RoR: Forum

Joel Catal� wrote:

If the blank "mind is blank before it perceives reality" --Mr. Dwyer dixit--, and at same time perception is not a capacity of the "blank mind" --Rand's assertion--, then... sound of trumpets... roll of drums... the Objectivist "blank slate" remains a blank mind, forever and ever.

There's an interpretation of Ayn Rand distorted enough to stand beside those of Scott Ryan. Perception is a potential of the mechanism of consciousness like walking is a potential of a newborn's legs.

Joel Catal� wrote:

This "potential of awareness" requires volition to actualize the "potential of awareness" into actual awareness.

False. Awareness is actualized by experience, whether or not there is volitional control involved.

Post 41

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:02am

Mr. Jetton, you wrote:

Joel Catal� wrote:
This "potential of awareness" requires volition to actualize the "potential of awareness" into actual awareness.
False. Awareness is actualized by experience, whether or not there is volitional control involved.

The blank slate has no initial awareness to actualize, that's the issue.

That blank slate would have to self-create conscience ex-nihilo.

Joel Catal�

Post 42

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:14am

Joel Catal� wrote:

The blank slate has no initial awareness to actualize, that's the issue.

That blank slate would have to self-create conscience ex-nihilo.

Does a blank piece of paper create writing on itself ex-nihilo? That is analogous to what you are saying.

Post 43

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 7:18am

Merlin Jetton, you wrote:

Joel Catal� wrote:
The blank slate has no initial awareness to actualize, that's the issue.

That blank slate would have to self-create conscience ex-nihilo.

Does a blank piece of paper create writing on itself ex-nihilo? That is analogous to what you are saying.

I see the analogy as irrelevant to your argument, but partially helpful to mine.

The paper does not self-write; the paper is written by an external agent. (Besides, from a metaphysical point of view, written letters are not equivalent to conscience.)

The blank slate would require self-creation of consciousness ex-nihilo. That's the impossibility.

My position is that man is not born as a blank slate, but he is born with a 'spark' of consciousness; additionally, consciousness is not a physical entity. (Physics can't explain the existence of consciousness: consciousness and emotions are not properly measurable, only their electrochemical correlates.) Given those conditions, yes, man may increase his awareness through life.

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/23, 9:12am)

Post 44

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 1:05pm

Joel,

================
The paper does not self-write; the paper is written by an external agent.
================

The [perceptual apparatus] does not self-[stimulate]; the [perceptual apparatus] is [stimulated] by an external agent.

Ed

Post 45

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 2:42pm

Joel, I said you were willfully ignorant. I don't consider that psychologizing. Your ignorance is a well established fact. Since you were told you were ignorant, and you refuse to do anything about it, it's obviously willful. Nothing at all controversial there.

As for its relevance, that's easy. The point of a forum is communication. When one participant intends to stay ignorant on a topic, that short-circuits the function of communication.

You're not the first person to try this. In the past, we've had other people who insist they know what Objectivism is all about, and can explain in detail why the strawman they present is all wrong. I just don't understand what the point is when the people you're trying to convince inform you that it's not what they believe. You can't persuade them to reject the ideas, since they don't even hold them. I can only assume it's some kind of ruse to make onlookers believe you're actually disproving Objectivism.

See, there's no problem if you happen to disagree. If you think our premises are incorrect (don't correspond to reality), or contradictory (they contradict our other ideas), or in some other way faulty, you could say so and argue the point. There's no problem with that. It might help some of us formulate responses better, and get a tighter integration.

Or, given your obvious ignorance on the topic, you could simply ask how Objectivism solves the problem that you think it has. Instead of approaching it from an antagonistic position, you could approach is from a friendly (but skeptical) position of trying to learn more.

But instead, you insist on trying to convince us that Objectivism means something else entirely, and that this thing that you imagine has flaws. And you wonder why people think you're a troll?

Imagine if I did the same to you. I could say "I don't think you're right because everything stems from your premise that children should be tortured and killed. You can insist that you don't, but you know that I know it's true. And I can prove that your premise is wrong!". Want to argue with me? Every time you say you don't believe it, I can simply say that you do, and your horribly wrong.

Post 46

Friday, June 23, 2006 - 3:13pm

In Post 38, Joel wrote

Ayn Rand defines the Objectivist "tabula rasa" mind as follows:

"At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness --the mechanism of human consciousness-- but no content."

"No content" means no consciousness, because consciousness is consciousness of something.

So, according to Objectivism a newborn has no consciousness, and so he is mindless.

Joel, I already addressed this point in Post 34. I thought what I said was clear, but in case it wasn't, let me add the following: Yes, he is "mindless" in that sense of the term. Rand would agree with you: no content means no consciousness, because, as you point out, a consciousness must be conscious of something. Immediately prior to coming into the world and having sensory contact with it, a child has no consciousness - no awareness of reality. What he does have is a cognitive mechanism for being aware of reality, in the form of sense organs, a brain and and central nervous system, which is what Rand means by "potential for awareness" or potential for consciousness. It is that cognitive mechanism that is devoid of content and to which Rand is referring when she says that at birth a child's "mind" is tabula rasa.

Additionally, Ayn Rand wrote that

"To perceive [...] is not an innate, but an acquired skill."

I also addressed this point in my previous post, in which I pointed out that what Rand is saying is that to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts is not an innate, but an acquired skill. In other words, at the beginning of his life, an infant's awareness consists of nothing but sensations, which are subsequently integrated into percepts. This is what Rand was referring to when she said that "to perceive . . . is not an innate but an acquired skill."

I hope this point is finally clear, although I can't imagine why it wasn't clear, to begin with.

Joel wrote,

You begged the question of how the Objectivist "potential awareness" becomes actual awareness in a mindless blank slate.

I don't think I begged the question. In any case, I stated in Post 34 that "That potential is actualized once the senses are exposed to reality."

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/23, 3:14pm)

Post 47

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:31am

Ed posted the following:

Joel,

================
The paper does not self-write; the paper is written by an external agent.
================

The [perceptual apparatus] does not self-[stimulate]; the [perceptual apparatus] is [stimulated] by an external agent.

Ed, stimulation of the perceptual apparatus of a mindless blank slate would provide no result, because that "tabula rasa" mind would have no awareness.

Joel Catal�

Post 48

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 11:19am

Mr. Dwyer wrote:

In Post 38, Joel wrote
Ayn Rand defines the Objectivist "tabula rasa" mind as follows:

"At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness --the mechanism of human consciousness-- but no content."

"No content" means no consciousness, because consciousness is consciousness of something.

So, according to Objectivism a newborn has no consciousness, and so he is mindless.
[...] Yes, he is "mindless" in that sense of the term. Rand would agree with you: no content means no consciousness, because, as you point out, a consciousness must be conscious of something. Immediately prior to coming into the world and having sensory contact with it, a child has no consciousness - no awareness of reality.

Yes, Rand defended that the child is born without awareness. And that's the problem.

Science has demonstrated that, even in the womb, the fetus has sensations, which involve awareness. Even some animals do have this kind of sentience. (As you may know, another pretty different stuff is self-consciousness.)

That implies that Objectivism (and Aquinas) are wrong.

What he does have is a cognitive mechanism for being aware of reality, in the form of sense organs, a brain and and central nervous system, which is what Rand means by "potential for awareness" or potential for consciousness.

The problem is that that hypothetical "potential" cannt "grow up" a consciousness ex nihilo.

Objectivism never explained, and won't never be able to explain, how come a mindless being can feel sensations and inegrate them into percepts.

For the record, that would tantamount to explaining the creation of consciousness from matter.

Additionally, Ayn Rand wrote that

"To perceive [...] is not an innate, but an acquired skill."
I also addressed this point in my previous post, in which I pointed out that what Rand is saying is that to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts is not an innate, but an acquired skill. In other words, at the beginning of his life, an infant's awareness consists of nothing but sensations, which are subsequently integrated into percepts. This is what Rand was referring to when she said that "to perceive . . . is not an innate but an acquired skill."

First flaw: sensations are felt, so they involve the existence of awareness, something patently contrary to the intrinsically mindless state of the blank slate.

Sensations require a mind being aware of them. Could Mr. Dwyer agree with this point?

Second flaw: A tabula rasa living being with an "automated" sensory mechanism would be hapless to process anything into percepts. Rand wrote that the tabula rasa being had no "hardwired" concepts.

Then, the "blank slate" could not "integrate sensations" into percepts because percepts involve concepts. Could Mr. Dwyer agree with this second point?

I hope this point is finally clear, although I can't imagine why it wasn't clear, to begin with.

Mr. Dwyer's exposition was clear; and the flaws in the Objectivist philosophy remain.

Joel Catal�

---

"Reality is what it is, [...] independent of anyone's beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions." -- Ayn Rand

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/26, 11:25am)

Post 49

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 12:14pm

Mr. Rowlands,

Here I reply to your post #45.

In that post you performed ad hominem, which is not an argument.

You said I am willfully ignorant. That I short-circuit communication. That I am not approaching in a friendly manner "trying to learn more." And you finish with stating:

"And you wonder why people think you're a troll?"

You even left some of my questions unanswered (in example, in my post #38 of this same thread.)

I don't assume your ignorance, and logically assume that you chose to ignore me, and endorse that same conclusion that I am "a troll."

But there are strange things, contrary to the view that you could really think that I am a troll.

First, as some readers of this message certainly know, I am not new in this website. You can see in my personal profile information that I post here since at least September of the year 2004. If I am "a troll" how I could remain "undetected"?

Second, I could expect that label from patently close-minded people (which I won't mention here), but not from you, Mr. Rowlands, who never had an argument with me.

As always tried to behave in a good-mannered way, my deduction is that I came to be labeled as "a troll" when my ideas threatened the preconceived ideas of some people.

My conclusions are that you, Mr. Rowlands:

1) Think that I am threatening the explicit agenda of your website, which is promoting the Objectivist philosophy.

The emotion of fear is very powerful, and it can move people to do incorrect things:

"Our emotions respond to the most salient piece of information available to us at the time. If one of this pieces is particularly evocative, it will affect our emotions more than information that may be more significant, but less passion arousing."
(Tal Ben Shahar, in: "A Clash of Values. The Struggle for Universal Freedom.")

2) As a consequence, you decide to ignore my post #38, to look to me over the shoulder, and willfully embrace the canard that I am a troll as a way to avoid having rational discussion with me (and other dissenters).

Of course, my interpretation can be wrong, but I wanted to post it for the sake of transparence.

Of course, one thing is disagreement, another is personal incompatibility with some posters, and another one to have personal incompatibility with the owner of this website.

At a personal level: initially a Christian Catholic, I had an Atheistic period of time --including an Objectivist one--, until now, when I am persuaded that Judaism is worth exploring more and more. I am getting increasingly amazed with this fully rational, and at the same time fully spiritual, way of life.

I felt the need to combat Objectivism because I am already persuaded that it is wrong, but has enough valid elements to be a good "training place" to check my arguments and views, as well as the Jewish insights I am leaning with other intelligent (though I think misguided) people here on RoR.

I always try to respect private property and its related rules of netiquette. That's why I have decided to end my posting in this website.

"Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence." -- Aristotle

My pursuit is truth, because that pursuit is the ultimate source of happiness.

I remain open to all sound arguments and to change my mind. Interestingly, the more I debate with Objectivists and others, the more I find that my decision to leave Objectivism was the correct one.

My best wishes to you, Mr. Rowlands, and to all RoRers,

Joel Catal�

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/26, 12:27pm)

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 6/27, 1:16am)

Post 50

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 1:52pm

Joel,

As you can see, the argument in favour of tabula rasa can become heated. What's also true about tabula rasa is that it is very weak assertion, certainly not supported by reality/evidence of today.

In TVOS, Rand stated most clearly that man's "cognitive mechanism" was tabula rasa, and this is just false. She also states elsewhere that character traits and even intelligence are not inherited. This is also false.

I've seen all kinds of arguments which amount to nothing more than "blank slate" doesn't really mean "blank" - nothing convincing. Or the "you just don't understand Objectivism" is also a popular rebuttal.

She was just plain wrong about this, but too much rests on this notion for Objectivists to abandon or modify it.

Bob

(Edited by Mr Bob Mac on 6/26, 1:57pm)

Post 51

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 8:58pm

Joel,

===========
Ed, stimulation of the perceptual apparatus of a mindless blank slate would provide no result, because that "tabula rasa" mind would have no awareness.
===========

Bill did a good -- no, Bill did a great -- job at explaining how the mind, as potential, comes into being by serving its function at the moment of the first perception. I have no more to say than he.

Ed

Post 52

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 9:57pm

Yes, Rand defended that the child is born without awareness. And that's the problem.

Science has demonstrated that, even in the womb, the fetus has sensations, which involve awareness. Even some animals do have this kind of sentience. (As you may know, another pretty different stuff is self-consciousness.)

I'm willing to grant the point about sensations occurring in the womb, but it doesn't significantly impact the doctrine of tabula rasa, essential to which is only that some kind of experience or sensory contact with reality is necessary for awareness, whether this experience occurs at birth or in utero.

Objectivism never explained, and won't never be able to explain, how come a mindless being can feel sensations and integrate them into percepts.

Objectivism doesn't say that a mindless (i.e. non-conscious) being can feel sensations or integrate them into percepts. Where did you get that idea? A non-conscious being cannot feel or experience anything. Once a person is experiencing sensations, he or she is already conscious. It's also important to distinguish here between a sensation (which is a process of awareness) and the object of awareness (which is whatever aspect of reality is producing the sensation). Although it is common to speak of feeling or experiencing a sensation, strictly speaking, one doesn't feel the sensation; the sensation is the feeling or experience. One feels or experiences the object of the sensation or whatever is producing it.

As I explained in my previous post, when Rand says that a child's "mind" is tabula rasa, she means by the term "mind" the cognitive or anatomical mechanism (i.e., the brain, sense organs and central nervous system) that has the potential for awareness but has yet to actualize it. In other words, the term "mind" is being used in two different senses here: on the one hand, in reference to actual awareness; and on the other hand, in reference to an anatomical mechanism that has the potential for awareness.

For the record, that would be tantamount to explaining the creation of consciousness from matter.

Well, consciousness is created from matter, in the sense that it emerges from the interaction of the material sense organs and brain with the external world.

Then, the "blank slate" could not "integrate sensations" into percepts because percepts involve concepts.

I agree that a blank slate could not integrate sensations into percepts - where does Rand say that it could? - but the reason is that once a person has sensations, he or she is already conscious. The reason is not that percepts involve concepts. An animal can have percepts without any concepts. It's concepts that involve percepts, not the other way around.

- Bill

Post 53

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 10:35pm

Mr. Bob Mac states:

In TVOS, Rand stated most clearly that man's "cognitive mechanism" was tabula rasa, and this is just false.
How is it false?
She also states elsewhere that character traits and even intelligence are not inherited. This is also false."

Where does Rand say that intelligence is not inherited? Perhaps you're thinking of the following statement from her essay, "The Comprachicos": "Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions. Whatever a child's natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill. It has to be acquired by a child's own effort and automatized by his own mind, but adults can help or hinder him in this crucial process." (The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p. 195). Observe that what she says here is that the use of intelligence is an acquired skill, not the intelligence itself. She is not saying that it is not inherited. She even acknowledges the inherited component when she states that "Whatever a child's natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill."

Before you go putting words into Rand's mouth, don't you think you should make at least a passing effort to get it right? You and your soul mate, Joel Catala, have one thing in common - to discredit Rand, even if you have to misrepresent her in order to do so. This strawman gambit is getting tiresome. If you have something constructive to offer, by all means let's hear it, but these kinds of offhanded, irresponsible and thoughtless remarks do more to discredit the two of you than they do Ayn Rand.

- Bill

Post 54

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 1:16am

Joel, I'm quite aware that you've been posting for awhile. You've kept most of your posts restricted to politics, where you've opposed the anarchists and pacifist appeasers. As long as that was your goal, it was fine.

And even your recent decision to dedicate your presence here to opposing Objectivism doesn't really make you a troll in my eyes. There are plenty of people who do that (sometimes even inadvertently!).

No, it's when you started telling Objectivists what Objectivism is, despite their disagreement, that you became a troll.

The first problem with that is that the focus is no longer on what's right and wrong, or whether the people you're talking to are right or wrong. Instead, the focus is on what Ayn Rand said or meant. And that just leads to pathetic debates. Validity of ideas is meaningless, and it all becomes consistency with some holy (or unholy...depending on which side of the fence you sit) books.

The second problem is that you, as a critic of Objectivism, think that you should be the one to define it. That leads to a very serious issue. Instead of taking a generous interpretation of Objectivism, and arguing against it at its best, you've found a convenient way to dismiss any solid arguments. Instead of arguing against the ideas, you can simply argue that Rand didn't say it.

The third problem is that you're sitting there telling other people what their philosophy means, despite their protests. As I said, if I get to tell you what your beliefs are, you're going to have a hard time explaining your defense of child abuse! That you don't see anything wrong with this methodology is baffling.

The fourth problem is that you're actually wrong. Your understanding of Objectivism is poor (not surprised you gave it up for religion), and your interpretations of select quotes miss the wider context.

If you actually argued against Objectivism (or better yet Objectivists), instead of your own mistaken understanding of it, you could still provide value. But since you want to focus on ideas that nobody here accepts in your quest to "combat Objectivism" (through misrepresentation???), you offer nothing and just get in the way. I don't consider you a troll out of fear (nice psychologizing...unfortunately not even close). I consider you a troll because while this is your approach, you're a complete waste to everyone.

If you decide to stop trolling, and try to learn a little about the philosophy, you're welcome to stay. But if you insist on attacking strawmen, I'm happy to see you leave. Your choice.

Post 55

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 7:05am

Bill wrote:

Before you go putting words into Rand's mouth, don't you think you should make at least a passing effort to get it right? You and your soul mate, Joel Catala, have one thing in common - to discredit Rand, even if you have to misrepresent her in order to do so. This strawman gambit is getting tiresome. If you have something constructive to offer, by all means let's hear it, but these kinds of offhanded, irresponsible and thoughtless remarks do more to discredit the two of you than they do Ayn Rand.

Bill, I am being precise and using her words as they are written, not how I want them to be written or mean.

First of all Rand's words "natural endowment" is not the same as the concept of inherited traits. You are not being precise and you are deliberately changing the meaning of what she wrote into what you want it to mean. It is well known that Rand was very uncomfortable with Evolution in general and got many related ideas very wrong.

To be more precise, Rand, in her comments on racism, rejected the notion that a person's character or intelligence is inherited OR determined by his "internal body chemistry". This is false.

You also asked "How is it false?" - refering to a blank cognitive mechanism (her words). I suspect this is a dishonest question. We now know that by any imaginable definition of "cognitive mechanism", it is very well known that children and even many animals are born with a quite well developed cognitive mechanism.

You need to think that I misrepresent her words. Bill, it is you who is twisting the words. I address precisely what she wrote and point it out as false - Something I could do all day, because her writing is chock full of these things. Irresponsible? Thoughtless? Hmmm......

There are many other things she wrote that just don't make sense or are easily pointed out as incorrect.

Bob

Post 56

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 8:03am

Bill,

Beware of the dictionary police. Their chief methods are suprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... :-)

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." �Bill Clinton

Ethan

Post 57

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 10:58am

Bob, you wrote,

[Rand] states elsewhere that character traits and even intelligence are not inherited. This is also false.

I replied, "Where does Rand say that intelligence is not inherited? Perhaps you're thinking of the following statement from her essay, "The Comprachicos":

Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions. Whatever a child's natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill. It has to be acquired by a child's own effort and automatized by his own mind, but adults can help or hinder him in this crucial process. (The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p. 195).

Observe that what she says here is that the use of intelligence is an acquired skill, not the intelligence itself. She is not saying that it is not inherited. She even acknowledges the inherited component when she states that 'Whatever a child's natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill.'" You replied,

Bill, I am being precise and using her words as they are written, not how I want them to be written or mean.

Very well, where does Rand say here that intelligence is not inherited? In fact, she doesn't say it. So how are you "being precise and using her words as they are written"? You write,

First of all Rand's words "natural endowment" is not the same as the concept of inherited traits. You are not being precise and you are deliberately changing the meaning of what she wrote into what you want it to mean.

How so? "Natural endowment" means what you are born with - what you inherited.

It is well known that Rand was very uncomfortable with Evolution in general and got many related ideas very wrong.
I agree that she was uncomfortable with evolution. Her position on it was not that evolution was necessarily wrong, but that it hadn't been conclusively established. As for getting many of the related ideas wrong, I'd be interested in the specifics. This a forum for discussing the ideas of Objectivism, not for making unsupported assertions denouncing Ayn Rand.
To be more precise, Rand, in her comments on racism, rejected the notion that a person's character or intelligence is inherited OR determined by his "internal body chemistry". This is false.

Again, you are playing fast and loose with the truth. Here is what Rand actually said in her essay on "Racism":

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors. (The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 126)

Observe that she does not deny here that a person's intelligence is (at least partly) inherited. The current view, I believe, is that it is about 50/50 - half nurture, half nature. What she says is that a person's "intellectual" traits are not transmitted by his internal body chemistry, which is true. The term "intellectual" in this context does not refer to intelligence but to philosophical values. Rand is also correct that one's characterological traits are not produced and transmitted by one's internal body chemistry, since these are the result of one's choices, which depend on one's knowledge and values.

You also asked "How is it false?" - referring to a blank cognitive mechanism (her words). I suspect this is a dishonest question.
Why do you say that? All I did is ask you to provide a reason for your statement.
We now know that by any imaginable definition of "cognitive mechanism", it is very well known that children and even many animals are born with a quite well developed cognitive mechanism.

Of course. What Rand means by "blank" in this context is the absence of ideas, or of any awareness of, reality; she doesn't mean the absence of any capacity for processing this information once it is received. Obviously, that capacity exists before one is born or becomes aware of reality. The concept of "tabula rasa" is intended to be distinguished from the doctrine of innate ideas, not from an inherited potential for cognitive functioning.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/27, 11:06am)

Post 58

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 1:43pm

We now know that by any imaginable definition of "cognitive mechanism", it is very well known that children and even many animals are born with a quite well developed cognitive mechanism

Bullshit. Prove it - name your sources....

(Edited by robert malcom on 6/27, 1:44pm)

Post 59

Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 2:40pm