What does "Sense of Life" mean?

[UncleJim]

You said "At one time "the earth is flat" was considered a factual statement." And that's true. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether it actually was a factual statement. How is it possible for a person to make a "factual statement" when they don't know what they are talking about?

To simply say "I'm standing here and the earth looks flat to me; therefor it must be flat" is not a factually based statement. This is because what one portends to be talking about is "the earth"; all of it. Since its impossible to stand and see all the earth then isn't impossible to make a factual statement about what it is actually is from only that perspective.

You're getting to the heart of an important epistemological point that most Objectivists don't recognize. Leonard Peikoff himself stretches the idea of "true in my context" to absurd limits to defend any ancient idea regardless of how unfounded it was at the time (see his lecture defending Galileo's bogus pendulum formula). There is an irrational reverence given to good thinkers of the past, to excuse any error they made as rationally justified "in their context", as if pointing out that they in fact made a logical error even in their context would somehow impugn their character or some such. Which is why they are helpless to defend Newton's system as true. They wave the magic wand: "Context context context", and presto, they fail to convince any rational person that Newton's system is true.

This attitude among Objectivists is codified in Peikoff's "Fact and Value", where he pretty much declares that to be in error is to sin. Which explains why so many Objectivists refuse to recognize and correct their errors: they'd have to admit immorality on their part as well, and just can't stomach that, so then they engage in *real* immorality by subverting the virtue of pride, refusing to correct past errors.

Shayne

The following is a little outside of where objectivism has gone.

My view is that the fundamental error is in their conceptualizing of the idea of fact. Fact is not an aspect of reality; it is a mental resultant of it. Nor is fact 'yet' epistemological. When fact becomes epistemological its 'word status' changes from fact to identity. Fact exists as a known aspect of reality. As such fact exists as a specific electrochemical response of a brain to a specific aspect of reality. Evidence of fact is called a brain-image. When a brain images that which falls within its sensual range this is factual evidence of reality.

Then when its mind becomes aware of the facts resulting from reality it perceives them as being the identity of that aspect of reality which is responsible for them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uncle Jim,

One widely accepted meaning for fact is an abstraction of what is "out there" (what exists) without the constraints of human awareness. Obviously, human awareness is needed to make the abstraction, but the content of it is a projection.

This is different from truth, which is the correspondence between the abstraction and verified results.

I would have to look it up, but from memory, in the Objectivist literature I have read, it states something like facts are what exist, and truth is the validity of our knowledge of them (by corresponding to them).

Your meaning is different, but that's OK so long as we keep these meanings clear when discussing them.

Michael

[UncleJim]

Uncle Jim,

One widely accepted meaning for fact is an abstraction of what is "out there" (what exists) without the constraints of human awareness. Obviously, human awareness is needed to make the abstraction, but the content of it is a projection.

This is different from truth, which is the correspondence between the abstraction and verified results.

Your meaning is different, but that's OK so long as we keep these meanings clear when discussing them.

Michael

Its not possible to abstract what is "out there" until whatever it is, is sensually observed. Once it is sensually observed its existence; which is absolute, becomes factual. The act of sensing is called observation. The resultant of sensual observation is called a fact. The existence of fact is called an image.

Images are what is perceived my a mind. When perceived the image becomes identity and its fact becomes information. The differentiator between brain and mind; as is pointed out by Ayn Rand, is identity. On the brain side of identity is the factual existence of brain images - on the mind side of identity is the informational existence of ideas.

[tjohnson]

Its not possible to abstract what is "out there" until whatever it is, is sensually observed. Once it is sensually observed its existence; which is absolute, becomes factual. The act of sensing is called observation. The resultant of sensual observation is called a fact. The existence of fact is called an image.

Images are what is perceived my a mind. When perceived the image becomes identity and its fact becomes information. The differentiator between brain and mind; as is pointed out by Ayn Rand, is identity. On the brain side of identity is the factual existence of brain images - on the mind side of identity is the informational existence of ideas.

I cannot know what you see. Your mental image is yours alone. The only way I can have any idea what you see is for you to describe it to me. This applies to all us humans. We can compare our statements of what we see and decide how well they match but not our images in our brain. If we agree then the statements are often referred to as 'facts'.

[UncleJim]

Its not possible to abstract what is "out there" until whatever it is, is sensually observed. Once it is sensually observed its existence; which is absolute, becomes factual. The act of sensing is called observation. The resultant of sensual observation is called a fact. The existence of fact is called an image.

Images are what is perceived my a mind. When perceived the image becomes identity and its fact becomes information. The differentiator between brain and mind; as is pointed out by Ayn Rand, is identity. On the brain side of identity is the factual existence of brain images - on the mind side of identity is the informational existence of ideas.

I cannot know what you see. Your mental image is yours alone. The only way I can have any idea what you see is for you to describe it to me. This applies to all us humans. We can compare our statements of what we see and decide how well they match but not our images in our brain. If we agree then the statements are often referred to as 'facts'.

The only way for you to know what I know is to look at it for yourself. Knowing (the factual possession of knowledge) is an automatically occurring sensual event which takes place between two things when at least one of these is a brain.

What you cannot know is whether my brain-image is a true representation of what your brain knows. The only way to validate whether what another knows is the same as what you know is to ask them to show you what they know.

If what they show you is what you're also looking at, then you both know exactly the same-thing.

The greater issue concerns rationality. To be considered a knower only involves sensual observation. However to be considered rational involves conceptual validation.

Edited February 14, 2008 by UncleJim

[tjohnson]

What you cannot know is whether my brain-image is a true representation of what your brain knows.

When I look at an apple my nervous system generates an image in my visual cortex. The adjective 'true' does not apply to this image. We could assume it must be fairly similar to yours if our descriptions are similar. For instance, if I said I saw a green apple and you said you saw a red one then we have a problem. One of us could be colour blind, lying, hallucinating, using the wrong word for 'green', etc. If everyone else agrees it's red then that will be called 'a fact', regardless of what I say. that's as close to true as we can get.

[UncleJim]

What you cannot know is whether my brain-image is a true representation of what your brain knows.

When I look at an apple my nervous system generates an image in my visual cortex. The adjective 'true' does not apply to this image. We could assume it must be fairly similar to yours if our descriptions are similar. For instance, if I said I saw a green apple and you said you saw a red one then we have a problem. One of us could be colour blind, lying, hallucinating, using the wrong word for 'green', etc. If everyone else agrees it's red then that will be called 'a fact', regardless of what I say. that's as close to true as we can get.

Under Objectivism. When I look at the same apple you are looking at we each know THAT the exact same thing exists. This is what brains do. They know THAT real things actually do exist. This brain function occurs automatically. You cannot look at something and not see it; i.e., not-know that it does exists.

The evidence proving THAT we know something is called an image. Brain images are considered to be the factual existence of that which physically exists.

The absolute nature of physical existence; when imaged by a brain, is considered to be its true mental representation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uncle Jim,

I don't think you understood my point. Obviously a human being is needed for an abstraction to exist. And obviously all of our concepts boil down to the sensory level (and integrating what comes prewired at birth and develops on its own).

But you cannot say "man is not omniscient" and call that knowledge if you do not allow for projections. The reason concepts are open-ended is that facts are taken to exist in the first place. Facts are discovered, not invented. We know some facts about some entities, but we also know there is a whole lot more out there.

Now how do we know that? Did we integrate it from sensory experience?

Of course not. We can't integrate sensations of sensations that never arrived to our brain.

Even the fact of "A is A" (law of identity) is based on a projection, i.e., that everything known or unknown at the present (and past and future) has this property.

Now how do we know something about the unknown?

Qua method, this problem is very similar to the one of the difference between words and concepts, except the referents are different.

This is why I said it is OK to use your meaning of "fact," but be advised that it is different than the one normally used in these discussions.

Michael

[UncleJim]

Uncle Jim,

I don't think you understood my point. Obviously a human being is needed for an abstraction to exist. And obviously all of our concepts boil down to the sensory level (and integrating what comes prewired at birth and develops on its own).

But you cannot say "man is not omniscient" and call that knowledge if you do not allow for projections. The reason concepts are open-ended is that facts are taken to exist in the first place. Facts are discovered, not invented. We know some facts about some entities, but we also know there is a whole lot more out there.

Now how do we know that? Did we integrate it from sensory experience?

Of course not. We can't integrate sensations of sensations that never arrived to our brain.

Even the fact of "A is A" (law of identity) is based on a projection, i.e., that everything known or unknown at the present (and past and future) has this property.

Now how do we know something about the unknown?

Qua method, this problem is very similar to the one of the difference between words and concepts, except the referents are different.

This is why I said it is OK to use your meaning of "fact," but be advised that it is different than the one normally used in these discussions.

Michael

Thank you for the clarification.

I don't think I have said that facts are invented. I'm not sure you implied this but I thought I would clear that up anyhow. I do say facts are resultants of what is sensually known to exist; i.e., facts are naturally occurring mental existents. If this is what you meant when you said facts are discovered, then we are in agreement here.

To go further with the idea of discovery. The only thing that can be discovered is that which can be known to exist. This limits discovery to the absolute nature of physical existence. The resultant of discovery; then, is what fact is. This makes fact a sensual existent as opposed to a physical or intellectual existent.

Additionally; Man observes the absolute nature of physical existence; this is what causes fact to exist. For fact to exist there must be a reason for the existence of its existence. Evidence of the existence of fact is called a brain-image.

Yes I do understand that the way I use fact is somewhat different from the way [most] others use it. You're going to see this with other concepts as well. The reason for this is consistency in meaning. For example: When someone says an 'interpretation' is considered to be fact because it accurately explains another thing. I don't consider that 'interpretation' to be a fact. I call it a definition.

Then I say: When a definition is shown to be representative of fact, this means it has been validated to have been rationally constructed. In other words: The definition is shown to be an intellectual representation of that which it claims to exist in-fact.

Knowing what the facts are - is the naturally occurring sensual event called observation. Conceptualizing ones relationship with that which is responsible for the existence of fact - is a purposeful intellectual event. Observation is a brain centric idea where conceptualization is a mind centric idea.

Perhaps this gets me down the track a little further.

I have found that there is a great deal of unnecessary confusion in the use of language simply because we try to extend (or project) the meaning of words beyond necessity.

Edited February 15, 2008 by UncleJim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uncle Jim,

Just so I know if we are on the same page, have you read ITOE? If so, what do you think about it?

Another question. What do you call the law of identity? A fact or something else?

Michael

[UncleJim]

Uncle Jim,

Just so I know if we are on the same page, have you read ITOE? If so, what do you think about it?

Another question. What do you call the law of identity? A fact or something else?

Michael

I have read everything written by and about Ayn Rand before about 1980 or so.

The writings of Ayn Rand (including ITOE) set me onto the trail of proper discovery. I consider Ayn Rand to be an intellectual without equal.

The law of identity is the proposition that what is - is what it is. It is a statement of fact.

In order to make a factual statement the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement. Since that is the case; then, the law of identity is-not itself a fact. It is a resultant of fact.

The human mind perceives facts -but- prior to that mans brain had to sense the physical existence of the absolute which is responsible for the sensual existence of the fact its mind function is now perceiving.

Are we on the same page?

[BaalChatzaf]

The human mind perceives facts -but- prior to that mans brain had to sense the physical existence of the absolute which is responsible for the sensual existence of the fact its mind function is now perceiving.

Are we on the same page?

Where in the human body is the -mind- located, as opposed to the brain?

I have a recent MRI three axis scan of my head (in particular what is inside) to a resolution of one millimeter and nowhere in the scan is there a sign of my mind. No where. So where is my mind?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

The human mind perceives facts -but- prior to that mans brain had to sense the physical existence of the absolute which is responsible for the sensual existence of the fact its mind function is now perceiving.

Are we on the same page?

Where in the human body is the -mind- located, as opposed to the brain?

I have a recent MRI three axis scan of my head (in particular what is inside) to a resolution of one millimeter and nowhere in the scan is there a sign of my mind. No where. So where is my mind?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are you being serious? You're actually asking me about where your mind function is located!!! You need it to even ask me that question.

Mind is not a real something in the way a human brain is. It's a function of the human brain. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

Edited February 15, 2008 by UncleJim

[BaalChatzaf]

Are you being serious? You're actually asking me about where your mind function is located!!! You need it to even ask me that question.

Mind is not a real something in the way a human brain is. It's a function of the human brain. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

You spoke of the mind as on -object-. Now you are telling me it is a function. Please do make up your (mind?). And that is why you have to explain it. Your statements about mind were in no place explicitly about functions of something else. If you insist (now) that mind is not an object and is a function, then a function of what? I assume you mean mind is something that the brain does. Do I have this right? If it is right, why didn't you say so clearly in the first place?

The mind as a substantial object is nowhere to be found in the physical space-time continuum. Nobody has ever located a mind (as an object) in a head that did not belong to him. So if the mind is not a substance, what is the mind assuming it exists? I classify minds along with souls, spirits, ghosts, goblins and wills of the wisp. Things spoken of but never witnessed by several observers concurrently.

It so happens that I do not have a mind. I have a brain which does everything you claim your mind does. I have physical evidence that I have no mind inside my skull. Only brain and other neural tissue.

Ba'al Chatzaf (the literal minded).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My view is that the fundamental error is in their conceptualizing of the idea of fact. Fact is not an aspect of reality; it is a mental resultant of it. Nor is fact 'yet' epistemological. When fact becomes epistemological its 'word status' changes from fact to identity. Fact exists as a known aspect of reality. As such fact exists as a specific electrochemical response of a brain to a specific aspect of reality.

In order to make a factual statement the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement.

Uncle Jim,

I am confused by what you mean by "fact." You claimed that "fact is not an aspect of reality." That leaves brain images. So when you say "the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement," are you saying that a brain image must exist prior to a factual statement, or that an aspect of reality must exist?

As I understand Objectivism, "fact" stands for an aspect of reality without the agent's awareness.

For example, in ITOE, "fact" means aspect of reality irrespective of brain image. As one example, there are Rand's repeated statements about axiomatic concepts being primary facts of reality. She used the term "fact" consistently to mean something before and independent of brain images. In her usage, brain images are made from facts; they are awareness of facts.

One thing is very clear to me: you use the word "fact" with an entirely different meaning than Rand did.

Michael

[UncleJim]

Are you being serious? You're actually asking me about where your mind function is located!!! You need it to even ask me that question.

Mind is not a real something in the way a human brain is. It's a function of the human brain. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

You spoke of the mind as on -object-. Now you are telling me it is a function. Please do make up your (mind?). And that is why you have to explain it. Your statements about mind were in no place explicitly about functions of something else. If you insist (now) that mind is not an object and is a function, then a function of what? I assume you mean mind is something that the brain does. Do I have this right? If it is right, why didn't you say so clearly in the first place?

The mind as a substantial object is nowhere to be found in the physical space-time continuum. Nobody has ever located a mind (as an object) in a head that did not belong to him. So if the mind is not a substance, what is the mind assuming it exists? I classify minds along with souls, spirits, ghosts, goblins and wills of the wisp. Things spoken of but never witnessed by several observers concurrently.

It so happens that I do not have a mind. I have a brain which does everything you claim your mind does. I have physical evidence that I have no mind inside my skull. Only brain and other neural tissue.

Ba'al Chatzaf (the literal minded).

Go to post 61. It denies your claim that I made reference to the mind as being an object.

You said "It so happens that I do not have a mind." I really wish you had not said that! How can I now communicate with you?

Edited February 15, 2008 by UncleJim

[UncleJim]

My view is that the fundamental error is in their conceptualizing of the idea of fact. Fact is not an aspect of reality; it is a mental resultant of it. Nor is fact 'yet' epistemological. When fact becomes epistemological its 'word status' changes from fact to identity. Fact exists as a known aspect of reality. As such fact exists as a specific electrochemical response of a brain to a specific aspect of reality.

In order to make a factual statement the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement.

Uncle Jim,

I am confused by what you mean by "fact." You claimed that "fact is not an aspect of reality." That leaves brain images. So when you say "the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement," are you saying that a brain image must exist prior to a factual statement, or that an aspect of reality must exist?

Brains image what they know to exist. The brain-image must exist prior any statement made about it. The existence of brain-images is called fact. Alternately; Evidence of factual existence is called a brain-image. Therefore any statement made about what ones brain knows to exist is; by definition, a factual statement.

Notice: A brain-image cannot exist in the absence of the absolute nature of reality. Since this is the case; then, a factual statement will reflect what the absolute nature of reality is.

As I understand Objectivism, "fact" stands for an aspect of reality without the agent's awareness.

For example, in ITOE, "fact" means aspect of reality irrespective of brain image. As one example, there are Rand's repeated statements about axiomatic concepts being primary facts of reality. She used the term "fact" consistently to mean something before and independent of brain images. In her usage, brain images are made from facts; they are awareness of facts.

One thing is very clear to me: you use the word "fact" with an entirely different meaning than Rand did.

Michael

You said "there are Rand's repeated statements about axiomatic concepts being primary facts of reality."

Is the "axiomatic concept" actually an aspect of reality. No it isn't. Its a resultant of it. The fact which is responsible for the existence of the "axiomatic concept" had to exist prior to it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Uncle Jim,

I don't know what you mean just yet.

An axiom is a conceopt and description of a fundamental aspect of reality. Rand used the word fact for the aspect of reality, not the concept or description. She used the word "axiom" for that.

I think we are discussing only semantics. I have a question for you. In your conception, does "aspect of reality" exist before a brain image of it does? Does "reality" exist before a brain image of it does?

If you believe they do exist prior to awareness, do you object to Rand's use of the word "fact" to designate this?

Michael

[UncleJim]

Uncle Jim,

I don't know what you mean just yet.

An axiom is a concept and description of a fundamental aspect of reality. Rand used the word fact for the aspect of reality, not the concept or description. She used the word "axiom" for that.

Can you go into your back yard and pick-up a fact? Can't do that with marriage either. But you can do that with dirt, stone, rabbit, rose, etc.

In my understanding of this. Axiom selects out specific concepts which are primary denotes of fact. The ones upon which all others of simular nature depend.

I think we are discussing only semantics. I have a question for you. In your conception, does "aspect of reality" exist before a brain image of it does?

Yes. Of course. An "aspect of reality" is a physical existent.

Does "reality" exist before a brain image of it does?

No. Reality is like marriage. It has no physical existence at all. Its totally epistemological. But; of course, when you reduce it to its root meaning then yes.

If you believe they do exist prior to awareness, do you object to Rand's use of the word "fact" to designate this?

Michael

If I have this correctly she used "object" to designate what exists in-reality.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If I have this correctly she used "object" to designate what exists in-reality.

Jim,

I have read her using this term with this meaning, also, especially when discussing the normal agent/object designations other philosophers use. For her normal writing, though, I have seen her use fact more often.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Go to post 61. It denies your claim that I made reference to the mind as being an object.

You said "It so happens that I do not have a mind." I really wish you had not said that! How can I now communicate with you?

Just talk or write. The data will get to my brain which does my thinking. My brain does, in fact, what you claim you mind does. At least my brain shows up on a PET Scan or an MRI or an X-ray and it can be observed by third parties. Can you say the same thing about your mind?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[UncleJim]

Go to post 61. It denies your claim that I made reference to the mind as being an object.

You said "It so happens that I do not have a mind." I really wish you had not said that! How can I now communicate with you?

Just talk or write. The data will get to my brain which does my thinking. My brain does, in fact, what you claim you mind does. At least my brain shows up on a PET Scan or an MRI or an X-ray and it can be observed by third parties. Can you say the same thing about your mind?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Does you're thinking show up on a scan? No! Then you're brain does not think - Right?

Sure your brain does specific kinds of things. Some of these are explained as being done by its mind function.

[tjohnson]

Does you're thinking show up on a scan? No! Then you're brain does not think - Right?

Sure your brain does specific kinds of things. Some of these are explained as being done by its mind function.

Actually "thinking" does show up as increased blood flow or metabolism at certain sites in the brain, if I am not mistaken. It is physically impossible for any activity attributed to "the mind" to not occur in the brain.

[BaalChatzaf]

Does you're thinking show up on a scan? No! Then you're brain does not think - Right?

Sure your brain does specific kinds of things. Some of these are explained as being done by its mind function.

Actually "thinking" does show up as increased blood flow or metabolism at certain sites in the brain, if I am not mistaken. It is physically impossible for any activity attributed to "the mind" to not occur in the brain.

A PET scan will even show which areas of the brain are involved in various modes of thinking. I had a PET scan some years ago and I actually got to -see- myself thinking. An amazing scan technique. MRI and PET scans show that thinking is a totally physical process. It is done by the brain through various physiological processes. There is not a hint of spirituality, mentality or any kind of immaterial process involved. It is one hundred percent physical.

There is no mind (as a substance). There is only brain involved in thought and feeling. People who believe in minds (as substance) might as well believe in spirits, ghosts, goblins, will of the wisp and gods.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited February 16, 2008 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Actually a PET scan only shows brain waves. To use your standard, you only presume these waves are related to thinking since the actual thinking does not show up.

(btw - Since causality is included in my conception of entities and their actions, your standard is not the one I use to analyze the scans.)

Michael