Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[tjohnson]

You are talking about the audiovisual language symbol "pencil" labeling a category.

But when it comes to identifying a pencil out of a group of other objects, it is accomplished by differentiation.

OK, you are speaking about identifying a particular member of a set. I was referring to creation of criteria to establish membership in the set.

[Selene]

You are talking about the audiovisual language symbol "pencil" labeling a category.

But when it comes to identifying a pencil out of a group of other objects, it is accomplished by differentiation.

OK, you are speaking about identifying a particular member of a set. I was referring to creation of criteria to establish membership in the set.

GS:

I have a perfect icon for this post and it is zaftig (zoftig) — plump, rounded, full-breasted or full-figured. This is from the German saftig, meaning 'juicy', and was probably introduced into English via Yiddish.

Adam

chuckling to himself

[Xray]

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivi...t=0entry83231 post # 3)

No, you didn't. You did not explain how knowledge of axioms precedes all sensory input. But I look forward to your trying to explain it.

Look again. Since it's Rand's idea which you apparently accept, why don't you explain it?

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge." (Rand)

Ms. Xray:

"Per Rand, an axiom is "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not.

An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." (Rand)"

From that same post that you so conveniently provided. Care to re-read it again?

Adam

I learned to track prey from a full blooded Cherokee Ms. Xray

Your point being? Now that you have the whole quote, do you think it will make explaining how on earth an axiom can "identify the base of knowledge" any easier?

How can something of which it is claimed that it can identify the base of knowledge be of validity if it is not subject to proof and disproof?

How does this "identification" work?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

For instance, if I identify a post as being by X-Ray, I immediately know that it not worth paying attention to.

In short, you are claiming knowledge without verifying first.

My approach is different; I read posts before commenting on them.

I have reread your # 299 post; imo you have got that right:

JS: Rand reduced love to admiration or respect intensified by emotion; she made love affairs into mutual admiration societies with sex included.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=280

But you are way off base with this comment:

JR: That's because love by its very nature involves the negation of the self: the lover makes the beloved the focus instead of himself/herself; and the more intensely the lover focuses on the beloved, the more his/her own ego is negated: until in the most intense form of love, the lover is aware only of the beloved and not of himself/herself.

There exists no such thing as "negation of the self".

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I have explained it in detail at Epistemology and am looking foward to your input there.

http://www.objectivi...t=0entry83231 post # 3)

No, you didn't. You did not explain how knowledge of axioms precedes all sensory input. But I look forward to your trying to explain it.

Look again. Since it's Rand's idea which you apparently accept, why don't you explain it?

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge." (Rand)

Ms. Xray:

"Per Rand, an axiom is "a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not.

An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it." (Rand)"

From that same post that you so conveniently provided. Care to re-read it again?

Adam

I learned to track prey from a full blooded Cherokee Ms. Xray

Your point being? Now that you have the whole quote, do you think it will make explaining how on earth an axiom can "identify the base of knowledge" any easier?

How can something of which it is claimed that it can identify the base of knowledge be of validity if it is not subject to proof and disproof?

How does this "identification" work?

Ms. Xray:

You are dishonest and have zero integrity when you continue to act as if you did not completely misquote the author(ess). “An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let the caveman who does not choose to accept the axiom of identity, try to present his theory without using the concept of identity or any concept derived from it … ” (Atlas Shrugged).

I would hope that you will proceed with some form of integrity from this point on, but I do not expect that you will. You do notice that you put a period at the end of knowledge. You additionally state that I now have the whole quote. So therefore, you intentionally placed that period into the quote that you used and you are apparently morally and ethically comfortable with that position.

I just want the casual reader to realize that you misrepresent, obfuscate and generally commit moral and ethical turpitude.

Adam

[merjet]

It's neither forwards nor backwards, but simultaneous. The moment you say "this is a pencil", you are saying by implication that it is not all the zillion of things that are not a pencil. The moment you say what one of the "ten thousand things" is, you are also saying that it not any of the other nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine things. That you are doing this by implication does not mean you are not doing it.

An implication, or inference, draws a conclusion from something known or assumed, i.e. premise(s). Which comes first, conclusion or premise(s)? Does blue imply not-red or not-red imply blue?

For instance, if I identify a post as being by X-Ray, I immediately know that it not worth paying attention to.

Your conclusion is amply justified. However, it remains an inference from what you already know.

[merjet]

You provide an excellent example of identity by difference, then scoff at and deny what your own experience tells you is true.

My excellent example and my experience both attest to your "identity by difference" being false and hogwash.

[merjet]

In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand wrote, "An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge". In ITOE2 she also wrote, "the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage." The first is about conceptual knowledge and the second about perceptual knowledge. I leave the rest of integrating them as an exercise to the reader, something which Xray might even be adamant about not doing.

[tjohnson]

I say there is no difference between 'true' and 'false'. Is this true?

This example shows that we need to accept some premises (like the difference between yes/no) if we are to communicate at all. In order to answer the question you need to utilize the difference that exists.

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

You are dishonest and have zero integrity when you continue to act as if you did not completely misquote the author(ess). “An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. Let the caveman who does not choose to accept the axiom of identity, try to present his theory without using the concept of identity or any concept derived from it … ” (Atlas Shrugged).

I would hope that you will proceed with some form of integrity from this point on, but I do not expect that you will. You do notice that you put a period at the end of knowledge. You additionally state that I now have the whole quote. So therefore, you intentionally placed that period into the quote that you used and you are apparently morally and ethically comfortable with that position.

I just want the casual reader to realize that you misrepresent, obfuscate and generally commit moral and ethical turpitude.

Adam

Don't be silly, Selene. I merely emphasized the key phrase. What Rand adds says after "knowledge" is mostly confusing yada yada of which her whole epistemology is full of.

Your accusation is just another "much ado about nothing" drama king performance on your part, with the obvious goal to distract from the real issue: you don't know what to reply to the questions I asked you:

"Your point being? Now that you have the whole quote, do you think it will make explaining how on earth an axiom can "identify the base of knowledge" any easier?

How can something of which it is claimed that it can identify the base of knowledge be of validity if it is not subject to proof and disproof?

How does this "identification" work? " (Xray)

How does it work, Selene? Tell me, I'm all ears.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I say there is no difference between 'true' and 'false'. Is this true?

This example shows that we need to accept some premises (like the difference between yes/no) if we are to communicate at all. In order to answer the question you need to utilize the difference that exists.

Imo the example shows that true and false have to be defined first, and then the definitions compared.

[Xray]

In Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand wrote, "An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge". In ITOE2 she also wrote, "the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage." The first is about conceptual knowledge and the second about perceptual knowledge. I leave the rest of integrating them as an exercise to the reader, something which Xray might even be adamant about not doing.

The opposite is the case. I'm extremely interested in seing this mentally integrated.

Why don't you integrate it here to show what on earth Rand is talking about?

Let's go through it step by step.

"The base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage". (Rand)

Correct. This implies that knowledge acquired does not begin with an axiom, but with sensory input as the very root source of information to be integrated, differentiated and evaluated.

So for what does she need her axioms?

"an axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge" (Rand)

So if we mentally integrate the contents of wo sentences in italics, we get the following result:

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the perceptual stage."

So taking her by her own words, that's what Rand thinks is an axiom. Correct?

I'll await your reply before continuing.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ms. Xray:

So apparently, your public education system permits:

1) BDSM techniques into their classrooms;

2) Discriminates against an one unsuspecting child and forces the individual child to the trauma of being objectified; and

3) Encourages impermissible touching between and amongst sexes;

I replied to points 2) and 3) yesterday but didn't look up the abbreviatien BDSM, assuming it referred to some NLP-like persuasion technique stuff. But for thoroughness's sake, I have looked it up now and realize I was in error.

You can't be serious about this, Selene.

While the children are being the taught the reality of entity identity by difference, you would have others believe a gentle touch as a tool of learning is a "BDSM technique." This borders on the comical and of course you know that.

The objective of this teaching is to instill the idea of individuality as opposed to the idea of "categorical identity" with a consequent harsh judgement upon others on the basis of skin color, "nationality", or ancestry.

You have some objections to this? Judging by many of your posts, apparently you do.

Lumping individuals together under the label of a category is the very opposite of individualism. Think about it, Mr. Selene.

Had you been so fortunate as a child to receive such information as I am now dispensing to my students, perhaps you would not now have such fear of reality and seek to elevate your sense of self-value by absurdities such as, "You know Ms. Xray, you really are starting to sound just like Joseph Goebbels. Is he a distant relative by some chance?" (Selene)

What's left to say except I sincerely hope you will find a way to resolve your problem of feeling the necessity to resort to the illusion of categorical identity to tear someone down in order to build yourself up.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

"This borders on the comical and of course you know that." <<Yes, it is called humor.

Adam

[tjohnson]

Imo the example shows that true and false have to be defined first, and then the definitions compared.

The explanation is quite simple. We start with the negative A premise that words are

not the un-speakable objective level, such as the actual objects outside of our skin and our

personal feelings inside our skin. It follows that the only link between the objective and the

verbal world is exclusively structural, necessitating the conclusion that the only content of

all 'knowledge' is structural. Now structure can be considered as a complex of relations,

and ultimately as multi-dimensional order.

From this point of view, all language can be considered as names either for un-

speakable entities on the objective level, be it things or feelings, or as names for relations.

In fact, even objects, as such, could be considered as relations between the sub-microscopic

events and the human nervous system. If we enquire what the last relations represent, we

find that an object represents an abstraction of low order produced by our nervous system

as the result of the sub-microscopic events acting as stimuli upon the nervous system. If the

objects represent abstractions of some order, then, obviously, when we come to the enquiry

as to language, we find that words are still higher abstractions from objects. Under such

conditions, a theory of 'meaning' looms up naturally. If the objects, as well as words,

represent abstractions of different order, an individual, A, cannot know what B abstracts,

unless B tells him, and so the 'meaning' of a word must be given by a definition. This

would lead to the dictionary meanings of words, provided we could define all our words.

But this is impossible. If we were to attempt to do so, we should soon find that our

vocabulary was exhausted, and we should reach a set of terms which could not be any

further defined, from lack of words. We thus see that all linguistic schemes, if analysed far

enough, would depend on a set of undefined terms. If we enquire about the 'meaning' of a

word, we find that it depends on the 'meaning' of other words used in defining it, and that

the eventual new relations posited between them ultimately depend on the m.o meanings of

the undefined terms, which, at a given period, cannot be elucidated any further.

[merjet]

I was pleasantly suprised by Xray's post #438. She expressed an interest in trying to understand Ayn Rand's philosophy rather than attack it.

"The base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage". (Rand)

Correct. This implies that knowledge acquired does not begin with an axiom, but with sensory input as the very root source of information to be integrated, differentiated and evaluated.

I agree and think Rand would, too. However, Xray wrote the following last week.

I suppose facing the obligation of explaining how an axiom is not only absolute, but precedes sensory input as the root of all knowledge does tend to dampen the desire to respond.

How an "absolute axiom", or any axiom, came about without the antecedent process of sensory input, integration and establishing entity identity by difference, I do not know. I was so looking forward to you explaining it to me.

Rand did not say that her axioms precede sensory input or came about without antecedent sensory input and integration. Indeed, such notions are contrary to what Rand wrote.

So for what does she need her axioms?

Here are Rand's own words.

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. (ITOE2, 58-9)

"an axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge" (Rand)

So if we mentally integrate the contents of wo sentences in italics, we get the following result:

"An axiom is a statement that identifies the perceptual stage."

So taking her by her own words, that's what Rand thinks is an axiom. Correct?

I'd say somewhat correct and incomplete. Her axioms conceptually identify perception as the base of all knowledge and stress the importance of perception. "It is in the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends reality" (ITOE2, 5). There is also their purpose -- to guard against conceptual errors and doubt.

Note: Rand's meaning of "axiom" does not coincide with its meaning in math and logic.

[Xray]

I was pleasantly suprised by Xray's post #438. She expressed an interest in trying to understand Ayn Rand's philosophy rather than attack it.

"The base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage". (Rand)

Correct. This implies that knowledge acquired does not begin with an axiom, but with sensory input as the very root source of information to be integrated, differentiated and evaluated.

This is what the entity identity thinking principle is about. But imo Rand then went against her own premises by abandoning it.

MJ:

[quote name=Xray' date='18 November 2009 - 06:14 PM' timestamp='1258586047'

post='83850] So for what does she need her axioms?

Here are Rand's own words.

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. (ITOE2, 58-9)

What Rand writes here (in confusing verbiage imo) about "axiomatic concepts" is entirely different from

her claiming that an axiom is statement which identifies the base of knowledge. And the base of knowledge is sensory perception; we have Rand's own words on that.

But in the above quote, Rand suddenly becomes very rambling, speaking of "volitional, conceptual consciousness", of epistemological "needs", about "man's consciousness needing to delimit the entire field of its awareness". Awareness of what? I have the impression that Rand often just got carried away, stringing phrases together, which makes her epistemology very unsystematic.

I like being provided with examples. For they are an excellent way to tie down floating abstractins to reality.

If I could have spoken to Rand directly, the first question about her axioms would have been:

"Ms. Rand, I would like you to illustrate with a concrete example your statement "an axiom is statement which identifies the base of all knowledge". You also stated that the base of all knowledge is "the perceptual stage".

So if you would be so kind to provide a simple example here, Ms. Rand?

MJ, would you mind taking over the role of Ayn Rand here, and give an example?

MJ: Note: Rand's meaning of "axiom" does not coincide with its meaning in math and logic.

So, going by Rand's own theory, wouldn't this be a case of "stolen concept" in view of the fact that she applies "axiom" in a competely different way?

And didn't she also steal "selfless" by applying it diametrically opposed to its accepted meaning?

And as for plants "seeking values" Is AR guilty of "conceptual theft" here too?

Just askin'.

BTW, I just asked a question in the Epistemology section and am interested in your reply. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4294&st=40&gopid=83905entry83905

(post # 56)

Edited November 19, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

I didn't expect Xray's non-attack mode would last long, and it didn't.

But imo Rand then went against her own premises by abandoning it.

I have the impression that Rand often just got carried away, stringing phrases together, which makes her epistemology very unsystematic.

Substitute "words" for "phrases", and it is the pot calling the kettle black.

MJ, would you mind taking over the role of Ayn Rand here, and give an example?

Will you retract your innuendo in post #342 that Rand said axioms precede all sensory input and come to be without any sensory input or integration? Will you also confess that you made up this straw man?

So, going by Rand's own theory, wouldn't this be a case of "stolen concept" in view of the fact that she applies "axiom" in a competely different way?

Not at all. The Wikipedia article I linked says that outside logic and mathematics, the term "axiom" is used loosely for any established principle of some field. She used "axiom" like that.

You have apparently not yet learned what a stolen concept is. It is not a metaphor contra your interpretation of it.

And didn't she also steal "selfless" by applying it diametrically opposed to its accepted meaning?

What is the accepted meaning? According to whom? Give examples of her alleged theft.

And as for plants "seeking values" Is AR guilty of "conceptual theft" here too?

Just askin'.

Are you going to answer my questions in post 293? Are you going to retract your innuendo I pointed to there?

And copying your words from earlier: Stolen concept? Stolen from where? Just curious: how does one go about absconding with one?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[Alfonso Jones]

Merlin -

Good luck getting anything substantial in the way of a response from Xray. Many have tried, none have succeeded. She will type many words, of course (and she seems to equate that with saying something of substance). But if you expect detailed discussion with someone who shows evidence of:

1) Ability and willingness to engage in actual discussion

2) Ability and willingness to look at the context of Rand's writing and Rand's own definitions to find out what Rand actually said or wrote (see the recent bit above on "stolen concept" for a more than normally humorous gaffe by Xray)

3) Ability and willingness to try to understand what someone else has posted (or Rand has written) before coming up with a fanciful interpretation and then criticizing it

then you need to find someone to discuss with other than Xray.

If the "back and forth" amuses you - - - enjoy. But don't expect to find Xray willing to enter into a real, substantial and mutually respectful discussion. Many think it is a matter of choice and persuasive techniques. I suspect it may be an inability. I doubt we'll ever know...

Bill P

Edited November 19, 2009 by Bill P

[9thdoctor]

Merlin -

Good luck getting anything substantial in the way of a response from Xray. Many have tried, none have succeeded.

Now, now, let's not underestimate Merlin's supernatural abilities.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Use the charm...

[merjet]

Bill P and Ninth Doctor,

Thank you for your support.

My dealing with Xray feels more like swatting gnats than fighting dragons.

[Xray]

Xray: MJ, would you mind taking over the role of Ayn Rand here, and give an example?

Will you retract your innuendo in post #342 that Rand said axioms precede all sensory input and come to be without any sensory input or integration? Will you also confess that you made up this straw man?

There is no strawman. Rand is so inconsistent in her application of the term "axiom" that imo one can very well infer from some of her writings (like from the longer quote you posted) that she believes it to precede sensory input.

I'm happy to stand corrected after you have demonstrated convincingly with a concrete example how the Randian axiom operates.

Keep in mind that it has to have (per Rand) identifying qualities.

I'll address your other points later.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray: MJ, would you mind taking over the role of Ayn Rand here, and give an example?

View PostMerlin Jetton, on 19 November 2009 - 04:18 PM, said:

Will you retract your innuendo in post #342 that Rand said axioms precede all sensory input and come to be without any sensory input or integration? Will you also confess that you made up this straw man?

Xray.There is no strawman. Rand is so inconsistent in her application of the term "axiom" that imo one can very well infer from some of her writings (like from the longer quote you posted) that she believes it to precede sensory input.

I'm happy to stand corrected after you have demonstrated convincingly with a concrete example how the Randian axiom operates.

Keep in mind that it has to have (per Rand) identifying qualities.

I'll address your other points later.

MJ, if you don't mind I'll reply in the Epistemology section since this here is an AS thread.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

A constant running through AS is the disimissal of suffering. It is called "unimportant", even "nonsensical" if memory serves.

Imo this is a flat-out denial of the reality of suffering. There are enough situations life where a person will suffer, and no Objectivist doctrine is going to change that.

Imagine parents living through the tragedy of losing their child in an accident. So, according to Rand, their suffering is to be regarded as 'unimportant'?

Edited November 21, 2009 by Xray

[galtgulch]

A constant running through AS is the disimissal of suffering. It is called "unimportant", even "nonsensical" if memory serves.

Imo this is a flat-out denial of the reality of suffering. There are enough situations life where a person will suffer, and no Objectivist doctrine is going to change that.

Imagine parents living through the tragedy of losing their child in an accident. So, according to Rand, their suffering is to be regarded as 'unimportant'?

I don't think Ayn Rand meant it in the way you suggest.

I am reminded of the last scene of We The Living when Kira focuses her attention on the vision she had of the kind of life and the kind of world she longed to live in rather than to be distracted by the pain she must have felt by the wound inflicted by the unwitting servant of the careless State which stood for anti life on Earth.

The trick is to be loyal to your highest values and not to let any pain and suffering stop you from achieving your own personal goals.

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 233,136