How much education do we OWE our children?

[EC]

49 minutes ago, InfraBeat said:

And my point is that sometimes, regarding key words, Rand does not do that.

I disagree but have seen that said at times. Think of it this way, Einstein's General Relativity didn't invalidate Newton's theory of gravitation in the specific context that it applies and neither do Miss Rand's contextually appropriate definitions of concepts. Point out a specific definition she ever used that isn't correct in essentials given the appropriate context.

[InfraBeat]

1 hour ago, EC said:

Point out a specific definition she ever used that isn't correct in essentials given the appropriate context.

(1) If the appropriate context is Objectivism, then I couldn't say that an Objectivist definition is incorrect for that context.

(2) To say 'correct' regarding definitions assumes that definitions are correct or not as opposed to designated or stipulated. That's a whole other discussion.

(3) My point was not as to correctness but as to usual usage. 

Examples:

* 'definition'. I mentioned that a few posts ago.

* 'logic'

* 'selfish'

Edited July 31, 2023 by InfraBeat

[DavidOdden]

14 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

You mentioned an animal changing its color. That is use of instinctual knowledge?

When people describe certain animals such as dolphins and primates as using reason, if not reason, what do you call it?

I don’t recall having said anything about animals changing color. On the face of it, it doesn’t constitute knowledge of any kind. For example, various plants change color seasonally, as do some birds, and we normally don’t say that plants have instinctual knowledge. I don’t really know what you’re referring to.

I have various epithets for people who attribute human properties to plants and animals depending on what I think their motivation is, but if you’re looking for a standard term for the practice, I would say “anthropomorphizing”. Perhaps “personification”.

[InfraBeat]

[David Odden] "I don’t recall having said anything about animals changing color. On the face of it, it doesn’t constitute knowledge of any kind. For example, various plants change color seasonally, as do some birds, and we normally don’t say that plants have instinctual knowledge. I don’t really know what you’re referring to."

On 6/19/2023 at 11:32 PM, DavidOdden said:

Man’s special tool for existence is “use reason”, not “turn color when threatened” or “run fast”. We do not have instinctual knowledge that certain berries are poisonous or that certain creatures are dangerous – we have to learn this from observation and reason.

You say that man's special tool is reason as opposed to turning color. So is turning color a special tool of certain creatures? Also, it is claimed by some sources that, for example, humans have an instinct to avoid snakes. Would that not be instinctual knowledge that certain creatures are dangerous? If not, how do you contrast the human reaction to snakes with reactions of other creatures to certain other creatures?

[David Odden] "I have various epithets for people who attribute human properties to plants and animals depending on what I think their motivation is, but if you’re looking for a standard term for the practice, I would say “anthropomorphizing”. Perhaps “personification”."

I asked whether you think certain other animals use reason. I take it that first you define 'reason', then you note that man uses reason. Then my question was whether [per your definition of 'reason'] you think certain other animals also use reason. You say they do not. So what do you call it when, for example, a dolphin tears up a piece of trash into smaller pieces and stores them so that it will be rewarded by the trainer not just for cleaning up one piece of trash but individually rewarded for each of the smaller pieces it made? Or, what do you call it when a primate solves problems that one might call reasoning problems and with language recognition?

Edited July 31, 2023 by InfraBeat

[DavidOdden]

So that’s an interesting question, scientifically and philosophically. Some bugs such as the golden tortoise beetle and fish change color in response to external events like being touched. The unknown scientific question for the beetle is, how does this happen? The similarly unknown philosophical question is, is this knowledge? Or is this like the patellar reflex? Insects are pretty low on the cognitive hierarchy. It seems reasonable to think that octopuses have what qualifies as “instinctual knowledge”, in terms of their ability to mimic other animals. Though again, I don’t know to what extent this is instinctual rather than learned stochastically.

[InfraBeat]

Just now, DavidOdden said:

interesting

I edited my post before seeing your reply.

Anyway, you mentioned 'tools' in a way that I would take as saying that changing color is a tool while using reason is a different tool. 

[DavidOdden]

I suppose what you meant to ask was what I would call certain forms of mammal behavior, and not what I call it when people talk about animal behavior in a certain way. I don’t have a special name for everything. I would just call it animal behavior or problem-solving. You can even build wall-crawling robots that can eventually exit a maze. You keep hinting that surely animals must have the same conceptual, rational consciousness that humans have (alternatively, humans are no better than snakes) but you don’t actually give any evidence to support that supposition. Apes “recognize language” in the same sense that a raccoon does – it can recognize that if a person yells “Shoo!”, they should leave.

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Also, it is claimed by some sources that, for example, humans have an instinct to avoid snakes. Would that not be instinctual knowledge that certain creatures are dangerous?

Knowledge is achieved by a process.  The idea of instinctual or innate knowledge does not make sense.

At least some animals have genetically determined, built-in behaviors.  But this is not knowledge.

 

[InfraBeat]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

You keep hinting that surely animals must have the same conceptual, rational consciousness that humans have (alternatively, humans are no better than snakes)

I've hinted no such thing. That is ridiculous. As before, please do not make a strawman. 

When you wrote "Man’s special tool for existence is “use reason”, not “turn color when threatened” or “run fast”.", did you mean that turning color is a tool? More generally, what is your definition of 'tool' and 'special tool'?

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

Apes “recognize language” in the same sense that a raccoon does – it can recognize that if a person yells “Shoo!”, they should leave.

That's not what is reported. Anyway, I also gave the example of dolphins, at least as reported. The question arises whether that is an application of reason.  If not, then on what basis is it determined that it is not?

 

 

[InfraBeat]

20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

The idea of instinctual or innate knowledge does not make sense.

David Odden disagrees.

20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

At least some animals have genetically determined, built-in behaviors

Are you saying that animals don't have any learned behaviors?

Moreover, is it a genetically determined behavior to cut up a piece of paper to get rewarded for returning each of the individual pieces rather than just the one original piece?

Edited July 31, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

Here's a problem:

Definition: man is the rational animal.

Definition: rationality is the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's judge of values and only guide to action.

Definition: reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

'man' is defined in terms of rationality. 'rationality' is defined in terms of 'reason'. 'reason' is defined in terms of 'man'. That is circular. 

 

[InfraBeat]

Regarding the notion of instinctual knowledge, if animals have it, then it would be surprising if humans don't have it too. It would be amazing that humans evolved to shed the human species of all vestiges of a capacity had by animals such as apes.

[Doug Morris]

3 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

David Odden disagrees.

"There is no 'God'."  "The concept of "God" does not make sense."  These two statements are consistent with each other.  I think David Odden's position and mine on "instinctual knowledge" are consistent with each other.  But perhaps he will clarify for us.

4 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Are you saying that animals don't have any learned behaviors?

No.

4 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Moreover, is it a genetically determined behavior to cut up a piece of paper to get rewarded for returning each of the individual pieces rather than just the one original piece?

I don't think so.

2 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Definition: reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

"man's" should be "the".

2 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

Regarding the notion of instinctual knowledge, if animals have it, then it would be surprising if humans don't have it too.

Has anyone claimed that animals have instinctual knowledge?

 

[InfraBeat]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

I think David Odden's position and mine on "instinctual knowledge" are consistent with each other.

[David Odden]"“Instinctual knowledge” is generally used to refer to innate knowledge, that is, knowledge which is genetically predetermined and not learned from experience. I would not devise a definition of “knowledge” according to which only humans have “knowledge”. You could call it a cognitive program of some sorts, which governs behavior. It isn’t a short-term spinal chord reaction, and it isn’t an immediate emotional response. It is not an ability (for example, the human ability to reason is not knowledge, it is a faculty). As the name implies, instinctual knowledge is a kind of knowledge." 

I can't see how that can be consistent with your view that "The idea of instinctual or innate knowledge does not make sense."

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

"man's" should be "the".

Tell it to Leonard Peikoff. I quoted OPAR quoting Rand. 

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

6 hours ago, InfraBeat said:

is it a genetically determined behavior to cut up a piece of paper to get rewarded for returning each of the individual pieces rather than just the one original piece?

I don't think so.

What kind of behavior do you think it is?

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Has anyone claimed that animals have instinctual knowledge?

[David Odden] "We do not have instinctual knowledge that certain berries are poisonous or that certain creatures are dangerous – we have to learn this from observation and reason." 

I took that to contrast animals with humans. But if that's not the case, then:

[David Odden] "numerous animal instincts can reasonably be said to constitute a kind of knowledge that they already know, the only good candidates for instinct in humans are particular feelings, which are not knowledge."

Again, I took that as contrasting certain animals with instincts that are a kind of knowledge with humans who have no such kind of knowledge. 

[David Odden] "It seems reasonable to think that octopuses have what qualifies as “instinctual knowledge”, in terms of their ability to mimic other animals. Though again, I don’t know to what extent this is instinctual rather than learned stochastically."

I take that to be saying that it is reasonable to say that octopi have instinctual knowledge.

Edited August 1, 2023 by InfraBeat

[EC]

On 7/30/2023 at 8:53 PM, InfraBeat said:

(1) If the appropriate context is Objectivism, then I couldn't say that an Objectivist definition is incorrect for that context.

(2) To say 'correct' regarding definitions assumes that definitions are correct or not as opposed to designated or stipulated. That's a whole other discussion.

(3) My point was not as to correctness but as to usual usage. 

Examples:

* 'definition'. I mentioned that a few posts ago.

* 'logic'

* 'selfish'

I'd love to see how you believe logic, or the art or science of non-contradictory identification is *ever* used differently in essentials. Selfish uses the exact dictionary definition of concern for one's self without any random negative spin attached to it.

But beyond that what is the point of this random sidetrack of the main topic besides proving that you don't understand Objectivism (although I applaud you for at least reading it)?

The difference between proper human knowledge and animal instincts (without dropping the context that higher animals can learn to a certain degree) is full usage of conceptual reasoning to use and form abstract concepts and knowledge. The rest of the animal kingdom besides human beings lack this ability. That is the difference. Word games and discussing "common usage" of words/concepts in an out of context way during an explicit philosophical discussion will not change that fact.

Edited August 1, 2023 by EC

[InfraBeat]

2 hours ago, EC said:

I'd love to see how you believe logic, or the art or science of non-contradictory identification is *ever* used differently in essentials.

However logic is used, my point was about the definition of the word 'logic'.

definition [Merriam-Webster] "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning"

definition [Oxford Reference] "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity; a particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference" 

definition [Dictionary.com] "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference."

definition [Britannica] "the study of correct reasoning, especially as it involves the drawing of inferences"

definition [vocabulary.com] "the branch of philosophy that analyzes inference"

Those definitions are stated in terms of inference (usually mentioning 'valid'), while Rand's definition is stated in terms of non-contradictory identification:

definition [Rand] "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"

One may argue that inference and identification are the same, but that's not a given, especially at the level of an immediate definition. Moreover, the usual notion of validity is not mere non-contradiction but rather entailment. However we should also account for inductive logic (and not necessarily precluding that there are other forms of logic too):

[Stanford Encyclopedia Of Philosophy] "logic of evidential support [...] the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion"

Other, less technical, sources describe induction as inference from particular to general. 

2 hours ago, EC said:

Selfish uses the exact dictionary definition of concern for one's self without any random negative spin attached to it.

[Rand] "Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests."

But that is not the dictionary definition:

[Merriam-Webster] "selfish: 1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others 2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others"

[Dictionary.com] "selfishness: the quality or state of caring only for oneself or one's own interests"

[Cambridge Dictionary] "selfishness: the quality of thinking only of your own advantage"

[Wikipedia] "selfishness: being concerned excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others"

[Collins] "selfish: car[ing] only about [oneself], and not about other people"

[vocabulary.com] "selfish: cares only about [oneself] and doesn't consider others"

[Britannica] "selfish: having or showing concern only for yourself and not for the needs or feelings of other people"

[YourDictionary] "selfish: Too much concerned with one's own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others"

[Oxford Learner's] "selfish: caring only about yourself rather than about other people"

All of those are unlike Rand's definition as they include not just concern with one's own interests but also a sense expressed as "without regard for others" or "disregard for others" or "only for oneself" or "not about other people" etc.

2 hours ago, EC said:

The difference between proper human knowledge and animal instincts (without dropping the context that higher animals can learn to a certain degree) is full usage of conceptual reasoning to use and form abstract concepts and knowledge. The rest of the animal kingdom besides human beings lack this ability.

It's not in question that humans use reason to a vastly greater extent than other animals. But the point was about the notion of 'reason' as essential in formation of the definition of 'man'. In response to DavidOdden, I was interested in, at least as a starting point, to be clear, whether animals do not use reason at all and whether humans do not use instincts at all.

2 hours ago, EC said:

Word games and discussing "common usage" of words/concepts in an out of context way during an explicit philosophical discussion will not change that fact.

There are no word games being played here. And my point about common usage came from an aside I made that discussions are sometimes more awkward due to difference in definitions, as Rand does use special definitions. I made no claim that facts are challenged by the fact that definitions differ.

[Doug Morris]

On 8/1/2023 at 12:19 AM, InfraBeat said:

[David Odden]"“Instinctual knowledge” is generally used to refer to innate knowledge, that is, knowledge which is genetically predetermined and not learned from experience. I would not devise a definition of “knowledge” according to which only humans have “knowledge”. You could call it a cognitive program of some sorts, which governs behavior. It isn’t a short-term spinal chord reaction, and it isn’t an immediate emotional response. It is not an ability (for example, the human ability to reason is not knowledge, it is a faculty). As the name implies, instinctual knowledge is a kind of knowledge." 

I can't see how that can be consistent with your view that "The idea of instinctual or innate knowledge does not make sense."

David Odden, can you clarify?

My position is that even knowledge possessed without using reason is acquired by a process of perceiving and of remembering and associating perceptions.  It can not be innate.

An innate behavior pattern is not knowledge.

On 8/1/2023 at 12:19 AM, InfraBeat said:

Tell it to Leonard Peikoff.

If I get a good chance, I will, unless someone shows me where he has already said it.  In any case, I maintain that I have given the answer to the problem you raised.

On 8/1/2023 at 12:19 AM, InfraBeat said:

What kind of behavior do you think it is?

Behavior based on a clever recognition, which can be achieved without using concepts.

On 8/1/2023 at 12:19 AM, InfraBeat said:

[David Odden] "We do not have instinctual knowledge that certain berries are poisonous or that certain creatures are dangerous – we have to learn this from observation and reason." 

I took that to contrast animals with humans.

David Odden, can you clarify?

On 8/1/2023 at 12:19 AM, InfraBeat said:

[David Odden] "numerous animal instincts can reasonably be said to constitute a kind of knowledge that they already know, the only good candidates for instinct in humans are particular feelings, which are not knowledge."

Again, I took that as contrasting certain animals with instincts that are a kind of knowledge with humans who have no such kind of knowledge. 

[David Odden] "It seems reasonable to think that octopuses have what qualifies as “instinctual knowledge”, in terms of their ability to mimic other animals. Though again, I don’t know to what extent this is instinctual rather than learned stochastically."

I take that to be saying that it is reasonable to say that octopi have instinctual knowledge.

OK, David Odden and I seem to disagree to the extent that he is willing to call things "instinctual knowledge" which I say are behavior but not knowledge.

 

[Doug Morris]

On 8/1/2023 at 11:29 AM, InfraBeat said:

[Rand] "Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests."

But that is not the dictionary definition:

Rand was using an older, better dictionary.  Older dictionaries are more logical in their definitions.

 

[DavidOdden]

2 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

David Odden and I seem to disagree to the extent that he is willing to call things "instinctual knowledge" which I say are behavior but not knowledge.

The concept of instinctual knowledge is very confused, yet people commonly speaking of animals “instinctively knowing”. Animals do have instinctive behavior, such as salmon returning to their birthplace to spawn, but it depends on learned knowledge (“where was I born?”). Bee dances are a good example of instinctive behavior based on an inherited rule (knowledge), which is not learned. That is the distinction that I would draw between instinctual knowledge and instinctual behavior. Or, instinctual behavior and innate knowledge, noting that I disapprove of “instinctual knowledge”, so this is a translation guide in terms of understanding how I think most people talk (confusedly). Behavior is a concrete instance, so is a bee isn't doing the dance, they don't have the behavior. They have the capacity for the behavior – which is to say, they have knowledge that makes the behavior possible.

I think there would be a real disagreement over whether all animal knowledge is acquired through experience, that is (to repeat the central question of epistemology), what is “knowledge”?

[InfraBeat]

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

If I get a good chance, I will, unless someone shows me where he has already said it.  In any case, I maintain that I have given the answer to the problem you raised.

I told you where he said it. OPAR quoting Rand.

I don't see anywhere that you address that 'man' is defined in terms of 'rational' and 'rationality is defined in terms of 'reason', which is defined in terms of 'man'. 

[InfraBeat]

3 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Rand was using an older, better dictionary. 

What dictionary was that? She said "the dictionary". But there is not just one dictionary that is "the" dictionary. Unless there's a citation in her writing (maybe there is?), I have no way of knowing what actual dictionary, if any, she was citing. I looked at 'Merriam-Webster' from the early 1960s. It's possible that other dictionaries in general use at the time left out the part about "exclusively" or similar. But I very much doubt that is the case, or at least there is no evidence here that it is.

And the two other examples I gave. My point stands that Objectivism has special senses for certain words. That can make discussions awkward if, for instance, one wishes to use 'logic' in its ordinary sense but doing so would be unclear since Objectivism has its own definition. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[InfraBeat]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

The concept of instinctual knowledge is very confused

So I take it now that I should regard you as not invoking that notion and that earlier mentions no longer have any role here.

That brings me back to the question: Do humans use only reason and no instincts and do animals use only instincts and no reason? You've talked about that, but I don't see a crisp decision. And others may wish to declare. (And, of course, if 'use' is not a good word (I don't recall whether Rand of Peikoff say 'use') then we may adopt whatever reasonable alternative we wish.)

Edited August 4, 2023 by InfraBeat

[EC]

I'd like to know how you define "logic in the "ordinary" sense" if it's not a direct restatement of Aristotle's definition of logic like Miss Rand's is? There is no other definition by essentials of logic, although there is more specialized meanings like various types of formal logic etc but we are speaking of logic in it's widest most essential meaning that directly applies to what rational beings use in the process of rational abstract conceptual thought.

[EC]

Also, she did cite which dictionary but that is the definition of selfish by essentials and without spin. Just because people use words in slang ways doesn't mean it constitutes a definition by essentials of a concept.

"That car looks cool". Slightly different context but similar idea when we are speaking of a cool temperature for instance.

Although this is "worse" than slang (because slang has a legitimate purpose in common language usage or a word can stand for more than one legitimate concept on occasion). The "common" usage is a smear against the concept of self/ego/consciousness/soul of an individual. It's a direct attack on a rational being's individual self and rational egoism that smears and falsely conflates it with a brutish criminal when it actually the complete opposite. 

Edited August 4, 2023 by EC

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, DavidOdden said:

Animals do have instinctive behavior, such as salmon returning to their birthplace to spawn, but it depends on learned knowledge (“where was I born?”).

My understanding is that if something changes which tributary is colder, such as humans building a power plant that dumps heat in one of them, salmon will "return" to a different place.