What does it mean to perceive Objectively?

[kiaer.ts]

The way I understand perception to work is the following:

1. There exists parts of the body that receive incoming sensory signals (eyes,cochlea, taste buds, olfactory cells, and cutaneous/pain receptors are a few). These translate compatible signals from the external world into electrical impulses that then move to the brain. (photons in the visible range would be considered compatible signals to the rods and cones in the eyes).

2. These electrical impulses are like an amalgamation of data that is transferred into the brain. There is only rudimentary organization of the data at his point (ex. this cone in the eye was triggered, that inner-ear hair cell nerve was triggered). There as yet is no perception of an entity, just analog equivalents of 0-1 so-to-speak.

3. The brain receives these electrical impulses and packages them into a perception of entities, environment, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_perception:

quote from the Wikipedia link: The major problem in visual perception is that what people see is not simply a translation of retinal stimuli (i.e., the image on the retina). Thus people interested in perception have long struggled to explain what visual processing does to create what we actually see

4. Eventually humans develop and use conceptual faculties to organize perceived entities (identities/units) into categories through isolating characteristics and integrating entities together by a specific definition (according to Rand).

The McGurk effect is one example: our auditory senses receive the sound "Ba." Our visual senses of lip movement receive the word "Ga." These sense-signals enter our brain, our brain tries to integrate all this information together and automatically produces the perception "Da" into our conscious awareness. The word "Da" was neither seen nor spoken, but our brain created a perception of the external sensory information into the sound "Da."

So this middle ground of automation between when we sense the world and prior to those senses being packaged into entities and transferred into conscious awareness is the territory I'm trying to look at, to think about.

I am not familiar with this mcgurk effect. Do you mean that in laboratory conditions if the listener hears a recording of someone saying /ba/ but sees someone moving his tongue to say /ga/ the listener will think he has heard the speaker say /da/? If so, this is not a judgement misled by emotion but a case parallel to the stick in water. Under this odd circumstance, one percieves the combination of the sound /ba/ and the visual information that the mouth is in the position for /ga/ in a form which is similar to what one normally perceives when someone says /da/ under normal circumstances. That is the way the acoustic sound /ba/ sounds to that person under those circumstances. There is nothing wrong with the fact that the form of the perception is unusual, just like we don't complain when we reaalize that a white sheet seen thru red lenses looks pink in those circumstances. This is the matter of perceptual form, and Kelley discusses it at length in his Evidence of the Senses.

I think a better example for the improper use of emotional factors in allowing our judgements to be subjective would be this example. In college, I had a roommate who was schizophrenic. (We other roommates were noit told this, but we figured it out, and confirmed it when we found his medication.) When the four of us moved in the first week of September, "Mike" turned on the heater and sset the thermostat to 70. I discovered this, and I and the other roommates complained. We insisted he not put on the heat, it was still in the seventies out and we didn't want to pay for it. It stayed warm until thanksgiving. When we returned from the ho9liday, he confronted me in front of the other roommates and accused me of breaking into his room. He had seen me do it. This was absurd, I asked him why I would do it, and what was taken or moved, and what evidence he had. After some evasion, he said that he had gone into the furnace room (accessible from his closet) and seen that the pilot to the heater was out. "So?" I asked. Well, everyone knows that I (Ted) hate the heater, and so I must have broken into his room to blow the pilot light out. He had seen me do it. The other roommates thought this weird, but didn't want to call him a liar. They believed me when I showed them that it was actually easier to access the furnace from my closet (Mike didn't realize this) and that if I wanted to blow out the pilot light I could have done so from my room much easier. But why blow out the pilot light when the thermostat was off? And it was now freezing out, so I was the one who went and relit the pilot light.

So, based on the perception that the light was out and the bizarre reasoning that I "hated the heater" and that I could only access the heater from his room, we got the paranoid fantasy that he had seen me break into his room. He would have testified to this in court, and would only have been revelead as a paranoid by a close cross examination. In most normal cases, with people who are not clinically insane, this sort of thing may be more subtle.

But in most cases, the problem is that people allow what they "know" to override judgement based upon observation. We all know that the earth doesn't move, so of course the sun rises and sets - we see it. The problem is not with our perception. We see exactly what we would see if the earth did spin. The problem is with the conceptual judgement we make based on our perception misinterpreted in the light of a wrong theory. If our theories are emotionally driven, all the worse for our ability to think objectively.

[Christopher]

Ted, I don't know how else to explain it to you. It's not a "stick in the water" example, nor is the sound "da" being heard under a set of normal circumstances. Did you check out the link on the McGurk effect that I sent you?

[kiaer.ts]

Ted, I don't know how else to explain it to you. It's not a "stick in the water" example, nor is the sound "da" being heard under a set of normal circumstances. Did you check out the link on the McGurk effect that I sent you?

And not my psychotic friend Mike?

No, I received no such link. Post it here.

[Christopher]

It's posted above (there are two links actually). The thing is, before you even see a stick in or out of the water, you see an entity called a stick. That's perception.

[kiaer.ts]

It's posted above (there are two links actually). The thing is, before you even see a stick in or out of the water, you see an entity called a stick. That's perception.

There is a very perceptible difference between the ventriloquated /gba/ and the standard /da/. This is simply a borderline case where the brain in normal speech would interprate this by context and keep going. Speech is a bad example of perception, since usually only linguists attend to the details. Naive speakers simply interpret all the sounds they hear as fitting within the forty or so phonemes of English.

(Another example is "writer" versus "rider" in Standard American English. Can you, Christopher, explain what sound is different? (Of course the "w" is silent, and just a matter of spelling convention.)

In any case, there is no irrational or non-objective perception going on here.

As for the stick, no, you do not percieve some contextless stick. You always perceive an entity in some form. All perceptions are contextual, and the form is relevant to the context.

You have to read Kelley.

[Christopher]

You're thinking within the box of how Objectivism deals with epistemology, but Objectivism does not deal with epistemology completely. You're talking from Rand's IOE and from Branden's speech on perception (Kelley and the whole stick-in-water is the same thing). what you're missing is how the brain recognizes entities. Rand said this was automatic and different from the senses (although that's all she really said on the subject), I'm saying perception is automatic and differentiated from the senses, but you're bundling sense and perception together rather than making the necessary distinction. Our eyes see photons and make electrical impulses. Our eyes never perceive a stick. Our brain perceives a stick. How it does this is a miracle. Our brain is like a computer - it takes in 0s and 1s from the environment (via senses) and creates pictures. I'm interested in the picture creation. The stick and the stick in water is just 0s and 1s to our senses. I believe Rand said that concepts are formed in relation to an environment, in relation to a context.

[kiaer.ts]

You're thinking within the box of how Objectivism deals with epistemology, but Objectivism does not deal with epistemology completely. You're talking from Rand's IOE and from Branden's speech on perception (Kelley and the whole stick-in-water is the same thing). what you're missing is how the brain recognizes entities. Rand said this was automatic and different from the senses (although that's all she really said on the subject), I'm saying perception is automatic and differentiated from the senses, but you're bundling sense and perception together rather than making the necessary distinction. Our eyes see photons and make electrical impulses. Our eyes never perceive a stick. Our brain perceives a stick. How it does this is a miracle. Our brain is like a computer - it takes in 0s and 1s from the environment (via senses) and creates pictures. I'm interested in the picture creation. The stick and the stick in water is just 0s and 1s to our senses. I believe Rand said that concepts are formed in relation to an environment, in relation to a context.

It is you who have repeatedly failed to make your point clear. I have addressed every example you have brought up, and not from just within canonical Objectivism. You might do better than simply to tell me what box I am thinking in, and worry about yourself. I would tell you that your "Our eyes never perceive a stick. Our brain perceives a stick" implies to me that you are stuck in some sort of representationalist fallacy, but I expect you will say I misunderstand you. Perception is a rrelation, not an entity or an attribute, it has no location. You cannot perceive with just eyes, or just a brain. This is totally false: " Our brain is like a computer - it takes in 0s and 1s from the environment (via senses) and creates pictures." You might read Jeff Hawkins. The brain is not like a computer. Nor does it take in 1s and 0s from the environment, not even in analogy. Nor is our CNS an digital processor. These are all facile common mistakes.

You have not acknowledged or conceded or rebutted my explanation of the Mcgurk effect. At least have some good faith and address what I've said rather than just characterizing my ability to explain your "problems" as an inability to understand your point.

[Christopher]

You're right - I misread what you were saying about context in the ga/ba/da effect, but I see what you are saying. That may be correct, but it makes the McGurk effect not so effective as an example thinking about it that way.

The point I'm trying to make is that we perceive entities at all is very interesting, is it not? We can look at a pile of books (as I'm doing right now), and I see individual books (entities) piled on top of each other. I perceive each entity's boundaries. Obviously I don't "see" the boundaries of the book... all I see is light... white light, white light, a shadow, more white light, blue light... yet I know at the point of shadow one book ends and the other begins. What's the reason I perceive this boundary biologically? I know the reason for it from an evolutionary perspective, but I'm impressed with the mental mechanics that makes possible the ability to perceive two independent identities even through they are touching. How does my mind create boundaries at all? How does it know that these books (entities) are separate from the desk (entity) which is separate from the floor (entity) and the printer (entity)? Animals know this too, so there's some brain mechanism at work outside consciousness that's delivering to our awareness the perception that all these entities are separate and unique.

These same stuff could exist as it all exists now, but it's equally possible to conceive of a mind that looks at all solid matter as parts of one entity, as all gas as another entity, and liquid a third entity. This alien mind could draw boundaries not between books but between where certain densities of matter begin and end. It would be totally foreign to us... it could be viewing the same universal stuff as us, but it divides that universal stuff in a completely different manner.

[tjohnson]

You're right - I misread what you were saying about context in the ga/ba/da effect, but I see what you are saying. That may be correct, but it makes the McGurk effect not so effective as an example thinking about it that way.

The point I'm trying to make is that we perceive entities at all is very interesting, is it not? We can look at a pile of books (as I'm doing right now), and I see individual books (entities) piled on top of each other. I perceive each entity's boundaries. Obviously I don't "see" the boundaries of the book... all I see is light... white light, white light, a shadow, more white light, blue light... yet I know at the point of shadow one book ends and the other begins. What's the reason I perceive this boundary biologically? I know the reason for it from an evolutionary perspective, but I'm impressed with the mental mechanics that makes possible the ability to perceive two independent identities even through they are touching. How does my mind create boundaries at all? How does it know that these books (entities) are separate from the desk (entity) which is separate from the floor (entity) and the printer (entity)? Animals know this too, so there's some brain mechanism at work outside consciousness that's delivering to our awareness the perception that all these entities are separate and unique.

These same stuff could exist as it all exists now, but it's equally possible to conceive of a mind that looks at all solid matter as parts of one entity, as all gas as another entity, and liquid a third entity. This alien mind could draw boundaries not between books but between where certain densities of matter begin and end. It would be totally foreign to us... it could be viewing the same universal stuff as us, but it divides that universal stuff in a completely different manner.

Very interesting Chris! I believe you are touching upon the reason Korzybski said an object cannot exist without an observer. Unfortunately most people interpret this to mean that nothing exists without an observer, which of course is nonsense. Whatever exists "out there" is not complete without an observer - it's just an unintegrated mass of data, if you will, and it takes a nervous system to produce the entities from the raw data.

[BaalChatzaf]

Very interesting Chris! I believe you are touching upon the reason Korzybski said an object cannot exist without an observer. Unfortunately most people interpret this to mean that nothing exists without an observer, which of course is nonsense. Whatever exists "out there" is not complete without an observer - it's just an unintegrated mass of data, if you will, and it takes a nervous system to produce the entities from the raw data.

It is not even data. Data encompasses abstractions which can only live as neurons popping inside of brains. Whatever it is Out There independent of whether observers exist is something or other that exists in spacetime. Earlier philosophers believed that matter (that which exists independent of observation) had extention (size, mass and place). In short what is Out There is something or other (and independent of observers, who knows what?) and somewhere. And that is as much as one can say without observers. Whatever this ur-stuff it is something somewhere some when that would be identified somehow by conscious observers if there were any.

Anotherway of putting it is that all we humans have is the phenomena, stuff as known through our senses (and by extension, our instruments) and all our science is about the phenomena. All scientific predictions assert something about phenomena.

Die Lichte ins Himmel sind Sterne. What ever is out there is out there. All we get are the sensations and measurements based on whatever it is we sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 1, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This whole argument rests on the premise that our brains are (or can be) made of different stuff than what is Out There.

I find that premise sorely lacking.

I hold that the entire universe is made out of the Same Basic Stuff and that we humans are part of the universe.

Our brains process information on what is Out There in a certain manner because it is made of the Same Basic Stuff as Out There. It cannot do otherwise because it cannot be otherwise.

Michael

[tjohnson]

This whole argument rests on the premise that our brains are (or can be) made of different stuff than what is Out There.

I don't see how this argument rests on that premise, Micheal.

[tjohnson]

Anotherway of putting it is that all we humans have is the phenomena, stuff as known through our senses (and by extension, our instruments) and all our science is about the phenomena. All scientific predictions assert something about phenomena.

Die Lichte ins Himmel sind Sterne. What ever is out there is out there. All we get are the sensations and measurements based on whatever it is we sense.

Many in the GS community have used the expression What Is Going On (WIGO) to represent the stuff Out There. We want to figure out WIGO but we can do so only with what we can abstract from it.

[Xray]

...... The basis of Rand's vision for Objective reality was that we perceive through the senses, and that we use our cognitive faculties to explain what we're perceiving. ........

"Objective reality" is redundant. What other kind of reality is there, but Objective reality?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Which is why terms like "divine reality" used by believers are totally misleading since they deny the very definition of reality.

the same goes for "extrasensory perception", another popular term in the esoteric scene. How can anything be be perceived without using the senses?

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

Yes, I totally agree that the observer is necessary to produce organization to the universe i.e. entities. It's interesting to think then as Ba'al's suggesting that science is in a very real way the study of phenomena? This is too far out for me to comprehend at this moment.

Now about Michael's comment on the brain matter relationship - I totally agree. Our brain is made of the stuff that we perceive. But this is I think a foundation for why we perceive as we do. I'm going to offer an explanation for this: Our life and biology exists within a certain dimension of reality, a certain way of boundaries and entities, etc. Because of this, we perceive in the same dimensions that are necessary to sustain that biological life. In other words, I believe our perception evolved to ensure our survival, therefore we are aware of the universe in such a manner as to sustain our continued existence - by being aware of the environment to which that existence is affected. Had our cells been created out of gaseous matter (a different conception of life), then it would be necessary to perceive boundaries of reality in a different way so-as to ensure that perception is relevant to the survival of this other form of life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, I totally agree that the observer is necessary to produce organization to the universe i.e. entities.

Christopher,

This is the view I contest. This suggests that our brain lumps together random inputs into an equally random organization (often with strict rules) that does not really exist outside our heads. In other words, the universe is actually unknowable to our minds and objectivity is a conceit at best. Only our minds are knowable to our minds.

I reject this in more ways than I can count.

I am of the view that increasingly complex things are made up of parts that have a "top down" organization and a "bottom up" one, which are also made of of similar parts, which are also made up of similar parts, and so on, and that the way we organize information parallels this perfectly (i.e., conceptual integration). This is only one form of organization I perceive and it is called holons.

In other words, concepts do not exist as random mental constructs or a random game with rules, but are a part of the rest of reality—i.e., made of the same stuff—in the sense that they are constructed in the same manner as what they symbolize.

Another aspect of ontological organization deals with degree of autonomy, being that some forms are vastly more independent in actions or space, or scope than others. As an example, a human being belongs to the human species. He cannot escape that and, for example, become part of another species or disconnect himself from the human species. But an individual human being is vastly more autonomous than, say, a human kidney (or any of the components of kidneys). Organization-wise, the human being "looks up" to the human species (to use Koestler's metaphor) and looks down to kidney, while the kidney "looks up" to the human being and "looks down" to blood vessels, tissue, etc.

And entities? I consider an entity as one form of holon that has an advanced degree of autonomy. But it has the same fundamental characteristics as any holon, i.e., a "top" and a "bottom" organization-wise.

This holds true for inanimate structures as well. On the macro level, planets and other celestial bodies circle stars and form structures (like the solar system) that have distinct unchanging characteristics (unless merged or destroyed), and the solar systems (or star systems) join with others to form galaxies and so on. The fact that such systems can be merged or destroyed is an indication that they exist in the first place.

This manner of organization works identically on the subatomic level, also.

If this "form law" did not already exist as part of the nature of the universe, our minds would not be able to create—totally disconnected from the rest of reality—such form and then use that form as a manner of interacting with the rest of reality with any degree of success. That manner of thinking presumes that our brains are made up of different stuff than the rest of the universe—that concept formation and logic and math belong to a "separate reality"—and that it all works out "somehow."

"Somehow" is not a good basis on which to promote survival, much less anything that comes after like reproduction, flourishing, happiness, etc.

To myself, I call this "somehow" thinking the "school of random metaphysics" or "formless ontology." I am not totally learned in this subject (and I have set aside the idea that Objectivist jargon represents the whole shebang since it is way too oversimplified), but I do have one solid pillar in in my concept of ontology: organization—or a "form law" or whatever you want to call the force that causes individual things made out of conglomerates to exist and keeps the parts together in the universe—exists just as much as a any random subparticle does.

If you want an easy example of such force that everyone can perceive, gravity is one. (Interestingly enough, it is the one force nearly impossible to reduce.)

Do humans need to first exist in order to put a name on something? Of course. But that "something" is going to be there whether it has a name or not.

Every time I think about this, it is so obvious that I rarely think it needs saying.

But it needs saying.

Michael

[Selene]

Interesting Michael:

Holon philosophy. hmm

I wonder whether this 1960 paper is valid?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3956434/The-Visual-Cliff

Adam

[tjohnson]

On the macro level, planets and other celestial bodies circle stars and form structures (like the solar system) that have distinct unchanging characteristics (unless merged or destroyed), and the solar systems (or star systems) join with others to form galaxies and so on. The fact that such systems can be merged or destroyed is an indication that they exist in the first place.

Yes, I believe WIGO out there has structure and living things learn to adapt to this structure and if they get smart enough they can even create symbolic systems that represent this structure (science). I never meant to say it was random but only that it is abstracted from and we mustn't confuse what is going on inside with what is going on outside.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Holon philosophy. hmm

Adam,

If you consider a concept as an abstract "entity" (and Rand does this in ITOE), it is a perfect holon.

Michael

[Christopher]

Michael, I printed out your post and sat with it at Starbucks for awhile thinking about what you're saying. Yes, I am a self-proclaimed OL addict. Especially this stuff takes time, since it is conceptualizing the very basis of knowledge. There are two points that struck me after much thought, and a third observation that I think relevant to this conversation.

First, the idea of a holarchy is understood (Ken Wilber deals with this at length). What I think important to add however is that it's possible to have a holon as part of two larger systems. An electron is an excellent example: The electron is part of the atom, but when it enters the molecular stage, what atom is that electron now a part of? - the answer is all of them. In this sense, the electron doesn't quite fit into the holistic model. Another thought on the electron: when we have an electrical current, the electron is "flowing" through the molecules, but it is also part of the molecules. In other words, the electron belongs to two systems - the current and the material. Different forces create different systems. We perceive certain systems and can measure others. But we don't perceive other systems. Quantum entanglement is another system that we don't sense or perceive, but it is a system existing in parallel to the systems we see today, and yet these systems are unique. Are we seeing the "real" systems, or is there such a thing?

Second, can we quantify internal states of consciousness and awareness into the same domain of matter that your introducing, or do we quantify these internal states as parallel and overlapping but a separate system? Clearly if consciousness is part of the holistic universe you're presenting, then consciousness is deterministic. But if these systems are parallel, then we have to acknowledge that the holarchy we perceive is not the only one to exist.

Finally, I was holding my hand on a pole a few weeks ago (when I first began thinking about perception and evolution). I thought to myself, what if I were a being that could push my hand through this pole as if it weren't there? Well then, I wouldn't necessarily need to perceive the pole because it wouldn't affect me. Therefore, I began thinking that we are designed by nature to be aware only of the environment that directly relates to us. If consciousness can exist in other systems bonded by other forces, then we would perceive differently (and likely sense differently too). Matter is just condensed energy, so no reason we can't think about another energy system that is also coexisting and includes sentient beings.

Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

Are you suggesting parallel universes?

Adam

[Christopher]

I can't rationally suggest a parallel universe. My observation was more of a vision of thought, the merest hint of a possibility.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I see no problem with wedded holons, holon chains, overlapping holons, bunched holons, double-duty holons, opposing holons, entangled holons, webs of holons, leapfrog holons, mutated holons, twin holons, even destroyed holons to channel their parts elsewhere. That is just for starters. But holons will always have organizing tops and bottoms, being part of something bigger while being a whole and made up of parts at the same time.

These examples are other organizational forces in reality and, quite frankly, our entire conceptual network reflects this manipulation and variety of holons in all its glory.

Apropos, I often say "daisy chain" when talking about a concept, but that is really too linear and oversimplified to be anything more than a very vague metaphor. "Web with many daisy chains and other forms" is probably the best way of putting it. In fact, "web" and "sequence" (to name two) to me are just as strong organizational forces in the universe as holon is.

I repeat, in my conception, our minds are organized in the same manner as the rest of the universe because we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. I also see holon thinking as working well with Rand's ideas on concept formation, although a few adjustments would have to be made. For example, the slippery "genus" and singular "differentia" for definitions come to mind as needing some tweaking...

(I need to say something as an aside here. To my knowledge, the phrase "organization exists" was first brought up as an axiomatic concept in a discussion on the old SoloHQ by a guy named Nathan Hawking, who is now deceased. Nathan was contentious and highly uneven in his thinking, but he had some fine moments and I believe he was onto something important in this case.)

I especially see no problem with volition fitting in with this "ontological organization exists" idea, although another name entirely for it would be needed on a subatomic level. The name "God" certainly sounds too much like primitive worship for the macro level, so that would need another name as well.

Volition actually works roughly along the lines of holons, but with a high degree of individual autonomy (for a quick example, dog looks up to man but looks down to ant, or even looks down to puppy if you want to throw in growth). Nobody says this but everybody knows it and uses it all the time. This is probably one of the reasons the idea of God just won't go away. Man feels the need to look up to something because that pattern of looking up is everywhere else where awareness is present.

I know I strongly suspect a more complex awareness in the universe than human intelligence and volition, but I have no idea what form it is in. In other words, it would know more about me (if knowledge is the right word for a higher level of awareness) than I do it.

In terms of where determinism encounters volition, I see that as like asking: Where does a circle start? The line outlining a circle has no beginning—or literally has countless beginnings. Which is correct? Both are, actually. But that line can have a definite beginning if you break the circle.

I see determinism and volition like that. Break the holon and you get pure determinism or pure volition. Keep the holon and one starts where the other ends, but you can't put your finger on where, or you can put your finger anywhere and it works.

And where does the universe stop or does it stop? I also have no idea. I even suspect I could not have any idea due to my own limitations of observation as a human being. I have accepted that fact with serenity since I can't do anything about it anyway. (I could deny it and say I know where they universe ends, or even that the universe has to end somewhere, but I deem such denial and affirmations to be incorrect since this is impossible to corroborate with observation.)

Another point. In your example of coexisting entanglement, if you are referring to the parallel universes in one quantum physics theory, I see that more as a math thing that went out of control. I do believe, however, that there are parts of reality we do not perceive because (as you astutely hinted at) they affect us in not very tangible ways to our normal senses and we lack specific sense organs for them—or if that is bothersome, here is a less radical version: maybe there are parts of reality we perceive as extremely vague almost ephemeral "glimpses" because our sense organs for them are underdeveloped when compared to our other senses.

I speculate, I know. But I can't help myself.

(At least it's better—far better—than brandishing a Bible like a gun or dogmatically thumping Atlas Shrugged and demanding that others think like that or else.)

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Michael, can you differentiate between "holon" and "entitiy" or is the former, as I suspect, just a fancy new rebranding of the latter?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

As I said earlier, to me entity is a holon with a lot of individual autonomy.

I like the term holon better for the wider term because it is well defined. Rand's use of the word "entity" was a bit uneven and this leads to confusion in our neck of the woods. For example, to her a dismembered leg was not an entity, but only a part of one. (I think this was mentioned in ITOE.) But that only works if you are using human being as the standard of entity. For a dog who comes along and carries off the leg bone, I see no reason to exclude the bone from entity status if you use the dog as a standard. To him it is an individual and complete piece of food with a specific nature. An entity.

This kind of thinking has led some people to argue that species (as in human species) does not exist as an entity. Only individuals do. And there their ontological and biological thinking stops. The idea with this manner of thinking appears to be to avoid collectivism at all costs, even to the point of fudging biology.

So in order to claim, without a lot of tiresome hairsplitting over semantics, that the human species exists as an individual system with distinct characteristics as opposed to other species (but also fits into a bigger system), I prefer the term holon to entity as a way of naming all organized wholes.

Maybe the universe (the exception as an organized whole) is not a holon since there is nothing bigger, but maybe it folds in on itself like a circle.

Michael