A man who is too smart to articulate himself

[Robert J. Kolker]

Proper names are not concepts. Bad example.

What about "The U.S. President who occupied the office during the American Civil War"? Is that a name or a concept? It is both, because the description applies to exactly one person whose proper name is Abraham Lincoln. The description and the name have the same reference, but not the same intension (or sense). The Bedeuting is the same. The Sinn is different.

Bob Kolker

[mrocktor]

What about "The U.S. President who occupied the office during the American Civil War"? Is that a name or a concept?

A concept with a single referent. But the meaning of the concept is not "Abraham Lincoln", in fact the concept is so useless we don't even have a word for it. And the meaning of "Abraham Lincoln" is not "The U.S. President who occupied the office during the American Civil War".

That is why it is a bad example.

[JMeganSnow]

It's not a concept at all. The word concept isn't synonymous with "idea". It is an abstraction that combines many units *under a single referent*. That is a sentence full of referents, ergo not a concept.

[Heresiarch]

I've run into someone saying that many of the "great" philosophers were too intelligent to be able to properly convey their ideas to the rest of mankind.

This could apply to Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and numerous other "great" philosophers. There's a concept in Philosophy known as Obscurantism; the idea is that someone is being opaque (intentionally or not), and because no-one can understand them, therefore they must have something more profound than our simple intelligences can perceive.

"Too intelligent to properly convey their ideas" is a defense of obscurantism.

The charge was brought against Hegel during his lifetime, and his reply was that he was developing a new type of logic; of course his stuff didn't make sense, you had to be willing to stretch your mind around this new logic first.

I think it has a lot in common with ad-hoc hypotheses, and your defense against it is similar.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Ayn Rand has compared the knowledge hierarchy to that of a skyscraper, and one can only build a skyscraper through conscious intent.

I think this needs to be expanded upon, because some people might get the wrong idea -- the idea that a proper human consciousness is static rather than active, due to the structure of it all (like a skyscraper that doesn't change over time). But Ayn Rand has stated that a rational man ought to have an active consciousness, so how does one integrate together the idea of structure and yet have it be active?

I think, in a sense, the skyscraper of the mind is never fully built -- that is, it is not as if once one gets the structure, that's it, don't do any more thinking, because it is completed and doesn't need any more work. For one thing, as one continues to integrate, the top floors are being added. It's not as if one reaches the twentieth floor, and then one stops; rather, one continues to add new knowledge and integrating to higher and higher levels of abstraction. I think it is only if one has some sort of major hierarchical problems that one would have to, in a sense, tear down the skyscraper of the mind and rebuild it. Some people have to do this when they already have a philosophy, but then have to re-think everything because they've come across Objectivism.

But what if there is no major restructuring to be done? How can that type of mind still have an activity, say aside from adding new top-level floors?

I think the answer is in the details of the functionality of a skyscraper. Unlike the Ancient Egyptian pyramids, which I think is symbolic to their psycho-epistemology, a modern skyscraper is not just a static structure, serving no purpose other than to be that geometric shape. No, a modern skyscraper is much more dynamic when one considers all that is going on inside the structure -- I mean, there are people in offices doing all sorts of filing, communicating, making decisions, and going up and down the structure via the elevators.

An active consciousness is like that. Deliveries come in through the ground floor (perception) and then are re-routed to various parts of the building. Only for the active mind, a lot of those rooms are libraries full of filing cabinets and bookshelves; with people making decisions continuously as to where to file the items and what to name them. In a sense, it's kind of like this huge building has its own intranet, where anyone anywhere within the building has access to everything ever filed there. And, just like a library, if something is not filed properly, it can be difficult to find it once it is misplaced.

Let's say the basement or the underground floors is where much of the maintenance machinery is located. You know, the electric generators, the main computer, the piping, etc. Just as the subconscious is continuously working with subroutines that keep track of everything in one's mind; so for a skyscraper a lot is going on that makes the smooth functionality of all those offices work. And just like in a skyscraper, sometimes all of that automatic machinery (automated subroutines) just don't function as smoothly as they should. And sometime one might even get an explosion in the north boiler room.

One would not fix the misfiling in a library, the power outages to a floor, or an explosion in the boiler room without some sort of conscious intent. If one merely "let the chips fall where they may" there is going to be an even bigger mess in short order.

Unfortunately, I do think that is the way a lot of peoples minds are. They stay on auto pilot for way too long, and don't even realize they are about to crash and burn.

The same thing can happen with a skyscraper that is slowly or quickly falling apart due to improper maintenances; or more appropriately for many people, that trash heap is never organized into a skyscraper in the first place.

[Ragtime]

Yes, Dragon Lady, that's it! But instead of a book that you can read easily when fully awake, why not one on Romanian language, Thermodynamics, or even "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money"?!

Right, you only "hear" the words sporadically. However, the next time you look at the book--after

a lengthy interval--you will "hear" more of them and larger groups of them!

By the way, when you do "hear" one, doesn't something seem to light up in your mind??!

I first started watching this phenomenon when I was taking a speed-reading class. I noticed that the faster I "read", the more brightly (and wonderfully clearly) ideas from the book popped into my mind. But of course I couldn't "retain" anything--I could't remember things that had been so very clear to me just moments before.

I was fascinated by this, and it finally led me to the realization that the conceptual structure is indeed a "mind of its own"!

According to Mr. Binswanger's theory, if you don't intentionally "focus" on a concept, it will be retained in your mind only by some random associations (as an example from HB's lectures, you might remember "quagga" only as a"funny word I heard at a lecture in San Francisco" instead of "an extinct mammal related to the zebra).

Dragon Lady, you say you afterwards find yourself "familiar" in some way with what you've read. Maybe you think that's only through random associations. And I promise you that if you explore this a little further you will find that what you have gotten from your "unfocused" "reading" are VERY focused ideas, albeit probably very general in nature, relating to the subject matter, and that as you "read" the book again and again--after substantial intervals of time-- you will realize that you ARE indeed learning about very difficult things that you perhaps thought you could never get into your mind.

And again I ask, since you merely passively "heard" the words you "read", and did not do any work to focus your mind on the words or the ideas that popped into your mind, HOW COULD THIS BE POSSIBLE?

[Ragtime]

All thinking is done with words. The integration done by the Subconscious is not concept formation,

but can be described as follows: If "A" is connected to "B" and "B" is connected to "C", then "A" will be to some extent connected with "C". There is no "other person" inside you. (See HB's lectures on "Psycho-Epistemology").

Do you REALLY think "Say's Law" (discussed by HB) popped into J.B. Say's head because of the

Subconscious connecting "A" to "C" by way of "B"? Say's Law is so obviously NOT a mere association (such as pulling "quagga" out of your subconscious file when the issue of "extinct animals" comes up) but something of a TOTALLY DIFFERENT NATURE: A NEW CONCEPT. Where

did it come from? It popped up because the "Subconscious" ITSELF conceptualized it.

What about music? If your concepts of music come from thinking in words, then you must be a "second-hander"!!

Do you think you have one conceptual faculty for conceptualizing economics and another, special faculty for conceptualizing music, and another for conceptualizing dancing (or standing, walking and running)? Isn't it more likely that the SAME faculty conceptualizes EVERYTHING that you conceptualize?

HB states that standing, walking, and running are enabled by "automatized subconscious integration". In dancing, "the conscious mind has to select each subunit and with practice it can be integrated (by "subconscious integration") into a larger unit and then you just have to tell yourself, "Waltz!"

O.K., here we apparently have the "Subconscious" doing a lot more than connecting "A" to "C" by way of "B". The truth is that the "subconscious" conceptual structure MAKES CONCEPTS FOR YOU. Your conscious mind CANNOT manufacture them. Sure, you can have someone explain how to do a waltz, but between that and having it "automatized" is a big step which is not under your conscious control! You just have to be open to it and wait for it.

If you are learning to play a new piece of music, the only way you're going to improve is to put your previous knowledge of the piece out of conscious focus, so that your "automatic integration faculty" can add to what it already understands about the piece. Musicians have the knack of doing this. They do not make a practice of trying to hold on to what they already know about a piece. They listen to it "with new ears" each time they play it.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Ragtime

[JMeganSnow]

Ragtime, that's nonsense. Conceptualization and the process of automatizing actions are *not* the same thing, nor can they be used interchangeably as you seem to do.

The key to automatizing something is repetition and it is fully under the control of your conscious mind, as you must consciously choose to repeat the proper actions over and over and over. Examples of people that *didn't* consciously automatize can be found everywhere (I'm one of them, actually) in bad habits and the inability to type without numerous errors or dance without standing on your partner's feet. No amount of sitting around with your mind "open" and "waiting" for your subconscious to do the work will help you. You must decide, consciously, to repeat the action many, many times.

Now, learning concepts as a child is mostly done through the implicit method and uses repetition, and as an adult you have largely automatized your *use* of concepts (to the point where if you try to analyze it you paralyze your own mind . . . try analyzing the specific sound of a word and you'll know what I mean). However *forming* a concept is not a subconscious process.

I seriously suggest you work on clarifying your own thinking so that you don't continue to make these bizarre pronouncements.

[Ragtime]

Is it too late to change my moniker from "Ragtime" to "Bizarre"?

On the other hand, I think you are way too sure of yourself, since concepts are physical structures the nature of which and the physical processes of which are unknown.

I think Harry Binswanger draws his audiences' attention very effectively to the silent conceptual structure by asking them to describe his demeanor as he is lecturing--to look for the right words to describe it. Look where? If you have learned the waltz, tango, quickstep and two-step, can you not in the same manner look for and find in the very same place the right words to differentiate these dances from eachother? Not by replaying someone else's definitions, or somehow replaying memories of doing the dances or seeing someone else do them, but by actually "looking" in some way at some kind of mental structure?

Edited October 4, 2007 by Ragtime

[DavidOdden]

On the other hand, I think you are way too sure of yourself, since concepts are physical structures the nature of which and the physical processes of which are unknown.

I'm pretty sure that concepts are not physical structures. You wouldn't say that Galt's Speech is a physical structure, would you?

[Ragtime]

As defined by Ayn Rand, "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted." Galt's Speech contains many thousands of concepts of all levels of complexity. Galt's Speech is not itself a "concept".

The works of Rand offer many insights into the physical nature of concepts. It is clear from her "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" that concepts viewed from an epistemological standpoint have a structure; more complicated concepts are built from less complicated concepts. There must be a corresponding physical structure of some kind. Viewed from either an epistemological or a physical standpoint, this must be a structure which allows the concept to always be retained in its original form and at the same time to be instantly incorporated into the structures of many other concepts. A concept may undergo instantaneous alteration or it may go unchanged for more than a century. It is amazing that science has not yet been able to indentify what it is in the brain cortex which corresponds to "thinking". Perhaps Ayn Rand's epistemology holds the key.

However, I do believe the idea that the "conscious mind" as opposed to the "subconscious Univac" is the entity which forms and re-forms concepts is a misapprehension truly on a par with the ancient view that the world is flat. It is a

shame that Objectivism, which is so helpful in so many ways on the general topic of using one's mind, is not in the forefront on this issue.

One very interesting thing about the brain is that it can allow one to momentarily put all his knowledge out of consciousness SO THAT HE HAS THE ABILITY TO SEE A THING (OR A WORD) "WITH NEW EYES". Why would this ability have been built into or retained in the brain if it has no use?

Of course the conscious mind CAN compare its concepts with new perceptions or information received from other people. Of course I am not denying that. But this type of thinking does not seem to result in any PHYSICAL CHANGE in one's conceptual structure. THIS TYPE OF THINKING DOES NOT NECESSARILY CHANGE YOU. The new information is understood by relation to your existing structure.

It also certainly does seem obvious that the more one consciously thinks about some topic--TRIES to learn--the more

readily the "Univac" will do its own thinking about the topic and possibly physically change its structure.

The most effective method of facilitating physical change in one's conceptual structure is this:

LOOK AT THE THING (OR THE WORD) AS IF YOU HAD NEVER SEEN IT OR ANYTHING LIKE IT EVER BEFORE.

Play with this idea. Your mind does have the ability to do this.

And remember, Ptolemy's views about the roundness of the earth were totally bizarre in their time!

(Do you really have 5,000 posts??!!)

Edited October 8, 2007 by Ragtime

[Robert J. Kolker]

And remember, Ptolemy's views about the roundness of the earth were totally bizarre in their time!

Both Aristotle and Plato assumed the earth was spherical. Aristotle produced empirical evidence to this effect, by pointing out the shadow of the earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse was a section of a circle. This is several centuries before Ptolemy.

Bob Kolker