On what epistemological basis does one conclude that “reason" is primary....

[Peter]

Ellen wrote:

Then you should be able to quote such a definition. What text did you use?

end quote

I too hope for some clear answers using the quotes I present as a starting point. I want Objectivism to be contextual.

George H. Smith wrote:

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and one’s context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ."

page 77 of "WHY ATHEISM?"

end quote

Not everyone in O‘land is dogmatic. There are plenty of discerning voices. For example:

Diana Mertz Hsieh in Mind in Objectivism, A Survey of Objectivist Commentary on Philosophy of Mind, 2003 writes:

Additionally, a few important themes in philosophy of mind do clearly emerge from this survey, such as:

The metaphysical unity and mind and body in certain living organisms.

The false alternative of materialism versus dualism.

The concept of consciousness as an axiom, i.e. an irreducible primary.

Humean event-based causality as leading to epiphenomenalism.

Materialism as pseudo-scientific.

The reality and causal efficacy of lower and higher levels of organization.

The need for a richer concept of causality than antecedent physical conditions.

The precise nature of a theory of mind compatible with Objectivism, however, has yet to be established.

[eva matthews]

Ellen wrote:

Then you should be able to quote such a definition. What text did you use?

end quote

I too hope for some clear answers using the quotes I present as a starting point. I want Objectivism to be contextual.

George H. Smith wrote:

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and one’s context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ."

page 77 of "WHY ATHEISM?"

end quote

Not everyone in O‘land is dogmatic. There are plenty of discerning voices. For example:

Diana Mertz Hsieh in Mind in Objectivism, A Survey of Objectivist Commentary on Philosophy of Mind, 2003 writes:

Additionally, a few important themes in philosophy of mind do clearly emerge from this survey, such as:

The metaphysical unity and mind and body in certain living organisms.

The false alternative of materialism versus dualism.

The concept of consciousness as an axiom, i.e. an irreducible primary.

Humean event-based causality as leading to epiphenomenalism.

Materialism as pseudo-scientific.

The reality and causal efficacy of lower and higher levels of organization.

The need for a richer concept of causality than antecedent physical conditions.

The precise nature of a theory of mind compatible with Objectivism, however, has yet to be established.

Everyone wishes for contextuality, but still reads dogma such as that of Harry.

This, I suppose, gives many the feeling that somewhere there's a conceptual anchor.

But your citation of issues indicates the contrary...

EM

[Frediano]

It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries.

The best example? The Hell you say.

The best example is the variance of perception of an optical illusion in the -same- person, over time. Proving that it is possible to objectively understand perception.

As in, the checkerboard square illusion. When first exposed to it, nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but light and dark squares. After applying human reason to our perception(and literally re-weighting our perception engines with our new chosen values), nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but the same shade of medium gray.

Sort of begs the Holy culturally contextual question: what 'cultural difference' is not being crossed by the observed variance in perception of that illusion by the same individual, when that individual transits from ignorance to knowledge?

Not my wheelhouse, and it is unfair to drag in an illusion from MIT; as well, I haven't been thoroughly doused with the group think/Holy cultural water.

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Oncle F

[Jules Troy]

Oncle F!!

Lol

[eva matthews]

It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries.

The best example? The Hell you say.

The best example is the variance of perception of an optical illusion in the -same- person, over time. Proving that it is possible to objectively understand perception.

As in, the checkerboard square illusion. When first exposed to it, nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but light and dark squares. After applying human reason to our perception(and literally re-weighting our perception engines with our new chosen values), nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but the same shade of medium gray.

Sort of begs the Holy culturally contextual question: what 'cultural difference' is not being crossed by the observed variance in perception of that illusion by the same individual, when that individual transits from ignorance to knowledge?

Not my wheelhouse, and it is unfair to drag in an illusion from MIT; as well, I haven't been thoroughly doused with the group think/Holy cultural water.

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Oncle F

Fred, 'Nice to hear from you again.

Lots of tests are routinely done with optical illusions in other cultures to see if the illusion is innate or learned.many Indicate learning, particulary in cultures in which rigid corners are not taught as geometrically 'axiomatic' --rather, variants of a curve.

The classic example are the Xhosa, of South Africa (Nelson Mandela).

Kahneman describes the susceptibility to illusion as yet another 'heuristic', to be overcome by type2 slow thought, or what is called 'reasoning'.

It is nice to know, however, that MIT graduates have no such problem.

Eva

[Frediano]

It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries.

The best example? The Hell you say.

The best example is the variance of perception of an optical illusion in the -same- person, over time. Proving that it is possible to objectively understand perception.

As in, the checkerboard square illusion. When first exposed to it, nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but light and dark squares. After applying human reason to our perception(and literally re-weighting our perception engines with our new chosen values), nearly impossible to see the two squares as anything but the same shade of medium gray.

Sort of begs the Holy culturally contextual question: what 'cultural difference' is not being crossed by the observed variance in perception of that illusion by the same individual, when that individual transits from ignorance to knowledge?

Not my wheelhouse, and it is unfair to drag in an illusion from MIT; as well, I haven't been thoroughly doused with the group think/Holy cultural water.

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

Oncle F

Fred, 'Nice to hear from you again.

Lots of tests are routinely done with optical illusions in other cultures to see if the illusion is innate or learned.many Indicate learning, particulary in cultures in which rigid corners are not taught as geometrically 'axiomatic' --rather, variants of a curve.

The classic example are the Xhosa, of South Africa (Nelson Mandela).

Kahneman describes the susceptibility to illusion as yet another 'heuristic', to be overcome by type2 slow thought, or what is called 'reasoning'.

It is nice to know, however, that MIT graduates have no such problem.

Eva

It might also be noted that, within research psy, the only epistemic grounds for using 'perception' is to distinguish the various responses from different people-- the given sensation being the same for everyone. the best example of thiis is the variance of 'perception' of an optical illusion which, in many cases does not cross cultural boundaries.

True; some MIT grads have no such problem. But kind of sad to hear that 'research psy' has meandered into a cul de sac. But there is hope; are you speaking for all of it, or just some of it? I've just provided a concrete example of "epistemic grounds for using 'perception' to distinguish various responses from the same person over time, which normalizes out 'cross cultural boundaries.' Should I believe my own lying eyes? Let me know.

Perhaps it is a question of the tools at hand; however, I've never quite understood the tools necessary for some tasks. For example, which tools are used to tap into the consciousness of consciousness(or, if you prefer, the collective unconsciousness, take your pick) that alone can see all and know all from above, as it is, removed from all mere local individual /contingencies? I'm guessing you'd at least need a ladder.

But be careful; rolling your eyes into the back of your head and climbing ladders is just, well, asking for it.

Oncle F.

[Frediano]

On multiple occasions, I've shown that checkerboard illusion to people who are befuddled by it; "What are you talking about? The two squares are different shades of gray, clearly." To the point of being angry, like I was lying to them, or playing some word game.

I sympathize, because the first time I saw the image, it was nearly impossible for me to 'see' anything but a dark and light square, no matter how hard I tried.

And since seeing the 'proof' in more than one way, ever since, I find it now next to impossible to 'see' anything but identical shades of gray. I have to strain a bit to try and perceive them as different.

To some so predisposed, this is an indictment of perception as a limiting pathway to any objective reality. To others, the experience in total is exactly the opposite: it is objective evidence that we can rationally comprehend the world, as it is, via our understanding of our perception engines within that world. And in this specific readily accessible instance, actually run the experiment ourselves and experience our higher level comprehending mind actually re-weighting our lower level perception engines and allow us to correctly see the world, via new knowledge that was waiting for us to come to it, patiently, all along.

No matter how many millions see two shades of gray, and even, vote on it; no matter how many villagers in New Guinea have no idea what a checkerboard is. Mankind still landed on the Moon.

regards,

Fred

[eva matthews]

On multiple occasions, I've shown that checkerboard illusion to people who are befuddled by it; "What are you talking about? The two squares are different shades of gray, clearly." To the point of being angry, like I was lying to them, or playing some word game.

I sympathize, because the first time I saw the image, it was nearly impossible for me to 'see' anything but a dark and light square, no matter how hard I tried.

And since seeing the 'proof' in more than one way, ever since, I find it now next to impossible to 'see' anything but identical shades of gray. I have to strain a bit to try and perceive them as different.

To some so predisposed, this is an indictment of perception as a limiting pathway to any objective reality. To others, the experience in total is exactly the opposite: it is objective evidence that we can rationally comprehend the world, as it is, via our understanding of our perception engines within that world. And in this specific readily accessible instance, actually run the experiment ourselves and experience our higher level comprehending mind actually re-weighting our lower level perception engines and allow us to correctly see the world, via new knowledge that was waiting for us to come to it, patiently, all along.

No matter how many millions see two shades of gray, and even, vote on it; no matter how many villagers in New Guinea have no idea what a checkerboard is. Mankind still landed on the Moon.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

Kindly consider the fact that you're agreeing with me. Rand and acolyte-Harry are wrong. But, please, don't admit it, as it will just get you moved to 'dissent' over at SoR!

Reason is an extra -special step possessed by all humans not associated with its Stillbirth. OTH, sensation-perception deceive; reason, again is its corrective.This roughly corresponds to Kahneman's two types of thought, your distrust of Psychology not withstanding.

Furthermore, thanks for having reverted the thread back to topic. Whenever the bozos feel outgunned by a mere 20-year old gurl who isn't even dikey, they use me as a convenient change-of- subject.

Sissy, btw, maintains that my association with Objectivite sites is intended to draw attention from 'right-wing loonies'. Little does she know how loony 'loony' is, unless she's cyberstalking.

Most guys on campus are leftish, and I refuse to discuss politics on anything resembling a 'date'. This she finds frustrating because she really liked my ex, thinks i'm far too demanding, and, frankly ,is kinda pissed at me for having dumped Jeff in May for Paris, herself, and the two Holland sisters ( 4 best buds all, and guys weren't invited along!).

The threesome knows you well. You've been written into Karen Holland's novel, mentioned as a shining exemplar of American Fredissimo in Andie's work in Madrid, and the subject of deep content analysis over at lit, where sissy reigns as resident diva-poet cum laude, sophomore that she is---the new Sylvia Plath.

Stasis in darkness

Then the insubstanceness of you.

Pour of more into wineglass!

Deconstructing Fred's prose--

How fun it's become.

Eva