Ostensive definitions

[samr]

It seems reasonable that complex concepts must at the end be reduced to simple ones, at which you can point and say "this is what I mean by this".

BUT, there is a problem with it.

Visual perceptionis how we apprehend the world around us. We see objects. But it is never possible to distinguish between the perception and its object.

Suppose my friend sees my cat. My cat is not the same as the consciousness of my friend seeing one, because my friend can close my eyes, and her perceptions will dissapear, while the cat will not.

But, I am unable to point to a perception separate from its object (one could say that there wouldn't be a perception in such a case), and I cannot point to a visual object without a perception (how?).

What do you think can be done with ostensive definitions regarding this problem?

[Selene]

"The word 'ostention' comes from the Latin 'ostendere', to show.

It was used by semiotician Umberto Eco to refer to moments in oral communication when, instead of using words, people substitute actions, such as putting a finger on your lips to indicate that someone should be quiet.

Folklorists Linda Dégh and Andrew Vázsonyi appropriated the term in their 1983 article "Does the word 'dog' bite? Ostensive Action as a Means of Legend-Telling" to refer to ways in which real-life actions are guided by legends. "

Is this what you are referring to?

[samr]

You are right, my post didn't make much sense. I changed my post so it would make sense. In the original I used the term "Ostention", which I have changed to "ostensive defintions".

As defined here

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ostensive_definition.html

[BaalChatzaf]

It seems reasonable that complex concepts must at the end be reduced to simple ones, at which you can point and say "this is what I mean by this".

BUT, there is a problem with it.

Visual perceptionis how we apprehend the world around us. We see objects. But it is never possible to distinguish between the perception and its object.

Suppose my friend sees my cat. My cat is not the same as the consciousness of my friend seeing one, because my friend can close my eyes, and her perceptions will dissapear, while the cat will not.

But, I am unable to point to a perception separate from its object (one could say that there wouldn't be a perception in such a case), and I cannot point to a visual object without a perception (how?).

What do you think can be done with ostensive definitions regarding this problem?

Blind kids do it by hearing and touch.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[samr]

Same problem. How can the object of touch be distinguished from the perception of touch?

[BaalChatzaf]

Same problem. How can the object of touch be distinguished from the perception of touch?

I don't know, but kids do it all the time, even if they are not blind. They know the difference between their hand and what is in their hand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

What do you think can be done with ostensive definitions regarding this problem?

Obviously we can do it, so that's not what you mean. It's unclear to me what you think the problem is.

Shayne

[samr]

From

http://aynrandlexico...definition.html

To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.”

That we we cannot do in order to make the distinction between a perception and its object.

Since I can't see without seeing something, and I can't see something without seeing, how can I distinguish between "seeing" and "what I see" using an ostensive definition?

[sjw]

From

http://aynrandlexico...definition.html

To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.”

That we we cannot do in order to make the distinction between a perception and its object.

Since I can't see without seeing something, and I can't see something without seeing, how can I distinguish between "seeing" and "what I see" using an ostensive definition?

Oh you're talking about Rand's theory. Yeah she had some confusions, particularly at the foundation of her epistemology. What can one say?

Shayne

[samr]

Do you see any solution regarding this specific topic?

It puzzles me - how do we have a concept of vision contrasted with what-we-see, given that we cannot differentiate between them in any specific instance of visual cognition?

[sjw]

Do you see any solution regarding this specific topic?

It puzzles me - how do we have a concept of vision contrasted with what-we-see, given that we cannot differentiate between them in any specific instance of visual cognition?

A mental identification is a cause, a perception is an effect of the cause. We reason from the effect to the cause by integrating not just a single percept, but many over time.

Read David Hume's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", he was far, far better than Rand at analyzing matters like this in slow motion, but I would warn that it's easy to misread him.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Samr,

Welcome to OL.

I have my own take on this problem.

Check your premise. You are making an implicit assumption that man is one thing and reality is another, that there is some way to get down to the most fundamental conceptual level and there will still be a division. A starting point, so to speak.

Try a different assumption: we are made out of the same stuff the rest of the universe is--including our perception and abstraction faculties. Thus, being made out of the same stuff, they are perfectly suited to process reality for the purposes of the organism they serve (the individual human being).

This means that we don't start out with a blank mind, then start filling it with reality. We start with a mind already full of reality. The separation that later develops is a product of growth, not an innate starting point.

If you want a visual metaphor for this, think about a circle. Where does it start? Basically it starts at any point you wish. But there is one absolute truth--the starting point you choose will also be the end point after you go around the circle.

So what is that point you chose? The start of the circle or the end of it?

It's both. It can't be one without being the other in a complete circle.

In other words, stuff like that exists.

With an ostensive definition, it doesn't matter if you start with the mind, or start with the act of swinging your arm around and saying, "I mean this." The point is that where they meet, it doesn't matter which comes first. One cannot exist without the other and still have you think about it.

If you want another metaphor, think of an ostensive definition in the same manner you do an axiomatic concept--as the existential interface between the mind and the rest of reality. In order to imagine not using it, you have to use it.

This bothered me for the longest time. I became at peace about it once I came up with this explanation.

Your mileage may vary, but it makes perfect sense to me without anything left over.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Do you see any solution regarding this specific topic?

It puzzles me - how do we have a concept of vision contrasted with what-we-see, given that we cannot differentiate between them in any specific instance of visual cognition?

A mental identification is a cause, a perception is an effect of the cause. We reason from the effect to the cause by integrating not just a single percept, but many over time.

Read David Hume's "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", he was far, far better than Rand at analyzing matters like this in slow motion, but I would warn that it's easy to misread him.

Shayne

Hume's epistemology was a disaster, and his theory of perception was one of the worst parts of the disaster.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

From http://aynrandlexico...definition.html

To define the meaning of the concept “blue,” for instance, one must point to some blue objects to signify, in effect: “I mean this.” Such an identification of a concept is known as an “ostensive definition.”

That we we cannot do in order to make the distinction between a perception and its object. Since I can't see without seeing something, and I can't see something without seeing, how can I distinguish between "seeing" and "what I see" using an ostensive definition?

I don't understand why you raise the issue of ostensive definitions in this context. They have nothing to do with the distinction between perception and the object of perception. This distinction is already clear before we use ostensive definitions.

Suppose I point to a blue object and say, Look at that. That color is what I mean by "blue." Here I am inviting a person to direct his vision at an external blue object so he can perceive the color for himself. My directions would make no sense, however, unless the other person already understood the difference between a perception and the object of perception. He already understands that is perceiving an object external to himself.

Ghs

[BaalChatzaf]

Hume's epistemology was a disaster, and his theory of perception was one of the worst parts of the disaster.

Ghs

Hume hit the mark 9 times out of 10. His greatest "crime" was driving Imanual Kant krazy so that he wrote -Critiique of Pure Reason-.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Hume's epistemology was a disaster, and his theory of perception was one of the worst parts of the disaster. Ghs

Hume hit the mark 9 times out of 10. His greatest "crime" was driving Imanual Kant krazy so that he wrote -Critiique of Pure Reason-. Ba'al Chatzaf

Have you actually read Hume? If so, do you agree that we only perceive discrete sensations and never entities per se? That we have no justification to believe that the same entity exists through time? That ideas (or concepts) are nothing but faint "impressions" of sensations?

Hume's epistmology, if applied consistently, would make science impossible. Is that okay with you?

Ghs

[sjw]

You're grossly misinterpreting Hume George, but far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uh oh...

I'll clash with George over neuroscience.

I won't over history or classic philosophy.

I've scratched the surface enough to have a good idea of what I'm talking about on the first--and I can haul out quotes and authors and lectures and so forth.

On the second, I admit, I am not prepared to stand up to the onslaught of quotes and backed-up idea I see coming...

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Hume's epistemology was a disaster, and his theory of perception was one of the worst parts of the disaster. Ghs

Hume hit the mark 9 times out of 10. His greatest "crime" was driving Imanual Kant krazy so that he wrote -Critiique of Pure Reason-. Ba'al Chatzaf

Have you actually read Hume? If so, do you agree that we only perceive discrete sensations and never entities per se? That we have no justification to believe that the same entity exists through time? That ideas (or concepts) are nothing but faint "impressions" of sensations?

Hume's epistmology, if applied consistently, would make science impossible. Is that okay with you?

Ghs

Hume has shown the limitations of the notion of necessary cause. For that he wins the Prize. Entities are constructs which are not perceived. We stitch them together from the various perceptions we have.

Also he has demolished the notion of self. We are a collection of rag tag perceptions. Self is a construct and never perceived.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

Also he has demolished the notion of self. We are a collection of rag tag perceptions. Self is a construct and never perceived.

Isn't it strange how you can hear yourself talk? Or do you believe it's really somebody else talking?

[George H. Smith]

Hume's epistemology was a disaster, and his theory of perception was one of the worst parts of the disaster. Ghs

Hume hit the mark 9 times out of 10. His greatest "crime" was driving Imanual Kant krazy so that he wrote -Critiique of Pure Reason-. Ba'al Chatzaf

Have you actually read Hume? If so, do you agree that we only perceive discrete sensations and never entities per se? That we have no justification to believe that the same entity exists through time? That ideas (or concepts) are nothing but faint "impressions" of sensations? Hume's epistemology, if applied consistently, would make science impossible. Is that okay with you? Ghs

Hume has shown the limitations of the notion of necessary cause. For that he wins the Prize. Entities are constructs which are not perceived. We stitch them together from the various perceptions we have. Also he has demolished the notion of self. We are a collection of rag tag perceptions. Self is a construct and never perceived. Ba'al Chatzaf

How do we "construct" entities? With legos? Tinkertoys? And if your "self" is a "construct" that can never be perceived, then who the hell has been writing your posts? An imperceptible bundle of random, causeless sensations?

It was with good reason that Hume admitted that his epistemology was a cognitive dead end, something that no reasonable person could truly believe or act upon. As Hume put it, his epistemology implies that we should "reject all belief and reasoning, and...look upon no opinion as more probable or likely than another." His epistemology, if taken seriously, will leave us "in the most deplorable condition imaginable, [e]nvironed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty. (Treatise of Human Nature, I.IV.)

Do you reject "all belief and reasoning"? Do you believe that no opinion is more probable than any other? If so, why argue for anything?

I am sorry to hear that you are in the "deplorable condition" that Hume described. Perhaps a little sound reasoning about epistemology will help out.

Ghs

[sjw]

How do we "construct" entities? With legos? Tinkertoys?

I think George is intimidated. Otherwise he'd be less sarcastic and more edifying about what is really going on.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

How do we "construct" entities? With legos? Tinkertoys?

I think George is intimidated. Otherwise he'd be less sarcastic and more edifying about what is really going on. Shayne

I prefer to discuss Hume with people who actually have a clue about his ideas. That definitely leaves you out.

Whether intentionally or not, you are actually a model Humean. Every time you blink it is a new day.

Ghs

[sjw]

How do we "construct" entities? With legos? Tinkertoys?

I think George is intimidated. Otherwise he'd be less sarcastic and more edifying about what is really going on. Shayne

I prefer to discuss Hume with people who actually have a clue about his ideas. That definitely leaves you out.

Whether intentionally or not, you are actually a model Humean. Every time you blink it is a new day.

Ghs

Actually, you'd rather kick dust into the air than answer the OP's question.

Your sarcasm and personal attacks are utterly irrelevant to the question on the table, but I presume you're hoping that no one will notice.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

How do we "construct" entities? With legos? Tinkertoys?

I think George is intimidated. Otherwise he'd be less sarcastic and more edifying about what is really going on. Shayne

I prefer to discuss Hume with people who actually have a clue about his ideas. That definitely leaves you out. Whether intentionally or not, you are actually a model Humean. Every time you blink it is a new day. Ghs

Actually, you'd rather kick dust into the air than answer the OP's question. Your sarcasm and personal attacks are utterly irrelevant to the question on the table, but I presume you're hoping that no one will notice. Shayne

I did answer the question.

Go away, kid, and stop pestering me.

Ghs