No Subconscious

[jts]

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

All of these integrations and projections take place somewhere.  Where?   My guess is that they take place in our heads and we are not aware of all the details.  This collection of brain events of which we are not aware  constitute, at least in part, "the subconscious".   By the way, no one to this date has ever found a "mind" in any other body but there own.  If  "minds" exist we can't we detect them in bodies other than our own?

If there is no such thing as mind, then does that mean there is no such thing as life?  You can dissect a plant or an animal but can you find life? There are biochemical processes but where is life?

When people ask me how I am, I usually say the last time I checked I was still alive. Maybe I should change my answer.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

14 hours ago, jts said:

If there is no such thing as mind, then does that mean there is no such thing as life?  You can dissect a plant or an animal but can you find life? There are biochemical processes but where is life?

When people ask me how I am, I usually say the last time I checked I was still alive. Maybe I should change my answer.

 

what you call life is existing in far from thermodynamic equilibrium  states and being able to reproduce  parts of of our organism (repairs)  and things that grow to have genomes similar to ours.  Life is physical from top to bottom.  Most inanimate stuff is in thermodynamic equilibrium (or nearly so) with its surroundings.  Objects like the sun are not in thermodynamic equilibrium with their surrounding but they cannot reproduce either in part or in whole.

 

[anthony]

On 10/14/2017 at 3:31 AM, regi said:

Anthony, are you sure you meant this. What is "automatic memory?" How does it work. How do you know there is such a thing?

Just teasing a little, actually.

Randy

"The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness: they possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception. A “perception” is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things. An animal is guided, not merely by immediate sensations, but by percepts. Its actions are not single, discrete responses to single, separate stimuli, but are directed by an integrated awareness of the perceptual reality confronting it. It is able to grasp the perceptual concretes immediately present and it is able to form automatic perceptual associations, but it can go no further".

“The Objectivist Ethics,” Virtue of Selfishness

----

"Automatic perceptual associations" is telling. A higher animal, like men (once it's accepted that they both share the perceptual faculty) "retains" sensations only as perceptions--and will recall them -- without conscious effort, I believe. Very demonstrable, like observing one's dog which has 'learned' that hearing the jingle of keys being picked up is synonymous with his owner going away and leaving him, (and he then also physically displays an emotional response, dejection). For a man, the "automatic perceptual association" shows itself, self-evidently, when smelling a certain scent which recalls a woman from long ago, and a snatch of a song which takes him back to a specific time and place - and so on - for all the senses, especially for the visual. One must surmise that the brain/nervous system records these percepts as a "mechanism", the result of a mammal's evolution - 'directed at' its preservation/survival. All of that automatic .. .and - "subconscious". Half teasing also. ;)

[anthony]

Although, chronologically, man’s consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual—epistemologically, the base of all of man’s knowledge is the perceptual stage.

Sensations, as such, are not retained in man’s memory, nor is man able to experience a pure isolated sensation. As far as can be ascertained, an infant’s sensory experience is an undifferentiated chaos. Discriminated awareness begins on the level of percepts.

A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. When we speak of “direct perception” or “direct awareness,” we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a scientific, conceptual discovery.

“Cognition and Measurement,”

[anthony]

From 'Ayn Rand's Theory of Concepts', by Allan Gotthelf

(A passage which I recently came across) adds interesting material.

"Consciousness, as Rand has put it, is metaphysically passive. It is however [...] epistemologically active. Consciousness, as a state of awareness, Rand writes, is not a passive state but an active process that consists of two essentials, differentiation and integration.

[...]

But at each of these levels [sensation, perception, conceptual knowledge], consciousness is directed outward at objects (or aspects thereof) that have an existence and a nature independent of that act of consciousness.

Perception is for Rand a distinct form of awareness, differing from both sensation and conceptual awareness. It is a direct awareness of persisting things, of entities, discriminated from each other and from their backgrounds. The integration of sensory data into perceptual awareness, is done automatically by the brain and nervous system.

[...]

[here's the meaty part]:

Second, [perceptual awareness] is nonpropositional. Rand held that philosophers often confuse the character of the content of perceptual awareness- with the character of our (inevitably conceptual) description of the content of perceptual awareness.

Third, such awarenesses, Rand says, are unerring: they are neither true nor false, they just are." [A.Gotthelf]

----

So, a possible sticking point over perception -- confusion between the character of the *content* - and the character of a (conceptual) *description* of such content. 

[anthony]

44 minutes ago, anthony said:

From 'Ayn Rand's Theory of Concepts', by Allan Gotthelf

(A passage which I recently came across) adds interesting material.

"Consciousness, as Rand has put it, is metaphysically passive. It is however [...] epistemologically active. Consciousness, as a state of awareness, Rand writes, is not a passive state but an active process that consists of two essentials, differentiation and integration.

[...]

But at each of these levels [sensation, perception, conceptual knowledge], consciousness is directed outward at objects (or aspects thereof) that have an existence and a nature independent of that act of consciousness.

Perception is for Rand a distinct form of awareness, differing from both sensation and conceptual awareness. It is a direct awareness of persisting things, of entities, discriminated from each other and from their backgrounds. The integration of sensory data into perceptual awareness, is done automatically by the brain and nervous system.

[...]

[here's the meaty part]:

Second, [perceptual awareness] is nonpropositional. Rand held that philosophers often confuse the character of the content of perceptual awareness- with the character of our (inevitably conceptual) description of the content of perceptual awareness.

Third, such awarenesses, Rand says, are unerring: they are neither true nor false, they just are." [A.Gotthelf]

----

So, a possible sticking point over perception -- the confusion between the character of the *content* - and the character of a (conceptual) *description* of such content. 

3

 

[regi]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

A “perception” is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things.

Hi Anthony,

Rand and company were completely wrong about the nature of perception. This is one example of part of her mistake. A philosopher must not claim the existence of something that is never described or explaned? Where, exactly does this mysterious integrating process reside? How does it work? What evidence is there that such a process exists and how does she know it? If something lies between sensation (which she also never clearly identifies) how can one be certain the "percepts" it produces are correct or reliable? To use Rand's expression, her answer to all these questions is, "blank out."

Please read the chapter, Perception, which explains everything wrong with Rand's view of perception as well as the true nature of perception.

Randy

 

[regi]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

From 'Ayn Rand's Theory of Concepts', by Allan Gotthelf

(A passage which I recently came across) adds interesting material.

"Consciousness, as Rand has put it, is metaphysically passive. It is however [...] epistemologically active. Consciousness, as a state of awareness, Rand writes, is not a passive state but an active process that consists of two essentials, differentiation and integration.

[...]

But at each of these levels [sensation, perception, conceptual knowledge], consciousness is directed outward at objects (or aspects thereof) that have an existence and a nature independent of that act of consciousness.

Perception is for Rand a distinct form of awareness, differing from both sensation and conceptual awareness. It is a direct awareness of persisting things, of entities, discriminated from each other and from their backgrounds. The integration of sensory data into perceptual awareness, is done automatically by the brain and nervous system.

[...]

[here's the meaty part]:

Second, [perceptual awareness] is nonpropositional. Rand held that philosophers often confuse the character of the content of perceptual awareness- with the character of our (inevitably conceptual) description of the content of perceptual awareness.

Third, such awarenesses, Rand says, are unerring: they are neither true nor false, they just are." [A.Gotthelf]

----

So. A sticking point and confusion over perception -- between the character of the *content* - and the character of a (conceptual) *description* of such content. 

Hi Anthony,

First if you want to know what Rand said, there is only one authority for that: Ayn Rand. Not Allan Gotthelf, or anyone else.

Second, though Rand was inconsistent about sensation, she did explicitly say that perception is the only kind of conscious awareness. Neither sensation or conception are modes of consciousness, contrary to Gotthelf's "for Rand a distinct form of awareness, differing from both sensation and conceptual awareness."

I have addressed every quote by Rand in your posts, and more, in the chapter, Perception.

If you choose to read it, I would appreciate any comments you might like to make. I've attempted to make the true nature of perception as clear and simple as possible, but I'm sure there are things I might have explained better. I'd love you comments and questions, either here, or in the commet form in the article.

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, regi said:

she did explicitly say that perception is the only kind of conscious awareness

Provide the quote

[regi]

52 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Provide the quote

"When we speak of 'direct perception' or 'direct awareness,' we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later; it is a scientific, conceptual discovery." [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Page 5]

"A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. [Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Page 5] [Emphasis mine.]

(I do not agree with the second quote, however.)

In the appendix of ITOE Rand explains that words are the perceptual part of concepts, the means by which we are conscious of concepts. There is no such thing as "conceptual" consciousness. I'll find it if you insist.

[KorbenDallas]

Here is the definition of explicitly from the 1828 Webster ( http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/explicitly ):

EXPLIC'ITLY, adverb Plainly; expressly; without duplicity; without disguise or reservation of meaning; not by inference or implication.

You still haven't provided a quote where, "[Rand] did explicitly say that perception is the only kind of conscious awareness."

[regi]

34 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

You still haven't provided a quote where, "[Rand] did explicitly say that perception is the only kind of conscious awareness."

I'm sorry if that doesn't satisfy you. I don't think it can be made any plainer.

I think when she wrote, by "'direct awareness,' we mean the perceptual level, " it is explicit. If you don't, then, well you don't. You have to come to your own conclusions about what she said means. We don't have to agree.

Randy

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, regi said:

There is no such thing as "conceptual" consciousness.

This from ITOE under Axiomatic Concepts:

This gives us a lead to another special aspect of axiomatic concepts: although they designate a fundamental metaphysical fact, axiomatic concepts are the products of an epistemological need—the need of a volitional, conceptual consciousness which is capable of error and doubt. An animal’s perceptual awareness does not need and could not grasp an equivalent of the concepts “existence,” “identity” and “consciousness”: it deals with them constantly, it is aware of existents, it recognizes various identities, but it takes them (and itself) as the given and can conceive of no alternative. It is only man’s consciousness, a consciousness capable of conceptual errors, that needs a special identification of the directly given, to embrace and delimit the entire field of its awareness—to delimit it from the void of unreality to which conceptual errors can lead. Axiomatic concepts are epistemological guidelines. They sum up the essence of all human cognition: something exists of which I am conscious; I must discover its identity.

 

[KorbenDallas]

What are the valid forms of art—and why these? . . . The proper forms of art present a selective re-creation of reality in terms needed by man’s cognitive faculty, which includes his entity-perceiving senses, and thus assist the integration of the various elements of a conceptual consciousness. Literature deals with concepts, the visual arts with sight and touch, music with hearing. Each art fulfills the function of bringing man’s concepts to the perceptual level of his consciousness and allowing him to grasp them directly, as if they were percepts. (The performing arts are a means of further concretization.) The different branches of art serve to unify man’s consciousness and offer him a coherent view of existence. Whether that view is true or false is not an esthetic matter. The crucially esthetic matter is psycho-epistemological: the integration of a conceptual consciousness.

“Art and Cognition,”
The Romantic Manifesto, 73

[regi]

3 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

This from ITOE under Axiomatic Concepts:

Yes, there are many contradictions in Rand's writings.

[regi]

2 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

The crucially esthetic matter is psycho-epistemological: the integration of a conceptual consciousness.

You quote Rand like a Christian quotes the Bible. If Rand says it, it must be true. I am totally familiar with Rand's inconsistencies. In one place she says there is no consciousness of sensations, and almost immediately afterwards she talks about a child's sensory experience.

I do not except Rand as an authority on anything. Here she happens to be wrong.

If you accept Rand as an authority, that is fine with me. I just don't happen to, but it shouldn't worry you any. Most people disagree with me and it doesn't worry me.

Randy

[jts]

6 minutes ago, regi said:

Yes, there are many contradictions in Rand's writings.

What kind of Randroid Objectivist are you?

Some years ago on a different Objectivist website (not OL) I wrote "Ayn Rand said x is not proof of x." I thought Ayn Rand probably would be the first to agree with that statement. But they all jumped on me.

 

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, regi said:

"When we speak of 'direct perception' or 'direct awareness,' we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later; it is a scientific, conceptual discovery." [Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Page 5]

"A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality. [Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Page 5] [Emphasis mine.]

(I do not agree with the second quote, however.)

In the appendix of ITOE Rand explains that words are the perceptual part of concepts, the means by which we are conscious of concepts. There is no such thing as "conceptual" consciousness. I'll find it if you insist.

If I have it right Rand didn't write any appendix to ITOE--that that is Peikoff's work. The other addendum would be Rand and some anon. having a discussion about epistemology. Again, by Peikoff (through his editing).

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

25 minutes ago, regi said:

I am totally familiar with Rand's inconsistencies. In one place she says there is no consciousness of sensations, and almost immediately afterwards she talks about a child's sensory experience.

I do not except Rand as an authority on anything. Here she happens to be wrong.

Randy

If you don't provide references your statement ends here where you made it with no existential value.

--Brant

not saying your statement is wrong

[Brant Gaede]

25 minutes ago, jts said:

What kind of Randroid Objectivist are you?

Some years ago on a different Objectivist website (not OL) I wrote "Ayn Rand said x is not proof of x." I thought Ayn Rand probably would be the first to agree with that statement. But they all jumped on me.

What's the reference? What's the actual Rand quote?

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

30 minutes ago, regi said:

You quote Rand like a Christian quotes the Bible. If Rand says it, it must be true. I am totally familiar with Rand's inconsistencies. In one place she says there is no consciousness of sensations, and almost immediately afterwards she talks about a child's sensory experience.

I do not except Rand as an authority on anything. Here she happens to be wrong.

If you accept Rand as an authority, that is fine with me. I just don't happen to, but it shouldn't worry you any. Most people disagree with me and it doesn't worry me.

Randy

Upthread you said this:

8 hours ago, regi said:

Hi Anthony,

First if you want to know what Rand said, there is only one authority for that: Ayn Rand. Not Allan Gotthelf, or anyone else.

So as a matter of refutation it sounded like you wanted some Rand quotes, so you don't anymore?

[regi]

35 minutes ago, jts said:

What kind of Randroid Objectivist are you?

I'm not an objectivist, or any other kind of, "-ist." I've studied Rand extensively but none of my views are determined anyone else. I find that Rand is wrong about many things, but I admire her intellect. I find most of her detractors are worse then Rand and seldome understand her.

NOTE: I think this response is to the wrong person, but I'll leave it.

Randy

[regi]

1 minute ago, KorbenDallas said:

So as a matter of refutation it sounded like you wanted some Rand quotes, so you don't anymore?

Of course not. Rand is the only authority on Rand, and I certainly don't mind quotes by her to illustrate what she wrote. I don't really object at all, I just do not agree something is true just because Rand said it. I don't question any of your quotes, I was only pointing out that she sometimes says something in one place that contradicts what she says in another place.

Randy

[jts]

10 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

What's the reference? What's the actual Rand quote?

--Brant

I was not quoting Rand. I wrote on a different Objectivist discussion place, not OL, as follows:

[  Ayn Rand said x is not proof of x.  ]

x is a variable that can be replace by anything, like in algebra.

They jumped on me. I thought that was cultish of them.

 

[Brant Gaede]

I may have not quite rightly jumped into this discussion with my remarks for I read this thread backwards commenting as I went.

My interest in epistemology (and metaphysics) is quite thin: reason and reality applied to generally accepted scientific methodology common to both science and Objectivism and I still don't understand how ITOE informs that which was already there. Common nouns are all concepts and perception is consciousness without words. (This last may be garbage; I just made it up as I "typed" it.)

--Brant