About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 11:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Regi, Ed, Frank: I have not had time to follow all aspects of this thread, but this discussion of perception caught my interest. I think that when you, Regi, say:

Unfortunately, the Objectivist description of “how it works,” is incorrect, and introduces an unnecessary problem. Just how does anything know what data belongs to what percepts and how it ought to be integrated before it knows what sensory data comes from or pertains to which entities? Evolution does not explain that because evolution would have to prepare the mystical faculty of integration with knowledge of every possible entity the organism was ever going to encounter.

you are turning an error of Peikoff’s into one of Rand’s. His mistake is obvious when, on page 53, he says “The result is your ability, when you look out, to see not merely a patch of brown, but a table.” I suspect that Peikoff momentarily lost his focus, and started speaking of perception as though it contained conceptual knowledge, when all he really needed to explain was how we perceive entities—not how we perceive entities of certain conceptual types. Unless he himself has misunderstood Rand.

When Ayn Rand said that sensations are integrated into perceptions, she meant the perception of entities as such: that is, physical wholes from which effects and actions proceed. Not tables, balls, people—these notions come later—but the subverbal awareness of “brown thing there,” “red thing I feel,” “big thing up there”—in a word, objects. Perception transforms the gestalts of sensation into things that can act and have significance for the higher life forms. As Rand said, it is largely automatic; and this is not surprising, because the fact that actions and effects are close in space and time to their source is metaphysical in nature and presumably would get wired in by evolution.

It is well to keep in mind that we are not only talking about the sense of sight but also those of touch, hearing, smell, and taste. And that the sensations being integrated, even if we assume that only one sense is operating, are extremely numerous and complex. Moreover, the information has to be highly dynamic: a paralyzed baby born with only one eye and whose crib was surrounded by objects that never moved or changed might be unable to learn to perceive the world in terms of entities. In other words, to focus on the sense of sight for a moment, in order to see an entity it is not enough for the eye to be hit with its colors and other data; the visual information must be gathered from different angles and distances and lighting conditions, the observer and the thing must change their locations with respect to each other—then only will there be enough data for the inherent logic that is wired in by evolution to scream “entity!”

Finally, I would like to observe that Rand did not specify how fast perceptual integration takes place. She merely was concerned to point out that perceptions were ultimately based upon the information provided by the senses, and upon nothing else. It is my belief, and I think it was hers, that there is a definite stage for humans during which the brain must process the raw sensory data into usable wholes—that is, entities as such, not as things with names such as table etc. I think she would have agreed that this stage might possibly be almost instantaneous in some animals, just as some mammals are able to stand up at birth. So that a kitten might attack its mother’s tail right away. The information it needs may be less for its sense of entity (which may be less sophisticated than man’s) than what man needs.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/17, 1:16pm)


Post 21

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 3:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Rodney,

Thanks for the  input.

You said: When Ayn Rand said that sensations are integrated into perceptions, she meant the perception of entities as such: that is, physical wholes from which effects and actions proceed. Not tables, balls, people—these notions come later—but the subverbal awareness of “brown thing there,” “red thing I feel,” “big thing up there”—in a word, objects.
 
So long as you mean, brown thing there,” “red thing I feel,” “big thing up there”—in a word, objects, are perceived in exactly the same way they will be perceived after they have been identified as, tables, balls, people, I would agree, but you seem to be hinting at something else.

Of course you are right about Peikoff, but I think he was a little desperate to explain the integration thing. Rand really does mean sensations are integrated into percepts of entities, events, qualities, etc.

"The higher organisms possess a much more potent form of consciousness: they possess the faculty of retaining sensations, which is the faculty of perception.  A "perception" is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of single stimuli, but of entities, of things." ["The Objectivist Ethics," The Virtue of Selfishness, Page 19]

"As far as can be ascertained, the perceptual level of a child's awareness is similar to the awareness of the higher animals: the higher animals are able to perceive entities, motions, attributes, and certain numbers of entities." ["Concept-Formation," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Page 16]

Perception transforms the gestalts of sensation into things that can act and have significance for the higher life forms. As Rand said, it is largely automatic; and this is not surprising, because the fact that actions and effects are close in space and time to their source is metaphysical in nature and presumably would get wired in by evolution.
 
What gets wired in? A mystic something that transforms sensory data into percepts? But that is exactly what is not needed. Perception is much more direct than that. There is no need for any integration or process-of-transforming one thing into another thing. That is the mistake.

That is what I intend to demonstrate. There is no "integrating" process at all, and if there were, it would be morel likely to "distort" than to "resolve" what is perceived.

I have nearly decided to do a paper revealing just that aspect of my ontology that pertains to consciousness and its nature, and to explain why no integration is necessary for the perception of entities from the moment a child is able to perceive at all. It would also answer the question of how we know what we perceive is both a direct perception of existence and a perfectly accurate one.

I'll do some checking around to see how much interest there is; else everyone will have to wait a year or so for my book.

Regi


Post 22

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, I am not sure what you mean by:
perceived in exactly the same way they will be perceived after they have been identified as [tables, balls, people]
Why would they not be? All conceptualization adds is a system of classification of the perceived things, so that they are viewed as units. The baby sees the ball exactly as we do, except he has not yet formed the concept "ball" on the basis of several such observations.

Rand really does mean sensations are integrated into percepts of entities, events, qualities, etc.

No, I'm sure she means just entities--"things." Events and qualities are abstracted later, as actions and attributes of them.

[This section deleted in answer to a criticism below, so as not to muddle reader's thoughts.--RR] 


What gets wired in? A mystic something that transforms sensory data into percepts? But that is exactly what is not needed. Perception is much more direct than that. There is no need for any integration or process-of-transforming one thing into another thing. That is the mistake.
What is wired in is the ability to perceive entities--physical objects--because those are the "unit of action and causation" in the universe. It makes sense that life would evolve means of dealing with objects as objects, and not merely stay on the level of reacting to sensations as they arrive. (By the way, when I say sensations are "transformed," all I mean is "interpreted.")

There is a need for integration (which is a process, as I say, of mental interpretation only), because the only information coming in is a group of sensations. That's not enough to know what are the pinpoint sources of effects, and how they are moving in relation to oneself, and where one body ends and another begins. This is all crucial, life-enhancing knowledge for the higher creatures.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/19, 8:28am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Okay…I’m new to this forum (about 15 posts) -- so maybe I was naïve. I thought this is a group in which people can politely discuss philosophy. I raised the problem of interaction. The discussion started slow, but it appeared to be picking up after a few days. I was hopeful. There were some thoughtful comments (Post 13) on the issue that I really wanted to respond to, but I had to go away for the weekend. No problem, I figured, I would re-enter the discussion when I returned.

 

Instead, when I returned the thread has been utterly “hijacked.” (Look at Post 14.)

 

Regi, your posts are extremely inconsiderate to me. How would you feel if you were trying to foster a discussion about sense perception, and I started a passionate discussion of the war in Iraq? Clearly, your comments went far beyond any discussion of interaction. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion about ANY philosophical issue if people so egregiously disrespectful. Is basic courtesy too much to ask?

 

If a topic bores you, then I think the polite thing to do is: 1) leave or 2) start another thread. It's rude to just "trample" on someone's discussion.

 

In any case, I suppose the discussion is now about the nature sense perception…so, Regi, it looks as though you’ve successfully bullied me away.

 

Enjoy your discussion of sense perception. I’m out.

 
Don


Post 24

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 6:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dear Don,

Okay…I’m new to this forum

Of course it's okay, and let me be the first to welcome you.

so maybe I was naïve. I thought this is a group in which people can politely discuss philosophy.

Maybe you were a little naïve. The forum is comprised of people, sometimes they are very polite, sometimes they call each other names, like Saddamite, but since you are new, you do not need to know about that quite yet.

There were some thoughtful comments (Post 13) on the issue that I really wanted to respond to, but I had to go away for the weekend. No problem, I figured, I would re-enter the discussion when I returned.
Instead, when I returned the thread has been utterly “hijacked.” (Look at Post 14.)


Well, there, that is good lesson for us, isn't it. That's what happens when we leave our threads unattended. First thing you know, some jerk comes along and hijacks them.

Oh, I know you are blaming me. And you're right. But you have to understand, while they tolerate me around here, they all know I'm a pathological thread thief. I'm not proud of it, in fact I'm deeply ashamed, but I cannot help it.

It's not like I'm not trying, or anything. I see my doctors regularly, all eleven of them, and they all say I'm making progress, because I've hardly stollen a thread all year. But, I'll make a confession, I think that's only because everyone else is on to me, and they know enough not to leave their threads unattended. That must be what it is, because the first time a newbee comes around, who doesn't know me, and leaves their thread unattended, I strike again.

I'm so sorry! Will you forgive me?

Regi



Post 25

Monday, May 17, 2004 - 8:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi, your individualism is practically offensive. 

It's true you don't owe Don anything.  It's also true that you were baited (by Frank R) into divulging secrets you've been working on.  Secrets you can't wait to tell the world about - secrets that will show the world a little about you and the products of your mind - secrets that will show the world that you are capable of grand creations and extremely high-levels of abstract thought (things that some already know about you). 

But why don't you cut Don some slack here and, in the interest of the potential value that he represents as a thinker willing to engage others in idea-trading, at least admit that you would not like your threads hijacked either (though this does not sanction his knee-jerk moralizing of someone merely caught being in possession of an idea whose time has come)?

Ed


Post 26

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 6:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Ed,

Thanks for the edifying comments. I know that's how you intend them.

Regi, your individualism is practically offensive.

I am what I am, and I am that by choice. I live, think, and act according to the truth as well as I can understand it. I do not understand those who are offended by plain speaking, other's opinions, or differences in the values and practices of others. I do not have time to find out what flaws in their characters causes them to suffer this unnecessary sense of offense, nor was I put on this world to assuage the tender sensitivities of the thin-skinned.

Ed, do you think what I wrote to Don is "offensive?" I could have pointed out I only answered questions, which it would have been impolite to ignore, making my choice between being "discourteous" to the absent Mr. Don or to my present interlocutors.  I could have pointed out that the nature of perception is directly related to the question of interaction, that perception, in Objectivism, is consciousness, and to understand the nature of consciousness does explain the nature of interaction. I could have explained that anyone to whom those things are not obvious does not deserve a thread of their own, that whatever intellectual contribution someone that ignorant could make, the world and we could certainly live without.

Why didn't I? Because I found Don's post very amusing, and very revealing. Unless it was a fluke, Don's post reveals a certain kind of personality--the kind of personality that is both easily offended itself and believes the solution is to offend others. That brow-beating method probably works with the kind of people Don is used to dealing with. My response to Don was to demonstrate, it does not work with everyone, that there are people in this world whose relationships with others are based on reason, not emotional manipulation. But the main purpose of my response was my enjoyment.

If Don or you or anyone else finds my response offensive, they are probably right, but it has nothing to do with my intention. Those who find subtleties, sarcarsm, and satire offensive should not read Mencken, Shaw, Twain, Swift, Voltaire, Perigo, ... or me.

... why don't you ... at least admit that you would not like your threads hijacked either ...  

Because it would not be true. When I introduce a subject I have every expectation that others, if they are intelligent, are going to introduce related but different issues, that others are very likely to find some of the related issues more interesting than the one I originally introduce. Neither I or anyone else "owns" a thread, attempting to limit the direction discussion and rational intercourse will take is a limit on reason itself.

Good grief man, do you consider yourself a thread hijacker? What exactly has your "Rational Discussion Treaty," to do with "Freedom vs. Government?" The attempt to control the direction of conversation in a free-flowing forum like SOLO is, I believe, opposite its intention.

You may wonder why I take the time to discuss this seeming non-issue (beyond the fact I have a tendency to loquaciousness). It is because it is, in fact, a major issue, and one that seems greatly misunderstood in both Objectivist and Libertarian circles. There seems to be this silly notion that freedom of discourse and the advancement of truth depends on the elimination of offense and disagreeableness. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tolerance and freedom of speech means anyone is free to say anything; if I don't like it or it offends me, that is my problem, I have to tolerate it. Tolerance does not mean avoiding offending anyone else, it means being allowed to say anything without regard to who might be offended, disagree with it, or object to it.

See my Article on SOLO, Freedom of Speech means Freedom to Offend. (And see Linz' response, the very first one.)

Regi



Post 27

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 3:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney: “When Ayn Rand said that sensations are integrated into perceptions, she meant the perception of entities as such…Not tables, balls, people—these notions come later—but the subverbal awareness of “brown thing there,” “red thing I feel,” “big thing up there”—in a word, objects.

Very likely, but this awareness includes notions such as entity, size and location, and of course: existence, identity, consciousness. In that case, Rand seems to be saying that at least some concepts are present in perception, even though she also claims that perception is a purely automatic, physiological process.

But if perception does include such concepts as ‘existence’, how can this occur prior to the act of forming a concept via Rand’s method?  The two obvious candidates are innate ideas and a priori intuition, both of which Rand rejects. In that case, to preserve Rand’s views on both perception and conceptualisation, what is needed is a re-interpretation of the Objectivist view of perception, which is presumably what Regi is going to provide.

Brendan


Post 28

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 4:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi,

What can I do or say - but to step out of the way - and salute your reasoned fortitude?

mmm! - I had never tasted a foot before!

Ed



Post 29

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 5:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Brendan! No, Rand is saying that any and all concepts come later. The concept of entity is implicit in perceptual awareness -- but it still requires a volitional process of abstraction to be formed. I refer you to pages 5 and 6 INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY. Her distinction between implicit and explicit is very important in the opening chapter.

Notice that she says that the concept "existent" is implicit even on the level of sensations. Does this help you in grasping her meaning here? She is referring to the fact that it is in the nature of consciousness to apprehend that which exists. To that extent, the "concept" is present, but not in the sense that would require reinterpretation to avoid innate ideas etc.


Post 30

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Rodney,

With one exception, I'm not going to disagree with anything you said, because in general you are stating the Objectivist position, and about that you are right.

However, you said about perception, "No, I'm sure she means just entities--'things.' Events and qualities are abstracted later, as actions and attributes of them."

But Ayn Rand said, as I quoted in my post: "As far as can be ascertained, the perceptual level of a child's awareness is similar to the awareness of the higher animals: the higher animals are able to perceive entities, motions, attributes, and certain numbers of entities." Motions are certainly events, and attributes are certainly qualities. You may not agree with this view yourself, but it is the one Ayn Rand held.

Regi.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Regi:

C’mon …What do any (alleged) faults in Peikoff’s/Kelley’s theory of perception have to due with the derivation of consciousness? Maybe I’m wrong. But, I think that when a third-person scans through this thread he or she will see your Post 14 as very disrespectful, inappropriate and way off the subject.

 

Regi, this is not about “free speech” as you say in Post 26. It’s about basic courtesy and respect for people looking for a forum for focused and rational discussion. I understand that I do not own this website. And, yes, Regi, you certainly have the “right” to be offensive to me as you correctly explain in Post 26. I was hoping for basic courtesy, which you, again, as you pointed out, can certainly choose to disregard.

 

I never called you a “jerk” as you suggested I did in Post 14. I think if an unbiased observer reads my Post 23, he or she will see that I pointed out your behavior…not you personally.

 
Finally, there’s no need for you to speculate about my personality (Post 26)…that too is clearly irrelevant.
 
I guess there's probably little else to say on this matter.


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 7:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed:

My point is that it is virtually impossible to have a focused and rational debate if the participants do not share a commitment towards a specific topic. Yes, sometimes this can be (understandably) difficult, especially when very broad issues of metaphysics are involved. But, if there is openly no respect of the topic, then I would suggest to you that very little will be accomplished.

 

Reginald: "When I introduce a subject I have every expectation that others, if they are intelligent (!!!), are going to introduce related but different issues, that others are very likely to find some of the related issues more interesting than the one I originally introduce...."

 

This was my point. Reginald took a discussion in a very different direction. It's like being in a conversation with someone and having someone else push in front of you. How would you feel? I guess all you can do is point out to them that their behavior is inconsiderate and move on. What else can you say?

 

You consider this to be a “knee-jerk” opinion? I think my view here is quite reasonable.

 

Don


Post 33

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 8:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Don,

Did you take my suggestion on post #12?

If you haven't already seen the Has life always existed? thread, you might find it interesting since it discusses many related issues. If nothing else, please see my "Cause, Determinism, and Life" post which deals with so-called "interaction" problem, and, I think, points to a very simple and rational solution.

You never commented on it.

Regi


Post 34

Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 9:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don, Regi,

I feel that I'm caught in the middle of this dispute! How in the heck did I get caught in the middle??!!

Now, I'm feeling "cognitive dissonance" because what Don ends up saying here rings with too much truth to be ignored (bending my will via "confirmation bias" in order to reduce the dissonance - is not an option)!

Don, I think you have a point (the idea market is free, but let's at least impose some order and maximize coherence).

By the way Don, it was me who called your reaction "knee-jerk" so direct your reproach on that matter toward me, not Regi. My thoughts were that it would have been better to request a return to your topic first, and THEN to give Regi hell about it (reproach should occur only after allowing others to respond to your concern).

In my mind, the solution is to start a new thread and go back to using this one as its title suggests. It's an appeal to coherence. What do you say, Regi?

Ed

Post 35

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 1:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rodney: “No, Rand is saying that any and all concepts come later. The concept of entity is implicit in perceptual awareness…”

Hi Rodney, I assume you mean later than perception. Well, according to the cite you give, she says the concept ‘existent’ is grasped “implicitly” on the perceptual level, that is, we grasp the constituents of the concept, the data that will be later integrated by the concept. So at least one concept is already present in perception.

And Rand also tells us this concept undergoes three stages of development – even though other concepts never change – from the implicit ‘entity’ to the implicit ‘identity’ to the implicit ‘unit’. That’s an awful lot of implicit conceptualising.

It’s hard to know quite what to make of Rand’s notion of implicit concept. I would have thought that once we have grasped the constituents of a concept, we have thereby formed the basic concept. What more needs to be done?

Brendan


Post 36

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, Don,

Ed said: I feel that I'm caught in the middle of this dispute!
 
What dispute? I'm not involved any dispute. Relax, you cannot be in the middle of what does not exist.

In my mind, the solution is to start a new thread and go back to using this one as its title suggests. It's an appeal to coherence. What do you say, Regi?
 
Since I see nothing that needs solving, my opinion does not matter, and neither you or Don needs my permission to do (or say) anything.

See, I really do believe in freedom, freedom of choice, freedom of action, and freedom of speech; but real freedom is risky, and one of the reasons (in addition to the fact real freedom means people have to responsible for themselves) most people are terrified of it. Freedom does not guarantee everyone will do and say the best things, even for their own self-interest. Freedom means some people, maybe most people, will botch their lives; but whatever they do, they do it on their own and are free to correct their mistakes if they choose, and everyone else is free to deal with them or not.

In the market of ideas, freedom of speech means anyone is free to say anything. But, as in all other areas, some are terrified not everyone will say the right things or say them in the right way; some people might go off on tangents, some people might tell outright lies, others may say stupid things. But who decides what the right things and ways are?

Except to eliminate the use of force in society (which is what freedom is) all other attempts to impose order on society requires the initiation of force and is a restriction of individual liberty. The same is true in the world of speech. The moment you attempt to force some kind of order on the market of ideas, you limit it, and the effect on the intellectual market is ultimately the same as the effect of government interference in the financial market.

So the choice is, learning to live with and tolerate a messy, not as neat as one would like, but prosperous free market of ideas, or a restricted, controlled, neat and orderly, but greatly impoverished one.

But freedom also means individuals are free to impose all the restrictions they like on themselves, voluntarily. Personally, I prefer complete freedom and am agile enough to step around other people's messes.

Now, if you really do not want me hijacking this thread, I suggest you quit asking me questions to suck me into this ludicrous discussion of how other people should conduct their conversations. Personally, I don't care because it is none of my business.

Regi




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 4:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

You are not in the middle of any dispute of mine. You never personally insulted me. And, of course, I don't know you at all. From first glance, you seem friendly and open to discussion.

I agree with you that the considerate thing to do is to start another thread, if you want to change subjects.

This was my point all along.

I think I have a point: Regi's ramblings are a very real disservice to my pursuit of any focused and rational discussion -- that is, if SOLO is a serious forum for philosophical debate.

His personal insults towards newcomers are another matter entirely.

Don


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 4:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reginald Firehammer says:
 
“Don's post reveals a certain kind of personality--the kind of personality that is both easily offended itself and believes the solution is to offend others. That brow-beating method probably works with the kind of people Don is used to dealing with. My response to Don was to demonstrate, it does not work with everyone, that there are people in this world whose relationships with others are based on reason, not emotional manipulation.” [Reginald Firehammer, May 18, 2004, Post 26 of the “Problem of Interaction” thread in the Objectivism Q&A Forum.]

For those who may be silently reading, I have NEVER met this guy. How does he claim these grandiose insights into my character?

In any case, I contributed to a thread in the GENERAL FORUM called "pscyhologizing." I encourage everyone to glance at this discussion for further discussion. You may not want to contribute, but I'm sure it'll be entertaining silent reading!
:-)

Please check it out!

These types of personal attacks are important to flush out. Because they are a serious impediment to real discussion of anything. And, I'm sure to silent observers, Reginald's comments surely take away from the credibility of SOLO and dissuade new members (like myself).

Kind regards...


Post 39

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Don,

You have SOLO Mail.

Regi


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.