tjohnson

Perhaps it would be clearer to say "categorical thinking", rather than "conceptual thinking". So the dog is able to think about different objects but he not able to categorize them.

Well, that may be your issue. I personally find it more instructive using the latter method.

What about Canada? We have really good universal health care here!

So basically you're saying I'm not welcome on OL.

I guess my inability to see my own condescension is also keeping me from seeing this. Oh wait, you prefer this , don't you?

Again, I am using 'conception' differently. You mention that he just remembers the perception but I would call this 'remembering' a kind of conceptual thinking. If you prefer not to use 'concept' for this then fine. In GS, this perception and remembering of the object is called 'objective level abstractions'. Even if a dog could abstract on a higher level, like your test above, there will be a limit sooner or later. Humans, however, know no such limit and are able to abstract in indefinitely many orders.

I think general semantics and objectivism have far more in common than with any form of religion. For example, both are very much involved with applying "rationality" to our everyday lives, as opposed to religion. So I don't think that is a valid analogy.

I think possibly I am using 'concept' in a slightly more specific way than you are. I am suggesting the dog has a concept of his ball, not balls or round things in general. Similarly, he would have concepts of his owner, and other everyday things he is in contact with.

I never intended any condescension, I wonder how many others on the forum feel that it is condescending?

Now I will apologize to GHS if I implied that he was mentally ill. In the past 2 years or so I have tried to be careful NOT to bash Rand. My goal has always been to provide an alternate view as expressed in the work of Korzybski, obviously when you see the nic I use. In using general semantics I believe agreement is always possible - if the parties WANT to come to an agreement. It is not my fault that general semantics is largely about sanity and the possible role that language in general (Philosophy in particular) has played in unsanity over the centuries. This by no means means everyone who studies Philosophy is insane but it does imply that we need to take a close look at the language of philosophy and determine if it could possibly have detrimental effects on unsuspecting individuals. I have heard many stories on this list about how when people were quite young they became obsessed with objectivism and became "Randroids" (even our host MSK said this about himself) and then in later years they matured and became much less dogmatic about it. These are exactly the issues that GS was invented to deal with - to minimize damage to our nervous systems due to indiscriminate use of and reaction to words and symbols in connection with their meanings to the individual. I have mostly got along with people here and have learned a great deal myself but the recent attacks by GHS are by far the most personal and insulting I have seen on this forum. MSK recently sanctioned X-Ray for making so many repetitive posts (I assume?) but GHS is allowed to call people morons, profoundly ignorant, etc. and so silence the opposing views. Even if it doesn't silence the other person the "debate" usually descends into a name-calling affair which is hardly good for intellectual discussion. That's why we are all here isn't it?

This is impossible, even in physics, let alone human behaviour.

This was a pretty decent site for the last couple of years, there seems to be much more verbal abuse going on now. Maybe it's the political climate in the US spilling over.

Therefore, when people discuss the science of man, they argue that man is the sum product of biological evolution in a physical universe. However both biology and physics are deterministic systems, and so there is no discussion of psychological motivation without reference to the deterministic system of the empirical universe. From this perspective, we are forced to conclude rather illogical foundations for motivation - surival exclusively for the gene for instance. If we believe in volition, then we run into two paradoxes here: A ) the paradox of trying to "validate" information when one's processes are already predetermined; B ) whether we can be self-directed when the system of self-direction itself is hard-wired to submit to an external purpose. People become worker ants when we live for survival of our genes (i.e. when our entire purpose of living is derived from strictly empirical observations). Personally I find this distasteful. Likewise, observers of consciousness (meditators, etc.) tend to claim something else entirely by scientific process of observation and validation of phenomenal events which of course cannot be dealt with empirically. So you see, science as a "methodology applicable to all apprehensions" actually conflicts with science as a "methodology exclusive to empirical observations." Exclusively referencing Evolutionary Theory to understand man's purpose fits the latter science. I believe you're quite right - science is usually viewed as a "body of knowledge" and not as an activity that defines humans - but maybe the latter could be a profitable way to look at it. I think our science of man is in it's infancy as yet and I think it's because, as you intimated, that studying ourselves is more difficult than studying other natural phenomena. It's difficult to be both the subject and the object of the process, n'est ce pas??

Well, I don't know about smarter but you're way more vain than I am.

So is your very presence on OL, but you're still here. Ghs More insults. Well at least I attempt to follow the posting guidelines. If Micheal doesn't want to enforce them maybe he should remove the link to them.

IMO, "since you don't seem to have a clue what they are" is an insult.

Translation: If you don't agree with me you are stupid.

Not really sure what you are getting at here. Korzybski based his system on the alleged fact that science was responsible for all mankind's progress and so we should look to science as a model of our behaviour. This immediately implies that we should try to use scientific method in our daily lives as much as possible, including economics , evolution, psychology etc.. Korzybski thought of science as an activity whereby humans coordinated their experience and observations and try to make sense of them as a species.

Why can't life be deterministic on one level but indeterministic on another, higher level? This argument is always presented as an either/or thing.

So then it becomes a question of what activities of mankind are the "best"? What behaviours in the past 2000 years do we want to set the standard with? It seems to me that objectivism says laissez-faire economics is the ideal - "man the trader". General semantics, on the other hand says "man the scientist" is the ideal.

I don't think medical science is this exact yet.

Yes, this is the "essence" of aristotelianism, but science has moved away from "essences" to a more functional approach. Why not "man as he does" instead of "man as he is"?

Well if we define science as a process of validatating and cataloguing observations and deductions based on empirical evidence, we've already failed to take into account man's unique capability of conceptual thinking and being. I would venture that "validatating and cataloguing observations" is pretty well the same as "conceptual thinking", or at least very closely related.

Here is a start to having a science on man.