humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 10, 12:55 pm, TC wrote:

> 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

No, I caught that. I thought it was interesting too.

You should understand first that so-called scientific studies
have been making dubious claims about this sort of stuff
for decades at least...hundreds of years, probably.

Secondly, considering that this claim was based upfront on,
"are said to have...," I didn't think it had much to offer.

And then there's the matter that it's not discussing what we're
discussing. You're talking of specific concepts, not general
"psychological capacities" like "intersubjectivity."

As you yourself note, "sense of self" is the closest to a
concept, and not a very specific one at that. is
a concept; I'd say "sense of self" could be many.

Still, I'm impressed that at least you know of one that can't
be discarded. I'm losing track...have you offered any
that can be discarded, and was there a third class?


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

Holy shit! I assume that means we're born with the
concepts and too, yes? So not
only do we have those, but we have
too. Golly, that's remarkable...we must have
as well, being opposed to uniformity, right?

Do we have too?


> > Are there some that can't be discarded
> > at will?
>
> Good question.
>
> I would guess the self. But Buddhists no doubt
> would differ.

Why? How could they "overcome" the self, without
holding the concept for it?


> > > 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 didn't ignore it the first time. It just has nothing
relevant for us. A theorist telling us that someone
else says that babies have psychological capacities
beyond what we heretofore thought, doesn't
really offer us any specific concepts, let alone
tell us which ones can be discarded and not.


> > 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.

You believe wrong. Ad hominem is when someone
says that because the other guy is ________________
(something bad), that therefore his argument doesn't
hold water, or is fallacious.

I made no such implication. Besides, I've
intentionally withheld judgment of your particular
argument until you offer me some examples of these
inborn concepts that you know so much about, including
how they're handled and/or discarded.


> > 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"

I'm guessin' that even you aren't proposing that babies
understand the concept . Babies
have arms too, but I don't conclude that therefore they are
born with the concept . Do you?

So again, what are these concepts that we're born with,
or at least the few you know about? Are you offering
that is one of them?


> > 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?

'Scuse me? I don't think Rand knew very much at all
about that, at least in any detail. And I don't recall
her claiming that she did. In fact, I'm pretty sure that
she emphasized this point, and that it didn't really
matter for what she was saying.

I thought we were talking about concept formation.
FWIW, I do happen to think that Rand laid out perhaps
the best explanation I've come across, at least in a
general paradigmatic sort of way, but I didn't come
to my conclusions based upon her writing, hardly at all.

Why...do you suppose I learned about this stuff from
Rand? Then how do you explain that I'm able to see
her few errors, such as they are? That would be like
you understanding how much tripe they fed you in
school. The world doesn't work that way.


> > > 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.

What absolute claims? I'm willing to take a look at
these "inborn concepts" you keep mentioning.

Gordon says it's okay to offer his fetching experience
with dogs. Why isn't it okay to offer my experience
with babies and humans?


> > 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)

Nope...I'll take a look when I get back. Also, if Gordon
happens to have the cite for the hard rock/work chimp
study, I'd like to look at that too.


jk