I still don't get it.......epistemology

[CJM]

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=17764&st=180&start=180

The last couple pages are relevant in that thread.

If Objectivism doesn't hold that we can know the world as it is(as I thought it did, but seemingly was wrong)what exactly is Rands problem with Kants distinction of the Noumenon and Phenomenon? That's what Kants distinction basically comes down to, the difference between what we perceive and reality as it is.

The Objectivist position as argued in that thread, seemed to have been that perceptions happen in reality, and are of reality. For sight, real light rays really entering our real eyes and real neurons firing in our brain.

Thats fine, but that doesn't tell us anything about our perceptions or whether they are accurate as a representation of reality, at all.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Highly unpleasant, revisiting OO after so many years

1. Things exist in reality. Correct?

2. These things have identity. Correct?

Edit: I may as well finish this

3. This identity is finite and real, and entails the totality of the thing. Totality is just the thing, the shole of it.

4. To know something objectively is to know it as it exists

5. To know something objectively is to know it's identity

I think you did a great job. The senses allow us to do things like eye-hand coordination, which makes instrumentation, calibration, repeatable experiments, and precise measurement possible. Atomic clocks are good timekeepers. Rolex? - close enough for government work at a White House dinner party.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Wolf DeVoon

[CJM]

It was a weird place, a lot of people there had a holier than thou attitude and a very collective style of thinking seemingly, despite the fact that their views on Objectivism contradicted each other.

Also, the fact that some tried to use the stolen concept argument without understanding it leads me to believe a lot of them are just mindless parrots.

Looking back, it comes down to a clear problem of two different distinctions of what objective knowledge entails. However THEIR idea of Objective knowledge is totally compatible with skepticism, so I don't see where the huge disagreement comes from.

Edited December 10, 2009 by CJM

[tjohnson]

Something exists in reality and our nervous systems abstract from it to produce "objects". Even though each of us abstracts uniquely there is enough invariance that we can communicate our abstractions to each other. The link between our abstractions and "reality" is similarity of structure. I believe it this structure that is referred to in objectivism theory of concept formation.

[CJM]

Something exists in reality and our nervous systems abstract from it to produce "objects". Even though each of us abstracts uniquely there is enough invariance that we can communicate our abstractions to each other. The link between our abstractions and "reality" is similarity of structure. I believe it this structure that is referred to in objectivism theory of concept formation.

I agree with this, but that doesn't explain Rands huge problems with Kant and philosophy in general that came before her.

Using the above definition, and using the words objective and subjective in their general meaning, our knowledge isn't objective, it is subjective. That is to say it isn't an exact representation of reality, but a representation coloured by each of our own personal biases.

That's just representative realism. We don't(and can't know the world as it is objectively, in the true sense of the word) but can only know our interpretation of it.

The difference between "objects" and reality seems no different than the difference between phenomenon and noumenon to me. So where does the controversy come from?

Rand in her writings, sets herself entirely against the notions of skepticism and Kants previously mentioned distinction.

Yet her "Objective" knowledge is knowledge which is subjective(in the words true sense), and imperfect. This is what people like Kant and the skeptics held. So what was her big problems with their ideas?

My problem is that Rand slammed the likes of Kant, Hume, the skeptics etc. for arguing that true objective knowledge isn't possible, yet(at least according to OO) her philosophy holds the exact same thing. Namely that we cannot know reality as it is.

Edited December 10, 2009 by CJM

[tjohnson]

So what was her big problems with their ideas?

Sorry, I can't help you with that!

[BaalChatzaf]

My problem is that Rand slammed the likes of Kant, Hume, the skeptics etc. for arguing that true objective knowledge isn't possible, yet(at least according to OO) her philosophy holds the exact same thing. Namely that we cannot know reality as it is.

Not so. The Obectivist position, insofar as I understand it, is that we perceive reality as it is. The senses are infallible. It is possible to mistake what we perceive or as the O'ists say mididentify it. So Rand would have claimed we can know reality as it is. We fall short of doing so through error, rather than impossibility.

Now here are the facts: Even with our best instruments we are fifteen orders of magnitude away from Planck Length (the smallest possible length which our theories can handle) and Planck Time (the small interval of time, light traveling Planck Length). That is 1 followed by 15 (count'em) zeros. The energy and temperatures we can produce for experimental purposes is a small fraction of what the cosmos was like at the instant of the Big Bang. There is a trade off between precision and energy. To see small we need large energy. There is a trade off between time precision and energy given by a variant of the Heisnberg Indeterminacy Principle. To measure small intervals of time we need large energy.

So there are two chances of knowing the Cosmos at Rock Bottom: slim and none.

Among the Shi'ite Objectivists quantum theory is reviled, denigrated and hated because it denies causal determinism. The "imams" of Objectivism write books and give lectures telling how wrong physics is.

It does not seem to bother them that they use computers (the children of quantum theory) in their denunciations.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[CJM]

I can't get any consensus on this issue.......

How can we perceive reality as it is? If we can't know everything about anythings identity(be that a thing itself, an aspect of that thing etc),which we can't due to the limits of our senses, then how can we be said to know anything as it exists?

Edited December 10, 2009 by CJM

[tjohnson]

I can't get any consensus on this issue.......

How can we perceive reality as it is? If we can't know everything about anythings identity(be that a thing itself, an aspect of that thing etc),which we can't due to the limits of our senses, then how can we be said to know anything as it exists?

You are not likely to get a consensus on this! IMO, the way we know anything is through similarity of structure. Think about maps, the map is not the territory yet if it has a similar structure then it faithfully represents the territory. This applies to our perceptions, conceptions, descriptions, inferences, etc. of "reality".

[CJM]

I would agree with that definition of how we know anything, but I am a skeptic who thinks(please note the use of this word anyone who comes in here and decides that I can be countered with the stolen concept fallacy) that objective knowledge isn't possible, and that it is all subjective and there is no certainty in any of it, not an Objectivist!

Similar isn't the same. To know things as they are isn't to know something similar.

Edited December 10, 2009 by CJM

[BaalChatzaf]

I can't get any consensus on this issue.......

How can we perceive reality as it is? If we can't know everything about anythings identity(be that a thing itself, an aspect of that thing etc),which we can't due to the limits of our senses, then how can we be said to know anything as it exists?

If your senses and brain are working right you know what things you experience partially and sufficiently well so you can avoid danger and hazard. That is all that natural selection requires. Can you deal with reality faithfully enough that you live to the age of reproduction and reproduce successfully. If enough humans can do this, our species survives.

Our knowledge of things have two signs of merit:

1. Is our knowledge correct or true within given error margins

2. Is our knowledge complete.

To 1, we can often answer yes and to 2, we can so-far answer no.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Relax. Lots of things are knowable and measurable, like Bob's IP address, when he last posted, what he said, whether it was edited, how many characters, how many misspelled words. With a little research you could discover his age, height, weight and hair color (if he has any left) without using an electron microscope. Undoubtedly Kolker is a man, mortal, has a countable set of appendages, net worth, U.S. patents and grandchildren. In a similar way we are able to know ourselves as well, although I depend heavily on documents, especially video. Nothing like having somebody follow you around with a video camera all day to see yourself objectively.

[tjohnson]

Similar isn't the same. To know things as they are isn't to know something similar.

I agree. I submit that it is impossible to know things as they are. This is something philosophers have been arguing about for thousands of years. The human nervous system perceives structure and that is all we have to work with.

[CJM]

Relax. Lots of things are knowable and measurable, like Bob's IP address, when he last posted, what he said, whether it was edited, how many characters, how many misspelled words. With a little research you could discover his age, height, weight and hair color (if he has any left) without using an electron microscope. Undoubtedly Kolker is a man, mortal, has a countable set of appendages, net worth, U.S. patents and grandchildren. In a similar way we are able to know ourselves as well, although I depend heavily on documents, especially video. Nothing like having somebody follow you around with a video camera all day to see yourself objectively.

I think you misunderstand the problem.

It has to do with constitutes know, and knowledge.

To know something objectively, in the non-Rand sense(since I am not sure what the Rand sense seems to be), is to know it as it is. There are no differences between our knowledge and reality. Skeptics, Hume, Kant etc., the people Rand was so critical of in her work(although she obviously criticized people like Kant for other reasons too) held this was impossible. If Objectivism holds the same to be true, then what was with her vicious denouncement on these peoples philosophy of epistemology?

Ba'al Chatzaf I would disagree with your claim that what you described constitutes a possibility of knowing things as they are.

Genreal Semanticist, are you an Objectivist? I just don't see the basis of Rands condemnation of skepticism if she doesn't hold that true knowledge without error is possible, the same thing skeptics do.

[Xray]

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=17764&st=180

CJM:Identity applies to attributes. If we cannot know identity, as you seem to agree, how can we know the identity of attributes?"

I do not know where the idea of not identifying attributes comes from. Height, weight, color, shape are all characteristics which can be identified and integrated to arrive as entity identity by a set of differentiating characteristics.

Grames replies to CJM:

Grames: "By perceiving attributes we perceive identity. Because our senses are the ame from one moment to the next, when we perceive one thing and then direct our attention to another thing the perceived differences are due to the attributes of the things perceived."

Actually one or more of the senses can fail or be reduced in efficiency, but the basic idea is sound. "Perceive one thing" and then "another thing" constitutes the "perceived differences"; which is entity identity.

Of course, one or more of the senses can fail at times. An Optical illusion via a drawing is one example. The desert wanderer who "sees" a pool of water where there is nothing by sand is another.

There is no absolute guarantee that all of the sense will be 100% correct at all times.

The best safeguard against error is to establish entity identity via a SET of differentiating characteristics, i.e., conceptual identity as opposed to perceptual identity by one percept. Water and white gasoline are both clear liquids. The difference is not known by sight, but by the sets of characteristics. Two portions of clear liquid make look the same, but smell differently. A clear liquid may be white gasoline, or water, but water won't burn.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Xray

[CJM]

I do not know where the idea of not identifying attributes comes from. Height, weight, color, shape are all characteristics which can be identified and integrated to arrive as entity identity by a set of differentiating characteristics.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don;t think attributes can't be identified. I was saying attributes and aspects of entities have identity.

My problem isn't that I don;t understand how concepts are formed. My problem is understanding why Rand had such a huge problem with the skeptics and Kant on epistemology when their positions don't contradict each other. Both hold knowing things as they are objectively(pre-Rand sense) is impossible. So where is the disputed point?

Here is the basic idea

Objectivism holds true knowledge of things as they are is possible: I disagree but her problems with philosophy and epistemology are totally justified.

Objectivism holds true knowledge of things as they are is impossible: I agree, and don't see how her position is at odds with Kants noumenal and phenomenal distinction and skepticism.

[tjohnson]

Genreal Semanticist, are you an Objectivist? I just don't see the basis of Rands condemnation of skepticism if she doesn't hold that true knowledge without error is possible, the same thing skeptics do.

LOL, no, I'm a general semanticist! I spend my time here trying to translate one to another.

[CJM]

LOL, no, I'm a general semanticist! I spend my time here trying to translate one to another.

You would be surprised, I have seen people who thought they could adopt both Nietzschean and Objectivist principles.

[tjohnson]

In a sense, our (optical) nervous system is no different than a camera. If you take a picture with a camera the image is stored in the memory (digital camera) and this image was produced from the light entering the lens and is most certainly not "the object". Our optical system is just an organic version of this and the closest we can come to "objects" are these representations of them inside our nervous system. Each sense we have adds different structural information but it will always be incomplete and somewhat subjective. We have created methods to make our knowledge more objective (science) and it works quite well when done properly.

[CJM]

I agree, I just see it as fully subjective, not somewhat.

[tjohnson]

I agree, I just see it as fully subjective, not somewhat.

If it was fully subjective wouldn't that imply there was no relationship between our abstractions or representations and "reality"? Do you believe this is so? If it was fully subjective why do things appear so similar so often each time we look at them, like the sun, for example? What accounts for this invariance? This invariance must be attributed to some structure that exists independent of observer, I think.

[CJM]

I don't think so, I am not promoting Subjectivism with a capital S.

Peoples perceptions are specific to them, and do not reflect things as they are truthfully in an objective reality. That's what I mean by subjective.

An objective one would be one that does reflect reality as it is, and wasn't coloured by personal bias. I don't think these exist. According to what I have been reading, neither did Rand, but then I don't see what her problem was with the Skeptics etc. like I said before.

[Dragonfly]

I don't think so, I am not promoting Subjectivism with a capital S.

Peoples perceptions are specific to them, and do not reflect things as they are truthfully in an objective reality. That's what I mean by subjective.

An objective one would be one that does reflect reality as it is, and wasn't coloured by personal bias. I don't think these exist.

No, in that sense they don't exist, but that would mean that objectivity is a meaningless term. However, what is usually called "objective" is not reality itself, but a method or a model that is used according to certain rules, which we loosely call the "scientific method", which results in reproducible and consistent phenomena, independent of individual perceptions (and that is the difference with subjectivity), that can be best explained by the existence of a reality that is independent of our consciousness. Such a reality is in fact an abstraction, a kind of extrapolation of what we discover using the scientific method. This method is not infallible, but the success of science and the ensuing technology is good evidence that the notion of an external reality is useful and that the scientific method is the best way to find approximate models of that reality that do work in practice.

[CJM]

But if that is the case, what exactly is Rands huge problem with Kant and the skeptics positions?

That's what I can't get.

[sbeaulieu]

But if that is the case, what exactly is Rands huge problem with Kant and the skeptics positions?

That's what I can't get.

From Wikipedia

"The Objectivist theory of perception distinguishes between the form and object. The form in which an organism perceives is determined by the physiology of its sensory systems. Whatever form the organism perceives it in, what it perceives—the object of perception—is reality. Rand consequently rejected the Kantian dichotomy between "things as we perceive them" and "things as they are in themselves". The epistemologies of representationalism and indirect realism that accept a "veil of perception," as put forward by Descartes or John Locke, are inconsistent with Objectivism. Rand rejected epistemological skepticism as the skeptics claim knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.

Most of this focus seems to lean heavily on sight. There are other senses to consider in this. For instance, I know liquid when I feel and hear it.

~ Shane