'Axioms' --- in O'ism.


John Dailey

Recommended Posts

MSK:

~ Picking up from the QM thread, re *your* comments therein... :D

~ In your post #18 you say "An axiom, at the bottom, does not delimit reality." --- Agreed. It is an Epistemological perspective on Ontology (or, a 'Metaphysics'). It delimits Epistemology's proper, 'rational' view of 'reality.'

~ You continue, "Axioms merely validate our cognititve faculty as being a proper tool of understanding the universe." --- Agreed, given an O'ist perspective. No doubt many raised in the tradition of 'mathematical logic's idea of "axioms" probably wouldn't even understand this, much less the meaning of 'validate.'

~ You continue, "They establish a link between 'out there and 'in here.'" --- Couldn't have put it better myself (well, maybe if I spent time in trying to be concise...eh...not my forte.)

~ Re your example about Relativity 'existing'-or-not and the bomb, "No exist, no boom"...love it! --- You DO have a way with words (sometimes too much fuse; othertimes...big BOOM!)

~ Ok. Difewkiltees ahead:

~ In your post #47 you say "Certainty is always contextual because we are not omniscient. We can only know a part of the whole shebang. That is a given." --- As Bugs would say, "Eh-h-h, (chomp, chomp), not quite, Doc." __The tricky prob here is in one's interpretation of 'certainty'...even within an O'ist framework. 'Certainty' is NOT automatically synonymous with merely 'probable', merely because the term "context" is brought up (as is innuended in your statement.) Your statement implies that ALL 'contexts' (for everyone) might, maybe, conceivably, have at some future time, a capability if not a 'rational' need to be...broadened...encompassing something more that may be 'relevent' than herethenfor one has been aware of.

~ I think that Aristotle's/Rand's 'axioms' exclude themselves from this concern...by their own 'definitions.' They describe their own 'contexts' in an all-encompassing manner, with implied rules of how to make 'exclusions' for whatever sub-'Universe-of-Discourse' is relevent to...well...the discourse. THIS 'context' admits of no...'rational'...considerations of broadening, unlike all others (which are, necessarily, derivatively-subsumable). To paraphrase ye olde map legends, "Here, there be CERTAINTY!" Not a-contextualness, so much as context-totality. --- After that, 'context' needs specifications for 'certainty.' After that, we then, as you say, ONLY know part of the whole shebang. That 'part' MAY be 'enough'; but without knowing more, we know that it 'may' NOT be. (Such is the crux juries have conundrums over! Am I digressing?)

~ In your post #53 you say "[talking about the 5th {potentially 'sensorially'} dimension] If there is a part of reality for which we have no sense organs, we need to devise instruments that can access it and translate attribute [i presume, of 'it'] into things we can process." --- Well, other than speaking of a '5th spatial dimension' (argued for in 'String Theory'), we already do. Consider 'Night-Vision Goggles.' Not talking a 'new' spatial-dimension there, so much as a new 'dimension' in perceptual abilities beyond in-bred 'normality' of the way we're built. An advancement in a known 'dimension' IS getting into a new perceptual 'dimension.' Be there anything worthwhile to 'String Theory's ideas (11? 26? spatial dimensions?), I have little doubt that eventually we'll get some 'instruments' for us to perceive it. (By then we'll probably have met E.T!)

~ In your post # 59 you say "Why Rand was so adamant about stressing axioms is that certain philosophies were popular at the time she wrote that stressed that nothing could be known. Ever. She went into denounce mode against them and then it was hard to pull herself out. Even after the problem was no longer a danger and other problems appeared." --- I think it was more than that; WAY more. Re 'axioms', she re-defined their nature and purpose/functionality AND their relevence TO "knowledge," and not just because she was in a 'mode' (emotional 'mood'?) for doing so. Without such, all the rest of her 'epistemology' had no solid base. No, this was more than a trivializing-sounding 'mode'...unless one can say she was in that mode all her life. Such is clearly not a mode/phase of life for one. --- As to such being 'hard to pull herself out'...why do such? I'm not aware that she even tried...or should have. Am unclear what you're implying here, especially when you say "Even after the problem was no longer a danger..." It's not? Everyone sees the worth of her point re 'axioms'? I-don't-think-so.

~ In your post #64 you say [to 'Paul'] "Couldn't life be considered as a fifth dimension?"

___When the mo-o-o-oon is in the seventh house,

___And Ju-pi-ter-r-r-r aligns with Mar-r-r-rss...

Hey, I'm all for the old (whatever their faults) 'hippie' "Make LOVE, Not WAR", we're-all-brothers-and-sisters 'Aquarius' stuff, but...the 5th-dimension is now only in String-'Theory.' (Well, there's still The Twilight Zone, I guess.)

~ In your post #73 (where you said a lot, but, relevent to herein...) you say "Axioms merely identify the mind as a proper tool that you can use for thinking and interacting with reality." --- Uhmm...axioms, even in O'ist parlance, 'identify' nothing. The mind IS a 'tool', yes...when used as such, BY 'it', if-and-when at all. However, when used, it's a 'tool' for using OTHER 'tools' (like one's hands). These 'other' tools do nothing on their own. Axioms are one such type of tool. Axioms don't 'identify' the mind; the mind identifies the axioms...for what they are...and then the mind USES the axioms. For what? Heh...Glad you asked that!

~ AXIOMS, as used/meant in O'ism, as *I* understand it (and, quite contrary to 'mathematical logic') are not arbitrary 'starting points' applicable to only 'deductive logic.' Though they are useable as such (whether argued as mere 'tautologies' or not) given additional (and sub-categorizable) 'premises', but mainly they are Identifications of Restrictive-Walls for thinking within, assuming one is 'thinking'. You try to slide over the wall...and you're in nothing but an IRrational Abyss (and, even without 'thinking' about it, you can merely 'guess' where that'll get you...if you don't 'evade' even guessing about it, whatever the situation) where anything you do will bring harm/hurt/pain/destruction. --- AXIOMS are tools that allow *you* to define the distinction/difference, EPISTEMOLOGICALLY, 'twixt the 'rational' and the 'IRrational.' They allow *you* to identify WHEN one is thinking 'irrationally' (again, assuming one is 'thinking') by clarifying when one is finding a 'contradiction'...or...NOT.

~ Hope this starts some discussions on 'AXIOMS', O'ist-oriented or not.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: I added a "...allow *you* to..." in the last 2 statements 2-3 days after the above was written. Shows how one can so easily slip into talking about abstractions 'doing' things when one really means one USING them to do such. Moi linguistic mistake, re trying to specify that all should be avoiding that specific type of linguistic mistake in any argument. Sorry. Learn from this!

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I ain't ignoring this. Thoughtful comments coming.

I find, though, that our thinking is pretty similar. The problem is that the words are in the way. On an initial read, I see more trouble with semantics (and maybe a few implications) than with concepts.

I always try to discuss these things without using too much of the traditional jargon. That's always in interesting exercise. In discussing with Bob Mac, where you got some of this from, this was especially useful. It was evident that he was up to his ears in Objectivist jargon and wasn't going for it anymore (with good reason, I might add, owing to the peculiar view of manners practiced by many of those of the Objectivist persuasion). I used other words, civility and I took his comments seriously. It made all the difference in the world. He may not be an Objectivist, but he is now friend, not foe. Anyway, I ain't into converting anyone. I ain't no preacher. I am into making intellectual friends with good people. And I think Bob Mac is good people.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ You innuend that I think otherwise than you've stated, re Bob_Mac. How/where/why you got that idea, I have no idea. Clearly, I've been a bit UN-'clear' on some things. Such seems to be my curse in cyber-talk, unfortunately. The more pains I take in trying to be clear, the more others show that I've not done so. (I wonder if there's some 'ontologically-based' Inverse-Relationship 'twixt text-size and clarity/understandableness?)

~ Anyhoo, I've saved the 'best for last' (from my perspective/interests) re my finishing *my* 'follow-ups' to *my* concerns re the other thread's QM postings. Primarily, I mean B-M's posts therein about the subject of "Identity' which he brought up (not ALL that irrelevent to QM, but, his context-orientation was...not quite QM. And it fits *my* interests re the subject of 'Identity.') --- THAT, however, is for a separate thread in THIS ("Epistemology" - fitting, no?) sub-forum...later.

~ No harm (as you seem to think may have occurred) meant; hopefully, no harm done.

LLAP

J:D

P.S: Umm...given this thread, however, MSK: any thoughts on *my* stated thoughts re the proper view of 'axioms' in an O'ist epistemology context?

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Dayaamm!

I did not "innuend" any such thing about your opinion of Bob Mac. Sorry if you got that impression. My intention was to give you a quick note so you wouldn't think I was ignoring your post. As I was writing my note to you, I started remembering where your quotes from me probably came from and the initial difficulty I had in communicating with Bob, which resolved happily. And, as I said, I think your objections might be simple misunderstandings of a more semantic nature, so my intention is to chew on this in a similar manner with you until we get down to the concepts behind the words, and not just what one thinks the other is saying.

I happen to like this kind of discussion as it is aimed at understanding and not preaching, like I have encountered on other forums. I am sure that understanding is the reason you opened this thread. I don't see you as an Internet gladiator hell-bent on trouncing the enemy. So, frankly, I look forward to this discussion. However, I am in the middle of some writing where going too far in this kind of thinking will throw me off (almost done, though).

Thus, you see, I do have "thoughts on *your* stated thoughts." I thought that I was clear about that in my phrase: "Thoughtful comments coming." I probably should have put that phrase at the end.

The problem is that one thought the other would think he was thinking thoughtfully, but the other thought that the thoughtful thinking of the first might not be well thought out, or so he thought.

So for now, let me say... er... ahem...

Thoughtful comments coming.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ I think that your thoughts on my thinking may have been thought on a basis stemming from other of my thoughts being unthoughtfully presented, ergo, your thoughts, though thought correctly from a mis-interpreted thought presented by me about B-M's thoughts (which I haven't actually gotten into yet), may be an incorrect thought.

~ Um-m-m...vice-versa. (This all reminds me of a line by Pacino in Dick Tracy, "Wait a minute, wait a minute...I'm having a 'thought'...[long pause]...Nevermind; it's gone.")

~ As you've explained things, however, re your thoughts on my thoughts re B-M's thoughts, clearly we can agree that any disagreements are to be agreed as to ignoring since they've become entangled with mis-thoughts by...well...some of us anyways.

~ Glad we got all those confused thoughts straightened out!

~ Re your 'getting back' to this thread, no hurry, man! (How you're covering all the threads you already do, from my readings, I dunno.) --- As Satchmo sang, "We have all the time in the world..." (well, 'till one of us leaves it, anyways.)

~ Re your not seeing me as a 'Gladiator'...damn. There goes my visions of growing up to be Russell Crowe or Brad Pitt (I mean, 'Maximus' or 'Achilles')!

True: I'm not here (especially HERE, in your domain!) to 'preach' the wonderful, morally-unstained, pedestaled, saintliness of Ayn Rand, (which so many here seem really fervent in putting cement on her clay feet.) --- I'm not here to 'debate' anything, though, as many know by now, I'm not averse to such. There are threads already set in this forum for 'gladiatorialness.' I may yet visit them (THEN you can call me MR. Crowe!) However, in threads like this (EPISTEMOLOGY, METAPHYSICS, etc) what point to 'preach' pro/con anything? This IS a place to search out 'discoveries', implications of agreed-upon starting points ('assumptions', if you will) to derive further knowledge and integrations therewith. Ass-u-m(e)ing, of course, that there ARE agreed-upon starting points. Without such, 'debate' is inevitable...and adding 'new' knowledge goes thereby by the wayside. Sorry, I digress.

~ Anyhoo, take care; Ah'll be Bahk! (Am working on the Identity of The Terminator right now: did the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd have the same 'identity'? Love those 'Theseus Ship' probs! Oops, that's for another thread re B-M.)

LLAP

J:D

Edited by John Dailey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Here are some answers to your observations.

Before we get to the issue of certainty, we must first understand the difference between a metaphysical characteristic and a concept of a metaphysical characteristic. A metaphysical characteristic by itself does not have any inherent relationship to a human being. It simply is. Thus the problem of certainty is simply not applicable, being given that certainty is an epistemological evaluation. Everything outside of us exists and will go its merry way regardless of how anyone perceives it or how certain they are.

Things change when we get to the concept of a metaphysical characteristic because then we must include a mind to think it. Once a mind is included, we start having a need for certainty. But this need is two-fold. One is epistemological and the other is psychological.

The epistemological need for certainty stems from the fact that the mind is an information processing instrument and it has to run properly to be of any use (to our life). The psychological need stems from the fact that we are not omniscient and, frankly, we are perplexed by our own mortality. Something has to make sense. Thus reality has to be knowable and our minds must be capable of knowing it. Otherwise we would give in to despair.

When I said that "certainty is always contextual," I meant that a mind has limitations and these must always be taken into account. It can be physically ill or under the influence of a drug or even tired or whatever and not function correctly. We may only have part of the knowledge we need because our senses do not permit a broader awareness than what they allow. Things like this are its limitations. This is the part that varies from person to person.

What does not vary in terms of certainty is that reality is the same for everybody and that we all have the same kind of mental equipment to know reality. A preconceptual certainty of this comes built-in froim birth, so to speak. An infant does not have the issue of doubting any of this.

Now here is the interesting thing about fundamental axioms. They (the concepts themselves) come into existence in the mind right at the time they are needed, i.e., when the mind starts learning enough to start doubting itself. This is why I call them an interface between the mind and reality. Once the mind starts making concepts about reality, then concepts of concepts, then concepts of those concepts and so on, if there is no anchor other than raw perception, all hell will break loose. Logic is needed to put order in the hen-house.

The beauty of fundamental axioms is that they perfectly identify a perceived metaphysical characteristic (one, also, that all people can and do perceive) and they perfectly observe the inherent nature of logic. They completely align with everything they are used for. That is why they are so useful as the starting point of logic.

In this sense, they provide epistemological certainty. They translate on a conceptual level what an infant already knows: that only one reality exists, that he is aware of it and that he can learn about the specific things in it. Later he becomes aware of the fact that all this is true for others, too, in an identical manner. Only after all this will fundamental axioms become a part of his life and part of his psychological need for certainty.

Of all this I am certain.

Moving on to my speculations about aspects of reality we may not have sense organs to perceive, I have a hypothesis that since all attributes come "bunched" in an entity, something like this would too. So we would test and access it by how it operates on what we do sense.

Human senses are limited. Look at the simple difference between what a dog can smell and what a human being can smell. Are those parts that a dog can smell nonexistent? The answer is no. We just can't smell them but they exist. We cannot hear frequencies that a dog can hear, but they exist. (An interesting aside is that human beings with less sensory capacity smell-wise have a greater emotional reaction. A human being will smell something horrible and vomit. A dog will smell the same thing, look interested and sort of discard it as unimportant, then move on smelling other stuff.)

I am a bit caught up in the mind-brain connection with all this. I am not postulating spooks, but there is some weird stuff out there and reports of similar experiences keep coming in all the time. My hypothesis is that some "bunched" non-perceivable phenomenon could exist that does not completely control the other attributes, affecting their behavior sometimes and not affecting it at other times.

Still, all this is speculation. It does not alter the fact that what we can know, we do know. The universe is knowable.

About Rand's adamant stressing of axioms, I was specifically referring to the constant string of pronouncements like "A is A" and stuff like that. Back when she did a lot of that, especially in a belligerent tone, there were those who formally postulated the contrary. Her small circle was made up of young people who were in contact with university professors who preached that kind of stuff everyday. As time went on, she slowed down on that way of talking, possibly because her small circle began to become more educated, but already convinced of her ideas.

If you want to see a different way of stating fundamental axioms, look at the works of David Kelley. Notice the difference in the way he says it all and the way she does. You will see what I mean. At any rate, I was talking about an emotional "load" on the manner of stating axioms that many scientist-type people object to in Rand's writings. Not the axiom itself. (Can you imaging a scientist shouting "Trial and Error" as the emphatic all-inclusive reason for everything as many times as a Randroid says "A is A" emphatically to prove his point? The image is rather comical.)

On singing Aquarius, I got all choked up. I didn't know you sang so well. :) Still, when I said life maybe is a fifth dimension, I was referring to it in the manner of "bunched attributes" as I stated above. Thus it is only a speculation, not a statement of fact.

You took me to task for saying "axioms merely identify the mind," I wasn't using "identify" as an active verb like what the mind does when it identifies something. I was using a more colloquial sense, something more like "stand for" or "signify." Even then, this actually is a rather sloppy way of saying what I wanted to say. My meaning is that logic is the method the mind uses to work with concepts and axioms are the "assembler code" of logic. In that sense, they signify how the mind will work from there on out by being the base of all concepts. They provide the initial restrictions for identifying contradictions. That is much closer to what I meant. (See what I mean about semantics?)

When you make statements like the following, you should be careful:

AXIOMS, as used/meant in O'ism, as *I* understand it (and, quite contrary to 'mathematical logic') are not arbitrary 'starting points' applicable to only 'deductive logic.'

You kinda added the word "arbitrary." Look at my writings. You will not find anyplace at all where that word or the meaning you so soundly disputed is present. My "starting point" idea is pretty clear above and it most definitely is not arbitrary.

Even further in your last argument, you stated something I heartily disagree with, but I am sure it is a question of semantics, not meaning. You called axioms "tools." I don't care for that designation because it suggests you can actively do things with them to other things. You don't. You build on top of axioms. You don't use them to build something independent of them, which is what you do with a tool. But, like I said, I don't think you meant that, anyway. So it is just a question of a word choice or meaning.

I think we essentially agree on what fundamental axiomatic concepts are.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

....Even further in your last argument, you stated something I heartily disagree with, but I am sure it is a question of semantics, not meaning. You called axioms "tools." I don't care for that designation because it suggests you can actively do things with them to other things. You don't. You build on top of axioms. You don't use them to build something independent of them, which is what you do with a tool. But, like I said, I don't think you meant that, anyway. So it is just a question of a word choice or meaning.

Michael, I think you have a rather restrictive interpretation of the term "tool." Tools are not just used to "build something independent of them." One kind of tool, for instance, is a pair of tongs, which are used to grasp objects. Concepts are like tongs, in that general respect (though they do many more things, as well).

Also, Rand called various things, including concepts, "tools of cognition." Surely axioms, being conceptual products, would also qualify.

I respect your priorities, but had we discussed my "microcosm" essay when (or near the time that) you helped me post it to OL, we would have covered this issue, and you wouldn't have had this particular disagreement with John.

Here is the link to the relevant portion of my essay: Art as Microcosm part 1

And here is a relevant quote from the essay (though reader may wish to click on the above link in order to read the full context of the quote):

A tool, then, in the broadest sense of the term, is anything that serves as a means or instrument for the performance of some action, i.e., anything that serves similarly to, or in the manner of, a mechanical tool. In this latter respect, one’s feet and hands, for instance, can also be thought of as tools. As Aristotle said, in On the Parts of Animals, “the hand is not to be looked on as one organ but as many; for it is, as it were, an instrument for further instruments” (1952b; 687a). It is thus very Aristotelian of Rand to refer to concepts as “tools of cognition,” for a concept serves not only as a means for the cognitive processing of information about the world (i.e., the material of cognition) but also, like one’s hand, as a means for expanding the power and range of man’s actions and as “an instrument for further instruments” (namely, language and art).

The next step in tracing the conceptual hierarchy of the concept of “art” is to note the distinction between primary cognitive tool and secondary tool. A primary tool is a basic way of grasping and dealing with reality, and a secondary tool is an extension of a primary tool. A secondary tool amplifies or refines what a primary tool does and extends the range of what is possible to us without it. Our primary physical tools include our hands and feet; and our secondary physical tools include hammers, foot pedals, etc., which serve to implement or facilitate the functioning of our hands and feet.

Our primary cognitive tool is a conceptual abstraction or concept (as well as integrations of concepts into propositions, arguments, theories, etc.), which provides us with our basic means of cognitively grasping and dealing with reality. Just as we grasp or apprehend reality in a physical manner with our hands, so too we cognitively apprehend reality with conceptual abstractions. (In this respect, both physical and cognitive primary tools are intraorganismic tools, tools that are inherent in the structure and function of an organism.) Our secondary cognitive tools, which include language and art, are symbols, i.e., physical objects, sounds, etc., external to our organisms, that stand for and thus physically implement or facilitate the functioning of our concepts.{17} (In this respect, both physical and cognitive secondary tools are extraorganismic tools.) In each case, both physical and cognitive, secondary tools are man-made objects.

All for now,

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

You kinda added the word "arbitrary." You will not find anyplace at all where that word or the meaning you so soundly disputed is present. My "starting point" idea is pretty clear above and it most definitely is not arbitrary.

~ Clearly, more than 'semantics' gets involved in cyber-discussion. I never meant that *you* were 'arbitrary' in saying anything. My 'kinda added' of the term "arbitrary" was syntactically (parsingly?) out of place, though meaningfully meant; I was stressing the diff from what I referred to IN my parenthetical (re present-day mathematical logicians' orientation to how they regard 'axioms'.) I should have done something else with the parenthetical to make my following 'outside' statement more connected-appearing to the 'inside' aside, than one in and the other out. Sorry 'bout the apparent mis-communing. --- Actually, often I type "you" when I intend "one" (as in 'you'-general, not specific). Upon re-reading, surprised you didn't take *me* to task when I typed "you" (and forgot to edit it to "one") re other statements. Will be more careful (ok; I'm not 'perfect'...yet.) --- When I type "you"-specific, I'm usually quite clear on it not being 'general'-meant. Ah, well...

~ Glad you liked my 5th-Dimension impersonation. I may do a 'karaoke' somewhere yet, since no one at home appreciates my shower-singing. My wife just yells "JOHN!", Joey complains "Geez, you're hurting my ears" (like, his MP3-player doesn't!), and Jonny yells "No! Go way! Settle! G'bye!" --- I'm waiting for a forum-cue to do "WILD THANG"; I got some good NC-17 lyrics for that one!

~ Ok: am clear on how you weren't using the term "identify". Glad to see we're on the same page there. Re "...axioms are the 'assembler [assembly?] code' of logic" (which I'm tempted to analogize to RNA), good analogy. No argument there. They obviously are the 'bottom-line' epistemological territory, and, the most fundamental (when used) of all concepts.

~ Re your and my views re axioms being 'tools': you do make a good point about if they're such, that one can't build 'on' them, using 'them'...immediately upon discovery/creation, anyway. (Hard to distinguish metaphors from descriptions in this territory, but...) Any 'building" is of a separate item, and any "building-ON" has to be done by another item...being 'used.' As long as all the base 'buildings' are of simple (ergo, separate, 'independent') items. Clearly, one can't use a hammer to improve itself, or a house's foundation to do anything but sit there...in the beginnings of all buildings. --- B-u-t, more 'complicated' tools CAN be used that way...else there'd be no such thing as 'self-replicating/reproducing' automatons, in theory or practice.

~ Axioms ARE 'useable', if not indeed actually necessary (after other conceptual identifications and ('sub-'?)categorizations are in place, of which some must be to 'induce' the axioms!), to solidify/verify/validate, if not also derive, the worth of syllogistic (and thence thereby, conjunction) logic. However, 1st and foremost, they are identifications of epistemological Restrictions re a metaphysics of 'reality.'

LLAP

J:D

__Bum, Bum, ba-da--da-da BUM, BUM -- "I WAN-NA KN0W-w-w for sure..." (oops; I'll wait for the cue.)

P.S: (can't get away from these, no matter how hard I try.) Uh-h-h, that 'icon-picture' of moi I managed to figure out how to get set up...it's not, quite, really how I actually look...lately. My hair's a bit grayer. And, I don't have exactly that hair-style...anymore. And, I've had my ears worked on a bit (to avoid social distractions). And...I can't find my blue shirt. (Jane says it's 'in the washing machine.' 13 mos, so far.) So...Just thought I'd pass that on. You know, "Truth in Advertising" 'n' all. --- (I still can, and DO, do the 'hand-thing' though.)

Edited by John Dailey
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