L W HALL

Then if I understand what Barbara is saying, the sense of self identity as pertains to the social metaphysician is not one which is arrived at through self searching and learning by the afflicted(?) individual, but one rather which is borrowed or affected with little thought put into it.

The form the prescribed identity is based on is not material to the claim of it being social metaphysics.

L W

CNA,

I am glad you liked my cat joke even if you all did manage to turn it into a love fest for the little hairballs. What is this world coming to?

L W

"The products of anti-rational, anti-cognitive "Progressive" education, the hippies, are reverting to the music and the drumbeat of the jungle."

It is statements like this that make me glad I am not a Randroid and can think for myself.

Paul, I wonder how many of us(and I include myself) can truly view the world in a manner approaching strict objectivism? While I have no problem with the idea of "existence exists", and I am not proffering a case for subjectivism; could it not be that by the time we get past filtering our thoughts through various likes and dislikes, experiences, and overall worldviews that we hold, we then arrive at a point that by it's nature is somewhat tainted.

It would also seem that the higher level concepts such as those we hold in regards to other people would be more subject to this type of determination as they are further removed from percepts and thus easier to make mistakes(if that's a good word) about.

L W

Am I the only one on this forum who hates all pop music and rock music?

I think that at least in this regard I'd have had an ally in Rand.

"It's only Rock n Roll (but I like it)"*

The Stones

* me too

L W

Ellen, the dialogue between you and Barbara on this subject is quite fascinating to say the least.

The way you both describe Rand in this facet of her being somewhat reminds me of a person who tries to direct life as if it was a play, and then is unable to fully understand when others don't play the part that is assigned.

L W

I'll be interested to learn what you find.

I am giving it attention, and I'll be glad to let you know the results.

L W

Ellen said:

Might that conscious component consist of outright lying? Lying about what? Might Nathaniel have been coming up with an elaborate story to disguise the nature of his relationship with Patrecia?

If this were true- and I personally do not know enough about the situation to comment on that part of it- then would it be that much of a stretch to believe Rand could have went into a in-depth analysis of what was wrong with NB(as she saw it) rather than deal with the pain of outright rejection, which could have been the result of facing the possibility of the aforementioned relationship?

And in the naked light I saw

Ten thousand people maybe more

People talking without speaking

People hearing without listening

People writing songs that voices never shared

No one dared

Disturb the sound of silence

With thanks to Paul Simon

Sorry I'm late.

Thanks Michael,

Since I have been following the other threads on here and over at the other place I knew you were in a lot of different things at once so I figured you would get around to answering when you could if you didn't miss it.

I have some thought on this I want to add when I get them a little better formulated in my head.

L W

The truth is I am not curious about them. I haven't paid them much attention. I briefly scanned some of the SOLOPassion site, was not impressed, and moved on. I'm not interested in their apparent currency of exchange, nor in the product they seem to be selling. Their currency is social manipulation-- by various means, some of which have been discussed by Michael-- and their product is relative social status. The law of exchange is thinly veiled mutual contempt. I see no value there.  

In the idiom of the sixties: " that's some heavy shit".

L W

Hume may have had this type of thing in mind when he said that free governments(vs monarchies) tend to disentegrate due to excessive taxes and debts.

Talking about biting off the hand that feeds you..!

Michael,

In terms of concepts, I am coming to a small difference with Rand on the definition of concepts, but nothing that contradicts it - only adds to it. I am starting to believe that innate mental tendencies and capacities are also integrated together with percepts. First they are integrated in a "pure" state, then as awareness of them grows, that awareness gets integrated also.  

when you say "integrated in a 'pure' state" ; is this occuring neonatal, before birth, or at a later period?

Thanks

L W

Barbara,

Thanks for your reply confirming what Eudaimonist had posted as being Rand's view of tabula rasa. It helped firm up my understanding of it.

On the left hand/right hand thing although I have never paid attention to my emotional state when gesturing I find the idea fascinating and will start to do so. It would be interesting to know if this could be a way of calming ourselves were we to start getting agitated.

I too use both hands when doing various taks and it has been that way as long as I can remember. On the one hand(no pun intended) I use my left to eat, write, shoot pool, and shoot a bow; and I will then use my right as the hand with the most strength, to shoot a gun, when I am bowling, when I throw a ball and in other ways. I often switch back and forth between my hands if I am painting(house painting) and feel fairly comfortable with either hand.

All in all this has always been an area which interests me as to what transpires in mind mind to bring this about.

L W

No, I don't think so, and I didn't think so from the beginning. I think it's more of a clarification issue more than ever; what scientists argue now are about *how much* nature and nurture are interrelated. And I think this debate on *how much* is going to go for quite a long time.

Thanks Jenna, it is good to know that their are bright young minds like yours working to increase man's knowlege of himself. I enjoy reading the links you have provided in some of your posts.

L W

Here, here, I totally concur!

JennaW

As I was reading your post I had occasion to think about whether I have ever laid out how I formally critique a book or paper, and at the same time knowing I by habit do a lot of the thing you mentioned.

Although being somewhat of a sceptic by nature, It would probably pay me dividends to be more aware of how I ingest information.

L W

JennaW said:

I think I am most comfortable discussing ideas in the OL forum because of the atmosphere fostered here.

Totally agree, although I have no problem with competition between minds and cordial disagreement, when it falls into the nature of attacks and personal insults I prefer not to participate.

On the nature of tabula rasa Locke puts forth the idea as one person writes it that although the mind has no 'innate ideas' it does possess 'inate faculties', which would lead me to believe that it is these "inate faculties" that today we would consider to be "hard-wired".

That there are senses at work before birth would seem to be a given, however that does not seem to imply concept formation as we usually understand it unless I am missing something.

I believe that you could not argue for the ability to perceive did we not possess a propensity to do so from birth although I am not to sold on the idea that there is much of any volition when we are first born as to whether we pay attention or not. Perhaps it is as I read somewhere else a matter of reward that is fundamental in forming the basis for volition.

It seems that there is no real dissention here on tabula rasa, other than what we consider it to be may not be totally aligned.

L W

Eudaimonist said:

Perhaps this discussion should have a topic of its own, but doesn't the idea of tabula rasa really mean that we are born without conceptual knowledge (based on the view that all concepts must be formed through a process of thought), not a lack of "hard-wiring" that allows one to learn languages, for instance. Our natural ability to quickly pick up languages when we are young isn't a form of conceptual knowledge -- it's a "first nature" ability, where the language is something we acquire "second nature". Conceptual knowledge is also something acquired "second nature"

My idea concerning tabula rasa follows what you are writing above; that it refers to the absence of conceptual knowledge which if Rand is followed comes from percepts.

Untill a child starts interacting with the outside world through it's senses and perceiving said external world the mind is a clean slate devoid of any type of formed thoughts(don't know if that's a good word to use here?).

Here is a definition of tabula rasa I lifted off of Wikipedia

Tabula rasa (Latin: "scraped tablet", though often translated "blank slate") is the notion that individual human beings are born "blank" (with no built-in mental content), and that their identity is defined entirely by their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world

If indeed the argument is made from the opposite that the mind id not tabula rasa then what would be existent at birth other than a propensity toward certain thought formulation-the hardwiring.

Eudaimonist said:

................................................................................

JennaW wrote:

As for blank slate: I don't know who still holds this idea. I've asked non-science folks and most have come to their own conclusion that it's an interaction between nature and nurture.

Perhaps this discussion should have a topic of its own, but doesn't the idea of tabula rasa really mean that we are born without conceptual knowledge (based on the view that all concepts must be formed through a process of thought), not a lack of "hard-wiring" that allows one to learn languages, for instance. Our natural ability to quickly pick up languages when we are young isn't a form of conceptual knowledge -- it's a "first nature" ability, where the language is something we acquire "second nature". Conceptual knowledge is also something acquired "second nature".

_________________

eudaimonia, Mark

JennaW said:

................................................................................

.....

L W HALL wrote:

I do not wish to hi-jack this thread in any way, but the argument for and against tabula rasa has always been an interesting one to me. Since you are on the cutting edge of new discoveries in these fields I would find it interesting if sometime in the future you could start a separate thread setting forth your beliefs on why you do not hold with the pro tabula rasa crowd.

Cutting edge? *grin* I feel like I'm in the middle of the Pacific, at night, no moon, and I'm naked and I don't know how to swim. Oh yeah, no land in sight. If that's what cutting edge feels like... I guess I'm there.

As for blank slate: I don't know who still holds this idea. I've asked non-science folks and most have come to their own conclusion that it's an interaction between nature and nurture.

Here's a site of a father writing about his child's developmental process.

This article is research done where humans are suggested to be "hard-wired" not for speech, but for "detecting aspects of patterns for language".

Interesting in that language can be dissected into "phonemes" (speech sounds), intonation, morphology, syntax, etc. and that some parts of this is related to how music is also as universal in humanity as language, and how we are born to pick up differences/similarities in sounds/intonation. Language has a connection to music this way too (sounds, tones---> music); I've heard plenty enough that Mandarin sounds like singing or like birds. To bring this type of study to the brain's physical function is within the realm of Neurolinguistics.

_________________

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)." — Stephen Jay Gould

Note to JennaW and Eudaimonist; I took the liberty of moving your posts concerning tabula rasa off of the a/s discussion to avoid hi-jacking the thread. Hope you didn't mind.

L W said:

......................................................................

JennaW said:

Quote:

And also per other research, humans are not born tabula rasa. I doubt the majority of people still thinks this though, but it comes up in nature/nurture debates (and I also doubt that anyone really thinks it's either nature or nurture anymore in this day and age).

I do not wish to hi-jack this thread in any way, but the argument for and against tabula rasa has always been an interesting one to me. Since you are on the cutting edge of new discoveries in these fields I would find it interesting if sometime in the future you could start a separate thread setting forth your beliefs on why you do not hold with the pro tabula rasa crowd.

L W

JennaW said:

And also per other research, humans are not born tabula rasa. I doubt the majority of people still thinks this though, but it comes up in nature/nurture debates (and I also doubt that anyone really thinks it's either nature or nurture anymore in this day and age).

I do not wish to hi-jack this thread in any way, but the argument for and against tabula rasa has always been an interesting one to me. Since you are on the cutting edge of new discoveries in these fields I would find it interesting if sometime in the future you could start a separate thread setting forth your beliefs on why you do not hold with the pro tabula rasa crowd.

L W