Concepts and Percepts

[merjet]

Which side of the sameness-identicality distinction would you place "equal," Merlin? And "equivalent"?

That is hard for me to say without knowing what two things you say are "equal" or "equivalent." 4 + 2 = 5 + 1. The two sides are equal and equivalent but not identical. Two nickels and a dime are equivalent and equal 10 cents but are not identical.

[merjet]

Actually, I wasn't sure what that part of the post was relevant to. Are you saying that the molecular weight of water is a constant non-changing thing? If you are, I will submit that these values are only approximate and subject to the accuracy of our methods of determination. I know this from experience as a surveyor that you virtually never agree with another surveyor what the coordinates of some point are and it becomes a matter of error analysis to arrive at some value.

Agreed. Measurements are the same within some degree of tolerance. Let Mb +/- T denote a range of measurement set beforehand, T being a small tolerance. Let Ma1 and Ma2 be measurements afterward. Then Ma1 and Ma2 can be regarded as the same if each is in the range [Mb - T, Mb + T] even if there is a tiny difference between them.

[BaalChatzaf]

However, use of the phrase “the same river twice” is surely justified when one considers (1) stepping into the Nile River twice within the span of a few seconds versus (2) stepping once into the Nile and once into the Mississippi." (same source as post 42)

Korzybski would say Nile_t1 is not Nile_t2 . This symbolism allows you to show the similarity and differences of the abstractions. "Nile" by itself is misleading because it implies a static,unchanging affair.

Taken to its logical extreme this mode of thinking/expressing would eliminate universals and restrict us to talking about particulars only. The consequence of which is that there would no longer be any science. Why? Every scientific theory requires at least on universally quantified postulate.

We would be reduced to subscripted grunts.

No thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

The opposite of changing is unchanging. According to your opinion, if "a river" is constantly changing, which you repeat whenever someone mentions the parts that do not change, I presume you think there is nothing unchanging about the river. Is that a fair assumption?

So it could conceivably be correct to call a tree a river and say this was an element of change? Where is the line between the river and the tree? And there is a problem even more serious. How can something change if it is not first in a fixed (i.e. unchanging) state? What is it that changes if everything changes?

And how about the logical contradiction of the "unchanging rule" that everything changes?

In other words, what is a river to you? Is it made of flowing water? Is that part unchanging or can a river be made of flowing dirt or flowing gumballs? Is H2O the unchanging molecular composition of water, or can it be H247O (i.e., being that the number must change since nothing is unchanging about water)?

You will never convince me that entities do not exist, or at least cannot be identified with certainty. I do not understand people who wish to think this way. Both change and stability exist. I seriously do not understand the need to blot one out when it is so readily observable.

As the saying goes, give a mean-spirited person a hammer and a clear shot at your toe and you will discover really quickly a quite unchanging aspect of the hammer.

The point is not threat. It is identification. That "mean-spirited person" holding the hammer could easily be nature in the form of a falling rock. It is very dangerous to misidentify or refuse to identify entities, especially the unchanging aspects of them (including their identity per se).

The law of identity exists as an aspect of reality's fundamental nature, as does the law of causality. As the lady said "A is A," with all that implies metaphysically, epistemologically, and even emotionally for the one saying it.

Michael

[merjet]

Taken to its logical extreme this mode of thinking/expressing would eliminate universals and restrict us to talking about particulars only. The consequence of which is that there would no longer be any science. Why? Every scientific theory requires at least on universally quantified postulate.

We would be reduced to subscripted grunts.

No thank you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Well said.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Korzybski would say Nile_t1 is not Nile_t2 . This symbolism allows you to show the similarity and differences of the abstractions. "Nile" by itself is misleading because it implies a static,unchanging affair.

GS,

Incidentally, saying a river really is a flow of water, could I point to the Nile (which in your idea does not really exist as a single entity) and call it Nile_t1, but then point to what we call the Mississippi and call it Nile_t2?

If not, what cannot be changed about "Nile" (the existent, not the word) that justifies the numbers?

Michael

[tjohnson]

You will never convince me that entities do not exist, or at least cannot be identified with certainty. I do not understand people who wish to think this way. Both change and stability exist. I seriously do not understand the need to blot one out when it is so readily observable.

As the saying goes, give a mean-spirited person a hammer and a clear shot at your toe and you will discover really quickly a quite unchanging aspect of the hammer.

I am discussing the theory of multiple orders of abstraction, what has it got to do with someone dropping a hammer on my toe? The theory is designed to eliminate endless arguments about "what is real', "reality", etc. that have been going on for a couple thousand years. the idea that there is an absolute reality independent of observer is just plain false, the same as it was for absolute space and absolute time. There are no such things as 'entities' that exist independent of you. The fact that seemingly solid matter is actually mostly empty space does not change the fact that it feels solid to us and , in fact, can damage our tissue on impact.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am discussing the theory of multiple orders of abstraction, what has it got to do with someone dropping a hammer on my toe?

GS,

The hammer is hard and will hurt you if it bangs you. That hardness will not change regardless of what your "multiple orders of abstraction" say. It just won't. Try it if you don't believe me.

btw - What on earth are you abstracting in this case if not the hammer and its hardness (in a normal environment)?

The abstraction can change easily from direct observation to pure speculation. The hammer's hardness will not be so accommodating to your theory. Once again, try it if you don't believe me.

... there is an absolute reality independent of observer is just plain false...

So if you go into a coma, reality will go away? Tell that to reality and the rest of us who are not in a coma perceiving it. Neither reality nor us will accommodate your theory by going away.

We are a component of reality. Reality is not a component of us. It is bigger than us and includes us. We are existents at root and only one kind of existent among many. Existence is not individual awareness at root—it includes a whole lot more than individual awareness.

There are no such things as 'entities' that exist independent of you.

Sure there are. Some of them can eat you.

This is really primary stuff. It feels like word games, not knowledge you can use.

Michael

[tjohnson]

When you say something exists, what you mean is that you perceive it's existence. This is all we will ever be able to do. Does the sun exist? Are you looking at it now? If the light is 9 minutes old do you know if the sun still exists? In 9 minutes you may perceive that it exists "now". 'reality' is just a word used to represent what we perceive and we all perceive differently. Science is the process of ordering these different abstractions into a usable structure that is relatively invariant under observer transformation.

[BaalChatzaf]

When you say something exists, what you mean is that you perceive it's existence. This is all we will ever be able to do. Does the sun exist? Are you looking at it now? If the light is 9 minutes old do you know if the sun still exists? In 9 minutes you may perceive that it exists "now". 'reality' is just a word used to represent what we perceive and we all perceive differently. Science is the process of ordering these different abstractions into a usable structure that is relatively invariant under observer transformation.

Saying something exist and existing are two different matters. Before North America was discovered by Europeans it existed. No one in Europe (before that time) could truthfully say it existed because they did not know.

Atoms existed before scientists discovered they existed.

Knowing and Being are separate matters.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Saying something exist and existing are two different matters. Before North America was discovered by Europeans it existed. No one in Europe (before that time) could truthfully say it existed because they did not know.

Atoms existed before scientists discovered they existed.

Knowing and Being are separate matters.

This reminds me of another argument. I could say the law of addition of velocities applies because I can show it experimentally. But you know it doesn't apply in general well the same is true with our "law of existence". Normally we are so close to objects that we forget that we are actually abstracting from energies and integrating the object in our nervous system. But with distant objects or very small objects it becomes more apparent that we deal with abstractions only.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

It is true that a person's own awareness is all he is going to get knowledge-wise. But he has to get knowledge of something. Otherwise it is not knowledge.

If I understand your position correctly, a person only gains knowledge of himself, since nothing exists independently from himself.

What a strange existence that presumes. In other words, our sensory organs are not organs for operating awareness of reality, but for sensing ourselves instead.

Don't be alarmed. I only use the term "ourselves" metaphorically since you don't really exist.

Michael

[merjet]

"This is like deja vu all over again." - Yogi Berra

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...ost&p=56109

[tjohnson]

It is true that a person's own awareness is all he is going to get knowledge-wise. But he has to get knowledge of something. Otherwise it is not knowledge.

If I understand your position correctly, a person only gains knowledge of himself, since nothing exists independently from himself.

You misunderstand me. Our senses abstract from energies - we don't sense objects directly. These energies exist independent of us. You speak as though objects exist independently but I claim only energies exist and we manufacture, abstract, or integrate objects in our nervous systems.

[merjet]

You misunderstand me. Our senses abstract from energies - we don't sense objects directly.

What objects? How do you purport to know anything at all about objects when you say all you experience is energy? The logical consequence of your position is solipsism. If you touch your keyboard, are you touching the keyboard or are you merely a recipient of energy indirectly from a purely hypothetical source?

Aristotle on the sense of touch (link).

Edited March 20, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[tjohnson]

What objects? How do you purport to know anything at all about objects when you say all you experience is energy? The logical consequence of your position is solipsism. If you touch your keyboard, are you touching the keyboard or are you merely a recipient of energy from a purely hypothetical source?

What do you mean by "touch the keyboard"? The nerve endings in your fingers interact with energetic molecules and you feel "pressure". The phrase "touch the keyboard" is a gross simplification of what is actually happening. You see, 'objectification' is built into our language dating way back and is a very difficult habit to break.

[merjet]

What do you mean by "touch the keyboard"? The nerve endings in your fingers interact with energetic molecules and you feel "pressure". The phrase "touch the keyboard" is a gross simplification of what is actually happening. You see, 'objectification' is built into our language dating way back and is a very difficult habit to break.

How do you know "what is actually happening" when all you experience is a "gross simplification"? What rationale do you have for even saying you have fingers?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You misunderstand me. Our senses abstract from energies - we don't sense objects directly. These energies exist independent of us.

GS,

This is an improvement. At least we have common ground in an "out there" and "in here" approach (to use Bob K's language). That's something we can agree on. I understood you before to mean that existence does not exist without an agent to perceive it.

Do you have any thoughts on the nature of "these energies" that "exist independent of us"?

Another thing. According to this approach, a strong insinuation is that we are nothing but energy. So essentially we are energy "in here" processing energy coming from "out there." Is that correct?

And if this is correct, what makes the energy "out there" so different that it needs to be processed "in here"? Is there such a thing in this thinking, for instance, as a "barrier energy"? Or a "form" energy? Or an "in-out" energy? What divides "in here" from "out there"? A special kind of energy?

Or, to include Merlin's objection, does a "finger energy" exist? In other words, where does form fit into this thinking? From your words, you have denied that entities exist. So how does "finger energy" turn into a usable finger?

(I want to make a quip about "user illusion," but I will hold off since that is another line of thought.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

It is true that a person's own awareness is all he is going to get knowledge-wise. But he has to get knowledge of something. Otherwise it is not knowledge.

If I understand your position correctly, a person only gains knowledge of himself, since nothing exists independently from himself.

You misunderstand me. Our senses abstract from energies - we don't sense objects directly. These energies exist independent of us. You speak as though objects exist independently but I claim only energies exist and we manufacture, abstract, or integrate objects in our nervous systems.

Entities outside our skins cause effects inside our skins. The causation is through the gravitational and electroweak interactions. For us to perceive there must be something to perceive. So things actually exist outside our skins. We don't make it up as an hallucination.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Do you have any thoughts on the nature of "these energies" that "exist independent of us"?

Another thing. According to this approach, a strong insinuation is that we are nothing but energy. So essentially we are energy "in here" processing energy coming from "out there." Is that correct?

And if this is correct, what makes the energy "out there" so different that it needs to be processed "in here"? Is there such a thing in this thinking, for instance, as a "barrier energy"? Or a "form" energy? Or an "in-out" energy? What divides "in here" from "out there"? A special kind of energy?

Our nervous systems are designed to abstract from energy sources of various types like sound, light, mechanical, heat, etc. I'm not sure how this makes us "nothing but energy"??

[DavidMcK]

It has been pointed out that if you can't step in the river twice you can't step in to it once either.

The saying goes like "you can't step into the same river twice".

Your missed the point: To make this more explicit; If you can't step in the river twice you can't step into it once. The concept of the Mississippi river already involves the idea of water flow (1.6 million gallons per second usually) so if you obliterate the concept of 'river' by stating that you can't step into the 'same' river twice you can't step into it at all. The concept of river is a flow of water down a more or less fixed path.

If you were any more concrete bound, you'd be at the bottom of the river...

First it isn't concrete bound to define your terms...it is concrete bound not to define your terms. Secdondly, how does being concrete bound (if that were so) put me at the bottom of a river? If this is a threat and you continue with threats I'll ask Michael to moderate.

Even if I were at the bottom of a river the flow of water would define where I was. A is A and you can't have a flow of water and deny it at the same time in the same sense.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Our nervous systems are designed to abstract from energy sources of various types like sound, light, mechanical, heat, etc. I'm not sure how this makes us "nothing but energy"??

GS,

What do you mean by "energy source"?

And are you saying that our nervous systems are more than energy?

Michael

[anonrobt]

Do you have any thoughts on the nature of "these energies" that "exist independent of us"?

Another thing. According to this approach, a strong insinuation is that we are nothing but energy. So essentially we are energy "in here" processing energy coming from "out there." Is that correct?

And if this is correct, what makes the energy "out there" so different that it needs to be processed "in here"? Is there such a thing in this thinking, for instance, as a "barrier energy"? Or a "form" energy? Or an "in-out" energy? What divides "in here" from "out there"? A special kind of energy?

Our nervous systems are designed to abstract from energy sources of various types like sound, light, mechanical, heat, etc. I'm not sure how this makes us "nothing but energy"??

Since matter is nothing but concentrated[or 'stored'] energy, this has a degree of sense...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I consider matter to be made up of "organized" energy, not just concentrated or stored energy, and a little something else.

Thus, I believe such organization is made up of more than the natures of the types of particles. For instance, gravity has caused all kinds of speculation. I also hold to a top-down organizing force of some sort, although I do not profess to know much about it except to detect patterns, thus presume it exists.

At any rate, from what I gather, GS does not believe in matter.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Robert,

I consider matter to be made up of "organized" energy, not just concentrated or stored energy, and a little something else.

Thus, I believe such organization is made up of more than the natures of the types of particles. For instance, gravity has caused all kinds of speculation. I also hold to a top-down organizing force of some sort, although I do not profess to know much about it except to detect patterns, thus presume it exists.

At any rate, from what I gather, GS does not believe in matter.

Michael

I also believe matter represents "organized" energy. But we do not detect matter directly, we detect energy. Energy is more fundamental than matter, you could say matter is merely a "solid phase" of energy. This kind of worldview is a paradigm shift from objects to processes.