Parsing Existence

[tjohnson]

Yes, Thomas, that's right (#19).

I have not yet determined to what degrees Rand's views in metaphysics and epistemology favor constructive empiricism or any of the types of scientific realism. We'll see.

From Rand's discussions within Atlas, from her theory of concepts (ITOE), and from her essays such as MvMM and Kant v. Sullivan, it is plain that Rand's conception of perception is realist, rather than idealist, and that her conception of science is within the band of scientific realisms, rather than constructive empiricism or instrumentalism. But to argue which varieties of perceptual realism and which varieties of scientific realism are consistent with the full body of her texts is serious work not yet accomplished by anyone.

I see. Here are some thoughts that might interest you.

I don't use the word 'concept' because I find it ambiguous and I replace it with 'visualization' or 'image'. We cannot sense an electron, it's existence is postulated. This does not mean there is no connection between our senses and these postulated things it means the connection is more complicated than for something we can sense, like a pencil. If I try to describe a pencil to you, you could conceivably recognize one from a group of objects but not so with an electron. My description will come from mathematical physics and will not help you to ever recognize one.

Herein lies the difference between what F. S. C. Northrop describes as 'concept by intuition' and 'concept by postulation'. Here is a link to short lecture he gave at the Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture titled MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS AND KORZYBSKI'S SEMANTICS;

http://time-binding.org/akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf

As I said, I prefer 'visualization by intuition' and 'visualization by postulation' so as to emphasize that this exists in one's nervous system as some sort of "neural network". When I describe an object which is "sensible" (intuitive) you may take this description and visualize in your nervous system. But with a non-sensible object my description a theoretical construct and only indirectly visualizable and so of a completely different character and needs to be evaluated by different standards.

For a person who has never looked in a microscope and seen a cell the term 'cell' would represent a 'visualization by postulation' to them but to a biochemist it would represent a 'visualization by intuition'. This brings up an interesting point that these formulations can be relative to observer and not absolute, which could explain a good deal of mis-communication.

[BaalChatzaf]

Herein lies the difference between what F. S. C. Northrop describes as 'concept by intuition' and 'concept by postulation'. Here is a link to short lecture he gave at the Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture titled MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS AND KORZYBSKI'S SEMANTICS;

http://time-binding.org/akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf

That URL does not work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

"The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" by Ayn Rand is in the volume of essays called Philosophy: Who Needs It (it is the 3rd essay). This is an inexpensive paperback and you can even get a used copy for less than a buck on Amazon.

Michael

[tjohnson]

That URL does not work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Does for me.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That URL does not work.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Does for me.

Here is the message I get when I click on the link:

Not Found

The requested URL /akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf was not found on this server.

The URL in the address field of my browser is given as:

http://time-binding.org/akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf

Michael

[tjohnson]

Here is the message I get when I click on the link:

Not Found

The requested URL /akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf was not found on this server.

The URL in the address field of my browser is given as:

http://time-binding.org/akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf

Michael

Beats me. When I click on the link it works fine. Try copying and pasting the link into the browser maybe. Anyway I'm sure Baal doesn't want to read any Korzybskian nonsense anyway.

[tjohnson]

"(E1) Something exists which one perceives."

My problem is that this axiom does not recognize perception by postulate, it seems to only address perception by intuition. In other words, electrons exist in some sense of the word but not the same as cows do, for example.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beats me. When I click on the link it works fine. Try copying and pasting the link into the browser maybe.

GS,

You probably have it in a cache somewhere, which is why your browser might still find it. It is no longer online. They are redoing the site. For the time being, here is a sort of damaged html version on Google's cache.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is the message I get when I click on the link:

Not Found

The requested URL /akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf was not found on this server.

The URL in the address field of my browser is given as:

http://time-binding.org/akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf

Michael

Beats me. When I click on the link it works fine. Try copying and pasting the link into the browser maybe. Anyway I'm sure Baal doesn't want to read any Korzybskian nonsense anyway.

Here is what I got using that URL:

Not Found

The requested URL /akml/akmls/16-17-northrop.pdf was not found on this server.

Copied right off the screen using control c and control v.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Guyau]

Thank you, Thomas, for sharing your ideas in #26.

Readers can find a summary of Northrop's distinction between concepts by intuition and concepts by postulation, as well as Northrop's subdivisions of those two broad types, in Section II of Fred Seddon's Objectivity essay "On Newtonian Relative Space." This is in Volume 1, Number 6.

http://objectivity-archive.com/

[tjohnson]

(E) Existence exists.

(E1) Something exists which one perceives.

(E2) One exists and possesses consciousness of existing things.

When you look around you do you see things? No, your brain manufactures images in your visual cortex (lower order abstractions). How do you reconcile this science with the 3 axioms above? First of all, (E) doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell, it may as well be "blah blah blah". With respect to (E1) , what exists is our lower order abstractions and w.r.t. (E2), yes, there needs to be an observer in order to have lower order abstractions.

[merjet]

I imagine general semanticist (GS) on the witness stand in a trial being questioned by an attorney or judge (Q).

Q: Did you see the car?

GS: Well, my brain created an image in my visual cortex. There were neurons firing and producing lower order abstractions.

Q: Well, did you see all this activity in your brain?

GS: Well ... uh ... no.

More seriously, here is a snip from her Playboy interview.

RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

[tjohnson]

RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as an object without an observer. To deny this means you must produce an object without an observer, which is impossible.

[Dragonfly]

No, it doesn't. There is no such thing as an object without an observer. To deny this means you must produce an object without an observer, which is impossible.

Did the earth exist before there were living beings to observe it?

[tjohnson]

Did the earth exist before there were living beings to observe it?

TWWAF => that which we abstract from

Obviously if we believe we evolved over a period of billions of years something (TWWAF) had to be here to evolve on but. as conscious humans, what we call 'objects' are actually abstractions from TWWAF. Animals do not know this, they think their abstractions are TWWAF and this is why Korzybski calls it 'copying animals with our nervous responses' if we believe our abstractions ARE the events outside us. Let's examine this statement "the earth IS round". This is shorthand for saying we have done some measurements on this thing called 'the earth' and have come to the conclusion that it is similar in shape to that of a sphere. The thing we call the earth does not have the property of 'roundness', we simply attribute this to it based on our measurements and mathematics. The earth is in fact NOT round, it may be roundISH or sort of round but it IS NOT simply round. This is completely general, whatever you say something is, it IS NOT.

In short, TWWAF exists independent of us but discrete objects require an observer. Perhaps if Rand means TWWAF by 'objective reality' I could agree but the statement "Something exists which one perceives" would have to be amended to "Something exists which one perceives FROM", for example.

[Brant Gaede]

Did the earth exist before there were living beings to observe it?

TWWAF => that which we abstract from

Obviously if we believe we evolved over a period of billions of years something (TWWAF) had to be here to evolve on but. as conscious humans, what we call 'objects' are actually abstractions from TWWAF. Animals do not know this, they think their abstractions are TWWAF and this is why Korzybski calls it 'copying animals with our nervous responses' if we believe our abstractions ARE the events outside us. Let's examine this statement "the earth IS round". This is shorthand for saying we have done some measurements on this thing called 'the earth' and have come to the conclusion that it is similar in shape to that of a sphere. The thing we call the earth does not have the property of 'roundness', we simply attribute this to it based on our measurements and mathematics. The earth is in fact NOT round, it may be roundISH or sort of round but it IS NOT simply round. This is completely general, whatever you say something is, it IS NOT.

In short, TWWAF exists independent of us but discrete objects require an observer. Perhaps if Rand means TWWAF by 'objective reality' I could agree but the statement "Something exists which one perceives" would have to be amended to "Something exists which one perceives FROM", for example.

The earth is round if it fits the definition of round. And "whatever you say something is, it IS NOT" means it IS NOT NOT.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

The earth is round if it fits the definition of round. And "whatever you say something is, it IS NOT" means it IS NOT NOT.

Q: What is a tree? (question makes no sense)

A: 'tree' is a word. (only way to answer senseless question)

Q: What does the word 'tree' represent? (ah, that's better)

A: 'tree' represents [insert definition here]

Notice the use of 'represents' instead of 'is'. This denotes the fact that words are not the the things they represent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I doubt you are going to convert anyone to General Semantics on this board and I doubt you will change Objectivist jargon. Simply understanding that TWWAF is what Objectivists call external reality (or simply reality) is a step in the right direction.

The idea of objective reality merely means that our brains are part of reality, so they follow the same laws of construction. We can abstract the way things are in a manner that reflects the way things are because we are part of the way things are.

In other words, external reality is knowable. That is all "objective reality" means.

Michael

[tjohnson]

The idea of objective reality merely means that our brains are part of reality, so they follow the same laws of construction. We can abstract the way things are in a manner that reflects the way things are because we are part of the way things are.

"knowledge' represents similarity of structure between our language (higher order abstractions) and our perceptions (lower order abstractions). We cannot know "reality" directly, our only access to it is through our senses.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"knowledge' represents similarity of structure between our language (higher order abstractions) and our perceptions (lower order abstractions). We cannot know "reality" directly, our only access to it is through our senses.

GS,

Why do you say things like this? You do this often. You make it sound like I am claiming the contrary.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

"knowledge' represents similarity of structure between our language (higher order abstractions) and our perceptions (lower order abstractions). We cannot know "reality" directly, our only access to it is through our senses.

GS,

Why do you say things like this? You do this often. You make it sound like I am claiming the contrary.

Michael

Through our senses directly? Please excuse me if I've missed a germane post.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I think he means something to the effect that we cannot be another entity and know it that way, that we have to capture particles and waves emanating from it through our sense organs and transform them into signals and data.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I think he means something to the effect that we cannot be another entity and know it that way, that we have to capture particles and waves emanating from it through our sense organs and transform them into signals and data.

Michael

Well, what's the problem?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, what's the problem?

Brant,

That's what I have started asking.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Well, what's the problem?

Brant,

That's what I have started asking.

Michael

Those who wish to fundamentally mistrust their senses based on this are encouraged to demonstrate they mean what they say via their behavior - to attempt to behave as if they really mistrusted their senses. Not to reach for food - who knows what is really there on the plate? Not to walk forward -- who knows what might be there, with your senses merely tricking them?

That sort of skepticism is not sustainable in practice. Those who profess it deny it when they cash or deposit checks, make a phone call, eat dinner, make love, etc.

Alfonso