worldlogicleague

You're welcome. I do see your point. His approach is somewhat undisciplined, fails to be thorough, misses fundamentals, and, I find, is overly dependent on jargon. He is deliberately formulating down-and-dirty heuristics for problem-solving and critical reviews. He self-consciously chooses jargon as labels for these heuristics. The influence of marketing considerations comes through loud and clear. He However, I think he's on the right track by emphasizing alternatives, exploration of the "problem space," etc., and in making explicit some hindrances to effective thinking--like hurry or familiarity/comfort with an alternative. I'm debating with myself whether his techniques--like the six hats, the "pros, cons, and interesting" categories, etc., belong to thinking proper, or to a slightly higher level, such as the "critical thinking" I distinguished in my early post on this thread. His "matrix" of characteristics of a product, and the exercize of permutating them in search of a new product, or product improvement is a good one, I think. I originally read his book on lateral thinking long ago, and didn't think it was very original. I will look at his subsequent work more closely. If I find anything particularly interesting, I'll mention it here. = Mindy Yes, I agree that informal rules of thumb (heuristics) can be devised that are useful, and his could well be. This reminds me that I don't want to imply an overly hardline on this. So my point is that one can have fundamentals and heuristics (added on top) as an effective strategy, but heuristics alone, without any grounding in fundamentals, is not an effective strategy for teaching thinking in middle and high schools. Since fundamentals should come first, and there is only a very limited amount of time to dedicate to this addition to their course work, the most effective strategy would be to just teach the fundamentals.

Bob, Of course they are. You simply abandon the problem you are working on for a while and examine them. You use deduction in that examination. Michael I think you are both making good points, just two different points. For example, the deductive argument: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates mortal. First deduction is used to test the validity of the argument. Must the conclusion be accepted as valid by the rules of deduction regardless of premise truth? As BC said deduction does not consider the truth of the premises, only if the argument is in a valid form. When this is decided this cycle of deduction is done. Then the process of thinking continues by checking the soundness (truth) of the premises. As Michael said, this examination can involve deduction or induction. For example, perhaps on examining premise 1 we employ a second round of deduction and form the argument that at least in form supports its truth: All men are people who stop breathing at some point. All people who stop breathing at some point are mortal. All men are mortal Of course these premises will have to be checked for soundness too in another round of deduction or induction, or be considered axiomatic.

I was wondering how you look on de Bono's work? = Mindy de Bono is an interesting case because we are involved in the same subjects. From Wikipedia - Edward de Bono (born May 19, 1933, in Malta) is a British physician, author, inventor, and consultant. He is best known as the originator of the term lateral thinking (structured creativity) and the leading proponent of the deliberate teaching of thinking in schools. Lateral thinking, in contrast to logical or rational thinking, is unpredictable and unconventional thinking outside the box. In de Bonos words lateral thinking emphasizes the searching for different approaches and different ways of looking at things.’ (de Bono, 1993: 54)1 The difference is: 1. He wants to teach informal techniques like the de Bono Thinking Hats (6 thinking strategies), etc., and I want to see taught just the basics of deduction and induction for reflective thinking (to understand things) 2. He wants to teach informal lateral thinking (structured creativity), and I want to see taught the basics of scientific/engineering hypothesis formation and application for creative thinking (to change things). It works well for them, and for me these two represent the fundamental base of higher order thinking all students should know well, at the very least. Consider this from his institute: http://home.um.edu.mt/create/ma_catalogue.pdf The Edward de Bono Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking UNIVERSITY OF MALTA Master of Arts in Creativity and Innovation: Aims and Course Catalogue: Master in Creativity and Innovation: Critical Thinking Participants will be provided with tools to develop their critical thinking skills. Critical thinking involves a process of evaluation, and this can be applied to statements, arguments, experiences and action. Critical thinking is a skilful activity that is contrasted with unreflective thinking. Good critical thinking meets a number of intellectual standards. Some attitudes that are necessary conditions for the development of critical thinking include intellectual curiosity, objectivity, open-mindedness, flexibility, intellectual skepticism, intellectual honesty, being systematic, persistence, decisiveness and respect for other viewpoints. Critical thinking further involves developing skills to identify assumptions, ask pertinent questions and draw out implications. The attitudes of critical thinking are right on the mark, but where is the substance of concepts, definitions, axioms, observations, propositions, induction, deduction, hypothetico-deductive method, Mill's Canons for testing hypothesis (abduction). If you don't get these right, his informal techniques will be built on shaky ground. And there is evidence of this shaky ground on the Institute's website: http://home.um.edu.mt/create/ : The Creative Thinking Programme was set up in October 1992 in collaboration with Professor Edward de Bono, the inventor of Lateral Thinking. The setting up of this programme has involved the teaching of Creative Thinking and Thinking Skills as a subject on an interdisciplinary basis within various faculties including the Faculty of Education, the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy and the Institute of Health Care. Knowing you like to think with precision Mindy, as do I, I'm sure you see instantly the problem here. Their program involves the teaching of "Creative Thinking" and "Thinking Skills". This is faulty classification. Is not Creative thinking a Thinking Skill? Thinking Skills is the genus, and Creative thinking and Reflective Thinking are the two species of the genus, as they are in my system. Not knowing the fundamentals causes these kinds of errors. And what good will informal techniques be if one is making these kinds of mistakes? Thanks for bringing de Bono up Mindy. This is helping me to work through my ideas.

You have an interesting way of arguing. You make some vague statement and then conclude that "the primacy of existence axiom stands". It certainly doesn't stand for me. When you are trying to convince someone of something you don't just proclaim that you have proven your point, you have to get the other person to agree. Actually standard. One presents their evidence/reasoning and then presents their conclusion drawn from it. One cannot convince someone of something without stating what that is, their conclusion. And one cannot convince someone of something without presenting their evidence/reasoning for it.

It happens in sports as a commonly known phenomenon and is called 'being in the zone'. The player is conscious of the ball but wastes no time being conscious of being conscious of the ball. To do so would cause loss of concentration and playing poorly. There is no need for the player to be conscious-that he-is-conscious-of the-ball for him to be conscious-of-the-ball. Therefore the primacy of existence axiom stands.

I substituted the word 'processes' for 'objects' because according to science what we refer to as objects are actually processes. You think you are staring at an object but you are actually registering a process. it's like Paul says, you are talking metaphysics but I am talking science. Actually an object is defined by Peirce as anything you can think about, processes, whatever. You are confusing it with entity: discrete thing having dimension. So it doesn't affect your point. I've shown that consciousness exists independently, without any need of an observing consciousness. Are you denying that apple consciousness exists independently in itself w/o any need of an observing consciousness, and if so why?

From Laurence and MacDonald’s Introduction to the Nature of Metaphysics: Metaphysics, as Aristotle characterized it, is concerned with the study of ‘being qua being’. That is, it is concerned to study being as such....Other disciplines, specifically the sciences,...are not interested in being in general, the kind of being that abstracts from the nature of this or that particular thing. But metaphysics is interested in this. Metaphysics is interested in determining what is required what conditions need to be met, for something—anything—to exist. This "anything" can be called a thing, substance, entity. But "object" is generally defined as "anything one can talk about" (Peirce) which can be processes or anything else. Are you not saying what "what conditions need to be met for your consciousness process to exist", namely an observing consciousness? That's closer to metaphysics then science. Also, science (particle physics) says everything is composed of particles: air, water, earth, your body, your consciousness, everything.

... All I meant was that there are processes that occur independent of our consciousness and consciousness is a process but consciousness is not one of said independent processes, ie. we can direct this process. I see. So you're saying there are existential processes that exist independently of consciousness, but consciousness, a human directed process is not one of them, i.e., does not exist independently of consciousness. I think the problem lies in understanding Rands Primacy of Existence Axiom: In logical form this becomes: Premise 1: Objects which exist are objects which are independent of consciousness. where: Definition: objects which are independent of consciousness -- objects which depend on no observing consciousness to exist; they exist in their own right, independently, regardless of whether or not there is an observing consciousness, i.e., without any need of an observing consciousness. Does consciousness itself falsify the Rand axiom, as made clear by the definition, as you propose? My answer is no. Why? Stare at an apple; do the human directed process of being conscious of an apple. Does this apple consciousness need you to be conscious that you are conscious of an apple, for that apple consciousness to exist? No, as any meditator skilled at one pointed awareness will tell you. Therefore consciousness itself exists independently, without need of any observing consciousness. And the Rand axiom is upheld.

Wow, a lot of interesting info here. Here is a quick summary of the highlights on which I base my conclusion below: Michael I think Mindy points the way to reconciling all the above information. Rand says about concept formation: "The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction." Why? Because the first stage of induction is one of concept formation. Why? Because induction ultimately involves propositions to fulfil its function, and as said above one needs concepts to express these propositions. So first the concepts must be formed, at some point, and then they are used in propositional instances to make the generalizing proposition. Of course these inductive generalizations are not absolute, undeniable certainties as in deduction (given true premises), but this is a separate issue of stage 2 and does not impact on the correctness of the concepts formed and being employed. So I would propose that the standard definition does not tell the whole story of induction, and would suggest a more precise definition: induction - The mental process of forming conclusions based on experience via concepts in two stages: stage 1. observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts (Rand) stage 2. deriving a universally quantified proposition from a finite set of propositional instances, using these concepts so formed I think we could all probably agree on this or something like it.

Your conclusion (3) would be false given the truth of your premises. The contradictory assertion would have to be true, given their truth. Without arguing the truth, structure or definitions of your premises, you could however state your point using a Celarent type valid argument: 1. No human directed processes occur independently of consciousness. 2. Consciousness is a human directed process. 3. No consciousness occurs independently of consciousness. Am I correct in thinking that your point is that there are some things that don't exist independently of consciousness, namely human directed processes, such as consciousness?

Hi Paul, The issue you raise is interesting, but I don't find it in GS's writing. He's had ample opportunity in this thread to make the point that you made about a baby being born with consciousness and existence undifferentiated. He hasn't made it. My job is not to put my words or context in his mouth but to try to understand the arguments he himself is making and to respond to that specific argument. I'm assuming like you he's intelligent and can make his point. He made a post with a single line: "Objects don't exist independently of consciousness." By adding just two words he could have described what you say is his point or context: "Objects don't exist independently of consciousness in babies." However, I can't assume this; I can only take his point at face value in the context it is proposed. So we should just consider it your point on babies and the deconstruction of axioms and take it from there. Anyway, the primacy of existence axiom was upheld, which is where my interest lies in my responses. As to babies, their undeveloped awareness of the world doesn't falsify the axiom that the universe does indeed exist independently of consciousness. I realize you're making this point just as an interesting aside, but I wanted to make that clear. For as Aristotole warned, the content of a theory cannot be successfully communicated, if the learner is in doubt about the truth of the postulates. Elwood

I see. Interesting. So the 'Ray position' is over the issue of "objects/entities," and their contention is that they do not exist independently of our consciousness; they are "merely the ~form~ in which our consciousness is aware of whatever-it-is that ~does~ exist independently of us." So they are not denying the Primacy of Existence axiom, but adding a new assertion: Rand axiom: The universe exists independent of consciousness; things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. 'Ray principle': All that exists is existential stuff that has an identity, but our cognitive processing of the stuff is what creates objects/entities; these objects/entities are not independent of consciousness. At the very least this demands a narrow definition for objects. From Wikipedia - Charles S. Peirce succinctly defines the broad notion of an object as follows: "By an object, I mean anything that we can think, i.e. anything we can talk about." I would prefer to maintain the broad definition of objects, and use the more closely related entities for this purpose. Perhaps: entities - anything discrete in form we can think, i.e. anything discrete in form we can talk about. Or maybe: categorical entities - anything categorically discrete we can think, i.e. anything categorically discrete we can talk about. This would depend on whether their point is about conceptual (= categorical) boundaries or physical boundaries. From Wikipedia - An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. If their point is about conceptual boundaries, it would beg the question: Does the independently existing stuff naturally occur in natural categories of existence (of genus and species) independent of consciousness? If their point is about physical boundaries, it would beg the question: Does the independently existing stuff naturally occur in discrete forms independent of consciousness?

Hi Mindy, thanks for your input. Its helping me think these matters over. I'll need to mull over your Q's a little to respond. I will say that I'm not trying to bring about an all encompassing change in thinking all by myself. My manual is for 5th graders on up and so it provides only the most basic info to get a useful upgrade from disorganized thinking without any logic knowedge to a more critical thinking with basic logic knowledge. I'll be happy if they simply memorise the 3 stages and consciously and purposely apply them to work from gathered evidence based on set definitions to valid conclusions. I did also sort thinking into reflective thinking with the purpose of understanding things and creative thinking with the purpose of changing things. I discuss the latter under the heading logical problem solving because improved critical thinking and problem solving are the two "thinking and learning skills' identified by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills as being required subject matter in 21st century schools. You will probably find my logic game interesting because its competitive with weekly rankings posted. The idea is to play the logic game, and see how many correct predictions (conclusions) you can make AND how quickly you can make them. I've a feeling you would be ranked high! The cost to join the league is only $14.95 and when I get enough members I hope to be setting up cash prize tournaments. So the purpose of the league really is 1/2 competitive entertainment and 1/2 educational. Elwood

Is this a metaphysical statement or is it a deconstruction of premise one? As a metaphysical statement it is untenable in the context of a modern educated perspective. ... The answer is it's not a metaphysical statement. It's a deconstruction statement. Premise one, "Existence is independent of consciousness," is an assumption about the nature of existence. ... He was pulling a Descartes. He was doubting and deconstructing the assumption in premise one. Paul premise 1. Rand's Primacy of Existence Axiom - from the FAQ on this forum: "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists," wrote Ayn Rand in "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made," "i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity." Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology describes axiomatic concepts as: "...the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts." So this axiom can't be deconstructed, being a primary fact of reality. By reading just what's actually in his posts he seems to be simply saying that the universe does not exist independent of consciousness. Providing examples such as the observation of Pluto in 1930 shows that this is an untenable position (as a postulate in any theory).

He's been trying to say the following in a number of different ways, which is what I'm interested in:

Roger, I was trying to respond to GS's position: He seems to be saying that our thoughts or mental constructs determine what is reality. I was trying to say that reality is 'filtered' through our mental contructs and we build maps of reality, which are often changing, relative, and sometimes wrong. But reality itself is still independent of consciousness. Its our maps that are changing in this process, not reality. So for example, first science identified Pluto as a planet. Now we identify Pluto as a dwarf planet. But throughout this change in consciousness or mental constructs, Pluto didn't change one bit and was always just what it is, independent of consciousness. The question of representational realism is yet another interesting question. Even if GS goes on to claim this, even this does not mean that reality is not independent of consciousness.

No, you're right. Reality is that which exists so existential reality would be redundant. I saw that too but was compelled to say it for the sake of clarity due to the above changed definition of reality by GS. I was thinking you would pick up on that. ;) Roger, I must admit that I was wasn't employing that usage of terminology.

So are you saying I'm talking about thinking, which I'm then scaling from worse to better, as opposed to identifying two species of thinking, non-critical thinking and critical thinking?

I like to use the 3 mental operations of reflective thinking: conception, judgment, and reasoning. Are you referring to this? stage 1. conception - isolating object classes via terms: {A,B,C,} where A means U which are XX, B - U which are YY, C - U which are ZZ stage 2. judgment (thought proper?) - forming a complete thought: A is B. , B is C. stage 3. reasoning - forming valid conclusions from premises: A is B. , B is C. therefore A is C.

Good and timely analysis, Logic. Did you notice the vacant formulation, "...all we can know...is our internal abstractions..." read that: "all we can know is what we can know." That's one logical glitch. Then that can be unpacked into assumptions that themselves are wide open to criticism: Knowledge via abstraction is invalid, or inadequate; corollary: Knowledge must be un-processed; and, more interestingly: There is more to know than our knowledge gives us! =Mindy LOL. Well done Mindy. Actually I didn't notice that. All we can know is what we can know. Doesn't take us very far does it lol. Hmm, how can we put this. How about existential reality is always filtered through our mental constructs, which are often changing, relative, and sometimes wrong? Thanks for that!

No sense in preaching to the converted So what is your motivation here? Are you posting out of an altruistic motive of correcting us fools? If so, you need yto understand our foolishness in order to correct us. Are you trying to understand us? Then why argue out of ignorance, when you could be learning the ideas we use? Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? If so, ask us to explain what you don't understand - the chance to explain would be a value to some of us. If you haven't read it, what are you afraid of? Try it - it won't hurt you. Here is what he said his motivation is in another thread: GS also holds that there is an unpeakable environment in which we are immersed but it doesn't use the term 'reality'. In general semantics there is a notion called 'multiordinality' which states that many words we use regularly, like 'reality' mean different things on different levels of abstraction. So for example, someone who is hallucinating may 'really' see something which is not there and this is THEIR reality, so even though we live in something independent of our nervous system our only exposure to it is through our nervous system, none the less. Because our knowledge of this 'reality' (some call it WIGO - What Is Going On) comes to us mainly through science, we call this level the event level to denote that it is in a constant state of change as modern science has discovered. Our perceptual process of the event is called the objective level so 'reality' can mean the event level or the objective level and of course these are two very different things. This thread began with Rand's Primacy of Existence Axiom (premise 1). From the FAQ on this forum: "The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists," wrote Ayn Rand in "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made," "i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity." It seemed like he was disagreeing with this axiom, but he has since said that he is in agreement. He then said that all we can know about these things that exist independent of consciousness is our internal abstractions, or mental constructs we make out of what we perceive with our senses. This seems reasonable to me. As to his use of the term reality above, I would prefer to stick with the standard definition of reality as that which exists. It would be irresponsible for a psychologist to tell someone suffering from schizophrenia that the goblin he sees standing next to him is real and he is really seeing something. It is preferable that standard definitions are used and it is called a hallucination. This choice of terminology aside, his GS principle that our mental contsructs of the externally existing reality are relative and give rise to a 'multiordinality' of mental constructs is interesting. But of course, it is our mental constructs that are changing and relative, not the externally existing objects (per se).

I guess I would say that the goal is to teach students so that they transition from non-critical thinking which is unorganized, undirected, ego-centric, and without any fundamental logic knowledge to critical thinking which is organized, objective, based on fundamental logic knowledge, and purposeful, meaning aimed at moving from gathered evidence to valid conclusions. And this would be, relative to where they started, better thinking.

OK. Then we are in agreement that things, namely forces and energies, exist independently, regardless of whether they've been observed or not. I see. The confusion seems to be over the definition employed for 'objects'. From Wikipedia - In Philosophy, an object is a thing, an entity, or a being. This may be taken in several senses. In its weakest sense, the word object is the most all-purpose of nouns, and can replace a noun in any sentence at all. (In ordinary usage, the word has something like this effect, but not as extreme.) Thus objects are things as diverse as the pyramids, Alpha Centauri, the number seven, a belief in predestination, and a fear of dogs. Charles S. Peirce succinctly defines the broad notion of an object as follows: "By an object, I mean anything that we can think, i.e. anything we can talk about." [1] This is how I was defining object in my above post where I said it can refer to unicorns or apples. By this definition forces and energies are objects and by your first point you would have to acknowledge that by this definition, these existential objects exist externally to the nervous system, as you said. However, perhaps you are not using this definition for objects. Maybe by objects you mean -- mental contructs or abstractions formed out of what's been perceived by the senses. By this definition the forces and energies are existential entities that are abstracted into objects by the observing mind. Then Iwould have to agree with you that 'objects' are actually abstractions in our nervous system and all we have available to us are abstractions, or our objectifying perceptions of the existential reality that exists external to our nervous system. This is interesting to think about but a different question then the independent existence of 'entities' (if you prefer) without need for observation. But this is not a standard definition of objects, though it does highlight why it is so important to start with clear definitions when presenting ideas. I would prefer to stick with the standard definition of objects and use 'perceptual constructs' for what you call objects. Or I would go with the other way of defining objects as existential entities, and so use entities as the all-purpose noun that can be used for both unicorn and apples.

Actually I agree with you. You seem to be saying that I have claimed that traditional categorical logic is the be all and end all of logic and the final word. I never said that. Classical logic is just the base of the pyramind of logic, and has its uses in daily life as Veatch showed. I'm only saying along with many others that students of the 21st century need to move from unorganized non-critical thinking without any logic knowledge to organized critical thinking with fundamental, basic logic knowledge if they want to get the good jobs in the knowledge based, high tech 21st century, and if the US economy is to succeed in the highly competitive global market. Microsoft, Apple, Dell, Ford, Oracle, Adobe, Hewlett Packard, Cisco, AT&T, Intel, Lego, Lenova, Verizon, the National Education Association, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor all agree and are actively working to bring it about. See http://21stcenturyskills.org, their Partnership, for more. This is why I say we are witnessing the dawning of the 2nd Age of Reason, which this time completely revolves around these economic and complex problem solving issues of the 21st century. (back to topic)

Science builds theoretical models to predict the existence of unobserved things all the time. Then they try to construct experiments that might confirm their prediction. Here is one example. From http://www.aspera-eu.org/index.php?option=...3&Itemid=98 : Physicists and astronomers have been looking for 75 years to find evidence of the existence of the hypothetical dark matter particles. The DAMA collaboration published new results claiming a detection, confirming its previously published studies. ... The results of DAMA are independent of the various theoretical models predicting dark matter. And since no other dark matter experiment has detected the modulation yet, the hunt is still going on Does it make sense to say dark matter will magically come into existence by massive coincidence at the exact moment they happen to observe it? Or does it make sense to say dark matter is unobserved but hypothetically out there existing, and someday it might be observed? The latter is the position of modern science. Its a major part of the enterprise of modern science to theorize about the possible existence of objects, not yet observed, and then conduct experiments to look for these hypothesized existences, that they predict exist, but have not yet been observed. It was the well spent time of theorists producing theories about dark matter that might exist, but has not yet been observed, that drove the well spent 75 years trying to devise and conduct experiments that will detect this theorized existence of dark matter, that has not yet been observed. It seems that you are talking about the scientific principle that things are not "confirmed to exist" without proper scientific experiments that show it so. But this is very different then saying that they don't exist when they are not observed, which is not science's position. Predicting that unobserved objects exist is a big part of what scientific theorists do.