humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 10, 12:42 pm, Jim Klein wrote:
> On Apr 10, 11:37 am, TC wrote:

> > > Plus, it's B that would do that
[result in rigid unchangeable concepts]
> > > unless you're postulating
> > > inborn concepts that can be discarded at will.

> > It's not easy to discard inborn concepts, but it can be
> > done.

> Wow...so far I haven't heard an example of one of these
> inborn concepts, but you even know how they're handled.

You must have missed it when I quoted:
"Very young infants are said to have representational
abilities, cross-modal transfer, a sense of self, and
intersubjectivity, as well as other psychological capacities
and experiences previously thought to be present only later
in human development"
From "Developing Concepts in Infancy: Animals, Self-Perception, and
Two Theories of Mirror Self-Recognition"
Author: Robert W. Mitchell
Psychological Inquiry, Volume 3, Issue 2 April 1992 , pages 127 - 130

> > The advancement of science depends on it.

> Oh, that was a scientific claim?

Natural philosophy if you prefer.

> So you'll give examples
> of inborn concepts that include at least one that can be
> discarded at will?

Uniformity of time and space.

> Are there some that can't be discarded
> at will?

Good question.

I would guess the self. But Buddhists no doubt
would differ.

> > But as I have pointed out, some concepts are aquired
> > some are inborn

> Uh...no, Tom. You haven't pointed anything out. You've
> only said a few things, including a silly challenge that I
> haven't proven something.

Did you ignore my quotation again?

> I'm sure one of the things they taught you was that not
> everyone can have the high standards of proof that
> experts have, as you're demonstrating to us here.

That I do believe qualifies as ad hominem.

> But I'm senile, so maybe I missed it. Just refer me over
> to the concepts you "pointed out" that are inborn, and
> maybe it'll be obvious whether these are ones that can
> be thrown out or not.

I'll requote the relevant part:
"cross-modal transfer, a sense of self, and
intersubjectivity"

> And then we'll find some inborn ones that are of the
> other class. Hell...maybe there's a third class too!

> "WHOOIIEEE!!!"

Try to be flexible. Or do you really think Rand knew
all about how the mind works?

> > and, yes, some are inborn and discarded
> > in the light of evidence.

> Cool. And I'm not even asking you to prove anything,
> like you were of me.

You are the one making absolute claims.

> Let's just take a look at some of
> these and move forward.

Surely you've heard of the Piaget experiments about
a child's concept of size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_(psychology)

> That's how science works, right?

I would need to know the antecedent to "how" before
I answer.

Tom