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

[eva matthews]

re #21

Eva asks Peter: Are you vaguely literate in any philosophy other than that of Rand? Did you answer 'no' because of a low IQ?

>>>saying *consciousness* is ‘axiomatic’ means we can study it but we need our consciousness to study our consciousness<<<

How profound it is to say that we need to be awake in order to say to ourself, "Hey, I'm thinking!" So yes, as the term 'axiom' is incorrectly applied in the Middlebrow dialect of Standard English, It's 'axiomatic' that you cannot sleep and think at the same time..

>>>> She accepted her own senses and reasoning as axiomatic.>>>>

Philosophical illiteracy would account for the fact that Descartes said more or less the same thing 330 + years ago--witjhout 'axiom' of course. So tell me something interesting, Mister Talking Horse, if you please.

>>>The three dimensional spatial array given in perception is what fundamentally distinguishes perception from sensation>>>

What you're saying here is that sensation is intake, then perception is process with an innate faculty to impose dimensionality. In other words, following Kant, space is mind-dependent, per Crit#1. But I thought that he was a 'witch doctor'?

In any case, the notion that sensation and perception are two discreet processes wnet out of style in the 50's. It's now taught as 'history of psychology', along with Freud, electroshock, and lobotomy.

Real experimental data shows no such sensation/perception break in terms of neuronal activity--rather, only an ad hoc front/back heuristic that's handy for those who are unable to understand neurology. Such as Binswanger and yourself.

>>>>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.>>>>

>>>>I have always been intrigued by the above self evidentiary thought>>>>

So consciousness is the state of awareness, or of 'being aware'. So the property of awareness is called...consciousness...or did I get it backwards? So at least i can say that when I'm aware, I can sound really 'philosophical' and say, "Gee, I'm...Conscious!!"

Re your intrigue: Is your drug habit getting out of hand?

>>> Existence and consciousness are irreducible primaries>>>>.

As I mentioned in another post, the point of most of philosophy not of the Randian sort is to examine and question consciousness and existence. So for those who want to come over to the darlk side, you're more than welcome. Otherwise, remain retarded.

>>>Studying the bio-mechanical with consciousness<<<

A bio-mechanical definition of 'consciousness' means, again, being awake.

>>>> Positive of the self evident, consciousness exists within existence>>>

Yes, you have to be 'alive' to be awake'. So Peikoff got his PhD under Sidney Hook for saying that?

>>>>Existence is billiard ball causality>>>>

If that were true, with or without 'some' randomness, then your model would be ultra-determinist without a glimmer of free will.

<<<<addition of higher human consciousness, existence and causality has been changed as never before>>>

I agree. Red Bull makes you feel more 'highly' awake than ever!!!

Eva

[anthony]

The opposite end of solipsism is total collectivism.

Yuck! to both.

[anthony]

I've seldom seen such heights of intellect and education being employed to deny and destroy itself. Spiritual suicide.

[Mikee]

The opposite end of solipsism is total collectivism.

Yuck! to both.

Tony,

This is the definition of solipsism I'm working from:

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")^[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

I believe the reality of the universe does exist, the model we make of it in our minds is most certainly imperfect. I am unshakably sure this model, our understanding of reality, can constantly be improved. By constantly checking premises. Meanwhile, we act from imperfect knowledge because to not act based on our beliefs and our values is immoral. I am not a collectivist.

[Mikee]

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine.

Mikee,

If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition.

Eva

I'm certainly not blinded by your brilliance but you are blinded by your lack of it. You continue to evade. I do not admire your cowardice. You are boring.

[anthony]

The opposite end of solipsism is total collectivism.

Yuck! to both.

Tony,

This is the definition of solipsism I'm working from:

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")^[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

I believe the reality of the universe does exist, the model we make of it in our minds is most certainly imperfect. I am unshakably sure this model, our understanding of reality, can constantly be improved. By constantly checking premises. Meanwhile, we act from imperfect knowledge because to not act based on our beliefs and our values is immoral. I am not a collectivist.

Mike: Not directed at you. You are neither - hell, I know that.

I see both solipsism and absolute (mind)collectivism existing on opposite ends of the same insanely impossible axis, is all.

I completely agree with the rest of your statement on imperfect knowledge.

[eva matthews]

Yes, it's equally stupid to say both, 'No facts exist until I've read and analyzed them myself, and "

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine.

Mikee,

If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition.

Eva

I'm certainly not blinded by your brilliance but you are blinded by your lack of it. You continue to evade. I do not admire your cowardice. You are boring.

...But in your previous post you said that you were, indeed, 'blinded'! Now i'm confused! Are you really that bi-polar?

As for answering your questions, newsflash: You're not some tribal bongo-bongo king for whom an answer is necessitated on your terms--or else I get tossed into the communal pot.

Ditto this thing about 'cowardice': i could care less what you think of me. we're not Zulus here attacking the redcoats with spears.

So If i'm boring, then you're completely stupid for having said that facts don't exist until you, bongo-bongo tribal king, have examned them. In other words, you've given solipsism a bad name.

EM

[Mikee]

Yes, it's equally stupid to say both, 'No facts exist until I've read and analyzed them myself, and "

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine.

Mikee,

If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition.

Eva

I'm certainly not blinded by your brilliance but you are blinded by your lack of it. You continue to evade. I do not admire your cowardice. You are boring.

...But in your previous post you said that you were, indeed, 'blinded'! Now i'm confused! Are you really that bi-polar?

As for answering your questions, newsflash: You're not some tribal bongo-bongo king for whom an answer is necessitated on your terms--or else I get tossed into the communal pot.

Ditto this thing about 'cowardice': i could care less what you think of me. we're not Zulus here attacking the redcoats with spears.

So If i'm boring, then you're completely stupid for having said that facts don't exist until you, bongo-bongo tribal king, have examned them. In other words, you've given solipsism a bad name.

EM

What about my description of you as a "public school rote learner" leads you to believe I think you're "brilliant"? I said I admired you energy and youth, both of which will be cured in time. I shudder to think what you will become given the venom evident now. You don't kill small animals for pleasure I hope. You show other warning signs.

[eva matthews]

Yes, it's equally stupid to say both, 'No facts exist until I've read and analyzed them myself, and "

Actually, I see philosophy as being about the challenging of premises. In other words, we all go about making decisions based upon assumptions that haven't been examined.

One of the tropes that explains how we examine our assumptions (premises) is, "Am I using reason, emotion, blind faith, or simply repeating to conform? And if reason is used, per Kahneman, am I taking time to analyze, or merely using a heuristic?

Otherwise, no, what we encounter a zillion times a day are 'facts' that we have neither the time nor the wherewithall to properly examine. For its part, academia tries to offer proof and reason as part of factual revealing, and tries to get students into the habit of doing the same...obviously with spotty results as the problem is to big to really resolve.

But calling all of these 'non-facts' because i haven't properly examined them is a solipsism. In other words, verbally admitting that we live mostly in a world of premises, assumptions and unexamined facts is to do nothing but bring thought into line with lived reality.

So the examination of premises/assumptions is a matter of choosing one's battles. This involves the examination of said assumptions and premisies thought to be meaningful, or important enough. The Scholastic word for meaning-as-importance was 'concept'. philosophy, therefore, can be understood as a study of conepts.

Eva

Challenging whose premises? Your own? And who is this "we" you're talking about? Again, you use "we" (meaning yourself) regarding not having the time to examine the facts you use in everyday life. So, what is all this discussion about? You lecture, you blind us with your brilliance on discussion after discussion but don't really address the points other people are trying to make. What of my point about the on-off switch? And those who would force others into conformity simply turn the switch to "off" for a great part of humanity? About solipsism; no, I am nearly the polar opposite. You are like the chess prodigy, playing 20 people at once, jumping from game to game hardly looking. Except it's a lot easier to tell who's winning a chess game. You depend on "not checking the facts" [no time, remember?] to maintain the illusion of winning all the games. Makes you seem kind of young, don't you think? Not an insult, I admire your energy and your youth, having lost mine.

Mikee,

If I appear to be indirect, rest assured it's out of politeness. Re your post #10, kindly re-read my response in post # 13 and you'll discover that my disagreement is clear. Otherwise, no, i'm not flattered that I blind you with my brilliance, and yes, if you say that all the facts in all the 1000+ books as cited are not really 'facts' until you've examined them, you're indeed a solopsist by garden-varietty definition.

Eva

I'm certainly not blinded by your brilliance but you are blinded by your lack of it. You continue to evade. I do not admire your cowardice. You are boring.

...But in your previous post you said that you were, indeed, 'blinded'! Now i'm confused! Are you really that bi-polar?

As for answering your questions, newsflash: You're not some tribal bongo-bongo king for whom an answer is necessitated on your terms--or else I get tossed into the communal pot.

Ditto this thing about 'cowardice': i could care less what you think of me. we're not Zulus here attacking the redcoats with spears.

So If i'm boring, then you're completely stupid for having said that facts don't exist until you, bongo-bongo tribal king, have examned them. In other words, you've given solipsism a bad name.

EM

What about my description of you as a "public school rote learner" leads you to believe I think you're "brilliant"? I said I admired you energy and youth, both of which will be cured in time. I shudder to think what you will become given the venom evident now. You don't kill small animals for pleasure I hope. You show other warning signs.

Shudder away.Because I return insult for insult, i have no need to involve small animals. That should be warning sign enough.

[BaalChatzaf]

Breathing is primary. If we don't breath we won't reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[eva matthews]

Breathing is primary. If we don't breath we won't reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We like to assign reason to a spiritual dimension and, by having done so, assign it a secondary status to other bodily functions.

This, of course, is dualism by another name.

Both breathing and thinking, however, are controlled by the brain. To this extent, you can say yes, we might lose our cognative abilities through an accident and still maintain vital functions. But what of it?

[BaalChatzaf]

Breathing is primary. If we don't breath we won't reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

We like to assign reason to a spiritual dimension and, by having done so, assign it a secondary status to other bodily functions.

This, of course, is dualism by another name.

Both breathing and thinking, however, are controlled by the brain. To this extent, you can say yes, we might lose our cognative abilities through an accident and still maintain vital functions. But what of it?

Reason is as much a physical electro-chemical process as is breathing and admitting oxygen to our blood through a semipermiable membrane.

The world is physical right down to stuff at Planck Length.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

The opposite end of solipsism is total collectivism.

Yuck! to both.

Tony,

This is the definition of solipsism I'm working from:

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")^[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure. The external world and other minds cannot be known, and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

I believe the reality of the universe does exist, the model we make of it in our minds is most certainly imperfect. I am unshakably sure this model, our understanding of reality, can constantly be improved. By constantly checking premises. Meanwhile, we act from imperfect knowledge because to not act based on our beliefs and our values is immoral. I am not a collectivist.

Mike: Not directed at you. You are neither - hell, I know that.

I see both solipsism and absolute (mind)collectivism existing on opposite ends of the same insanely impossible axis, is all.

I completely agree with the rest of your statement on imperfect knowledge.

I'm uneasy with solipsism being considered the polar opposite to rational egoism. One being extreme primacy of consciousness, the other derived from primacy of existence, I don't see any even remotely shared characteristics to place them on the same continuum.

I might be wrong, but I rather see that selfsame subjectivity sliding from the 'one' (the solipsist) to the 'all', the 'collective mind'.

Transposing from Mike's dictionary definition above, it :

"... holds that knowledge, or anything outside [the collective mind] is unsure. The external world [...] cannot be known and might not exist outside the [collective] mind".

Which is accurate enough to the definition of philosophical skepticism, (the psycho-epistemological base of collectivism) leading me to think the true spectrum is:

Solipsism <...> Skepticism (Solitary mystic <...> group mysticism)

This analysis may be invalid, but the fact is it is a misrepresentative charge, casually hurled around - that any egoist is evidently a solipsist.

[Peter]

Ba'al Chatzaf wrote:

Reason is as much a physical electro-chemical process as is breathing and admitting oxygen to our blood through a semipermeable membrane . . . The world is physical right down to stuff at Planck Length.

end quote

So, Ba’al the ghost in the machine is physical if only semi-permeable? Is that why ghosts look so wispy to us? Are their particles farther apart like the water molecules in the air on a cool day in Seattle? If we hunt for ghosts how are we supposed to find them? With a vacuum cleaner like in that disrespectful movie “Ghost Busters?” If ghosts talk to us do we answer like in “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir?”

Harry Binswanger writes in, “How We Know” on page 73:

There is indeed a polemical value to saying “Perception is valid,” and such a statement is unobjectionable, if one means “Perception of reality.” But the deeper point is that perception is, if I may put it this way, beyond valid, as metaphysically given, perceptual data are the standard for judging what is valid or invalid.

end quote

As Robert Colbert reported on, “The Colbert Report”:

“Like a mirage, Harry? How about magician’s illusions? Are you categorically implying “Ghost Hunters” is a delusional show? And that TNT show, “Perception,” when the Doc is off his meds he hallucinates “real people” who help him solve crimes. Is that BS too? Haa. Gotcha.

end phony quote.

In spirit,

Peter

Notes:

Hamlet: Swear by my sword, Never to speak of this that you have heard.

Ghost:

[beneath] Swear by his sword.

Hamlet:

Well said, old mole, canst work i' th' earth so fast? A worthy pioner! Once more remove, good friends.

Horatio:

O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Peter]

Little Eva wrote:

Eva asks Peter: Are you vaguely literate in any philosophy other than that of Rand? Did you answer 'no' because of a low IQ? . . . . So yes, as the term 'axiom' is incorrectly applied in the Middlebrow dialect of Standard English . . . . So tell me something interesting, Mister Talking Horse, if you please . . . . Real experimental data shows no such sensation/perception break in terms of neuronal activity--rather, only an ad hoc front/back heuristic that's handy for those who are unable to understand neurology. Such as Binswanger and yourself . . . . Re your intrigue: Is your drug habit getting out of hand? . . . . So for those who want to come over to the dark side, you're more than welcome. Otherwise, remain retarded . . . . Red Bull makes you feel more 'highly' awake than ever!!!

end cobbled quotes

As Sally Field said, “. . . . I feel it, and I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!” Bravo! That was a tour de force and the blast was much appreciated.

Let me reiterate. Harry Binswanger wrote in “How We Know,” pg. 63:

To summarize in a preliminary definition: “Perception” is the ongoing awareness of entities in their relative positions, gained from actively acquired sensory inputs.

end quote

Note, that def. is preliminary. He works his way using the findings of modern Science. Harry also discusses the invalid notions of Sensationalism, Nominalism and its variants, and Direct Realism. He does not make a claim for any outmoded concepts of sensation to perception that I know of Eva.

On page 86 Harry writes:

Perception is the direct awareness of reality, in the form of spatially arrayed entities, that results from the automatic neural processing of actively acquired sensory inputs. (It is taken as understood that the awareness is ongoing, not momentary or episodic, and that perception is “metaphysically given,” and hence inerrant.)

end quote

I looked at his footnotes from the first 129 pages and many are from history, Peikoff, or Rand, a couple scientific ones from the 1950’s but also:

“CF. Gregory Salmieri’s distinction between perception and “post-perceptual processing.” Salmieri 2006.

end quote

I will be watching for quotes or references from the modern era.

[Mikee]

Tony,

I believe our Miss Eva is misrepresenting herself (?). Her contributions are made to disrupt and are devoid of information content or the desire to enlighten or be enlightened. The only thing I really believe that she (he?) has said is her psych major (she needs it). If you are feeling uneasy about something she suggests, that would be her intention. I guarantee she will not engage in a real discussion about it.

I consider myself a skeptic but a garden variety one. I don't believe knowledge is impossible, just difficult to verify. A house of mirrors until you identify the principles and look closely. I appreciate your efforts to clarify and I learn a lot from you. Thank you.

[Jules Troy]

Lol over on RoR it was hypothesized that Eva might actually be Marotta! They both make about the same amount of sense in their posts!

[anthony]

Mike, thanks for the heads up. We are all (aren't we?) "garden variety" skeptics, though I confess I can be a bit naive in some ways. I know from previously quoting it that Wiki carries a good explanation of the distinction between methodological skepticism and philosophical skepticism. It's this second that I'm always rattling on about. (As per ItOE).

(Heh, Peter Taylor is a blast! Really on form lately, PT.

Just when I'm feeling the water is so gentle and warm to soak in, I find there are razor sharp teeth in there too...)

[Peter]

Tony wrote:

(Heh, Peter Taylor is a blast! Really on form lately, PT. Just when I'm feeling the water is so gentle and warm to soak in, I find there are razor sharp teeth in there too...)

end quote

Thanks! Though I would prefer to be thought of as someone having fun, exploring the world, and buoying up the swimmers. Plus, I don’t mind being proven wrong, since I am reading Binswanger’s book and thinking myself through it. I write little notes on the pages, increasing the value of the book to me, (if I never try to sell my copy.)

I saw “Jaws” in the sixth row of a packed theatre on a hot day in Ocean City, Maryland. People were really hyper from remembering, “God I was just swimming in that ocean. “Screeeeeech!” I still think of “Jaws” as one of the best horror movies of all time, rather than as a creature feature.

I am going to take a shower after biking and that makes me ask. Tony, what kind of water supplies do you have in South Africa? I am not implying that you are in a backwards area but I am just wondering if the water is any good, over chlorinated, etc. I have well water that is extremely good. On the other side of a river near me the ground water drains from the Cypress and Dismal Swamps and has a sulfurous smell to it, but mine is great.

[eva matthews]

Re #40:

>>“Perception” is the ongoing awareness of entities in their relative positions, gained from actively acquired sensory inputs....

In experimental psy, 'perception' is the immediate internal state of having received sensory data .'Awareness' and 'actively aquired' are totally besides the point, if not totally incorrect in their implications. In other words, we're not aware that we are taking sensory data in. 'Actively' means 'intent' ,as the distinction between hearinganfd listening, Definately not, in most cases.

>>>[Harry] works his way using the findings of modern Science.

If so, you're free to explain.

>>>Perception is the direct awareness of reality, in the form of spatially arrayed entities, that results from the automatic neural processing of actively acquired sensory inputs.<<<<

This is totally false. The point of 'thinking' is to correct perception.

>>>perception is “metaphysically given,” and hence inerrant.>>>>

As for metaphysics, the citation throws the conversation back to Descartes. We reason because we err in our perceptions.

Mod exp psy shows only how correct Descartes was.

>>>Gregory Salmieri’s distinction between perception and “post-perceptual processing.” Salmieri 2006.
end quote<<<

I think it's nice to see Randites freely cite each other. It demonstrates the superiority of collectivism over individualism. This includes Salmieri, btw..

Moreover....

Salmieri is neither an experimental psychologist nor a neuroscientist. Rather he obtained his PhD in philosophy in 2008, two years after your 2006 footnoted citation. So did 'Harry' pull his mis-use of 'post-perceptual processing' from OL, RoR, or Meetup Ayn Rand Fan Club, Atlanta?

'PPP' deals with our brain's re-alignment of images from side-angle to straight. For example, when we're given the last seat in a cinema, front row, extreme left or right---take it or leave it. It's not an 'intentional' process of active re-configuration. Rather, its a reaction that's wired into our brains.

Much interesting work has been done on the intensity, origin, and pattern of this brain-wave. But the question remains, 'How does the cerebtral cortex 'know' that the 'perception' is skewed by 45 degrees? Do we 'tell' it by the emotive surge from thamic to cortex by cursing under our breath?

Again, what you've presented of Randian Philosophy is an exposition of the ways and means that Randites use to evade real philosophical issues. Again the best example of this are a rejection of consciousness and existence as fields of inquiry. Rather, they're poo-pooed away as 'axioms'--again, the bizarre malaprop for 'given' .

Now, to make matters worse, you're citing 'Harry' who, under the prexext of 'philosophy' takes the same liberties with experimental psy and neuro sci. So what's next--- the 'physics' of -orbiting electrons around a nucleon? Perhaps the evolutionary biology of enlarged brains due to their stressful use?

Back to philosophy: At best, you and 'Harry' have taken common-sense observation and gussied it up with incorrect philosophical terms in order to sound profound.. That's putting lipstick on a pig.

EM

[Ellen Stuttle]

In experimental psy, 'perception' is the immediate internal state of having received sensory data .

Do you have a source?

Depending on how "sensory data" is defined, that definition might apply to a thermostat, to a motion detector, to a camera, etc., etc. - in general, to any mechanical object which registers some kind of energy input. Is the definition intended thus to apply?

'Awareness' and 'actively aquired' are totally besides the point, if not totally incorrect in their implications. In other words, we're not aware that we are taking sensory data in. 'Actively' means 'intent' ,as the distinction between hearinganfd listening, Definately not, in most cases.

I haven't looked at the book yet - just received it a few days ago - but I doubt that Binswanger is saying that we're aware that we're taking sensory data in. I think you misunderstood the definitions Peter quoted. Sounds to me, going only on the basis of the quotes, like Binswanger's made a needed revision of Rand's views, and that his definitions are good ones, except for his keeping the idea of perceptual inerrancy.

Ellen

[eva matthews]

In experimental psy, 'perception' is the immediate internal state of having received sensory data .

Do you have a source?

Depending on how "sensory data" is defined, that definition might apply to a thermostat, to a motion detector, to a camera, etc., etc. - in general, to any mechanical object which registers some kind of energy input. Is the definition intended thus to apply?

'Awareness' and 'actively aquired' are totally besides the point, if not totally incorrect in their implications. In other words, we're not aware that we are taking sensory data in. 'Actively' means 'intent' ,as the distinction between hearinganfd listening, Definately not, in most cases.

I haven't looked at the book yet - just received it a few days ago - but I doubt that Binswanger is saying that we're aware that we're taking sensory data in. I think you misunderstood the definitions Peter quoted. Sounds to me, going only on the basis of the quotes, like Binswanger's made a needed revision of Rand's views, and that his definitions are good ones, except for his keeping the idea of perceptual inerrancy.

Ellen

Whether or not I misunderstood anything of either another poster or Harry can easily be referenced by pasting over a citation. Mine are on #45, and are those of the book's auther, not the poster.

A working definition of 'perception' can be fiound in any psy textbook from 101.

Saying sensory 'data' on my part was somewhat of a misnomer as, again, there's no particular point within neuronal activity at which reception becomes data-fied. For example, the eyes don't really 'see' what's assured to exist.

So actually, your thermostat analogy is somewhat accurate in the sense that the instrument of measurement is unaware of its activity.

The serious error that Harry makes is his failure to understand reason as a correction-device for the sensation/perception complex. He's so obsessed with the notion that what we take in via our senses is 'real' because that the basis of Rand's so-called 'epistemology'. Well, it's not. 'Real-ness' has to do with how reason intervenes to adjust empirical error.

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.

So here, again, Harry has simply gotten it backwards. Perception measures variance of individuals' responses to the same stimulus.

EM

[anthony]

Tony wrote:

(Heh, Peter Taylor is a blast! Really on form lately, PT. Just when I'm feeling the water is so gentle and warm to soak in, I find there are razor sharp teeth in there too...)

end quote

Thanks! Though I would prefer to be thought of as someone having fun, exploring the world, and buoying up the swimmers. Plus, I don’t mind being proven wrong, since I am reading Binswanger’s book and thinking myself through it. I write little notes on the pages, increasing the value of the book to me, (if I never try to sell my copy.)

I am going to take a shower after biking and that makes me ask. Tony, what kind of water supplies do you have in South Africa? I am not implying that you are in a backwards area but I am just wondering if the water is any good, over chlorinated, etc. I have well water that is extremely good. On the other side of a river near me the ground water drains from the Cypress and Dismal Swamps and has a sulfurous smell to it, but mine is great.

Yup, and I'm sure you haven't but in case you misread me, I consider it a minor virtue to be able to fight tooth and nail for the good ideas and equally to do so with grace and dignity. (I recall Barbara, again). Me, I'm afraid I often come out swinging like a street fighter, which doesn't always help my cause.

We here in SA are blessed with good rainfall, major rivers -and mighty dams and a superior water system courtesy of the nasty colonists of old. It's a long way twixt cup and lip, so paradoxically in years of highest rainfall - there will somehow be water shortages.

Like our power stations which (in some parts) are literally sitting on top of a sea of coal - the State monopolistic (er,"parastatal") 'ESCOM', manages to mess up the electricity supply: blackouts and calls to the public to cut useage, while driving power prices up. Tell me about Centralized Planning!But that's another subject.

[anthony]

Tony,

I consider myself a skeptic but a garden variety one. I don't believe knowledge is impossible, just difficult to verify.

Mike, That imperfection of knowledge thing you been mentioning, I've been thinking about again.

It appears that some ever-so-clever scholars on the outside of Objectivism seem to believe we are deficient because we don't 'know it all'.

I view this as cynical elitism. Without sharing their 19 university degrees and xxx IQ's, I (for one)should simply shut up and go away. The point they deliberately duck, is that philosophy is of little value if not gathered by, and constantly applied by each individual to his life. (As Rand was singular in teaching). No, they'd rather beat lesser mortals over the head with their academic stature, little of which has the slightest benefit in any real world implementation that I can see..

It looks like a hangover of religions, this false notion that if you aren't "expert", you can't be "perfect" - therefore, can have no authority over your own life or existence in general. This mystical Perfectionism (in God's view--or Other People's opinion, no real difference) can have devastating effects on a life; I've seen it. But nobody's watching, nobody's scoring our performance.

As you've indicated, what you know right now is what you act upon, with integrity, to its limits. While always in the understanding that there is more understanding to come.

Make no bones about it -if you ever have- those scholars fully realise what Rand accomplished in opening philosophy to all we 'common' men and women, and they don't appreciate her for it. Independently of them, or by comparison to them, those Objectivist scholars (and ones respectful of her, of every type) who understand her total intent and method, provide a lungful of oxygen to a suffocating man.

(And, thank you too.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

A working definition of 'perception' can be fiound in any psy textbook from 101.

Then you should be able to quote such a definition.

What text did you use?

Ellen