humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 11, 12:22 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:

> We build conjectures on other conjectures. As I said, it's conjecture
> all the way down.

Yes, that is your cornerstone premise. That's why I think it
deserves some close inspection.


> 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 can't be just how it reads
plainly, since I don't think even a single definition in a dictionary
"rests upon undefined terms." So you must mean something other
than the plain meaning, like maybe about axioms or something.

If you wish to clarify, I'll be happy to consider the point.


> > 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?

That sounds pretty wild, so I'm guessin' that ain't it. Does it mean
we
accept the sensory input and then make guesses about what they
indicate? That sounds much less objectionable, but it doesn't
leave much room for the conjecture that's supposed to be there
/before/ we get the sensory input.

And if it's not that, then you're making conjecture something built
/upon/ the sensory input. If so, then you're much closer to my POV
but you'll need to cover what it means to "wrongly" interpret at the
sensory level.

Also, you shouldn't be resistant to the charge of question-begging
since you're trying to correlate the "interpretation" of sensory
input with the claim that it's all conjecture. Naturally, I'd say
"interpretation" at this level just means the machinations of our
CNS and while I can grasp the idea of a machination being
wrong or misleading in some respect, I don't think that qualifies
as an incorrect interpretation in the normal sense of the phrase,
since that's far more often reserved for conceptual matters.

There's also the fundamental question of what it could mean
for evolution to build into our physiology incorrect or
misleading perceptions. 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?



> 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!


> and uninterpreted sensory data is useless,

That's fine, since you're just using "uninterpreted" here as
meaning, "not going through our CNS." But that's not even
a sensation really, as David will be very quick to point out.

The point is...so what? So sensations and perceptions are
handled through our CNS and you wish to call that
"interpretation." Fine, stipulated. But you can't now turn
around and say, "And all interpretations can be wrong,"
since you're using another, nonstandard, meaning of
"interpretation."


> 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?

You wanna propose inborn conjectures just like inborn
concepts?


> > For a guy trying to show the very basis of all of knowledge,
> > including that it's made of something other than knowledge,
>
> 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. Paradigmatically, she solved it
correctly IMO, even if she didn't cover the specifics of the
neural action involved and even if she made a few tangential
errors.

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.

You have your hands full with /your/ theory, I think. There's
no need to make cracks about Rand's.


> > Just tell me what I've got wrong, Gordon. I'm not making some
> > wild claim, like I do about context or Peikovianism. I'm just
> > saying that it seems reasonable to guess(!) that a baby begins
> > with sensations and percepts, and because he has a human
> > brain (instead of a dog or chimp brain), he goes on to
> > compare and contrast elements of those percepts, giving
> > rise to simple concepts and then more advanced concepts.
>
> All of which is done in a trial and error fashion. Trials are
> conjectures

Surely trials are done pursuant to conjectures; I don't
have any problem with that. But your claim is that it's
conjectures "all the way down." First you use "interpret"
to mean the machine-like integration of sensual data and
then you call each instance of that a "trial" (a usage which
could stand a little inspection itself!) and then define
conjecture as that sort of trial.

All of which is very sloppy, Gordon. Considering that you're
both making fun of Rand and trying to offer a very
substantial epistemological theory---that it's conjecture and
guessing "all the way down" to our very sensory systems--
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. She managed to pin down--systemically, at least,
if not in fine detail--how the human brain develops concepts.
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--without even
offering decent definitions for the terms you're using.

So if you've got something better and more specific, then
set it out. Otherwise, it's Rand by TKO in the first round.


jk