humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Malrassic Park wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:17:25 -0700, vonvegas wrote:
>
> I snipped a lot of old stuff to make reading this easier.
> .
>> Malrassic Park wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:54:47 -0700, vonvegas wrote:
>> .
>>>> Malrassic Park wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:23:47 -0700, vonvegas
wrote:
>>>>>
> .
>>>>>> If, however, the word means *percept of*, then that little word
"of",
>>>>>> which causes all the trouble/misunderstanding, refers and points
to an
>>>>>> object (external reality) beyond itself; then we have Direct Realism
>>>>>> instead.
>>>>> Ah no (of course I'll disagree, but at least I waited until this
>>>>> point). A "perception of" implies Direct Realism, as I've said
>>>>> previously,
>>>> Right.
> .
>>>>> not a percept "of."
>>>> Wrong, because "perception" and "percept" are *synonyms*, (as also are
>>>> the analogous "conception" and "concept".)
> .
>> OK. I tell you what, I'll withdraw that argument because the dictionary
>> doesn't say that "percept" is synonymous with "perception", but says it
>> the other way around. But you are still wrong that "percept of" cannot
>> imply Direct Realism because:
> .
>> The phrase "percept of" could mean, for example, a percept of the
object
>> (later conceptualized as) dog.
>> Then we are Direct Realists, meaning that we see the object dog via the
>> percept; but we are not Indirect Realists who claim that we see the
>> percept itself (a construction of some kind but not the object dog).
>
> I have already argued for a Direct Realist version of "percept." I
> don't see any difference in sticking "of" at the end of it.

The difference is, or better might be, crucial when it comes to the
issue of Indirect versus Direct Realism. The phrase "percept of" points
more clearly to the object known (hence Direct Realism). Whereas
"percept" alone is less clear; does it mean the object, or the percept
(the end product of perception) is known (in which case we *might* have
Indirect Realism)?
>
> A "percept" (or a "percept of") is just the idea of an object of
> awareness.

No. A percept is not just (meaning only) the object, it can also mean
the result of the process of perceiving.


>
>>> That is some sloppy research there.
>>> Perception is primarily thought of as the act of perceiving;
>> Primarily, yes, but not *exclusively* for it is also *synomous* with
>> percept.
>
> Then it would go easier here to avoid using conflicting definitions.

Yes of course.

>
>>> but a percept is the result of perceiving.
>> Yes that's what I had said previously and I called that result
>> perceptual knowledge which you claimed was a contradiction in terms!
But
>> do you now acknowledge that there is such a thing as perceptual
knowledge?
>
> Knowledge does not come through the senses, evidence does, but
> only insofar as your intellect regards it as evidence. Perceptual
> knowledge is just knowledge of the perceptual, not knowledge *from*
> the perceptual. Knowledge is created from your intellect based on
> perceptual evidence. A theory or a concept is just a generalized form
> of knowledge. As I read in a Locke etext of one of his books, it is
> easier to have a concept "table" than to have a different name for
> each individual item we call "table." It is easier to have the mass
> concept "sand" than to have a different name for each grain of sand
> we encounter.

Sigh. If I understand your answer rightly you are still (tho there are
contrary indications in your answer) essentially sticking to your
"perceptual knowledge" is a contradiction story, thereby still accusing
me of contradiction. If so, this is an echo, of what you also wrongly do
to Rand and you do so by a similar procedure. That procedure consists of
your insisting that other people's words, which despite multiple
meanings in common usage, nevertheless have the meanings that you
ascribe to them. Let me show you how I think you arrived at the
conclusion that my "perceptual knowledge" was a contradiction.

In the first place it is a fact that philosophers have used the phrase
perceptual knowledge. I even supplied you entries from the online
dictionary of philosophy wherein perceptual knowledge was referenced.

Secondly, you *constructed* the idea that Rand said something like "ALL
knowledge is conceptual" and then when I describe perceptual knowledge
you accuse me of contradiction!
The fact is that if one doesn't define knowledge as only conceptual, and
I don't, then there can be no contradiction when I say "perceptual
knowledge".
I am curious. I suspect she probably uses the locution "perceptual
awareness" most often, but does she ever, since you've got the
searchable cd, use the phrase "perceptual knowledge"? Or maybe
"knowledge of perception"? Or maybe some other variation thereof?


>
>>> Dictionary.com -
> .
>>> Percept:
>>> 1. the mental result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from
>>> the act of perceiving; an impression or sensation of something
>>> perceived.
>>> 2. something that is perceived; the object of perception.
> .
>>> Perception:
>>> 1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the
>>> mind; cognition; understanding.
>>> 2. immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral,
>>> psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition;
>>> discernment: an artist of rare perception.
>>> 3. the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act
>>> of perceiving; percept.
>>>
>>> Notice that 'perception' has a synonym at sense (3), but 'percept'
>>> has no synonym; and in fact, sense (1) of 'percept' explicitly
>>> distinguishes it from the act of perceiving as in sense (1) of
>>> 'perception.'
> .
>>> So you apparently want me to accept the idea that, out of all those
>>> senses of those two words, the only *common usage* is to be found
>>> at sense (3) of the entry for "perception."
>> No. I want you to recognize that "percept of" can mean percept of an
>> object.
> .
>>> Apparently your other arguments, if any, have been exhausted, and so
>>> your only recourse is ad populum.
> .
>> You are confusing common sense with common usage. The later is what we
>> have been talking about, while the former is irrelevant.
>
> Then that could be yet another fallacy, the fallacy of common usage.
> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/02/common-usage.html
> The Argument from Common Usage
> "Dictionary editors read what other people write, and record what the
> words seem to mean; they are historians. The Oxford English
> Dictionary may be comprehensive, but never authoritative."
>
> Referring to dictionary definitions can also be argument from
> authority.
>
> Here is an explanation of the appeal to common practice:
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html
>
> Rather than accuse you, I'll be charitable and let you decide if
> you've committed any of these fallacies.


Not guilty, your honor. but it doesn't matter for I'm a well known
scoundrel in any case.

>
>>>> For your ease of use, I've appended below, from dictionary.com the
>>>> common relevant definitions to support my statement that
perception and
>>>> percept can and do mean the same thing.
> .
>>> There are no dictionary.com definitions appended to your post.
>>> Apparently you snipped your own appendage.
> .
>> You are right and I am sorry. I had gone to the effort of appending
them
>> for you, but subsequently inadvertently snipped them.
>
> It was no big deal.
>
>>>> If you peruse those definitions you will see multiple meanings for
>> these
>>>> crucial words. The present words under discussion are hardly
unique for
>>>> almost every important epistemological word has at least two meanings,
>>>> which largely accounts for why this stuff is so difficult to clearly
>>>> communicate about.
>>>> Unpleasant as this situation may be to you and I, we have no rational
>>>> choice but to accept it - cause that's the way it is. What we cannot
>>>> legitimately do is interpret other's texts by imposing our preferred
>> usage.
> .
>>> So I should simply bow down and accept your preferred usage?
> .
>> No of course not and you do me injustice by thinking I would expect
such
>> a thing. What I'd like you to do is recognize the fact that within
>> common usage there *are* and *can* be multiple meanings. Once you
>> recognize that there can be a different meaning for her "percept" then
>> you are not justified in imposing your meaning, just because you
want it
>> to result in a contradiction. OTC, charitable interpretation not to
>> mention simple human decency would dictate that you apply the meaning
>> that does not result in contradiction.
>> You might be justified in applying your meaning were there otherwise
>> contra indications but you yourself have said something to the effect
>> that her articulation *screams* for Direct Realism, yet you
irrationally
>> persist in applying your "special" meanings to try to show
inconsistency.
>
> I'm certainly aware of multiple meanings, as I've engaged in plenty of
> dictionary reading even as a child and once at that time during a long
> hot summer break thought to read the entire thing through from
> beginning to end.

Wow. Interestingly, when I was young I tried doing the same thing, but I
never had enuf stick-to-itness.

>
> However, it is also necessary to recognize the hazards for one's
> arguments in appealing to dictionaries. They are not to be used as
> an authority, but only for clarification. To appeal to the dictionary
> as an authority amounts to appealing to common practice, because
> dictionary authors acquire their definitions from daily word usages.


I agree.


>
> As for the rest, I don't have to apply any special meanings, all I
> require is Rand's own self-damning words:
>
> 'Sensations, as such, are not retained in man's memory, nor is man
> able to experience a pure isolated sensation. As far as can be
> ascertained, an infant's sensory experience is an undifferentiated
> chaos. Discriminated awareness begins on the level of percepts.
> A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and
> integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of
> percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends
> reality.'


>
> It says nothing there about a percept being an object of awareness,
> as in definition (2) at dictionary.com.

True, it doesn't say so.



>It is definition (1): 'the
> mental result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act
> of perceiving; an impression or sensation of something perceived.'

I agree. BUT HERE COMES THE IMPORTANT STUFF.
1. Is that resultant percept of which we are aware, awareness of a
construction of our own making? If so, then we have Indirect Realism. Or

2. Is that resultant percept of which we are aware, awareness of the
real object? If so, then we have Direct Realism.

There is ZERO evidence in Rand's above quote that she believed that our
awareness of the percept means we are aware of a *construction of our
own making*.

I think, that you wrongly think, that just because there is a process
taking place (sensations being automatically retained/integrated) that
that means we are constructing the object - but it doesn't mean that.
What's happening is that sensations of the *object* are being processed
and automatically retained/integrated thus "constructing" (a better
phrase is "resulting in) the percept, but it is a percept of the object
and not a percept of our own making, a la Locke. The processing, no
matter how circuitous, is processing information of the *object*,
initially via sensations, ultimately resulting in a percept. The
"direct" in Direct Realism, does not mean there is no processing going
on. Rather, the realism will be direct if it is the *object* that we
ultimately know, as opposed to an object of our own making.

So, similar to how I phrased it at the outset, the difference between
Indirect and Direct Realism boils down to whether that which is known
(here the percept) is the mental constructed content of our own making
(Indirect Realism) or that which the percept is of, the real object
(Direct Realism).


> Except Rand didn't bother to explain how the physical, neurological
> result of integration became a mental percept.

True.

>
> There is a reason, which I'm sure involves either common or technical
> usage, for there being two distinct definitions of 'percept' at
> dictionary.com, and that is: there are two schools of thought on the
> issue, and Rand tried to have it both ways, probably having failed to
> distinguish them thoroughly in her own mind.

Maybe.

>
>>> Or is
>>> this just the moral of your tale in which you took sense (3) out of
>>> five different senses of two different words, and took that one to be
>>> most relevant?
> .
>>> No, I would call that your own preferred usage, or perhaps better,
>>> selective ratiocination, which is like selective hearing except it
>>> involves usenet discussions and not wives or husbands.
> .
>> I think we're perhaps both getting a little sidetracked in some
>> inconsequential details. I don't need to specifically take and apply
>> that 3rd definition for that doesn't make my case. My point rather was
>> to get you to *recognize* that there were legitimate different common
>> usage meanings to some of her words, including "percept". And all I
want
>> you to do is to acknowledge that the word "percept" can mean "percept
>> of" in which case that percept of, points to its object and not itself.
>> That is a perfectly reasonable common usage interpretation. And in
that
>> case, there is no hint of Indirect Realism as you charge.
>> To prove Indirect Realism, you have to show that she said that what we
>> know is *only* the construction (not the object), and you haven't got
>> anything like that, except when you arbitrarily declare that that is
>> what she meant, common usage be damned.
>
> Obviously, if I hadn't already recognized that there were (perhaps)
> legitimate different common usages, I wouldn't have brought up Rand's
> inconsistency. And that's my whole point: one shouldn't take different
> usages, in this case when their definitions exclude each other, and
> then lump them together.

But I think your conclusion that her definitions exclude each other is
perhaps due to applying your meanings, not hers, and/or other confusion.

>
> I have indeed argued for Rand's constructivism, using her own wording
> as usual: 'The building-block of man's knowledge is the concept of an
> "existent".'

That we are "constructing" hierarchal knowledge, I do not doubt. But
that is not the relevant type of constructing that you need to conclude
indications of Indirect Realism hence inconsistency with her Direct
Realism. To show inconsistency you need construction of our own making,
instead - and that you haven't got.
>
> I see no need for arguing these points I am making, Rand's writing
> makes it clear where she stood. All I need to do is point to it and
> clarify bits here and there. All the damning evidence is contained on
> page 5 of my edition, and I don't understand why people don't try to
> read it for comprehension and not merely absorption.

People attach a different meaning to her words than you do and they try
very hard to make that interpretation consistent, not inconsistent, with
the rest of her doctrine.

>
>>>>> Does "to perceive" mean to form a percept out of something?
>>>> Yes.
> .
>>>>> Or does it> mean to be consciously aware of something?
>>>> Yes.
>>>>> Does "an act of perception" mean the act of forming percepts out of
>>>>> sensations,
>>>> Yes.
> .
>>>> or does it imply an act of focusing awareness?
> .
>>>> Yes.
> .
>>>> The fact that you asked me those questions, tells me you have been too
>>>> single minded and haven't noticed that common usage also allows a
>>>> different interpretation from yours.
> .
>>> It doesn't tell you that at all. How can I be single-minded about an
>>> issue which I have analyzed from two different perspectives here?
> .
>>> I have analyzed "percept" from both the Direct Realist and Indirect
>>> Realist perspectives; the single-mindedness is obviously on your side.
> .
>> My accusation of your single mindedness was with respect to your
>> failure to acknowledge multiple meanings from the perspective of
"common
>> usage" and not from the Direct/Indirect Realist perspectives. If you've
>> done, and I've no reason to doubt it, analyses from the Direct/Indirect
>> perspectives (whatever that may mean), that is irrelevant to my
>> referenced common usage perspective.
>
> Here's my take on common usage, besides the fact that it can involve a
> fallacy. People's common usage is usually not well-thought out. And
> besides, where is the common usage in the word "percept"? Do the
> rednecks down the road from you talk with you about their percepts on
> a regular basis?

No. They talk about their bicepts; sometimes another person's bicepts.
And if from the last two words of the previous sentence, you take the
first three letters of the first word and combine them with the last
five letters of the second word, you indeed get percepts! The remaining
residue of letters from both words represents their favorite description
of each others mother's heritage! :-)
Gawd, I got too much time on my hands. :-)


> "Percept" is a technical term. It is a common usage in certain
> specialized fields of thinking, particularly, *Cognitive Psychology.*
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology
> "Ulric Neisser coined the term 'cognitive psychology' in his book
> published in 1967."
>
> Notice the date.
>
> Rand was not the only person working on problems of cognitive
> psychology at the time. I've researched and found many works on the
> subject from around then. Some of them practically repeat Rand's
> thinking -- except they were written some time before Rand published
> her series of articles now known as ITOE in The Objectivist.

Well if you've got evidence that "Some of them practically repeat Rand's
thinking" then that's what you ought to bring forth. But accusing her
for example, of using computer lingo, when that sense datum lingo was
prevalent in philosophical writings during and before that time, seems
like a very weak argument.

>
> The only significant difference is that none of those other authors
> locate their theories in the subject of epistemology. They locate it,
> properly, in psychology.

I dunno.

>
>>>>>> philosophy, accessible to the general public.
>>>>> There is nothing ordinary about the word "entity," unless you're
>>>>> watching Star Trek or The Twilight Zone, and certainly not "percept,"
>>>>> and even "concept" I would consider out of range for ordinary "loose
>>>>> talk."
>>>> Well, if so then you'll have to accept the dictionary.com
>> definitions as
>>>> more prestigious (technical?) than just loose talk - that hardly helps
>>>> your argument.
> .
>>>>> An admission of guilt for another party can be seen as an attempt at
>>>>> an apologia. And besides, I would expect more loose talk in the
>>>>> Appendix conversation.
> .
>>> You have heard of and even read the Appendix to ITOE, haven't you? I
>>> don't think it was included in the first edition.
> .
>> I dunno. But I fail to get your point.
>
> Then you need Objectivism on CD.
> http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR66M
> It is still only $59.95.

Thanks for the tip. I'll check it out.

>
>>>>>> Now is the time for me to be very clear and put all my cards on the
>>>>>> table. You may ultimately even be correct
>>>>>> that Rand's perceptual theory indeed is that of the Indirect
Realist.
>>>>>> But that does not comport with *my understanding* of neither the
>>>>>> paragraph in question nor her overall philosophy.
>>>>> I'll forgive the double-negative this time only.
>>>> Thanks. :-)
> .
>>>>> Let me just add that
>>>>> I have said the very same thing about her overall philosophy. Haven't
>>>>> I said Rand was a Direct Realist? I am saying that it just doesn't
>>>>> gibe with her theory of percepts found in chapter 1. And I've said
>>>>> that if you remove the theory of percepts you remove the
>>>>> inconsistency, thus preserving Rand's intent to portray herself as
>>>>> a Direct Realist.
>>>> There is only an inconsistency if you refuse to acknowledge reasonable
>>>> alternative, to your favored, word usage and interpret her that way.
>>>> I've now given you the evidence that there are other meanings in
>> use, so
>>>> it is time for you to reassess.
> .
>>> I only wish that Rand would have stayed with a single definition,
>>> idea, or meaning, don't you?
> .
>> I wanted you to please reassess *your* thinking, not Rand's, in
light of
>> the evidence that common usage of "percept", and variations thereof,
>> lends itself to several possibilities.
>> And, yes of course I agree with you, she could and should have been
much
>> clearer. I agree you have legitimate grounds for accusing her of
>> sloppiness, which is especially egregious when it comes to fundamentals
>> such as a definition. But sloppiness isn't inconsistency and doesn't
>> make her an Indirect Realist.
>
> Omg, I never said she was an Indirect Realist. How many times do I
> have to explain this?

And as I've explained before, you implied she was an Indirect Realist.
Here's what you said on 3/7:
"Analyze her statements carefully, you will find the theory known as
Indirect Realism, which Rand used in order to
justify Direct Realism."
Furthermore, you said she was inconsistent, meaning inconsistent with
Direct Realism, and to that extent then, she is, or at least is arguing
as tho she were, an Indirect Realist.
But look, this is all just quibling about word usage. Can't we get
beyond that and deal with the substance? But I'll gladly phrase it any
way you like as long as it doesn't change the essentials - so just tell
me the words I should use, if this really upsets you.




>
>>>> that the *conceptual identifications* of daily given percepts, have
>>>> become *routinized* (automated), so that it seems that no
definition of
>>>> those *concepts*, of daily observed percepts, seems required. You've
>>>> "forced" me to rummage and find ITOE which I had in storage, but
>> much to
>>>> my dismay, my eyes are so bad I can hardly read it without a
>> magnifying.
>>>> Reading is a big chore for me but I read enuf to judge that you
>>>> misinrepreted the above. Please look at it again.
>>> Why nobody else here wants a copy of Objectivism on CD is beyond me.
> .
>> I'd love one. You wanna gift me one?
>
> If I gifted you one, you'd wish you had bought it yourself, because
> it's worth the small expenditure.
>
(snip Kant stuff)

I'll refrain from arguing Kant with you for this thread is long enuf. In
any case, you probably don't want to hear my misunderstanding of Kant
anyway. My misunderstanding of Rand is a little better. :-)

> Here's the basic issue I've had with all this: I don't believe there
> are percepts in the brain. And even if someone spouts off with some
> neurological proof of percepts physically existing, I will then say
> that the presence of percepts in the brain does nothing to solve any
> epistemological problems.
Epistemology is all that is required to
> solve epistemological problems, not neurology.

Well, there are those that agree with you that there are no percepts in
the brain. But if one allows that there is a perceptual process going
on, then in finite beings such as ourselves, it is logical that that
process must end, and it is that end which some call a percept. And some
argue that a percept itself is never known, for it is transparent. But
these are difficult issues.

>
>>> That doesn't gibe with Rand's original idea of page 5
>>> that a percept is the product of neurological processes, as if to say,
>>> the object of perception is the result of neurological processes.
> .
>> But the percept always is the result of neurological processes. Are you
>> wrongly thinking that because the percept is the result of brain
>> processing that therefore that somehow means we are not seeing the
>> object or something?
>
> Take a closer look at the entire content of page 5, particularly
> toward the beginning.
>
> Rand starts with the subject's senses, pre-perception, and declares
> the existence in the subject of a chaos of sensations. This is a
> baby's perspective on the world around it. Somehow this chaos
> eventually becomes interpreted by the baby's brain, and discriminated
> awareness begins.

Right.

>
> But what you don't get is this: the adult brain is still given a chaos
> of sensations, not the object of awareness. It's just that, as adults
> with adult brains, the interpretive mechanism is now in place, so we
> are no longer aware of this chaos,
but only of the percept that
> results from integrating this chaos into perception of objects.

Right.

>
> So Rand gives a theory in which percepts are constructed,
> automatically, by the brain, from a chaos of sensations flooding into
> it all at once from a zillion sensory nerve endings. And somehow, the
> brain is able to make sense of all this. How? By inference. We
> automatically infer that these percepts correspond to something real;
> and moreover, we automatically assume, since it involves an automated
> process of integration that we aren't directly aware of, that this
> correspondence is direct.
>
> Thus on Rand's own theory, Direct Realism is only a common-sense
> assumption;

Well, I guess it's fair to call it an assumption, as you say, because
she provides no argument, but instead she starts with perception of
object as the given. As you know her view is that it's the job of
science to figure out exactly how all this sensation/perception stuff
happens. But her choice to try to explain what goes on at the conceptual
level is for her justified precisely because it is not automated and we
presumably have real volition as to how we classify objects.
But to call it *only* an assumption is a little harsh. It is an
assumption that by her lights at least, is the best of the assumptions
out there and it has a great deal of explanatory power, without
needlessly resorting to complicating assumptions such as the noumena.
But now we have changed topics onto your favorite subject, and I'm not
gonna go there.


>the scientific, conceptual discovery she mentions replaces
> it with Indirect Realism, as science has always eventually supplanted
> common-sense.
> And despite these scientific facts to the contrary, Rand still tried
> to maintain Direct Realism.

Science doesn't support Indirect Realism, I think you misunderstand
Indirect Realism. See above.

>
>> > That is the inconsistency you refuse to acknowledge, and it has
>>> nothing to do with picking and choosing definitions.
> .
>> I'm sorry, but I see no inconsistency. Please show me exactly her two
>> )or more) propositions that you allege contradict one another (but be
>> sure not to apply any "special" meanings in interpretation).
>
> I'll try to make two propositions, of any kind, out of the following
> word-salad -
>
> 'A percept is a group of sensations automatically retained and
> integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the form of
> percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and apprehends
> reality. When we speak of "direct perception" or "direct awareness,"
> we mean the perceptual level. Percepts, not sensations, are the given,
> the self-evident. The knowledge of sensations as components of
> percepts is not direct, it is acquired by man much later: it is a
> scientific, conceptual discovery.'
>
> A percept is a group of sensations integrated by the brain which,
> somehow, brings direct perception of reality? Tell me another fairy
> tale.

Look, nowhere that I can see, have you presented the two simple and
straightforward propositions that you can point to that are
inconsistent. Actually, since we both agree that she was a Direct
Realist, all you need do is find one proposition, that on a fair
reading, has her arguing as an Indirect Realist. I just don't see it.
But if you got it, I suggest you snip nearly all of this overblown
verbiage we are both producing and just set it out there, and then
explain which of her words contradict Direct Realism.

>
>>>>> Since you are basically groping in the dark, working off of a series
>>>>> of Rand's ambiguous and inconsistent statements, I'll explain to you
>>>>> what a Direct Realist interpretation of "percept" is.
>>>> Oh, OK.
> .
>>>>> A percept is simply the bare idea that an entity serves or can serve
>>>>> as an object or focus of awareness. It is the intellectual "parallel"
>>>>> of the idea of conscious perception. That is not to say it is a
>>>>> parallel to conscious perception itself, in which a percept would
then
>>>>> be some reified being. It is simply the idea of conscious perception,
>>>>> as it were, related to the idea that it has or can have an object to
>>>>> perceive.
>>>>> .> >>> THAT is an Introduction to Epistemology 101.
>>>> THAT was not intelligible to me. Allow me to turn it around and tell
>> you
>>>> what a percept is. It is the result of a process of perception.
> .
>>> And what again is the synonym of "percept"? Remember, you explained it
>>> above.
> .
>> The synonym of "perception", which I explained above, was "percept".
>> So what? Are you now gonna do to me exact;y what you've tried to do
>> Rand? Are you now gonna accuse me of inconsistency, because by your
>> definitions, I've somehow contradicted myself - which I haven't?
>
> I asked for the synonym of "percept," and you gave me the synonym of
> "perception." It doesn't matter, because above this you relinquished
> the point to me, and then apparently you forgot to delete this part of
> your response.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter. Or as I like to say A is A. Hey
write that down, I think its got legs. :-)

>
>>>>>>> but there is an intellectual conflict in
>>>>>>> trying to base Direct Realism on some alleged scientific theory
that
>>>>>>> implies Indirect Realism.
>>>>> .
>>>>>> There would be if that were the case, but I think we have a verbal
>>>> dispute.
>>>>> I don't have any dispute with you,
>>>> You will now. :-)
>>>>
>>>>> it is Rand who said that percepts
>>>>> were integrations by the brain of sensory chaos.
>>>>> The brain has to
>>>>> learn to discriminate them. That part anyway is not my claim, that is
>>>>> Rand's claim.
>>>> Rand's claim sounds right to me.
> .
>>>>> But it all goes to show that Rand can't have her Direct
>>>>> Realism and eat it too.
>>>> But the foregoing is not inconsistent with Direct Realism.
> .
>>> So YOU say.
> .
>> Please show me exactly her two propositions that contradict, because
I'm
>> getting lost trying to understand you.
>
> I have.

Where???

>
>>>>>>>> I take it your point is that were she an Indirect Realist
>> instead, she
>>>>>>>> would still have arrived at the words "apprehend reality". That's
>>>>>> true,
>>>>>>>> but a *good* Indirect Realist would not have skipped over,
hence not
>>>>>>>> mention at all, the crucial step from knowing our mental
content to
>>>>>>>> getting to know reality, since that is otherwise a fatal
>> objection to
>>>>>>>> Indirect Realism. So now you've accused her of being not just an
>>>>>>>> Indirect Realist, but a bad one at that.
>>>>>>> I have never accused her of being an Indirect Realist,
>>>>> .
>>>>>> Not previously nor in so many words, but your present above answer
>> IMO,
>>>>>> could be read to imply that - and I did.
>>>>> I have never implied that Rand was anything of the sort. She was an
>>>>> inconsistent Direct Realist, as I've stated many times. But I can't
>>>>> force you to remember what you don't want to remember.
>>>> Mal, I remember what you said,
> .
>>> Then what did I say?
> .
>> Lots.
>
> Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'm the only one around here willing to
> look into the text instead of just memorizing it. And yes, explaining
> it does require lots of words, and most of us would rather go off and
> watch some entertaining TV show. But I watch very little TV.

I've tried to do my best, obviously within the time constraints I'm
willing to put into this stuff, and have explained it to the best of my
abilities. If you ultimately don't agree then that's just the way it is,
and we both have to live with it.

>
>>>> I just don't agree, and your "arguments"
>>>> are not persuasive. OTC they rely primarily on your apparent
refusal to
>>>> acknowledge that there are meanings of words in common usage
>> contrary to
>>>> yours. If you charitably would substitute those meanings instead,
>>>> there'd be no inconsistencies, that I can see.
> .
>>> They are not MY usages, I have researched every key term without
>>> prejudice or any ad populum agenda.
> .
>> Then you should easily be able to clearly put up the two contradictory
>> propositions. If they are indeed contradictory, I will happily admit
it,
>> but I honestly don't see it.
>
> Ok.
>
>>>>>>> I have accused
>>>>>>> her of attempting to found Direct Realism on the Indirect Realist
>>>>>>> theory of percepts. It's right there on page 5, not at all
ambiguous.
> .
>>>>>> Again, I think you misinterpret "percept".
>>>>> Then perhaps Rand should have told her readers what she really meant
>>>>> by it, because I am only going by what she said it is, by ***the very
>>>>> definition*** of 'percept,' on page 5. Why is it that all of a sudden
>>>>> definitions don't matter?
>>>> They do matter, and you can rightly criticize her for using loose
>>>> language. But you cannot fairly extend that to accusations of
>>>> inconsistency predicated upon your "special" usage of terms.
> .
>>> Loose language paraphrasing a scientific discovery that didn't even
>>> exist? Wow, what an earth-shattering theory.
> .
>>>>> You're confusing "perceptual knowledge" with "conceptual awareness"
>>>>> (17) ("conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition"). And
>>>>> "awareness" is nothing more than Rand's loose way of referring to
>>>>> "knowledge."
> .
>>>> I'm disappointed Mal. I now found out from ITOE that the above
quote is
>>>> not Rand's (it's Moore) yet you misleadingly spoke as tho it were.
> .
>>> Even if that were true, you wouldn't be disappointed, you'd be filled
>>> with glee like a child on Xmas morning.
> .
>> Oh cut it out you are just being silly. Please take my words seriously,
>> as I do yours and give them the consideration they merit, that's all
I ask.
> .
> I did and do. I just don't see where I did any misattributing of the
> Moore quote.

I agreed with you below.

> .
>> I did not quote some Moore person there,
>>> if you were referring to "conceptual awareness is the
>>> algebra of cognition." [17] If you weren't, then you either need to be
>>> more specific with your accusation,r drop it before your credibility
>>> here is reduced from above zero to less than zero.
> .
>> I was very specific (look up above) and even said "If this is a Rand
>> quote, ("all knowledge is conceptual")". That's what I was clearly
>> talking about. In your above sentence which precipitated my remark you
>> combined *part* of a Rand sentence ('man's knowledge is gained and held
>> in conceptual form,') and preceded it with something very misleading
and
>> which I doubt Rand would ever say ("Since all knowledge is conceptual,")
>> Since you never bothered to subsequently answer that that part ("all
>> knowledge is conceptual") was not a Rand quote I nevertheless looked
for
>> at least the gist of it on page 1 of ITOE. I figured you had somehow
>> screwed up the quote in your post and wanted to charitably interpret
>> your meaning, hence I concluded that you were probably referencing the
>> Moore quote at the bottom of page 1.
>> I bother to offer the above explanation so that you indeed will
think me
>> credible and not shut down thereby not hearing what I'm saying. But an
>> explanation is no excuse and I offer none. You are right, you did not
>> quote Moore.

>
> Searching Objectivism on CD indicates that the phrase "all knowledge
> is conceptual" is not contained in the etext. In fact, it was nothing
> more than my paraphrasing of Rand's "man's knolwedge is gained and
> held in conceptual form," but it bears a resemblance to something Rand
> quoted from Moore, "All knowledge is in terms of concepts."

Yes I know. You added the word "all" to her words, which is objectionable.

>
>>>>>>> the phrase "perceptual knowledge" is a contradiction.
> .
>>>>>> Nonsense. If you go to dictionary.com you'll see that the first
>>>>>> definition for know is to perceive, and if you look up perceive then
>>>>>> know is the second definition right after awareness; it is just
>>>>>> ordinary usage as I've explained above.
> .
>>>>> Does "conceptual knowledge" mean that knowledge is held in the
form of
>>>>> concepts?
>>>> Yes.
> .
>>>> Then does "perceptual knowledge" mean that knowledge is held
>>>>> in the form of percepts?
>>>> Yes.
> .
>>> Really? Where are these percepts being held?
> .
>> In the same place as the concepts they will become.
>
> Vague.

In the mind somewhere. As I said before the argument is that if we are
engaged in a perceptual process this must end somewhere, i.e. in a
percept. However, the percept is transparent and what we know is not the
percept itself (the process) but that which the percept is of, the
object. As such the percept is sort of a fiction to satisfy the argument
that processes in the brain must end somewhere.

>
>>>>> I would only agree with you on the basis that "perceptual knowledge"
>>>>> is conceptual knowledge about things of perception (i.e., concretes),
>>>>> and that "conceptual knowledge" is just knowledge.
>>>> I ask you to take seriously the evidence I've provided that some key
>>>> words do not necessarily mean what you think they do. If you
substitute
>>>> other legitimate meanings charitably, then if you are still left
with a
>>>> residue of "contradictions", then let's talk again. but for you to
>>>> continue to cling to your special definitions is fruitless.
> .
>>>> (snip the rest).
> .
>>> Your own definition selected from a hatful of them at dictionary.com
>>> isn't special?
> .
>> You're missing the point. I don't need a special definition to make my
>> point, All I need is recognition from you that words have multiple
>> possible meanings and then I ask you to charitably and reasonably
>> interpret her words within the confines of common usage. What could be
>> fairer than that?
>
> Ok.
>
>>> The inconsistency in ITOE surrounding the meaning of 'percept' cannot
>>> be denied by ad populum, twisting my words, or picking and choosing a
>>> definition from off a website.
> .
>> Sigh. I didn't nor intend to twist anything. If you have contradictory
>> Randian propositions, I suggest you snip nearly everything from this
>> post, cause its becoming unreadable, and clearly and simply set forth
>> those propositions anew.
>> But remember please, to be charitable in your interpretations.
>
> When you say I accused or interpreted Rand as being an Indirect
> Realist, after all my explanations, that appears to be a twisting of
> words.

See my explanation above, please.

Vonvegas