Perception, Logic, and Language

[NickOtani]

Everybody begins life as a naive realist. We believe what we perceive. We progress through developmental stages inwhich our cognitive abilities and corresponding perceptual skills take on some sophistication. (Piaget) At some point in our lives, we become convinced that objects exist independent of our perception of them - that is, our cars do not stop existing simply because they are locked away in our garages. Also, we come to suspect, at some point in our lives, that objects exist independent of our wishes and beliefs - that is, we cannot make our cars go away simply because that is what we want. Even with the strongest of beliefs, we cannot wish our cars into teacups. Generally, we believe that reality is objectively discovered and not subject to our wishes or beliefs.

The problem is that we do not and cannot discover everything. Our perceptual abilities seem limited. It is only through the assistance of technological facilities that we can detect certain sounds heard by dogs or see with the sharpness of an eagle. Without devices such as the radio, we cannot tune in on the sound waves which are almost always around us. Even the things we do perceive may not be perceived correctly. Our senses sometimes fool us. We sometimes see illusions, like a bent pencil in a half a glass of water. Also, if our senses were somehow differently constructed; if, for example, we had eyes like those of a bee, then we would either perceive reality differently or perceive a different reality.

The reality we see differs, to some extent, in the eye of each beholder. This is because there are times when we adjust our perceptions by taking mental leaps. Nobody has ever seen a perfectly square box, yet we still attribute squareness to certain objects. We ignore the slight imperfections of an otherwise square object. We ignore a small blemish on an otherwise pretty face. (Unless we don't like the person. Then the blemish becomes larger.) We fill in our incomplete picture of reality with our own details. More than this, we sometimes impose our ideas onto that which surrounds us. We cannot discover everything, therefore we create certain things.

It may be that the problems with perception are insurmountable, and we actually create everything. The law of gravity did not exist until someone made a mental leap. The laws of logic and the laws of physics may be nothing more than the figments of someone's imagination. It sometimes seems that all scientific explanations are only the most current mythologies that we use. They may be no more real than the ghosts and gods that we once thought were real. Thousands of years from now, if we don't go through another dark ages, people may view our most sophisticated observations as we view Thor and Zeus.

Is there one reality which each of us perceives differently, or is there a different reality for each of us? Is there an objective reality which we can, to some extent, discover; or is reality entirely subjective?

Are we even on the right track? Perhaps we are presumptious in thinking that we are even capable of discovering or creating anything. Perhaps it is reality which forces itself upon us.

Plato said that the light of reason shines on eternal forms or ideas and casts shadows which are the appearances and approximations of our imperfect and unreal world. Although Aristotle tried to explain things differently, the difference between Plato and Aristotle is only semantics. Both posited two realities, one of form and one of matter.

Bishop Berkeley said reality is only a mental thing, except that we are all in God's mind. However, without the assumption of the independent existence of matter, there could be no proof for the existence of the mind. Where did all the mental images come from? Berkeley may have said mind was over matter, but "No matter, never mind." What a great quote!

Most of us are willing to accept the assumption that there is something out there, and we label and categorize it as we come upon it. We put meaning into the world, but the world also forces us to recognize it. The world exists in our light, but without any world, there would be no us.

I would like to think some objective knowledge is possible, and I would like to make the pursuit of that knowledge my goal. I know that I must take certain leaps of faith, but I want only to use them as temporary assumptions in a continuous search for undeniable facts. I must be able to discard my beliefs in exchange for truth. Even when the "real" world is discomforting to me, I must prefer it to the security of an imaginary playground. I may ignore the small imperfections on an otherwise square box or the blemish on an otherwise pretty face, but I cannot ignore blatant injustice or that which is of potential danger. I cannot pretend harmful elements do not exist. I cannot project only pleasant things onto the world. As paradoxical as it may sound, I want to learn more than simply that which I want to learn.

The method I use to find objective knowledge is observation and generalization. I observe that which surrounds me, and I generalize things based on those observations. My generalizations then become something else that I can observe, and I can make further generalizations. I can observe something which calls itself Aimee, and I can generalize that Aimee is a woman. Further, I can generalize that all women are human being and all humans are living entities. The further I get from the specific person, Aimee, the more abstract I become. Even when I observe the method I am using to generalize about the method I am using, I must conclude that my conclusions are a product of this method. (S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1963)

Unfortunately, all generalizations based upon observations are not objective facts. False conclusions could be due to insufficient evidence or faulty reasoning from the evidence. Even the most carefully formulated generalizations can be false. If a thousand Abadabs are Bugaboos, it does not necessarily follow that all Abadabs are Bugaboos. It is this inconclusiveness of all inductive reasoning which prompted David Hume to say that knowledge is only an illusion to be maintained by the ignorant.

However, even Hume's statement is a product of this inductive method. In a strict sense, there is no way to assert absolute skepticism which does not desolve into an ultimate paradox.

Our classification system could be wrong, but it can be adjusted in the same way it was created, through the inductive process of observation and generalization.

As a tool for moving from observation to generalization, logic has several inadequacies. In more ways than one, logic has limitations. If it is used as a crutch or security blanket upon which people become dependent, then logic can stifle rather than facilitate growth and development. There is too much faith and opinion stuck in with logic. The primative basis upon which rules of inference can operate cannot be arrived at through the same rules of inference. Everything leads back to certain assumptions which are generally accepted or arbitrarily chosen. These assumptions are not necessarily objective facts, and conclusions drawn from them need not be undeniable. Also, when the system emerges, there must be another system against which the first system can be verified. Godel's second theorem states that if N is consistent, then the consistency of N cannot be proved by methods formalizable in N. If there must be more than one system, then which system determines which system determines truth? It seems logical, then, that logic may not always be logical.

We already know that inductive arguments are always inconclusive. Deductive arguments are always circular. It would seem, then, that all propositions of logical truth are merely sophisticated pronouncements of faith, and the only two positions open to philosophers are dogmatism and nihilism.

When people in the real world, even people on this board, say something is not logical, they often mean they do not understand it or do not like it. It is often the force of personality which wins debates. It does not matter what is logical or right. How many times have we sat at meetings knowing our points were inescapable, logical conclusions; but other people only ignore what they don't want to hear. It seems that learning about logic is not worth the educational effort.

Oh, I feel bad, but wait! If you stick with me, I'll still show you some value in logic:

At this moment I am picking out certain symbols which a certain group of people decided to use to refer to certain objects and ideas. I am, further, interchanging these symbols into two-part substitution frames of subject-predicate. This seems to organize my symbols in such a way that they show some relation to each other. As a consequence, the reference capacity of my symbols is expanded. Each of my statements is an attempt to communicate meaning which cannot be expressed by random, unstructured scribbles.

I use this process not only to explain my ideas to other people but also to examine ideas for myself. The process of communicating with one's self is an important form of thinking. This ability may be the only thing which separates human beings (Perhaps also chimpanzees, dolphins, and an African Gray Parrot) from other living creatures. Our observations indicate that most animals and insects do not seem to consciously employ a structured form of symbol manipulation or loose "system of logic" for communication. Ants, bees, and other social insects have a very intricate communication system, but it does not seem that they are in conscious control of it. Most animals can make meaningful sounds, but no structure can be detected. It could be that Suzan Langer was right when she said that the power of using symbols is the only thing that makes man lord of the earth. (The Lord of Creation, 1944)

According to Benjamin Lee Whorf, it is through our language that we analyze nature, channel our reasoning, and build the house of our consciousness. (Language, Thought, and Reality, 1956) This implies that our language not only facilitates but also limits our awareness. The good thing about our language is that it allows us to conceptualize rather than depend on percepts and sensations as do other living things. It is because of our language that we can grasp the gestalt of our experiences. We can formulate cognitive maps which guide us where our inherent reflexes and automatic functions cannot. Without language, we could not make many of our generalizations from our observations.

However, we are also limited by the limitations and structure of our language. Just like formal logic, language ultimately rests on social conventions. How can I depend on something which is the result of that which was haphazardly chosen by the group of people of whom I happen to be part? There are different languages with different structures which may very well shed a different light on my ideas. How do I know that the pattern of my language is the most reliable and accurate guide for showing the relation of my words to each other?

The true rationalist would maintain that there are certain principles of thought which go beyond mere convention. The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are conventions based on underlying facts of reality. It does not matter what the convention is; it must always be true that A is A and not not-A. However, the rationalist can only assert this. He cannot prove that general truths are true. He must still assume that there is an order in nature, and reality is not beyond rational comprehension.

Even if we could base logic on underlying, objective facts of reality, there would still arise several problems. For example, Epimenides' paradox (The statement "I am lying." seems both true and false.), and Russel's construction (The statement immediately following this statement is false - The statement immediately preceding this statement is true.) are only a few of the brain teasers that still make logicians feel insecure.

Logic does not seem infallible as a criterian for truth, but other criteria are also not without problems. When two opposing views rest only on faith, then settlement cannot be easy. Majority rule, intuition, authority, revelation, etc. all can be wrong. Even pragmatism has only the appearance of truth.

At least logic is self-critical and self-correcting. It points to its own inadequacies. The other ways of arriving at truth do not have this safeguard. Perhaps an enlightened rationalism is still worthy of cultivation.

It may even be good that logic is not perfect. If there were no problems with logic, then the idea of freedom would be somewhat threatened. We could still say that one can choose not to be rational, but what is not rational about choosing to avoid a prison? Why should one choose to be rational if being rational locks one into a single course and prohibits creativity and surprise? If logic were perfect in every way, then a rational life would probably be a little dull.

I think logic can often be a useful tool. We should use logic, but like drugs and alcohol, it must be used with caution. We should not allow logic to use us.

bis bald,

Nick

[tndbay]

Even if we could base logic on underlying, objective facts of reality, there would still arise several problems. For example, Epimenides' paradox (The statement "I am lying." seems both true and false.), and Russel's construction (The statement immediately following this statement is false - The statement immediately preceding this statement is true.) are only a few of the brain teasers that still make logicians feel insecure.

this can only cause anxiety to very very very very poor logician!

goedel, despite the perversion of his theorem, did not imply that 'you can't know anything because you can't know everything".

instead, use goedel to mean that by enlarging the context you can subsume an intractable.

'everything i say is a lie' is not tractable til you enlarge the context and observe that 'this is a self contradiction. problem resolved. it was just that easy.

several variations on the self contradiction exist. they are used by gurus to cripple minds. it's like a DOS on the mind (denial of services attack). i like to call these things 'spinner viruses' cuz the logical function can be reproduced with integrated circuits and what you get, when you plug an inverter's output to its input, is an oscillator that runs as fast as the gate delay will allow. when a mind is infected with one of these, its resources are consumed and the critical faculties are thereby weakened.

for your protection, i include the following graphic- wrap it around a can of your favorite air freshener.

[JennaW]

Is there one reality which each of us perceives differently, or is there a different reality for each of us? Is there an objective reality which we can, to some extent, discover; or is reality entirely subjective?

Are these the only alternatives?

What about intersubjectivity of an objective reality? There is one reality, yet we are all individual, but social, creatures that all share that reality.

Subjectivity and objectivity seem too bifurcated into a dichotomy; I see them as two sides of the same coin: the interaction of an individual, or of individuals, to the reality that they are a part and parcel of. Our consciousnesses are subjective and objective, depending on the perspective.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Are these the only alternatives?

What about intersubjectivity of an objective reality? There is one reality, yet we are all individual, but social, creatures that all share that reality.

Subjectivity and objectivity seem too bifurcated into a dichotomy; I see them as two sides of the same coin: the interaction of an individual, or of individuals, to the reality that they are a part and parcel of. Our consciousnesses are subjective and objective, depending on the perspective.

How about one absolute reality that contains individuals with relative subjective perspectives of that reality? Intersubjectivity is then just the relative subjective perspective created of that aspect of reality that contains other relative subjective perspectives of reality. If it hurts to twist your mind around that one, I did it on purpose.

There is no magic formula for attaining an absolute perspective of an absolute reality. At best we can try to identify the one absolute reality through different relative subjective lenses and try to piece together a complete picture of the absolute reality. Intersubjectivity is one means of tapping into different relative subjective lenses.

Where is objectivity in all this? Objectivity is found in tying one's relative subjective perspective of the absolute reality to evidence, reason and peer review. Objectivity and subjectivity are not a dichotomy. Objectivity is a particular way of using one's subjectivity.

Paul

[JennaW]

How about one absolute reality that contains individuals with relative subjective perspectives of that reality? Intersubjectivity is then just the relative subjective perspective created of that aspect of reality that contains other relative subjective perspectives of reality. If it hurts to twist your mind around that one, I did it on purpose.

It didn't twist at all-- I have a dynamic diagram in my head for just this description. I imagine a single sphere-- say, an orange (the fruit). Then I imagine about 400 people looking at the fruit (stick figures surrounding the fruit). Then I draw in lines from each stick figure to the fruit, each line in 400 different colors. That's the subjective-objective line. Each stick figure is perceiving and conceiving of the orange, and each one has their own line. But this diagram isn't dynamic yet. Let's set this in time: as time goes on, the fruit will rot. The stick figures (the people) will grow older. If the fruit changes, and the people looking at the fruit changes, then the lines between each figure and the fruit will change. AND, if the people communicate with each other about what they see, what they will do is provide aspects of a whole, and cause their direct interaction with the orange to change more.

To make this more complicated, imagine each figure in a special orbit around the fruit, at their own special distance. Then, imagine these distances constantly changing. Next, imagine the fruit changing positions-- say, rotating.

This is the image I have, and it contains subjectivity, intersubjectivity, objectivity, transparency, interaction, dynamism. Each figure looking at the orange is a persepctive, with a relative position in regards to other figures and the orange, at a point in time.

There is no magic formula for attaining an absolute perspective of an absolute reality. At best we can try to identify the one absolute reality through different relative subjective lenses and try to piece together a complete picture of the absolute reality. Intersubjectivity is one means of tapping into different relative subjective lenses.

It isn't within human identity to have an absolute perspective of absolute reality. Perhaps this orientation would be fitting for Zeus or Jehovah... ;)

Objectivity is found in tying one's relative subjective perspective of the absolute reality to evidence, reason and peer review. Objectivity and subjectivity are not a dichotomy. Objectivity is a particular way of using one's subjectivity.

Couldn't have said it better myself! And this is why I love science.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Jenna, you wrote:

It didn't twist at all

For you, I didn't think it would.

I have a dynamic diagram in my head for just this description.

I like the image. Your metaphorical model maps perfectly onto mine. I see mine existing more in space (as in, between the stars). It has grown from the images I formed while trying to understand Einstein's special relativity. I see spaceships and astronauts observing, and describing to one another, an asteroid in space as they move around it. Meanwhile, miners dig into the asteroid, scientists study it through a microscope, and astronomers observe it in the context of its galactic and intergalactic neighbourhood.

I've been told holograms work because every part contains an image of the whole from a distinct perspective. This is how I see subjectivity. Every subject has a distinct perspective of the absolute reality they observe. Intersubjectivity is a means of creating a network of communication between these distinct perspectives. It allows an individual, via an empathic process ( if only through the written word or through more colourful interactions), to generate recreations of other individuals' perspectives. The job of each subject in the intersubjective web is then to create an integration, not only of the information they have experienced directly, but of the information experienced through the empathic/intersubjective process. Creating a view that integrates one's own direct subjective experience and one's intersubjective experience is like creating a complete hologram of reality by putting together the parts.

I don't think this is exactly in alignment with AR's vision of epistemology. She wanted to find a formula that allowed her to justify deeming as unimportant, those views that she did not share. She also wanted to find a formula that allowed her perspective to have a special path to discovering the absolute reality without reference to others. She found an epistemological formula that accomplished both of these. I think her formula was very powerful but incomplete. Making certain information (ie., certain evidence) unimportant, and assuming her perspective went beyond being relative to being a pathway to understanding the absoluteness of reality, is, perhaps, the source of many of the weaknesses that have been suggested about AR and have plagued the culture of Objectivism.

I think, also, if you look at the history of science, the same things I said about AR's epistemology and the culture of Objectivism can be said of the empirical method and the culture of science. Some questions to ask of Objectivism and science:

What evidence was deemed unimportant in the development of the orthodox view of existence?

What evidence was ignored and has not been integrated?

What sources of information have been deemed unimportant?

What capacities of consciousness have been deemed unimportant?

What difference has it made to assume the existence of a method that connects one's perspective to the absolute?

Yes, there is an absolute reality. But all we have is our relative perspectives and a measure of objectivity to decipher it's code and keep us on course. Both the Objectivist epistemology and the empirical method contain this measure of objectivity. I don't think rationalizing away the value of certain orientations of consciousness and certain types of information and acting as though one's perspective has a special connection to the absoluteness of reality is necessarily being the most objective. This can, however, be how we define our current era.

Paul

Wow! That veered off on a tangent I wasn't planning when I started.

[NickOtani]

If "all we have is our relative perspectives and a measure of objectivity to decipher it's [sic] code and keep us on course," then how do we know there is an absolute reality?

bis bald,

Nick

[JennaW]

Nick: In my mental visualization, the orange and the figures are all part of objective reality-- that which still exists when I die. I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute reality".

[NickOtani]

Nick: In my mental visualization, the orange and the figures are all part of objective reality-- that which still exists when I die. I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute reality".

Jenna, it's not really my burden here to define "absolute reality." Paul Mawdsley said, "Yes, there is an absolute reality. But all we have 'is' our relative perspectives and a measure of objectivity to decipher 'it's' code and keep us on course." I am simply asking how we know there is an absolute reality if all we have are our relative perspectives and a measure of objectivity to decpher its code and keep us on course. How is this different from Kant's view that here is a noumena beyond the phenomena but that we can never get to it? How do we know that the phenomena is not all there is?

Your visualization reminds me of the story from Hindu thought of the blind men inspecting the elephant from different perspectives, those who inspect the tail think it is a rope. Those who inspect one of the legs think it is a column. Those who inspect the side think it is a wall. Those who inspect the trunk think it is a snake. If this is the way things are, then our perceptions of the world are relative and not at all close to what is actually there. And, this story doesn't even account for the constant flux on the part of the object being inspected and the inspectors. If nothing is permanent, then it is hard to have an axiom like A is A, which implies fixed natures.

Plato already worked through all this, but you know that, don't you?

bis bald,

Nick

[Paul Mawdsley]

Hi Nick, welcome back.

Our understanding of the nature of knowledge would have to change. I think Jenna gets it.

Knowledge is not about truth statements. It's about having an integrated model of existence (or some existent) that is abstracted from the evidence, tested against the evidence, and tested from the perspective of subjects with other relative views. The model must be tested as a whole and each of its parts must be tested against the evidence. All we'll ever have is an abstraction of an absolute reality from our relative perspectives. How do we know there is an absolute reality? It's the model that best fits the evidence. I guess the term knowledge should be questioned because of its absolute nature.

Despite some claims to the contrary, I would say I know man has landed on the moon. It's the best fit for the evidence and I have no reason to doubt it. I can point to individual pieces of evidence and I can see how this perspective fits with the grander scheme of my perspective. I consider most conspiracy theories the result of delusion because they come from a poor sense of the grand scheme of existence even if their interpretation of the individual pieces of evidence can sometimes be consistently argued.

I know what I know because it has been abstracted from the evidence, I constantly reevaluate and retest it against the evidence, I share it with my peers so they can review it, and I evaluate and integrate the reviews of my peers. Everything I would claim to know continues to pass this test. There are things that I think that are much more speculative that shape my perspective. But I do not claim to know these things. I guess writing about such things and having them reviewed by my peers is an attempt at having these thoughts elevated to the level of knowledge.

As an aside, I wish scientists would stop making knowledge statements about metaphysics and cosmology. The Big Bang and the breakdown of causation at the quantum limit are both a long way from being knowledge.

Paul

P.S. Nick, assume I haven't read much but have thought and created a lot. There is more than one way to create a perspective that has value. I would rather we get off to a better start this time.

[NickOtani]

Knowledge is not about truth statements. It's about having an integrated model of existence (or some existent) that is abstracted from the evidence, tested against the evidence, and tested from the perspective of subjects with other relative views. The model must be tested as a whole and each of its parts must be tested against the evidence. All we'll ever have is an abstraction of an absolute reality from our relative perspectives. How do we know there is an absolute reality? It's the model that best fits the evidence. I guess the term knowledge should be questioned because of its absolute nature.

This sounds like the coherence theory of knowledge, that something can be knowledge if it fits into an integrated whole, like pieces of a puzzle. One problem might be that those pieces of information that don’t fit might be the very pieces that disprove the model. Many of the frameworks of bigots have internal consistency. Also, how does one test an integrated model? Must there be another model and so on into infinity? Can it be tested against itself? If someone objects to coherency, does he or she place himself or herself outside of coherence? Must he or she argue from incoherence? That would seem absurd.

Despite some claims to the contrary, I would say I know man has landed on the moon. It's the best fit for the evidence and I have no reason to doubt it. I can point to individual pieces of evidence and I can see how this perspective fits with the grander scheme of my perspective. I consider most conspiracy theories the result of delusion because they come from a poor sense of the grand scheme of existence even if their interpretation of the individual pieces of evidence can sometimes be consistently argued.

In other words, some things are easer to believe than others, right? It is easier to believe in natural law than in miracles, exceptions to those rules. However, this is still belief, not knowledge, unless all knowledge is just belief with a high degree of certainty.

I know what I know because it has been abstracted from the evidence, I constantly reevaluate and retest it against the evidence, I share it with my peers so they can review it, and I evaluate and integrate the reviews of my peers. Everything I would claim to know continues to pass this test. There are things that I think that are much more speculative that shape my perspective. But I do not claim to know these things. I guess writing about such things and having them reviewed by my peers is an attempt at having these thoughts elevated to the level of knowledge.

Abstracting from evidence means taking inductive leaps, making general conclusions based on specific evidence, but not all the evidence. If a hundred thousand abadabs are bugaboos but there are a hundred thousand and one abadabs in existence, it is a leap of faith to conclude that that last abadab is a bugaboo. It is possible that it is not. This inconclusiveness of all inductive reasoning prompted Hume to say that all knowledge is only an illusion to be maintained by the ignorant. Also, sharing things with peers is only an appeal to popularity or majority rule. This is not reliable. Popular views have, in the past, been wrong. It is not the greatest truth test. If you live in a community of racial bigots, it might be the conventional wisdom that white people are superior to blacks or Asians. It doesn’t mean that such a proposition is true.

As an aside, I wish scientists would stop making knowledge statements about metaphysics and cosmology. The Big Bang and the breakdown of causation at the quantum limit are both a long way from being knowledge.

The Big Bang is a theory that seems to fit with some evidence. There are still problems with it, and scientists know that. They are also testing different explanations on quantum physics which don’t seem to follow Newton’s laws. We do not know everything, and perhaps we never will. We start with a hypothesis. When we are a little more certain, we have a theory. When we are a little more certain, we have a theorem. When we are a little more certain, we have a law. However, even some laws have gone away. I accept some justified belief as knowledge. A bullet hole in the gut is not subjective opinion. It is real. However, I think it is wise in most things posited by philosophy as absolute truth to use all our best truth tests and keep in mind that we could be dead wrong. In that, we may be right.

P.S. Nick, assume I haven't read much but have thought and created a lot. There is more than one way to create a perspective that has value. I would rather we get off to a better start this time.

People make false assumptions about me all the time on the internet. I don’t necessarily like it, but I don’t get all upset about it and go off like a super-sensitive, hysterical little baby. I do have passion and indignation, and I save that for people like Mel Gibson. I don’t judge you if you haven’t read a lot, although I am amazed that people who become adults without having read much of the Bible, but I do judge you if you think it isn’t necessary for you to read others who have written on subjects on which you express views. I can’t respect people who are willfully ignorant.

And, I don’t care if you don’t like me. I am treating you as an adult, and I expect you to treat me the same. Or, don’t talk to me at all. Don’t try to make me conform to some personal standards of your own that are more than normal adult to adult civility.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Dragonfly]

Knowledge is not about truth statements. It's about having an integrated model of existence (or some existent) that is abstracted from the evidence, tested against the evidence, and tested from the perspective of subjects with other relative views. The model must be tested as a whole and each of its parts must be tested against the evidence. All we'll ever have is an abstraction of an absolute reality from our relative perspectives. How do we know there is an absolute reality? It's the model that best fits the evidence. I guess the term knowledge should be questioned because of its absolute nature.

This sounds like the coherence theory of knowledge, that something can be knowledge if it fits into an integrated whole, like pieces of a puzzle. One problem might be that those pieces of information that don’t fit might be the very pieces that disprove the model. Many of the frameworks of bigots have internal consistency. Also, how does one test an integrated model? Must there be another model and so on into infinity? Can it be tested against itself? If someone objects to coherency, does he or she place himself or herself outside of coherence? Must he or she argue from incoherence? That would seem absurd.

You test your model by using it in practice, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is not only the internal consistency that is important (it is of course fairly easy to construct an internally consistent but completely wrong model), but the consistency of its predictions with the feedback from the real world. With a bad model you won't get far. The overwhelming success of the scientific method is its validation.

[Dragonfly]

As an aside, I wish scientists would stop making knowledge statements about metaphysics and cosmology. The Big Bang and the breakdown of causation at the quantum limit are both a long way from being knowledge.

I wish that philosophers would stop making knowledge statements about physics and cosmology if they have not seriously studied those fields - popular science books are no substitute.

[Paul Mawdsley]

The overwhelming success of the scientific method is its validation.

Believe it or not, Dragonfly, I agree. I wonder if it sounds like I am contradicting myself. I am not. However, if it seems I am, I would like to explain. Let me know.

QUOTE(Paul Mawdsley @ Aug 5 2006, 09:11 AM)

As an aside, I wish scientists would stop making knowledge statements about metaphysics and cosmology. The Big Bang and the breakdown of causation at the quantum limit are both a long way from being knowledge.

I wish that philosophers would stop making knowledge statements about physics and cosmology if they have not seriously studied those fields - popular science books are no substitute.

Touche! It is not the physics I am making statements about. It is the epistemology and the metaphysics of physicists that I question. Do you think these things should not be questioned by those of us on the lower rungs?

Paul

[Paul Mawdsley]

And, I don’t care if you don’t like me. I am treating you as an adult, and I expect you to treat me the same. Or, don’t talk to me at all. Don’t try to make me conform to some personal standards of your own that are more than normal adult to adult civility.

Bis bald,

Nick

You speak of normal adult civility. I require healthy adult civility to maintain a dialogue. This is why I like the vision and the values of OL. I have limited time and wish to spend it wisely. I can choose to spend time in discussions with you or with others who are able to maintain a spirit of basic understanding, respect, and benevelance. Communication is about more than the exchange of ideas. It is also about the mutual exchange of psychological visability. Dispite the fact you and I have some interests that converge, I choose to spend my time in the company of other people. I enjoy it more.

Paul

[Dragonfly]

The overwhelming success of the scientific method is its validation.

Believe it or not, Dragonfly, I agree. I wonder if it sounds like I am contradicting myself. I am not. However, if it seems I am, I would like to explain. Let me know.

I readily believe you, as I understood that this was what you in fact wanted to say in that paragraph. Surprising as it may be, I do not always disagree with you!

[Paul Mawdsley]

I readily believe you, as I understood that this was what you in fact wanted to say in that paragraph. Surprising as it may be, I do not always disagree with you!

Dragonfly, believe it or not, I'm finally starting to clue-in to your sense of humour. I think I have occasionally mistaken your intention because I thought you didn't have one. (Maybe pure projection on my part.)

Paul

Edited August 5, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[NickOtani]

You speak of normal adult civility. I require healthy adult civility to maintain a dialogue. This is why I like the vision and the values of OL. I have limited time and wish to spend it wisely. I can choose to spend time in discussions with you or with others who are able to maintain a spirit of basic understanding, respect, and benevelance. Communication is about more than the exchange of ideas. It is also about the mutual exchange of psychological visability. Dispite the fact you and I have some interests that converge, I choose to spend my time in the company of other people. I enjoy it more.

That's fine by me. I really don't think we really have any interests that converge. Go play and have fun. If nobody here wants to talk with someone who focuses on ideas, that's fine with me.

bis bald,

Nick

[NickOtani]

You test your model by using it in practice, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. It is not only the internal consistency that is important (it is of course fairly easy to construct an internally consistent but completely wrong model), but the consistency of its predictions with the feedback from the real world. With a bad model you won't get far. The overwhelming success of the scientific method is its validation.

If something works in practice, it isn't necessarily true. Sick people get well by taking placebos, but the placebos, themselves, do not have a cause and effect relationship to healing sickness. It could be something else. There are psychological factors. This is also evident in the Hawthorn Effect, where students being tested who are aware they are being observed by researchers score higher than those who think they are not being watched. Consistency of predictions is important for building computers, travelling in space, and saving lives. However, the mechanistic model still has gaps. There are things that cannot be tested with scientfic method. It would be hard to duplicate the Big Bang so as to test the theory by creating another universe. And, science is always coming up with tests with different samplings which yeild different results in some fields, like education, fields that are not as precise as mathematics. I remember when there were tests on marijuana which supported almost any view one wanted to support, all supposedly verified by the scientific method. Scientific method also proves, through scientific method, its own assumptions and delimitations. It would be implausible to use scientfic method to verify determinism. There are too many possible reasons for actions which would have to be identifed and checked out. But, determinism is a plausible theory. One problem with it is that it doesn't account for free-will, and free-will can also not be verified with scientific method.

We can keep coming up with models and comparing and contrasting them to each other, using Ockham's Razor and other devices to choose one over the other. We can post our ideas on messageboards and submit them to criticism. We can debate, challenge the views of others and try to find others capable of challenging us. And, we can take a stand, argue for what we think is right and denounce what we think is wrong. We can try to do a little good in the world, make our lives matter, or we can just play around and have fun, concern ourselves with fluff, avoid the stuff that dsturbs us and makes us think. Delete serious posts that hit too hard and may offend someone. Leave the frivolous ones. Yes, that's what we can do.

bis bald,

Nick

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If there are any doubts about the posting guidlines, they can be read in the Objectivist Living Posting Guidelines and Legal Notice.

Michael

[JennaW]

then it is hard to have an axiom like A is A, which implies fixed natures.

Does it? A = A to me just means that whatever thing A is, that's what it is. Whether it's an electron, or an elephant. Where did A = A ever mean that everything is fixed? Aristotle was wiser than that.

Plato already worked through all this, but you know that, don't you?

I read Plato more than a decade ago, and I don't have time to reread right now.

Because different people touching the elephant have different perspectives on the same thing, doesn't mean they 1) have no connection to what they're touching (they're touching the elephant, so why wouldn't they have a connection to it?!), or 2) that they're all relativists (when in actuality, each of them have a direct connection to objective reality), or 3) that if the elephant changes, it stops being an elephant; or if the people touching changes, they stop being people.

Change doesn't necessarily mean magical change. Change, in the sense that I meant, means that when you were 5 years old, you were different than you are now. Yet, you remained you throughout these years. This is the kind of change I'm talking about-- the dymanics of stability. It meant that you changed in certain ways--- physically, mentally, intellectually, emotionally, etc., but you're still you. It doesn't mean you went and changed into a television set-- that's not the change I'm talking about. A=A still works for me here, even if A changes, it's still A. "A" is just a variable for me, a mental container. It can include all the changes an entity can go through that I know of.

For me, saying "absolute reality" means the same thing as "objective reality".

[NickOtani]

Does it? A = A to me just means that whatever thing A is, that's what it is. Whether it's an electron, or an elephant. Where did A = A ever mean that everything is fixed? Aristotle was wiser than that.

If everything is in a state of flux, like Heraclites’s river, then things won’t be stationary enough to be identified. It won’t be A is A. It will be more like A is becoming; A is in process. By the time we get to the predicate, it will be not- A, perhaps B or something else. For identity to mean things have fixed natures, natures have to be fixed.

BTW, Aristotle was wiser than he is made out to be in Objectivist literature. He meant his principles of logic to hold the identities of variables in an argument during the course of the argument, not to say anything permanent about reality.

I read Plato ore than a decade ago…

Okay, I was trying not to be condescending. I assumed you remembered about how Plato combined Heraclites and his flux ideas with Parmenides and Zeno, who argued that motion is impossible, to form his theory of the forms. He described it in the Allegory of the Cave. This is basic Plato, and I didn’t want to insult you by going over it. However, if you need a refresher, here is a link to my writings on it:

http://www.geocities.com/nickotani/writing...tes2.html?20065

For me, saying “absolute reality” means the same as “objective reality”

But if all people perceive are relative perspectives of reality, they really don’t perceive the real face of objective reality. It is like the noumena in Kant’s philosophy, the absolute reality that humans can never get to. And, if we can never really get to it or perceive it completely and accurately, it’s a leap of faith to even infer that it is there out there at all, isn’t it? (I don’t really believe this, but I’d like to see you reason your way clear of it.)

Bis bald,

Nick

[JennaW]

1. What evidence was deemed unimportant in the development of the orthodox view of existence?

2. What evidence was ignored and has not been integrated?

3. What sources of information have been deemed unimportant?

4. What capacities of consciousness have been deemed unimportant?

5. What difference has it made to assume the existence of a method that connects one's perspective to the absolute?

Paul, we should sit down sometime and have a cup of joe! I'm having lots of fun engaging with you on this.

As for the questions...

1. Well, it depends on what the orthodox view of existence is. How is it defined? If you give me a definition, I can work off it. I didn't know there was an "orthodox view" versus all other views.

2 & 3: Refer to #1.

4. So far in my science journey, whatever we know of consciousness is important. If we lacked memory, it would put a huge dent in the concept of self. But I'm not sure what you mean by "capacities", though-- for me, capacities of consciousness include volition, emotion, cognition, memory, etc. Or, they could mean what we are capable of. I'm not sure how you're using the word "capacities"...

5. I'm thinking absolute here means objective, that which exists independently of me. Scientifically, to assume a connection with reality, the difference has been scientific progress over the years to the extent that I opened a Gateway (computer) catalog and they were selling laptops with touch-sensitive screens, on which you could directly take notes on using a stylus, and save the notes into the computer.

And I, personally, don't "assume" this connection, I've learned about it in biology and via life experience: I connect with reality via sound waves going into my ears, chemicals diffusing into my nose and mouth, and photons into my eyes-- that's the connection. I can't ever get all the photons, chemicals, or sound waves in all of reality (to the far reaches of the universe) into my sense organs-- that's unrealistic-- and in the realm of "the gods"--, so this connection must be contextual to my life; contextual to the photons, chemicals, and waves that I've interacted with and interact with throughout the course of my life. With this knowledge, reality is all around me; I am part of it, I move around in it. I interact with it in the context of my life, and that is as real as the next person's life.

Yes, there is an absolute reality. But all we have is our relative perspectives and a measure of objectivity to decipher it's code and keep us on course. Both the Objectivist epistemology and the empirical method contain this measure of objectivity. I don't think rationalizing away the value of certain orientations of consciousness and certain types of information and acting as though one's perspective has a special connection to the absoluteness of reality is necessarily being the most objective. This can, however, be how we define our current era.

There is always context. Context of a generation, of being in a different country, of one's own biology, etc. Context is a tool to understand reality. I think people tend to just drop context everywhere and not even realize it, especially dropping the context of someone else's life. Acting as though a single individual's special connection to the absolute (objective reality) is the One True Thing For Everyone Else drops A TON of context, and to me, floats away into dictatorship, omniscience, and all that jazz. This single individual must know everything about every human on planet earth in order to know who/how everyone should be. The worst of these individuals, in history, tried to become omnipotent, too, and I'm sure we can all think of examples. Likewise, a group of people as dictators reminds me of the pantheon of gods in ancient Greece.

To me, it's enough to know that a person talks about and applies their life to reality, consciousness, and existence as real things in their lives. After that, it's up to them to figure it out from there, because that's what their minds are for-- to figure this stuff out, on their own. What better way to practice one's thinking than to actually think on one's own? This is why I can understand relative perspectives on an objective reality... it's like having a set of numbers (reality), and you can draw from it different types of information (perspectives) such as mean, median, mode, standard deviation, etc. To me, not having different perspectives means not having people with their own minds. (Like in Star Trek, with the Borg).

That veered off on a tangent I wasn't planning when I started.

That's alright, I don't mind tangents. Tangents tell you where the curve is going... ;)

[Paul Mawdsley]

Paul, we should sit down sometime and have a cup of joe! I'm having lots of fun engaging with you on this.

Jenna, anytime your in town. Somehow, I don't see myself ending up in California any time soon. It's rare to meet a mind that has some similar twists to mine. I'm having a great time!

I'll give you a more substantial response to the rest of your post after some shut-eye. Thanks for your interest.

btw-- I love your angle on tangents.

Paul

Edited August 9, 2006 by Paul Mawdsley

[NickOtani]

According to Galt:

1. Reality is what it is-that is, what it is immediately apprehended to be.

2. Everyone comprehends that realty is what it is-that is, all men implicitly know the Truth.

3. The basic problem with respect to knowing stems, not from a lack of knowledge, but, rather, from a tendancy to deny, or to avoid recognzing, true knowledge for what it is. "The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true."

Chew on that, or not.

bis bald,

Nick