The Content of Thought

[Christopher]

Kant, Wilber, take your pick. Many theorists distinguish between apprehensions/phenomenal experiences in the sensory (sensibilia) realm and the internal thought (intelligibilia) realm. For example in sensibilia, being pricked by a pin causes a phenomenal experience in consciousness that is, in essence, the sense of being pricked by a pin. In the intelligibilia realm, concluding "2 + 2 = 4" is a phenomenal experience in consciousness that is thought process. However, whether sense or thought, the key is that all awareness and apprehension is ultimately phenomenal.

Rand addressed this specifically. She asserted that all intelligilibia arises initially from experiences in the realm of sensibilia. Therefore, intelligibilia is fundamentally dependent upon sensibilia. If I recall correctly, she then goes on to give the example that when the senses are dulled through experimentation, people's thoughts also dull. This is about all I recall at the moment.

It would then seem that, according to Objectivism, the core argument for intelligibilia being objective is that since thought processes are founded on senses, these sense experiences act as logical premises; therefore, subsequent thought arising from and congruent to these premises are therefore themselves ultimately objective. Hence, all thought consistent to the senses is objective. Thought that is not congruent to reality conflicts with experiences in the sensibilia realm and hence non-objective.

What do people think about Rand's assertion that thought-experiences are ultimately dependent upon sense-experiences? Does the realm of intelligibilia in fact depend upon sensibilia, or can it be argued that intelligibilia itself is independent or perhaps shapes the experiences of sensibilia?

If I recall what others have told me about Kant (I have not read him), he argued that as long as all apprehensions (in the realms of sensibilia and intelligibilia) are internally consistent, then those apprehensions are a valid reality.

One of Kant's assertions is that there exist certain "rules" within how the mind structures knowledge; therefore, observation of reality is inherently "subjectively-tinted." According to Michael, since the brain is made of the same stuff as the universe, these laws are congruent to the universe and thus objective. According to my own previous posts (not necessarily in conflict with Michael), since man's mind is organized towards survival, the rules of intelligibilia are shaped by the survival motives of the organism. Thus, the reality we humans see is shaped according to our specific organismic needs (and not some "objective" stance, which itself is meaningless without the organism being the standard for the entire system). However, equally the senses are also structured to motives... Thus, intelligibilia and sensibilia are to some degree equally objective or equally subjective.

What do others think about separating the realms of intelligibilia and sensibilia, then asserting that sensibilia is the definition of objective and all products of intelligibilia are subjective unless they accord to sensibilia (Objective definition? Or,... is there something innately objective in intelligibilia equalivalent to the objectivity of sensibilia such that products arising from intelligibilia can be taken as observations of reality without a premise in the realm of sensibilia? Rand would kill an audience member who put forth such a question, but as Michael and my own statements suggest - there is something innate in the existence of thoughts, and that innateness is just as objectively/subjectively valid as the innateness of the structures of perception/senses.

I'm not claiming all thoughts are real, just as I would claim not all perceptions are real. I'm looking at structure, not necessarily just content. The rules of thought structure must to some degree be learned just as the rules of perception structures are learned through observation. However, the foundations from which all structures regarding thinking or perception arise, are these foundations independent and equally objective?

Chris

Edited August 22, 2009 by Christopher

[Selene]

Chris:

"intelligibilia and sensibilia" define please because if it is what I think, then it is interesting that the Greeks and the Hindus agreed which I find quite intriguing

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

It might be better to say that all of our thoughts are expressed in concepts or images that all ultimately derive from sensory experience. There is a type of intelligilibia which can not be expressed in that sort of concept, and which is generally given the name of 'mystical experience' (related to, but not at all identical to what Rand called "mysticism"). The fact that people who attempt to describe or communicate mystical experience never actually succeed in the attempt--often enough announcing at the start that they are going to fail--is a good indicator of how important communication based on sensibilia is to normal human functioning. The further fact that this type of experience generally has two at least one of two keynotes--egolessness and omniscience--is also a good indicator of how important the ego is to normal human functioning; but it is also a good indicator of why those people who have had this sort of experience take a skeptical view of the ego and any form of egoism--that is to say, any philosophy which takes the ego or self at face value, as a substantive entity (and this includes altruism: you can't sacrifice the self if the self does not exist).

[Christopher]

To be aware is to be aware of something. All apprehensions ("awarenesses of somethings") are phenomenal experiences.

Sensibilia are apprehensions of sensory data (the five senses)

Intelligibilia are apprehensions of thought (concepts, memory, imagination)

Transcendentia are apprehensions of mystical experiences (just to clarify Jeffrey)

That's an interesting take on comparing the Greeks to Hindus.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I once read a reply Nathaniel Branden gave to the question, "What is consciousness made of?"

The answer, although a bit simplistic, does state a reality.

His answer: "Consciousness."

That is a good premise to start with in all these kinds of analyses.

Michael

[Christopher]

You wouldn't believe how much I'm focused on this topic in my thoughts now. How does awareness of thinking differ from awareness of sensory information in terms of understanding the universe?

We have rules of logic:

All dragons are red.

George is a dragon.

Therefore, George is red.

--> The logic exists in thought, but there is no basis for a foundation to this logic in empirical science. Are these rules truly learned from awareness to sensory operations, or do they apply to a different universe? (I'd say they are based on sensory awareness ultimately)

What about operations in mathematics:

The use of the term "zero" or "square root of negative 1." Here are identities that are used to further the system of mathematics but have no empirical basis in reality. Are these extensions of thought still ultimately based on sensory information? (I wish I had read Objectivist Epistemology more recently).

If reality operates on cause and effect, then the mind could have simply evolved to seek cause and effect. Does that mean that we humans are aware of cause and effect because of our explicit knowledge from sensory information, or are we aware of cause and effect from the innate operation of our mind? This is the million dollar question. What is the source of our understanding? Is the source necessarily always observations from the sensory world as Rand argued, or is the source from observing the operations of our consciousness that are evolved in response to the sensory world? Both are Objective, but the second has immense effects. If we learn about the universe simply as a product of awareness to our mental functioning, then we are moving towards the argument that intellectual knowledge need not be grounded in empiricism to have some level of validity.

[anonrobt]

You wouldn't believe how much I'm focused on this topic in my thoughts now. How does awareness of thinking differ from awareness of sensory information in terms of understanding the universe?

We have rules of logic:

All dragons are red.

George is a dragon.

Therefore, George is red.

--> The logic exists in thought, but there is no basis for a foundation to this logic in empirical science. Are these rules truly learned from awareness to sensory operations, or do they apply to a different universe? (I'd say they are based on sensory awareness ultimately)

What about operations in mathematics:

The use of the term "zero" or "square root of negative 1." Here are identities that are used to further the system of mathematics but have no empirical basis in reality. Are these extensions of thought still ultimately based on sensory information? (I wish I had read Objectivist Epistemology more recently).

If reality operates on cause and effect, then the mind could have simply evolved to seek cause and effect. Does that mean that we humans are aware of cause and effect because of our explicit knowledge from sensory information, or are we aware of cause and effect from the innate operation of our mind? This is the million dollar question. What is the source of our understanding? Is the source necessarily always observations from the sensory world as Rand argued, or is the source from observing the operations of our consciousness that are evolved in response to the sensory world? Both are Objective, but the second has immense effects. If we learn about the universe simply as a product of awareness to our mental functioning, then we are moving towards the argument that intellectual knowledge need not be grounded in empiricism to have some level of validity.

This is why it is necessary to grasp the biological imperatives with regards the other animals, to thus see the nature of their survivalness, and why the additional layering of conceptual consciousness improved survivalness and in what way and manner - instead, as so often it seems is done, as if humans are something way different and unique, needing no evolutionary background for understanding...

[Stryder]

From my current point of view, the content of thought is originally founded on the 6 sences, the 6th being intelligibilia. This is based on the idea that intelligibilia itself can be both independent and dependant on the experiences of sensibilia, depending, because it can create virtual sensibilia (intelligiblilia sensibilia? sensibilia intelligibilia?) that is just as real though limited to the confines of the knowledge base that was used in its construction which in turn can be created by any number of available virtual and/or non-virtual sources. If true, we are aware of cause and effect by the innate operation of our mind because Reason is proven by its own math as Man's only absolute by defalt with anything and everything done by a conscious entity as being unequivocably predictable. Makes the nature of Art and Logic seem as one in the same...

[Philip Coates]

Subject: academic-style prose

"Sensibilia are apprehensions of sensory data (the five senses)

Intelligibilia are apprehensions of thought (concepts, memory, imagination)

Transcendentia are apprehensions of mystical experiences"

It's a bad idea (one promoted by academics and specialists) to use either new terms (or more 'Latinate' terms than necessary) when a simpler or more accessible term is available. It is not actually 'scholarly' and makes your thinking more clumsy. I've a big fan of knowing Latin and Latin roots, but use the Germanic synonyms or better known Latin-derived words when they have the same meaning ==> Percepts, concepts, propositions...

There is a highly intelligent, well-educated poster(s) on RoR and on OL (and on SOLO?)who has for five or ten years posted extremely long, learned, complex writings on epistemological issues. (No names.) If he could boil them down into simpler statements, he would have a better chance of understanding his own writings, as would the rest of us. I just skip those posts, pretty much. As, by now, does everyone else.

K.I.S.S.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Christopher]

Phil, play nice. I don't understand what value your random criticisms serve. I'm just trying to have a good time and share ideas. Also using terms put forth by William James with continued use by Ken Wilber.

Stryder,

Aptly put. We definitely have to take internal methods of learning (intelligibilia) into our awareness of reality. All value judgments basically arise from our inside. If we are unaware of this information, we are unable to make values judgments and thus pretty blind as to what our needs are (think feelings of attachment pride, etc). NB once commented: we cannot know our values until we know our emotions.

Given this knowledge, one may ask whether it is reductionistic to assume that all internal signals are necessarily derived from external (sensory-specific) reality in the present or through evolution. In other words, when looking at the inside, is it necessary to reduce all events to external causes? This is really a matter of one's definition of consciousness. If consciousness is 100% dependent upon and a product of the sensory world, then consciousness is a product of the cells within our brain and therefore deterministic upon the mechanisms of physics. No one really understands consciousness to that level of integration between external and internal structures though (because again, if consciousness reflected only empiric reality, by definition it would also have to be determined upon the external physical laws and therefore without volition). No one, and I mean no one, has an answer to this question based on empirical evidence.

If however we assume consciousness has volition, then we must also conclude that consciousness is not wholly a product of external sensory (deterministic) reality. In that case, consciousness itself represents some aspect of "reality" that is independent of (yet deeply intertwined with) sensory stimuli. Thus, we take it a step further and say that we can know things about reality through consciousness that we can never know sensory-empirically (because the measurement and validation methods are in different dimensions), and everybody freaks out, screams, calls each other a mystic... and then settles back into the conflictual belief that everything is sensory-empirically measureable, yet volition somehow still exists.

[Philip Coates]

> Phil, play nice.

Christopher, it is a perfectly valid thing to critique not only people's ideas but their methodology. What do you think these forums are for? Only agreement?

> I don't understand what value your random criticisms serve.

One of my major interests is words, and how people not using them well causes all sorts of mistakes.

>I'm just trying to have a good time and share ideas.

Having a good time and learning from constructive criticism are not incompatible are they?

> Also using terms put forth by William James with continued use by Ken Wilber.

That doesn't make the terms good ones.

[Philip Coates]

Also, wasn't intended as an insult when I criticize. Don't feel bad, I criticize *everybody*. I think I even mentioned another poster.

But I also accept criticism. Or at least I pretend to...

[tjohnson]

If consciousness is 100% dependent upon and a product of the sensory world, then consciousness is a product of the cells within our brain and therefore deterministic upon the mechanisms of physics. No one really understands consciousness to that level of integration between external and internal structures though (because again, if consciousness reflected only empiric reality, by definition it would also have to be determined upon the external physical laws and therefore without volition). No one, and I mean no one, has an answer to this question based on empirical evidence.

If however we assume consciousness has volition, then we must also conclude that consciousness is not wholly a product of external sensory (deterministic) reality. In that case, consciousness itself represents some aspect of "reality" that is independent of (yet deeply intertwined with) sensory stimuli. Thus, we take it a step further and say that we can know things about reality through consciousness that we can never know sensory-empirically (because the measurement and validation methods are in different dimensions), and everybody freaks out, screams, calls each other a mystic... and then settles back into the conflictual belief that everything is sensory-empirically measureable, yet volition somehow still exists.

Of course concsiouness "is a product of the cells within our brain and therefore deterministic upon the mechanisms of physics", what else could it be? Is it possible for a process occurring in our bodies to break the laws of physics? Also, something happening at a molecular level may appear completely deterministic but observed at a macro level it appears volitional. For example, there are chemical changes which occur in us that ultimately cause us "to decide" to eat.

[kiaer.ts]

Don't apologize, Phil. I find these "fun" discussions of floating abstractions, undefined terms, hints of Rand's ignorance, flights of jargony and mumbo-jumbalia quite reminiscent of the conversations held in Gus Webb's architecture club and Lois Cook's writer's association. These threads have certain themes in common. It is proposed we discuss something Ayn Rand got wrong. "We" it is smarmily intimated, know better. There is no attempt at either accurately giving Rand's position or at starting from the beginning with accurate premisses and definitions. Half-baked relativistic nonsense and post-modern skepticism is is taken as given. Any requests for examples or coherent explanations are met with protests that the questioner doesn't understand, or is taking something too serious, or is unfairly demanding a clear statement of the issue at hand. And when someone asks waht is the point, we get a suggestion that we not take things so seriously, that we be willing to have fun. Sounds just like Ellsworth Toohey's advice to his young proteges. Don't apologize, Phil

Edited September 22, 2009 by Ted Keer

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Mistaken conceptualization and study methods

Ted, you make many good points re what is wrong with many discussions to which I'd apply the term 'Revisionist Objectivism'. I would say, though, that unlike Lois Cook, the purpose is not to undercut knowledge or to destroy but to try to understand to the best of their knowledge. The posters (many of them not having mastered Rand or perhaps having some educational/developmental gaps) *genuinely believe* that they are thinking things through using good, solid conceptual tools and examples.

The problem is that when confronted with a critique or thinking methods, of use of invalid concepts, of rationalism or concrete-boundedness, the people who are recipients of my criticism after a lifetime of being praised for how bright they are, are genuinely shocked, horrified, and immensely OUTRAGED. They immediately bristle and throw up all sorts of defenses - "You're being a schoolmarm, acting like you're the teacher", "You're condescending to me and making me feel like I'm the inferior." "Who are you to criticize, Mr. Smarty-Pants?" "You're just showing off, trying to get attention, impress people with your knowledge, be a Big Shot", etc. This was not a highly intelligent line of response even among grade schoolers. Of course, that doesn't stop me. I continue to make these criticisms - on Atlantis, on OWL, on Noodlefood, on Solo, on RoR, on OL . . . or wherever - and make myself often deeply resented by people I've criticized on both sides of the Oist movement and in the libertarian movement. ***I am at war with half-digested, lazy, half-assed Objectivism.*** I am an advocate of enormous epistemological rigor, of sustained hard work across a lifetime. I have little patience for those who won't do that.

There is no one so arrogant, so resistant to criticism as a Half-Objectivist. Someone who has learned the intellectual arrogance or the big words, but has not integrated them.

(Again, like your post, this is not about this thread in particular, but a far wider observation across many years of reading posts by a wide range of newbies and old-timers.)

OIHTT - Objectivism is Hard & Takes Time.

A logical progression is to read the novels--take time to think about and absorb this massively new look at the world, read the essays (slowly so you can think about them, chew them, write down thoughts), take some of the foundational lecture series. Take time to absorb, think about. Ask yourself questions before you start asking other people.

The logical progression is -not- to take some one idea out of context and start a thread on a discussion list, which is often the blind leading the blind, and then when someone who mastered Objectivism over twenty years points out a wrong approach, simply ignore him and retreat back to the original (poorly conceptualized or imprecise) thread.

Many of the 'reform' students of Objectivism often make the opposite mistake from many of the 'orthodox': The latter cling religiously or intrinsically to every phrase of Rand's -- without having understood and integrated. The former for fear of being labelled Randroids reject some of her deepest insights and the technically precise language they are expressed in -- without having understood and integrated.

OIHTT

Edited September 22, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Christopher]

One of these days your going to have to ask yourself what comes after learning Objectivism. Then you'll understand that it's about learning reality, and Objectivism alone just can't handle that completely.

[BaalChatzaf]

One of these days your going to have to ask yourself what comes after learning Objectivism. Then you'll understand that it's about learning reality, and Objectivism alone just can't handle that completely.

Heretic!

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

YES HERETIC

Close your legs Chris we ran out of nails!

Adam

[Christopher]

[Stryder]

LOL