humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <52312927-3ee4-4ff9-b934-
4e09b323f85d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, rumin8@ix.netcom.com says...
> On Apr 11, 12:22 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > Look, bud, I've defined my key term, "knowledge" - more than you have
> > done. But *all* definitions rest upon undefined terms - if you can
> > figure out a way around that, you will be more famous than Aristotle.
>
> Obviously this means something profound, but i'm not sure what
> point is supposed to be the focus.

It means that requests for definitions can be never ending, since you
can ask for each term of the definition to be defined, and then for each
of those definition you can ask again, and then... Of course, any good
dictionary will have some definition for a word, and I recommend using
that "ordinary meaning" rather than continuing down the definition chain
- that's why I provided you with a dictionary definition of a word in an
earlier post. The only term I am giving a technical definition for here
is "knowledge".
...
> > > You've got to pick one or the other. Call that "stored information"
> > > whatever you will, the point is that it developed from direct
> > > sensory, perceptual and conceptual identification. That is,
> > > it was neither guessed nor conjectured.
> >
> > "Direct" sensory input is highly processed and relies upon conjectures
> > about the world we live in that are built into our physiology by
> > evolution.
>
> This is a good one for close inspection. What exactly does
> "conjecture"
> mean here? Does it mean we have a set of pre-imagined "results" for
> any particular perception, and then choose from among those after
> the sensory input has arrived?

Not for any particular perception, but at a very low level, yes.

> Does it mean
> we
> accept the sensory input and then make guesses about what they
> indicate?

We do that, too. That is the level at which we can begin to describe
what is going on without a major detour through cognitive psychology,
and, as I've said, I don't intend to take such a detour here. My
interest is in epistemology.
...
> There's also the fundamental question of what it could mean
> for evolution to build into our physiology incorrect or
> misleading perceptions.

I refer you to the various optical illusion websites.

> Just prima facie, that seems backwards
> since presumably genetic changes that /favor/ correspondence
> with reality would be selected for. Right? A mutation that caused
> deer to misperceive cars for grass probably wouldn't get too far
> through the species, would it?

Bad choice for you - the deer where I live routinely run *toward* my car
instead of away. Deer have apparently not had the evolutionary time
needed to address this. Yes, evolution favors correspondence, but it is
sloppy - quite satisfied with just good enough - and slow.

In the human evolutionary environment, the mistakes that we might make
because of, e.g. optical illusions, have not been sufficiently drastic
to keep sufficient numbers of sexually mature males and females from
meeting.

> > I suspect you reject that, but I have no intention to argue
> > it. What I will point out is that any interpretation we make of
> > sensory data is a conjecture,
>
> Talk about knowledge through definition! You use "interpretation"
> to reference non-volitional, billiard-ball type action and then you
> define that as being conjecture. You're not just stealing concepts;
> you're raping them wholesale!

Apparently you think the interpretation of sensory data is automatic.
So, e.g., children are just born being able to identify a sound as
coming from an electric guitar or a saxophone? For many years, David
Bromberg has used an identity of the sound these instrument to play a
fun trick on his audiences. I guess no Objectivists are fans.

> > even if I am wrong that in itself it is conjectural in form.
>
> Yeah well...if it's not, then from where are your "conjectures
> all the way down" going to come?

Simple, Jim: it would mean I am wrong. I have been wrong before -
perhaps you have managed to avoid being wrong? What I have said is that
I am not interested in an an argument over the stuff below the statement
level. My interest is epistemology not cognitive psychology.
...
> > If knowledge is not made from something that is not already knowledge,
> > how do we get any knowledge to start with?
>
> This is what Rand resolved.

Give me the quick version, OK? I once read Chapter Four of OPAR in
order to make Ken happy, and that is the *last* time I will do something
like that.
...
> One of my greatest gripes against Lenny and the Raptures is
> that they have so screwed up her basic epistemology that
> this very important feature manages to slip by for the most
> part. Plus it happens to be the one area where I can claim
> both extensive personal knowledge and extensive formal
> training, so don't even try that bullshit "power of ITOE" on me.

ITOE is Rand's work, not Peikoff's. Did you develop a parallel theory
to Rand's?
>
> You have your hands full with /your/ theory, I think. There's
> no need to make cracks about Rand's.

As you have just noted, Rand's theory was not so clearly stated that her
own chosen explicator could manage to properly restate it - so cut *me*
a break, OK?
...
> All of which is very sloppy, Gordon. Considering that you're
> both making fun of Rand

My apologies to her. I thought I was making fun of *you* - but no more
than you routinely do with others whose posts you are responding too.
;-)

> and trying to offer a very
> substantial epistemological theory---that it's conjecture and
> guessing "all the way down" to our very sensory systems--

Yes, and *down to* I have defended. You keep wanting to go below that -
and I'm not interested (nor is either of us particularly qualified,
IMHO).

> I'd think a little more precision and careful consideration
> of definitional essentials could be expected. And so far,
> not even from my armchair, have I seen it.
>
> Like I said, tighten up. So far you haven't presented an
> iota of reason to think that Rand had anything fundamental
> wrong.

I thought I was arguing in this thread with you and David!

> She managed to pin down--systemically, at least,
> if not in fine detail--how the human brain develops concepts.

OK, how would she explain the concept of a "game"?

> It's both intuitive and consistent with all sorts of evidence
> that we have. And you throw it all down the crapper by
> making definitional arguments--that it's all conjecture, that
> babies are sensing by trial and error, that humans are
> capable of nothing cognitive except guessing

No, I've made it clear that human beings are capable of deductive
reasoning.

> --without even
> offering decent definitions for the terms you're using.

We have all sorts of evidence that evolutionary mechanisms - trial and
error - are at the core of explaining everything about living creatures.
I am betting on a winner! ;-)

--
Gordon