A Simple Question

[BaalChatzaf]

Has the Rand-Peikof theory of concept formation ever been put to a genuine scientific test?

If so, could you give me a reference to the literature for it.

Thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

I don't have a citation, but I recall Robert Campbell writing in some Objectivist publication about research that bore out Objectivist theories of concept-formation as measurement-omission.

Has your Eisenhower-era positivism ever been put to the kind of test you're asking for?

[kiaer.ts]

The question is full of silly assumptions. The first is that "scientific test" is the only proper criterion for judging an idea's validity. And, of course, Rand's theory in so far as it is developmental, is perfectly consonant with the observations of people like Piaget. Then there is the fact that her theory is normative, that it holds that there is a proper way to form concepts. Whether or not people actual bother to do so is a separate question.

The joke here of course is that Bob doesn't really care for an answer, and hasn't even formulated an actual question. Bob doesn't even understand what Rand's theory is. His constant appeal to stolen concepts makes that painfully obvious. Let Bob formulate in his own words what he thinks Rand's ideas are before taking him seriously in his usual contrary games.

[Brant Gaede]

Has the Rand-Peikof theory of concept formation ever been put to a genuine scientific test?

If so, could you give me a reference to the literature for it.

Thank you.

You have no qualms about what you call "science" overflowing its banks and drowning philosophy, only it never actually gets that far.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

The question is full of silly assumptions. The first is that "scientific test" is the only proper criterion for judging an idea's validity. And, of course, Rand's theory in so far as it is developmental, is perfectly consonant with the observations of people like Piaget. Then there is the fact that her theory is normative, that it holds that there is a proper way to form concepts. Whether or not people actual bother to do so is a separate question.

The joke here of course is that Bob doesn't really care for an answer, and hasn't even formulated an actual question. Bob doesn't even understand what Rand's theory is. His constant appeal to stolen concepts makes that painfully obvious. Let Bob formulate in his own words what he thinks Rand's ideas are before taking him seriously in his usual contrary games.

Nothing silly about. Concept formation is the activity of a working brain. This is a process that occurs in the physical world, so the origin of concepts is at least the epi-phenomanon of a physical process. So the question is: is the Rand-Peikof theory of concept formation consistent with what we know of human neurophysiology. And who tested the Rand theory against Piaget? Where is that check documented? How carefully was it done?

And yes I understand Rand's theory as it is stated in the O literature and there not a smidgin of connection to actualy neurophysiological process. Unlike you,. I don't accept things just like that. When a statement is made about the real world that we live in I look for evidence. Objective evidence. Carefully gathered evidence.

And kindly do not tell me what I care for or do not care for. only I know that and you are no mind reader. I would not have asked the question if I did not "care" for an answer.

So the question still stands. I will make it plainer. What neurophysiological backing to the Rand-Peikof theory is there? Is that plain enough? Is there any objective empirical basis for this hypothetical explanation of concept formation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 5, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[geekgirl]

I have to say, this is totally interesting... but out of my usual areas of expertise, as well. Maybe there are answers in Artificial Intelligence research?

Perhaps my question may be a bit oblique: how would one even devise a test for such a thing? And doing so, what would the answers even mean? If the test subject is found to form concepts in a particular way; it doesn't presume that it would be the only way, does it? Some autistic kids have show some pretty unusual thought processes; there may be many ways. The process could also change given the context; i.e. subject in danger, intoxicated, brain damage, etc. Plus, couldn't there be some sort of bias inherent in the exploration? After all, we are using our concept formation process to form a concept about itself, right?

The reason this topic intrigues me so much is I dated a programmer that worked on one of those automated vehicles for the first DARPA challenge, and possibly the biggest problem in the whole AI field right at the time was pattern recognition... getting software (intelligence?) to recognize an object. They aren't anywhere near getting software to think about abstractions, but solid objects is a good first step. His team was using embedded 3d reference images of certain objects the vehicle would encounter, and the software would scan constantly against these reference images. The problem was that it was hard to recognize a 3d object when you didn't know how it was rotated, if it was partially obscured, badly lit, etc. (And it used waaaay too much processing power) That whole line of thinking eventually didn't pan out... now they try to get the "eyes" to recognize certain artificial constructs (edges, right angles, etc) and deduce from there against another reference catalog. this works somewhat better, but its still clunky. (Really makes you appreciate what the brain does effortlessly every day.)

Once you have an object "understood" though, AI can handle it pretty well. All the casinos have sophisticated AI security that tries to identify every person it sees, all the time. Once it identifies you as a person, it creates space for you in it's system, and will tag you on every video surveillance throughout the casino. The security people can actually ask the system what subject X has been doing, and it will pull up all the video from all the cameras you appeared in, and lay it out chronologically. Kinda scary, really.

But the only reason they can do that is because the system already knows what a human looks like.

For years, Homeland Security and the NSA have been persuing a similar kind of system for deducing patterns in chaotic pools of data. (The NSA's been at it with project Eschelon since the 90s.) The best way I heard it described was that they wanted a system that would recognize that 7 of the people about to board a plane had cell phones purchased at the same store, yet they weren't sitting together. I bet the NSA has some interesting insights into pattern recognition. (a sister to concept formation?)

But the system still required an operator to define the searches.

Which is why I wonder if this is even possible. All the approaches they try have the same thing in common: they need to know what it is before they recognize it, essentially. Roughly, AI has to borrow our concepts so it can form its own.

Perhaps all of ours are borrowed too?

(ok, enough wine for me, tonight!)

[BaalChatzaf]

Has the Rand-Peikof theory of concept formation ever been put to a genuine scientific test?

If so, could you give me a reference to the literature for it.

Thank you.

You have no qualms about what you call "science" overflowing its banks and drowning philosophy, only it never actually gets that far.

--Brant

I will thank you not to assert what my "qualms" are or are not. You do not have mental telepathy. If you will take me at my word, what I am interested in is the truth of the matter. How do we actually formulate concepts? I wish I had a well corroberated hypothesis to offer you. I do not, which is why I asked my "simple question". The Rand-Peikoff assertion is at best a hypothesis (not to be confused with a plain and obvious fact). Like any hypothesis pertaining to what is happening or what exists in the world, it requires some evidence to judge its correctness and its sufficiency. If this is what you call science "overflowing its banks" then so be it. Let the Flood come!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[merjet]

What neurophysiological backing to the Rand-Peikof theory is there? Is that plain enough? Is there any objective empirical basis for this hypothetical explanation of concept formation.

What neurophysiological backing is there to any theory of concept formation?

Kenneth R. Livingston, professor at Vassar, has done empirical work on concept-formation. Here are links to some of his articles: #1, #2, #3. He has published other journals articles you can find using Google and see a brief description or abstract. I heard him talk once about how a similarity metric is changed when categories are formed. There is a whole article on that topic here. There is a reference to that article on an Atlas Society webpage here.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Merlin Jetton

[BaalChatzaf]

What neurophysiological backing to the Rand-Peikof theory is there? Is that plain enough? Is there any objective empirical basis for this hypothetical explanation of concept formation.

What neurophysiological backing is there to any theory of concept formation?

Kenneth R. Livingston, professor at Vassar, has done empirical work on concept-formation. Here are links to some of his articles: #1, #2, #3. He has published other journals articles you can find using Google and see a brief description or abstract. I heard him talk once about how a similarity metric is changed when categories are formed. There is a whole article on that topic here. There is a reference to that article on an Atlas Society webpage here.

Thank you for the references. I also found a few more. In none of them did I find Measurement Omission.. Have I overlooked something?

I was looking for something along these lines:

Neurophysiological correlates of human concept formation¹

Donald T. Stuss^a, b and Terence W. Pictona^, b^,

^aPsychology Service, Boston Veterans Administration Hospital, Aphasia Research Center and Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02130, USA

<a name="aff2" style="color: rgb(1, 86, 170); text-decoration: none; ">^bDepartments of Medicine and Experimental Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada KIN 5C8

Available online 13 October 2004.

Human event-related potentials were evaluated during the trial-and-error learning of a sorting criterion for complex visual stimuli. Prior to the discovery of the correct criterion a sustained positivity was observed in frontal-mastoid recordings during the visual stimuli. A parieto-occipital negativity preceded auditory feedback. Two late positive waves following feedback—P₃ (355 msec) and P₄ (647 msec)—were both of greater amplitude in the trials before the subject finally confirmed the correct criterion. Their scalp distributions were, however, distinctly different, the P₄wave being of relatively greater amplitude in the parieto-occipital regions. A general negative baseline shift occurred with a change in criterion.

The Hard Stuff, from refereed journals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited January 5, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[merjet]

Thank you for the references. I also found a few more. In none of them did I find Measurement Omission.. Have I overlooked something?

The Atlas Society webpage I linked had a quote that contained "omitting measurements". Guessing, it was from his 1996 seminar talk. I didn't find that term or "measurement omission" in the article either, maybe because it was unfamiliar to typical readers. In any case, measurement omission is a small part of Ayn Rand's theory of concepts. Its broader foundation is similarities and differences (not unique, of course).

[Reidy]

Concept formation is the activity of a working brain.

In Justice Alito's phrase, not true. It's an activity of a consciousness for which a working brain is a necessary condition. A heat source is a necessary condition of cooking, but cooking is an activity of cooks, not of heat sources. Any conclusions you spin out from this false premise are moot.

[Brant Gaede]

Has the Rand-Peikof theory of concept formation ever been put to a genuine scientific test?

If so, could you give me a reference to the literature for it.

Thank you.

You have no qualms about what you call "science" overflowing its banks and drowning philosophy, only it never actually gets that far.

--Brant

I will thank you not to assert what my "qualms" are or are not. You do not have mental telepathy. If you will take me at my word, what I am interested in is the truth of the matter. How do we actually formulate concepts? I wish I had a well corroberated hypothesis to offer you. I do not, which is why I asked my "simple question". The Rand-Peikoff assertion is at best a hypothesis (not to be confused with a plain and obvious fact). Like any hypothesis pertaining to what is happening or what exists in the world, it requires some evidence to judge its correctness and its sufficiency. If this is what you call science "overflowing its banks" then so be it. Let the Flood come!

"Evidence" is no "scientific test." You might in future dress out your remarks a bit when starting a thread instead of popping in with a few lines anybody can take anyplace, qualms and all, and then complaining about it.

--Brant

[Guyau]

Bob, it is grossly inaccurate to refer to Rand’s theory of concept formation as “the Rand-Peikoff theory.” Peikoff was not and has never claimed to have been a coinventor of the theory. (He would find your misnomer as offensive as I do; if that pleases you, then so much the shabbier.) His contribution closely allied with Rand’s theory was his essay on the synthetic-analytic distinction.

I think the article Peter was recalling is this one:

Campbell, R. L. 1991. Does Class Inclusion Have Mathematical Prerequisites? Cognitive Development 6:169-194.

As I recall, the children in this study were beyond the age of first words, first sentences, and first concepts. It is some years since I saw this paper, but my take-away was that it did not cover the earliest period of conceptual cognition on which Rand proposed concept formation by measurement omission.

To some of Bob Kolker’s query: here (evidence contra Rand) and here (stickman).

That concepts are formable by omission of measurements along qualitative dimensions presupposes that concretes stand in relations such that they can be placed under concepts structured by such omissions of measurements. Regardless of the extent to which the early formation of concepts deviates from Rand’s conjectures concerning it, the program of analyzing concepts according to measurement considerations is as worthwhile as the related and better established program of analyzing similarity according to measurement considerations.

Here.*

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob, it is grossly inaccurate to refer to Rand's theory of concept formation as "the Rand-Peikoff theory." Peikoff was not and has never claimed to have been a coinventor of the theory. (He would find your misnomer as offensive as I do; if that pleases you, then so much the shabbier.) His contribution closely allied with Rand's theory was his essay on the synthetic-analytic distinction.

Sorry about that. I was misled somewhat by Brother Harriman invoking L.P.'s august name in Harriman's book -The Logical Leap-.

Thank you for the correction.

Ba'al Chatzaf