The Validity of the Senses (was: Berkeley's Idealism)
Hugh Akston
This discussion has gotten somewhat out of hand. We are
talking about 80 different things at once. I don't have the
time or interest to engage is such a wide ranging discussion
at this time. However, I would like to discuss, for awhile,
the most basic of the ideas we were discussing, the validity
of the senses. If there is something else you'd like to
discuss, start another thread and maybe I or somebody
else will bite.
First, I want to clearly state the Objectivist view on the
senses. Then, I respond to some excerpts of you last
post that are relevant.
The senses are valid. This means that
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
1) - 4) is just an outline of the Objectivist view on the
senses.
Here are some things that are also true about the
sense but pose no problems to the Objectivist
outlined above.
1) What seems to be is not always what is.
2) The senses are not an "automatic" means to gain
knowledge of reality.
3) Our senses are limited in what they can do by
their identity.
genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> your conclusion was a *logical* one despite the shortcomings
> of the eye. the eye *was* fooled....your inquiring mind which
> sorts out these shortcomings in our sensors was not.
The eye is not fooled by illusions. We might be. The eye
did not come to a decision or identify what it saw or the
sensations it reported. That comes after the sensations
reach the brain.
> > X-rays were discovered by observing aspects of reality and,
> > even though we can't see them, we know of their existence
> > based on these observations. So, I think it improper to
> > describe this as knowledge beyond our senses.
>
> another example of sensors not picking up whats known to
> be there
The senses have limits. I've never denied that this was the
case.
> > > sense of touch, an experiment with many pins in the subjects
> > > back was reported as one pin...
> >
> > Ok. There are some facts of reality that give rise to this
> > phenomenon and our senses are accurately reporting these
> > facts.
>
> they are reporting many pins as *one*...that is clearly not
> accurate.
Oh, but it is. There are facts of reality that cause us to
experience the phenomenon you are describing. Suppose
we felt more than one pin when we should have only felt
one. This would be a distortion of reality. In your example,
we should and do experience only one pin. This is an
example of the senses acting in accordance with their
nature. It is not an example of the senses distorting reality.
> > > ever see a desert mirage?
> >
> > Ok. There are some facts of reality that give rise to this
> > phenomenon and our senses are accurately reporting these
> > facts.
>
> they are reporting an event that is *not* occurring...it is our
logical
> mind that makes sense out of it through observation and
> experimentation....
No. They are accurately reporting all relevant facts of reality.
There are some aspects of reality that causes us to see a
mirage(hot air + great distance or something similar). Thus,
when you see this mirage, you are "seeing" all the relevant
facts of reality. If you did not see a mirage when you should,
your senses would be distorting or inventing reality but they
don't.
Hugh
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<1998081422251...@hotmail.com>...
> Gene,
>
> This discussion has gotten somewhat out of hand. We are
> talking about 80 different things at once. I don't have the
> time or interest to engage is such a wide ranging discussion
> at this time.
i agree and did try to hint as much...but i always feel obligated to
respond to a question..
However, I would like to discuss, for awhile,
> the most basic of the ideas we were discussing, the validity
> of the senses.
if this is central to objectivism i am all for it...and if it is...why?
If there is something else you'd like to
> discuss, start another thread and maybe I or somebody
> else will bite.
there is one problem with philosophy, one subject tends to leak into
another. but i will do the best i can
>
> First, I want to clearly state the Objectivist view on the
> senses. Then, I respond to some excerpts of you last
> post that are relevant.
>
> The senses are valid. This means that
>
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
of course...."same stuff"
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> law of causality.
basic...
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
correct and am happy to see you have used the word "relevant" and i have
no quarrel thus far.
> 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> on which to build our knowledge of reality.
of course.....i think however when you attempt to take this a bit further
the disagreement flags are raised....
> 1) - 4) is just an outline of the Objectivist view on the
> senses.
> Here are some things that are also true about the
> sense but pose no problems to the Objectivist
> outlined above.
>
> 1) What seems to be is not always what is.
glad you agree....you are 3 giant steps closer
> 2) The senses are not an "automatic" means to gain
> knowledge of reality.
absolutely....although just for the record 2 or three posts ago you
specifically stated they were automatic...does this mean that you have
changed your mind or that objectivism can accept it although you
personally do not agree?
or did i misread?
> 3) Our senses are limited in what they can do by
> their identity.
an eye cannot hear?...explain
> genein
> > your conclusion was a *logical* one despite the shortcomings
> > of the eye. the eye *was* fooled....your inquiring mind which
> > sorts out these shortcomings in our sensors was not.
>
> The eye is not fooled by illusions. We might be. The eye
> did not come to a decision or identify what it saw or the
> sensations it reported. That comes after the sensations
> reach the brain.
the eye reports what it sees....what it sees is an illusion of lets say a
lake in the middle of a desert created by atmospherics....this is what it
sees, this is what it reports. the point that was attempting to be made
originally was that the senses do "lie"....in the sense it does not always
report the world as it really is and so it can be "fooled" and in turn our
mind..but then our inquiring mind begins to question...there is a doubt
based on experience that this can't be so...and so the mind observes
closer still and ponders and then concludes there is no lake.....all our
sensers report to the brain....the mind....the entire world is an "idea"
based on our sensOrs, and processed by mind.....it is the mind that
creates this world that we "know" and it is done indirectly....and this
was the original premise that you seem to disagree with...i attempted to
get beyond the sensers with little success but felt it was important
enough to pursue..the world that we "recreate" in our mind is tempered by
the sensers which can only report relative to our human condition and can
"misunderstand" and so the world we do create is only as real as our
nature...and our ability to translate what it is we feel, see etc.
conclusion: the world is an idea grasped indirectly...and resides in the
mind
would this impact on objectivism in some way?
hugh says:...a past post.
> Not "visualize." We see. We hear. We smell. We feel.
> We taste. Through our senses we are in direct contact
> with the world.
the world that is *relevant* to us....
> The senses have limits. I've never denied that this was the
> case.
closer still....a movie screen has all the sights and sounds of the real
that it photographed...but it cannot be considered a direct embracement of
the scene depicted.
> > they are reporting many pins as *one*...that is clearly not
> > accurate.
>
> Oh, but it is. There are facts of reality that cause us to
> experience the phenomenon you are describing. Suppose
> we felt more than one pin when we should have only felt
> one. This would be a distortion of reality. In your example,
> we should and do experience only one pin. This is an
> example of the senses acting in accordance with their
> nature. It is not an example of the senses distorting reality.
you admitted above that the senses are limited and this is so...you
complicate a very simple arrangement...five pins are placed in the
subjects back, the subject reports feeling only one....the sense of touch
has reported *one* pin this is obviously not true...i am afraid you are
being a bit inventive here....the senses are not distorting reality but
reporting within the limits of their ability....which makes the sensers
limited as you seem to agree and if you agree that this is so....then it
leads directly into my explaination above..
> > they are reporting an event that is *not* occurring...it is our
> logical
> > mind that makes sense out of it through observation and
> > experimentation....
>
> No. They are accurately reporting all relevant facts of reality.
> There are some aspects of reality that causes us to see a
> mirage(hot air + great distance or something similar).
atmospherics...yes
Thus,
> when you see this mirage, you are "seeing" all the relevant
> facts of reality. If you did not see a mirage when you should,
> your senses would be distorting or inventing reality but they
> don't.
i agree, but inadequately, which again is a part of my point...we are in
this "machine" that has tools to interprit the outside world (which is
real) it does so as well as it can...our minds sift through the millions
of pieces of data that come across our "screen" and construct an "idea" of
what is going on out there and how it may impact on us....these tools can
do this because they are designed to be in tune with the nature of this
outside world...otherwise it would be a radio attempting to receive tv
transmissions or perhaps a banana doing the same....the entire universe is
made up of the same **stuff* for want of a better word....including
us.....
and so to sum up....(and this is not an original thought by me). the world
is real, we are real, but we are two separate entities, we endeavor to
understand this world through indirect means although it may appear to be
direct it does not pass the test for directness...and so what are the
implications? for one thing to satisfy the subject ("the validity of the
senses") i must conclude the sensers are flawed, just like anything human
is flawed, our bodies are flawed, we succumb to viruses and die, we are
imperfect and yet we attempt to survive in a hostile world outside
ourselves with tools adapted along the way. (evolution)
g.
Robert J. Kolker
Hugh Akston wrote:
> The senses are valid. This means that
>
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
>
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> law of causality.
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
>
Our sense organs, crude things that they are, reflect a smallfraction of
the facts of reality. Take vision. The range of
frequiencies to which our retinas respond is a very narrow
part of the electro-magnetic spectrum.
Fortunately, we are a witty bunch, and some among us have
built devices that CAN respond to other frequencies, which
are then artificially mapped into modalities we can sense.
Our radios "see" what we cannot and translate what they
"see" into sound that we can hear.
If our sense organs could directly deal with the relevent parts
of reality, we would not need a sense instrument technology.
We would have accomplished with our bare senses what it
took science and technology millenia to do.
Bob Kolker
Hugh Akston
> i agree and did try to hint as much...but i always feel obligated to
> respond to a question.
Ok. I'll try to limit my comments and questions to the subject at
hand.
> if this is central to objectivism i am all for it...and if it
is...why?
The validity of the senses is the idea stuck between
metaphysics and epistemology. All of epistemology rests on
this idea.
> there is one problem with philosophy, one subject tends to leak
> into another...
Very true.
> > First, I want to clearly state the Objectivist view on the
> > senses. Then, I respond to some excerpts of you last
> > post that are relevant.
> >
> > The senses are valid. This means that
> >
> > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
>
> of course...."same stuff"
>
> > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > law of causality.
>
> basic...
>
> >
> > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
>
> correct and am happy to see you have used the word
> "relevant" and i have no quarrel thus far.
I'm guessing that you don't understand what I mean by
relevant in this context. A fact of reality is relevant to
a perception if it in some way affects that perception. For
example, the number of people in China doesn't affect
my perception of the tree in my front yard and thus that
fact of reality is irrelevant to that perception. How light
travels through water affects how I see a stick in water
and thus this fact of reality is relevant that perception.
> > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
>
> of course.....i think however when you attempt to take
> this a bit further the disagreement flags are raised....
Ok. Raise those flags when appropriate.
> > 1) - 4) is just an outline of the Objectivist view on the
> > senses.
> > Here are some things that are also true about the
> > sense but pose no problems to the Objectivist
> > outlined above.
> >
> > 1) What seems to be is not always what is.
>
> glad you agree....you are 3 giant steps closer
Good.
> > 2) The senses are not an "automatic" means to gain
> > knowledge of reality.
>
> absolutely....although just for the record 2 or three posts ago you
> specifically stated they were automatic...does this mean that
> you have changed your mind or that objectivism can accept it
> although you personally do not agree? or did i misread?
I meant, before, that the operation of the senses is automatic.
I mean, now, that the senses are not an automatic means
to gain knowledge of reality. The two are slightly different.
> > 3) Our senses are limited in what they can do by
> > their identity.
>
> an eye cannot hear?...explain
Our ears can do what they can do. They can not, however,
hear all the frequencies of sound a dog's ear can. All our
sense organs are limited in what they can do.
> > > your conclusion was a *logical* one despite the shortcomings
> > > of the eye. the eye *was* fooled....your inquiring mind which
> > > sorts out these shortcomings in our sensors was not.
> >
> > The eye is not fooled by illusions. We might be. The eye
> > did not come to a decision or identify what it saw or the
> > sensations it reported. That comes after the sensations
> > reach the brain.
>
> the eye reports what it sees....what it sees is an illusion of lets
> say a lake in the middle of a desert created by atmospherics
> ....this is what it sees, this is what it reports. the point that
> was attempting to be made originally was that the senses
> do "lie"....in the sense it does not always report the world as
> it really is
Oh, but they do. We are creatures that see mirages when
certain conditions are met. This is reality as it really is.
> and so it can be "fooled" and in turn our mind..but
> then our inquiring mind begins to question...there is a doubt
> based on experience that this can't be so...and so the mind
> observes closer still and ponders and then concludes there
> is no lake.....all our sensors report to the brain....the mind....
> the entire world is an "idea" based on our sensOrs, and
> processed by mind.....
The entire world is outside of our head. It is real and it is large.
It is not a mere idea of ours. It exists independent of any
conscious being.
> it is the mind that creates this world that
> we "know" and it is done indirectly....
No. We identify reality not create it when thinking.
> and this was the original
> premise that you seem to disagree with...i attempted to
> get beyond the sensors with little success but felt it was important
> enough to pursue..the world that we "recreate" in our mind is
> tempered by the sensors which can only report relative to our
> human condition and can "misunderstand" and so the world
> we do create is only as real as our nature...and our ability to
> translate what it is we feel, see etc. conclusion: the world is an
> idea grasped indirectly...and resides in the mind would this
> impact on objectivism in some way?
No. What you have said is wrong.
> > The senses have limits. I've never denied that this was the
> > case.
>
> closer still....a movie screen has all the sights and sounds of
> the real that it photographed...but it cannot be considered a
> direct embracement of the scene depicted.
Except this is another analogy which is different from the actual
situation. Analogies are good for communication but bad for
proof. Our the material provided by our senses as real as real
can be.
> > > they are reporting many pins as *one*...that is clearly not
> > > accurate.
> >
> > Oh, but it is. There are facts of reality that cause us to
> > experience the phenomenon you are describing. Suppose
> > we felt more than one pin when we should have only felt
> > one. This would be a distortion of reality. In your example,
> > we should and do experience only one pin. This is an
> > example of the senses acting in accordance with their
> > nature. It is not an example of the senses distorting reality.
>
> you admitted above that the senses are limited and this is so...you
> complicate a very simple arrangement...five pins are placed in the
> subjects back, the subject reports feeling only one....the sense of
> touch has reported *one* pin this is obviously not true...
No, it is true. It is true that we are such and such type of being
which when five pins are placed in our backs in a certain way
we experience just one. It is not true that there is only one
pin in our back. However, this causes no problems for 1) to
4) above. I never said what always seems to be is.
> Thus,
> > when you see this mirage, you are "seeing" all the relevant
> > facts of reality. If you did not see a mirage when you should,
> > your senses would be distorting or inventing reality but they
> > don't.
>
> i agree, but inadequately, which again is a part of my point...we
> are in this "machine" that has tools to interpret the outside world
> (which is real) it does so as well as it can...our minds sift through
> the millions of pieces of data that come across our "screen" and
> construct an "idea" of what is going on out there and how it may
> impact on us....these tools can do this because they are
> designed to be in tune with the nature of this outside
> world...otherwise it would be a radio attempting to receive tv
> transmissions or perhaps a banana doing the same....the entire
> universe is made up of the same **stuff* for want of a better
> word....including us.....
Our senses do not interpret the world. They transmit sensations
from the world to the brain in accordance with the law of
causality.
The senses were not designed.
An idea, properly formed, is as "real" as the aspect of reality
it identifies.
> and so to sum up....(and this is not an original thought by me).
> the world is real, we are real, but we are two separate entities,
> we endeavor to understand this world through indirect means
> although it may appear to be direct it does not pass the test for
> directness...and so what are the implications? for one thing to
> satisfy the subject ("the validity of the senses") i must conclude
> the sensors are flawed, just like anything human is flawed, our
> bodies are flawed, we succumb to viruses and die, we are
> imperfect and yet we attempt to survive in a hostile world
> outside ourselves with tools adapted along the way. (evolution)
Not indirect.
In what way are the senses flawed?
Hugh Akston
> > The senses are valid. This means that
> >
> > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> >
> > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > law of causality.
> >
> > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
> >
[snip some stuff that I already said and agreed with]
> If our sense organs could directly deal with the relevant parts
> of reality, we would not need a sense instrument technology.
By relevant I mean, if there is a fact of reality that should affect
how we experience reality, it does. I don't mean anything else.
GRADinc
>By relevant I mean, if there is a fact of reality that should affect
>how we experience reality, it does. I don't mean anything else.
What do you mean by "should"?
Is this part of the benevolent existence concept
in Objectivism?
Tom Clarke
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<199808160415...@hotmail.com>...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > if this is central to objectivism i am all for it...and if it
> is...why?
>
> The validity of the senses is the idea stuck between
> metaphysics and epistemology. All of epistemology rests on
> this idea.
don't confuse me....epistemology predates objectivism (rand?) so may we
use the word "objectivism" or "rand" if that suits?.....i have a book
explaining epistemology (logic) which as you know is one of several
branches of philosophy and begins somewhere in spinoza's time...it seeks
to resolve questions...nature of knowledge, is knowledge possible,
limitations of,....in short it is the study of knowledge....one may apply
it in the study of metaphysics, ethics or any other branch of
philosophy....in fact peikoff explains it as such calling it a science
which it is in a sense....although i am not certain i like his arrangement
of words....where he explains that...."e" is the science that tells a
fallible, conceptual consciousness what rules to follow in order to gain
knowledge of an independent reality.....as if "e" was separate in some
manner from this fallible, conceptual consciousness.....the very place
where it was "born".
> > basic...
> > correct and am happy to see you have used the word
> > "relevant" and i have no quarrel thus far.
>
> I'm guessing that you don't understand what I mean by
> relevant in this context. A fact of reality is relevant to
> a perception if it in some way affects that perception. For
> example, the number of people in China doesn't affect
> my perception of the tree in my front yard and thus that
> fact of reality is irrelevant to that perception. How light
> travels through water affects how I see a stick in water
> and thus this fact of reality is relevant that perception.
understood past as well as present....the classic def. of relevant..
no misunderstanding.
> > > 2) The senses are not an "automatic" means to gain
> > > knowledge of reality.
> >
> > absolutely....although just for the record 2 or three posts ago you
> > specifically stated they were automatic...does this mean that
> > you have changed your mind or that objectivism can accept it
> > although you personally do not agree? or did i misread?
>
> I meant, before, that the operation of the senses is automatic.
> I mean, now, that the senses are not an automatic means
> to gain knowledge of reality. The two are slightly different.
so we gain knowledge by our conceptual minds in lock step with
epistemology (the original)?
>
> > > 3) Our senses are limited in what they can do by
> > > their identity.
> >
> > an eye cannot hear?...explain
>
> Our ears can do what they can do. They can not, however,
> hear all the frequencies of sound a dog's ear can. All our
> sense organs are limited in what they can do.
i have no problem with that..our senses evolved to suit our needs
> > the eye reports what it sees....what it sees is an illusion of lets
> > say a lake in the middle of a desert created by atmospherics
> > ....this is what it sees, this is what it reports. the point that
> > was attempting to be made originally was that the senses
> > do "lie"....in the sense it does not always report the world as
> > it really is
>
> Oh, but they do. We are creatures that see mirages when
> certain conditions are met. This is reality as it really is.
i think i see the problem here...its one of communications which happens
frequently on newsgroups...none of us here are professional writers
afterall..
try this one: the eye sees, the image that is seen is as you say reality
but this reality can be disturbed (atmospherics) creating an illusion
which the eye reports faithfully (may i use that word?) and so to my point
that while it is most certainly reporting what is surrounding us, what it
reports could be our death if we chased after a mirage in a burning
desert....so in this one example though it reported "reality" it is the
mind that created the eye in the first place that must be credited with
the logic that no such thing is there and so what our "idea" of the
outside world stems from the mind which receives its raw data from its
sensers or sensOrs....and so that we do not stray too far....the object of
this particular thread is "are the sensers in **direct** contact with
reality....i say no you say yes....i have read a few scientific tests, and
the end result was "no we are not" i wish i had these results to send you
since they are far more able to prove their case....with stats and
observations
> The entire world is outside of our head. It is real and it is large.
> It is not a mere idea of ours. It exists independent of any
> conscious being.
from past posts you have indicated (or seem to.) that you have read little
or no philosophy in this area but it is a very necessary prerequisite for
this type of discussion...from aristotle to descartes, spinoza,
schopenhauer,locke and a host of others, since without this background it
would be impossible to trade "ideas"....if you have read them and
disagreed it would still give us a common ground to argue.....can you see
this?
may i suggest we concentrate on "rand" which i believe can be debated or
explained a great deal more easily (hopefully)...perhaps metaphysics
interests you....then may i suggest a few philosophical books of your
choice on the subject...otherwise it cannot be debated..
BASIC:
ob搜ec暗iv搏sm (嬌-j痘"t---v頊"--m) n. 1. Philosophy. One of several
doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the mind
and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and events.
then there is "objectivism, epistemological" which is a doctrine
maintaining that everything apprehended is independent of the apprehender
(montague)...then there is alfred whitehead who claims: that there is
only one reality; what appears, whatever is given in perception, is
real....but goes on to state that all things or events are sensitive to
the existence of all others...(sort of berkeley)...and every actual entity
is lost as an idividual when it perishes but is preserved through its
relations with other entities in the framework of the world....he was an
"objectivist.
i guess what is confusing to me are those in this newgroup lumping
epistomology, objectivism (various forms exist) and rand into one ball and
calling it the "whole"
g.
> Hugh
>
cha...@cyberramp.net
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The senses are valid. This means that
> > >
> > > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> > >
> > > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > > law of causality.
> > >
> > > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
> > >
>
> [snip some stuff that I already said and agreed with]
>
> > If our sense organs could directly deal with the relevant parts
> > of reality, we would not need a sense instrument technology.
>
> how we experience reality, it does. I don't mean anything else.
You derive 2 from 3? Wow what a non sequiter.. I would love
to see the derivation process of 3 from 2 (this is addressed to
Mr Kolker). Simply because it is part of reality and is caused,
how the heck does it present all the "relevant facts of reality".
Maybe it was hardwired to twist reality to the extent that it
aids in survival of our genes? (That is, our sense organs evolved
not to cognize reality completely but to cognize the parts of it that
aid in survival...or to twist some parts of it to aid in survival).
>
> Hugh
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Olaf Weber
> The senses are valid. This means that
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the law of
> causality.
(But the O'ist law of causality has rubber teeth.)
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send to the brain
> reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
Your subsequent clarifications imply that this means
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send to the brain
reflects everything that happened out there that affects the
sensation sent to the brain.
Talk of "relevant facts of reality" is rather grand for such a trite
observation. There is no longer an implied guarantee that the senses
will reflect the facts of reality that are relevant to the organism,
which is how I'd read your original statement. Absent such a guarantee
> 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> on which to build our knowledge of reality.
needs more argument than you've provided. O'ists seem exceedingly
reluctant to acknowledge this.
> 1) - 4) is just an outline of the Objectivist view on the senses.
PS: I _do_ trust the evidence of my senses -- most of the time.
--
Olaf Weber
Hugh Akston
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
cha...@cyberramp.net wrote:
> You derive 2 from 3?
Nooooo, I derive 2) from 1) and 3) from 2) and 4) from 3).
> Wow what a non sequiter.. I would love
> to see the derivation process of 3 from 2 (this is addressed to
> Mr Kolker). Simply because it is part of reality and is caused,
> how the heck does it present all the "relevant facts of reality".
> Maybe it was hardwired to twist reality to the extent that it
> aids in survival of our genes?
Then, the sensations the sense organs sent to our brain would
reflect the fact of reality that they "twist" reality. Thus, the
sensations would be ultimately accurate and would reflect
all the relevant facts of reality.
Hugh Akston
> > The senses are valid. This means that
>
> > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
>
> > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the law of
> > causality.
>
> (But the O'ist law of causality has rubber teeth.)
Splain please.
> > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send to the brain
> > reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
>
> Your subsequent clarifications imply that this means
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send to the brain
> reflects everything that happened out there that affects the
> sensation sent to the brain.
Yes and it reflects the nature of the sense organs and of the brain.
> Talk of "relevant facts of reality" is rather grand for such a trite
> observation. There is no longer an implied guarantee that the
> senses will reflect the facts of reality that are relevant to the
> organism, which is how I'd read your original statement.
True, there never was such a guarantee. How would you suggest
I phrase the idea I'm trying to get across?
> > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
>
> needs more argument than you've provided. O'ists seem
> exceedingly reluctant to acknowledge this.
I've not really provided any argument. In fact it is not possible
to prove the senses are valid in the way I describe above
since proof has as one of its roots the validity of the senses.
Ultimately, the validation of the validity of the senses rests
on:
1) We know things are what they and act the way the act.
I see no reason to suspect our sense organs are any
different.
2) We've spent a lot of time using our senses to get around
in and learn about our world. I see no reason to doubt that
1) - 4) is an accurate identification of the situation.
Hugh Akston
> don't confuse me....epistemology predates objectivism (rand?)
> so may we use the word "objectivism" or "rand" if that suits?
No. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that studies
human knowledge and its acquisition. Rand developed
a unique epistemology and I'll use that word when talking
about it.
> "e" is the science that tells a fallible, conceptual consciousness
> what rules to follow in order to gain knowledge of an independent
> reality.....as if "e" was separate in some manner from this fallible,
> conceptual consciousness.....the very place where it was "born".
No. Rand's epistemology describes the proper method for gaining
knowledge of reality, reason. It is a method just like the method
for getting oil out of the ground.
> > I meant, before, that the operation of the senses is automatic.
> > I mean, now, that the senses are not an automatic means
> > to gain knowledge of reality. The two are slightly different.
>
> so we gain knowledge by our conceptual minds in lock step with
> epistemology (the original)?
Not the original. We gain knowledge of reality using an active
process of reason with perceptual data as its fuel.
> > Oh, but they do. We are creatures that see mirages when
> > certain conditions are met. This is reality as it really is.
>
> i think i see the problem here...its one of communications
> which happens frequently on newsgroups...none of us here
> are professional writers afterall.. try this one: the eye sees, the
> image that is seen is as you say reality but this reality can be
> disturbed (atmospherics) creating an illusion which the eye
> reports faithfully (may i use that word?) and so to my point
> that while it is most certainly reporting what is surrounding us,
> what it reports could be our death if we chased after a mirage in
> a burning desert....
I mean that we are types of creatures who see mirages when
certain conditions are met. This is reality and when you see
a mirage, you do so because your senses are reporting all
relevant facts of reality.
> so in this one example though it reported
> "reality" it is the mind that created the eye in the first place that
> must be credited with the logic that no such thing is there and
> so what our "idea" of the outside world stems from the mind
> which receives its raw data from its sensers or sensOrs....and
> so that we do not stray too far....
I can't parse this.
> the object of this particular
> thread is "are the sensers in **direct** contact with reality....i
> say no you say yes....i have read a few scientific tests, and
> the end result was "no we are not" i wish i had these results
> to send you since they are far more able to prove their case
> ....with stats and observations
I have tons of observations that say we are.
> > The entire world is outside of our head. It is real and it is
large.
> > It is not a mere idea of ours. It exists independent of any
> > conscious being.
>
> from past posts you have indicated (or seem to.) that you have
> read little or no philosophy in this area but it is a very necessary
> prerequisite for this type of discussion...from aristotle to
> descartes, spinoza, schopenhauer,locke and a host of others,
> since without this background it would be impossible to trade
> "ideas"....if you have read them and disagreed it would still give
> us a common ground to argue.....can you see this?
No. I've existed for some time now. I know a great deal about
what really is. That is all I want to discuss. Lots of what
passes for philosophy will only get in the way of knowing what
is.
> may i suggest we concentrate on "rand" which i believe can
> be debated or explained a great deal more easily (hopefully)...
> perhaps metaphysics interests you....then may i suggest a few
> philosophical books of your choice on the subject...otherwise it
> cannot be debated..
Rand had an epistemology. Rand discussed the validity of the
senses.
> BASIC:
> ob搜ec暗iv搏sm (嬌-j痘"t---v頊"--m) n. 1. Philosophy. One of several
> doctrines holding that all reality is objective and external to the
mind
> and that knowledge is reliably based on observed objects and
> events.
>
> then there is "objectivism, epistemological" which is a doctrine
> maintaining that everything apprehended is independent of the
> apprehender (montague)...then there is alfred whitehead who
> claims: that there is only one reality; what appears, whatever is
> given in perception, is real....but goes on to state that all things
> or events are sensitive to the existence of all others...(sort of
> berkeley)...and every actual entity is lost as an individual when it
> perishes but is preserved through its relations with other entities
> in the framework of the world....he was an "objectivist.
Objectivism, in this newsgroup, mean the philosophy of Ayn
Rand. There was another school of thought that had that
label before Rand took it for her own purposes. That other
school of thought is not Objectivism of the variety that is
discussed here.
Robert J. Kolker
Hugh Akston wrote: >
> I'm guessing that you don't understand what I mean by
> relevant in this context. A fact of reality is relevant to
> a perception if it in some way affects that perception. For
> example, the number of people in China doesn't affect
> my perception of the tree in my front yard and thus that
> fact of reality is irrelevant to that perception. How light
> travels through water affects how I see a stick in water
> and thus this fact of reality is relevant that perception.
>
Yes and no. If you accept that weather is achaotic dynamic system, then
some one
in China blinking may have caused the fog that
currently keeps you from seeing the tree.
Or maybe not.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Hugh Akston wrote:
> ..........snip mine...........
> [snip some stuff that I already said and agreed with]
>
> > If our sense organs could directly deal with the relevant parts
> > of reality, we would not need a sense instrument technology.
>
> By relevant I mean, if there is a fact of reality that should affect
> how we experience reality, it does. I don't mean anything else.
It is quite relevant that the eiarth is being
bombarded by energetic particles of which
you and I are not directly aware (we need machines
to be aware of this). But some of these
charged particles can knock a molecule out of line
in our skin tissue and gives us cancer.
That is relevant don't you think.
Be sure to use your 25+ sun blocker before going
out in the sunshine. You can't see UV but it is there
waiting to cook you alive.
That is relevant.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
cha...@cyberramp.net wrote:
> You derive 2 from 3? Wow what a non sequiter.. I would love
> to see the derivation process of 3 from 2 (this is addressed to
> Mr Kolker). Simply because it is part of reality and is caused,
> how the heck does it present all the "relevant facts of reality".
> Maybe it was hardwired to twist reality to the extent that it
> aids in survival of our genes? (That is, our sense organs evolved
> not to cognize reality completely but to cognize the parts of it that
> aid in survival...or to twist some parts of it to aid in survival).
>
Precisely my point!!! We were evolved as daytime creatureswhose eyes are
tuned to the frequencies given off by our
sun in the range of the maximum block body temperature
of the sun.
Nature has evolved us to be good at getting fed and
getting laid. Other things may have causal effects on
us but are not nearly as "relevant".
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Hugh Akston wrote:
> Then, the sensations the sense organs sent to our brain would
> reflect the fact of reality that they "twist" reality. Thus, the
> sensations would be ultimately accurate and would reflect
> all the relevant facts of reality.
The sense organs of the dinosaurs did not provide
them with information of the collision with the
gigantic asteroid or comet that destroyed them.
I would say the asteroid or comet was relevant to
their existence and even more relevent to their
extinction.
Bob Kolker
Hugh Akston
> their existence and even more relevant to their
> extinction.
Bob, you seem to be putting in a great deal of effort to
misunderstand what I'm saying and to twist my words into
something else. I can't imagine what purpose such activity
on your part serves.
Robert J. Kolker
Hugh Akston wrote:
> Bob, you seem to be putting in a great deal of effort to
> misunderstand what I'm saying and to twist my words into
> something else. I can't imagine what purpose such activity
> on your part serves.
>
Hugh, I take what you say, exactly at its face.Then I draw the logical
consequences of
what you say.
How have I misunderstood or misrepresented you?
The FACT of the matter is that our sense organs
provide an INCOMPLETE report of reality. That
is why we are surprised half the time and dismayed
the other half.
However what we do get through our senses is
by and large correct, else we should all be
dead in short order.
Bob Kolker
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<1998081616012...@hotmail.com>...
> No. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that studies
> human knowledge and its acquisition.
that is the traditional epistemology which predates rand....it is a set of
"rules" exploring the main problems in distinguishing truth and error and
the various criterion to get at this truth...(an overly simplified
explaination)
Rand developed
> a unique epistemology and I'll use that word when talking
> about it.
fine, but in order to do so you should be familiar with the traditional as
well and be ready to show how it differs...
> > "e" is the science that tells a fallible, conceptual consciousness
> > what rules to follow in order to gain knowledge of an independent
> > reality.....as if "e" was separate in some manner from this fallible,
> > conceptual consciousness.....the very place where it was "born".
>
> No. Rand's epistemology describes the proper method for gaining
> knowledge of reality, reason. It is a method just like the method
> for getting oil out of the ground.
are you disagreeing with peikoff?....not certain what it is you are doing
here.
> > so we gain knowledge by our conceptual minds in lock step with
> > epistemology (the original)?
>
> Not the original. We gain knowledge of reality using an active
> process of reason with perceptual data as its fuel.
sound like the plain ordinary garden variety of epistemology..how does
rand differ?....perhaps "naive realism"? one of the criterion to obtain
truth? which states that things are in reality as the senses depict
them..that is, human sense organs determine the truth or falsity of
objects and conclusions...two professors one from suffolk university the
other northeastern university make claim that "naive realism" is an
inadequate criterion of truth and example many studies that (much like
what i have been doing) that prove this...if this is so, then it is not
epistemology per se but a criterion of truth which has been discarded as
not reliable by others....to explore the entire scope of epistemology
(original) and logic would require more effort than i am able to
expend...but suffice to say if you make a claim that the sensers (naive
realism) are correct then it fails the test of the criteria of truth
....in the same catagory as "tradition" "feelings and emotion", "instinct"
and others also fail....the only criterias left would be the pragmatic
criterion of truth and coherence criterion of truth....in order to prove
that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that knowledge
is reliably based on observed objects or events...which i believe is the
objective of "objectivism"
"naive realism" does not cut it.....far too many studies prove the sensers
are not reliable....the bulk of these studies came well after rand.
> try this one: the eye sees, the
> > image that is seen is as you say reality but this reality can be
> > disturbed (atmospherics) creating an illusion which the eye
> > reports faithfully (may i use that word?)
> I mean that we are types of creatures who see mirages when
> certain conditions are met. This is reality and when you see
> a mirage, you do so because your senses are reporting all
> relevant facts of reality.
but that *is* what i said...your "certain conditions" are my
"atmospherics"
> > the object of this particular
> > thread is "are the sensers in **direct** contact with reality....i
> > say no you say yes....
> I have tons of observations that say we are.
but where are they? you have mentioned this twice before....and while we
are at it....is there *any* philosopher other than rand that you have read
and perhaps i?...then we would have some common ground for
discussion...have you read any other objectivists?...
...from aristotle to
> > descartes, spinoza, schopenhauer,locke and a host of others,
> > since without this background it would be impossible to trade
> > "ideas"....if you have read them and disagreed it would still give
> > us a common ground to argue.....can you see this?
>
> No. I've existed for some time now. I know a great deal about
> what really is. That is all I want to discuss. Lots of what
> passes for philosophy will only get in the way of knowing what
> is.
if someone wished to discuss physics with another who only understood math
in general...how would they go about it?
> > may i suggest we concentrate on "rand" which i believe can
> > be debated or explained a great deal more easily (hopefully)...
> > perhaps metaphysics interests you....then may i suggest a few
> > philosophical books of your choice on the subject...otherwise it
> > cannot be debated..
>
> Rand had an epistemology. Rand discussed the validity of the
> senses.
no doubt......but, should not a seeker of information go to more than one
source?...since the validity of the sensers are questioned by not a few
philosophers...
> > then there is "objectivism, epistemological" which is a doctrine
> > maintaining that everything apprehended is independent of the
> > apprehender (montague)...then there is alfred whitehead who
> > claims: that there is only one reality; what appears, whatever is
> > given in perception, is real....but goes on to state that all things
> > or events are sensitive to the existence of all others...(sort of
> > berkeley)...and every actual entity is lost as an individual when it
> > perishes but is preserved through its relations with other entities
> > in the framework of the world....he was an "objectivist.
>
> Objectivism, in this newsgroup, mean the philosophy of Ayn
> Rand. There was another school of thought that had that
> label before Rand took it for her own purposes. That other
> school of thought is not Objectivism of the variety that is
> discussed here.
but of what value is it to one group of objectivist to discuss only among
themselves the philosophy of rand without comparing...? i cannot conceive
of actively attempting to understand my surroundings and clinging to only
one way of thinking.....i owe my allegience to no one group or person and
will picked them apart in order to validate what it is they are
saying...one cannot accept without comparing since another might have a
question that could upset the "applecart" of the other.....now i will
gladly recognize that the method of "epitimology" employed here is "rand"
if you wish but thus far can see little difference (rules) in what was
pioneered by others before her.....to me, when i first read rand many
years ago....the "fountain head" and "atlas shrugged"..saw only the
political implications in her books, "philosophy" appeared to play only a
very minor role and am now engaged in profiling her original thoughts with
little success.
if you read only rand and nothing but rand, how can you know she is
original? i would imagine it is her political side that would impact on
society as a whole rather than the philosophical.....thus far (since 1931)
what rand impact has the u.s. known? perhaps a concentration on her
political side would be of greater value?
g.
>
> Hugh
Hugh Akston
> > No. Epistemology is that branch of philosophy that studies
> > human knowledge and its acquisition.
>
> that is the traditional epistemology which predates rand....it is a
set
> of "rules" exploring the main problems in distinguishing truth and
> error and the various criterion to get at this truth...(an overly
> simplified explanation)
True. The study of epistemology predates Rand. However,
Rand also studied epistemology.
> > Rand developed
> > a unique epistemology and I'll use that word when talking
> > about it.
>
> fine, but in order to do so you should be familiar with the
> traditional as well and be ready to show how it differs...
I am to some extent. However, I have not spent hours and
hours pouring through books filled wrong ideas nor do I plan
to.
> > > "e" is the science that tells a fallible, conceptual
> > > consciousness what rules to follow in order to gain
> > > knowledge of an independent reality.....as if "e" was
> > > separate in some manner from this fallible, conceptual
> > > consciousness.....the very place where it was "born".
> >
> > No. Rand's epistemology describes the proper method for gaining
> > knowledge of reality, reason. It is a method just like the method
> > for getting oil out of the ground.
>
> are you disagreeing with peikoff?....not certain what it is you
> are doing here.
I'm disagreeing with your statement that "epistemology is/was
separate in some manner from this fallible, conceptual
consciousness..." I can't figure out in what way that sentence
makes sense. You wouldn't say "oil drilling is separate from
us."
> > > so we gain knowledge by our conceptual minds in lock
> > > step with epistemology (the original)?
> >
> > Not the original. We gain knowledge of reality using an active
> > process of reason with perceptual data as its fuel.
>
> sound like the plain ordinary garden variety of epistemology..how
> does rand differ?
Her whole system is different than other, whole systems. Pieces
of her system are identical or close to pieces of other other
philosopher's epistemology. Since you have OPAR, I encourage
you to read the chapters on metaphysics and epistemology and
decide for yourself.
> ....perhaps "naive realism"? one of the criterion to obtain
> truth? which states that things are in reality as the senses depict
> them..that is, human sense organs determine the truth or falsity of
> objects and conclusions...
That is not Rand's view. Knowledge is the product of an active
process of reason not a passive gazing on reality.
> two professors one from suffolk university the
> other northeastern university make claim that "naive realism" is an
> inadequate criterion of truth
Agreed.
> l....the only criterias left would be the pragmatic
> criterion of truth and coherence criterion of truth....in order to
prove
> that all reality is objective and external to the mind and that
> knowledge is reliably based on observed objects or events..
> .which i believe is the objective of "objectivism"
> "naive realism" does not cut it.....far too many studies prove
> the sensers are not reliable....the bulk of these studies came
> well after rand.
I will post this again.
The senses are valid. This means that
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
Where, in your opinion, does Objectivism go wrong in
regards to the senses?
> > try this one: the eye sees, the
> > > image that is seen is as you say reality but this reality can be
> > > disturbed (atmospherics) creating an illusion which the eye
> > > reports faithfully (may i use that word?)
>
> > I mean that we are types of creatures who see mirages when
> > certain conditions are met. This is reality and when you see
> > a mirage, you do so because your senses are reporting all
> > relevant facts of reality.
>
> but that *is* what i said...your "certain conditions" are my
> "atmospherics"
Ok. I didn't like your phraseology and substituted my own.
> > > the object of this particular
> > > thread is "are the sensers in **direct** contact with reality....i
> > > say no you say yes....
>
> > I have tons of observations that say we are.
>
> but where are they?
Where are my observations? Some are memories I have.
Some are fresh observations that I have made today. Some
of my observations have been integrated into concepts and
principles. That's where they are.
> you have mentioned this twice before....and while we
> are at it....is there *any* philosopher other than rand that you
> have read and perhaps i?...then we would have some
> common ground for discussion...have you read any other
> objectivists?...
I've read enough Kant(CPR) to know his work is a bunch of
garbage. I've read bits and pieces in various places of
other philosophers.
I know and able to competently discuss Objectivism from
Metaphysics through Ethics.
Like I've said before. I have absolutely no interest in wrong
ideas. Thus, I'll not be reading much of what passes as
philosophy.
> ...from aristotle to
> > > descartes, spinoza, schopenhauer,locke and a host of others,
> > > since without this background it would be impossible to trade
> > > "ideas"....if you have read them and disagreed it would still give
> > > us a common ground to argue.....can you see this?
> >
> > No. I've existed for some time now. I know a great deal about
> > what really is. That is all I want to discuss. Lots of what
> > passes for philosophy will only get in the way of knowing what
> > is.
>
> if someone wished to discuss physics with another who only
> understood math in general...how would they go about it?
What if there was some weird and wrong field of physics known
as Kantain physics and I knew enough about it to know that it
is very wrong. Would I need to know it to discuss the real
physics that we all know and love? I don't think so. I'm not
interested in wrong ideas. If you want to discuss them and
what so and so wrote on page 789 of his great work which
is only 95% gibberish, I'm not your man.
> > > may i suggest we concentrate on "rand" which i believe can
> > > be debated or explained a great deal more easily (hopefully)...
> > > perhaps metaphysics interests you....then may i suggest a few
> > > philosophical books of your choice on the subject...otherwise it
> > > cannot be debated..
> >
> > Rand had an epistemology. Rand discussed the validity of the
> > senses.
>
> no doubt......but, should not a seeker of information go to more
> than one source?...since the validity of the sensers are
> questioned by not a few philosophers...
I've validated Rand's ideas by reference to reality in accordance
with the requirements of a proper epistemology. Is there a better
source for truth than reality?
> > > then there is "objectivism, epistemological" which is a doctrine
> > > maintaining that everything apprehended is independent of the
> > > apprehender (montague)...then there is alfred whitehead who
> > > claims: that there is only one reality; what appears, whatever is
> > > given in perception, is real....but goes on to state that all
things
> > > or events are sensitive to the existence of all others...(sort of
> > > berkeley)...and every actual entity is lost as an individual when
it
> > > perishes but is preserved through its relations with other
entities
> > > in the framework of the world....he was an "objectivist.
> >
> > Objectivism, in this newsgroup, mean the philosophy of Ayn
> > Rand. There was another school of thought that had that
> > label before Rand took it for her own purposes. That other
> > school of thought is not Objectivism of the variety that is
> > discussed here.
>
> but of what value is it to one group of objectivist to discuss only
> among themselves the philosophy of rand without comparing...?
Maybe so they can understand Objectivism better? However,
mostly, hpo is infested with trolls and know nothings, especially
recently.
> i cannot conceive of actively attempting to understand my
> surroundings and clinging to only one way of thinking.....i owe
> my allegiance to no one group or person and will picked them
> apart in order to validate what it is they are saying...
Are you implying that I didn't pick apart Rand's ideas and accepted
them without deep and careful examination?
> one cannot accept without comparing since another might have
> a question that could upset the "applecart" of the other.....now
> i will gladly recognize that the method of "epistemology" employed
> here is "rand" if you wish but thus far can see little difference
> (rules) in what was pioneered by others before her....
Look more closely. Use words more precisely.
> .to me, when i first
> read rand many years ago....the "fountain head" and "atlas
> shrugged"..saw only the political implications in her books,
Look again. Read Galt's speech.
> if you read only rand and nothing but rand, how can you know
> she is original?
I know parts of her philosophy are not original. However, I
think her whole, integrated system is original. I know this because
that's what professional philosophers who I know and trust say.
But, I could care less if her ideas are original or not?. Their
truth is what I'm concerned about.
> i would imagine it is her political side that would
> impact on society as a whole rather than the philosophical.....
> thus far (since 1931) what rand impact has the u.s. known?
> perhaps a concentration on her political side would be of
> greater value?
Her political thought is based on her other thought and you
kind of have to take the whole thing or reject the whole thing.
cha...@cyberramp.net
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Her whole system is different than other, whole systems. Pieces
> of her system are identical or close to pieces of other other
> philosopher's epistemology. Since you have OPAR, I encourage
You have claimed that you are not well versed in other
philosophers. You are not qualified to make this assertion.
> I will post this again.
>
> The senses are valid. This means that
>
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
>
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> law of causality.
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
>
> 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> on which to build our knowledge of reality.
>
> Where, in your opinion, does Objectivism go wrong in
> regards to the senses?
These are a bunch of non sequiters... Demonstrate how 3 follows from 2
or 4 follows from 3. This is no proof...just a bunch of assertions.
>
> Like I've said before. I have absolutely no interest in wrong
> ideas. Thus, I'll not be reading much of what passes as
> philosophy.
You dont KNOW its wrong until you actually 1) read it 2) understand it
and 3) can demonstrate why its wrong.. otherwise its just an appeal
to authority... "Because X says its garbage, its garbage". I believe
Rand herself emphasized this in several of her papers.
how would they go about it?
>
> What if there was some weird and wrong field of physics known
> as Kantain physics and I knew enough about it to know that it
> is very wrong. Would I need to know it to discuss the real
> physics that we all know and love? I don't think so. I'm not
> interested in wrong ideas. If you want to discuss them and
> what so and so wrote on page 789 of his great work which
> is only 95% gibberish, I'm not your man.
>
You dont KNOW its gibberish. See above. If you dont even understand
the position (you cannot, because you have not even read any papers, etc
in it), I am hard pressed how you are in any position to criticize it.
This is pure anti-intellectualism and really confuses me. Rand
certainly found it worthwile to atleast try to explore
the views of other philosophers. Are you above this?
>
> I know parts of her philosophy are not original. However, I
> think her whole, integrated system is original. I know this because
> that's what professional philosophers who I know and trust say.
Wow..another appeal to authority. There are a few things
I admire about objectivism. One is the emphasis on thinking
for yourself. If you have not read other philosophers, you
have no clue of whether they conflict with your views or not.
You dont know where other positions are similar...and why they
are similar. You have no intellectual right to make
claims on such matters because you are not knowledgable about
such matters.
Do you realize how much you are sounding like a fundamentalist
christian? Closed to all other views except your own... Everyone
else laughs behind your back because of your self delusion while
you have the "glare" in your eyes that everyone has who is convinced
they have found ultimate "truth".. You will see this glare in
fanatics of every stripe from scientologists to bible thumping
Christians to Nazis...(funny how Nazis didnt want to "read" about
the ideas of others who suggested that they might be wrong)...
Hugh Akston
[a snip responded to below]
> > The senses are valid. This means that
> >
> > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> >
> > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > law of causality.
> >
> > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
> >
> > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
> >
> > Where, in your opinion, does Objectivism go wrong in
> > regards to the senses?
>
> These are a bunch of non sequiters... Demonstrate how 3
> follows from 2 or 4 follows from 3. This is no proof...just a
> bunch of assertions.
I never claimed that the above was proof of anything. All I
said was that is the Objectivist position on the validity of
the senses.
It is not possible to prove the senses are valid in the way
described above because the validity of the senses is
below proof in the hierarchy of knowledge. However,
I can give you an indication of why I think the above is
the case.
2) => 3)
Since all things in reality act in accordance with their nature,
so do the sense organs. Thus, if I look and see something,
these sensations, which are automatically integrated into
a percept, reflect all the relevant facts of reality. (Relevant
in this context meaning if a fact of reality should affect my
perception of something, it does.)
I know the above is the case from millions of observations.
Perhaps you have had similar observations?
Also, I have absolutely no reason to suspect 3) is not the
case. If you have such a reason, I'm listening.
3) => 4)
Since the sense organs always behave in accordance with
all relevant facts of reality, they never invent or distort reality.
Since this is the case, they are a firm base on which build
our knowledge.
I know the above is the case from millions of observations.
Perhaps you have had similar observations?
Also, I have absolutely no reason to suspect 4) is not the
case. If you have such a reason, I'm listening.
[snip that I respond to below]
> > I know parts of her philosophy are not original. However, I
> > think her whole, integrated system is original. I know this
> > because that's what professional philosophers who I know
> > and trust say.
>
> Wow..another appeal to authority. There are a few things
> I admire about objectivism. One is the emphasis on thinking
> for yourself. If you have not read other philosophers, you
> have no clue of whether they conflict with your views or not.
> You don't know where other positions are similar...and why they
> are similar. You have no intellectual right to make
> claims on such matters because you are not knowledgable
> about such matters.
1) I've read some philosophers besides Rand just not a lot.
2) Experts are a valid means of gaining knowledge. I don't
have to examine closely the conclusions of an expert unless
I have a reason to do so.
Are you able to supply me with such a reason in this case?
Do you know of a philosopher with a system of thought
identical to Rand? Can you identify a philosopher who
had exactly the same idea as Rand for each part of Rand's
philosophy?
> Do you realize how much you are sounding like a fundamentalist
> christian? Closed to all other views except your own... Everyone
> else laughs behind your back because of your self delusion while
> you have the "glare" in your eyes that everyone has who is
> convinced they have found ultimate "truth".. You will see this
> glare in fanatics of every stripe from scientologists to bible
> thumping Christians to Nazis...(funny how Nazis didn't want
> to "read" about the ideas of others who suggested that they
> might be wrong)...
Do you realize how insulting and wrong your above paragraph
is? I never said I was closed to all other views except my own.
I said I would not seek out and spend a great deal of time
carefully examining what I know to be falsehood unless given
a good reason to suspect it is not falsehood.
I have looked into tons of different systems of thought. I've
found all that I've examined besides Objectivism lacking.
I'm not a fanatic. I'm a guy that takes ideas seriously. If there
is truth to be found, truth that is important in some way to my
life, I'm there. As far as I can tell, Objectivism is largely
correct. If you can show me in what way that it is wrong
(mainly the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics), I'm
listening.
Robert J. Kolker
Hugh Akston wrote:
> cha...@cyberramp.net wrote:
>
> [a snip responded to below]
>
> > > The senses are valid. This means that
> > >
> > > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> > >
> > > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > > law of causality.
> > >
> > > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
> > >
> > > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
> > >
> > > Where, in your opinion, does Objectivism go wrong in
> > > regards to the senses?
> >
> > These are a bunch of non sequiters... Demonstrate how 3
> > follows from 2 or 4 follows from 3. This is no proof...just a
> > bunch of assertions.
>
> I never claimed that the above was proof of anything. All I
> said was that is the Objectivist position on the validity of
> the senses.
I also point out (again) that your item #3 above is way off.
Our natural senses are incomplete. We evolved as daylight
hunter-gatherers and our eyes are tuned to a frequence of
light that corresponds to a frequency band
around the maximum black body temperature of
the sun.
Our ears do not report sound frequences in
excess of 15,000 hz. We have lousy smell
compared to other animals. Our visual resolution
is one third that of buzzards, condors and vultures.
And when many of us die, we die surprised
and dismayed because we did not either hear,
see or smell what was comming to kill us.
While our senses are quite valid (the fact that I
get home alive from rush hour traffic is
sufficient proof for me) they miss a great
deal. They tell us almost nothing of the microscopic
realm.
It has only been in the past 300 years (compared to
the half million or so years our species has been
around) that humans can deal with the microscopic.
Likewise a similar amount of time has passed since
man could see far into the skies (not necessary for
survival btw). Our hearing has only been electronically
boosted for less than one hundred years. Eyeglasses
have been around in some form or other for maybe
2000 years (the Chinese had them first).
Mankind has gotten around the limitiation of
the senses (and that only partially) by using
machines that permit *inference* of the
state of the world (as opposed to direct
perception). Ironically it is concepts that
make the precepts produced by these
machines possible, which is a reversal
of the natural order of understanding.
Again, our senses do not report but a
fraction of the world states that are
germain to our survival and then only
when boosted by artifacts, not provided
by evolution.
Bob Kolker.
cha...@cyberramp.net
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Do you realize how insulting and wrong your above paragraph
> is? I never said I was closed to all other views except my own.
> I said I would not seek out and spend a great deal of time
> carefully examining what I know to be falsehood unless given
> a good reason to suspect it is not falsehood.
>
> I have looked into tons of different systems of thought. I've
> found all that I've examined besides Objectivism lacking.
>
> I'm not a fanatic. I'm a guy that takes ideas seriously. If there
> is truth to be found, truth that is important in some way to my
> life, I'm there. As far as I can tell, Objectivism is largely
> correct. If you can show me in what way that it is wrong
> (mainly the metaphysics, epistemology and ethics), I'm
> listening.
I apologize. I tend to be democratic in the realm of ideas...all
ideas should be given a fair trial in the court of reason in my
world view. Your mention of not having to study other philosophers
pushed a couple of buttons with me. Again, Im sorry for shooting from the hip.
Hugh Akston
> > > > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > > > law of causality.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > > > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
> > > >
> > > > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > > > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
> I also point out (again) that your item #3 above is way off.
Again, I'll point out that you are misunderstanding what I mean
by relevant. A fact is relevant to a perception in this context
if it in some way affects that perception. You are using relevant
to mean relevant to our survival interest or some similar idea.
That is not what I mean by relevant. This the second or third
time I've told you this. Please stop twisting my words. If you
have no response to what I actually wrote, stop responding
to my posts.
Hugh
PS
I totally agree with all of the following statements about the
senses and each does not clash with 1)-4) above.
a) What seems to be is not always what is.
b) Our senses are limited in what they can do.
c) Our senses are not an automatic means to knowledge
of reality.
d) Some people's senses are better than others.
e) Some animals have better senses than we do.
f) There are some aspects of reality that we know our senses
are not reporting(x-rays, high frequency sound, etc.)
Hugh Akston
> I apologize. I tend to be democratic in the realm of ideas...all
> ideas should be given a fair trial in the court of reason in my
> world view. Your mention of not having to study other philosophers
> pushed a couple of buttons with me. Again, I'm sorry for shooting
> from the hip.
No problem and thank you. You're very gracious.
Hugh
Sean Holland
(nip)
>Since all things in reality act in accordance with their nature,
>so do the sense organs. Thus, if I look and see something,
>these sensations, which are automatically integrated into
>a percept, reflect all the relevant facts of reality. (Relevant
>in this context meaning if a fact of reality should affect my
>perception of something, it does.)
Once, a month or so after a very arduous household-moving, I found I had
a pain in my foot. I couldn't remember any accident involving my foot, but
there the pain was.
I went to the doctor. He examined my foot, humming and hawing to
himself. Finally he asked me to stand, put my hands against the wall and
to lean forward. He put his hand at a certain point on the lumbar region
of my spine, pushed, and voila! My foot hurt. There was nothing wrong with
my foot. It was a slightly pinched nerve in my spine that was sending
erroneous signals to my brain.
Had I been living in a situation without a doctor, as most humans on
earth do, I would have gone to my deathbed thinking that there was
something wrong with my foot. My senses told me that there was.
How many other delusions is one convinced of? You can make your
assertions more and more strenuously, but you won't get anywhere with
them. Believe them if you will, but recognize that it is a kind of
religious faith. Such acts of faith are probably inescapable in this life.
--
Sean
Due to spam filtering, mail from hotmail or prodigy will not reach me.
Hugh Akston
[an interesting story about foot pain]
First, here is my full position on the validity of the senses
and the senses in general for reference.
---
What it means for the senses to be valid:
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
I totally agree with all of the following statements about the
senses and each does not clash with 1)-4) above.
a) What seems to be is not always what is.
b) Our senses are limited in what they can do.
c) Our senses are not an automatic means to knowledge
of reality.
d) Some people's senses are better than others.
e) Some animals have better senses than we do.
f) There are some aspects of reality that we know our senses
are not reporting(x-rays, high frequency sound, etc.)
---
Now, in your foot pain story, you felt pain in your foot which
was caused by an injury in your back. Now, the type of
being you are is relevant to the sensation of pain that
seemed to be emanating from your foot. Apparently, you
are a kind of being who experiences foot pain from a
certain kind of back injury.
Did your sense organs act outside of their nature?
No.
Did the sensations of pain you experienced accurately
reflect all the relevant facts of reality?
Yes.
Were you or someone else able to figure out what was
going on? That is, did your sensation of pain lead your
doctor to knowledge of reality?
Yes.
Your situation seems to confirm 1) - 4) above and to fall
within the scope of a).
> Had I been living in a situation without a doctor, as most
> humans on earth do, I would have gone to my deathbed
> thinking that there was something wrong with my foot.
And? Do you see me claiming that humans are infallible,
that what we can and do know is unlimited, that the senses
are an automatic means for gaining knowledge of reality?
> My senses told me that there was.
No. They didn't. They seemed to. However, they accurately
reported all the relevant facts of reality as they always do.
> How many other delusions is one convinced of?
How much do we know? How much are we right about?
I would say a great deal.
If you have evidence for great big delusions that we all
suffer, let's here it. If not, why did you even bring up the
possibility?
I didn't bring up the possibility that you are an alien being
who is accessing the Internet by hijacking the brain
of Tom Clarke or Robert Kolker.
> You can make your assertions more and more strenuously,
> but you won't get anywhere with them.
Maybe not with people who don't take ideas seriously or with
people who want to have a mind so open that it falls to the
floor.
It's enough that I'm right.
> Believe them if you will, but recognize that it is a kind of
> religious faith. Such acts of faith are probably inescapable
> in this life.
Sure. I have faith in the validity of the senses. It has
nothing to do with the thousands upon thousands of
observations that support the truth of that idea.
---
By the way, I got a good laugh from your post where
you identified yourself as an agnostic skeptic. That's
comedy. You can't know what you don't know or something
like that.
Somebody ought to come along and top you by saying they
are a skeptic agnostic skeptic. They don't know what they
can't know about what they don't know.
Robert J. Kolker
Sean Holland wrote:
> Once, a month or so after a very arduous household-moving, I found I had
> a pain in my foot. I couldn't remember any accident involving my foot, but
> there the pain was.
The same thing happened to me. I went to thedoctor and I said to him every
time I put my
weight on my foot, thus, it hurts.
He hemmed and he hawed, then he told me
not to do that. Following his advice my
foot no longer hurt.
Bob Kolker
GRADinc
explains
>What it means for the senses to be valid:
and I ask, because I am still trying to figure out if
there is any real difference between the Oist position and
the scientific position on senses once the differences in
terminology are allowed for:
>1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
No question about this. However, sense organ covers
a wide range. Do you cut off at the eye's retina? Or where
the optic nerve enters the lateral geniculate nucleus at
the base of the brain? But what about the primary visual
area at the back of the brain, V1. It is a remapping of the
retinal input onto cortical tissue so the information there
is the same as at the retina, so should part of the brain be
considered sense organ?
Could the sense organs be said to end where mind begins
so that the interface is somewhere up toward the front of
the brain - at least according to current knowledge?
>2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
>law of causality.
Well. OK. But frogs I understand can see single
photons [People require two to hit the same receptor
within a short time period] - but this is a minor point.
>3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
>to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
Can you amplify on "all of the relevant"?
Relevant to what?
>4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
>on which to build our knowledge of reality.
I agree totally with this, actually. It would be a good
axiom. I don't think you need 1) to 3). Just take 4) as
an axiom. If 4) were not true then we would not have
survived the rigors of natural selection.
I just wish Objectivism had coined a better term for 4),
say the senses are "basic" or the senses are "sufficient".
When I came across Rand's assertion in ITOE that
without sense validity no further progress was possible,
I choked because I knew that the information the mind
gets from the environment is often flawed and incomplete
in detail. On the whole the information is sufficient basis,
though.
Tom Clarke
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Since all things in reality act in accordance with their nature,
> so do the sense organs. Thus, if I look and see something,
> these sensations, which are automatically integrated into
> a percept, reflect all the relevant facts of reality. (Relevant
> in this context meaning if a fact of reality should affect my
> perception of something, it does.)
So in other words, however your senses happen to operate, that's how
they operate.
Another astonishing revelation from the pages of "Duh!" magazine.
> Since the sense organs always behave in accordance with
> all relevant facts of reality, they never invent or distort reality.
> Since this is the case, they are a firm base on which build
> our knowledge.
This doesn't follow, however. Sense organs can be damaged or impaired in
ways that make them unreliable. Such unreliable sense organs are still
acting "in accordance with their nature," of course -- i.e., they are
acting in just the way impaired sense organs do act.
-- M. Ruff
genein
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
>
> Our natural senses are incomplete.
how can it be more complete relative to our needs?
> Our ears do not report sound frequences in
> excess of 15,000 hz. We have lousy smell
> compared to other animals. Our visual resolution
> is one third that of buzzards, condors and vultures.
because we don't have the same needs as other animals..to take it further
we can't swim as well as fish or stay underwater as long or run like a
gazelle and yet here we are.......king of the hill....for a while anyway.
> Mankind has gotten around the limitiation of
> the senses (and that only partially) by using
> machines that permit *inference* of the
> state of the world (as opposed to direct
> perception).
> Again, our senses do not report but a
> fraction of the world states that are
> germain to our survival and then only
> when boosted by artifacts, not provided
> by evolution.
i am not certain that the amount of reporting the senses are employed in,
is the point in question and please consider the mind itself as another
device or main senser that "sniffs" the "outside" world employing logic
and reason to make sense of the sensers.....all resulting from
evolution....the senses are basic and adequate for what it does...our
inquiring minds which is a phenomenon among life forms digs further into
this reality depending on these basic tools as a good starting point...
g.
> Bob Kolker.
>
Hugh Akston
> > Since all things in reality act in accordance with their nature,
> > so do the sense organs. Thus, if I look and see something,
> > these sensations, which are automatically integrated into
> > a percept, reflect all the relevant facts of reality. (Relevant
> > in this context meaning if a fact of reality should affect my
> > perception of something, it does.)
>
> So in other words, however your senses happen to operate,
> that's how they operate.
>
> Another astonishing revelation from the pages of "Duh!"
> magazine.
True. I agree. Almost all of philosophy is a "Duh!" It makes
one wonder how so many can get it so wrong.
> > Since the sense organs always behave in accordance with
> > all relevant facts of reality, they never invent or distort reality.
> > Since this is the case, they are a firm base on which build
> > our knowledge.
>
> This doesn't follow, however. Sense organs can be damaged
> or impaired in ways that make them unreliable. Such unreliable
> sense organs are still acting "in accordance with their nature,"
> of course -- i.e., they are acting in just the way impaired sense
> organs do act.
You should have known how I was going to answer this. The fact
that a sense organ is damaged is relevant to the sensations it
sends to the brain. Thus, these sensations will accurately
reflect this fact.
Now, is this a distortion of reality?
No.
Does having damaged sense organs make it harder to gain
knowledge of reality?
Without question. However, that poses no problems with
my position and the position of Objectivism listed below, again,
for reference.
Note: I added statements about damaged sense organs to
the lettered statements. Thanks for bringing them up.
---
What it means for the senses to be valid:
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
I totally agree with all of the following statements about the
senses and each does not clash with 1)-4) above.
a) What seems to be is not always what is.
b) Our senses are limited in what they can do.
c) Our senses are not an automatic means to knowledge
of reality.
d) Some people's senses are better than others.
e) Some animals have better senses than we do.
f) There are some aspects of reality that we know our senses
are not reporting(x-rays, high frequency sound, etc.)
g) Some people have sense organs which are damaged.
h) It is more difficult to gain knowledge of reality with damaged
sense organs than healthy ones.
i) Most people do not have damaged sense organs.
---
Hugh Akston
> Hugh Akston
>
> explains
> >What it means for the senses to be valid:
> and I ask, because I am still trying to figure out if
> there is any real difference between the Oist position and
> the scientific position on senses once the differences in
> terminology are allowed for:
I can't help you Tom.
Olaf Weber
> Olaf Weber <ol...@infovore.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> (But the O'ist law of causality has rubber teeth.)
> Splain please.
See <8767fqk...@infovore.xs4all.nl> in the "Free Will, a short
remark." thread.
[...]
>> Talk of "relevant facts of reality" is rather grand for such a trite
>> observation. There is no longer an implied guarantee that the
>> senses will reflect the facts of reality that are relevant to the
>> organism, which is how I'd read your original statement.
> True, there never was such a guarantee. How would you suggest
> I phrase the idea I'm trying to get across?
IMHO
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation the senses send to
the brain eflects everything that happened out there that
affects the sensation sent to the brain.
should serve well enough. Of course it cannot be used to establish
the validity of the senses, but that's what people have been pointing
out to you all along.
[...]
I'd say that we assume that our senses are "valid" because that is the
better explanation of our experiences with using the senses in daily
life.
--
Olaf Weber
Robert Kolker
......................snip.............
>
> i am not certain that the amount of reporting the senses are employed in,
> is the point in question and please consider the mind itself as another
> device or main senser that "sniffs" the "outside" world employing logic
> and reason to make sense of the sensers.....all resulting from
> evolution....the senses are basic and adequate for what it does...our
> inquiring minds which is a phenomenon among life forms digs further into
> this reality depending on these basic tools as a good starting point...
>
One of its functions is to integrate, filter,
stack, sort and co-ordinate input from our sensors.
It is the case however, that smart members of our
species have learned to make devices that function
as artificial sense organs and map energical processes
not with in the normal spectrum of our senses, into
the spectrum of our sensors. Thus infra-red cameras
map infra-red radiation into images visible in the
normal (for humans) light spectrum. Our radios
can see e.m. radiation well below the infra-red range
and map that radiation into a beat than can be amplified
and put thru a loud speak. So what our radios can "see"
we get to *hear*. And so on.
But this devices are artifacts, and need not have been
ivented at all. Indeed, such artificial senses were not
possible more than 300 years ago (telescopes and
microscopes). That is because people prior to that did
not know enough to make these artificial sensors.
Bob Kolker
Hugh Akston
> >> (But the O'ist law of causality has rubber teeth.)
>
> > Splain please.
> > For a statement to be either right or wrong, it must be a statement
> > about reality. Therefore, a true statement is not a statement that
> > "doesn't say anything." Thus, your claim that the Objectivist
> > theory of causality "doesn't say anything" is absurd on its face.
>
> The problem is that the statement is a tautology, which means that
> whatever reality is like, it is true. If the determinists are
> correct, it is true. If the Idealists were correct, it would be true.
> If Solipsist were correct, it would be true. If there existed nothing
> at all, it would still be true.
>
> Note that "whatever a thing does is in accordance with its nature"
> is a "corollary" of the O'ist law of causation. By itself it cannot
be
> used to support a claim to something specific can or cannot
> happen. Which is why I said it has rubber teeth.
I think I understand what you are saying but I disagree.
The law of causality is not a tautology. It is an identification
of a basic, undeniable fact of reality.
I agree that in the case of the senses, one needs more than
the law of causality to establish their validity. This more is
the repeated observations that leads one to both form the
law of causality and know that it applies to the senses.
> The way to give "bite" to the O'ist law of causation is by
> incorporating assumptions about the nature things. For example,
> "the nature of all entities is such that one entity can only affect a
> different entity by a transfer of energy". (Something like this is
> what underlies the physicists' account of causality.) With this and
> an enumeration of possible ways of transferring energy, it becomes
> possible to say that certain events caused other events, or that
> certain events could not have caused other events.
Why would you want to assume stuff instead of just identifying
what is?
> > True, there never was such a guarantee. How would you
> > suggest I phrase the idea I'm trying to get across?
>
> IMHO
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation the senses send to
> the brain reflects everything that happened out there that
> affects the sensation sent to the brain.
Ok. Except I still like mine better and as long as I explain
what I mean by relevant, there should be no problem with
misunderstandings. I don't see how mine is grandiose.
> should serve well enough. Of course it cannot be used to
> establish the validity of the senses, but that's what people
> have been pointing out to you all along.
I've not been attempting to establish the validity of the senses
via my 1) - 4). I know the senses are valid only through many,
many observations. 1) - 4) is just my conceputalization of the
way things are. I can't prove the senses are valid and never
claimed I could.
> I'd say that we assume that our senses are "valid" because that
> is the better explanation of our experiences with using the
> senses in daily life.
Why would you want to assume that which you can know?
Jonathan Carryer
Just a couple of little points I wish to throw into this discussion;
>> > the object of this particular
>> > thread is "are the sensers in **direct** contact with reality....i
>> > say no you say yes....
>> I have tons of observations that say we are.
>but where are they? you have mentioned this twice before....and while we
>are at it....is there *any* philosopher other than rand that you have read
>and perhaps i?...then we would have some common ground for
>discussion...have you read any other objectivists?...
Philosophers are going to be arguing about the validity of the senses
until the end of time. Me, I'll take the word of any reliable human
biology or neurobiology text which I believe are pretty consistent
across the board in saying that the senses (or sensors if you prefer)
accurately relay whatever information they are capable of
apprehending.
The other thing is just a little nit I have to pick that's been
bugging me for a while now;
criterion is the singular
criteria are plural
*Jonathan
Al Mok
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
>Philosophers are going to be arguing about the validity of the senses
>until the end of time. Me, I'll take the word of any reliable human
>biology or neurobiology text which I believe are pretty consistent
>across the board in saying that the senses (or sensors if you prefer)
>accurately relay whatever information they are capable of
>apprehending.
I suspect that it is not controversial to assert that sense data
ordinarily gives us useful information about the world around us,
enough to let us navigate our complex surroundings quite effectively.
If this is all is meant by the validity of the senses, I think very
few people would disagree. A more far-reaching interpretation of
the validity of the senses is of a different character: that sense
data is the _only_ source of information based on which we can _know_
the nature of reality. I think it is the latter that philosophers
are taking issue with.
Cheers,
-- Al Mok
--
Aloysius K. Mok m...@cs.utexas.edu Department of Computer Science
University of Texas at Austin
"Why?" "Why not?" Austin, Texas 78712
(512)471-9542
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
> > >
> > > Since the sense organs always behave in accordance with
> > > all relevant facts of reality, they never invent or distort reality.
> > > Since this is the case, they are a firm base on which build
> > > our knowledge.
> >
> > This doesn't follow, however. Sense organs can be damaged
> > or impaired in ways that make them unreliable. Such unreliable
> > sense organs are still acting "in accordance with their nature,"
> > of course -- i.e., they are acting in just the way impaired sense
> > organs do act.
>
> You should have known how I was going to answer this. The fact
> that a sense organ is damaged is relevant to the sensations it
> sends to the brain. Thus, these sensations will accurately
> reflect this fact.
Yes, damaged sense organs will act like damaged sense organs. But
damaged or impaired sense organs may not be a "firm base" on which to
build knowledge.
> Now, is this a distortion of reality?
I guess that would depend on how much "faith" one puts in the
information transmitted to the brain by the senses. A person who is not
aware of or does not acknowledge the limitations of his or her senses
may indeed end up with a "distorted" picture of reality.
-- M. Ruff
Hugh Akston
> > > > Since the sense organs always behave in accordance with
> > > > all relevant facts of reality, they never invent or distort
reality.
> > > > Since this is the case, they are a firm base on which build
> > > > our knowledge.
> > >
> > > This doesn't follow, however. Sense organs can be damaged
> > > or impaired in ways that make them unreliable. Such unreliable
> > > sense organs are still acting "in accordance with their nature,"
> > > of course -- i.e., they are acting in just the way impaired sense
> > > organs do act.
> >
> > You should have known how I was going to answer this. The
> > fact that a sense organ is damaged is relevant to the sensations
> > it sends to the brain. Thus, these sensations will accurately
> > reflect this fact.
>
> Yes, damaged sense organs will act like damaged sense
> organs. But damaged or impaired sense organs may not be
> a "firm base" on which to build knowledge.
They are a firm base just not a very good one. Blind people
have a very hard time learning much. They mostly learn
through others who can see. Fortunately, you and I, are
not blind. We can see. And, not only does each sensation
we receive from our sense organs accurately reflect all the
relevant facts of reality, we get lots of these sensations and
in the "best" form. We can see.
> > Now, is this a distortion of reality?
>
> I guess that would depend on how much "faith" one puts in
> the information transmitted to the brain by the senses. A
> person who is not aware of or does not acknowledge the
> limitations of his or her senses may indeed end up with a
> "distorted" picture of reality.
1) I guess that would be me you're talking about.
2) I don't have faith in the validity of the senses. I know. I
have a great many observations in support of the idea and
absolutely no reason to suspect it is not so.
3) If you'll look at a)-i) below, I specifically acknowledge some
of the limitations of our senses. I've reposted this list many
times including in the message you are responding to. It makes
me wonder how you can honestly say that I don't acknowledge
the limitations of our senses.
4) If you can spot an error in the below or suggest more items
that need to be added to a)-i), I'm listening.
---
What it means for the senses to be valid:
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
I totally agree with all of the following statements about the
senses and each does not clash with 1)-4) above.
a) What seems to be is not always what is.
b) Our senses are limited in what they can do.
c) Our senses are not an automatic means to knowledge
of reality.
d) Some people's senses are better than others.
e) Some animals have better senses than we do.
f) There are some aspects of reality that we know our senses
are not reporting(x-rays, high frequency sound, etc.)
g) Some people have sense organs which are damaged.
h) It is more difficult to gain knowledge of reality with damaged
sense organs than healthy ones.
i) Most people do not have damaged sense organs.
---
Hugh
Olaf Weber
> Olaf Weber <ol...@infovore.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> The law of causality is not a tautology. It is an identification
> of a basic, undeniable fact of reality.
As phrased, the O'ist law of causality cannot be false. Therefore it
is a tautology.
Another way to see this is to note that the law of identity is
definitely a tautology, and that the law of causality is supposed to
be a corollary of the law of identity. Hence the LoC is a tautology
as well.
> I agree that in the case of the senses, one needs more than the law
> of causality to establish their validity. This more is the repeated
> observations that leads one to both form the law of causality and
> know that it applies to the senses.
But strictly speaking, this introduces the problem that you're
assuming your conclusion to prove it. Without the validity of the
senses, why should you trust the observations (made by the senses)
that prompt you to formulate the law of causality and apply it to the
senses?
So when you ask
> Why would you want to assume stuff instead of just identifying
> what is?
the reason is that you'd not even begin to trust your senses if you
didn't.
[...]
--
Olaf Weber
Paw1015
>Impressions are creations of the mind (how
>they get there, with what they interact, as a skeptic you don't know).
No, the only impressions that my mind creates are the
fantastic and dreamy ones. My vivid ones my mind
mind doesn't create. I don't know what does.
>But
>your consciousness is merely a faculty of awareness. In order for you to
>know you are conscious, you must be conscious of something, a something
>other than yourself.
>Self-awareness only comes after you are of something to
>contrast yourself to--that is Not-Me, this is Me.
I agree. I only some of my vivid impressions form what I
call "myself." These are: my emotions, by thoughts, my
memories, and my body.
>That something the rest of the world chooses to call existence,
>and builds up quite useful theories based on the existence of entities
>outside of their own consciousness AND IMPRESSIONS.
All useful science rests on the "law of causality," which
we do not perceive directly, but infer from observation,
ie., impressions. Please read what Hume was written on
this.
>Insisting on your own impressions without accepting anything external to
>your own consciousness causing those impressions is a contradiction of the
>meaning of consciousness. You are conscious of something, Mr Weston, outside
>of yourself, and that something is existence. Yes, you are a part of
>existence, but in order for you to realize that explicitly you must be
You are now arguing about the meaning of words, rather
than about ideas. I will not do this. If consciousness
presupposes matter, am I not conscious by your meaning
of the word.
>Only the universe itself, as the sum total of existence, can be removed from
>causation and the law of identity.
I have no idea what you mean by this.
>Accepting results without causation is tantamount to
>accepting magic
No, it's admitting the fraility of my mind, which false
pride prevents you from doing.
>Locked in
>your mind, all you know are your impressions. All the rest of us out
>here--we have no existence except as impressions, mental constructs, of your
>mind.
You are right that youl are only impressions to me, but
*I am only an impression to myself,* so don't think I am
insulting you. Hume speaks for me here:
"For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call *myself, I always
stumble on some particular
perception or other... I can never catch *myself* at any time without a
perception. When my perceptions are remov'd for any time, as by sound-sleep; so
long am I insensible of *myself,* I may truly be said not to exist.
And were all my perceptions remov'd by death, and
cou'd I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the
dissoultion of my body, I shou'd be entirely
annihilated... If any one one upon serious
and unprejudic'd reflection, thinks he may have a
different notion of *himself,* I must confess I can reason
no longer with him."
Gregory Weston
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<199808181511...@hotmail.com>...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> True. The study of epistemology predates Rand. However,
> Rand also studied epistemology.
so what is true of epistmology (a guideline) is true of rand? if not what
is the difference?
> > fine, but in order to do so you should be familiar with the
> > traditional as well and be ready to show how it differs...
>
> I am to some extent. However, I have not spent hours and
> hours pouring through books filled wrong ideas nor do I plan
> to.
and so the mountain must go to mohammed?
> I'm disagreeing with your statement that "epistemology is/was
> separate in some manner from this fallible, conceptual
> consciousness..." I can't figure out in what way that sentence
> makes sense.
that is because you misread my statement it was peikoff that alluded to
that not i...he claimed epistemology will show or teach a fallible mind to
an independent truth as if epistemology was separate from this fallible
mind and was imparting some wisdom to it and please understand if our
minds are that fallible then how true is epostemology which is a product
of this fallible mind. and the mind of rand would also follow is fallible
> > sound like the plain ordinary garden variety of epistemology..how
> > does rand differ?
Since you have OPAR, I encourage
> you to read the chapters on metaphysics and epistemology and
> decide for yourself.
i continue to slog through it...
> > ....perhaps "naive realism"? one of the criterion to obtain
> > truth? which states that things are in reality as the senses depict
> > them..that is, human sense organs determine the truth or falsity of
> > objects and conclusions...
>
> That is not Rand's view. Knowledge is the product of an active
> process of reason not a passive gazing on reality.
that def is in line with many thinkers...there is no arguement here
> I will post this again.
>
> The senses are valid. This means that
>
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
and i will post this again.....there is no question that it is part of
reality
>
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> law of causality.
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
no question here either they do what they were designed to do ....
>
> 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> on which to build our knowledge of reality.
no problem here..... but i have stated the sensers (which are "dumb"
brutes) show reality according to their nature...i believe peikoff
expressed the arguement clearly (although i am not in agreement with him)
on page 47 beginning with "those who condemn..."
his arguements when placed along side of other known philosophers pales
significantly it seems to have less substance but then i am only up to
page 71...and don't wish to prejudge
> Where, in your opinion, does Objectivism go wrong in
> regards to the senses?
i can't answer this since my opinion of objectivism is not fully formed
and am not certain that it differs all that much from other philosophical
reasonings perhaps it differs because it has a political twist to it?
would it be rands objectivism if we dissected the political (capitalism)
from the philosophical?
> > but that *is* what i said...your "certain conditions" are my
> > "atmospherics"
>
> Ok. I didn't like your phraseology and substituted my own.
why so......atmospherics are certain conditions that can produce a
mirage....
> > > I have tons of observations that say we are.
> >
> > but where are they?
>
> Where are my observations? Some are memories I have.
> Some are fresh observations that I have made today. Some
> of my observations have been integrated into concepts and
> principles. That's where they are.
can we discuss one or two of these "fresh observations"?
> I've read enough Kant(CPR) to know his work is a bunch of
> garbage. I've read bits and pieces in various places of
> other philosophers.
>
> I know and able to competently discuss Objectivism from
> Metaphysics through Ethics.
> Like I've said before. I have absolutely no interest in wrong
> ideas. Thus, I'll not be reading much of what passes as
> philosophy.
that is a terribly closed mind and more in keeping with a cult or a
religion than philosophy.....hope you don't mind a frank response...
> > if someone wished to discuss physics with another who only
> > understood math in general...how would they go about it?
> What if there was some weird and wrong field of physics known
> as Kantain physics and I knew enough about it to know that it
> is very wrong.
but then you would point out the errors or at least present an arguement
as to why it is wrong in your opinion instead of dismissing it out of
hand.
> > > Rand had an epistemology. Rand discussed the validity of the
> > > senses.
> >
> > no doubt......but, should not a seeker of information go to more
> > than one source?...since the validity of the sensers are
> > questioned by not a few philosophers...
>
> I've validated Rand's ideas by reference to reality in accordance
> with the requirements of a proper epistemology. Is there a better
> source for truth than reality?
can we pick up one of rand's idea and walk it through the halls of
epistmeology???
> > but of what value is it to one group of objectivist to discuss only
> > among themselves the philosophy of rand without comparing...?
>
> Maybe so they can understand Objectivism better? However,
> mostly, hpo is infested with trolls and know nothings, especially
> recently.
hard to tell the trolls from the active seeker of truth. at times they
troll at home and at other times they take to the roads..
.....i owe
> > my allegiance to no one group or person and will picked them
> > apart in order to validate what it is they are saying...
>
> Are you implying that I didn't pick apart Rand's ideas and accepted
> them without deep and careful examination?
no, i have *said* that *I* will pick apart in order to find.....etc.
> > i will gladly recognize that the method of "epistemology" employed
> > here is "rand" if you wish but thus far can see little difference
> > (rules) in what was pioneered by others before her....
>
> Look more closely. Use words more precisely.
that is what debates are for....pointing to specifics
>
> > .to me, when i first
> > read rand many years ago....the "fountain head" and "atlas
> > shrugged"..saw only the political implications in her books,
>
> Look again. Read Galt's speech.
can you point to a portion of galt's speech that was directly
philosophical (pointing to a specific?)
> > if you read only rand and nothing but rand, how can you know
> > she is original?
>
> I know parts of her philosophy are not original. However, I
> think her whole, integrated system is original. I know this because
> that's what professional philosophers who I know and trust say.
and what i have established as a goal to do....but i am a great believer
in "be a lamp unto yourself".....attributed to the buddha in case you were
wondering.
>> But, I could care less if her ideas are original or not?. Their
> truth is what I'm concerned about.
well i most certainly can go along with that.......it is the "potion" that
counts and not the vessel it comes in.....
>
> > i would imagine it is her political side that would
> > impact on society as a whole rather than the philosophical.....
> > thus far (since 1931) what rand impact has the u.s. known?
> > perhaps a concentration on her political side would be of
> > greater value?
>
> Her political thought is based on her other thought and you
> kind of have to take the whole thing or reject the whole thing.
and politically she seems to be espousing a capitalism that i not certain
applies in the 90's....and i cannot comment on her ideas of selfishness
since i have not read that book but intend to....but i do find it
difficult to understand why she seems to claim we have no obligation to
those who are in need...and i am not speaking of those who choose to milk
the system..but this i admit was received indirectly by those who claim to
know rand...perhaps they misunderstood her and passed this
misunderstanding to me....is this possible?
g.
>
> Hugh
Hugh Akston
> > True. The study of epistemology predates Rand. However,
> > Rand also studied epistemology.
>
> so what is true of epistemology (a guideline) is true of rand? if not
> what is the difference?
There are many different epistemologies. Rand's is different
than all the rest.
> > > fine, but in order to do so you should be familiar with the
> > > traditional as well and be ready to show how it differs...
> >
> > I am to some extent. However, I have not spent hours and
> > hours pouring through books filled wrong ideas nor do I plan
> > to.
>
> and so the mountain must go to mohammed?
I've looked at the mountain through a telescope. It is a big
pile of garbage. I'll not be making a trip to the mountain
unless I think it will be of some value to me.
> > > ....perhaps "naive realism"? one of the criterion to obtain
> > > truth? which states that things are in reality as the senses
> > > depict them..that is, human sense organs determine the
> > > truth or falsity of objects and conclusions...
> >
> > That is not Rand's view. Knowledge is the product of an active
> > process of reason not a passive gazing on reality.
>
> that def is in line with many thinkers...there is no argument here
Except you suggested Rand might advocate a kind of naive
realism and I don't believe that is the case.
> > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
>
> no problem here..... but i have stated the sensers (which are
> "dumb" brutes) show reality according to their nature...i believe
> peikoff expressed the argument clearly (although i am not in
> agreement with him) on page 47 beginning with "those who
> condemn..."
>
> his arguments when placed along side of other known
> philosophers pales significantly it seems to have less
>substance but then i am only up to page 71...and don't
> wish to prejudge
But you agreed with 1) -4). Is being right not enough? Does
he need fireworks and gongs?
> > Where, in your opinion, does Objectivism go wrong in
> > regards to the senses?
>
> i can't answer this since my opinion of objectivism is not fully
> formed and am not certain that it differs all that much from
> other philosophical reasonings perhaps it differs because it
> has a political twist to it? would it be rands objectivism if we
> dissected the political (capitalism) from the philosophical?
Rand's is a fully developed philosophy. It is more than just
the politics.
> > > > I have tons of observations that say we are.
> > >
> > > but where are they?
> >
> > Where are my observations? Some are memories I have.
> > Some are fresh observations that I have made today. Some
> > of my observations have been integrated into concepts and
> > principles. That's where they are.
>
> can we discuss one or two of these "fresh observations"?
The light bounces off a pencil to my left and enters my eye.
My mind automatically integrates the sensations my eyes
send to my mind into a percept. I am aware that there is
a pencil to my left. I know this is the case because there is
a long chain of facts of reality and things acting in accordance
with their nature from the pencil to my perception of it.
> > Like I've said before. I have absolutely no interest in wrong
> > ideas. Thus, I'll not be reading much of what passes as
> > philosophy.
>
> that is a terribly closed mind and more in keeping with a cult or a
> religion than philosophy.....hope you don't mind a frank response...
No. I don't mind. Give me a reason why I should want to spend
any more moments of my life reading gibberish or wrong ideas.
I've already done that some. I have no reason to suspect I'll
find something of value in the works of most philosophers. Why
should I pursue falsehood?
> can we pick up one of rand's idea and walk it through the halls of
> epistemology???
Ok. Reason is our only means to gaining knowledge of reality.
Reason consists of 5 different processes which we can
isolate for study but which in practice are often used
simultaneously or in rapid succession. The 5 sub-methods
of reason are induction, deduction, integration, reduction
and logic.
Induction is figuring out what something is via repeated
observation over time.
Deduction is figuring out new knowledge from old knowledge.
Integration is the checking of an idea with the sum of your
knowledge to see if creates any contradictions.
Reduction is the tracing of an advanced idea or piece of
knowledge to the perceptual data that it is based on.
Logic is the law of identity applied to thinking. It is the
sub-process of each of the 4 above sub-processes of
reason.
An idea is knowledge if it has been both be integrated into
the sum of your knowledge without contradiction and
reduced to perceptual data.
That ought to be enough for now.
> > Maybe so they can understand Objectivism better? However,
> > mostly, hpo is infested with trolls and know nothings, especially
> > recently.
>
> hard to tell the trolls from the active seeker of truth. at times they
> troll at home and at other times they take to the roads..
True. Hpo, in recent times, has more trolls and people who
understand very little than at anytime that I remember in the
past.
> no, i have *said* that *I* will pick apart in order to find.....etc.
Ok. And, of course, that is exactly what you should do.
> > > .to me, when i first
> > > read rand many years ago....the "fountain head" and "atlas
> > > shrugged"..saw only the political implications in her books,
> >
> > Look again. Read Galt's speech.
>
> can you point to a portion of galt's speech that was directly
> philosophical (pointing to a specific?)
"The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake
and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to
eat your cake before you have it...
"Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables
him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to
act in accordance with the facts of reality.
"Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others
proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that
nameless act which all of you practiced, but struggle never to
admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one's
consciousness, the refusal to think--not blindness, but the
refusal to see; not ignorance but the refusal to know. It is the
act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to
escape the responsibility of judgment--on the unstated
premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify
it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the
verdict "It is." Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish
to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But
existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely
wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say "It is," you are refusing
to say "I am." By suspending your judgment, you are negating
your person. When a man declares: "Who am I to know?" he
is declaring: "Who am I to live?"
The above plus almost all the rest is philosophy. In fact,
Galt's speech is said by many to be where Rand laid out the
basics of her philosophy for the first time and in its most
compelling form.
> > I know parts of her philosophy are not original. However, I
> > think her whole, integrated system is original. I know this because
> > that's what professional philosophers who I know and trust say.
>
> and what i have established as a goal to do....but i am a great
> believer in "be a lamp unto yourself".....attributed to the buddha
> in case you were wondering.
But, I plan on lighting other lamps. My only interest in ideas is
so that I can get through life with my head screwed on straight.
I don't have time to do all things. I must choose.
> but i do find it difficult to understand why she seems to claim
> we have no obligation to those who are in need...and i am not >
speaking of those who choose to milk the system..but this i admit
> was received indirectly by those who claim to
> know rand...perhaps they misunderstood her and passed this
> misunderstanding to me....is this possible?
No. You have been told correctly.
genein
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<6rfqt6$b...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> genein (gen...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> > i am not certain that the amount of reporting the senses are employed
in,
> > is the point in question and please consider the mind itself as
another
> > device or main senser that "sniffs" the "outside" world employing
logic
> > and reason to make sense of the sensers.....
> >
> Whatever our brain is, it is NOT a sense organ.
> One of its functions is to integrate, filter,
> stack, sort and co-ordinate input from our sensors.
our sensers are situated squarely in our mind and no where else, the
sensers are us and we the sensers....its function is survival, it employs
not only the sensers but mind itself in its determination to survive (one
package) and so can be considered a main "senser". (please note
quotes)...by closing ones mind to possibilities, the possibilities that
could arise from a new direction will never occur.....
.....its all *mind*.
g.
> Bob Kolker
>
genein
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote in article
<6rg34d$hqc$1...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>...
> genein ,
> >> I have tons of observations that say we are.
>
> >but where are they? you have mentioned this twice before....and while
we
> >are at it....is there *any* philosopher other than rand that you have
read
> >and perhaps i?...then we would have some common ground for
> >discussion...have you read any other objectivists?...
Me, I'll take the word of any reliable human
> biology or neurobiology text which I believe are pretty consistent
> across the board in saying that the senses (or sensors if you prefer)
> accurately relay whatever information they are capable of
> apprehending.
i love philosophy but will not philosophize in the face of any opposing
science offering reasonable "proof" ....btw the accuracy of the sensers
are *not* in question....
>
> The other thing is just a little nit I have to pick that's been
> bugging me for a while now;
>
> criterion is the singular
> criteria are plural
well jonathan i scanned the above and can't seem to locate it usage...
however, yes you are right and so?....nit picking is find under some
circumstances, nothing more peaceful than viewing a troop of apes in the
setting sun at this task...however in newsgroups and especially by those
that type and send most will ignore the typos and light errors in grammer
and go for the "meat"....
g.
> *Jonathan
>
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<1998082114160...@hotmail.com>...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> There are many different epistemologies. Rand's is different
> than all the rest.
that is what i am in the process of finding out....picked up her "the
virtue of selfishness"..the first few pages of the introduction was far
more illuminating than peikoff...
> > and so the mountain must go to mohammed?
>
> I've looked at the mountain through a telescope. It is a big
> pile of garbage. I'll not be making a trip to the mountain
> unless I think it will be of some value to me.
i think i will leave that one alone for the time being.....do you think
there is a difference in the reception quality of telescopes that are
mounted on satilites as opposed to a land based one?
> > his arguments when placed along side of other known
> > philosophers pales significantly it seems to have less
> >substance but then i am only up to page 71...and don't
> > wish to prejudge
>
> But you agreed with 1) -4). Is being right not enough? Does
> he need fireworks and gongs?
one may be right on level one but a bit off on the upper levels...
> > can we discuss one or two of these "fresh observations"?
>
> The light bounces off a pencil to my left and enters my eye.
> My mind automatically integrates the sensations my eyes
> send to my mind into a percept. I am aware that there is
> a pencil to my left. I know this is the case because there is
> a long chain of facts of reality and things acting in accordance
> with their nature from the pencil to my perception of it.
what you have explained is level one....and is correct but philosophy goes
a bit further in fact at times leap frogs
> > > Like I've said before. I have absolutely no interest in wrong
> > > ideas. Thus, I'll not be reading much of what passes as
> > > philosophy.
> >
> > that is a terribly closed mind and more in keeping with a cult or a
> > religion than philosophy.....hope you don't mind a frank response...
>
> No. I don't mind. Give me a reason why I should want to spend
> any more moments of my life reading gibberish or wrong ideas.
> I've already done that some. I have no reason to suspect I'll
> find something of value in the works of most philosophers. Why
> should I pursue falsehood?
difficult indeed to hand over a reason for your approval since you have
quite made up your mind that it is wrong and gibberish and totally false
from the starting gate...like my attempting to hatch chicks underwater....
> > can we pick up one of rand's idea and walk it through the halls of
> > epistemology???
The 5 sub-methods
> of reason are induction, deduction, integration, reduction
> and logic.
but this is familiar and cannot be attributed to rand...i own serveral
books on logic and its application....allow me an example: "let us test
our belief by the evidence, showing a willingness to revise these beliefs
as the evidence changes, never claiming finality for our beliefs, but
recognizing that the probablitities are sometimes so overwhelming that we
can really count on some improtant truths..."..."the art of making
sense"...
based on a number of posts, this would appears to me to be very rand
like....and the logical words you employ are standard fare....
perhaps her conclusions?
> > hard to tell the trolls from the active seeker of truth. at times they
> > troll at home and at other times they take to the roads..
>
> True. Hpo, in recent times, has more trolls and people who
> understand very little than at anytime that I remember in the
> past.
>
> > no, i have *said* that *I* will pick apart in order to find.....etc.
>
> Ok. And, of course, that is exactly what you should do.
> "Thinking is man's only basic virtue, from which all the others
> proceed.
> is declaring: "Who am I to live?"
> The above plus almost all the rest is philosophy. In fact,
> Galt's speech is said by many to be where Rand laid out the
> basics of her philosophy for the first time and in its most
> compelling form....
sorry to clip most of it but space necessary...
a good speech where i see not only the writings of the buddha but
schopenhaur especially his ethics and his essay "on thinking for yourself"
words may be arranged somewhat differently but the same wine in a
different bottle... perhaps its virture lies in rand accumulating it under
one roof?....or perhaps its a good jumping off point for her political
end..after all it is a call for individualism by these past greats....
> > and what i have established as a goal to do....but i am a great
> > believer in "be a lamp unto yourself".....attributed to the buddha
> > in case you were wondering.
>
> But, I plan on lighting other lamps. My only interest in ideas is
> so that I can get through life with my head screwed on straight.
> I don't have time to do all things. I must choose.
the right things to do are suprisingly small.....
> > but i do find it difficult to understand why she seems to claim
> > we have no obligation to those who are in need...and i am not >
> speaking of those who choose to milk the system..but this i admit
> > was received indirectly by those who claim to
> > know rand...perhaps they misunderstood her and passed this
> > misunderstanding to me....is this possible?
>
> No. You have been told correctly.
perhaps...but her intro to "selfishness" leaves me thinking otherwise
"..what i mean by "selfishness" is not what is meant conventionally,"
"the first step is to assert man's right to a moral existence"
...the type of needy person that i have described is not in her
"scope"....i think it is a given in a well run capitalistic system to find
room for a heart or risk loss of foward motion....
i am a firm believer in the current capitalistic system with its constant
need of adjustments...it is the only one i understand...anyone may live
under its "flag" the "i want" group of course must be brought under
control there should be nothing for them but an opportunity to better
themselves....but again there are those who must be brought under the
capitalistic wing if only for psychological reasons...baseball players,
and actors set aside a fund for those who attempted to make it and never
did or those who fell from grace, a very humane gesture which should be
the hallmark of capitalism........this commitment will not impoverish us
but will allow a different kind of wealth to grow and prosper....there
will always be those who "chant" staring at a bare wall....and those who
think for themselves within the framework of capitalism....in a free
society which this is, those who choose to think will become the movers
and the shakers, the bulk of the people will always be the bulk of the
people who tag along for the ride and benefit as the economic cycle is on
the upswing and examine communism and socialism when its on the downturn,
this always has been and always will be....
g.
> Hugh
Jonathan Carryer
>I suspect that it is not controversial to assert that sense data
>ordinarily gives us useful information about the world around us,
>enough to let us navigate our complex surroundings quite effectively.
>If this is all is meant by the validity of the senses, I think very
>few people would disagree. A more far-reaching interpretation of
>the validity of the senses is of a different character: that sense
>data is the _only_ source of information based on which we can _know_
>the nature of reality. I think it is the latter that philosophers
>are taking issue with.
I'm a little confused here. Are you for or agin this latter
interpretation. Ultimately, this must be true as far as I can tell,
understanding of course that information can be apprehended sensorily,
resulting in changes that, through tiny increments over long periods
of time, make their way into the data pool that we have at birth in
the shape of genetic and instinctual neuronal coding.
*Jonathan
Jonathan Carryer
>i love philosophy but will not philosophize in the face of any opposing
>science offering reasonable "proof" ....btw the accuracy of the sensers
>are *not* in question....
In response to your first sentence, good. As for the second, I have
to ask what you mean by sensers. You and I are sensers. Eyes, ears
and noses are sensors. If you refer to the latter, then you are
asserting in your argument with Hugh that it is indeed the sensors
that are mistaken in the case of a desert mirage, which is wrong. The
senses are accurately relaying the information they receive, which
actually is out there in the world, then your conceptual faculties
interpret the sense data to mean that there is a body of water ahead.
Then FURTHER use of your conceptual faculties allows you to conclude
that this is highly unlikely under the circumstances and that you are,
in fact, mistaken. Going back for a moment to the senser/sensor
distinction, this brings us to this....
>well jonathan i scanned the above and can't seem to locate it usage...
>however, yes you are right and so?....nit picking is find under some
>circumstances, nothing more peaceful than viewing a troop of apes in the
>setting sun at this task...however in newsgroups and especially by those
>that type and send most will ignore the typos and light errors in grammer
>and go for the "meat"....
......I notice these things because, having a teacher of English for a
mother, I have been raised with a certain amount of respect for
correct usage of spelling and grammar. It is a quirk, and not
everyone is as bothered as myself by this particular thing. However,
I would think that it would be those interested in getting quickly to
the meat of an argument who would be most in favour of correct
spelling and grammar, as it increases clarity and lessens little
misunderstandings like the one above regarding sensers/sensors. Many
arguments turn on very fine points of phrasing and nuance, so
precision is valuable. So, while your predilection for avoiding
capital letters causes me no bother at all, I do believe I have a
sound reason for being annoyed at misuse of words.
*Jonathan
Jonathan Carryer
>I guess that would depend on how much "faith" one puts in the
>information transmitted to the brain by the senses. A person who is not
>aware of or does not acknowledge the limitations of his or her senses
>may indeed end up with a "distorted" picture of reality.
But that is exactly the point. The sensory information which reaches
your brain IS a firm foundation upon which to create one's perception
of reality. How well your representation reflects reality depends on
how well you interpret the data available to you. Even so, any error
that occurs is in your conception (interpretation) not in the data you
are working with.
*Jonathan
genein
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote in article
<6rlfo5$fnr$3...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>...
> genein,
>
> >i love philosophy but will not philosophize in the face of any opposing
> >science offering reasonable "proof" ....btw the accuracy of the sensers
> >are *not* in question....
>
> In response to your first sentence, good. As for the second, I have
> to ask what you mean by sensers. You and I are sensers.
i have stated that the mind is the main senser......if thats what you
mean.
Eyes, ears
> and noses are sensors. If you refer to the latter, then you are
> asserting in your argument with Hugh that it is indeed the sensors
> that are mistaken in the case of a desert mirage, which is wrong.
that is not what i said....it was pointed out that the senser imputs what
it sees accurately and it is atmospherics that may "fool" it but the mind
attempts to make sense of it through logic, observation etc...
> >well jonathan i scanned the above and can't seem to locate it usage...
> >however, yes you are right and so?....nit picking is find under some
> >circumstances, nothing more peaceful than viewing a troop of apes in
the
> >setting sun at this task...however in newsgroups and especially by
those
> >that type and send most will ignore the typos and light errors in
grammer
> >and go for the "meat"....
>
> ......I notice these things because, having a teacher of English for a
> mother, I have been raised with a certain amount of respect for
> correct usage of spelling and grammar.
that is good johnathan but please understand that anyone who deeply thinks
on a subject as he writes attempts to write as well as possible but not at
the sacrifice of *thought* many writers of books will testify to this...
as it increases clarity and lessens little
> misunderstandings like the one above regarding sensers/sensors.
well aparently you are not following this post as closely as you should,
if you have then it should be apparent why at times i chose
sensOrs.....reading thoughtfully also increases clarity and lessens
misunderstanding..
So, while your predilection for avoiding
> capital letters causes me no bother at all, I do believe I have a
> sound reason for being annoyed at misuse of words.
thank you jonathan for not allowing my lack of cap letters to bother
you...it is a weakness of mind to type as directly as possible....your
reasoning is sound but perhaps at times we must forgo this "soundness" in
the interest of newsgroups which cry out for a "newspeak" where the rules
may be slightly bent but may not "log-jam" as accepted methods might.
take care
g.
>
> *Jonathan
>
Al Mok
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
I think the question needs to be stated more precisely. For example,
I can interpret what you wrote above as saying: the current capability
of the _human race_ for learning about reality comes about as a result of
all the "sense data" that impacts Man and all his ancestors in the course
of evolution. On the other hand, my interpretation pertains to how we as
_individual_ human beings, equipped with the sensors and information
processing capabilities of Man, can learn about the nature of reality.
This is different from asking how those capabilities come about.
I think Objectivists would make a better case if they confine knowledge
about reality to knowledge about the external world when they talk about
the validity of the senses. We do not validate statements of the sort:
"I feel happy" from sense data, even though our feeling happy may
indeed result from the interaction between past sense data and our
biological mechanisms. To the extent that such statements are about
reality, we do not recognize their veracity by processing data from the
five senses, at least not before someone invents a probe for measuring
happiness.
The more difficult question is how to qualify "knowing" reality. It is
one thing to say that sense data is what we work on to get a better
approximation of the nature of reality; it is far more demanding to
show that we can make assertions about the nature of reality which can
never be revoked, modified, or refined. A claim of the sort: "Since the
senses are valid, we can know reality" is at best ambiguous and at worse
given to the "religious feelings" against which the claim might have
been made.
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
Hmm...but in that case, does it really make sense to speak of perception
(i.e., sense data) and cognition as separate entities? I mean what you
are saying, in effect, is "Sensory information is a firm foundation upon
which to create one's perception of reality *IF* you interpret it
properly." Thus the efficacy of the senses is dependent on the efficacy
of the cognitive process.
-- M. Ruff
Hugh Akston
> that is what i am in the process of finding out....picked up
> her "the virtue of selfishness"..the first few pages of the
> introduction was far more illuminating than peikoff...
Peikoff's presentation of Objectivism is very good.
> > > and so the mountain must go to mohammed?
> >
> > I've looked at the mountain through a telescope. It is a big
> > pile of garbage. I'll not be making a trip to the mountain
> > unless I think it will be of some value to me.
>
> i think i will leave that one alone for the time being.....do you
> think there is a difference in the reception quality of telescopes
> that are mounted on satellites as opposed to a land based one?
I can't afford one of those fancy satellite telescopes and must
make due with what I have.
> > > his arguments when placed along side of other known
> > > philosophers pales significantly it seems to have less
> > >substance but then i am only up to page 71...and don't
> > > wish to prejudge
> >
> > But you agreed with 1) -4). Is being right not enough? Does
> > he need fireworks and gongs?
>
> one may be right on level one but a bit off on the upper levels...
I don't quite agree with that. Splain please because it seems to
me that if you are right, you are right.
> > > can we discuss one or two of these "fresh observations"?
> >
> > The light bounces off a pencil to my left and enters my eye.
> > My mind automatically integrates the sensations my eyes
> > send to my mind into a percept. I am aware that there is
> > a pencil to my left. I know this is the case because there is
> > a long chain of facts of reality and things acting in accordance
> > with their nature from the pencil to my perception of it.
>
> what you have explained is level one....and is correct but
> philosophy goes a bit further in fact at times leap frogs
What does philosophy say about my pencil in addition to what
I said above?
> > No. I don't mind. Give me a reason why I should want to
> > spend any more moments of my life reading gibberish or
> > wrong ideas. I've already done that some. I have no
> > reason to suspect I'll find something of value in the works
> > of most philosophers. Why should I pursue falsehood?
>
> difficult indeed to hand over a reason for your approval since
> you have quite made up your mind that it is wrong and
> gibberish and totally false from the starting gate...like my
> attempting to hatch chicks underwater....
I've considered, to some extent, ideas outside of Objectivism
and have found them lacking. If you can present something
specific and credible that shows that Objectivism gets something
wrong or that someone else gets something right that is not
contained in the body of thought of Objectivism, then I'll listen
and consider it. Until that time, my mind is made up. I don't
have a closed or open mind. I have an active mind which is
active appropriately.
> but this is familiar and cannot be attributed to rand...
That is just an overview of her epistemology. A lot of the
details and the overall system are different from anything
you might find elsewhere. I agree that many have had
similar ideas as Rand. However, no one has put them
together in the way Rand did.
> i own several books on logic and its application....allow me
> an example: "let us test our belief by the evidence, showing
> a willingness to revise these beliefs as the evidence changes,
> never claiming finality for our beliefs, but recognizing that the
> probablitities are sometimes so overwhelming that we
> can really count on some important truths..."
Who wrote that? That's pretty good.
> ..."the art of making sense"... based on a number of posts, this
> would appears to me to be very rand like....and the logical
> words you employ are standard fare.... perhaps her conclusions?
I'm not sure. It's her system, her justification for that system
and many specific parts of her system which are different than
anything else.
> a good speech where i see not only the writings of the
> buddha but schopenhaur especially his ethics and his
> essay "on thinking for yourself" words may be arranged
> somewhat differently but the same wine in a different bottle...
I don't think Rand would have agreed on too much with
the Buddha and vice versa.
I think the wines are different but the bottles may be
similar.
> > But, I plan on lighting other lamps. My only interest in ideas is
> > so that I can get through life with my head screwed on straight.
> > I don't have time to do all things. I must choose.
>
> the right things to do are surprisingly small.....
How so?
> > > but i do find it difficult to understand why she seems to claim
> > > we have no obligation to those who are in need...and i am not >
> > speaking of those who choose to milk the system..but this i admit
> > > was received indirectly by those who claim to
> > > know rand...perhaps they misunderstood her and passed this
> > > misunderstanding to me....is this possible?
> >
> > No. You have been told correctly.
>
> perhaps...but her intro to "selfishness" leaves me thinking
> otherwise
Read more.
> "..what i mean by "selfishness" is not what is meant
> conventionally,"
>
> "the first step is to assert man's right to a moral existence"
>
> ...the type of needy person that i have described is not in
> her "scope"....i think it is a given in a well run capitalistic
> system to find room for a heart or risk loss of forward
> motion....
> i am a firm believer in the current capitalistic system...
We do not have a capitalistic system. We have a mixed
economy, freedom mixed with government controls.
> with its constant need of adjustments...it is the only one i
> understand...anyone may live under its "flag" the "i want"
> group of course must be brought under control there
> should be nothing for them but an opportunity to better
> themselves....but again there are those who must be
> brought under the capitalistic wing if only for psychological
> reasons...baseball players, and actors set aside a fund for
> those who attempted to make it and never did or those
> who fell from grace, a very humane gesture which
> should be the hallmark of capitalism........this commitment
> will not impoverish us but will allow a different kind of
> wealth to grow and prosper....there will always be those
> who "chant" staring at a bare wall....and those who
> think for themselves within the framework of capitalism
> ....in a free society which this is, those who choose to
> think will become the movers and the shakers, the bulk
> of the people will always be the bulk of the
> people who tag along for the ride and benefit as the
> economic cycle is on the upswing and examine
> communism and socialism when its on the downturn,
> this always has been and always will be....
I don't agree with hardly any of the above, Gene. It's
both fatalistic and socialistic.
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<1998082303485...@hotmail.com>...
> Peikoff's presentation of Objectivism is very good.
she appears to have a more direct approach which coincides with my
personality....
> I can't afford one of those fancy satellite telescopes and must
> make due with what I have.
i would offer you mine but its in constant use...
> > one may be right on level one but a bit off on the upper levels...
>
> I don't quite agree with that. Splain please because it seems to
> me that if you are right, you are right.
books and sometimes movies may be read or understood on different
levels...james joyce is one example...or "gullivers travels" which as most
know is about the british conquests of smaller nations...mathamatics is
another....sometimes even intelligent people get tripped up into thinking
that they need not go further...
> > what you have explained is level one....and is correct but
> > philosophy goes a bit further in fact at times leap frogs
>
> What does philosophy say about my pencil in addition to what
> I said above?
depends on the philosophy....some may say that the pencil does not exist
(not my brand).....but in most the question is not addressed since it
really does not take one further....i think studies in science would be a
better avenue since from what they have gathered through observation and
have concluded it may prove to be a springboard for anyone interested in
philosophy....
> > difficult indeed to hand over a reason for your approval since
> > you have quite made up your mind that it is wrong and
> > gibberish and totally false from the starting gate...like my
> > attempting to hatch chicks underwater....
>
> I've considered, to some extent, ideas outside of Objectivism
> and have found them lacking. If you can present something
> specific and credible that shows that Objectivism gets something
> wrong or that someone else gets something right that is not
> contained in the body of thought of Objectivism, then I'll listen
> and consider it. Until that time, my mind is made up. I don't
> have a closed or open mind. I have an active mind which is
> active appropriately.
as i have said earlier...i have reached no hard conclusion on objectivism
and cannot push forward a counter idea....and until that time my mind is
*not* made up ....but also remains quite active....
However, no one has put them
> together in the way Rand did.
i continue to read and observe although i would reverse what you have said
and claim that rand has similar ideas to other philosophers and agree to
the possibility that her genius may lie in how she applies these various
thoughts....don't know at present.
"let us test our belief by the evidence, showing
> > a willingness to revise these beliefs as the evidence changes,
> > never claiming finality for our beliefs, but recognizing that the
> > probablitities are sometimes so overwhelming that we
> > can really count on some important truths..."
>
> Who wrote that? That's pretty good.
gladly, that was "the art of making sense" sub-titled "a guide to logical
thinking" by lionel ruby.
> I don't think Rand would have agreed on too much with
> the Buddha and vice versa.
both emphasized individualism and relying on one's self....is this not
rand as well?
> > the right things to do are surprisingly small.....
>
> How so?
we don't need a phone book size manual in order to do the right thing in
fact only one can suffice if you wish..."treat other as you yourself wish
to be treated" what more do you need to base future decisions on?...yes i
know it sounds too christian....but can you detect any wrong in it?...
> > i am a firm believer in the current capitalistic system...
>
> We do not have a capitalistic system. We have a mixed
> economy, freedom mixed with government controls.
imo, we do have capitalism for an engine which drives our economy and our
nation. government controls are not always disliked by big business, in
fact very necessary...for example big mergers can turn into monopolies
which can undermine true capitalism which is based on competition...the
little guy can get swamped (small business)....we (you & i ) are as free
as we will ever be, no other nation can make that boast.... just think of
uncle sam as a referee in which the contestants appeal a decision or look
to for a fair "fight"....uncle sam is also on the look out for unfair
business tactics in foreign trade by other nations...
> > with its constant need of adjustments...it is the only one i
> > understand...anyone may live under its "flag" the "i want"
> > group of course must be brought under control there
> > should be nothing for them but an opportunity to better
> > themselves....snipped out to conserve space
>
> I don't agree with hardly any of the above, Gene. It's
> both fatalistic and socialistic.
but its working.....please point out the socialistic and the
fatalistic...i am going to ask a very pointed question......there are some
in this country who really cannot keep up for one reason or
another...usually sickness and old age...some are the abandoned young that
no one wants, still others are the untrainable or those who in the past
had very basic jobs which are now being shipped overseas.....mexico,
china, korea where it can be done far more cheaply.....they don't
represent a whole lot of people....trust me... what shall we do with
them...? remember we are not speaking of those who can work but prefer
handouts....is this what you would label socialistic? wall street is
humming
hugh.....listen............................................................
....
g.
> Hugh
Jonathan Carryer
>I think the question needs to be stated more precisely. For example,
>I can interpret what you wrote above as saying: the current capability
>of the _human race_ for learning about reality comes about as a result of
>all the "sense data" that impacts Man and all his ancestors in the course
>of evolution. On the other hand, my interpretation pertains to how we as
>_individual_ human beings, equipped with the sensors and information
>processing capabilities of Man, can learn about the nature of reality.
>This is different from asking how those capabilities come about.
True enough. I was speaking to the position that _ultimately_ all
knowledge can be traced to senssory data. The common Objectivist
stance that a human being is born with absolutely no inherent
information, such as instincts or reflex circuits, is just plain
cracked.
>The more difficult question is how to qualify "knowing" reality. It is
>one thing to say that sense data is what we work on to get a better
>approximation of the nature of reality; it is far more demanding to
>show that we can make assertions about the nature of reality which can
>never be revoked, modified, or refined. A claim of the sort: "Since the
>senses are valid, we can know reality" is at best ambiguous and at worse
>given to the "religious feelings" against which the claim might have
>been made.
Yeah, well this is the whole contextual certainty thing again isn't
it? Sense data are accurate representations of the information
available in the environment. This includes non-functioning or
partially functioning sensors in that the data which is relayed to the
brain is a consistent representation of whatever data struck the
sensor. It may not be complete in an absolute sense, but whatever
does get through is accurate. As you say, there is a whole hell of a
lot of data out there which our present senses cannot relay and about
those aspects of reality we know nothing. However, being the smart
cookies we are, we continually find ways of modifying other types of
data into forms which we can apprehend and therefore learn more about
the nature of reality. However, whatever we ADD to our knowldge of
the nature of reality is in no way going to invalidate the visual,
aural, olfactory, gustatory and tactile data we are now receiving.
*Jonathan
Jonathan Carryer
>themselves....but again there are those who must be brought under the
>capitalistic wing if only for psychological reasons...baseball players,
>and actors set aside a fund for those who attempted to make it and never
>did or those who fell from grace, a very humane gesture which should be
>the hallmark of capitalism........this commitment will not impoverish us
>but will allow a different kind of wealth to grow and prosper....there
The thing to understand here is that Objectivist thinking would hold
such actions to be highly moral and worthy of much admiration, just
never as an obligation. What makes such a gesture so humane and
admirable is the very fact that it is done by choice, because the
giver believes that there is some value (and rarely a material one) to
himself to be gained by doing so.
*Jonathan
Lance Neustaeter
> True enough. I was speaking to the position that _ultimately_ all
> knowledge can be traced to senssory data. The common Objectivist
> stance that a human being is born with absolutely no inherent
> information, such as instincts or reflex circuits, is just plain
> cracked.
It is cracked, but I'm unaware of any Objectivist who holds it.
Humans are *conceptually* tabula rasa.
Lance
--
Don't vote. You'll only encourage them.
genein
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote in article
<6rqnrm$lir$3...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>...
> genein,
, a very humane gesture which should be
> >the hallmark of capitalism........this commitment will not impoverish
us
> >but will allow a different kind of wealth to grow and prosper....there
>
> The thing to understand here is that Objectivist thinking would hold
> such actions to be highly moral and worthy of much admiration, just
> never as an obligation.
the thing also to understand is that objectivists are people like anyone
else, can they to a man be relied on to embrace the unfortunates and never
to waver in their commitments?...and no one of any merit should wish
admiration or consider themselves moral because they have *given*..that is
the different wealth that i was speaking of...there are many obligations
for the humane from cradle to grave....allow some of your fellow citizens
some dignity in their lives, especially the aged who now find themselves
with a beggars bowl...
What makes such a gesture so humane and
> admirable is the very fact that it is done by choice, because the
> giver believes that there is some value (and rarely a material one) to
> himself to be gained by doing so.
and so the recourse is charity?...which may or may not reach its goal of
helping all those who are worthy of help...hopefully you may never reach
that point where your substance is dependent on hand outs. and so i would
imagine you are not a believer in our present tax system?....the
government should be dependent on charity as well in order to run our
nation?
we have a humane government in place (despite its mistakes) backed by
people like myself who are only too aware that charity is like dew on the
morning grass and no where to be found when the heat of the sun shows
itself
taxes are a necessary evil..if it did not exist it would have to be
invented....the portion that goes to the deserving poor are minuscule
compared to the whole....why do you object?
g.
Al Mok
Jonathan Carryer <jcar...@YorkU.CA> wrote:
>
>Yeah, well this is the whole contextual certainty thing again isn't
>it?
Ain't it so. But I still haven't heard a precise definition from Objectivists
of what makes a "fact" X certain in some context C though.
> Sense data are accurate representations of the information
>available in the environment. This includes non-functioning or
>partially functioning sensors in that the data which is relayed to the
>brain is a consistent representation of whatever data struck the
>sensor.
In the sense you use the term "accurate" and "consistent representation"
above, it'd seem to me there is no such thing as a "non-functioning" or
"partially functioning" sensor, unless "functioning" here refers to
the ability of the cognitive system to infer a reasonably accurate
model of reality from such sense data.
> It may not be complete in an absolute sense, but whatever
>does get through is accurate. As you say, there is a whole hell of a
>lot of data out there which our present senses cannot relay and about
>those aspects of reality we know nothing. However, being the smart
>cookies we are, we continually find ways of modifying other types of
>data into forms which we can apprehend and therefore learn more about
>the nature of reality. However, whatever we ADD to our knowldge of
>the nature of reality is in no way going to invalidate the visual,
>aural, olfactory, gustatory and tactile data we are now receiving.
That'd depend on whether the sense data we are receiving comes from
"functioning" sensors or not. You seem to be using the term "invalidate"
here to mean "not enabling the cognitive system to infer a reasonably
accurate model of reality", or do you mean something else? See, the way
you defend "the senses are _valid_" renders it meaningless to talk about
sense data being _invalid_ in the context of Objectivist epistemology,
since sense data comes from reality; whether we ADD newknowledge or not
has nothing to do with sense data being impossible to be _invalid_.
However, sense data from "non-functioning" sensors can be discriminated
from new sense data from "functioning" sensors, and that, I think, is the
usual question of concern.
In science, I believe the common usage is that the malfunctioning of an
instrument invalidates the data collected by it. Objectivists are of
course entitled to invent their own lingo; I'd stick to the scientific
usage. In any case, that sense data is "valid" in the Objectivist sense
does not guarantee that we can "know" reality, unless there is no standard
at all about the degree of accuracy in the model of reality thus "known",
in which case everything is "known"!
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Sense organs can be damaged
> > > > or impaired in ways that make them unreliable. Such unreliable
> > > > sense organs are still acting "in accordance with their nature,"
> > > > of course -- i.e., they are acting in just the way impaired sense
> > > > organs do act.
> > >
> > > You should have known how I was going to answer this. The
> > > fact that a sense organ is damaged is relevant to the sensations
> > > it sends to the brain. Thus, these sensations will accurately
> > > reflect this fact.
> >
> > Yes, damaged sense organs will act like damaged sense
> > organs. But damaged or impaired sense organs may not be
> > a "firm base" on which to build knowledge.
>
> They are a firm base just not a very good one. Blind people
> have a very hard time learning much. They mostly learn
> through others who can see. Fortunately, you and I, are
> not blind. We can see. And, not only does each sensation
> we receive from our sense organs accurately reflect all the
> relevant facts of reality, we get lots of these sensations and
> in the "best" form. We can see.
We can see, but our vision could be improved in any number of ways;
ditto our hearing and senses of taste, touch, and smell. But that's a
side issue.
More importantly, what you seem to be saying is that they only way the
senses could be "invalid" is if there were a total disconnect between
reality and sensation, i.e., if our sense organs generated sensations
that had no relation to metaphysical reality...and in that case, of
course, they wouldn't really be "sense" organs, would they?
This brings me back to a point I made to Jonathan Carryer -- it seems to
me that what people really are referring to, generally, when they talk
about senses being untrustworthy or misleading, is the chance of error
in *interpreting* sense data as it comes in. You'd call that an error in
perception, or even conception, I guess, rather than an error in
sensation -- but while it may make sense in analytical terms to break up
the process of perceiving reality into separate phases, in practice the
receipt of sense data and its interpretation happen more or less
simultaneously, in a gestalt. When I take inventory of the objects on my
desk, I am not consciously aware of parsing my visual field to resolve
individual objects and then identify those objects. A description of the
process *as I experience it* would be more like: "I see my computer. I
see my coffee mug. I see a stack of printouts..."
I "see" discrete objects, with names. When I misidentify an object, I
use sense-related verbs to describe the error: "I saw a snake on my
desk, but it turned out it was only an ethernet cable!" We could dismiss
this as sloppy laymen's terminology, but maybe the reason we talk about
"seeing things" that aren't really there is that in reality, the receipt
of sensation and its interpretation are not discrete, separate
processes.
-- M. Ruff
Hugh Akston
> > I don't quite agree with that. Splain please because it seems to
> > me that if you are right, you are right.
>
> books and sometimes movies may be read or understood on
> different levels...james joyce is one example...or "gullivers
> travels" which as most know is about the british conquests
> of smaller nations...mathematics is another....sometimes
> even intelligent people get tripped up into thinking
> that they need not go further...
Ok. Understood. How do you apply this to my 1)-4) which
started this little second a couple of posts a ways back.
1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
law of causality.
3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
on which to build our knowledge of reality.
In what way can the validity of the senses, as outlined above,
be understood at a higher level?
>> However, no one has put them together in the way Rand did.
>
> i continue to read and observe although i would reverse what
> you have said and claim that rand has similar ideas to other
> philosophers and agree to the possibility that her genius may
> lie in how she applies these various thoughts....don't know
> at present.
I said, at one point, that most of the pieces of Rand's philosophy
are similar or identical to the ideas of other philosophers.
However, her entire system is different than others entire
systems.
> > I don't think Rand would have agreed on too much with
> > the Buddha and vice versa.
>
> both emphasized individualism and relying on one's self....is
> this not rand as well?
Wasn't Buddha a mystic of some flavor?
> > > the right things to do are surprisingly small.....
> >
> > How so?
>
> we don't need a phone book size manual in order to do the
> right thing in fact only one can suffice if you wish..."treat other
> as you yourself wish to be treated" what more do you need to
> base future decisions on?...yes i know it sounds too
> christian....but can you detect any wrong in it?...
Yes. You left out things like thinking well, being honest to
yourself, being productive...
> > > i am a firm believer in the current capitalistic system...
> >
> > We do not have a capitalistic system. We have a mixed
> > economy, freedom mixed with government controls.
>
> imo, we do have capitalism for an engine which drives our
> economy and our nation. government controls are not
> always disliked by big business, in fact very necessary...for
> example big mergers can turn into monopolies which can
> undermine true capitalism which is based on competition...
> the little guy can get swamped (small business)....we (you &
> i ) are as free as we will ever be, no other nation can make
> that boast.... just think of uncle sam as a referee in which
> the contestants appeal a decision or look to for a fair
> "fight"....uncle sam is also on the look out for unfair
> business tactics in foreign trade by other nations...
Can you name a monopoly that was not created and maintained
by government actions?
> > > with its constant need of adjustments...it is the only one i
> > > understand...anyone may live under its "flag" the "i want"
> > > group of course must be brought under control there
> > > should be nothing for them but an opportunity to better
> > > themselves....snipped out to conserve space
> >
> > I don't agree with hardly any of the above, Gene. It's
> > both fatalistic and socialistic.
>
> but its working.....please point out the socialistic and the
> fatalistic...
It's fatalistic because it denies the power of volition. You
said what is has always been and will always be.
It's socialistic because you wanted those with more to give
to those with less for some reason unrevealed.
> i am going to ask a very pointed question......there are some
> in this country who really cannot keep up for one reason or
> another...usually sickness and old age...some are the
> abandoned young that no one wants, still others are the
> untrainable or those who in the past had very basic jobs
> which are now being shipped overseas.....mexico,
> china, korea where it can be done far more cheaply
> .....they don't represent a whole lot of people....trust me...
> what shall we do with them...?
1) I'll not be doing anything with them. I don't own them nor
do they own me.
2) If it makes sense within the context of my life to help
someone who, through not fault of his own, needs help,
I'll do so.
3) If our government would get out of everything it should
not be engaging in, there would be fewer such people.
The minimum wage keeps a lot of people unemployed.
Welfare prompted many woman to have many more children
than they could afford. With a greater proportion of our
income in our own pockets, we would be more generous
and private charity organizations would be more prominent.
Orphanages would be a good idea for many kids.
> remember we are not speaking of those who can work but
> prefer handouts....is this what you would label socialistic?
It is socialistic if you have the government doing it. It is
a form of altruism if you put as much emphasis on helping
the poor as you do. Helping other people is a sub-virtue
of justice. Justice is giving each man that what he
deserves.
> wall street is humming
There are many factors involved...
1) Alan Greenspan's monetary policy.
2) Our do nothing government for the last ~6 years
3) What has been done has been in the right direction.
(Welfare reform).
4) It is natural for people to be productive.
Robert Kolker
> quotes)...by closing ones mind to possibilities, the possibilities that
> could arise from a new direction will never occur.....
> .....its all *mind*.
Mind is not a thing, it is a process
carried on by the brain and glands.
Bob Kolker
Robert Kolker
......................snip..................
>
> taxes are a necessary evil..if it did not exist it would have to be
> invented....the portion that goes to the deserving poor are minuscule
> compared to the whole....why do you object?
>
your money from your account without
your consent, why object?
I will tell you why. It is theft.
And so are taxes.
Bob Kolker
Jonathan Carryer
>It is cracked, but I'm unaware of any Objectivist who holds it.
>Humans are *conceptually* tabula rasa.
Well, THAT I can go along with. However, that's not the story I've
been getting from various people. And how about this whole business
about ALL emotions being automised cognitions? I really must read
ITOE again and get all this straight for once and for all. I've heard
so many different interpretations of the main themes therein that I've
forgotten what I read now.
*Jonathan
Lance Neustaeter
>>It is cracked, but I'm unaware of any Objectivist who holds it.
>>Humans are *conceptually* tabula rasa.
> Well, THAT I can go along with. However, that's not the story I've
> been getting from various people.
Well, chalk me down for one O'ist with a rational interp. of tabula
rasa. :-)
> And how about this whole business about ALL emotions being automised
> cognitions?
Actually, the position is that they are automatized evaluations. Now,
this statement can sound a little bizzarre *if* your definition of
"emotion" == "affective response". However, biocentric psychology
defines "emotion" as a *subset* of affective responses ("feelings"),
specifically those that (at least partially) originate from a
subconscious but conceptual evaluation.
Lance
--
The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson
genein
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<6rvlf4$q...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> > .....its all *mind*.
> And mind is the brain in operation.
>
> Mind is not a thing, it is a process
> carried on by the brain and glands.
where is it said its a thing? and what can i have meant when i said "mind
is the brain in operation"?.......can we sub "a process carried on by the
brain? and it is the mind we are referring to which controls the glands.
and it is the mind that controls all bodily functions whether it be
conscious or unconscious...what are you attempting to prove or disprove?
g.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
genein
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<6rvlld$q...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> genein (gen...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> > taxes are a necessary evil..if it did not exist it would have to be
> > invented....
> And if an embezzler takes 45 percent of
> your money from your account without
> your consent, why object?
>
> I will tell you why. It is theft.
and as i may have asked you or perhaps another with a like belief, how
will the government run its business? if not by taxation?......charity?
...it may be theft to some who don't wish to pay their share in supporting
an armed forces, or the various departments engaged in the business of
keeping this nation on course....do you object to the disbursement of tax
dollars....? perhaps to the monies sent to save those in dying of
starvation? or the bailing out of some nations...tell me, how would you
handle all this?
g.
> Bob Kolker
>
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<199808251449...@hotmail.com>...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
intelligent people get tripped up into thinking
> > that they need not go further...
>
> Ok. Understood. How do you apply this to my 1)-4) which
> started this little second a couple of posts a ways back.
>
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
>
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> law of causality.
>
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
>
> 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> on which to build our knowledge of reality.
one can understand the senses as: the eye sees, the ear hears etc...but if
mind is to be explored than the validity of the senses must be explored
and the senses must be investigated beyond the obvious...
> I said, at one point, that most of the pieces of Rand's philosophy
> are similar or identical to the ideas of other philosophers.
> However, her entire system is different than others entire
> systems.
yes i recall..
> > > I don't think Rand would have agreed on too much with
> > > the Buddha and vice versa.
> >
> > both emphasized individualism and relying on one's self....is
> > this not rand as well?
>
> Wasn't Buddha a mystic of some flavor?
no, he was a very grounded person..when asked what is "beyond" he always
maintained a silence...he is known for his "middle path"...right thinking,
right action and so on....i don't subscribe to all that the buddha taught
nor christ for that matter but one should never throw out the baby with
the bathwater, one can find wisdom in many locations.....i would imagine
objectivism as well.
> > we don't need a phone book size manual in order to do the
> > right thing in fact only one can suffice if you wish..."treat other
> > as you yourself wish to be treated" what more do you need to
> > base future decisions on?...yes i know it sounds too
> > christian....but can you detect any wrong in it?...
>
> Yes. You left out things like thinking well, being honest to
> yourself, being productive...
i left out many things if you are counting but if one starts with that
base, much falls into place...i would subcribe to all of your suggestions
but they will come naturally when springing from a humane
beginning....please understand this is not altruistic, which could never
be me, but i strongly believe that we must help those who cannot help
themselves as well as we are able without sacrifcing ourselves...its not
difficult....if apes can do it, surely we can.
> > > We do not have a capitalistic system. We have a mixed
> > > economy, freedom mixed with government controls.
tactics in foreign trade by other nations...
>
> Can you name a monopoly that was not created and maintained
> by government actions?
not sure of your question...governments do not create and maintain a
corporate monopoly......but most certainly get involved when they deem a
corporation has so engulfed a particular market that they constitute a
monopoly.....i believe all of this began when you stated you were for a
"free" economy and i responded that it would bring on chaos or the
destruction of capitalism...competition is the key..
> > > I don't agree with hardly any of the above, Gene. It's
> > > both fatalistic and socialistic.
> >
> > but its working.....please point out the socialistic and the
> > fatalistic...
>
> It's fatalistic because it denies the power of volition. You
> said what is has always been and will always be.
>
> It's socialistic because you wanted those with more to give
> to those with less for some reason unrevealed.
under our present system of government this is not a problem...and i
believe that is what we are discussing..no one advocates giving to those
with less...what is now in place and i agree with, is to give aid to the
aged, the young, and to those who through no fault of their own are
currently in need and as i repeately have said they represent a fraction
of our budget...
> 1) I'll not be doing anything with them. I don't own them nor
> do they own me.
so let me get a clear picture....for those who are in need again: the
aged, the young and those who for one reason or another are not employable
your reccomendation is charity and if charity cannot handle it....well
thats life?
and is it your personal belief or do you feel it is the belief of
objectivism as well?
[ommited 2) as same as 1)]
> 3) If our government would get out of everything it should
> not be engaging in, there would be fewer such people.
who would determine what the government should be involved with...the
majority? and the aged, the sick, the young, the unemployable will still
be with us no matter what the choice..
> The minimum wage keeps a lot of people unemployed.
the min. wage has raised the standard of living in many families and are
you suggesting a lower rate than the current s.o.l.?
> Welfare prompted many woman to have many more children
> than they could afford.
perhaps but this is being addressed and the figure is not very large and
the exception to the rule....why dwell on it?
With a greater proportion of our
> income in our own pockets, we would be more generous
> and private charity organizations would be more prominent.
i am afraid this is a "feel good" policy that is very unreal...and i would
doubt you would detect the $ difference in your paycheck.
> Orphanages would be a good idea for many kids.
and who pays....charity again? btw orphanages do exist today.
> > remember we are not speaking of those who can work but
> > prefer handouts....is this what you would label socialistic?
>
> It is socialistic if you have the government doing it. It is
> a form of altruism if you put as much emphasis on helping
> the poor as you do. Helping other people is a sub-virtue
> of justice. Justice is giving each man that what he
> deserves.
i disagree...don't get hooked on words or labels, we have a capitalistic
system in place with a tiny portion of our gains going to those who are in
need.....i nor my friends (all capitalists with a capital *C* are in
anyway altruistic....which is self sacrifice....i have pointed out all
large and medium size corporations give to charity, as well as pay
taxes..a small "tax" to pay for those doing well....when push come to
shove, taxes are lowered and the needy poor must do with less than less.
can't be helped.
> > wall street is humming
>
> There are many factors involved...
>
> 1) Alan Greenspan's monetary policy.
greenspan is a small cog in the whole and he is good at his job but there
are other factors....
>
> 2) Our do nothing government for the last ~6 years
the government has always been actively involved in business and business
is activily involved in government... there are times that government may
involve itself to excess and the people respond....
> 3) What has been done has been in the right direction.
> (Welfare reform).
all for it..
> 4) It is natural for people to be productive.
if they are able... the condition of being productive is very dependent on
big business and government and you seem to skirt a very important
point...no one would like to come out and say..."hey i don't care about
the aged, the young or those who are unemployable, i don't care if they
are reduced to impoverished conditions, nor do i care if the people of
foreign nations are starving to death because of crop failure or civil
war...my tax dollar should not pay for any of this nor should my tax
dollar pay for corporate welfare despite the fact that in the long run it
produces revenue and reduces unemployment....what i have read (posts) is
an emphasis on welfare cheats or images of welfare recipients driving in
cars with big screen tv's...of course that should be addressed but that is
*not* what i am talking about...
is objectivism the voice of capitalism?....i think not, is objectivism the
voice of selfishness..? i am not sure as yet but it seems to be pointing
in that direction...with all due respects hugh i am glad that objectivism
has no voice in capitalistic america...at lunch i would not dare to broach
the subject of rand or objectivism except in a very indirect way...for
fear of being laughed at...or considered a bit strange..these are educated
people, many are harvard and yale majoring in business (not I) so i feel
it is safe to say at this point that objectivism should be judged solely
on its philosophical merit although "atlas shrugged" and other rand novels
are definitely political....i find it incredibly hard to believe that
anyone, especially anyone doing well under our present system will not
consider sharing a small portion of their "winnings"....
remember i am not speaking of altruism or socialism...
al·tru·ism (˛l"tr-ąz"--m) n. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others;
selflessness.
so·cial·ism (s˝"sh---ląz"--m) n. 1. A social system in which the means of
producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political
power is exercised by the whole community.
not me...
g.
GRADinc
> 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> law of causality.
No problem with this.
> 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
Here "all of the relevant" needs to be clarified.
Since no perceptual knowledge is involved with the senses,
this can only mean that each sensation reflects all
the facts _relevant to that sensation_. E.G. color
sensation reflects the wavelength of light hitting the
eye, but not the temperature since the temperature is
not relevant.
> 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> on which to build our knowledge of reality.
Here I think Hugh is guilty of an equivocaion on the
words "all of the relevant". To conclude 4) from 3)
"all of the relevant" would have to mean relevant to
"our knowledge". But no perceptual knowledge is
involved with sensations alone, so the relevance is
to the sensations, not to the knowledge. Thus it cannot
be concluded from 3) that senses reflect "all of the relevant"
facts needed for knowledge of reality.
Incidentally, I agree with 4), I just don't think it can
be demonstrated this way.
Tom Clarke
Robert Kolker
............................snip.....................
>
> and as i may have asked you or perhaps another with a like belief, how
> will the government run its business? if not by taxation?......charity?
How does your local supermarket run?
If you pay, you get. If you don't pay
you don't get.
Now apply the principle to government
services [such as they are].
> ...it may be theft to some who don't wish to pay their share in supporting
> an armed forces, or the various departments engaged in the business of
> keeping this nation on course....do you object to the disbursement of tax
> dollars....? perhaps to the monies sent to save those in dying of
> starvation? or the bailing out of some nations...tell me, how would you
> handle all this?
Let them starve, let them die,
let them sink.
Next question?
Bob Kolker
genein
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<6s191c$f...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> genein (gen...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> > and as i may have asked you or perhaps another with a like belief, how
> > will the government run its business? if not by
taxation?......charity?
>
> How does your local supermarket run?
>
> If you pay, you get. If you don't pay
> you don't get.
have you really thought this through?...and so elbonia decides to invade
the u.s. does it only attack those who did not pay their taxes? will the
u.s. defend only those who do? and must one wait on line in order to pay
for help?....and many other such examples...
>perhaps to the monies sent to save those in dying of
> > starvation? or the bailing out of some nations...tell me, how would
you
> > handle all this?
> Let them starve, let them die,
> let them sink.
>
> Next question?
your response does not deserve a question, you obviously "enjoy" argueing
for arguement sake....if true you would be the first i have never met
admitting to such human destruction....do you enjoy that "distinction"?
g.
> Bob Kolker
Jonathan Carryer
>This brings me back to a point I made to Jonathan Carryer -- it seems to
>me that what people really are referring to, generally, when they talk
>about senses being untrustworthy or misleading, is the chance of error
>in *interpreting* sense data as it comes in. You'd call that an error in
>perception, or even conception, I guess, rather than an error in
>sensation -- but while it may make sense in analytical terms to break up
>the process of perceiving reality into separate phases, in practice the
>receipt of sense data and its interpretation happen more or less
>simultaneously, in a gestalt. When I take inventory of the objects on my
>desk, I am not consciously aware of parsing my visual field to resolve
>individual objects and then identify those objects. A description of the
>process *as I experience it* would be more like: "I see my computer. I
>see my coffee mug. I see a stack of printouts..."
>I "see" discrete objects, with names. When I misidentify an object, I
>use sense-related verbs to describe the error: "I saw a snake on my
>desk, but it turned out it was only an ethernet cable!" We could dismiss
>this as sloppy laymen's terminology, but maybe the reason we talk about
>"seeing things" that aren't really there is that in reality, the receipt
>of sensation and its interpretation are not discrete, separate
>processes.
I don't remember you making this point to me but, oh well, I'll just
respond to it here.
Argument from ignorance, I believe, is one of the common accepted
fallacies of logic?
I'm not a mechanic. When I turn the key in the ignition of my car, it
goes. I don't parse the process down into discrete steps like "the
key moves mechanical parts, making it possible to turn the ignition
barrel. Turning the barrel closes an electrical switch that allows
current to flow through a circuit from the battery to the starter
motor......". A description of the process *as I experience it* would
be more like " I start the engine, put 'er in gear and away I go".
But if I find my car won't go, then this approach won't get me very
far. That's when I take it to a mechanic who understands the hidden
processes that I am not aware of in my everyday experience of the car.
I AM, however, a psychologist. While it's been a while since I took
my basic human biology, I am aware that there ARE hidden processes
involved in my perceiving things, that don't make themselves known to
me as part of my everyday experience.
*Jonathan
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> I'm not a mechanic. When I turn the key in the ignition of my car, it
> goes. I don't parse the process down into discrete steps like "the
> key moves mechanical parts, making it possible to turn the ignition
> barrel. Turning the barrel closes an electrical switch that allows
> current to flow through a circuit from the battery to the starter
> motor......". A description of the process *as I experience it* would
> be more like " I start the engine, put 'er in gear and away I go".
> But if I find my car won't go, then this approach won't get me very
> far. That's when I take it to a mechanic who understands the hidden
> processes that I am not aware of in my everyday experience of the car.
>
> I AM, however, a psychologist. While it's been a while since I took
> my basic human biology, I am aware that there ARE hidden processes
> involved in my perceiving things, that don't make themselves known to
> me as part of my everyday experience.
But if you cannot, by introspection alone, separate sensation from
perception from conception, then doesn't that make my point? If the
basis of knowledge is experience, and if *I experience*
sensation/perception as a single process, then arguments about whether
it is sensation or perception that sometimes misleads me are in a way
beside the point, are they not?
Incidentally, I doubt whether Rand "consulted a mechanic" -- i.e.,
discussed the mechanism of sensation/perception with a biologist --
before creating her theory of knowledge. She was not big on empirical
research.
-- Matt Ruff
Hugh Akston
> > > intelligent people get tripped up into thinking
> > > that they need not go further...
> >
> > Ok. Understood. How do you apply this to my 1)-4) which
> > started this little second a couple of posts a ways back.
> >
> > 1) The sense organs, themselves are part of reality.
> >
> > 2) Since 1) is the case, they are strictly bound by the
> > law of causality.
> >
> > 3) Since 2) is the case, each sensation they send
> > to the brain reflects all of the relevant facts of reality.
> >
> > 4) Since 3) is the case, the senses are a firm base
> > on which to build our knowledge of reality.
>
> one can understand the senses as: the eye sees, the ear
> hears etc...but if mind is to be explored than the validity of
> the senses must be explored and the senses must be
> investigated beyond the obvious...
Give me specifically what you mean by that. I agree that
1) - 4) is just the starting point of our knowledge. However,
I don't see how further knowledge can undermine 1)-4).
If that's what you mean, I disagree.
> > > we don't need a phone book size manual in order to
> > > do the right thing in fact only one can suffice if you
> > > wish..."treat other
> > > as you yourself wish to be treated" what more do
> > > you need to
> > > base future decisions on?...yes i know it sounds too
> > > christian....but can you detect any wrong in it?...
> >
> > Yes. You left out things like thinking well, being honest to
> > yourself, being productive...
>
> i left out many things if you are counting but if one starts
> with that base, much falls into place...i would subscribe to
> all of your suggestions but they will come naturally when
> springing from a humane beginning....please understand
> this is not altruistic, which could never be me, but i strongly
> believe that we must help those who cannot help
> themselves as well as we are able without sacrificing
> ourselves...its not difficult....if apes can do it, surely
> we can.
How do you get "One should be productive" from
"Treat others as you want to be treated?"
> > Can you name a monopoly that was not created and
> > maintained by government actions?
>
> not sure of your question...governments do not create
> and maintain a corporate monopoly....
Yes, they do. Utility companies. (Phone, power, water).
There has never been a true, long lasting monopoly that
was not propped up or created by government action.
> ..but most certainly get involved when they deem a
> corporation has so engulfed a particular market that
> they constitute a monopoly....
That never happens. Name a monopoly.
> .i believe all of this began when you stated you were for a
> "free" economy and i responded that it would bring on
> chaos or the destruction of capitalism...competition is
> the key..
Rights and a government that protects rights is the key
to having a free economy.
> > > but its working.....please point out the socialistic and the
> > > fatalistic...
> >
> > It's fatalistic because it denies the power of volition. You
> > said what is has always been and will always be.
> >
> > It's socialistic because you wanted those with more to give
> > to those with less for some reason unrevealed.
>
> under our present system of government this is not a
> problem...and i
> believe that is what we are discussing..no one
> advocates giving to those with less..
Are you sure about that? Ever been to church? Do you
know what percent of the population bows at the sacrificial
alter of Christianity?
> .what is now in place and i agree with, is to give aid to the
> aged, the young, and to those who through no fault of
> their own are currently in need and as i repeatedly have
> said they represent a fraction of our budget...
So, in short, you advocate taking, at the point of a gun,
from those who have worked and earned stuff and giving
this stuff, unearned, to another group of people. Why is
that not theft? Why is that not evil?
> > 1) I'll not be doing anything with them. I don't own
> > them nor do they own me.
>
> so let me get a clear picture....for those who are in need
> again: the aged, the young and those who for one reason
> or another are not employable your recommendation is
> charity and if charity cannot handle it....well thats life?
1) Life and a living is not and can not be guaranteed to
anyone. The people you describe would perish if they
were alone in nature.
2) Like you said above, the percentage of people in such
a position through no fault of their own is very small. So,
I suspect in a free society, it is likely that all of them would
be taken care of voluntarily.
3) This is a truly minor ethical issue.
> and is it your personal belief or do you feel it is the belief of
> objectivism as well?
Yes, basically.
> > 3) If our government would get out of everything it should
> > not be engaging in, there would be fewer such people.
>
> who would determine what the government should be
> involved with...the majority?
No. Reality determines it. The only proper functions of
government is the protection of the rights of individuals.
> and the aged, the sick, the young, the unemployable
> will still be with us no matter what the choice..
We would have less of such people if our government
was more nearly proper, if each person knew they
would have to provide for themselves.
> > The minimum wage keeps a lot of people unemployed.
>
> the min. wage has raised the standard of living in many
> families and are you suggesting a lower rate than the
> current s.o.l.?
I'm suggesting the minimum wage law is immoral and puts
low skilled and young people out of work. If I own a
business, I should be able to pay my employees whatever
rate we can both agree to.
> > Welfare prompted many woman to have many more
> > children than they could afford.
>
> perhaps but this is being addressed and the figure is not
> very large and the exception to the rule....why dwell on it?
It is an example of the larger problem of people not being
responsible for their own actions because government has,
in many ways, attempted to take that responsibility away or
shift it to the community as a whole. There are numerous
more examples such as this.
> > With a greater proportion of our income in our own
> > pockets, we would be more generous and private
> > charity organizations would be more prominent.
>
> i am afraid this is a "feel good" policy that is very
> unreal...and i would doubt you would detect the $
> difference in your paycheck.
Are you saying I wouldn't notice 40-60% rise in my
purchasing power?
> > Orphanages would be a good idea for many kids.
>
> and who pays....charity again? btw orphanages do
> exist today.
But they are not used properly. The state will bend over
backwards to keep kids with no good parents.
> > > remember we are not speaking of those who can work but
> > > prefer handouts....is this what you would label socialistic?
> >
> > It is socialistic if you have the government doing it. It is
> > a form of altruism if you put as much emphasis on helping
> > the poor as you do. Helping other people is a sub-virtue
> > of justice. Justice is giving each man that what he
> > deserves.
>
> i disagree...don't get hooked on words or labels, we have a
> capitalistic system in place with a tiny portion of our gains
> going to those who are in need...
We have a mixed economy. Word's have meaning. I'll use
them in that way.
> ..i nor my friends (all capitalists with a capital *C* are in
> anyway altruistic....which is self sacrifice....i have pointed
> out all large and medium size corporations give to charity,
> as well as pay taxes..a small "tax" to pay for those doing
> well....when push come to shove, taxes are lowered and
> the needy poor must do with less than less. can't be helped.
Why do most corporations give to charity? Tax brakes.
> > > wall street is humming
> >
> > There are many factors involved...
> >
> > 1) Alan Greenspan's monetary policy.
>
> greenspan is a small cog in the whole and he is good at
> his job but there are other factors....
Yes. There are other factors. I said just a few lines up
that there are many factors involved.
> > 4) It is natural for people to be productive.
>
> if they are able... the condition of being productive is very
> dependent on big business and government and you seem
> to skirt a very important point...no one would like to come
> out and say..."hey i don't care about the aged, the young
> or those who are unemployable, i don't care if they
> are reduced to impoverished conditions, nor do i care if
> the people of foreign nations are starving to death because
> of crop failure or civil war...
I'll say it. I don't care about 95-99% of the population of the
world. And, if that 95-99% dropped off the face of the
Earth tomorrow, I'd wonder where they went but I'd not
feel any great sadness. Those who are deeply concerned
for all are deeply concerned with no one, including themselves.
> my tax dollar should not pay for any of this nor should my
> tax dollar pay for corporate welfare despite the fact that in
> the long run it produces revenue and reduces unemployment..
Nope. Welfare is immoral. Nothing good will ever come of
it in the big picture and the full context.
> is objectivism the voice of capitalism?....i think not, is
> objectivism the voice of selfishness..? i am not sure as
> yet but it seems to be pointing in that direction...with all due
> respects hugh i am glad that objectivism has no voice in
> capitalistic america...at lunch i would not dare to broach
> the subject of rand or objectivism except in a very indirect
> way...for fear of being laughed at...or considered a bit
> strange..these are educated people, many are harvard
> and yale majoring in business (not I) so i feel
> it is safe to say at this point that objectivism should
> be judged solely
> on its philosophical merit although "atlas shrugged"
> and other rand novels
> are definitely political....i find it incredibly hard to believe that
> anyone, especially anyone doing well under
> our present system will not
> consider sharing a small portion of their "winnings"....
Not winnings, earnings. If I produce something or get paid
for producing something, that is mine. Not yours, not the
government's and not some poor person's I've never met.
> remember i am not speaking of altruism or socialism...
> al·tru·ism (˛l"tr-ąz"--m) n. Unselfish concern for the welfare
> of others; selflessness.
> so·cial·ism (s˝"sh---ląz"--m) n. 1. A social system in which
> the means of producing and distributing goods are owned
> collectively and political power is exercised by the whole
> community.
There are various strengths and versions of socialism. If
a government basically lets you do whatever you want
but takes X percent of what you earn, that government
is X percent socialistic. Our government is 45-60% a
socialistic system.
genein
Hugh Akston <hugh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<1998083012410...@hotmail.com>...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > one can understand the senses as: the eye sees, the ear
> > hears etc...but if mind is to be explored than the validity of
> > the senses must be explored and the senses must be
> > investigated beyond the obvious...
>
> Give me specifically what you mean by that. I agree that
> 1) - 4) is just the starting point of our knowledge. However,
> I don't see how further knowledge can undermine 1)-4).
> If that's what you mean, I disagree.
it does not undermine 1-4 it adds to it and as i said above the senses may
be explored beyond the obvious in order to closer understand the whole of
it, if this is possible that is.....
> > ourselves...its not difficult....if apes can do it, surely
> > we can.
>
> How do you get "One should be productive" from
> "Treat others as you want to be treated?"
did not say "one should be productive" what i did say is we should have a
moral base...whether one is productive is a personal choice as long as it
does not impinge on others...and the question keeps going back to how
shall we treat others and if one wish to keep it simple what better than
"treat others etc"?....again i repeat if apes do it (observed) why not
humans?
> > not sure of your question...governments do not create
> > and maintain a corporate monopoly....
> Yes, they do. Utility companies. (Phone, power, water).
yes, some untilities are state controlled but are closely regulated, when
we speak of corp. monopolies we speak of private corporations that are not
regulated as utilities...the government prevents this to the betterment of
business as well as the consumer.
> There has never been a true, long lasting monopoly that
> was not propped up or created by government action.
makes no sense, you say that a monopoly is propped up or created by
government...then this very same govt. breaks it up?....govt. created att
or bill gates?
> > ..but most certainly get involved when they deem a
> > corporation has so engulfed a particular market that
> > they constitute a monopoly....
>
> That never happens. Name a monopoly.
microsoft is one contender, att back in 1984 was the most famous but was
ordered to reduce in size which it did, it is now making overtures to get
back into what it once left.....we have a cable service where i live and
it is a virtual monopoly raising rates at every turn...the state and the
county are attempting to bring in competition....any corporation can grow
and dominate its field which reduces competiton, costing the consumer
more....another service courtesy of the u.s. govt.
> > chaos or the destruction of capitalism...competition is
> > the key..
>
> Rights and a government that protects rights is the key
> to having a free economy.
yes and that is what we are talking about is it not? government is
protecting the rights of the consumer, the rights of small business and
the individual..and unfair practice of big business against big business
(foreign and domestic) and in order to be effective, govt. needs money to
pay expenses in order to protect these rights ....
..no one
> > advocates giving to those with less..
>
> Are you sure about that?
there are those who forever want more, giving nothing in return...let them
advocate away they do not get my sympathy
Ever been to church? Do you
> know what percent of the population bows at the sacrificial
> alter of Christianity?
thats their right and does not affect me...
> So, in short, you advocate taking, at the point of a gun,
> from those who have worked and earned stuff and giving
> this stuff, unearned, to another group of people. Why is
> that not theft? Why is that not evil?
what is being taken from you? are you saying no taxes?
> > so let me get a clear picture....for those who are in need
> > again: the aged, the young and those who for one reason
> > or another are not employable your recommendation is
> > charity and if charity cannot handle it....well thats life?
>
> 1) Life and a living is not and can not be guaranteed to
> anyone. The people you describe would perish if they
> were alone in nature.
but they are not alone in nature and this is not a jungle, we are human
beings and once again i ask "if apes are capable of sharing why not
people"?
. So,
> I suspect in a free society, it is likely that all of them would
> be taken care of voluntarily.
doubt it, its not a sure thing, it is demeaning, and by paying a tiny
fraction more in taxes it is taken care of....
> > and is it your personal belief or do you feel it is the belief of
> > objectivism as well?
>
> Yes, basically.
>
> > > 3) If our government would get out of everything it should
> > > not be engaging in, there would be fewer such people.
and can you supply me with a list of what the present government should be
getting out of?
> > who would determine what the government should be
> > involved with...the majority?
>
> No. Reality determines it. The only proper functions of
> government is the protection of the rights of individuals.
and what reality is that? and are not the people we are speaking of have
any rights? such as: see below
> > and the aged, the sick, the young, the unemployable
> > will still be with us no matter what the choice..
>
> We would have less of such people if our government
> was more nearly proper, if each person knew they
> would have to provide for themselves.
but please go over the above list, how can these people provide for
themselves? are you saying 6, 7 or 10 year olds should provide for
themselves perhaps something like dickens oliver twist?...the aged, the
young and the unemployable lived outrageouly tortured lives in those days
both here, france and england or in old russia for that matter...do you
wish a return to this?
> I'm suggesting the minimum wage law is immoral and puts
> low skilled and young people out of work. If I own a
> business, I should be able to pay my employees whatever
> rate we can both agree to.
that was the case prior to the mwl and we had sweat shops with people
working a 6 day week from sunrise to sunset not daring to complain for
fear of losing their position....not that again.
> > i am afraid this is a "feel good" policy that is very
> > unreal...and i would doubt you would detect the $
> > difference in your paycheck.
>
> Are you saying I wouldn't notice 40-60% rise in my
> purchasing power?
you are shifting the arguement..are we speaking of taxes in general or are
we speaking of the percentage of taxes that would go to pay the group we
were speaking of....? which is fractional compared to the whole.
> > and who pays....charity again? btw orphanages do
> > exist today.
>
> But they are not used properly. The state will bend over
> backwards to keep kids with no good parents.
i have no stats at the present on that issue but do not consider it of
great importance to this post
> We have a mixed economy. Word's have meaning. I'll use
> them in that way.
>
> > ..i nor my friends (all capitalists with a capital *C* are in
> > anyway altruistic....which is self sacrifice....i have pointed
> > out all large and medium size corporations give to charity,
> > as well as pay taxes..a small "tax" to pay for those doing
> > well....when push come to shove, taxes are lowered and
> > the needy poor must do with less than less. can't be helped.
>
> Why do most corporations give to charity? Tax brakes.
sure thing, tax breaks and why not? but again who is complaining?
> > > 1) Alan Greenspan's monetary policy.
> >
> > greenspan is a small cog in the whole and he is good at
> > his job but there are other factors....
>
> Yes. There are other factors. I said just a few lines up
> that there are many factors involved.
ok
> > if they are able... the condition of being productive is very
> > dependent on big business and government and you seem
> > to skirt a very important point...no one would like to come
> > out and say..."hey i don't care about the aged, the young
> > or those who are unemployable, i don't care if they
> > are reduced to impoverished conditions, nor do i care if
> > the people of foreign nations are starving to death because
> > of crop failure or civil war...
>
> I'll say it. I don't care about 95-99% of the population of the
> world. And, if that 95-99% dropped off the face of the
> Earth tomorrow, I'd wonder where they went but I'd not
> feel any great sadness.
that is unfortunate but certainly your right to think this....but does it
mirror objectivism?...
Those who are deeply concerned
> for all are deeply concerned with no one, including themselves.
i would say that those who are concerned about others when they witness a
need, are humane and have a tendency to be concerned about themselves as
well...it can't be any other way.......we as humans in order call
ourselves civilized must do all we can to further ourselves both
intellectually and be concerned about the welfare of our family first but
must not turn a blind eye when others are in need...
> Nope. Welfare is immoral. Nothing good will ever come of
> it in the big picture and the full context.
>
> > is objectivism the voice of capitalism?....i think not, is
> > objectivism the voice of selfishness..? i am not sure as
> > yet but it seems to be pointing in that direction...with all due
> > respects hugh i am glad that objectivism has no voice in
> > capitalistic america...at lunch i would not dare to broach
> > the subject of rand or objectivism except in a very indirect
> > way...for fear of being laughed at...or considered a bit
> > strange..these are educated people, many are harvard
> > and yale majoring in business (not I) so i feel
> > it is safe to say at this point that objectivism should
> > be judged solely
> > on its philosophical merit although "atlas shrugged"
> > and other rand novels
> > are definitely political....i find it incredibly hard to believe that
> > anyone, especially anyone doing well under
> > our present system will not
> > consider sharing a small portion of their "winnings"....
>
> Not winnings, earnings.
if you wish i won't quibble.
If I produce something or get paid
> for producing something, that is mine. Not yours, not the
> government's and not some poor person's I've never met.
it is the collective efforts of all of us that ensures our well
being...and this includes govt....and a portion of your "something" must
be given in taxes to keep the wheels turning...the type of poor who i wish
to aid will spend the money creating more wealth as well...if you make a
widget, i buy it creating a demand for more widgets and keeping you
employed..
> There are various strengths and versions of socialism. If
> a government basically lets you do whatever you want
> but takes X percent of what you earn, that government
> is X percent socialistic. Our government is 45-60% a
> socialistic system.
then what we have today is what i wish to continue....capitalism with a
dash of social awareness... i do not want a run away welfare program but i
want (not wish) a stability in the lives of all of us. no one knows what
tomorrow may bring.
to those that feel like you, i can only give pause but will not comment
however i am thankful that humanity is not dead in our present government
and most of its citizens...we all bitch and moan when it comes to paying
taxes and always look for the loop hole to reduce our pay out.....and
there have been taxes i have disagreed with and have said so...but in the
main i and many like me are aware that it is a neccessary "evil" but i can
think of no other way to pay for a government....i only ask to keep it as
small and efficient as possible.....and to rid itself of leeches on every
level...but to turn away a portion of our citizens who have fallen on hard
times is impossible for me to understand....expecially when it won't
impoverish us in the least and i think most citizens rest a bit more
easily knowing if things do get rough they won't be expelled from
society....and this includes you as well hugh whether you like it or not,
a reaching hand will be there if you fall from the productive world.
g.
Robert J. Kolker
genein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> but they are not alone in nature and this is not a jungle, we are human
> beings and once again i ask "if apes are capable of sharing why not
> people"?
>
People share all the time andvoluntarily at that. The U.S. has
a population that gives much
more to charity relative to income
than any other country in the
industrialized world. Americans are
sharer's par excellance.
>
>
>
>
> then what we have today is what i wish to continue....capitalism with a
> dash of social awareness... i do not want a run away welfare program but i
> want (not wish) a stability in the lives of all of us. no one knows what
> tomorrow may bring.
Actually what we have is Socialism
with a cash of Capitalistic awareness.
We have enough capitalism in place
to prevent the socialistic aspects of
our society from leading us to squalor
and ruination.
Bob Kolker
Jonathan Carryer
>Well, chalk me down for one O'ist with a rational interp. of tabula
>rasa. :-)
Finally, a rational Objectivist. :-)
>Actually, the position is that they are automatized evaluations. Now,
>this statement can sound a little bizzarre *if* your definition of
>"emotion" == "affective response". However, biocentric psychology
>defines "emotion" as a *subset* of affective responses ("feelings"),
>specifically those that (at least partially) originate from a
>subconscious but conceptual evaluation.
Well, it is always possible that I simply misunderstood, but I have a
fairly high opinion of my ability to understand what I read and hear.
I definitely got the understanding that the evaluations in question
were specifically of a conceptual nature. Being a psychologist
myself, I'm quite familiar with the difference between affects,
feelings and emotions. Just to correct your definitions above a tiny
bit, an emotion is an action that reflects a feeling, a feeling is a
conscious recognition of an affective response OR an automised
reasoning process and an affective reponse is one that originates in
the limbic system rather than the neocortex. A conceptual reponse is
one that is formed through neocortical activity and is generally
characterised as reason.
I see the whole argument as rather non-sensical, in that (as I
understand its presentation) an emotion (or feeling, to be more
accurate) is an automised end-product of a (characteristically
irrational) reasoning response. These should not be trusted as
foundations upon which to base one's actions in any situation where
they conflict with one's current (characteristically rational)
consciously reasoned response. The way I see it, those feelings which
reflect affective responses are always going to have a rational basis
to them, in that the affective response comes from the basic
pleasure/pain dichotomy, although this rational basis may indeed be
irrational once all the details of the present context have been
factored in. Similarly, those feelings which reflect automised
reasoning will often be from reasoning done as a child (due to the
length of time it takes for such a process to become truly
automatised), which are most definitely NOT characteristically
rational, although it is true that such feelings may indeed reflect an
automatised rational reasoning process. Furthermore, there is no
absolute guarantee, without serious self-reflection, that one's
present reasoning processes are entirely rational.
Therefore, I find the Objectivist argument in this regard to be a
little over-simplistic on the face of it, which can lead many current
Objectivists to chant it as a mantra without taking the time to
reflect upon, and recognise, the caveats and exceptions that go along
with this (generally quite reasonable) position.
*Jonathan
Steve Davis
> Finally, a rational Objectivist. :-)
You didn't count me!
> I see the whole argument as rather non-sensical
It's only non-sensical the way you re-phrased it. All of this boils down
to a very simple rule of thumb: "In any conflict between your heart and
your mind--follow your mind." I think this is very good advice, and if
pressed to give reasons why I would use examples very similar to the
ones you outlined.
Of course there are caveats and exceptions. But you could only grasp or
follow them if you were using your mind in the first place.
genein
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35EA9300...@hotmail.com>...
> genein wrote:
"if apes are capable of sharing why not
> > people"?
>
Americans are
> sharer's par excellance.
yes, but you are taking the arguement in another direction, i am well
aware of the many charitible organizations and outreach programs by
churches who btw do poorly in economic downturns....but it is only a
partial answer and the small amount of payment we give to the goverment to
take care of the basic needs of the aged, the young and the unemployable
should not met with defiance by some....
> > then what we have today is what i wish to continue....capitalism with
a
> > dash of social awareness... i do not want a run away welfare program
but i want (not wish) a stability in the lives of all of us. no one knows
what
> > tomorrow may bring.
>
> Actually what we have is Socialism
> with a cash of Capitalistic awareness.
> We have enough capitalism in place
> to prevent the socialistic aspects of
> our society from leading us to squalor
> and ruination.
the last update i heard (last night) on a business program was that 59 %
of americans own stock...i would think this qualifies as
capitalism.....where is the socialism? surely you are not suggesting that
our entitlements such as social security, unemployment insurance and
medicare is socialism? these as you must know are paid by ourselves and
our employer...the more you make the more you receive...within limitations
of course...now welfare is another matter which is a dash of
socialism...and fine by me when kept within bounds.
g.
> Bob Kolker
>
Robert Kolker
.........................snip..................
>
> the last update i heard (last night) on a business program was that 59 %
> of americans own stock...i would think this qualifies as
> capitalism.....where is the socialism? surely you are not suggesting that
> our entitlements such as social security, unemployment insurance and
> medicare is socialism? these as you must know are paid by ourselves and
> our employer...the more you make the more you receive...within limitations
> of course...now welfare is another matter which is a dash of
> socialism...and fine by me when kept within bounds.
>
over 50 percent of their income to government
at some level or another and that includes the
taxes that businesses pass through in the price
of their goods and services.
From a constitutional view there is no limit
(up to 100 percent of course) to the rate that
congress can tax our incomes. So it comes down
to this: The government owns all of our income
except for that fraction they graciously let us
keep to buy things to keep businesses afloat so
that they can be taxed by the government.
As long as no portion of our income is safe (in
principle) from taxation we are sheep to be
sheared by our lords and our masters.
It is bad enought to be robbed and mugger, but to
be sheared and harvested is the final indignity.
A while we are at it, fuck the poor and the sick.
I did not make them poor and I did not make them
sick, so why should I carry their burden?
Bob Kolker
Lance Neustaeter
I'm interested in learning more about your understanding of emotions,
feelings, affective responses, etc. and their place in the psyche.
> Well, it is always possible that I simply misunderstood, but I have a
> fairly high opinion of my ability to understand what I read and hear.
> I definitely got the understanding that the evaluations in question
> were specifically of a conceptual nature.
Maybe you and I are using different concepts of "evaluation". To me,
*all* evaluations are necessarily conceptual.
> Being a psychologist myself, I'm quite familiar with the difference
> between affects, feelings and emotions. Just to correct your definitions
> above a tiny bit, an emotion is an action that reflects a feeling,
Hmm. I don't see this. What kind of action is admiration? An
emotion only exists if we act on it?
> a feeling is a conscious recognition of an affective response
Then only humans have feelings?
> A conceptual reponse is one that is formed through neocortical
> activity and is generally characterised as reason.
Where do automatized evaluations (ie: the "subconcious") fit in?
> I see the whole argument as rather non-sensical, in that (as I
> understand its presentation) an emotion (or feeling, to be more
> accurate) is an automised end-product of a (characteristically
> irrational) reasoning response.
An emotion is the way we experience automatized evaluations. I don't
see why you say they are "characteristically irrational". Rational
evaluations are automatized in the same manner.
> The way I see it, those feelings which reflect affective responses
> are always going to have a rational basis to them, in that the
> affective response comes from the basic pleasure/pain dichotomy,
I wouldn't use the word "rational" in a context that precludes reason
and volition. I think "adaptive" or "functional" would be more
appropriate.
Lance
--
Even bargains cost money.
genein
Robert Kolker <r...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<6sjgas$1...@news-central.tiac.net>...
> The sad fact is that Americans on average pay
> over 50 percent of their income to government
> at some level or another and that includes the
> taxes that businesses pass through in the price
> of their goods and services.
i don't pretend to know the exact amount...lets say 50% and i don't fool
myself that somewhere up on the top someone is not doing a little skimming
nor am i totally content that bill gates is worth nearly 50 billion nor
did i shed a tear when i found in the last bloodletting on wall street he
lost 5.4 billion...
but can you or i come up with a microsoft? its costly to run a government,
its costly to maintain an alertness so our nation will remain out of the
hands of kooks...i would like my taxes lowered and if there is a way in
which the budget can be cut significantly without destroying lives, then i
am for it...can you run a large business? sucessfully?, takes a lot more
than most of us are willing to admit...especially now in a global market.
> From a constitutional view there is no limit
> (up to 100 percent of course) to the rate that
> congress can tax our incomes. So it comes down
> to this: The government owns all of our income
> except for that fraction they graciously let us
> keep to buy things to keep businesses afloat so
> that they can be taxed by the government.
i thought we agreed they allowed 50%..are you saying they now take 95%..i
may not be the best in math but something doesn't quite add up.
> As long as no portion of our income is safe (in
> principle) from taxation we are sheep to be
> sheared by our lords and our masters.
> It is bad enought to be robbed and mugger, but to
> be sheared and harvested is the final indignity.
but you have failed to prove your opening statement "as long as....." and
admitting in principle only which negates the rest....stick with facts
> A while we are at it, fuck the poor and the sick.
> I did not make them poor and I did not make them
> sick, so why should I carry their burden?
this is a personal opinion and you have the right to it, but there are
others who feel differently....a sense of compassion:...perhaps because we
know we too are human and unfortunate circumstances can visit any one at
any time......i cannot describe a feeling of compassion and unfortunately
the word itself has been overused along with love and peace...further more
it can not be instilled in another by arguement you either feel it or you
don't.
g.
> Bob Kolker
>
Jonathan Carryer
>But if you cannot, by introspection alone, separate sensation from
>perception from conception, then doesn't that make my point? If the
>basis of knowledge is experience, and if *I experience*
>sensation/perception as a single process, then arguments about whether
>it is sensation or perception that sometimes misleads me are in a way
>beside the point, are they not?
Sure, as long as you're happy believing that all your internal
functions just happen by magic, then this is a great approach to the
problem. However, once you discover the wonderful worlds of the
various sciences and other realms of human endeavour to broaden the
expanse of our summed knowledge, then you start *experiencing* your
observations regarding how various types of biological tissue operate
and learning that your introspective experience doesn't give you the
whole story. As we learn more facts, we expand the context within
which we can understand our experiences. Come on Matt, you're an
intelligent guy. Are you seriously going to argue this point?
>Incidentally, I doubt whether Rand "consulted a mechanic" -- i.e.,
>discussed the mechanism of sensation/perception with a biologist --
>before creating her theory of knowledge. She was not big on empirical
>research.
Which is why she screwed up so badly on many of the finer details. I
think she did a great job of applying reason to what knowledge she did
have, but it's a layman's knowledge (and this comment applies to many
areas of her philosophy, including areas where I am a layman myself).
I think that this has caused many problems for Objectivism in two
ways. The first is that some experts in the fields she invaded were
unwilling to look past the fact that she made mistakes to applaud the
highly impressive reasoning that led to those mistakes. The second is
that her reasoning IS so impressive and is therefore very attractive
to those who also have a layman's knowledge in these areas.
*Jonathan
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt ,
>
> >But if you cannot, by introspection alone, separate sensation from
> >perception from conception, then doesn't that make my point? If the
> >basis of knowledge is experience, and if *I experience*
> >sensation/perception as a single process, then arguments about whether
> >it is sensation or perception that sometimes misleads me are in a way
> >beside the point, are they not?
>
> Sure, as long as you're happy believing that all your internal
> functions just happen by magic, then this is a great approach to the
> problem. However, once you discover the wonderful worlds of the
> various sciences and other realms of human endeavour to broaden the
> expanse of our summed knowledge, then you start *experiencing* your
> observations regarding how various types of biological tissue operate
> and learning that your introspective experience doesn't give you the
> whole story.
I never said that it did.
> As we learn more facts, we expand the context within
> which we can understand our experiences. Come on Matt, you're an
> intelligent guy. Are you seriously going to argue this point?
Sorry to be dense, but I'm not sure what point it is we're arguing.
Objectivists seem to want to make a big deal out of the fact that "the
senses do not lie," and all I'm trying to do is question whether it's
*really* that big a deal.
Three points for possible argument:
1) True Cartesian skeptics are very thin on the ground. I think almost
everyone -- non-Objectivists as well as Objectivists -- would agree that
sense data are a sound foundation for knowledge about metaphysical
reality. It seems odd, therefore, to have Objectivists trumpeting
something that almost everyone believes as if it were a grand
revelation. Either O'ists are reading too much into it or non-O'ists are
not reading enough into it -- and I suspect the former.
2) I'll leave it to Tom Clarke with his Herring lines to debate you on
whether the senses themselves can "distort" reality. But errors in
perception *do* occur, and because sensation and perception are
experienced simultaneously, as a gestalt, it seems to me that errors in
perception *might as well* be errors in sensation. I "see" a snake in
the grass, that on closer inspection turns out to be a hose; speaking of
it later, I say that "my eyes deceived me." Perhaps in a technical sense
that's incorrect. My error was an error of perception, not sensation --
I didn't literally see a snake in the grass, I merely *perceived* one.
OK, fine. But for purposes of knowledge acquisition, how important is
this distinction? Remember, I'm *not* a Cartesian skeptic; I believe
that sense data *can* give me a fairly accurate picture of reality. But
at the same time, I know that errors can creep in at a very fundamental
level -- and *that's* what's important, *not* whether the errors occur
at the level of sensation or perception.
3) Finally, whether or not it is accurate to speak of the senses
"distorting" reality, it is true that different sensoriums can produce
radically different data sets, which in turn can affect cognition. I saw
an example of this the other night on PBS -- there was an Oliver Sacks
special about people who suffer from achromatopsia, or total color
blindness. Achromatopics literally see the world in black and white (and
grey), and this affects their concept formation. They cannot, for
instance, form sets on the basis of color, or distinguish objects of
different hue but similar tone. Likewise, their understanding of
color-based idiom -- "I'm feeling blue"; "He saw red" -- is necessarily
different than that of someone with actual color vision.
Now, I don't want to make too much of this. Achromatopics are still
perceiving the same metaphysical reality as the rest of us, and they
have a sufficiently accurate picture to function successfully in it. But
the fact remains, their different sensorium implies a different
conceptual scheme, and the possible implications of that are worth
keeping in mind.
-- M. Ruff
Robert J. Kolker
genein wrote:
> this is a personal opinion and you have the right to it, but there are
> others who feel differently....a sense of compassion:...perhaps because we
> know we too are human and unfortunate circumstances can visit any one at
> any time......i cannot describe a feeling of compassion and unfortunately
> the word itself has been overused along with love and peace...further more
> it can not be instilled in another by arguement you either feel it or you
> don't.
>
Yes it is very personal. If YOU want tohelp the lamed, the maimed and the
stupid, by all means do. But with *your
own* money.
Kindly do not practice YOUR charity
at MY expense.
I am a great believer in charity and I
practice with people whom I value to
the extent that I value them. I do not
give to charities that support retards,
since it is like flushing money down a
toilet. I do not give to the United Negro
College Fund. I do establish scholarships
for talented potential future mathematicians
and physicists since I think that all things
being equal mathematicians and physicists
are the best human beings in the world.
I consider this effort more an investment
in the future of something I value than
a mere give-away motivated by a
bleeding heart or a brusied conscience.
So to repeat, you support YOUR causes
with YOUR money and I will support
MY causes with MY money. And we will
all be happy as a result.
Bob Kolker
Rod Nibbe
>
>Jonathan Carryer wrote:
>> As we learn more facts, we expand the context within
>> which we can understand our experiences. Come on Matt, you're an
>> intelligent guy. Are you seriously going to argue this point?
>
>Sorry to be dense, but I'm not sure what point it is we're arguing.
>Objectivists seem to want to make a big deal out of the fact that "the
>senses do not lie," and all I'm trying to do is question whether it's
>*really* that big a deal.
It's a big deal because some philosphers assert that the senses of man
are not an objective means of identifying reality. They spend pages arguing
that something else, something intrinsic and supposedly different exists in
the mind of each man which renders a unique reality -- i.e. they claim reality
is fiction. Objective reality doesn't exist, they claim, it's a unique
invention of each mind.
>Three points for possible argument:
>
>1) <...> It seems odd, therefore, to have Objectivists trumpeting
>something that almost everyone believes as if it were a grand
>revelation. Either O'ists are reading too much into it or non-O'ists are
>not reading enough into it -- and I suspect the former.
It is self-evident, until you're 1000+ plus pages deep into some
philsophers treatise on "principia de man" that you discover him endeavoring
to refute the axiom.
>2) I'll leave it to Tom Clarke with his Herring lines to debate you on
>whether the senses themselves can "distort" reality. But errors in
>perception *do* occur, and because sensation and perception are
>experienced simultaneously, as a gestalt, it seems to me that errors in
>perception *might as well* be errors in sensation. I "see" a snake in
>the grass, that on closer inspection turns out to be a hose; speaking of
>it later, I say that "my eyes deceived me." Perhaps in a technical sense
>that's incorrect. My error was an error of perception, not sensation --
>I didn't literally see a snake in the grass, I merely *perceived* one.
The error isn't in the senses, it obtains because you drew a
conclusion before all the facts were integrated. As you said, "on closer
inspection," which this context required, you reached the correct conclusion,
the one consistent with reality, which never changed. The observer's
perspective changed, but at no time was the hose *really* a snake.
>OK, fine. But for purposes of knowledge acquisition, how important is
>this distinction? Remember, I'm *not* a Cartesian skeptic; I believe
>that sense data *can* give me a fairly accurate picture of reality. But
>at the same time, I know that errors can creep in at a very fundamental
>level -- and *that's* what's important, *not* whether the errors occur
>at the level of sensation or perception.
I disagree. From the POV of philosophy, it *is* important that we
agree that senses are the means of making correct identifications about
concrete reality. (That doesn't mean they're omniscent, or exempt from
verification.) Conceding otherwise sets the stage for all sorts of wrong
conclusions; the hose might actually have been a snake for a moment in time,
"I mean, that is what I *saw* !"
Below (I snipped it) you speak of achromatopsia. It's important to
note, though, that reality hasn't changed. Yes, the achromatopsiac's senses
impair the recognition of blue - a color concept instantly recognized by
others not so impaired. But don't forget, in this case, the senses of an
unimpaired viewer just provide a short cut to the correct conception of
reality. There still remains a specific wavelength of visible (to those with
unimpaired senses) light that has been denoted as: "blue." That would be one
way of describing the concept of blue to an achromatopsiac. It takes a bit
more work to register the concept blue for achromatopsiac than for you or I,
but never once has the wavelength of blue light changed, there's just more
than one way to *conceive* it.
Consider this: Would you believe me if I told you that inside the arc
of a visible rainbow (visible to the non-achromatopsiac, that is) there is
another? Neither you, nor the achromatopsiac can see it, smell it, feel it,
hear it, or taste it. But it's there. You need an infrared camera to
photograph it, and then you, and the achromatopsiac can see it. That's an
example of something in reality that doesn't avail itself directly to any of
man's senses. But it is *knowable.* My point is that the infrared rainbow has
always been there after a rain on a summer day. And our senses still confirm
the reality of that infrared rainbow on a photographic plate, it's just that
in this instance reality is one level of indirection away from our immediate
sense(s), but reality nevertheless.
-RKN
(rni...@alaska.net)
GRADinc
>in this instance reality is one level of indirection away from our immediate
>sense(s), but reality nevertheless.
Explain how this is different from Kant.
[I'm serious. The reality of the rainbow
as a thing in itself includes lots of stuff
(infrared rainbow, ultraviolet, etc) that is not
visible to our senses as a phenomena. ]
Tom Clarke
Tom Clarke
genein
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
> genein wrote:
i cannot describe a feeling of compassion and unfortunately
> > the word itself has been overused along with love and peace...further
more
> > it can not be instilled in another by arguement you either feel it or
you
> > don't.
> >
>
> Yes it is very personal. If YOU want tohelp the lamed, the maimed and
the
> stupid, by all means do. But with *your
> own* money.
>
> Kindly do not practice YOUR charity
> at MY expense.
the practice of paying ones taxes in order for a government to run
efficiently is without question...one of governments tasks is to insure
the rights of its citizens...all of its citizens and if it means some
disgruntles who cannot understand parting with any dollars they have made
will be unhappy....i say "unfortunate" it is this "charitible" nature that
has brought us out of the dickins era where people literally starved in
the streets and carts were heard in the early morning carting the bodies
away.....this is the capitalism of today not then or the turn of the
century and it has heart as well as punch....this type of capitalism is in
power now and will stay in power and to the wretched few who cannot scrape
together enough compassionate thoughts to qualify as humane, again i say
unfortunate..
> I am a great believer in charity and I
> practice with people whom I value to
> the extent that I value them. I do not
> give to charities that support retards,
> since it is like flushing money down a
> toilet. I do not give to the United Negro
> College Fund.
a pity
give to any charity you wish....but government assistence in the form of
tax dollars to those who can no longer or are not capable of assisting
themselves will remain and i guarantee there are more people in this
nation who are understanding of this then there are those who for the life
of them cannot grasp it....
> So to repeat, you support YOUR causes
> with YOUR money and I will support
> MY causes with MY money. And we will
> all be happy as a result.
i will support local charities but more importantly will continue to
support the united states government in its endeavor to aid the
unfortunates....bleeding heart...if you wish. better than a bleeding soul.
g.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> In article <35EFF5...@worldnet.att.net>, Matt Ruff wrote:...
> >
> >Jonathan Carryer wrote:
>
> >> As we learn more facts, we expand the context within
> >> which we can understand our experiences. Come on Matt, you're an
> >> intelligent guy. Are you seriously going to argue this point?
> >
> >Sorry to be dense, but I'm not sure what point it is we're arguing.
> >Objectivists seem to want to make a big deal out of the fact that "the
> >senses do not lie," and all I'm trying to do is question whether it's
> >*really* that big a deal.
>
> It's a big deal because some philosphers assert that the senses of man
> are not an objective means of identifying reality. They spend pages arguing
> that something else, something intrinsic and supposedly different exists in
> the mind of each man which renders a unique reality -- i.e. they claim re
> ality
> is fiction. Objective reality doesn't exist, they claim, it's a unique
> invention of each mind.
I think in most cases philosophers (and poets) who speak of reality as a
"fiction" or an "invention" are speaking metaphorically, not literally.
I believe in the existence of an independent, objective metaphysical
reality -- but at the same time, I am quite comfortable describing
people with different belief systems as occupying "different" worlds.
Ditto people with altered sensoriums: the deaf, in a metaphorical sense,
live in a different universe than I do, a universe without sound.
*Literally*, of course, we all exist in the same metaphysical universe
-- but the metaphor is still quite useful given that our individual
conceptual schemes are heavily influenced by personal experience.
> >Three points for possible argument:
> >
> >1) <...> It seems odd, therefore, to have Objectivists trumpeting
> >something that almost everyone believes as if it were a grand
> >revelation. Either O'ists are reading too much into it or non-O'ists are
> >not reading enough into it -- and I suspect the former.
>
> It is self-evident, until you're 1000+ plus pages deep into some
> philsophers treatise on "principia de man" that you discover him endeavoring
> to refute the axiom.
But how influential are such treatises, really? O'ists sometimes make it
sound as if the majority of the intelligentsia go around all day
questioning the existence of an objective external reality. They don't.
> >2) I'll leave it to Tom Clarke with his Herring lines to debate you on
> >whether the senses themselves can "distort" reality. But errors in
> >perception *do* occur, and because sensation and perception are
> >experienced simultaneously, as a gestalt, it seems to me that errors in
> >perception *might as well* be errors in sensation. I "see" a snake in
> >the grass, that on closer inspection turns out to be a hose; speaking of
> >it later, I say that "my eyes deceived me." Perhaps in a technical sense
> >that's incorrect. My error was an error of perception, not sensation --
> >I didn't literally see a snake in the grass, I merely *perceived* one.
>
> The error isn't in the senses, it obtains because you drew a
> conclusion before all the facts were integrated.
But human beings are constantly drawing such conclusions. Life rarely
gives us enough time to "integrate" all the facts before requiring a
response. That is no doubt why people continue to be concerned about the
accuracy of sensation and perception -- we don't always have time for
cognition.
> As you said, "on closer
> inspection," which this context required, you reached the correct conclusion,
> the one consistent with reality, which never changed. The observer's
> perspective changed, but at no time was the hose *really* a snake.
Who said that it was?
> >OK, fine. But for purposes of knowledge acquisition, how important is
> >this distinction? Remember, I'm *not* a Cartesian skeptic; I believe
> >that sense data *can* give me a fairly accurate picture of reality. But
> >at the same time, I know that errors can creep in at a very fundamental
> >level -- and *that's* what's important, *not* whether the errors occur
> >at the level of sensation or perception.
>
> I disagree. From the POV of philosophy, it *is* important that we
> agree that senses are the means of making correct identifications about
> concrete reality. (That doesn't mean they're omniscent, or exempt from
> verification.) Conceding otherwise sets the stage for all sorts of wrong
> conclusions; the hose might actually have been a snake for a moment in time,
> "I mean, that is what I *saw* !"
You've lost me here. If the nature of reality were such that snakes
could transform into garden hoses, that *is* what accurate senses would
report. The reason I don't immediately conclude that the hose really was
a snake for a second is because I know that not everything I see -- or
*think* I see -- corresponds exactly to objective reality. Confidence in
one's sensations/perceptions is necessary in order to function, but
*over*confidence leads to error.
> Below (I snipped it) you speak of achromatopsia. It's important to
> note, though, that reality hasn't changed.
Who said that it did?
> Yes, the achromatopsiac's senses
> impair the recognition of blue - a color concept instantly recognized by
> others not so impaired. But don't forget, in this case, the senses of an
> unimpaired viewer just provide a short cut to the correct conception of
> reality.
What is the "correct" conception of reality? Reality as it would be
conceived by an omniscient being? There's no such animal. We all build
our conceptual models of the universe on the basis of whatever data we
have in whatever time we have. The data are limited and the time is
insufficient for a full analysis, but that's OK -- our models don't have
to be perfect, just good enough to allow us to function.
> There still remains a specific wavelength of visible (to those with
> unimpaired senses) light that has been denoted as: "blue." That would be one
> way of describing the concept of blue to an achromatopsiac.
But the achromatopsic would still not *sense* blue in the way that I do,
and his conceptual model of the universe would consequently be different
from mine -- not necessarily less functional, but "other."
> It takes a bit
> more work to register the concept blue for achromatopsiac than for you or I,
> but never once has the wavelength of blue light changed,
Who said that it did?
> there's just more
> than one way to *conceive* it.
And more than one way to *sense* it, too.
> Consider this: Would you believe me if I told you that inside the arc
> of a visible rainbow (visible to the non-achromatopsiac, that is) there is
> another?
Sure.
> Neither you, nor the achromatopsiac can see it, smell it, feel it,
> hear it, or taste it. But it's there. You need an infrared camera to
> photograph it, and then you, and the achromatopsiac can see it. That's an
> example of something in reality that doesn't avail itself directly to any of
> man's senses.
How is this relevant?
> But it is *knowable.*
OK.
> My point is that the infrared rainbow has
> always been there after a rain on a summer day. And our senses still confirm
> the reality of that infrared rainbow on a photographic plate, it's just that
> in this instance reality is one level of indirection away from our immediate
> sense(s), but reality nevertheless.
So there's reality as we individually perceive it, and then there's
reality as it actually is. Didn't Kant talk about something like this?
-- M. Ruff
> (rni...@alaska.net)
Rod Nibbe
>
>Rod Nibbe wrote:
>>
>
>I think in most cases philosophers (and poets) who speak of reality as a
>"fiction" or an "invention" are speaking metaphorically, not literally.
My investment in reading philosphers is meager relative to some others
here, but what I have read has left me with that impression. I'd wonder what
the object of the metaphor was if that were true.
>I believe in the existence of an independent, objective metaphysical
>reality -- but at the same time, I am quite comfortable describing
>people with different belief systems as occupying "different" worlds.
>Ditto people with altered sensoriums: the deaf, in a metaphorical sense,
>live in a different universe than I do, a universe without sound.
>*Literally*, of course, we all exist in the same metaphysical universe
>-- but the metaphor is still quite useful given that our individual
>conceptual schemes are heavily influenced by personal experience.
Then to the extent that our understanding of what is real is based in
part on the intellectual achievements of those who have gone before, it's
fortunate most, if not all of them, didn't have impaired senses.
>> >Three points for possible argument:
>> >
>> >1) <...> It seems odd, therefore, to have Objectivists trumpeting
>> >something that almost everyone believes as if it were a grand
>> >revelation. Either O'ists are reading too much into it or non-O'ists are
>> >not reading enough into it -- and I suspect the former.
>>
>> It is self-evident, until you're 1000+ plus pages deep into some
>> philsophers treatise on "principia de man" that you discover him
>> endeavoring
>> to refute the axiom.
>
>But how influential are such treatises, really? O'ists sometimes make it
>sound as if the majority of the intelligentsia go around all day
>questioning the existence of an objective external reality. They don't.
I just finished Leonard Peikoff's book: "The Ominous Parallels." His
central argument is that the evil philosophy of Kant and Hegel was so
insidiously inculcated in the German people of every stripe that it paved the
path for the march of Nazism and the numbed acceptance (at least by many
Germans) of the horror that followed. He writes of several portents of Nazism
he says are observable America today.
I wasn't convinced, not totally anyway, by his cause and effect
argument for Nazism (personally, I think the cause was much more fueled by
hatred, racism and guns) but it's given me pause to think that perhaps
philosophy can seep into the minds of individuals via various institutions and
cultural avenues. Whether or not this consciously influences people one way or
another, I simply don't know. Philosophy has been influential on *me*; I think
it pretty important.
>> The error isn't in the senses, it obtains because you drew a
>> conclusion before all the facts were integrated.
>
>But human beings are constantly drawing such conclusions. Life rarely
>gives us enough time to "integrate" all the facts before requiring a
>response. That is no doubt why people continue to be concerned about the
>accuracy of sensation and perception -- we don't always have time for
>cognition.
Oh, I know human beings are constantly drawing conclusions; they
frequently make errors, too. Likely for the reason you state - insuffcient
time to get all the facts. But that was my point. I still maintain our senses
are the final word on knowing what is real, but in many cases it can take a
very long time to come to understand reality. The obvious example that comes
to mind is physics, chemistry, or any one of the other challenging applied
sciences.
>> As you said, "on closer
>> inspection," which this context required, you reached the correct
>> conclusion,
>> the one consistent with reality, which never changed. The observer's
>> perspective changed, but at no time was the hose *really* a snake.
>
>Who said that it was?
No one, explicitly. I just thought your explication of distinction vs.
perception (reply to J. Carryer) concluded that perception can lead to a
different conception of reality, i.e. I read you to say that because your
senses led you to conclude there *really* was a snake in the grass (in a very
short temporal sense), that you then further concluded the senses can't be
relied on to know what is real. I went back and re-read what you wrote and I
don't think that is what you meant.
>You've lost me here. If the nature of reality were such that snakes
>could transform into garden hoses, that *is* what accurate senses would
>report.
Okay. But ...
>The reason I don't immediately conclude that the hose really was
>a snake for a second is because I know that not everything I see -- or
>*think* I see -- corresponds exactly to objective reality.
But you *do* conclude it's a snake in the first second. Isn't that
responsible for what likely would be a startled reaction?
>Confidence in
>one's sensations/perceptions is necessary in order to function, but
>*over*confidence leads to error.
I disagree with the essence of that. Not gathering all the facts is
what leads to epistemological errors. Ultimate confidence in the senses to
gather all those facts is still merited in my opinion.
>> Below (I snipped it) you speak of achromatopsia. It's important to
>> note, though, that reality hasn't changed.
>
>Who said that it did?
You didn't. I didn't intend to imply you did.
>> Yes, the achromatopsiac's senses
>> impair the recognition of blue - a color concept instantly recognized by
>> others not so impaired. But don't forget, in this case, the senses of an
>> unimpaired viewer just provide a short cut to the correct conception of
>> reality.
>
>What is the "correct" conception of reality?
Yikes, that's a **BIG** question. There are better epistemologists
here than I who could provide a satisfying answer to that, but broadly mine
is: the correct conception of reality is that which is derived from
incontrovertible facts *and* which doesn't contradict any other facts of
reality. (That'll have to suffice for know given it's 11:30 pm AKST).
>Reality as it would be
>conceived by an omniscient being? There's no such animal. We all build
>our conceptual models of the universe on the basis of whatever data we
>have in whatever time we have.
But we don't do it in a vacuum. And we don't live our lives in a split
second so we have time to know that reality which is relevant to life on
earth. I did say, and do mean, that although the senses are the final arbiter
of reality, they must be verified. That can be accomplished by the individual
alone (one with unimpaired senses), over time, or by appealing to the senses
of others. Take Pons and Fleischman. Their claim of reality couldn't be
verified by the senses of other researchers. So cold fusion wasn't reality, as
they evidently thought it was.
>The data are limited and the time is
>insufficient for a full analysis, but that's OK -- our models don't have
>to be perfect, just good enough to allow us to function.
I don't know what you mean by "full analysis," at least not in this
context. I think we might be talking about two (at least) different things.
Basically, I'm stipulating to the axiom "A is A"; beyond that I'm saying there
is one reality, it is knowable, and that the senses can *ultimately* be relied
on to provide that knowledge. Understandably, I'll grant you that the blind
man could never "feel" the color blue, but then no one would defer to him to
understand the concept of color.
>> There still remains a specific wavelength of visible (to those with
>> unimpaired senses) light that has been denoted as: "blue." That would be
>> one
>> way of describing the concept of blue to an achromatopsiac.
>
>But the achromatopsic would still not *sense* blue in the way that I do,
Without correcting the imapairment, yes, that's true.
>and his conceptual model of the universe would consequently be different
>from mine -- not necessarily less functional, but "other."
Example?
I mean how does not being able to *sense* blue change your conception
of the universe? I can't hear frequencies above about 18Khz, I think my
airedale can. So what? In a sense it's just a different perspective on the
*same* reality.
>> Neither you, nor the achromatopsiac can see it, smell it, feel it,
>> hear it, or taste it. But it's there. You need an infrared camera to
>> photograph it, and then you, and the achromatopsiac can see it. That's an
>> example of something in reality that doesn't avail itself directly to any
>> of man's senses.
>
>How is this relevant?
I was trying to refute the notion of an "observer created reality." I
was trying to show that our senses don't *create* the reality (which is what
*I* understand some here claim Kant concluded) but rather serve as our means
to *identify* it.
>So there's reality as we individually perceive it, and then there's
>reality as it actually is.
<chuckle.>
If you insist on calling the blind man's inability to see blue as a
different reality from that *one* which actually is, then sure, Matt, I cede
your point.
>Didn't Kant talk about something like this?
Beyond a bunch of out-of-context quotes and a little bit from college
texts, I haven't read any Kant. Might someday.
-RKN
(rni...@alaska.net)
Rod Nibbe
Matt Ruff wrote:...
Erratum:
>>I think in most cases philosophers (and poets) who speak of reality as a
>>"fiction" or an "invention" are speaking metaphorically, not literally.
>
Note the *NOT*, Matt, which is what I intended to type.
> My investment in reading philosphers is meager relative to some
>others here, but what I have read has *NOT* left me with that impression. I'd
>wonder what the object of the metaphor was if that were true.
-RKN
(rni...@alaska.net)