What does it mean to perceive Objectively?

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

As I said earlier, to me entity is a holon with a lot of individual autonomy.

I like the term holon better for the wider term because it is well defined. Rand's use of the word "entity" was a bit uneven and this leads to confusion in our neck of the woods. For example, to her a dismembered leg was not an entity, but only a part of one. (I think this was mentioned in ITOE.) But that only works if you are using human being as the standard of entity. For a dog who comes along and carries off the leg bone, I see no reason to exclude the bone from entity status if you use the dog as a standard. To him it is an individual and complete piece of food with a specific nature. An entity.

This kind of thinking has led some people to argue that species (as in human species) does not exist as an entity. Only individuals do. And there their ontological and biological thinking stops. The idea with this manner of thinking appears to be to avoid collectivism at all costs, even to the point of fudging biology.

So in order to claim, without a lot of tiresome hairsplitting over semantics, that the human species exists as an individual system with distinct characteristics as opposed to other species (but also fits into a bigger system), I prefer the term holon to entity as a way of naming all organized wholes.

Maybe the universe (the exception as an organized whole) is not a holon since there is nothing bigger, but maybe it folds in on itself like a circle.

Michael

Yes. I see the words as obvious synonyms, but can understand why you might want to avoid needless confrontations dogmatic ontological anti-"collectivists." Rand's point with the leg as not an entity, just a part of an entity, only applies if one looks at the leg in an arbitrary context. Your dog example is a perfect illustration of when it does become proper to regard it as an entity, just as it would be in a murder investigation, or if chickens started ordering them at Kenclucky Fried Human, and so forth. I would simply identify an entity as anything that can be treated as a whole having predicable attributes as a whole. A pile of sand would be a good borderline case.

You are also correct to treat the human species as an entity. It evolves.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

It has been years since I have seen a copy of Ghost in the Machine (although it was discussed a bit here on OL a while back, with some excerpts on holon given), but you might be interested in a detail. I say this because you like the classics. If my memory does not fail me, I think I remember Koestler using a picture of Janus's head, but with Janus laying down so he is looking up and down instead of front and back, to illustrate the concept of how we should think about holons.

I want to reread that thing sometime. (And The Act of Creation, for that matter. Koestler had an amazing intellect.)

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

It has been years since I have seen a copy of Ghost in the Machine (although it was discussed a bit here on OL a while back, with some excerpts on holon given), but you might be interested in a detail. I say this because you like the classics. If my memory does not fail me, I think I remember Koestler using a picture of Janus's head, but with Janus laying down so he is looking up and down instead of front and back, to illustrate the concept of how we should think about holons.

I want to reread that thing sometime. (And The Act of Creation, for that matter. Koestler had an amazing intellect.)

Michael

Yes, Koestler is good. Rogerr Bissell bought me a copy of The Act of Creation. I have, but have not read Ghost in the Machine yet in full.

[Christopher]

This is turning out to be an incredibly fruitful discussion. My brain hurts.

Regarding comments about multiple holons existing in parallel (i.e. pluralistically), my simple point is that our perception of universal organization (I'm no longer arguing against the universe having structure) is based on perceptions of those structures. Since multiple structures exist, many of which we do not perceive, we are in a position of acknowledging that perception of those structures we do perceive is a function of our species. That is not to say that our perception is ontologically subjective (I did suggest that our perception was totally subjective earlier, but you are turning me around); rather, the systems we do perceive are based on the observer, on us humans seeing those systems. If a different organism perceives, it may perceive different holarchies - because the universe includes multiple holarchies, many of which we don't perceive. Therefore, we still have to take observer into account in order to know what structures (holarchies) are perceived. You also hinted at this when talking about ephemeral sensing of the environment - that some people could be evolving slightly differently than other.

As an aside, I tried to learn more about epistemology this evening reading Robert Campbell's "Jean Piaget's Genetic Epistemology: Appreciation and Critique," in which Campbell discusses Piaget's claims alongside Rand's assertions of epistemology. For those interested (it's more focused on conception and not perception): http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/piaget.html

I also did a search for Wilber's epistemology, and he is far out there. I've copied some statements regarding his theory. I have yet to explore these assertions in depth, but it is food for thought:

http://newworldview.com/library/Helfrich_P...s_of_Wilber.pdf ---

[Wilber has begun] defining the basic "unit" or "process" of reality as holons to innate perspectives. "If the universe is composed of sentient beings or holons (all the way up, all the way down) - and not merely things nor events nor processes nor systems - then the 'stuff' of the universe is perspectives, not mass nor energy nor force nor feelings nor perception nor consciousness (all of which are always already a perspective." "Moving from perceptions to perspectives is the first radical step in the move from metaphysics to post-metaphysics."

The nature of this moment perceives, grasps, or prehends various phenomena; these perceptions or moments of bare attention are the 'building blocks' of a sentient, panpsychic world; the resultant netword of perceptions is an Indra's Net of mutually perceiving and interdependent relationships. "But there are no perceptions anywhere in the real world; there are only perspectives. A subject perceiving an object is always already in a relationship of first-person, second-person, and third-person when it comes to the perceived occasions. If the manifest world is inedeed panpsychic- or built of sentient beings (all the way up, all the way down) - then the manifest world is built of perspectives, not perceptions... Subjects don't prehend objects anywhere in the universe; rather, first persons prehend second persons or third persons; perceptions are always within actual perspectives. 'Subject perceiving object'... is not a raw given but a low-order abstraction that already tears the fabric of the [universe] in ways that cannot easily be repaired.

"Even if we say, with the materialist, that the world is composed of nothing but physical atoms, nonetheless 'atom' is already a third-person symbol being perceived by a first-person sentient being. And if we try to picture an actual atom, that too is a third-person entity prehended by a first person. In other words, even 'atom' is not an entity, or even a perception, but a perspective, within which a perception occurs (i.e. all perceptions and feelings are always already within the space of an actual perspecive). But surely, the critics would say, we can still imagine a time that there were only atoms, not humans, and therefore atoms existed without arising in a human perspective. (That again is still a third-person image held by a first-person awareness; but let's imagine that we can imagine a time without human perspectives.) It is true there was a time before humans emerged. But if the world is actually panpsychic, then each atom had a rudimentary awareness or proto-experience of other atoms, and hence a first atom aware of a second atom is already and actually a first person in touch with a second person. In other words, these perspectives are indigenous to all sentient beings; if sentient beings go all the way down, so do perspectives. Thus, sentient beings and perspectives, not consciousness and pheonomena, are the 'stuff' of the [universe]."

"A perception, as we were saying, is not really an experience but an abstraction, and this is one of the reasons that the old metaphysical systems fall apart when scrutinized. Perception secretly privileges abstract objects; perspective privileges sentient beings."

--My God, this guy has a vision.

Christopher

[Christopher]

This topic needs updating because I think the approaches discussed by all of us failed to take into account something that many developmental psychologists propose today: perception and conception influence each other mutually.

Here are what those psychologists have to say on the subject:

Perception influences conception which in turn influences perception

Perception automatically seeks whole units

Two forms of perception: active (focusing) and passive (discrimination)

Gibson: We see what we can act upon and with given situational goal demands (similar to Heidegger I think)

Vygotsky: goals, values, and motivation are inseparable from cognitive activity

Miller: Culture focuses attention and process/thinking demands, which in turn train us to develop different mental systems

I was thinking of just such an example that fits this information: suppose a toddler looks at a car. What an experience! There is a spinning wheel, a moving hulk, another spinning wheel. Focus jumps from part to part of the vehicle, but only if the implicit concept "car" exists, or the sense of a car identity or whatever you want to call it exists, the child sees a whole slew of independent moving objects, but no single entity that we as adults would identify as "car."

Here is an example in reverse of the car example above: If I look at my ceiling, a see a ceiling with three lamps. I do not identify the glass in the lamps as independent objects, nor the screws that hold the lamps to the ceiling. I have to change my focus, my way of looking at the ceiling and lamps, to look inside the unit lamp in order to see the constituent parts of that unit. My discriminations change with my focus.

In this sense, the universe is an amalgamation of data... data that can certainly be understood, but that depends on one's conceptual level to determine how one focuses on reality, how one aims the discrimating mechanism, so-to-speak. Involved is also the process of motivation, of goals that further direct focusing and awareness. Thus, can we agree perception does depend on the observer?

Christopher

Edited June 5, 2009 by Christopher

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Christopher,

I just saw a 90 Frontline film called The Persuaders. It's about advertising, but one person who was interviewed really caught my attention: Clotaire Rapaille.

His theory is that certain words (and concepts, from what I have been able to discern) come with an emotional impact when we first encounter them and this impact never goes away. He calls this the "reptilian code" (meaning the understanding and associations working in the reptilian part of the human brain).

So when we encounter this word or concept in reality, we filter perception of it according to a template (he calls it archetype) learned in our infancy. Once we act on that knowledge in society, it becomes a cultural archetype.

One of his most obvious examples is the consumption on the SUV in America. The "reptilian code" for that product is "domination." People who consume it are those who like to dominate. Thus SUV's are oversized, have tinted windows, etc., and the advertising for them stress domination. (I certainly can't think of any rational reason for the majority of people to use one of those things in a big city once you eliminate the domination idea.) According to Rapaille, getting the code wrong results in market disasters regardless of how good a product may be, say, a low-priced Cadillac.

Also, apparently we perceive people who drive SUV's with a little more authority than they really have by any other standard. They even perceive themselves more that way once they own one.

In the film, I also liked how advertising clutter is turning into advertising's biggest problem, yet the only solution is more clutter. This has led advertisers to seek other forms of expression where they study precisely what you are talking about (mostly so they can sell more crap to the unaware ).

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Christopher,

I just saw a 90 Frontline film called The Persuaders. It's about advertising, but one person who was interviewed really caught my attention: Clotaire Rapaille.

His theory is that certain words (and concepts, from what I have been able to discern) come with an emotional impact when we first encounter them and this impact never goes away. He calls this the "reptilian code" (meaning the understanding and associations working in the reptilian part of the human brain).

So when we encounter this word or concept in reality, we filter perception of it according to a template (he calls it archetype) learned in our infancy. Once we act on that knowledge in society, it becomes a cultural archetype.

One of his most obvious examples is the consumption on the SUV in America. The "reptilian code" for that product is "domination." People who consume it are those who like to dominate. Thus SUV's are oversized, have tinted windows, etc., and the advertising for them stress domination. (I certainly can't think of any rational reason for the majority of people to use one of those things in a big city once you eliminate the domination idea.) According to Rapaille, getting the code wrong results in market disasters regardless of how good a product may be, say, a low-priced Cadillac.

Also, apparently we perceive people who drive SUV's with a little more authority than they really have by any other standard. They even perceive themselves more that way once they own one.

In the film, I also liked how advertising clutter is turning into advertising's biggest problem, yet the only solution is more clutter. This has led advertisers to seek other forms of expression where they study precisely what you are talking about (mostly so they can sell more crap to the unaware ).

Michael

My mother likes her SUV because its easy to get in and out of. My Father likes the fact that it is cheaper than a car, being less regulated. (He owns a regular car with better milage for long trips.) It was federal regualtion of the automotive industry that created the "sports utility vehicle" as a class of less regulated vehicles. The left, having created this monster, now complains that people have flocked, for all sorts of valifd reasons, to buy their creation. I'll tell my parents that they need to get tattoos, and buy wife beaters, ghetto blasters and gold chains, since they obviously don't realize that they bought their white SUV with its untinted windows to satisfy their "urge to dominate."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Did that observation from a non-leftist marketing expert who earns oodles and oodles of dollars from SUV manufacturers threaten you?

Why not talk to the guys who contracted him and paid the big bucks for this observation and tell them that his campaign didn't work on your parents?

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

Did that observation from a non-leftist marketing expert who earns oodles and oodles of dollars from SUV manufacturers threaten you?

Michael

I live in NYC and don't own a car. You can use quote marks more carefully, if your remarks were sarcastic I missed it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I edited my post since you responded.

My remarks were not sarcastic. I like to learn. I find these things fascinating, especially when I see evidence of success. When I left the USA, things like SUV's were considered cumbersome by most people. (I mean the size of vehicle since I don't remember the term SUV being in use. They were called just vans back then.)

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I edited my post since you responded.

My remarks were not sarcastic. I like to learn. I find these things fascinating, especially when I see evidence of success. When I left the USA, things like SUV's were considered cumbersome by most people. (I mean the size of vehicle since I don't remember the term SUV being in use. They were called just vans back then.)

Michael

Exactly. The category SUV is an Orwellian bureaucratese neologism. It was created to refer to a class of vehicles which would be exempt from milage and other regulations. Not a real distinction, just a legislative one. People who would before have bought station wagons (they are extinct, the less regulated SUV killed them off) now buy SUV's. Technically, SUV's aren't considered cars, but station wagons are.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I didn't know about the regulatory things. But what does all that have to do with the advertising and manufacturing campaigns by companies that make SUVs originating from the hiring of Mr. Rapaille—the entire domination approach?

I believe his consumer targeting theories have merit. At least his results are very impressive.

And I believe this is germane to the discussion of perception and cognition.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Apropos of SUV's per se, I find it very fishy that GM is going bankrupt with the figures I heard on Fox News the other night. What I heard was that GM has 150 million vehicles on the roads, but has cut back dealerships to about 13,000. All the other foreign manufacturers combined have about 80 million vehicles on the road but have more dealerships than that (if I remember correctly, and I can't remember the number quoted). GM flounders. The foreign manufacturers flourish.

Seeing that no one was forced to buy the 150 million vehicles, that fact alone is a good indication of some major monkeyshines in the works.

I don't think everything is being reported on this mess.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

I didn't know about the regulatory things. But what does all that have to do with the advertising and manufacturing campaigns by companies that make SUVs originating from the hiring of Mr. Rapaille—the entire domination approach?

I believe his consumer targeting theories have merit. At least his results are very impressive.

And I believe this is germane to the discussion of perception and cognition.

Michael

First explain to me why you have not seen one attractive, non-foolish, blond male in a TV commercial since 1986.

[Christopher]

Michael,

Absolutely lovely post on The Persuaders. I just finished 2/3rds of it. I'm going to buy Rapaille's book. Just to stay on Rapaille for a moment, much psychology research points out that we make countless unconsciously-motivated decisions, then support those decisions with seemingly "rational" explanations (although the explanations are effects from the decision, not causes). Since this happens automatically, it becomes very difficult to spot whether we are influenced from unconscious or conscious forces. Actually, this is primarly the field I am familiar with in my own psychology readings - the differences and effects on mind and behavior of conscious and unconscious values. My favorite quote from Rapaille : I don't listen to what people say. ;)

I once audited a class on Emotion taught by Robert Zajonc at Stanford (Zajonc is 33rd most influential Psychologist of all time according to some measure or other). He said this: it is impossible to perceive something and not have an emotional activation. His basic research and literature described the brain as having both a "cognitive" and an "emotional" part which were neurologically distinct from one another, yet always operating in parallel - of two minds, so-to-speak. These minds communicated back and forth constantly. Therefore (in my own words), emotions of themselves are not the results of cognitive evaluative judgments... this is a good way to think about it, but emotions actually operate according to networks of associations linked primarily to unconscious motivations.

Chris