Believing vs thinking. Why greatness has been ignored. *UPDATED*

[Dglgmut]

And how do you consciously create a concept?

You don't, it happens automatically... what you do consciously is called focus.

[anthony]

A concept "happens automatically"?

A question: What do you focus upon, when you focus?

No signs of Objectivism in all this - it's nearer primacy of consciousness.

[Dglgmut]

A new concept forms automatically once you have the information you need for your brain to make the connection.

You can't teach yourself something you don't already know.

What do we focus on? We can focus on (a part of) sensation in the moment, a particular time in the future, the past, our imagination or stored abstractions.

How do you put something like that into words? You don't accept focus as the thing we most directly control???

[anthony]

A new concept forms automatically once you have the information you need for your brain to make the connection.

You can't teach yourself something you don't already know.

What do we focus on? We can focus on (a part of) sensation in the moment, a particular time in the future, the past, our imagination or stored abstractions.

How do you put something like that into words? You don't accept focus as the thing we most directly control???

As "sensation in the moment" are you acknowledging the stages of sensation and perception,

- a percept being a group of sensations, the basic building block of knowledge?

or do you mean a fleeting and disconnected sensation?

Information has to be retained, compared, discriminated and finally integrated to begin

a concept.

In one sense, I think an individual doesn't "learn" anything. He becomes acquainted with raw data which lacks any meaning and significance - until it is correlated with other data: Observe, induce and conceptualize.

Take a simple concept like the first spear ever made - it needed that self-same process to be created in the first place.

A complex concept like altruism: if you had never heard of it, could you have created it "automatically" from "information"?

As it is, we are now able to "know" altruism - we can identify its cause and effect, and all other properties, as well as its moral evaluation -

and can reverse-engineer Rand's reasoning back to its concretes, and view it on all levels.

But for the concept to "form automatically" from information gathered, is the similar fallacy of mystical Divine Revelation. To be unquestioningly swallowed whole.

I agree of course that focus (consciousness) is what we have direct control over - but for what? You imply you may observe an existent or entity, or groups of them, and they effortlessly and non-contradictorily 'slot' in to a complex and correct concept.

If it were only so easy.

[MrBenjamatic]

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come

through the conscious. So can be introspected.

You mean, like driving a car - habitual?

The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know.

Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion.

Automatic is for automatons.

What's really interesting me right now is figuring out what in our brains is automatic and what is not. Where is our focus necessary and where is it redundant or even counterproductive?

Controlling focus is what learning is all about. When we are trying to learn how to do something, we are trying to learn where to put our focus so that the rest happens automatically.

I don't get 'automatic'. You mean subconscious? But then, everything subconscious had to come

through the conscious. So can be introspected.

You mean, like driving a car - habitual?

The only 'automatic' in the brain is reflexive, and instinctive behavior, far as I know.

Being aware of everything pertaining to one, is what we've been discussing with evasion.

Automatic is for automatons.

Yes I think I do mean subconscious, But I don't think the subconscious is programmed consciously.

It's not. The subconscious is automatic.

Do you know if we are subconscious (not collectively, obviously) of knowlege? I was talking to I don't remember who on this forum and I have a theory that if one has set a value of that which they want to create, once one subconsciously knows how to create it a subconscious connection is made and immediatly thereafter the idea of how to create that value "pops" into one's head. I'd very much like to know whether I'm right on this. I like to further prove to myself that nothing is random!

[Dglgmut]

Tony, here: Take a percept for example... It's a collection of raw data, as you say, but how does it take form, to us? How, once we see an object from another angle for the first time, do we realize that it is separate from its surroundings? This happens automatically.

How, when we open our eyes and see colors and focus on distances, does this happen? Again, it's automatic.

We can't claim to be responsible for everything about ourselves.

The spear did not happen automatically, but mostly automatically. If it wasn't for the automatic recognition of facts of reality, nobody would have been able to do it. It was the combining of things that one had been given in order to create something new.

[MrBenjamatic]

Tony, here: Take a percept for example... It's a collection of raw data, as you say, but how does it take form, to us? How, once we see an object from another angle for the first time, do we realize that it is separate from its surroundings? This happens automatically.

How, when we open our eyes and see colors and focus on distances, does this happen? Again, it's automatic.

We can't claim to be responsible for everything about ourselves.

The spear did not happen automatically, but mostly automatically. If it wasn't for the automatic recognition of facts of reality, nobody would have been able to do it. It was the combining of things that one had been given in order to create something new.

You do, of course, recognize that if it were not for thinking, which is not automatic, that the spear could not have been created? Things like that are created by the identification and integration of sensory evidence (what I used to define as thinking until someone stated that they could identify an emotion).

[Dglgmut]

And what is thinking? Focus... How do you identify and integrate? Automatically while holding something in focus.

[MrBenjamatic]

I misconstrued Rand on the difference between reason and thinking and I'm trying to untangle my mistake and iron it out (fix it). Reason is the capacity to identify and integrate sensory evidence. And you say that you excersize your reason by focusing (and I agree with you). You define thinking as focus. Do you know where I can find a short Objectivist definition of thinking? I'm utterly desperate.

*P.S. If focusing is not automatic and you have to focus in order to exersize your reason, how can reason (identification & integration of sensory evidence) be automatic? But then I'm sure I misunderstood you when I concluded that you implied reason (identification & integration) is automatic.

-PBH

[anthony]

Calvin,

To you then we perceive - we create; spear, or concept. Without intervening steps.

Until Comte came along, altruism had no name and no identity. He observed

it accurately, but badly mis-evaluated it (morally).Rand took the identity of

his concept, and turned it right round into another concept. Ask your self why it

took 1000's of years for those two to conceptualize what was right in front of every

body's eyes, all along - and whether you could have done it, automatically.

To know something, is to know how it came about: to re-trace all the steps

made by a thinker or thinkers towards an end. The conclusion as a principle (a concept)

is useless and inapplicable until then, for each individual.

It seems you're indulging in 'presentism'. An assumption that knowledge is a metaphysical

"given". It's man-made, and each person has to 're-make' it for himself - conceptually.

The entire O'ist epistemology and its egoist ethics rest on that.

[Selene]

I misconstrued Rand on the difference between reason and thinking and I'm trying to untangle my mistake and iron it out (fix it). Reason is the capacity to identify and integrate sensory evidence. And you say that you excersize your reason by focusing (and I agree with you). You define thinking as focus. Do you know where I can find a short Objectivist definition of thinking? I'm utterly desperate.

*P.S. If focusing is not automatic and you have to focus in order to exersize your reason, how can reason (identification & integration of sensory evidence) be automatic? But then I'm sure I misunderstood you when I concluded that you implied reason (identification & integration) is automatic.

-PBH

Phillip:

Calvin does not speak for Objectivism.

I suggest starting here...http://aynrandlexicon.com/ - for example:

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life."

[MrBenjamatic]

I misconstrued Rand on the difference between reason and thinking and I'm trying to untangle my mistake and iron it out (fix it). Reason is the capacity to identify and integrate sensory evidence. And you say that you excersize your reason by focusing (and I agree with you). You define thinking as focus. Do you know where I can find a short Objectivist definition of thinking? I'm utterly desperate.

*P.S. If focusing is not automatic and you have to focus in order to exersize your reason, how can reason (identification & integration of sensory evidence) be automatic? But then I'm sure I misunderstood you when I concluded that you implied reason (identification & integration) is automatic.

-PBH

Phillip:

Calvin does not speak for Objectivism.

I suggest starting here...http://aynrandlexicon.com/ - for example:

"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life."

I used that website, insted of Rand's books themselves, to learn Objectivism. It says "thinking is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections." Do you know what Rand means by *causal* connections? Thinking is an action and the law of causality is the law of identifity (A is A) applied to action. So would this mean that thinking is merely identifying and integrating evidence of existence (such as sensory evidence) by the standard of the laws of logic? If so I have it right already, but please, please let me know!

Also, do you know where I can find a description of the clear, basic difference between thinking and reason. I already know that reason is the ability to identify and integrate sensory evidence.... I won't discuss my epistemology. But if you know of any references I'd be grateful! What I've done so far is merely compare definitions (the ones I used in this post NOT MY ORIGINAL). I think I'm right.

[Dglgmut]

Tony, I'm saying that Rand would have had to focus on the concept of altruism, and its units, in order for her brain to automatically identify the contradictions. The level and amount of focus used to untangle complex concepts is not automatic.

Support of this point would be the fact that it takes time for us to figure things out... We focus on different things, by method of trial and error, until eventually we see a connection that we were not necessarily looking for (again, can't teach yourself something you don't already know).

[Xray]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

[Brant Gaede]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

She never "downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking." She downplayed the dangers of cigarette smoking.

--Brant

[anthony]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

Get down! Sniper in the tree-line!

Uh, no problem Sarge - she's firing blanks.

;)

[MrBenjamatic]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

[Xray]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

This would mean that a person considers something they do as a 'sacrifice' (or not as a sacrifice) according to his/her subjective hierarchy of values.

[MrBenjamatic]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

This would mean that a person considers something they do as a 'sacrifice' (or not as a sacrifice) according to his/her subjective hierarchy of values.

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

[PDS]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

This would mean that a person considers something they do as a 'sacrifice' (or not as a sacrifice) according to his/her subjective hierarchy of values.

But my argument is based on the law of identity (a thing is itself), and, thereby is Objective. The laws of logic are held as absolutes in all my arguments and my arguments are thereby Objective.

Even your arguments regarding "bergamot" cigerrettes? Or just peach and lavender?

I am curious: who will pay the bills if--and I hope it never happens-- you end up with terminal cancer? Somehow, I have a sneaking suspicion that it will be me (and other taxpayers).

[caroljane]

Cigerrettes ere demn anjoyable.

[Brant Gaede]

Most often, without knowing any specifics, the egoistically evil act is the choice not to think, i.e., the evasion of the facts of reality.

<...>

The basic evil is the choice not to think. It is a meta-choice, an evasion, most often not a rational decision based on considering the evidence and then shunting thought aside, but shutting off the thinking process as soon as emotional triggers warn of unpleasant feelings from continued thought.

You would call "evil" then Ayn Rand's "evasion of the facts of reality" as she downplayed the dangers of excessive cigarette smoking?

It's true that cigarrette smoking is bad for one's health. I, like Rand, am a constant smoker. I do not consiter it evil as it's not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. The deliciousness of cigarrettes is a greater value to me than my health. I'll admit very very very few values are greater than my health, but cigarrettes is one of them. I'll probably stop smoking if I get terminal cancer but by then there might be surgery and if there isn't I won't regret having smoked. I love to smoke

This would mean that a person considers something they do as a 'sacrifice' (or not as a sacrifice) according to his/her subjective hierarchy of values.

This means he speaks for himself. It's his body. It's his life. Objective value or subjective value has nothing to do with being an adult about these things. Some rock climbers fall to their deaths. Soldiers die in war. Subjective valuations come with a more basic objective context which establishes the price to be paid.

--Brant

[Reidy]

OK, you say you're logical. The standard way to establish this is:

1. State the conclusion you propose to prove. It would seem to be "I'll smoke" (making it an Aristotelian practical syllogism) or "smoking is the right course of action for me," but I won't know for sure until you tell us.

2. State the premises from which you propose to prove the conclusion.

3. If the proof isn't trivial (and this one isn't), explain the steps by which you got from the first to the second.

If you say that the law of identity is one of your premises, you thereby commit yourself to invoking it at least once in part 3.

Rand rarely did this explicitly (as if to give future generations of Objectivist academics something to do), so laying Randian jargon on us unlikely to be of much help.

The floor is yours.

[MrBenjamatic]

The good is that which sustains your existence and gains and keeps your values: virtue. Cigarettes are unhealthy and may cause cancer. I agree that, thereby, smoking cigarettes does not sustain one's existence. The purpose of my Benjamatic pursuit (my life purpose) is to create the means to please my senses. Producing lavender and peach, bergamot and other flavors of cigarettes pleases my senses. The only reason my pursuit of creating cigarettes Benjamatic is not virtuous is the fact that cigarettes are harmful to my health. There are degrees of evil; I now hold that smoking cigarettes is evil, but only to a small degree. Yes, it is, to a very small degree, evil for me to smoke cigarettes with full knowledge that I might get cancer from smoking. Yes, it is, to an utterly small degree, evil for me to eat a lot of sugar and sweets with full knowledge that doing so is harmful to my health. My virtue far outweighs my vice and those are my two vices that I permit myself; they are so trivial that my happiness (which comes from my virtue) is polluted to such a small degree that I don't notice the emotional consequences. I will admit that I have changed my premise that cigarette smoking is not evil to the premise that cigarette smoking is evil to a very small degree.

PDS: I will tell you what I told my parents when they said I'd have no choice but to be on welfare were it not for them: I'd rather die than rob others and violate their rights. Just as I'd chose death over welfare so I'd chose cancer and death over using a government gun to force others to pay for my surgery.

I thought I'd ask what causes your slight animosity towards the concept of lavender, peach and bergamot cigarettes? It seems you disprove and I'm curious as to why.

Reidy: I know I'm logical. I hold that a every thing is itself, that contradictions don't exist (which is a corollary of the either-or law of logic which I also hold as an absolute). Whenever I reach a contradiction, I identify my mistake to correct it then all the hierarchical thinking polluted by the false premise(s). Knowledge is hierarchical. This discussion is a perfect example of that (believing versus thinking). I discussed reason in my case and it was you who corrected my that reason is the ABILITY to identify and integrate sensory evidence; I used to hold that thinking and reason were the same as I must have misread the Ayn Rand Lexicon a long while back. I corrected my case and I thought about it all day and corrected my premises as I know I have to be right in order to survive and achieve My Benjamin.

[Reidy]

Still waiting.