How We Know - Harry Binswanger's New Book


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

“How We Know,” by Harry Binswanger, Pg. 27 to 28:

Consciousness, unlike existence, is a property: Consciousness is an attribute of certain living entities, but it is not an attribute of a given state of awareness, it “is” that state. (ITOE, 56) Just as existence is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the various things that exist, so consciousness is not something distinguishable from, added to, or underlying the various states of awareness . . . . Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries.

end quote

I have always been intrigued by the above self evidentiary thought. Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries, yet consciousness is a *property* of existence. Merriam Webster defines property as: “a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing.” So, there could be *existence* without *consciousness* but not *consciousness* without *existence.* There are places in the universe without consciousness. As you read this there are places near your personal consciousness without another consciousness. Are the two primaries equal in any way? In one sense. *Volitional consciousness* follows existence’s rules of causality but can *pick* more than one particular outcome.

Leonard Peikoff, The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 3 writes:

“Volitional” means selected from two or more alternatives that were possible under the circumstances, the difference being made by the individual’s decision, which could have been otherwise.

end quote

Positive of the self evident, consciousness exists within existence, then the logical flow is: individual consciousness (which is axiomatic) recognizes some if not all possible alternatives, then selects a particular alternative.

The greatest problem in communication is the illusion that it has been accomplished - George Bernard Shaw.

Existence is billiard ball causality, (with some randomness *possible*), but with the addition of higher human consciousness, existence and causality has been changed as never before. So, in that sense volitional consciousness is . . . fill in the blank. With your thoughts 8-)

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Existence is billiard ball causality, (with some randomness *possible*), but with the addition of higher human consciousness, existence and causality has been changed as never before. So, in that sense volitional consciousness is . . . fill in the blank. With your thoughts 8-)

Peter

Volitional consciousness is ....... neurons popping and sodium and potassium ions transporting through semi-permiable membrane.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al Chatzaf filled in the blank with:

Volitional consciousness is ....... neurons popping and sodium and potassium ions transporting through semi-permiable membrane.

end quote

Permeable is spelled with two “e’s” and a hypen. I corrected you the first and you never thanked me, though I see you included a hyphen this time. Shocking!

I would say your definition does not account for *thinking* at all. “Say, that’s a good idea” becomes “Your popping neurons and sodium and potassium ion transfers” are popping neurons and sodium and potassium ion transfers. No-one in their popping neurons denies *thought* is created from a material base. But it is still *thought* that changes reality. It is a human’s thought that chips away at marble to create “The Thinker.” The epistemological workings of the human mind are mundane or sublime but they are real. Your introspection is of some *thing*, and not of a slice of meat.

Time for the stationary bike. Are you still riding Ba’al?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for the stationary bike. Are you still riding Ba’al?

Peter

I am using the stationary at the gym until warm weather. Then I am riding a -real- bike.

thought is an electrochemical processes. Everything is physical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba’al wrote:

I am using the stationary at the gym until warm weather. Then I am riding a -real- bike. thought is an electrochemical processes. Everything is physical.

end quote

Sure. Do you recycle your thoughts? What do they look like? Kind of like “The Blob” that chased Steve McQueen? Can you transfer your electrochemical thoughts to a jug for storage? So, are you/it no different from IBM’s “Watson?” Enquiring molecules want to know. We are amused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some old notes mixed with the new. To my thinking, to study consciousness, one needs to experience consciousness, and of course that requires introspection since we can’t see it. If a scientist hooks up the wires, fires up the fMRI, checks the sweating on the lie detector, dissects corpses, etc., one is still not examining consciousness, only the correlating physical actions of consciousness.

Years ago, I watched an interesting program on (UCTV,) The University of California at San Diego's television station. Professor Joan Stiles, in the Department of Cognitive Studies (The Brain Sciences) began with these provocative questions: "Are thoughts material?" and, "Do immaterial thoughts affect the material brain?" To answer this question, she and her staff of Ph.D.'s and MD's, use Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging - (Small f, cap MRI): "f M R I." It is analogous to searching for subatomic quarks but only seeing their tracks through a tank filled with a million gallons of water. A functional MRI allows the mapping of ACTIVE brains. It can measure blood flow while a person is doing tasks, seeing images, solving problems, and answering questions.

Doctor Stiles' main area of study is with children, who have incurred brain damage in the womb, or soon after birth, due to strokes. Strokes are not all that rare at that age. They design the tasks to tax the cognitive ability of the child. A sample task for the subject/child is to use Global and Local Focus. I don't know how this will translate on OL, but a typical task is to focus on large figures (Global), and then the smaller shapes (Local) making up the shapes:

s s

s s

s s

ssssss

s s

s s

s s

A child will be asked to name and reproduce the large shape. Then, they will ask that the child focus on the individual shapes that make up the "H." While this is going on, they are mapping the brain.

In global tasking, with an adult, the right brain is receiving much more blood and is much more active, while in local tasking, with adults, the left lobe of the brain is more active. However, with children, they throw their whole being and brain into the task and the left and right lobes are active in both local and global tasks.

How different can our brains be? In children who are deaf before birth, the Auditory Cortex, the area of the brain that would normally process sounds, becomes a Visual Center! No longer do scientists debate, "Nature or Nurture," because neither can account for Brain development which begins soon after conception. An individual baby's ability to adapt, or "Biological Evolution," is dependent on both nature and nurture. The brain is not initially "wired." It relies on input, to form it. The brain MUST have input to form it. They call this reliance on input to the material brain, "Plasticity."

So, the brain is not entirely pre-wired. Before birth, neuron connections are minimal, though there are sporadic upper level alpha, delta, and theta waves that are also found in adult humans.

However, soon after birth, a MASSIVE OVER-PROLIFERATION of new brain connections is produced in the Cerebral Cortex. This MASSIVE OVER-PROLIFERATION lasts for one year, before leveling off. Then, for a lifetime, we experience lesser New Connectivity. But New Connectivity does not disappear as we age! So. "Are thoughts material?" Yes and No? Does the learning of ‘immaterial' thoughts, physically affect the material brain?" Yes. My own thinking is that Non-Physical "thoughts" transform the electrical / chemical / physical brain- AS they are thought. When and if they are stored in memory, the physical brain is again changed, at another Physical location. Non-Physical Consciousness can then, remember and experience the Non-Physical thought again, utilizing what is physically stored in memory.

However, WHILE we are thinking or remembering (and re-thinking) a "thought," it exists in a Physical sense within the ever-changing brain, AND the "thought" exists in a buffer, intermediate Non-Physical state, within the Consciousness.

The "thought" can ONLY be directly discerned / felt / identified within the Consciousness experiencing the thought. The "Physical" and the "Non-Physical" thought are NOT the one and the same.

It is analogous, perhaps, to our Physical senses experiencing a ray of light in a sunrise. We are experiencing and sensing a physical ray that has traveled from the sun. The immediate experiences of sensing are physical. Our visual cortex is altered as the physical ray of light strikes the back of the eye and an image of the ray of light is carried via chemical and electrical means to our brains, for evaluation and possible storage.

Our "Perceptual" identification of the ray of light, and what we feel, is Non-Physical, while this Physical process is going on. The "Objectively acquired," Non-Physical feeling can then be Physically stored in memory for retrieval and Non-Physical appreciation in the future. There are no ghosts in the machine. Our identity, as humans, is Physical and Non-Physical.

This non-contradictory identification of the Physical Body and the Non-Physical Consciousness, both within Reality, is the basis for Ayn Rand's Psycho-Epistemology, and Science may be proving her right. One cannot exist without the other: thoughts cannot exist without a Consciousness to think them, and a Consciousness cannot exist without a Physical apparatus, the body.

A skeptic might say, no fMRI image is going to support the existence of the non-physical. Consciousness exists, and we are still studying its exact nature. However, we know Consciousness has Physical components and it has components of Energy. That is why I consider it a *life-force.*

Imagine yourself, as you fall into a dreamless state of sleep. Thoughts cease. The Physical Being is still there, but the Prime-Mover, Consciousness has, for a time, ceased to exist, in its "usual" form.

Compare sleep, to what must occur at death. At death, something has been destroyed. What would you call that, which is forever lost?

Obviously, I don’t have a science background. I would appreciate if anyone can tell me what has been happening lately, in layman’s terms.

Peter

Notes:

From “How We Know,” by Harry Binswanger, page 42:

Like existence, consciousness is an irreducible primary. One can subdivide conscious actions, separating different kinds: seeing for example, is one kind of conscious activity and hearing is another. Analogously, one can subdivide existents – e.g., into living and non-living things. But just as one cannot go beneath the fundamental fact of existence, so one cannot get beneath the fundamental fact of consciousness. One cannot reduce conscious action, qua conscious, to something else.

To ask: “What kind of action is consciousness?” is to ask: “What do all conscious processes have in common that makes them actions of consciousness rather than physical actions?” The only answer is: all these actions are actions of consciousness; they all involve awareness of something. And “awareness” is a synonym for “consciousness” . . . . “Irreducible” here means “cannot be analyzed.” If you try to analyze what it is to be aware, you will soon discover that no analysis is possible . . . . So, what makes something a ‘conscious’ causal response? Consciousness. That’s all we can say. There is no further analysis.

end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Harry is that he does indeed delve into usage of terms taken from experimental psy and neurosci--and fucks them up, terribly.

Per post on another thread ---as claimed by a reader of Harry (as I have not!)-- there's a use of 'perception and sensation'. Now these are brain science terms if ever there were! So for my explanation of said badness, please refer to said other thread.

Suffice to say that at least Harry understands that modern philosophy must come to terms with modern science as having created baseline truths, or not.

A good example would be 'Edelman's Brain', an evolutionry model that sees the brain looking like and evolving like a rain forest (Searle).. This would refute consciousness studies that takes the brain tio act like a computer--or resembling an elecrtrical grid.(Dennett).

To this end, Harry's perception/sensation model dates back 100+ years, clearly refuted in the 1950's with the advent of wave measurement.

And again, declaring something to be an 'axiom' doesn't make it an un-challenged 'given' by said misuse of the Greek. 'Consciousness' and existence' are not 'given' in terms of how philosophy is done that's considered 'not-randian'. In other words, harry is just putting lipstick on a pig.

Lastly. arithametic is not number theory, or ever was. Rather, it's the four basic computational functions prerequiste to learning math.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Declarations of the non randian variety are true? I prefer the pudding, declarations shmeclarations

Randians, like everyone else,.are obliged to get the basic science right, In this respect, Harry is a miserable failure whatever his adherence is to whatever particular philosophical doctrine.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva,

Are you familiar with the principle of charity?

Are you sure you are using terms with the same meaning he is? The last I saw, open any dictionary to any page and you will get multiple meanings for each word.

I have not read Binswanger's work, so I have no opinion about your evaluation of his "miserable failure." (btw - I am not a Binswanger fan. But I have to read this work before I can make my own evaluation.)

I do see you on a crusade to tar and feather him as a "miserable failure." Repeated negative evaluations couched in unshared assumptions and overextended adjectives always make my antenna wiggle.

So guess where my focus went automatically? On Binswanger and his ideas or on you?

What am I responding to in your behavior?

Kahneman explains...

Try System 2...

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva wrote:

To this end, Harry's perception/sensation model dates back 100+ years, clearly refuted in the 1950's with the advent of wave measurement.

end quote

So what are your facts, Eva? And what other thread? You were willing to spend the time to answer but you have never said what consciousness is. I linked Harry’s book to what was discovered a few years ago. What has changed since study of the brain with fMRI’s began? Harry does cover info from the 1950’s until 2006 in his book (so far.) However his book is an explanation and periodically a critique of “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.” Yes, he does disagree with Rand, part of the time, using modern discoveries, including your “sensory data to perceptual” disagreement.

You wrote, “Lastly. Arithmetic is not number theory, or ever was. Rather, it's the four basic computational functions prerequisite to learning math.”

Harry’s would not disagree with you; he is just using smaller numbers to delve into the “Crow Mentality,” CCD (conceptual common denominators) and other things. And his explanation is just fine.

I do have a problem with Harry when he says:

“Irreducible” here means “cannot be analyzed.” If you try to analyze what it is to be aware, you will soon discover that no analysis is possible . . . . So, what makes something a ‘conscious’ causal response? Consciousness. That’s all we can say. There is no further analysis.

end quote

You mention Searle and Dennet, and then blankout. How would those two scientists disagree with Harry on the above cobbled together quote? How do you disagree with Professor Stiles and her work with fMRI’s at UCSD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva,

Are you familiar with the principle of charity?

Are you sure you are using terms with the same meaning he is? The last I saw, open any dictionary to any page and you will get multiple meanings for each word.

I have not read Binswanger's work, so I have no opinion about your evaluation of his "miserable failure." (btw - I am not a Binswanger fan. But I have to read this work before I can make my own evaluation.)

I do see you on a crusade to tar and feather him as a "miserable failure." Repeated negative evaluations couched in unshared assumptions and overextended adjectives always make my antenna wiggle.

So guess where my focus went automatically? On Binswanger and his ideas or on you?

What am I responding to in your behavior?

Kahneman explains...

Try System 2...

:smile:

Michael

Michael,

Rest assured that i have no ulterior motive. Beyond that, permit me several points as to my perspective:

* I have tried to be careful in distinguishing second-hand views of posters from those of Harry himself--hopefully, employing only the latter. If I have erred and cited a poster instead, I'll rely on your sharp eye to inform me. My apology will be immediate.

* Posters of Harry-citations are responsible for the context from which they pull his sentences. Not I. If there's a contextual revision, i'll be happy to respond accordingly.

* Granted, many endeavors use the same word to represent differentythings within various field. My fave in this regard is a 'plasma'. it's either tv-talk, blood liquid, or superheated electrons.

So yes, Harry uses words in a different way than in experimental psy and neurosci. This would be fair enough, except that his notions about what knowledge is depends upon experimental psy and neurosci to begin with!

Beyond that, his theory is just plain wrong in any language, dialect, or daffy-nition....at least, again, as presented.

We do not get a truthfull picture of reality by any possible way that sensation and perception might be defined.

Again, we use slow-thought, reason, as a backup, or Kahnemen;s type #2, as it were. Within this context, sensation/perception is a heuristic, type #1.

The big picture is that Rand does, indeed, talke the old Aristotelian model that takes the sensation >> real thing nexus for granted. harry's stuff seems just to trope along, which makes it 'Randian Orthodoxy, but untrue.

For the sake of argument, as Long and Uncle Tibor have written, Randian philosophy of language does resemble the undeveloped Kripke model of name/thing adherence. The caveat here, of course, is that Kripke does not refer back to Aristotle as a canon. Rather, he sees the definitional adherence between word and object to be a result of reason--ostensibly beyond that of said sensation/perception matrix.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva mentioned Dennett.

(Hofstadter and Dennett, 353)

The computer is not merely a tool in the study of the mind; rather, the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in a sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states. (Hofstadter and Dennett, 353)

end quote

I don’t think so. Not even less than “literally.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva mentioned Dennett.

(Hofstadter and Dennett, 353)

The computer is not merely a tool in the study of the mind; rather, the appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in a sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states. (Hofstadter and Dennett, 353)

end quote

I don’t think so. Not even less than “literally.”

I mentioned Dennet in the sense that I, too disagree with his 'mind as a computer analogy. Yet, at the same time, he's part of a sub-discipline of philosophy called 'Consciousness', or 'philo of mind'. This endeavor, as a whole, stands in stark contrast to any suggestion that consciousness is a 'given'.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In his Preface, Binswanger states that "To a modest degree, I elaborate on and build upon Rand's system, but my extensions, even if valid, do not constitute part of the Objectivist philosophy..." The theory "that shows how abstract, conceptual knowledge derives in a logical fashion from perceptual observation," however, "has [already] been provided by Ayn Rand..." He has basically just chewed Rand's model thoroughly and added some insights here and there, especially about how propositions and inference build upon concepts.

A lot of what he has written is unobjectionable to me, but there are some eyebrow-raising parts, especially about how he treats the axioms and axiomatic concepts, as well as about how he views propositions. Agree or disagree, there is some challenging material here, and it certainly puts Objectivism (for better or worse) in the ballgame in re epistemology and logic. (As a treatise, anyway. David Kelley's logic text is a good place to go for an Objectivist presentation of how to think, if you're not concerned with seeing logic placed explicitly in its wider philosophical context. And his book on perception is still the best thing I've read on the subject.)

The sad part of all this is that, according to the doctrine of Objectivism as a "Closed System," Binswanger is not permitted to declare his treatise as part of Objectivism, or even for it to be evaluated and deemed to be such by ARI's crack team of epistemologists. Instead, it is merely philosophy derived from Objectivism by an Objectivist philosopher. But "none dare call it Objectivism." (Which in a way is good, since if anyone else comes along soon with his or her own Rand-based model of propositions &c, he will only have to deal with the *300* pound gorilla in the room and not a privileged 400-page part of the Official Canon.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for the stationary bike. Are you still riding Ba’al?

Peter

I am using the stationary at the gym until warm weather. Then I am riding a -real- bike.

thought is an electrochemical processes. Everything is physical.

I propose a ping pong match between Ba'al and Greg the "Moralist":

Ba'al: Everything is physical.

Greg: You get what you deserve.

Ba'al: We are chimps in trousers and everything is physical.

Greg: God made the trousers, luckily he gave me designer jeans, and you get what you deserve.

Rinse.

Repeat.

Etc.

Etc.

I put my money on Greg, if only because he probably has some secret video on Ba'al that might cause the match to be thrown. :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for me, I never wonder if I am volitional or determined. That’s me, just behind the eyes. Here are a few, not consecutive quotes, in the chapter I was just reading in Harry’s book.

From “How We Know:”

What is the basis for holding that focus is volitional? Introspection – the only direct source of information about the nature and actions of consciousness.

Comparing the in-focus state to the out-of-focus state presents a certain difficulty: to the extent that one is out of focus, one is not introspecting. But upon coming into focus, it is easy enough to recall the preceding moment. That is what one does when one catches oneself daydreaming. The difference between a recalled state of non-focus and a present state of focus is striking and undeniable: being alert, purposeful, actively in charge vs. being passive, aimless, not in charge (or actively evading.)

Volition is experienced directly in one’s sense of *agency* and *effort.* one cannot avoid being aware of oneself as the active agent in the cognitive process. Initiating and sustaining focus is something that one *does,* not something that just happens to one.

end quotes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Dayaamm, Regi!

Right from the start:

The Mistakes

The reason Dr. Binswanger has failed to defend (or correctly define) the true nature of knowledge is because he bases much of his discussion on several wrong premises which have resulted in a number of serious mistakes: he is wrong about the nature of perception and about the nature of concepts: he is wrong about the nature of knowledge itself; he is wrong about the nature of cause; he is wrong about induction; he is wrong about concepts doing anything but identifying existents; his explanation of propositions does not identify their true relationship to knowledge; he is wrong to reduce everything to biology; he is wrong about the nature of emotions and desires; he is wrong to attribute knowledge to animals and ignore their instinctive nature; and he is wrong to use science to support any philosophical principle, as Ayn Rand correctly emphasized.


Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

:smile:

I have Binswanger's book, but it is not high on my reading list. Since you went to all this effort, I might move it up a bit. You certainly are industrious...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dayaamm, Regi!

Right from the start:

The Mistakes

The reason Dr. Binswanger has failed to defend (or correctly define) the true nature of knowledge is because he bases much of his discussion on several wrong premises which have resulted in a number of serious mistakes: he is wrong about the nature of perception and about the nature of concepts: he is wrong about the nature of knowledge itself; he is wrong about the nature of cause; he is wrong about induction; he is wrong about concepts doing anything but identifying existents; his explanation of propositions does not identify their true relationship to knowledge; he is wrong to reduce everything to biology; he is wrong about the nature of emotions and desires; he is wrong to attribute knowledge to animals and ignore their instinctive nature; and he is wrong to use science to support any philosophical principle, as Ayn Rand correctly emphasized.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

:smile:

I have Binswanger's book, but it is not high on my reading list. Since you went to all this effort, I might move it up a bit. You certainly are industrious...

Michael

Just curious. Did you ever read, How We Know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al, neurophysiology (the study of the brain and the nervous system) is not epistemology (the study of how we know), any more than auto mechanics or the study of internal combustion engines is driver's education--or than genetics or cellular biology is sex education--or than number theory or set theory is arithmetic. To know *how* to do those things, you need epistemology, driver's education, sex education, and arithmetic -- not neurophysiology.

It's absurd to say that a *description* of how we know is not a description of *how we know.*

Aristotle's Organon was not worthless. Nor was Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Knowledge of the brain processes, including the neurology and neurochemistry &c of the brain during cognition, is very worthwhile to pursue, and may someday be the basis of fixing the brains of people who have lost (or never acquired) the ability to know well. But it is not what we teach people *so that* they can know well.

REB

Roger is exactly right, of course. If, as Ba'al said, "The way to know how we know is to study the brain in its natural mode of operation," this means that we must first know how we know what we know (in an epistemological sense) before we can claim any knowledge about the brain and its processes. If, in contrast, we must first understand neurophysiology before we can legitimately claim to know anything, then we will be forever barred from knowing anything about the brain at all, since we will be unable to distinguish true claims about neurophysiology from false claims.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. Did you ever read, How We Know?

Regi,

I only skimmed it when it arrived several months ago (and, btw, that book is way too expensive). I just pulled it out again and my reaction was the same as my initial one.

After discussing Objectivist epistemology online for a few years, I can't help noticing that certain specific topics and buzzwords with roots in ITOE constantly emerge. On looking, then re-looking at How We Know, Binswanger appears to do a rehash or re-discussion of ALL of them--and he made his entire Table of Contents out of them.

As he is one of the fundamentalists, I doubt he says anything in direct opposition to anything Rand said. On the contrary, I expect him to bend over backward to try to justify her more ambiguous and/or controversial assumptions/ideas.

I am a bit surprised to see him include a few pictures. This is unusual for an O-fundy book on philosophy.

In my previous plans, there were a few books I wanted to go more deeply into before reading this one, starting with a reread of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, finally read The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley, read and review some sundry studies of ITOE (mostly online, but also finish a book I once read half of that had a Christian-based critique of Objectivist epistemology and, frankly, some interesting questions to think about, Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System by John W. Robbins), and so on.

I even wanted to get through The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, which I got around the same time I bought How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation.

I'm not dropping names here. This was my plan. But I have also taken a detour through neuroscience, modern psychology, marketing, propaganda, growth-hacking, etc. These fields--all of which are directly involved with the concept of knowledge--are currently exploding with a lot of great data-driven stuff.

However, now that you have this monstrously-long thing online critiquing How We Know, I'll probably start going through both Binswanger's book and your critique.

I'm working a lot on fiction material now, though--courses and works. So it might take some time before I start discussing this topic in earnest.

I've learned the hard way that life is short and this stuff can get awfully long.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al, neurophysiology (the study of the brain and the nervous system) is not epistemology (the study of how we know), any more than auto mechanics or the study of internal combustion engines is driver's education--or than genetics or cellular biology is sex education--or than number theory or set theory is arithmetic. To know *how* to do those things, you need epistemology, driver's education, sex education, and arithmetic -- not neurophysiology.

It's absurd to say that a *description* of how we know is not a description of *how we know.*

Aristotle's Organon was not worthless. Nor was Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Knowledge of the brain processes, including the neurology and neurochemistry &c of the brain during cognition, is very worthwhile to pursue, and may someday be the basis of fixing the brains of people who have lost (or never acquired) the ability to know well. But it is not what we teach people *so that* they can know well.

REB

Roger is exactly right, of course. If, as Ba'al said, "The way to know how we know is to study the brain in its natural mode of operation," this means that we must first know how we know what we know (in an epistemological sense) before we can claim any knowledge about the brain and its processes. If, in contrast, we must first understand neurophysiology before we can legitimately claim to know anything, then we will be forever barred from knowing anything about the brain at all, since we will be unable to distinguish true claims about neurophysiology from false claims.

Ghs

Sorry, sent by mistake!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious. Did you ever read, How We Know?

Regi,

I only skimmed it when it arrived several months ago (and, btw, that book is way too expensive). I just pulled it out again and my reaction was the same as my initial one.

After discussing Objectivist epistemology online for a few years, I can't help noticing that certain specific topics and buzzwords with roots in ITOE constantly emerge. On looking, then re-looking at How We Know, Binswanger appears to do a rehash or re-discussion of ALL of them--and he made his entire Table of Contents out of them.

As he is one of the fundamentalists, I doubt he says anything in direct opposition to anything Rand said. On the contrary, I expect him to bend over backward to try to justify her more ambiguous and/or controversial assumptions/ideas.

I am a bit surprised to see him include a few pictures. This is unusual for an O-fundy book on philosophy.

In my previous plans, there were a few books I wanted to go more deeply into before reading this one, starting with a reread of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, finally read The Evidence of the Senses by David Kelley, read and review some sundry studies of ITOE (mostly online, but also finish a book I once read half of that had a Christian-based critique of Objectivist epistemology and, frankly, some interesting questions to think about, Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System by John W. Robbins), and so on.

I even wanted to get through The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts, which I got around the same time I bought How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation.

I'm not dropping names here. This was my plan. But I have also taken a detour through neuroscience, modern psychology, marketing, propaganda, growth-hacking, etc. These fields--all of which are directly involved with the concept of knowledge--are currently exploding with a lot of great data-driven stuff.

However, now that you have this monstrously-long thing online critiquing How We Know, I'll probably start going through both Binswanger's book and your critique.

I'm working a lot on fiction material now, though--courses and works. So it might take some time before I start discussing this topic in earnest.

I've learned the hard way that life is short and this stuff can get awfully long.

:smile:

Michael

Michael,

What a nice interesting reply.

By the way, I'm no longer using the handle, Reginald Firehammer. I'll be Regi here I suppose because that's how I'm registered and I still get emial to that name, which I don't mind.. My real name is Randall Saunders and most of my friends and acquaintances call me Randy--except my UK friends, of course.

I'm in the middle of getting dinner, but wanted to acknowledge your response. I'll try to do your repy justice tomorrow since the rest of this evening is spoken for.

Thanks again. Hope this finds you happy and prosperous.

Randy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now