Wellbeing: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. — Garrett Travers
Okay. Can you point me to them I'll have a look? If I'm wrong, I will retract this portion of my argument. — Garrett Travers
Just first chapter. You think it's garbage after that, I'll never bother you about again, you have my word. — Garrett Travers
No references - this is my own speculative philosophy. Let’s just say that the article you posted about Buddhist logic is indicative of how I have developed this - by resisting the urge to simply dismiss the woo, and finding more rational ways that we already accept to make sense of seemingly irrational expressions of reality. Following the Tao Te Ching’s structure makes this easier. Carlo Rovelli’s ‘philosophical’ writing has also been very helpful, as was a book entitled ‘Quantum Enigma: Quantum Physics Encounters Consciousness’ - my understanding of quantum physics is not mathematical. But I do have a specialist Mathematics teacher in my back pocket, who keeps me from going wildly off the reservation, because my basic approach is almost purely qualitative (think Ontic Structural Realism).
I make sense of the dimensional structure by extrapolating from my understanding of dimensional geometry and art, particularly the relationship between awareness and processes of expression, definition and creation, as well as describing and rendering. I’m pretty confident the structure I have in mind can withstand empirical testing, but I’m no scientist - I lack the time and the academic discipline to develop workable hypotheses at this stage.
Most people here don’t see it - they don’t understand how I make sense of the dimensional structure. For me, it is beautiful in its rational symmetry and simplicity, but I find it’s really complicated to answer the question: what is a dimension? — Possibility
Then if someone makes some material sacrifice, it is almost always the case that they do so only because doing so brings them more comfort and/or happiness than letting their friend become homeless, so giving is not a real sacrifice in the majority of cases. — Hello Human
I’ll start with the definitions of the first two chapters:
“Consciousness, as a state of awareness, is not a passive state, but an active state that consists of two essentials: differentiation and integration.”
This then quickly moves to:
“A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.”
When did differentiation take a back seat? This explains a lot about the issues I have with her philosophy. — Possibility
But surely you would agree that modern neuroscience doesn’t support this as a process of pre-linguistic concept formation? It certainly doesn’t fit with my own experience as a parent. — Possibility
An infant would process sensation according to awareness of affect first, and then develop a differentiation of quality, before grasping logical relations that formulate a predictable structure. All of this can be fast-tracked by language as a pre-existing value system, which is then learned in much the same way - ie. most useful or desirable goal-concepts first (‘mum’, ‘more’, ‘no’, ‘teddy’); then qualitative relational descriptions such as ‘here/there’’, ‘behind’, or ’hot/cold’ ‘soft’, and lastly logical relations and structures such as numbers, letters, measurements, etc. — Possibility
An example from personal experience: one of my daughter’s first words was ‘bah’, which wasn’t surprising, given her love of bath time. I noticed one day while we were driving in the car that she kept saying ‘bah’ at seemingly unsolicited times. After observing her for a while, it occurred to me that she was referring to the puddles from the rain that she spotted on the side of the road. Her use of the word ‘bah’ was to represent the more general qualities of ‘water’ - she just hadn’t yet differentiated bathwater from rain puddles. — Possibility
I do agree with the second sentence, but that’s not the entrance - it’s a laurel we’ve crowned ourselves with, and then rested upon, in my opinion. — Possibility
You'll notice that it actually didn't, even in the quote you provided. "Integration" is repeated, but "differentiation" is explained as "isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition." That is differentiation, it's the same process as described above. — Garrett Travers
Yes, she covers this in great detail throughout chapter 1 and 2. None of this is contradictory to Rand or modern science so far. — Garrett Travers
Yes, she covers this in great detail throughout chapter 1 and 2. None of this is contradictory to Rand or modern science so far. — Garrett Travers
You know, I see what your contention is, but I find it difficult to not place us at the top of the animal kingdom, at least for now. It appears we are, in fact, this planet's pinnacle predator. — Garrett Travers
Ok, so we differentiate into basic units by characteristic(s) first, then integrate them back together under new, united differentiation. So how do we identify these characteristic(s) by which we first differentiate? Where do those ‘characteristics’ emerge from, and how are they differentiated? Do you see how backwards this is? — Possibility
This is the difference. It’s a key difference, because it comes from an assumption that logic alone is a priori. You have to read between the lines to realise that the unquantified, qualitative relation of ‘length’ has already formed in the child’s mind before he applies it to the objects in any logical relation of measurement. — Possibility
It’s the assumption of ‘pinnacle’ that bothers me, as if there is nowhere else for us to go in terms of evolution. — Possibility
Yes, especially if it is done on the individual giver's terms. I myself never give, nor ask for largesse that is not well supported in the reason category. None of what we have discussed is anti- Objectivist. — Garrett Travers
Well, then we agree on everything. But still, I wonder how all of what we discussed is linked with reason, as you use the word very often. — Hello Human
No, because the manner in which we do that isn't straight forward, it's a fluid and amorphus group of methods and multisensory correspondence, including parental guidance, and then a process of coherence thereafter. It's really not like something that can be backward or forward. Do you see what I mean? Every new verified dimension that constitutes a basic unit contributes to the concept in question, from whence more concepts can be abstracted. As far as I know, this is aligned with modern cog-sci. — Garrett Travers
I do think that, when we reflect on our reasoning processes, Rand’s sequence makes sense. But I also think that this reflecting is conducted rationally - that is, from a perspective that values logic over quality, and pays no mind to affect/energy at all - because it isn’t useful at this level. That’s different to what she’s trying to describe here: how concepts are formed. Abstracting concepts from a basic conceptual ‘unit’ is not how young children first develop conceptual structure. They are very much in the experience, not in their heads. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.