Science and philosophy? Or philosophy and science?

[anonrobt]

So many good books... so little time... :shifty:

[Guyau]

Professor Craver will be speaking tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. on the topic:

“Laws, Models, and Mechanistic Explanation”

Some Lessons from 20th Century Electrophysiology

University of Chicago

Social Sciences Research Bldg

1126 E. 59th Street, Room 224

[BaalChatzaf]

So many good books... so little time... :shifty:

And just as well. Stephen's recommendations have cost me several hundred dollars. Not that I mind. I just have to read faster to catch up.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

What a wonderful thread.

[BaalChatzaf]

2) To explain the true meanings of words.

That pretty much wraps it up. Are either of these tasks empirically testable? Not that I can see. Do Objectivists aim at testable theories? Not if they can possibly help it.

In response to #2 above, there are no true meanings to words, there are only conventional meanings.

And you sure are right about Objectivists not producing testable theories.

That is why Karl Popper is frequently used as a punching bag in Objectivist discourses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I don't know how I missed this thread. I haven't read Churchland, but I've thought about it. Patricia Churchland has worked with Antonio Damasio so there might be some intellectual cross-pollination there.

Initial thoughts-

Cognitive operation and how we direct it are often two separate issues:

Damasio comments that humans have core consciousness located in the anterior cingulate and then layered on top of that is extended consciousness which includes all sorts of sensory modalities, associative networks, reason and emotion integration etc.

He also comments that we process our experience through a narrative of mental images.

Cognitive operations and how they work are largely hidden from us. Jeff Hawkins' memory prediction framework explains how we perform pattern recognition within a given neocortical layer and then then pass the information up to the next layer. This dovetials nicely with Rand's theory of measurement omission and concept formation. The likely biological apparatus for measurement omission is sensory invariant representation.

2 things Rand got substantially right:

Jamesian view of focus and attention as being paramount in the account of free will.

Measurement omission as being key to concept formation.

I believe the combination of the consciousness-narrative view and the memory prediction view schematically account for a large part of what we do while we are thinking.

I believe that philosophy or protophilosophy informs the syntactical operation of how we manipulate our mental images. However, our dominant thinking styles are formed fairly early, so an attempt at significant reprogramming rather than augmentation is often a huge exercise in folly. Often the catalyst for our preferred modes of syntactical operation are influenced by how we first learn to deal with language.

Harrison and Bramson outline 5 major modes of syntactical operation in identifying different thinking styles that are present in Western societies in their landmark book: The Art of Thinking

I think that Chris Sciabarra was right about Rand's method not in terms of explicit philosophy, but in terms of one of her two preferred modes of syntactical operation. I think aspect of her creativity are largely dialectical or as Harrison and Bramson would categorize it: synthesist.

Often other schools of philosophy are not born out of a correspondence to reality, but an expression of mental syntactical method.

When Rand switched from fiction to nonfiction and after her first seminal essays were completed the analytical part of her thinking style took over.

I think the ARI/TOC divide is about much more than personalities. ARI tends to house analytical types. IOS/TAS/TOC tends to house Objectivists who find a purely analytical style stultifying. ARI Objectivists often also misunderstand the source of Nathaniel Branden's genius. I think he is predominantly a synthesist thinker. Peikoff on the other hand is predominantly analytical.

My guess is that Rand and Branden in addition to having personal conflicts, found themselves increasingly intellectually out of tune in the mid 1960's as Rand switched to a more predominantly analytical style of thinking and Branden ramped up his synthesist style in pursuing his interests in psychology.

Anyway, that's enough musings for now. I hope someone will pick up something in this post and run with it.

Jim

Edited June 12, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My guess is that Rand and Branden in addition to having personal conflicts, found themselves increasingly intellectually out of tune in the mid 1960's as Rand switched to a more predominantly analytical style of thinking and Branden ramped up his synthesist style in pursuing his interests in psychology.

Jim,

That is one of the most interesting and original thoughts on the Rand-Branden romance break-up I have heard in about 4 years.

It rings true.

At least that is how I would feel in his shoes, especially after listening to Rand say things like she hated psychology and believed was a sewer—and I was devoting my life to it. See here:

Judgement Day (p 116):

Usually we talked philosophy, in part because that was where Ayn had most to say. Sometimes, she would remark, "I really don't know much about psychology. I leave that sewer to you, Nathan."

She was constructing a philosophical system and yet, by her own statement, knew almost nothing about psychology. It did not occur to me that this lack was dangerous to her intellectual efforts, as well as to Barbara and me. Her attitude was, in effect, that rational minds do not require psychology; philosophy is enough; psychology is essentially for pathology—that is, for the irrational. I argued with her about this and she would always concede that I was right: "Yes, of course, Nathan, we all have a psychology, and the operations of the mind do need to be studied, but . . ." And a week or two later she would say, "Oh, how I hate your profession, Nathan, how I hate the irrational, how I hate having to deal with it or struggle to understand it."

(I don't know the corresponding place in MYWAR.)

This might not be exact since Nathaniel is going on memory, but it does accurately represent a general attitude present in Rand's writing.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I think a lot of Rand's disdain for psychology had a couple of causes:

1. The state of psychology in the 1960's was very primitive.

2. Psychology for Rand was mostly about thinking and Rand had an unusual psychology in that a lot of her own cognitive operations were more transparent to her than they are to most of us. Evolution has carefully hidden many of our cognitive operations in the interest of keeping us focused on our external environment. I believe the measurement omission introspection story. If our thoughts were more transparent to us, we would be less interested in psychoanalysis.

Jim

Edited June 12, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael,

I will also say this. Many people on the open system side of the divide devalue linear, analytical thinking. I think Rand entrusted her philosophy to Peikoff for a reason. He's extraordinarily adept at operating within the system. ARI-trained academics are very effective at teaching Objectivism as a whole system and very good at boiling down concepts to as simple and cognitively economical formulations as they can.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jim,

I am far from an either-or thinker on this. I also use Rand's manner of analysis and I basically agree with your comments on the correct parts of ITOE.

But look at the other end. I imagine if Nathaniel had told her he would leave the sewer of writing novels to her, that he hated fiction writing because it was not reality, etc., that would have started a wedge between them.

To me it doesn't matter who was wrong. I think your comment is spot on about incompatibility of approach (added to the disdain Rand displayed for psychology) being a separating factor in their relationship.

Even on looking on Rand's side, there is a separating force. If Branden's account accurately depicts her attitude toward psychology (and I believe it does from the works by her I have read), I don't think it is a stretch to imagine her deeply concerned and hurt at times by his pursuit of what she thought was nonsense and trash.

It is difficult to maintain a harmonious relationship when one (or both) of the parties does not believe in the career and/or intellectual values of the other.

That's just common sense.

If we are ever going to truly understand Rand and her life, we have to stop the blame game and simply look at causality. That, I hold, will uncover more wealth for thought than most people imagine.

Here's a thought for you. Suppose Rand did not hold disdain for psychology. Would she have then been able to create her villains with the... er... brilliant psychological laser targeting on specific parts that she did get right? I personally don't think so.

Rand's attitude leads to the following question. Why do people have to get wound up in a certain manner to do brilliant things?

This is just as much an issue for cognitive science as studying the behavior of synapses. And this certainly is more valuable to probe than imagining that people are attacking Rand from underneath every rock just because they mention something rude she said.

Hell, she was rude. I even saw it once with my own eyes at the Ford Hall Forum.

So what?

She was a brilliant producer.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

I am far from an either-or thinker on this. I also use Rand's manner of analysis and I basically agree with your comments on the correct parts of ITOE.

But look at the other end. I imagine if Nathaniel had told her he would leave the sewer of writing novels to her, that he hated fiction writing because it was not reality, etc., that would have started a wedge between them.

To me it doesn't matter who was wrong. I think your comment is spot on about incompatibility of approach (added to the disdain Rand displayed for psychology) being a separating factor in their relationship.

Even on looking on Rand's side, there is a separating force. If Branden's account accurately depicts her attitude toward psychology (and I believe it does from the works by her I have read), I don't think it is a stretch to imagine her deeply concerned and hurt at times by his pursuit of what she thought was nonsense and trash.

It is difficult to maintain a harmonious relationship when one (or both) of the parties does not believe in the career and/or intellectual values of the other.

That's just common sense.

Michael

I agree that it's common sense.

Michael, I don't fault the synthesist style of thinking, how could I, it's my dominant mode of thinking. Part of the reason I value analytical thinking is that it isn't my natural mode and I value any development in it that I can accomplish.

Jim

Edited June 12, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

I am far from an either-or thinker on this. I also use Rand's manner of analysis and I basically agree with your comments on the correct parts of ITOE.

But look at the other end. I imagine if Nathaniel had told her he would leave the sewer of writing novels to her, that he hated fiction writing because it was not reality, etc., that would have started a wedge between them.

To me it doesn't matter who was wrong. I think your comment is spot on about incompatibility of approach (added to the disdain Rand displayed for psychology) being a separating factor in their relationship.

Even on looking on Rand's side, there is a separating force. If Branden's account accurately depicts her attitude toward psychology (and I believe it does from the works by her I have read), I don't think it is a stretch to imagine her deeply concerned and hurt at times by his pursuit of what she thought was nonsense and trash.

It is difficult to maintain a harmonious relationship when one (or both) of the parties does not believe in the career and/or intellectual values of the other.

That's just common sense.

If we are ever going to truly understand Rand and her life, we have to stop the blame game and simply look at causality. That, I hold, will uncover more wealth for thought than most people imagine.

Here's a thought for you. Suppose Rand did not hold disdain for psychology. Would she have then been able to create her villains with the... er... brilliant psychological laser targeting on specific parts that she did get right? I personally don't think so.

Rand's attitude leads to the following question. Why do people have to get wound up in a certain manner to do brilliant things?

This is just as much an issue for cognitive science as studying the behavior of synapses. And this certainly is more valuable to probe than imagining that people are attacking Rand from underneath every rock just because they mention something rude she said.

Hell, she was rude. I even saw it once with my own eyes at the Ford Hall Forum.

So what?

She was a brilliant producer.

Michael

I am trying to stop the blame game and I do look at causality. I also think the undiscovered country is out beyond Rand, Branden, Peikoff and Kelley. I also am starting to see where you're coming from and why. I don't think that all brilliant producers get wound up to do their best stuff, but some have to to turn their brain on.

Jim

Edited June 12, 2009 by James Heaps-Nelson

[anonrobt]

Interesting thoughts here...

[kiaer.ts]

2) To explain the true meanings of words.

That pretty much wraps it up. Are either of these tasks empirically testable? Not that I can see. Do Objectivists aim at testable theories? Not if they can possibly help it.

In response to #2 above, there are no true meanings to words, there are only conventional meanings.

And you sure are right about Objectivists not producing testable theories.

That is why Karl Popper is frequently used as a punching bag in Objectivist discourses.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Interesting. So, if there are no true meanings of words (by which I take it, is meant concepts do not have objective meanings) then its quite pointless to argue about the meanings of the words "god" or "selfishness," to worry about the Millenium Falcon making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, or to say that evolution means the change in gene composition of a population through time, when, according to convention, black people have dark skin because they have inherited their ancestors sun burns. (Yes, that's not only false, most people do believe its true.) Rand was wrong all along, discourse is not an epistemic, but a democrtaic process. Let's kill the scientists, and conduct opinion polls?

As for Objectivism making predictions, since words have no true meanings, why should it? We just need better press agents, no? Kolker actually seems to be complimenting Objectivism here. It is scientific theories, not philosophical systems that Popper expects to make predictions. So maybe Kolker sees Objectivism as a rival to hard scienece. (Not that Objectivism does, but its nice of Bob to think so.) In any case, Objectivism does make implicit predictions.

Take Rand's theory of concepts. It follows that the brain mechanism behind concept formation will be hierarchical, will show feature invarience, etc., and that fits quite nicely with the science of Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence. Also, since the mind/body dichotomy is false, Objectivism's theory of emotions fits quite nicely with D'amasio's work. I am constantly struck by the congruences. Shame Bob only reads math books.

[Guyau]

Brain Default Network

Tina Hesman Saey

Science News 7/18/09

“Many scientists believe the default network has two major hubs, one in the posterior cingulate cortex with the precuneus and one in the medial prefrontal cortex.”

“The default mode network sometimes stirs during monotonous tasks, drawing away a person’s attention. Such reactivation of the network predicted errors up to 30 seconds before a person made a mistake, . . .”

A Default Mode of Brain Function: A Brief History of an Evolving Idea

Marcus Raichle and Abraham Snyder

NeuroImage (2007)

Abstract

The concept of a default mode of brain function arose out of a focused need to explain the appearance of activity decreases in functional neuroimaging data when the control state was passive visual fixation or eyes closed resting. The problem was particularly compelling because these activity decreases were remarkably consistent across a wide variety of task conditions. Using PET, we determined that these activity decreases did not arise from activations in the resting state. Hence, their presence implied the existence of a default mode. While the unique constellation of brain areas provoking this analysis has come to be known as the default system, all areas of the brain have a high level of organized default functional activity. Most critically, this work has called attention to the importance of intrinsic functional activity in assessing brain behavior relationships.

Evidence for a Frontoparietal Control System Revealed by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity

Vincent et al. (2008)

Abstract

Two functionally distinct, and potentially competing, brain networks have been recently identified that can be broadly distinguished by their contrasting roles in attention to the external world versus internally directed mentation involving long-term memory. At the core of these two networks are the dorsal attention system and the hippocampal-cortical memory system, a component of the brain's default network. Here spontaneous blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) signal correlations were used in three separate functional magnetic resonance imaging data sets (n = 105) to define a third system, the frontoparietal control system, which is spatially interposed between these two previously defined systems. The frontoparietal control system includes many regions identified as supporting cognitive control and decision-making processes including lateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and inferior parietal lobule. Detailed analysis of frontal and parietal cortex, including use of high-resolution data, revealed clear evidence for contiguous but distinct regions: in general, the regions associated with the frontoparietal control system are situated between components of the dorsal attention and hippocampal-cortical memory systems. The frontoparietal control system is therefore anatomically positioned to integrate information from these two opposing brain systems.

Cortical Hubs Revealed by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity: Mapping, Assessment of Stability, and Relation to Alzheimer's Disease

Bruckner et al (2009)

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests that some brain areas act as hubs interconnecting distinct, functionally specialized systems. These nexuses are intriguing because of their potential role in integration and also because they may augment metabolic cascades relevant to brain disease. . . . Prominent hubs were located within posterior cingulate, lateral temporal, lateral parietal, and medial/lateral prefrontal cortices. Network analysis revealed that many, but not all, hubs were located within regions previously implicated as components of the default network. . . .

[BaalChatzaf]

Take Rand's theory of concepts. It follows that the brain mechanism behind concept formation will be hierarchical, will show feature invarience, etc., and that fits quite nicely with the science of Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence. Also, since the mind/body dichotomy is false, Objectivism's theory of emotions fits quite nicely with D'amasio's work. I am constantly struck by the congruences. Shame Bob only reads math books.

I read physics papers too. I don't read very much psychology, which I consider a pseudo science.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Guyau]

Animate here, Inanimate there

Jenny Lauren Lee

Science News – 8/15/09

[Philip Coates]

I'm looking at the original issue which launched this thread, way back in 2006: Which "comes first", understanding of science or understanding of philosophy. And looking at the Rand quote from ITOE in which she argues that philosophical knowledge can be had without requiring knowledge of science: "Philosophy by its nature has to be based only on that which is available to the knowledge of any man with a normal mental equipment."

I was shocked by how universal was the disagreement with Rand by people arguing that science comes first, or is vitally necessary before you can come up with, presumably, the basic principles of Oist metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics.

Rand's answer is **a very general answer** [i wish I had the question she was responding to in front of me, as that might be relevant in providing the context in which she was answering]. As usual, she is thinking and answering in essentials. By "science" is meant the technical fields, the study of biology, physics, chemistry that you do in high school. Or the more advanced knowledge of professionals in the human sciences or the physical or life sciences.

She does NOT mean one doesn't need *any knowledge whatsoever of reality* held even by the layman in order to reach (the basics of) Objectivism.

Example: In order to determine that man's fundamental choice is existence or non-existence, one does not need to understand the insights of cognitive science or have taken a psychology or biology course. One merely has to observe the men around one. A farmer or illiterate peasant of sufficient intellect or focus could do it.

The same with concluding that man must live by reason, be in focus, have rights, pursue his own self-interest.

Yes, there might be a technical issue in the application of philosophy or in going into greater detail that requires one knowing the research into how many units a crow or a man can hold in short term memory. But, if you read Rand a lot - or take the Peikoff courses. where this explained and she vetted! - you know that is not what she was talking about above.

,,,,

I didn't want to reopen this whole thing, but we're in BIG TROUBLE if people at this late date too often don't get the manner in which Rand essentializes or speaks in very broad, sweeping terms, expecting exceptions or 'boundary conditions' to be supplied by the listener who understands Oism. Or don't ever hear the qualifications or context that Peikoff supplies in a more formal context than a relatively short answer Q&A.

Remember the broad context, the scope, the amount of ground she is trying to cover in fundamental essays. Many, many short statements that Rand makes in one of her essays (or, worse, a Q&A, even on a technical topic) could be elaborated upon, the context given, the sense in which she uses 'rights' or 'science' or 'doing philosophy' expanded upon.

[Brant Gaede]

Of course philosophy comes first if you break it down academically. No reason, no science. The scientific method is just a particular way of using reason with data referencing physical reality. The real big problem is you cannot in most institutions of higher learning get a good, basic grounding in science from the liberal arts curriculum, not to mention good philosophy too.

--Brant

[Guyau]

Following on #125, I see that Professor Craver will be one of the speakers at the session on “Causation and Explanation in the Mind/Brain Sciences” at the 2009 Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association. The session will be 6:30–9:30 p.m. on the 27th of December. The other speaker will be John Campbell. Commentator for both papers will be Richard Samuels.

The session of the Ayn Rand Society will be the following day.

[Guyau]

Self-Awareness Deficit and Autistic Brain

[anonrobt]

Self-Awareness Deficit and Autistic Brain

Interesting...

[BaalChatzaf]

Self-Awareness Deficit and Autistic Brain

Aha! That gives me a clue to why I have so much trouble with introspection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anonrobt]

Self-Awareness Deficit and Autistic Brain

Aha! That gives me a clue to why I have so much trouble with introspection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You really don't see yourself?

What, then, do you see?

[BaalChatzaf]

Self-Awareness Deficit and Autistic Brain

Aha! That gives me a clue to why I have so much trouble with introspection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You really don't see yourself?

What, then, do you see?

Do you ask a blind man what he sees? I am an Aspergarian. I am mostly mind blind. I do not read other people and their intentions very well and I am unable to dig very far into myself either. What is see is what I get.

Ba'al Chatzaf