tjohnson

Very true, and even blind people who have to rely on touch and smell would have a very different object in mind when abstracting "a pencil".

There is another factor. If I design a plane, for example, based on my understanding of aerodynamics, then I think it ought to fly. Similarly, if we examine the structure and function of organisms, including humans, we might suppose they ought to work in a certain way.

All I can say is this; according to our neurological science what happens is that light is stimulating our neurons and our cortex is producing an image of the "pencil". Now, for there to be an object for this observer there must be BOTH, ie. some stimuli and the nervous system. I guess what I'm saying is that the stimuli (light in this case) is what is independent of the observer, not "the object". You see, an animal could never know that. I would just like to add to my comments above. We have to be very clear about exactly what is independent of observer and this is precisely what science attempts to do. My assertion is that one individual alone cannot establish what is independent of his own observation process - it requires corroboration from others because our perceptions are easily coloured by affective factors due to our organic nature. You cannot separate "mind" and "emotion" completely.

All I can say is this; according to our neurological science what happens is that light is stimulating our neurons and our cortex is producing an image of the "pencil". Now, for there to be an object for this observer there must be BOTH, ie. some stimuli and the nervous system. I guess what I'm saying is that the stimuli (light in this case) is what is independent of the observer, not "the object". You see, an animal could never know that.

I think the problem boils down to the idea of 'existence'. When I say "that pencil exists" I really mean "I abstract (perceive) a pencil". This represents a functional view rather than subject-predicate view, which is outdated. I think it's illegitimate to speak of existence independent of observer because it's impossible to demonstrate. In other words, i have very little use for the term 'existence'. That about sums it up for me.

Yes, it makes a great deal of sense to me. You are getting close to the whole Whorf-Sapir idea here. In gs, this is referred to loosely as the effect of higher order abstractions (language and knowledge) on lower order abstractions (perceptions and conceptions). I often use the example of a doctor with xrays. If you are a trained surgeon and you routinely examine xray images and then go and cut people open to have a look you begin to know what these little "shadows" here and there mean. To a layman it could mean absolutely nothing - he would perceive nothing of any importance from the image but the surgeon would say "there's a tumour right there", for example.

Here is another analogy; Suppose you live in a room and your only access to the outside world is via a computer console and you have no knowledge that the outside world even exists. You "see objects" and see how they interact and you can even interact with them with your mouse. You talk about these objects and their characteristics, behaviour, etc. and so you gain knowledge of these things. What I am suggesting is that our nervous system represents the computer console in this analogy. It filters everything and presents "us" with a representation (abstraction) and this would be all we have to deal with if we did not have science - we cannot know directly what is outside our skin but with science we can form a theoretical structure of "reality". In the case of animals, these abstractions are all they have and so these abstractions are reality to them. I frankly don't under stand how anyone can not see this. Our "objects" are no more outside our skins than the ones in your camera, are they? The only difference is that our representational system is organic and the camera's is inorganic.

I see. Well, the way I look at it is that a perception is an abstraction and these abstractions may be grouped or classified (abstracted further). So in my view, concepts are already abstractions of abstractions. There is a sense in which I believe you are right here, but I think this blurs the line a bit. For instance, in perception, while perceptual systems do chuck out a lot of information, the object of perception is immediate to the perceptual system. Immediately perceived objects are, in other words, essential to perception. The same is not true for concepts. I am not disregarding the rest of your post but I want to comment on this point for now. I claim that the "object" refers to something in our brains. If we both look at an object, say a pencil, is your "pencil" the same as mine? No, it is entirely unique and exists only in your nervous system. The phrase "that is a pencil" actually conceals this fact and should technically be understood to mean "I perceive (or abstract) what is called a pencil". Of course we don't talk that this just as we don't refer to cheese as "bacteria laden milk product" but speaking about speaking is more difficult than speaking about things. This is the central thesis of general semantics - that the structure of our commonly used language leads us to confuse or conflate different orders or levels of abstraction.

I don't understand how an obligation can be imposed "by the nature of reality", and also, how does the law of identity fit in?

Good idea, word games suck.

I think you are leaving out genetic drift. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Genetic_drift_versus_natural_selection

Um, it seems to me that the word 'evolution' can mean both the theory and the process the theory describes? One has to look at the context to determine which meaning is indicated.

I see. Well, the way I look at it is that a perception is an abstraction and these abstractions may be grouped or classified (abstracted further). So in my view, concepts are already abstractions of abstractions.

So why not dispense with the language of perceptions vs. conceptions and simply call them all 'abstractions'? Is this distinction necessary? If so, why?

LOL, Heterosexals, of course, never pretend their dumpy partners are glamorous hollywood movie stars--or sheep. --Brant yeah, and they "fake reality" when they use birth control too!

LOL,

'Pseudo-scholar', I like it! That's me.

I think the real issue is if a government decides it wants to "help people" and the people in power have different ideas about how to help people than us, and how they "help themselves" to the funds used to help less fortunate people, etc. I think Bob's point about it being natural to want to help people closely related to us is an important one and has a firm evolutionary basis. But in modern society our governments are helping people not related to us with our money and in ways we don't agree with and this is very different.

Actually, when I say 'extra-neural', I mean as in books, computers, cd's, and other storage media and the structure of the theories, inferences, relations, etc. This is exclusive to humans and it is much newer than tens of thousands of years - more like a thousand or two.

When people "buy into" religion there is no telling what they will do. There is no connection between religion and what we can observe "in reality" and so it is a fundamentally unsane activity which will ultimately have detrimental effects on society. That being said, I agree that some are quite tame compared to others but we can't show any favoritism.

This statement caught my eye because i think this is the fundamental difference between man and animal. Even if we grant that animals can think conceptually, make simple abstractions, etc. they can never know that they are doing so. In other words, animals abstract information from their environments but to them this information is their environment, for all practical purposes. They do not, and cannot, know about the deeper level of their environment, the levels that we humans infer like in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. So animals are severely limited to the information their own senses give them whereas humans have developed extra-neural means to gain and store information from one generation to the next.

Now that there is mighty interestin'! I've always been trying to rectify that...maybe I didn't need to. Seemed like whenever I'd talk about Existentialism (and Existentialists) in the O-circles, an ass-whippin' was involved. Truly interesting. I don't think it's a foolproof test, but when people strongly react to something like that, it can be a sign that the similarities are really close and the people strongly reacting sense this and don't much like it. Reminds of an old saying that the things we dislike the most in other people are often the things we see in ourselves.

Well, that may be your issue. I personally find it more instructive using the latter method. I actually think until you settle the former, the latter issue should be on hold. Also, the idea of no limits on here sounds like it might be no more than a platitude... If you don't have a clear definition of the problem or of the question, then of what use or instruction is it to praise human abilities? It sounds to me more like just patting oneself on the back -- rather than making a valid or sane point. Don't you agree? You asked to leave general semantics out of this but to answer this question I need to refer to it. In general semantics it is theorized that man can abstract in higher and higher orders indefinitely. Roughly, this mean that there is no limit to our possible knowledge, for no statement may be construed as the final statement on any given topic. In this analysis, statements are considered as abstractions somewhat as follows. object => label => description => inference => inference of inference => etc. In contrast, an animal would at most be represented like this; object => label The whole idea of what animals can conceive (or if they can at all) is speculative because one can't "see" what the other organism is imagining. Without language only the simplest concepts could be learned but once we introduce language then you can explain more complex concepts, inferences, etc. So the fundamental difference, in this analysis, is the complexity of relations and structure that animals can understand versus what humans can through their advanced language and highly developed cerebral cortex. Does this seem like a platitude?

This makes sense to me. I know someone on another forum who used to refer to "true" theories as "not yet disconfirmed" theories.

Well, I am impressed by your arguing skills. I have no wish to argue with you, I am interested in coming to agreement with people - that's the gs way. I have only read bits and pieces of Rand, most of my understanding of objectivism has come from participating on this forum.