrong way.

In the mean time, however, you are one of the people Miss Rand was speaking about as having a concerted attack on human consciousness. Your assertions about similarities is along those lines. There is no metaphysical universal, as you keep wanting to assert; but rather it is something done by the human mind using measurement omission -- this is the answer to the problem of universals.

Real things in reality are similar to one another, and we perceive this, which is the starting point of conceptualization -- of mentally integrating those two or more things together into one mental unit called a concept.

But, as I have said, past a certain point, I cannot untangle your misunderstandings. That is something you have to do for yourself. Sometimes, I cannot even comprehend how you got to where you are, and so I cannot help you to untangle the confusions. If you have read ITOE and OPAR, and you still don't know how Objectivism differs from other philosophies, and how it does provide the answers to age old questions. I just don't know that I can answer your inquiries any better than Miss Rand or Dr. Peikoff. I have tried, but you are not following what I am saying; just as you didn't comprehend Objectivism as presented by Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff.

So, keep studying ITOE and OPAR. You might "get it" one day, but I don't know where to go from here; except to say that your confusions are not my responsibility.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

I am still looking for the epistemology, the theory of knowledge in a book with 'epistemology' in the title but in which cog. sci. theory can be found in great abundance.

You have a lot of confusions about philosophy in general and about Objectivism in particular.

Whoops! Here comes the part where everything becomes a personal matter.

You seem to be very familiar with Objectivism, or at least Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, but you have no comprehension of it. Up to a certain point, I have been willing to try to untangle your misunderstandings, but these essays I have written are not comprehended by you, as you continue to present your own amalgamation of whatever philosophic background you have had and continue to project these onto Objectivism.

In fact, it was someone else here who pointed out to me a quote in which Rand said that ITOE was not about epistemology but one of its legs, the theory of concept-formation. Therefore, when I say there is no epistemology in ITOE, it should come as no surprise since Rand never claimed there was any such theory.

Objectivism is a new philosophy, it is only partially based on Aristotle. It rejects entirely the Platonic line of reasoning that culminated in Kant. So, if you want to understand Objectivism, you need to check your premises and start with the perceptually self-evident. If you start there, then ITOE is the answer to the problem of universals.

What is perceptually self-evident involves, in this context, not my interpretation of ITOE, but Rand's own words as stated in ITOE, and those serve as my guide to solving this riddle. I have quoted those words abundantly using appropriate citations, as requested by Dave at the very start of all this. Nobody has been able to take me to task regarding Rand's own stated words regarding her own philosophy. They take me to task using some interpretation or other, but never using her own perceptually self-evident words.

So when Rand says that a percept is such and such, in clear, precise terms, not obscure, not at all Kantian, and someone else comes along and says "But what Rand really means is x," then who am I to believe, my own first-hand reading or their interpretation of what Rand really meant pawned off to me as a second-handed interpretation?

We perceive reality directly via the senses.

Which, however, gives a chaos of sensations that you are not aware of.

There is not an intermediary that you want to make percepts into. By percepts, Miss Rand means things like observing books and their colors and shapes, and weights, etc. These are not something that we observe in the mind, but rather is our means of being aware of reality directly via the senses.

However, since you continue to want to twist Objectivism into whatever your philosophic mangling has become, then I don't see the point in discussing this with you further.

Quoting is not twisting, and I have quoted whenever the need arose, and liberally, with appropriate citations as requested by Dave.

Perhaps, your confusions are genuine and you just have to think about it some more. I have had confusions in the past regarding Objectivism that seemed like real confusions to me -- or rather questions that needed answers -- until I realized that I was thinking about it in the wrong way.

In the mean time, however, you are one of the people Miss Rand was speaking about as having a concerted attack on human consciousness. Your assertions about similarities is along those lines. There is no metaphysical universal, as you keep wanting to assert; but rather it is something done by the human mind using measurement omission -- this is the answer to the problem of universals.

Real things in reality are similar to one another, and we perceive this, which is the starting point of conceptualization -- of mentally integrating those two or more things together into one mental unit called a concept.

But, as I have said, past a certain point, I cannot untangle your misunderstandings. That is something you have to do for yourself. Sometimes, I cannot even comprehend how you got to where you are, and so I cannot help you to untangle the confusions. If you have read ITOE and OPAR, and you still don't know how Objectivism differs from other philosophies, and how it does provide the answers to age old questions. I just don't know that I can answer your inquiries any better than Miss Rand or Dr. Peikoff. I have tried, but you are not following what I am saying; just as you didn't comprehend Objectivism as presented by Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff.

So, keep studying ITOE and OPAR. You might "get it" one day, but I don't know where to go from here; except to say that your confusions are not my responsibility.

Either take me to task over Rand's perceptually self-evident words, or just end the personal comments, either the problem is or isn't with Rand's theory, it is not with me, with you, with Dave, or with Rand's personality. The topic is either Rand's theory, or it is nothing.

I noticed you didn't answer my previous question. So here is another challenge for you.

Without relating back to perception, as always seems to be the case when dealing with matters of perception, how do you know when two or more colors appear to be similar?

[Ogg_Vorbis]

I haven't decided if you have sinister motivations, or are simply deluded as to what's important. I have concluded that, at best, your questions are an exemplar of the standard low-level intellectual dishonesty that pervaded academic philosophy. If you understood Objectivism, you would understand that cooking up terminology (or serving up pre-cooked terminology) without first clearly identifying those aspects of existence that are subsumed under those terms, and focusing on the things rather than their names, is the correct way to address any question. If you don't understand Objectivism, then you ought to work on your study skills and try to learn something from the responses. If you reject Objectivism and intend to argue for something else, then you should clearly say so.

I'm developing a theory here, and you've all been very helpful in this. But what I want to know right now is this:

What aspects of reality are subsumed by the term "percept"?

[Superluminal]

I'll bite. What is the "Theory" you are developing? And how have individuals been "helpful"? I am just curious to

know what your explicit motivations are on this issue.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

Perceptual knowledge is thus direct -- straight from the eyes to the mind, without intermediate projections on the brain or anything like that.

You must mean "straight from reality to the mind." Otherwise, it's not "direct."

In this case, I mean 'mediated by a percept,' or else the percept has no other role to play in her theory and should be omitted. Doing this wouldn't hurt the theory of concept-formation, the percept-formation theory only adds a level of logical confusion -- as in, non sequitur or arbitrary confusion.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

I'll bite. What is the "Theory" you are developing? And how have individuals been "helpful"? I am just curious to

know what your explicit motivations are on this issue.

If you look back to the beginning of the thread you can see where I started with a single question and then I slowly developed it into a theory. The theory was a vaguely-held notion at first.

If this is the metaphysics and epistemology forum, I don't see why I am sometimes upbraided for discussing metaphysics, if metaphysics is to have any meaning at all here beyond A is A. There is a whole history behind metaphysical pursuits, some of it valid and some of it a waste of time. I don't pursue wastes of time. If somebody doesn't like metaphysics, even when discussed topically in the Randist context, then they don't have to discuss it with me.

[DavidOdden]

What aspects of reality are subsumed by the term "percept"?

A bunch of mental states arising from the sense organs. For example, the optic nerve presents electrochemical signals to the brain, but these must be processed / transduced into a different form that the mind can work on and retain. Those are percepts: I suppose the best tangible analog would be a digital photo.

[Marc K.]

There is a difference between 'primacy' and 'existing.' Rand herself distinguished between subject and object of perception, and declared the object to have metaphysical primacy. But which one has epistemological primacy? If someone asks me to decide, I'll simply say, "I don't know." [emphasis added]

You should figure it out: please tell me that you don't think it is possible to know of something before it exists? I'll take this as your rejection of the primacy of existence.

I'm not even sure that the color purple exists in the object, since we know that, scientifically, color perception is not only a product of the rods and cones of the eye, but the color itself is nothing more than vibrating light-waves. So color itself doesn't exist until someone perceives it, only light-waves exist in themselves.

Yes, yes, we are blind because we can see. We've heard that Kantian refrain before. Boring.

It is necessary to define qualia as something known through reason by the senses,

This formulation reverses cause and effect (another symptom of the primacy of consciousness position). Nothing is "known" by the senses. Reason is the faculty that uses the evidence of the senses as its starting point. There is no way to use reason and change percepts, percepts are the given.

We don't have to complicate matters by pinning purposeless and functionless metaphysical labels on things.

This isn't the looney bin. It's kind of important to know whether you accept that objective reality exists or if wishing actually does make it so.

It just seems that there are important, non-arbitrary, non-whim-worshipping matters that are not completely objective either, and that subjectivity is not synonymous with the arbitrary.

Can you give an example?

Snideness is subjective, if you perceive snideness then it is a product of your own capacity for projection.

Objectively speaking: either you were being snide or you weren't. I suppose you could just tell us which but I'm not sure I'd believe you anyway. So instead I'll just let your other snide remarks speak for themselves as evidence of your rude behavior.

Furthermore, Thomas is not being "personal" when he says that you have very little understanding of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, he is just telling the truth -- you don't even know what a concept is. You have asked often about concepts such as "straight line" and "purple book" -- sorry these are not concepts.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

What aspects of reality are subsumed by the term "percept"?

A bunch of mental states arising from the sense organs. For example, the optic nerve presents electrochemical signals to the brain, but these must be processed / transduced into a different form that the mind can work on and retain. Those are percepts: I suppose the best tangible analog would be a digital photo.

There is a huge gap standing between the physical processing and the mental "epiphenomenon," the percept. What that gap is exactly remains a mystery. But my question now is: How do you know a percept exists? Has one ever been located except in theory?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I certainly wasn't trying to be snidely, when I said that sometimes someone can have so many confusions that I just don't know how to untangle them. Every time I give you an answer, Ogg_Vorbis, you come back with more questions that indicate a gross mis-interpretation of Objectivism, even though you seem familiar with some of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand, such as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. And then you claim that it isn't even philosophy.

Sometimes a regular college dictionary is useful, especially if Miss Rand didn't define a term. Here is what mine says about "percept":

1) the mental result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving

2) that which is perceived; the object of perception

I've already clarified that we don't perceive percepts in the sense of perceiving a little movie screen inside of our heads. What we perceive -- the objects of perception -- are entities and their attributes. What is automatically integrated on the neurological level are the specific inputs that come from the agitation of individual cells of our sensory equipment. We perceive entities and their attributes; we don't perceive little dots; we perceive things like the glass in front of me, the cigarette burning in the ash tray, the words being typed onto a computer screen as I edit this essays, the taste of the water as I take a drink, etc.

If you are not going to start at that level, at the perceptually self-evident, then we can't go any further. And to perception, it is clear that some things are similar to other things --that the yellow of my glass is similar to the yellow of my cigarette filter. In philosophy, we don't have to ponder why they are similar; they just are similar. Why they are similar in a scientific sense would come about due to understanding their chemical make-up and how they reflect light and those kinds of issues, but on the level of philosophy, we just accept that they are similar.The similarity does not arise due to some hokus pocus metaphysical something that we can't know anything about. They are similar.

Perception, the given, is the starting point, and it is clear that you don't want to start there. You want to start at some theory that you have developed that ignores the perceptually self-evident.

And if you are going to start there and not check you premises, then there isn't anything I can do for you except to say look at reality and what do you see? The whole "problem of universals" came about because philosophers refused to start at the level of perception; they, too, had their own pet theories that was not based upon perception, of what we actually see when we look at the world.

You don't see universals, you see particular things right in front of you. We universalize them with our own mind using measurement omission, thus giving the ability to integrate many units into one conception. That is the answer.

So, look at the world, and what do you see?

And I can't help you do that. You have to make your own observations. If you were here or I was there, I could pickup a book and ask you if you see it, or do you see little dots. And of course, you would see the book and not little dots, if you have normal vision.

We perceive existence; we do not perceive percepts in the sense of seeing a little movie inside of our heads. We perceive objects -- you know, cats and dogs, and puppy dog tails. We don't perceive a universal dog or a universal cat or a universal puppy dog tail. We perceive the cat the dog and the puppy dog tail. And there is no great mystery to this on the philosophic level. These things are the given.

If you want to ask a neurological question, such as how does all of this become retained as one perception instead of dots, then you have to go study neurology, not philosophy.

Does that answer your specific question about percepts?

[Ogg_Vorbis]

There is a difference between 'primacy' and 'existing.' Rand herself distinguished between subject and object of perception, and declared the object to have metaphysical primacy. But which one has epistemological primacy? If someone asks me to decide, I'll simply say, "I don't know." [emphasis added]

You should figure it out: please tell me that you don't think it is possible to know of something before it exists? I'll take this as your rejection of the primacy of existence.

I think that, before something exists (granted that it will exist), then it will exist necessarily: A is A.

I'm not even sure that the color purple exists in the object, since we know that, scientifically, color perception is not only a product of the rods and cones of the eye, but the color itself is nothing more than vibrating light-waves. So color itself doesn't exist until someone perceives it, only light-waves exist in themselves.

Yes, yes, we are blind because we can see. We've heard that Kantian refrain before. Boring.

Please refrain from paraphrasing before understanding what it is you are paraphrasing, because it isn't even in the same category of thought as Kantianism. I have not cited Kant, I have simply done as Rand did on page 5 of ITOE and appealed to science. Science deals with optics, science deals with eyes, science deals with optic nerves, science deals with light, science deals with color -- Kant dealt with the forms of time and space, and that is not even on the same level of discussion.

It is necessary to define qualia as something known through reason by the senses,

This formulation reverses cause and effect (another symptom of the primacy of consciousness position). Nothing is "known" by the senses. Reason is the faculty that uses the evidence of the senses as its starting point. There is no way to use reason and change percepts, percepts are the given.

I'm sorry, Marc, but defining my position away as some kind of metaphysical "illness" with its own set of symptoms won't help you here. But if I am supposed to have said something like, "define qualia as something known through reason by the senses," then I don't see much difference except via nitpicking, since both reason and senses are involved. Reason does the defining, at any rate, and if qualia are to be known then it is only through a process of reasoning that they can be so known, not merely felt (since qualia are basically sensations cognized through philosophical reasoning, whereas 'sensation' is a term borrowed from psychology, it is not from philosophy).

We don't have to complicate matters by pinning purposeless and functionless metaphysical labels on things.

This isn't the looney bin. It's kind of important to know whether you accept that objective reality exists or if wishing actually does make it so.

I don't recall writing the material attributed to me. If there are any purposeless and functionless metaphysical labels, then by all means feel free to omit them, although not first without a certain amount of debate. However, I'm pretty certain it was Dave Odden who stated that about my philosophical concept of a qualia. He has established that the proper term should be "sensation." However, I would reserve that latter for psychology, a topic of much concern for Ayn Rand in ITOE, while "qualia" I reserve for philosophical discussions.

It just seems that there are important, non-arbitrary, non-whim-worshipping matters that are not completely objective either, and that subjectivity is not synonymous with the arbitrary.

Can you give an example?

Define "awareness" objectively and without self-referential circularity. Define "self" objectively and without self-referential circularity.

Snideness is subjective, if you perceive snideness then it is a product of your own capacity for projection.

Objectively speaking: either you were being snide or you weren't. I suppose you could just tell us which but I'm not sure I'd believe you anyway. So instead I'll just let your other snide remarks speak for themselves as evidence of your rude behavior.

Was I ever being snide toward you? Speak now on how something I said is of personal consequence to you, or forever hold your peace.

Furthermore, Thomas is not being "personal" when he says that you have very little understanding of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts, he is just telling the truth -- you don't even know what a concept is. You have asked often about concepts such as "straight line" and "purple book" -- sorry these are not concepts.

You haven't read my posts, or perhaps you haven't understood them. At any rate, your last statement has nothing to do with anything I've written here as I've made no mention of 'purple book' as being a "concept." In fact, I have stated on numerous occasions that it is a class, not a concept. However, I have no problem with the concept of a straight line. Perhaps you'd like to contact all the dictionary manufacturers and have them remove the entry about "geodesics."

And saying that I have very little understanding, or that I am wearing a very nice smelling cologne, or anything along that line, is indeed personal. If I was a manager of this kind of forum I'd at least attempt to set a good intellectual example for others to follow. The rest can be saved for waiting at the subway station or the bus depot. Personal remarks are the sole source of degeneration of a fun and interesting conversation, a great way to ruin it for others who may not feel the same negative way about things.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

I certainly wasn't trying to be snidely, when I said that sometimes someone can have so many confusions that I just don't know how to untangle them. Every time I give you an answer, Ogg_Vorbis, you come back with more questions that indicate a gross mis-interpretation of Objectivism, even though you seem familiar with some of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand, such as Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. And then you claim that it isn't even philosophy.

I've said there is philosophy in ITOE, and there is cog. sci., and pointed out the necessity of identifying the presence of one versus the other. I don't think that ITOE is devoid of philosophy at all. I'm still looking for the epistemology, however, the questions governing "How do you know x," as in, "How do you know similarity when you see it, without always referring back to the perceptual faculty?" Because the topics of knowledge and perception are two very different things, and this is a question about knowledge not perception.

I hope you don't have anything against questions of an intellectual nature. I don't think they are snide questions, and the only source of invalidity anybody can find is something subjective along the lines of "uninteresting." Well then, I will avoid asking that person that particular uninteresting question in the future.

Sometimes a regular college dictionary is useful, especially if Miss Rand didn't define a term. Here is what mine says about "percept":

1) the mental result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving

2) that which is perceived; the object of perception

I've already clarified that we don't perceive percepts in the sense of perceiving a little movie screen inside of our heads. What we perceive -- the objects of perception -- are entities and their attributes. What is automatically integrated on the neurological level are the specific inputs that come from the agitation of individual cells of our sensory equipment. We perceive entities and their attributes; we don't perceive little dots; we perceive things like the glass in front of me, the cigarette burning in the ash tray, the words being typed onto a computer screen as I edit this essays, the taste of the water as I take a drink, etc.

If you are not going to start at that level, at the perceptually self-evident, then we can't go any further. And to perception, it is clear that some things are similar to other things --that the yellow of my glass is similar to the yellow of my cigarette filter. In philosophy, we don't have to ponder why they are similar; they just are similar. Why they are similar in a scientific sense would come about due to understanding their chemical make-up and how they reflect light and those kinds of issues, but on the level of philosophy, we just accept that they are similar.The similarity does not arise due to some hokus pocus metaphysical something that we can't know anything about. They are similar.

Ayn Rand did not start with the perceptually self-evident. Ayn Rand started with an infant's level of perception, which is only a theory, a statement about a chaos of sensations which is not an object of perception or evidence, and a theory of percept-formation the product of which, the percept, cannot itself be sensed (because, as you said, there is no tiny movie screen.)

She could claim to have indirect evidence of all these things, but that is all, and only on the basis of some unnamed scientific theory which may be true or false, but is at least falsifiable in order to qualify as science.

I believe metaphysics is the basis of all knowledge insofar as we grant it absolute certitude. That is not hocus pocus, it is philosophy.

Perception, the given, is the starting point, and it is clear that you don't want to start there. You want to start at some theory that you have developed that ignores the perceptually self-evident.

I plan on starting from the ground up -- by checking Rand's premises first. Isn't it proper to do this, if she is the expert, and if she alleged has stated some kind of ground-up theory already? Why should I check my premises when someone else, namely, Ayn Rand, already has developed premises to check? So I checked her premise of the percept, and found it wanting. None of her premises were developed from the ground up anyway, not if that requires basis in the perceptually self-evident.

And if you are going to start there and not check you premises, then there isn't anything I can do for you except to say look at reality and what do you see? The whole "problem of universals" came about because philosophers refused to start at the level of perception; they, too, had their own pet theories that was not based upon perception, of what we actually see when we look at the world.

There is a difference between starting 'at the level of perception' and starting from the perceptually self-evident. None of this stuff at the "ground level" of ITOE could reasonably be considered perceptually self-evident in the least. Rand starts at the level of some scientific theory or other, which is not perceptually self-evident, it is, indeed (assuming it exists at all), a falsifiable theory.

You don't see universals, you see particular things right in front of you. We universalize them with our own mind using measurement omission, thus giving the ability to integrate many units into one conception. That is the answer.

So, look at the world, and what do you see?

And I can't help you do that. You have to make your own observations. If you were here or I was there, I could pickup a book and ask you if you see it, or do you see little dots. And of course, you would see the book and not little dots, if you have normal vision.

We perceive existence; we do not perceive percepts in the sense of seeing a little movie inside of our heads. We perceive objects -- you know, cats and dogs, and puppy dog tails. We don't perceive a universal dog or a universal cat or a universal puppy dog tail. We perceive the cat the dog and the puppy dog tail. And there is no great mystery to this on the philosophic level. These things are the given.

If you want to ask a neurological question, such as how does all of this become retained as one perception instead of dots, then you have to go study neurology, not philosophy.

Does that answer your specific question about percepts?

Rand did not start on the level of cats and dogs, and puppy dog tails. She started with a theory of perception that has not been validated and is probably false, based on some alleged scientific theory which she neglected to bring forward, expecting her readers to take it for granted as true, and glossing it over with a veneer of scientific reputability.

In the absence of any evidence, even indirect, I cannot be expected to declare the concept of a 'percept' to be a valid one. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but so is "ghost." Yes, I looked at the world, and there wasn't a single percept in sight.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Ogg_Vorbis

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

In the absence of any evidence, even indirect, I cannot be expected to declare the concept of a 'percept' to be a valid one. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but so is "ghost." Yes, I looked at the world, and there wasn't a single percept in sight.

What do you observe around you in the room where you are when you sit down to reply to this question?

[DavidOdden]

How do you know a percept exists?

Recall that it is axiomatic.

Has one ever been located except in theory?

I don't understand that that question means. We don't believe in a "higher plane of existence" that projects itself into our universe, if that's what you're asking.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

In the absence of any evidence, even indirect, I cannot be expected to declare the concept of a 'percept' to be a valid one. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but so is "ghost." Yes, I looked at the world, and there wasn't a single percept in sight.

What do you observe around you in the room where you are when you sit down to reply to this question?

Entities.

"Entities" is a funny word because it sounds like it belongs on a program about alien life-forms. Nobody uses that term outside of some such context. What I observe, in common parlance, are things.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

How do you know a percept exists?

Recall that it is axiomatic.

I don't recall anything about a percept being axiomatic, so you'll have to return the favor and offer up some kind of cite.

Has one ever been located except in theory?

I don't understand that that question means. We don't believe in a "higher plane of existence" that projects itself into our universe, if that's what you're asking

Anywhere. I take it your answer is 'no.' Therefore, I refuse to believe in percepts. I perceive, grasp and apprehend reality by means of perception, not by means of percepts, which are presumably mental entities requiring physical entities in order to exist. I have no use for it, perception (of entities) is good enough.

[DavidOdden]

She started with a theory of perception that has not been validated and is probably false, based on some alleged scientific theory which she neglected to bring forward, expecting her readers to take it for granted as true, and glossing it over with a veneer of scientific reputability.

In the absence of any evidence, even indirect, I cannot be expected to declare the concept of a 'percept' to be a valid one. Yes, it's in the dictionary, but so is "ghost." Yes, I looked at the world, and there wasn't a single percept in sight.

What elements of the concept do you have doubts about? For example, do you doubt that a living entity perceives? Do you dispute that there is some thing (other than an actual apple) in the mind of a being that perceives an apple? Do you contend that this mental object is constructed by reasoning, based on something else (what else)? For example, do you believe that a percept is constructed from a set of primitive measurements of light wavelength, amplitude, very complex light-and-dark measurements sewn together into some huge equation that represents a Jpeg of an apple? Your objection to "percept" smells exactly like the standard mechanicalist / physicalist objection to "mind", that you've never seen a mind separated from a brain. Surely you wouldn't engage in that fallacy.

p. 5: "A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality.

...

Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery".

I take it your answer is 'no.'

I take it you acknowledge that your question is meaningless or self evident. Percepts exist, and they are in the mind.

Therefore, I refuse to believe in percepts. I perceive, grasp and apprehend reality by means of perception, not by means of percepts, which are presumably mental entities requiring physical entities in order to exist. I have no use for it, perception (of entities) is good enough.

So you contend that there is an action of perceiving, but that this is a cause without an effect (the result of perceiving, which is a percept). How does the mind retain nothing? I wonder if next you plan to deny the existence of concepts?

[Ogg_Vorbis]

So you contend that there is an action of perceiving, but that this is a cause without an effect (the result of perceiving, which is a percept). How does the mind retain nothing? I wonder if next you plan to deny the existence of concepts?

I should add here that Rand's theory of concept-formation requires no percepts. Implicit concepts, yes, but not percepts. Remove everything you read about percepts and their underlying chaos of sensations, and the theory of concept-formation is not affected one bit.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Ogg_Vorbis

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I asked: What do you observe?

Entities.

"Entities" is a funny word because it sounds like it belongs on a program about alien life-forms. Nobody uses that term outside of some such context. What I observe, in common parlance, are things.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Some entities -- i.e. some things -- are available via perception, and some are not. For example, one observes with the senses things such as books, people, cars, drinking glasses, cigarettes, etc. But there are things out there which we cannot directly observe with the senses, such as atoms, radio waves, magnetic fields, x-rays, etc.; these are real existents, things that really exist, but are not available to us via direct perception.

The term "percept" makes this distinction, without making a long list of that which we can perceive versus that which we cannot perceive. In other words, "percept" means "those things we can perceive with the senses."

I don't know...perhaps Miss Rand should have spelled that out more clearly. You are not the only one who has misunderstood what she meant by that term. That is, you are not the only one who has concluded that Objectivism is a form of indirect realism based on that passage. But, I think Miss Rand took it to be obvious that we perceive entities, because all you have to do is look -- I mean, it doesn't require an argument; but maybe it does require someone making it obvious on paper as to what "percept" means.

Given that clarification, I think you would agree that a universal is not a percept -- i.e. it is not something available to the senses. A universal is also not like radio waves or x-rays or atoms, something that actually exists in reality apart from man's mind that we can use special instrumentation to detect.

So, the question becomes: OK, so what is a universal? If it is not something that we perceive and it does not have an existence apart from man's mind, then what the heck is it?

Miss Rand's answer was that a universal is something the human mind does with the percepts (with that which is available via perception), and what the human mind does is omit the measurements and compact those observations into a concept.

To correct something that David Odden said, a percept is not "in the mind" it is the form in which man grasps existence -- i.e. in the form of perceiving things and their attributes via the senses. A percept is not an object of the mind; it is those things which we can perceive as distinguished from those thing which we cannot perceive.

Edited February 24, 2008 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[DavidOdden]

Fortunately for you, I saw your massive edit in time and didn't waste time pointing out the consequences of your remarks. I'm glad that you recognized the problem.

[ed: this is directed at "Ogg" and his last post, which was massively edited.]

A percept is not an object of the mind; it is those things which we can perceive as distinguished from those thing which we cannot perceive.

That's actually mistaken. A percept is the product of perception, not the object perceived. For example, note what Rand says on p. 5: "A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality." Thus an actual apple is not a percept. Edited February 24, 2008 by DavidOdden

[Ogg_Vorbis]

I asked: What do you observe?

Entities.

"Entities" is a funny word because it sounds like it belongs on a program about alien life-forms. Nobody uses that term outside of some such context. What I observe, in common parlance, are things.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Some entities -- i.e. some things -- are available via perception, and some are not. For example, one observes with the senses things such as books, people, cars, drinking glasses, cigarettes, etc. But there are things out there which we cannot directly observe with the senses, such as atoms, radio waves, magnetic fields, x-rays, etc.; these are real existents, things that really exist, but are not available to us via direct perception.

The term "percept" makes this distinction, without making a long list of that which we can perceive versus that which we cannot perceive. In other words, "percept" means "those things we can perceive with the senses."

I don't know...perhaps Miss Rand should have spelled that out more clearly. You are not the only one who has misunderstood what she meant by that term. That is, you are not the only one who has concluded that Objectivism is a form of indirect realism based on that passage. But, I think Miss Rand took it to be obvious that we perceive entities, because all you have to do is look -- I mean, it doesn't require an argument; but maybe it does require someone making it obvious on paper as to what "percept" means.

Given that clarification, I think you would agree that a universal is not a percept -- i.e. it is not something available to the senses. A universal is also not like radio waves or x-rays or atoms, something that actually exists in reality apart from man's mind that we can use special instrumentation to detect.

So, the question becomes: OK, so what is a universal? If it is not something that we perceive and it does not have an existence apart from man's mind, then what the heck is it?

Miss Rand's answer was that a universal is something the human mind does with the percepts (with that which is available via perception), and what the human mind does is omit the measurements and compact those observations into a concept.

To correct something that David Oden said, a percept is not "in the mind" it is the form in which man grasps existence -- i.e. in the form of perceiving things and their attributes via the senses. A percept is not an object of the mind; it is those things which we can perceive as distinguished from those thing which we cannot perceive.

Then deal with this statement from ITOE page 5: sensations are components of percepts.

If, as you say, a percept is not in the mind -- although this is not borne out by the text in ITOE -- then I am okay with it as you explained it. However, if as Rand wrote, sensations are components of percepts, then ITOE needs some revisioning. Interpreting your own words by that statement from page 5, you would logically be saying that sensations are components of things that we can perceive as distinguished from things we cannot perceive.

What exactly is a 'component'? It is a constituent part. I know you don't believe that sensations are constituent parts of things we perceive -- i.e., entities. Rand needs to be taken literally, sensations are literally components of percepts, mental entities, not of things we perceive, physical entities, and this is allegedly a conceptual or scientific discovery. You're with me, then, in scrapping Rand's theory of percept-formation, not only as incoherent in itself, but as serving no logical function to the work as a whole.

I agree that the distinction you made between perceivables and non-perceivables is a valid one. It is, indeed, obvious. But that sensations are components of percepts is not obvious, nor do I see it as any conceptual or scientific discovery, it is an assertion. If, as you say, the concept of a 'percept' is just used to distinguish perceivables from non-perceivables, then no problem. But that's not Rand's theory as it stands, with sensations as their components. I have a problem with explanations of what Rand really meant, in that, if that's what she meant, then she should have stated it originally. Yet I have no problem with your theory of percept, I just want to add that it is not Rand's, and you don't know what Rand really meant so we have to take her at her word.

I'll deal with your answer to universals next.