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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is the question I am trying to answer as I am currently reading ITOE.
The question has special significance to me since I am German and in the German language the words for consciousness and knowledge equal each other like: "conscious-ledge" or "know-ness" :-) (not to be taken too seriously) the actual German word for consciousness is "Bewusstsein" and the actual German word for knowledge is "wissen". The stem of each word is related leaving a question mark in my understanding of their correct connection. 

In another forum someone stated the following:
What does it mean to perceive? Objectivism doesn't really define 'perceive' except to say it's synonomous with 'know'
He obviously equated perceiving with knowing...

What do you think?

Tok


Post 1

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Knowledge means 'knowing', and comes from the use of one's cognitive level of consciousness..  perceptual conscious is an automatic, an awared acceptance of what is without knowing, an enhancement of the stimulous/response mechanism...  knowledge requires abstraction to be knowledge - an animal is aware but does not 'know' because there no cognition on the awareness, just an acceptance.

Post 2

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What I don't understand is:
How does one achieve knowledge about something at a later point in time when one reflects and thinks about what one has perceived at an earlier point in time. Something I have perceived earlier must be remembered before I can come to abstract and understand it.

Please excuse my misunderstanding since I am pretty sure the issue isn't a serious one but I need the clarification of definitions and terms...I am just throwing around terms like memory, mind and consciousness when coming to create knowledge and then try to form abstract knowledge without remembering what I have perceived.

To make it clear. I am 100% positive that it is possible to form abstract knowledge and that it must me objective but I just don't know yet how to integrate and where to integrate...is it my memory where knowledge is integrated? I am confusing the faculties brain/mind/consciousness/memory...

mhh not sure if that helped YOU to understand ME...

gg

Tok


Post 3

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've got a question also. Objectivism holds that what seperates man from animals is his conceptual faculty. The most basic organisms blindly and automtically react to certain stimuli. But certain animals, take a dog for instance, fall somewhere in between. How would their "knowledge" be characterized?

Post 4

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Non-conceptual beings, like dogs, are aware of the world around them and, thru a complex version of the stimulous/response of their primitive forebearers called percepts, are able to operate within reality, responding to what is - but, because it is merely perceptual, and as such an accepted, an automatic 'grasping' of reality, there is no real 'knowing' as a conceptual being does.

Post 5

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Something I have perceived earlier must be remembered before I can come to abstract and understand it.
Correct. Otherwise, one would be in a perpetual state of disconnected perception, or mere disconnected "awareness."  Always seeing the world for the very first time. 



Post 6

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 5:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These are my ideas (not Objectivist dogma).

With my most general definitions:
Knowledge is information that a life form has available to perform operations on within a given time span.
Consciousness is the stream of operations a life form performs on information.

So knowledge is the actual information, and consciousness is the process being applied to the information.

For example:
I have a mailbox key.
I can walk.
I want to pay my bills.
One of my bills is in the mailbox.

Those bits of information sitting in your brain now is knowledge. You performing operations on the information (storing it into long term or short term memory) is consciousness. You thinking that I should walk to the mailbox with my key and open the mailbox, and get my bill, is another stream of operations, is consciousness.

Always seeing the world for the very first time.
That's not true. Have you ever met a dog once? Have you ever met the same dog twice? Did that dog seem to recognize you the second time?

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean,

I like your brief exposition -- that knowledge is held information; and consciousness is information processing. Another way to say it is that knowledge is a noun, and consciousness is a verb.

As Teresa's response to this ...

====================
Something I have perceived earlier must be remembered before I can come to abstract and understand it.
Correct. Otherwise, one would be in a perpetual state of disconnected perception, or mere disconnected "awareness."  Always seeing the world for the very first time. 
====================

... your dog example is off the mark (Teresa wasn't saying that beings don't remember -- yet that is what you fault her for).

Dogs remember particulars, like who their master is -- and what happened to them the last time they "went" on the carpet. Dogs even make crude associations (once repeatedly beaten by a man in uniform, for instance, dogs will react to ALL men in uniform). Uniform = abuse.

What dogs don't do is understand is that uniforms don't make the man inside, instead, a man's character is what makes him who he is. Try making a dog laugh (I have tried). It's impossible. The reason that it is impossible to make a dog laugh is that laughter has to do with a conceptual integration of how the world works. In order for something to be "funny" to us -- we have to have a preconceived notion of the way that things ought to be, or were supposed to go.

Think of the little tiny car in old cartoons, or at the circus. When the car stops, and a man entirely too big to even fit in the car gets out (in the cartoons), or a couple OF DOZEN clowns gets out of a 2-seater car (in the circus) -- humans laugh, because we know that that's not the way the world works. We understand. Dogs, if they were there in the stands at the circus, would just sit and watch each of the clowns come out, one after another. They wouldn't even do that thing with their heads (when they cock their heads to the side).

The reason that dogs wouldn't be astounded by 30 people exiting a small car -- is because dogs only perceive without any conceptual "understanding." Every object to a dog is a bare, remembered, inherently-meaningless particular. Dogs often don't even "get" the idea of object permanence (I once had a dog that would, repeatedly, run into the sliding glass door). If you put 2 balls behind a screen, and then pull the screen away -- revealing a single ball where 2 had been, then the dog doesn't freak out (like 18 month-old humans do), it just waits for you to throw that ball-that-came-from-2-balls.

Ed
[tune-in next time for ... Ed the Animal Psychologizer talks about Animal-to-Animal Envy and Species-ism: Why Sloths look with Envy at Cheetahs and personally feel bad, because they, themselves, can't run that fast -- Envy and Hate brews deep in these 3-toed, tree-hugging, slow-go'ers]


Post 8

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That's not true. Have you ever met a dog once? Have you ever met the same dog twice? Did that dog seem to recognize you the second time?
I don't understand your question. Are you comparing our perceptual ability with a dog's?

It's not possible to have the concept of "dog" before the precept of "animal."  Of course precepts are retained. They are the sensory information we retain to form abstract concepts. To not retain this information would be like seeing the world for the first time all the time.   Dogs get conditioned to stimuli and so do we, BUT, we can recognize alternatives to a given stimuli, dogs do not.

Walking past the bakery is a wonderful experience, because we remember how great the pastries and baked goods tasted the first time we ever experienced them.  A dog would simply follow his nose and beg for goodies.

There are songs I hear on the radio and they propel me back 30 years. It's a wonderful thing, to remember "first" experiences.  Driving my first car. First job. First kiss. First baby.  Dogs don't reminisce.  They just react to what they've been conditioned to react to, all the time, with no alternatives.   


Post 9

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yeah, what Ed said!  ;)

Post 10

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, my questions were there to backup my claim. Answering them, I hoped you would realize that the second time the dog saw you it had recognized you to some degree. : )

Ed, great comparisons!
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 6/05, 9:39pm)


Post 11

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed wrote (to Dean):
I like your brief exposition -- that knowledge is held information; and consciousness is information processing. Another way to say it is that knowledge is a noun, and consciousness is a verb.
Ed, I know what you're trying to say - that knowledge is a state, whereas consciousness is a process - but the term "consciousness" is not a verb; it's a noun that refers to state of awareness. Granted, the state of awareness involves a process, but a process can still take the form of a noun. The term "exercise" refers to a process, but, as a part of speech, it's still a noun.

The term "consciousness" refers to any state of awareness no matter how primitive (insects are conscious), whereas Rand defines "knowledge" as "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation." So apparently, according to her, there is both perceptual knowledge and conceptual knowledge.

- Bill


Post 12

Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alright folks -- you know I love epistemology!

So Dean (Dean the drag-racer, hehe -- inside joke, folks), do you recant your remarks towards Teresa?

Bill,

===============
knowledge is a state, whereas consciousness is a process
===============

I like it!


===============
... but the term "consciousness" is not a verb; it's a noun that refers to state of awareness.
===============

Aueoui contraire (forgive my poor French here), consciousness is a "power" (a power of conceptual awareness). When we use that power -- we survive. Consciousness is identification -- and identification is a verb. So consciousness is a verb.


===============
Granted, the state of awareness involves a process, but a process can still take the form of a noun. The term "exercise" refers to a process, but, as a part of speech, it's still a noun.
===============

Oh. So exercise is a some-thing (to be differentiated from other existing things)? Is that what you are saying? Because it's one thing (and not other things) -- it's a noun??? I don't agree. Is swimming a noun?


===============
The term "consciousness" refers to any state of awareness no matter how primitive (insects are conscious),
===============

Insects respond to sensed stimuli -- and that's it. Those little critters don't really "know" anything. I mean, they're like Venus Fly Traps -- only with vast motility and complex, though pre-programmed, behaviors. If you've seen one insect (of a given species) -- you've seen them all. They will all act the same way in the same circumstance -- precisely because they AREN'T conscious.


===============
Rand defines "knowledge" as "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation." So apparently, according to her, there is both perceptual knowledge and conceptual knowledge.
===============

Right! Agreed!

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 1:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In replying to Ed, I wrote, "...but the term 'consciousness' is not a verb; it's a noun that refers to state of awareness." Ed replied,
Aueoui contraire (forgive my poor French here), consciousness is a "power" (a power of conceptual awareness). When we use that power -- we survive. Consciousness is identification -- and identification is a verb. So consciousness is a verb.
Ed, this is funny, because it's something that everyone on this list should already know, yet you're arguing for what is obviously and plainly false, as if you know what you're talking about. Don't they teach grammar in schools anymore?! I guess not. I know this stuff, because I'm old enough to have been taught it. Ed, consciousness is a noun and so is identification. You need to get yourself a book in basic grammar, and learn the parts of speech. A noun is the name of something: an object, a group, person, place, quality, state, process or idea. Examples are: book, team, Edward, France, identification, consciousness, enjoyment, freedom, thought. A verb is a word that describes the action or being of a subject: Examples are: read, play, visit, identify, enjoy, choose, think, are, is. Every sentence contains a subject and a verb. The subject is a noun; the verb is what the subject does or is. A sentence expresses a complete thought in which someone or something does something or is something. (Btw, it's "au contraire.")

I wrote, "Granted, the state of awareness involves a process, but a process can still take the form of a noun. The term 'exercise' refers to a process, but, as a part of speech, it's still a noun." Ed replied,
Oh. So exercise is a some-thing (to be differentiated from other existing things)? Is that what you are saying? Because it's one thing (and not other things) -- it's a noun??? I don't agree. Is swimming a noun?
I love it! Ed, you need to learn what you don't know. Yes, swimming can be a noun, if it is a verbal, which is verb form used as another part of speech, in this case, a noun. Verbals ending in "ing" are called "gerunds." Gerunds are always nouns. In the sentence, "Swimming is fun," "swimming," the subject of the sentence, is a gerund and therefore a noun. Now, obviously, if the sentence is, "Ed went swimming," then "swimming" is part of the verb "went swimming," and therefore does not function as a gerund. Do you see the difference?

I wrote, "The term 'consciousness' refers to any state of awareness no matter how primitive (insects are conscious)." Ed replied,
Insects respond to sensed stimuli -- and that's it. Those little critters don't really "know" anything.
I didn't say they know anything; I said they are conscious.
I mean, they're like Venus Fly Traps -- only with vast motility and complex, though pre-programmed, behaviors. If you've seen one insect (of a given species) -- you've seen them all. They will all act the same way in the same circumstance -- precisely because they AREN'T conscious.
Ed, all sentient beings are conscious, which is what it means to be sentient. The science of entomology recognizes even insects as having brains and nervous systems, as the highly acclaimed book, The Neurobiology of an Insect Brain by M. Burrows of Cambridge University demonstrates. A reviewer gives the following synopsis:

"This book reviews the advances in insect neurobiology in the last two decades and highlights the contributions of this field to our understanding of how nervous systems function in general. By concentrating largely on one insect, the locust, this book unravels the mechanisms by which a brain integrates the vast array of sensory information to generate movement and behavior. The author describes the structure and development of the insect brain, detailing the cellular properties of insect neurons and the way they are altered by neurosecretors. Insect movements are fully analyzed at the cellular level to illustrate particular features of integrative processing. Richly illustrated, this volume emphasizes how the brain of an insect can be an informative model for defining basic neural mechanisms, shared by other animals and man."

Even insects as small as fruit flies have brains, as an article in the February, 2002 issue of Nature entitled "Standard Fly Brain Sized Up" makes clear. There's even a picture of it, in case you're interested in actually seeing one.

- Bill


(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/06, 2:17am)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/06, 2:19am)

I removed "are conscious" and "is thoughtful" from the examples of verbs, because it is only the words "are" and "is" that are verbs. "Conscious" and "thoughtful" are adjectives modifying nouns or pronouns. :-P

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/06, 10:57am)


Post 14

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So Dean (Dean the drag-racer, hehe -- inside joke, folks), do you recant your remarks towards Teresa?
No! A dog is not "always seeing the world for the very first time." Dogs remember things, even after years. I've taught my dog to sit and shake hands. It remembered how to do it, even years later. I go away to college. My dog still jumps all around and wags her tail when she sees me when I (rarely) visit my parents.

Post 15

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Is consciousness the same as knowledge?"

No.

Knowledge is the epistemological goal; consciousness and understanding --the last, excepting memoristic learning-- are requirements for that goal.

Consciousness involves awareness, but not necessarily knowledge, nor understanding.

In one degree or another, all animals do have a certain degree of consciousness, but never understanding. Understanding involves a sense of meaning, something only humans are eventually capable of reaching. 

The moral man is immersed in a constant search for meaning. (See Viktor Frankl's works.)

Joel Català

(Edited by Joel Català on 6/06, 9:49am)


Post 16

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, thanks for the grammar lesson (I hated English in school)!

I hadn't even ever heard of such a thing as a gerund.

Ed 


Post 17

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Those of you who have a clearer grasp of the terms knowledge, concept and definition I would like to ask if you actually apply the classical form of forming definitions which Rand describes in ITOE. What i mean is the form of genus and differentia. In a wikipedia article I found the following note:
A Scandinavian is a man, that comes from Denmark, Norway or Sweden
Further did it say that this simple example would show that sound definitions don' t have to be in a form of genus and differentia and that the belief that
the view that this form is universal has lasted for a long time but is now abandoned.

Then it list a whole lot of wish-washy rules to form definitions...

What do you think?

Tok


Post 18

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tok - that was not a definition - it was an exampling.... there is a difference...

Post 19

Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 11:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,
Tok - that was not a definition - it was an exampling.... there is a difference...

that's what I thought, too. I still find it disturbing that the wikipedia article presents it as if it were a definition of another form then the genus/ differentia form.

The article instead presents new rules:
  • eliminability
  • non-creativity
The first one is suppose to mean that the observed concept in a theory can be eliminated and instead be replaced by the "definiens" of the concept without affecting the truth of the theory. (In the statement: "A proton is the positively loaded part of a hydrogen-atom" the definiens would be "positively loaded part of a hydrogen-atom")

The second rule in their terms means, that by adding the definition to the theory including the observed concept nothing can be concluded other than without the definition. 

I see several problems with this definition and I think this is just another case where some other philosophy (although I don't know what kind) published their subjective views...


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.