We now know that other animals create concepts because they have language–which was not generally known during Rand’s life.
Which animals?
Animals can communicate with each other, certainly. I understand that ants use a sophisticated system of pheramones in order to communicate with each other.
But I do not believe that secretions really count as language; do you?
Which animals?
Animals can communicate with each other, certainly. I understand that ants use a sophisticated system of pheramones in order to communicate with each other.
But I do not believe that secretions really count as language; do you?
One of the key tests for language is to rig up an experiment to see if, say, a fire ant fron one mound can understand the instructions given in another.
This has been done many times; the first assay was with bees, in order to test EO Wilson’s ‘instinctivity’. If animals are born with a set of instructions, these are good for anywhere within the species.
But they aren’t. By whatever manner bees, ants, etc communicate, it’s learned within the group,
Finally, lot’s of what assumed was animal silence was communication in a language that’s outside our human sensory range. The best two examples of this are whales and elephants.
Finally, lot’s of what assumed was animal silence was communication in a language that’s outside our human sensory range. The best two examples of this are whales and elephants.
Outside our human sensory range. How convenient. Would that be just the unaided sensory range, or would it extend to the aided as well?
We form concepts by aggregating individual things and facts together. The scientific motive for aggregation is called ‘cause’, which gives the sort of meaning that scientists think is important. Concepts, then, are aggregates that we think are important.
Can you add to what is meant by aggregating individual things and facts together in order to form concepts?
Can you add to what is meant by aggregating individual things and facts together in order to form concepts?
Yes, if you please…
From the pov of math.or even, say, a visitor from another dimension, there is no intrinsic means of fitting facts or things together to make a generalization, or ‘concept’, as it were.
Moreover, our experience with other cultures (Anthropology) indicates that things are classified and divided in a number of different ways.
That being said, philosophy tries to demonstrate the justification for having organized the world of facts and things in a certain way. Here, three words seem to be operative: metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology.
* Metaphysics is the final big picture (Wittgenstein’s frame of reference)
* Epistemology is the justification for such and such an arrangement (coherent vs foundational)
* Ontology is the search and argument (polemic) as to which arrangement is more essential, or primarily more important.
Several comments on people, please:
Kripke famously wrote that words themselves cause meaning, or actively serve the purpose of aggregating.
Deleuze rejected Epistemology, using ‘agencement’, or agency to describe how people organize the world according to will and utility.
Quine said that the study of philosophy is should only be about the generation of facts through science.
He also remarked as to how the tweaking of several small facts can radically alter a theory. big pictures are inherantly unstable.
Cartwright wrote that general laws lie. Only local systems are causally true.
I was looking for something a little closer to this excerpt from concept-formation
To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.”
I was looking for something a little closer to this excerpt from concept-formation
To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.”
My point was that your (Rand’s) formal description as to how concepts are formed says nothing of content. For example, what determines ‘sameness’ of charactaristic? What disninguishes a ‘distinguishing characteristic’?
Lastly, in science, one does describe a thing or a group of things by using a particular word-- without referencing quantities that make that thing what it is. For example, we say, ‘boson’ and ‘fermion’ with the understanding that the first has a 1 spin and the second a half.
In Chemistry, the elements are called names, as well. But what references these are atomic numbers and valences. The only ‘omission’ of ‘particular measurements’ is for reasons facilitating linguistic use—hardly a deep ‘epistemological’ issue.
My point was that your (Rand’s) formal description as to how concepts are formed says nothing of content. For example, what determines ‘sameness’ of charactaristic? What disninguishes a ‘distinguishing characteristic’?
Lastly, in science, one does describe a thing or a group of things by using a particular word-- without referencing quantities that make that thing what it is. For example, we say, ‘boson’ and ‘fermion’ with the understanding that the first has a 1 spin and the second a half.
In Chemistry, the elements are called names, as well. But what references these are atomic numbers and valences. The only ‘omission’ of ‘particular measurements’ is for reasons facilitating linguistic use—hardly a deep ‘epistemological’ issue.
Well, you haven’t been exactly asking these questions along the way. the ‘sameness of characteristics’ are given via perceptual given similarity, and later conceptually grasped similarity, where as a ‘distinguishing characteristic’ is the fundamental aspect that sets the concept apart from all the rest.
The epistemologically important issue in Chemistry would have been the process of identification used to arrive at the discoveries along the way, which led to and made possible the grouping the elements according to several distinguishing characteristics, i.e., the atomic number arranges them by the number of electrons, protons and neutrons, the horizontal rows per the number of shells, among other characteristics I would have to look up to list.
The “What do we know?” in the case of the periodic table, is the product of a long chain of concept formations performed over time. The deeper epistemological issue address the question “How do we know it?”, essentially retracing the steps of the discovery.
I might add, frank, there are many threads on OO that examine concept-formation in the metaphysics/epistemological section of the forum, such as this sampling.
Edited: Added
Well, you haven’t been exactly asking these questions along the way. the ‘sameness of characteristics’ are given via perceptual given similarity, and later conceptually grasped similarity, where as a ‘distinguishing characteristic’ is the fundamental aspect that sets the concept apart from all the rest.
The epistemologically important issue in Chemistry would have been the process of identification used to arrive at the discoveries along the way, which led to and made possible the grouping the elements according to several distinguishing characteristics, i.e., the atomic number arranges them by the number of electrons, protons and neutrons, the horizontal rows per the number of shells, among other characteristics I would have to look up to list.
The “What do we know?” in the case of the periodic table, is the product of a long chain of concept formations performed over time. The deeper epistemological issue address the question “How do we know it?”, essentially retracing the steps of the discovery.
Edited: Added
In science, you say that the distinguishing characteristic is causal as opposed to descriptive.Tthe standard of 'perceptual given similarity won’t get you anywhere because many things in chemistry look the same, but aren’t. Moreover, most gasses give no immeduate perception, being odorless, colorless, and tasteless.
If epistemology indicates ‘justification’, then the episemological winners are the experiments that work, and that explain events better.
The periodic table, in any case, was the work of one guy (Mendeleev) with major revisions by another (Seaborg), who offered a clear explanation as to why he jerked out the unstables. His 'epistemology. btw, was widely debated prior to its acceptance.
Atomic # , btw, is only the number of protons.
Atomic # , btw, is only the number of protons.
My knowledge of chemistry is a bit rusty. Thanks for the reminder. Be that as it may, if you are interested more in depth discussions of concept-formation, you could start with the list in my last post that is based on a list of topics that have ‘concept formation’ in the title.
One of the key tests for language is to rig up an experiment to see if, say, a fire ant fron one mound can understand the instructions given in another.
What?
By whatever manner bees, ants, etc communicate, it’s learned within the group.
What??? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
What?
What??? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Simply reading up on animal behavior and their disputes with EO Wilson over instinctivity is not ‘coming to a conclusion’.
One of the key tests for language is to rig up an experiment to see if, say, a fire ant fron one mound can understand the instructions given in another.
Do you or do you not see any difference between pheromone-trails and human symbolism?
Do you or do you not see any difference between pheromone-trails and human symbolism?
Pheremone trails can either trigger a comand mechinism or convey symbolic language. In the former, You can say that the command system varies genetically from one inbred mound to another. This is entirely possible in so far as on mound = one queen = one DNA.
Or you can say that chemical trailing is combined with language (gesture/ sound)
Or that the reception of a chemical trail is either learned of locked in my a genetic code that won’t work in a new mound.
Within the realm of symbol, one has to distinguish ‘sign’ as a set command. for example, a hexagonal, when driving, means 'stop!. Yet in In the former, meaning slides. So as for other animals, yes, it’s an interesting question as to how they might symbolize.
Human emotions are left-overs from evolution that used to be a more complete package in our ancestors, but due to the advent of the rational factuality, are now only pieces of its former self.
Do you have evidence to support your assertion?
I say rationality makes it possible for me to safely exist with a much more powerful emotional capacity.
I say rationality makes it possible for me to safely exist with a much more powerful emotional capacity.
Do YOU have evidence to support YOUR assertion?
Much more powerful, in what way? Compared to what, animal instinct? How would you know? Is your measurement objective? Can you prove it?
I started this thread to fully understand Objectvism’s model on this subject, which I accomplished a page back. My statement you quoted represent my original perspective before adjustments resulted from insightful post made by other members in this thread.
While I don’t have a problem with people interested in knowing my premise for my views, I find your hypocrisy funny that you would accuse me lacking evidence while your own assertion is just as barren.
[quote name=“VECT” post=“326292” timestamp="1403118
While I don’t have a problem with people interested in knowing my premise for my views, I find your hypocrisy funny that you would accuse me lacking evidence while your own assertion is just as barren.
Since you asked me to provide evidence defending my assertion, I will: I didn’t always use my rational faculty. Drugs alcohol and a deathwish allowed me to act on my emotions, without filtering them through logic. My actions landed me in prison, in and out for the past 20 years (in for 16 of that). My emotions (unchecked by rationality) got me in a lot of fights–most of which I lost. Nowadays I employ my rational mind to calibrate my value system so that my emotions are in synch with reality. It works. And since I am fallible, I also use my rational mind to double check my emotions before I act on them. I don’t suppress my emotions, my feelings are stronger and my passions are greater than ever.
I am willing to read your evidence to back your statement. The only reason (asIde from the fact that I type all thIs on a tIny phone, whIch Is tedIous) Is I didn’t assume you were interested in reading more about my assertion.
I am always interested in learning about the reason of another’s view as long as they are up for debate; it’s an effective way of improving my own knowledge.
And yes, my original view on this subject which you quoted is a postulate with assumptions. I am aware of that which is why I made this thread in the first place to solicit Objectivism (and possibly other view) on this matter so I can improve my knowledge. I would think this intention is apparent given my initial post when I am asking for criticism/addition.
And that’s why the intention of your original post can be so easily misunderstood: You ask me to defend my original belief when it was obvious that was a postulate posted for the sole purpose of letting people know what my beliefs were at the time on the matter so they can give better criticism. Your assertion came with no reason with which I can think on. And your assertion came with no clear context, leaving me wondering just exactly what were you trying to say.
So now I see that your assertion have to do with your own personal experience. The reason/evidence is your own self introspection. The context is that you can safely exhibit stronger emotions now compared to your past irrational self, and that the context is not that you as a human begin, due to having a rational faculty, can safely exhibit stronger emotions as compared to an animal’s instincts.
I thank you for sharing.
And I will withdraw my claim of hypocrisy now that it’s apparent no ill intent was meant in your original post.
I’m resurrecting in this thread because it’s so obvious to me that human beings did not evolve by natural selection and I don’t get how other people don’t see it. To be precise, note the fundamental assumptions of natural selection:
Now consider two species surviving in the arctic region: a polar bear which has a thick layer of fur and has the capacity for hibernation. Then there are some human beings who have built a house and lit a fire to keep themselves warm. Both species have a high degree of reproductive success.
Now consider the African Savannah: there is a lion which uses its claws during hunting. Then there are some humans who hunt using spears. Both have a high degree of reproductive success.
Here is the problem: humans don’t satisfy 1) and 2) simultaneously for the same trait. Here, the trait involved (for humans) is the usage of shelter and spears. Neither are heritable genetically. The next generation of humans could burn down the house in the name of living in harmony with nature. They would die within a few days. The other group could stab themselves with a spear. Essentially, a human being can act against its own nature. The capacity of reason, which allows you to do either (survive or commit suicide), has no statistical survival advantage.
Now what trait do human beings inherit? The capacity of reason. Human beings inherit a potency, not an actuality. The capacity that allows us to be rational also allows us to be irrational. A human being can act against its own nature. There is no statistical survival advantage to the faculty of reason. There is only a potential for advantage. Then what allowed human beings to survive? The usage of the faculty of reason to the purpose of survival. This is the specific trait that improved the reproductive success of humans. To sum up:
a.) The trait that humans inherit is a potency: the faculty of reason. It has no statistical survival advantage. You could create or burn down a house. You could hunt animals or stab yourself with a spear. This faculty gives us the possibility of an incredible survival advantage as well as the ability to act against your own nature. This trait satisfies 1) but not 2).
b.) The trait that allowed humans to survive is rationality (the specific usage of the capacity of reason for your survival). This trait increased the reproductive success of humans. This trait isn’t heritable. This trait satisfies 2) but not 1)
What this means for evolution: human beings evolved the trait of reason solely because they chose to be rational. Human beings evolved because of a non-heritable trait (essentially, the identification of the right philosophy, in some rudimentary, perhaps preverbal, form). Humans evolved because they chose to. If they had chosen not to be rational, they wouldn’t have existed. The physical capacity of reason was selected because early humans chose to use it rationally. The tribes, races and other human-like species which did not use that faculty rationally perished. Humans do not currently possess the heritable trait of reason by natural selection. (Of course, humans acquired the trait of immunity and certain other things by natural selection, but not the trait of reason).
The trait of reason was artificially selected by a specific number of humans who chose to use it rationally. This does not ensure our future survival (the faculty of reason does not change our statistical, amoral chance of survival). By chance alone, we could potentially perish in the future (since reason does not statistically improve our chances of survival). Of course, this wasn’t purposeful artificial selection. These early humans chose to be rational and nature did the rest. But the term (artificial) highlights the fact that a choice was involved. Human faculty of reason could not have evolutionarily survived without some human being making that choice in the past. This is a fact. An extremely simple fact (if it was automatic, it would not involve reason). And there’s no way around this. Humans do not possess the faculty of reason by natural selection (just so someone gets ideas: I’m not talking about the mutation that gave humans the faculty of reason. That was out of our control. I’m talking about what selected for this trait. That was a choice. If it wasn’t a choice, it did not involve reason).
For those saying I’m twisting Rand’s philosophy, just ignore Rand’s philosophy here. Just examine the facts. I had this theory way before I heard of Rand (at around 8th or 9th grade, years before I read Rand).
However, some Rand quotes are relevant here:
Quote
Man’s unique reward, however, is that while animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself.
Quote
Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals.
Why is this important? Because adaptation to the environment is heritable. It is a fixed relation requiring no choice. On the other hand, “adjusting his background to himself” is a non-heritable trait (the inherited trait, reason makes it possible, but doesn’t cause this. It is only a potential). Reason, since it enables rationality, is the faculty that survives or perishes with rationality or irrationality. The only way humans could use reason is by choice. Hence choice is the distinguishing element in human evolution. Reason cannot be used without volition. It cannot survive genetically if you don’t use it rationally. The specific choice (rational/irrational) you make isn’t genetically heritable (you or your progeny could have done otherwise) but it is this trait that gives you reproductive success. Human beings did not evolve by natural selection ( the reproductive success wasn’t given by a heritable trait ) but by a primitive form of artificial selection.
I don’t know in how many permutations I can state the same thing. This assertion seems so obvious to me and the more I think about it, the more obvious it seems.
In summary, the essential human trait, reason, did not evolve by natural selection. And this does not involve any complicated arguments. Reason was not selected by natural selection by the fact that it does not function automatically and is a faculty that can contribute to life or death (and its survival depended on a specific non-heritable human choice in the past). Pretty much every fact about the nature of reason points to this (by simple logic).
Until you actually make a choice as a baby, what you have is only a potential. A potential cannot be involved in any kind of evolutionary selection. It has to be actualized by a choice. In order to evolve as a human being some of our early ancestor had to have made a choice (otherwise, your capacity would only exist as a potential and could play no role in evolution). The choice had to have been rational for the presence of the rational faculty to be of any survival advantage. This choice is not heritable. However, human beings still survived. Human evolution (of reason) was driven by this choice, not by any heritable element involved in natural selection.
The faculty of reason was a trait riding on the choices our ancestors made. It was artificially selected in a primitive way. It was not subject to natural selection because every time it was exercised, it involved choice (which could have gone either way if you talk about the faculty of reason itself. It’s survival required an additional, non-heritable trait, the actual choice of being rational. This trait was not subject to natural selection simply because it was not heritable ).
And in case you didn’t know, I already got variants of “you’re rationalizing”, “you’re trying to fit science into philosophy”, blah, blah… as replies to my above arguments. I don’t need more of it. I you suggest that I’m taking concepts to the extreme, I’ll take that as a complement. If you say that I’m using these concepts out of context, I’ll say that you’re wrong. If you care to, reply to the essentials of my arguments (which I’ve stated in different forms).
Also I earlier (3 years ago) argued that the faculty of reason was not an adaptation to the environment. I’m not making that argument now (although I still believe it). There’s no point in following that line of thought (or a line of thought involving evolution of instincts) unless we can agree that human reason did not evolve by natural selection. So I won’t pursue that line of thought now.