Absolute versus Objective

[Brant Gaede]

Gs, gs, gs. I'm going to start in with go--general objectivism. In go there is no gs. In gs there is no go. "No go" is about right.

--Brant

Look, we're trying to have a class in comparative philosophy here, keep it down, OK?

Nope. I've yet to see you put the actual wheels on gs. Did Korzybski?

--Brant

Edited May 10, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[tjohnson]

If abstraction is the human way to knowledge, what does the dog and cat do? The earthworm?

They also abstract, however, they do not and cannot know that they abstract because you need science to know this. To them, their objective level abstractions are all they know or care about.

[Brant Gaede]

If abstraction is the human way to knowledge, what does the dog and cat do? The earthworm?

They also abstract, however, they do not and cannot know that they abstract because you need science to know this. To them, their objective level abstractions are all they know or care about.

Or most people, too. Now, if I put my finger into my very hot frying pan accidentally I'll automatically jerk it back before anything reaches my brain. If I waited for the back and forth of that I'd get a bad burn. I don't think my finger did any abstraction but wasn't some kind of knowledge involved?

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Or most people, too. Now, if I put my finger into my very hot frying pan accidentally I'll automatically jerk it back before anything reaches my brain. If I waited for the back and forth of that I'd get a bad burn. I don't think my finger did any abstraction but wasn't some kind of knowledge involved?

--Brant

Your nervous system did do some abstracting - beginning with the nerve endings in your finger. And yes, this is the beginning of some knowledge. In the future you may associate the visual image of a frying pan with the memories of pain from the burnt finger. This is lower level, non-verbal knowledge.

[Brant Gaede]

Or most people, too. Now, if I put my finger into my very hot frying pan accidentally I'll automatically jerk it back before anything reaches my brain. If I waited for the back and forth of that I'd get a bad burn. I don't think my finger did any abstraction but wasn't some kind of knowledge involved?

--Brant

Your nervous system did do some abstracting - beginning with the nerve endings in your finger. And yes, this is the beginning of some knowledge. In the future you may associate the visual image of a frying pan with the memories of pain from the burnt finger. This is lower level, non-verbal knowledge.

Well, I can accept this explanation of abstraction. I always thought more narrowly as abstraction is verbal, period, but had no good concept of what was between sensory input and verbal. Keep this up and you'll turn into an Objectivist. How could you ever explain that to your gs friends?

--Brant

Edited May 10, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Or most people, too. Now, if I put my finger into my very hot frying pan accidentally I'll automatically jerk it back before anything reaches my brain. If I waited for the back and forth of that I'd get a bad burn. I don't think my finger did any abstraction but wasn't some kind of knowledge involved?

--Brant

Your nervous system did do some abstracting - beginning with the nerve endings in your finger. And yes, this is the beginning of some knowledge. In the future you may associate the visual image of a frying pan with the memories of pain from the burnt finger. This is lower level, non-verbal knowledge.

[Warning! Humor alert!] My problem is having actually put my finger into the hot frying pan my finger now won't let me put it into a cold one either.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

[Warning! Humor alert!] My problem is having actually put my finger into the hot frying pan my finger now won't let me put it into a cold one either.

--Brant

Yeah, I find this really hard with electrical circuits. Even though I know the power is off I usually touch the bare wires very quickly the first time.

[Christopher]

Since your definition of abstraction that does not include the conceptual mind is different than AR's definition of abstraction, could you define abstraction GS? I think we see very similarly on this issue even so.

[tjohnson]

Since your definition of abstraction that does not include the conceptual mind is different than AR's definition of abstraction, could you define abstraction GS? I think we see very similarly on this issue even so.

Hi Chris, did you manage to become the top poster? Here is an overview of 'abstraction';

• S: (n) abstraction, abstract (a concept or idea not associated with any specific instance) "he loved her only in the abstract--not in person"
• S: (n) abstraction (the act of withdrawing or removing something)
• S: (n) abstraction, generalization, generalisation (the process of formulating general concepts by abstracting common properties of instances)
• S: (n) abstraction (an abstract painting)
• S: (n) abstractedness, abstraction (preoccupation with something to the exclusion of all else)
• S: (n) abstraction, abstract entity (a general concept formed by extracting common features from specific examples)

Notice the 2nd line, this is how I use 'abstraction' in the case of neurons abstracting something from energies we are immersed in. In general semantics we say that humans abstract in different levels and so in line 3 above this is considered higher order or higher level abstracting. This is probably the one more commonly thought of.

Edited December 3, 2009 by general semanticist

[Christopher]

Hmmmm..

I'm not sure I would consider energies elicited by external objects through the senses to be abstractions of reality, but I would consider neuron activity related to those energies as dealing with abstractions. I might say that abstraction is when we organize energies (from the senses) into identifiable "objects." So white noise is not an abstraction because the hearing areas of the brain do not chunk the sounds into identifiable objects. White noise only becomes an abstraction when we label the noise "white noise." As for sight, the minute we detect an entity from the amalgamation of sensory input, that entity-detection is a form of abstraction. Until then, the amalgamation of inputs being received remains free of abstractions.

Is this what you are essentially saying?

[tjohnson]

Hmmmm..

I'm not sure I would consider energies elicited by external objects through the senses to be abstractions of reality, but I would consider neuron activity related to those energies as dealing with abstractions. I might say that abstraction is when we organize energies (from the senses) into identifiable "objects." So white noise is not an abstraction because the hearing areas of the brain do not chunk the sounds into identifiable objects. White noise only becomes an abstraction when we label the noise "white noise." As for sight, the minute we detect an entity from the amalgamation of sensory input, that entity-detection is a form of abstraction. Until then, the amalgamation of inputs being received remains free of abstractions.

Is this what you are essentially saying?

"I'm not sure I would consider energies elicited by external objects through the senses to be abstractions of reality"

No, no, me neither! The abstractions result from the effects these energies have on our nervous system. I would say the rest of your post is more or less in agreement with what I am saying.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The idea of arriving at a common ground on the meaning of abstraction is a very good idea.

Here are a few quick Rand quotes from the Lexicon:

Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

“The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,” The Romantic Manifesto, 23.

. . .

The act of isolation involved [in concept-formation] is a process of abstraction: i.e., a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.).

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 11.

. . .

The higher animals are able to perceive entities, motions, attributes, and certain numbers of entities. But what an animal cannot perform is the process of abstraction—of mentally separating attributes, motions or numbers from entities. It has been said that an animal can perceive two oranges or two potatoes, but cannot grasp the concept “two.”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 19.

Obviously, her meaning of abstraction was not simply an imprint on the nervous system from stimuli.

This should be kept in mind when discussing Rand.

Michael

[Christopher]

Thanks for posting this. Believe it or not, I have not read the Romantic Manifesto (I love the cool cover with the fiery woman though). Rand's definition of abstraction in R.M. seems to comply with what GS and I are speaking, but her use of abstraction in ITOE limits abstraction to cognition.

I wonder what Rand would consider regarding the process of entity-formation? Since it occurs automatically through perceptual vehicles and extremely archaic nervous system functioning, does this mean entity formation is on the same level as sensory energy awareness? I would have to disagree for obvious reasons - because there is still a vehicle of identification occurring, of "perceiving that which exists." Whatever the case, her ITOE definition is a subset of the action involved and encompassed by her R.M. definition.

[tjohnson]

Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.

See, I don't agree with this, if I understand it correctly. Anything we say about "what exists" is speculation and our abstractions are all we have to work with and can be verified by others. The entire endeavor called "science" is devoted to "what exists" and science tells us that "concretes" are not concrete at all. In fact matter is composed of energy and it only feels concrete becuse of limitations of our nervous systems. Of course, this is if she means what I think she means by 'concrete'.

[tjohnson]

Thanks for posting this. Believe it or not, I have not read the Romantic Manifesto (I love the cool cover with the fiery woman though). Rand's definition of abstraction in R.M. seems to comply with what GS and I are speaking, but her use of abstraction in ITOE limits abstraction to cognition.

There is no need to limit the meaning of 'abstraction' to a single situation. We may call it abstraction at the perception level and also at the conception level. Indeed, we may call it abstraction at the verbal level as well when we define terms and make inferences. The important thing is to know at which level we are discussing to avoid confusion.

[anonrobt]

Thanks for posting this. Believe it or not, I have not read the Romantic Manifesto (I love the cool cover with the fiery woman though). Rand's definition of abstraction in R.M. seems to comply with what GS and I are speaking, but her use of abstraction in ITOE limits abstraction to cognition.

There is no need to limit the meaning of 'abstraction' to a single situation. We may call it abstraction at the perception level and also at the conception level. Indeed, we may call it abstraction at the verbal level as well when we define terms and make inferences. The important thing is to know at which level we are discussing to avoid confusion.

In 'The difference of Man, And The Difference It Makes', Adler makes the claim for animals possessing 'perceptual abstractions' - but am not sure if Rand agreed with that, tho she did have the book on the NBI list....