CHRIS SAID:
I AM TRYING TO DO IS ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME UP WITH ADDITIONAL WAYS OF USING SOME SORT OF STRUCTURE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE, SO THAT WE CAN BENEFIT FROM CONSIDERING OPTIONS.[....] I DON'T OBSERVE OUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES AS HAVING MUCH CONSEQUENCE FOR THE SITE DESIGN SO FAR [....]EPISTEMOLOGY CANNOT BE THE SOLE SOURCE OF STATES OF WANTS/NEEDS FOR THE SITE DESIGN, BECAUSE PSYCHOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY PLAY VERY LARGE ROLES IN THE CHOICES PEOPLE MAKE ABOUT WHAT TO FOCUS UPON IN SCIENCE [........]
IT'S AT THIS POINT OF DEMARCATION WHERE THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINE SCIENCE ON TERMS WHICH ARE NOT HOSTILE TO NEW IDEAS.
I AM NOW GOING TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE CONTENTION BETWEEN US REGARDING WHAT "SORT OF
STRUCTURE SOLVES THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE" IS PRIMARILY EPISTEMOLOGICAL. I WILL NOW BE USING OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY EXPLICITLY TO HELP YOU
CONCEPTUALIZE HOW "OUR EPISTEMOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES" ARE EXACTLY WHAT YOU NEED TO GRASP AS THE
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTIC THAT
DEFINES THE PROBLEM OF "WHAT TO FOCUS" ON IN SCIENCE. PLEASE NOTE MY PREVIOUS SOCRATIC POSTS DID NOT DO THIS DELIBERATELY.
I HAVE BEEN MAKING THE POINT THAT YOUR CHOPPING UP OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE INTO "LEVELS" IS ILL-DEFINED/AMBIGUOUS AND SIMPLY WRONG. I HAVE INSTEAD INSISTED THAT IT IS AN EPISTEMIC, PRIMARILY
CONCEPTUAL PROBLEM THAT THE
INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN SCIENTIFIC
DISCOURSE/LANGUAGE SUFFER FROM. THIS CAN BE EXTENDED TO THE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT "CREATIVITY" IS. THE SECONDARY ISSUE SURROUNDS THE MOTIVES BEHIND THE
INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS AND THE "SOCIAL, CULTURAL, AND POLITICAL" GOALS OF CONSTRUCTIVISM.
CONCEPTS AND, THEREFORE, LANGUAGE ARE PRIMARILY A TOOL OF COGNITION—NOT OF COMMUNICATION, AS IS USUALLY ASSUMED. COMMUNICATION IS MERELY THE CONSEQUENCE, NOT THE CAUSE NOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CONCEPT-FORMATION—A CRUCIAL CONSEQUENCE, OF INVALUABLE IMPORTANCE TO MEN, BUT STILL ONLY A CONSEQUENCE. COGNITION PRECEDES COMMUNICATION; THE NECESSARY PRECONDITION OF COMMUNICATION IS THAT ONE HAVE SOMETHING TO COMMUNICATE . . . .
SO, WHAT IS A CONCEPT AND HOW DOES KNOWING THIS EMPOWER AN
INDIVIDUAL TO "BENEFIT FROM CONSIDERING OPTIONS" BY KNOWING "WHAT TO FOCUS ON" WHETHER OR NOT ONE IS COMMUNICATING/"DISCOURSING". (INCIDENTALLY THIS IS THE SUBJECT OF MY PROPOSED TALK "CONCEPTS: WHO NEEDS THEM?" BUT I WILL HERE FORGO THE GENERAL TYPES AND HISTORY OF CONCEPTS IN THE DEBATE OVER THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS AND ADVOCATE FOR A PARTICULAR VIEW OF CONCEPTS) HOW DOES THIS INFORM THE PROPOSED DIFFERENTIATION CHRIS HAS MADE BETWEEN DAVE TALBOT AND BRIDGEMAN? HOW WILL UNDERSTANDING THE METHOD ACTUALLY EMPLOYED BY DAVE TALBOT IN HIS WORK ON MYTHOLOGY REFUTE CHRIS'
CATEGORIZATION OF HIM?
FIRST, A DEFINITION:
A CONCEPT IS A MENTAL INTEGRATION OF TWO OR MORE UNITS POSSESSING THE SAME DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC(S), WITH THEIR PARTICULAR MEASUREMENTS OMITTED.....
ACCORDING TO OBJECTIVISM, CONCEPTS “REPRESENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF OBSERVED EXISTENTS ACCORDING TO THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER OBSERVED EXISTENTS.” (AYN RAND, INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY; ALL FURTHER QUOTATIONS IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED, ARE FROM THIS WORK.) TO FORM A CONCEPT, ONE MENTALLY ISOLATES A GROUP OF CONCRETES (OF DISTINCT PERCEPTUAL UNITS), ON THE BASIS OF OBSERVED SIMILARITIES WHICH DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ALL OTHER KNOWN CONCRETES (SIMILARITY IS “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OR MORE EXISTENTS WHICH POSSESS THE SAME CHARACTERISTIC(S), BUT IN DIFFERENT MEASURE OR DEGREE”); THEN, BY A PROCESS OF OMITTING THE PARTICULAR MEASUREMENTS OF THESE CONCRETES, ONE INTEGRATES THEM INTO A SINGLE NEW MENTAL UNIT: THE CONCEPT, WHICH SUBSUMES ALL CONCRETES OF THIS KIND (A POTENTIALLY UNLIMITED NUMBER). THE INTEGRATION IS COMPLETED AND RETAINED BY THE SELECTION OF A PERCEPTUAL SYMBOL (A WORD) TO DESIGNATE IT. “A CONCEPT IS A MENTAL INTEGRATION OF TWO OR MORE UNITS POSSESSING THE SAME DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC(S), WITH THEIR PARTICULAR MEASUREMENTS OMITTED.”.....
CONCEPTS CANNOT BE FORMED AT RANDOM. ALL CONCEPTS ARE FORMED BY FIRST DIFFERENTIATING TWO OR MORE EXISTENTS FROM OTHER EXISTENTS. ALL CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENTIATIONS ARE MADE IN TERMS OF COMMENSURABLE CHARACTERISTICS (I.E., CHARACTERISTICS POSSESSING A COMMON UNIT OF MEASUREMENT). NO CONCEPT COULD BE FORMED, FOR INSTANCE, BY ATTEMPTING TO DISTINGUISH LONG OBJECTS FROM GREEN OBJECTS. INCOMMENSURABLE CHARACTERISTICS CANNOT BE INTEGRATED INTO ONE UNIT.
TABLES, FOR INSTANCE, ARE FIRST DIFFERENTIATED FROM CHAIRS, BEDS AND OTHER OBJECTS BY MEANS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC OF SHAPE, WHICH IS AN ATTRIBUTE POSSESSED BY ALL THE OBJECTS INVOLVED. THEN, THEIR PARTICULAR KIND OF SHAPE IS SET AS THE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC OF TABLES—I.E., A CERTAIN CATEGORY OF GEOMETRICAL MEASUREMENTS OF SHAPE IS SPECIFIED. THEN, WITHIN THAT CATEGORY, THE PARTICULAR MEASUREMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL TABLE-SHAPES ARE OMITTED.
ITOE
HTTP://AYNRANDLEXICON.COM/LEXICON/CONCE ... ATION.HTML
HTTP://AYNRANDLEXICON.COM/LEXICON/CONCEPTS.HTML
LETS APPLY THE ABOVE VIEW OF CONCEPTS, WHICH I WILL SUMMARIZE AS; ISOLATE, ABSTRACT, INTEGRATE-SYMBOLIZE:
ISOLATE:
"TO FORM A CONCEPT, ONE MENTALLY ISOLATES A GROUP OF CONCRETES (OF DISTINCT PERCEPTUAL UNITS), ON THE BASIS OF OBSERVED SIMILARITIES WHICH DISTINGUISH THEM FROM ALL OTHER KNOWN CONCRETES (SIMILARITY IS “THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO OR MORE EXISTENTS WHICH POSSESS THE SAME CHARACTERISTIC(S), BUT IN DIFFERENT MEASURE OR DEGREE”)....
A COMMENSURABLE CHARACTERISTIC (SUCH AS SHAPE IN THE CASE OF TABLES, OR HUE IN THE CASE OF COLORS) IS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF CONCEPT-FORMATION. I SHALL DESIGNATE IT AS THE “CONCEPTUAL COMMON DENOMINATOR” AND DEFINE IT AS “THE CHARACTERISTIC(S) REDUCIBLE TO A UNIT OF MEASUREMENT, BY MEANS OF WHICH MAN DIFFERENTIATES TWO OR MORE EXISTENTS FROM OTHER EXISTENTS POSSESSING IT.”
THE DISTINQUISHING CHARACTERISTIC(S) OF A CONCEPT REPRESENTS A SPECIFIED CATEGORY OF MEASUREMENTS WITHIN THE “CONCEPTUAL COMMON DENOMINATOR” INVOLVED.
" ITOE
DAVE TALBOT HAS HAD MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THE METHODOLOGY HE EMPLOYED TO IDENTIFY THE CATEGORY HE CALLS THE "ARCHETYPES "...
DAVE SAID:
(A definition just to avoid misunderstanding: By the "substratum of human memory" I don't mean Jungian collective memory, though Jungian archetypes may indeed come into the equation in the bigger picture. For now, I mean the common mythical, symbolic and ritual themes of widely separate cultures. Another way of putting it might be, "Points of agreement concerning remembered events.")....
But the implications become all the more astounding when you begin to see that each of the archetypal figures is linked in no uncertain terms to the ONE STORY. (I'll give some key examples in the next few submissions.) A *universal structure* to ancient memory is present.......
HOW CAN THE DISPARATE THREADS OF MEMORY, EXPRESSED IN SEEMINGLY
CONTRADICTORY SYMBOLS, THROUGH STORIES THAT ARE OFTEN BARELY
INTELLIGIBLE, AND IN ARCHAIC WORDS OF UNCERTAIN MEANING, EVER PROVIDE
A DEPENDABLE GUIDE FOR RECONSTRUCTING COSMIC EVENTS?
THE FIRST ESSENTIAL IS TO EXPOSE THE *SUBSTRATUM* OF MEMORY, AND THIS
CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY LIMITING WHAT COUNTS AS EVIDENCE. ONLY
BROADLY-REPEATED THEMES ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE EARLY PHASES OF THE
INQUIRY, AND ONLY THE CLEAREST FACTS, OR UNDISPUTED PRINCIPLES QUALIFY
AS BUILDING BLOCKS IN THE RECONSTRUCTION....
OF ALL THE SKILLS THAT THE INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER MIGHT BRING TO THIS
INQUIRY, NONE WILL PROVE MORE CRUCIAL THAN THAT OF PATTERN RECOGNITION.....
THE FIELD OF EVIDENCE WE MUST DRAW UPON INCLUDES EVERY FEATURE
DISTINGUISHING THESE CIVILIZATIONS FROM THE PRIOR, MORE PASTORAL EPOCH
OF HUMAN HISTORY.......
HOW DID HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS, EMERGING FROM
THE WOMB OF NATURE, CONVERGE ON THE SAME IMPROBABLE IDEAS
*CONTRADICTING* NATURE? FOR CENTURIES WE'VE LIVED UNDER THE ILLUSION
THAT OUR ANCESTORS SIMPLY MADE UP EXPLANATIONS OF NATURAL PHENOMENA
THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
SATURN THEORY OVERVIEW PT.1-5
THE ABOVE METHOD EMPLOYED BY DAVE T LAYS OUT HIS VERSION OF THE FIRST STEP IN ISOLATION;
DIFFERENTIATION VIA A "CONCEPTUAL COMMON DENOMINATOR" (CCD). WE START BY IDENTIFYING
SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN ORDER TO FIND AN ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISITC.
CONSIDER THE SQUATTER MAN CONCEPT.
IT IS A FACT THAT EACH OF THE ABOVE PARTICULAR INSTANCES OF THE SQUATTER MAN POSSES UNIQUE, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT SHAPE THAT DIFFERS FROM ONE ANOTHER AND FROM SAY, THE DIOCOTRON INSTABILITY:
- 256px-Diocotron.jpg (8.48 KiB) Viewed 17463 times
BUT THE SHAPES OF THE PARTICULAR SQUATTER MEN ARE SIMILAR TO ONE ANOTHER AS AGAINST A BACKGROUND OF DIFFERENCE OF THE DIOCOTRON INSTABILITIES. THE CHARACTERISTIC SHAPE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SM FALL WITHIN A RANGE OF MEASUREMENTS THAT MAKE THEM SIMILAR TO ONE ANOTHER AND DIFFERENT FROM THE SHAPE OF ALL OTHER ENTITIES NOT WITH IN THAT RANGE.(CCD) THEIR SHAPE IS THE COMMENSURABLE CHARACTERISTIC USED TO CLASSIFY THEM AS A GROUP OR KIND BECAUSE THEIR DIFFERENCES FROM EACH OTHER ARE SO SMALL WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER ENTITIES WE CAN OMIT THEM. MEASUREMENT OMISSION")THIS DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC IS CALLED THE
ESSENTIAL CHARACHTERISTIC"("THE FACT THAT THIS PROCESS INVOLVES A RANGE OF MEASUREMENT OF "THE MORE AND THE LESS" IS WHAT MAKES CONCEPT FORMATION A MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENON!
NOTICE THIS IS NOT AN ARBITRARY, "MADE UP" PROCESS BASED SIMPLY ON THE
INTENTIONS OF THE OBSERVER (ALTHOUGH THERE IS OBJECTIVE CONSTRAINTS CONTRIBUTED BY THE OBSERVER). THE BASIS OF SIMILARITY IS REAL, PERCEIVED, OBJECTIVE FACTS.
THE PROCESS OF SELECTIVELY FOCUSING ON THOSE CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN THE CCD IS AN ACT OF
ABSTRACTION:
"The act of isolation involved [in concept-formation] is a process of abstraction: i.e., a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.)." ITOE
The act of uniting the particulars into a group is an act of Integration:
"....by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. . . . [In concept-formation], the uniting involved is not a mere sum, but an integration, i.e., a blending of the units into a single, new mental entity which is used thereafter as a single unit of thought (but which can be broken into its component units whenever required)......
Integration is a cardinal function of man’s consciousness on all the levels of his cognitive development. First, his brain brings order into his sensory chaos by integrating sense data into percepts; this integration is performed automatically; it requires effort, but no conscious volition. His next step is the integration of percepts into concepts, as he learns to speak. Thereafter, his cognitive development consists in integrating concepts into wider and ever wider concepts, expanding the range of his mind. This stage is fully volitional and demands an unremitting effort." ITOE
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/integ ... ntal).html
Consider Dave"s words from THE ONE STORY TOLD AROUND THE WORLD. :
But the implications become all the more astounding when you begin to see that each of the archetypal figures is linked in no uncertain terms to the ONE STORY. (I'll give some key examples in the next few submissions.) A *universal structure* to ancient memory is present.......
Our contention will be that hundreds of ancient themes speak for a
unified experience, an experience more specific in context and detail
than any of us had ever imagined when we started our research. No
universal theme stands alone or in isolation from any of the others.
All are connected......
The choice to the label this integration "squatter Man" is an act
symbolizing and completes the Integration.
Language is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psycho- epistemological function of converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes....
A concept substitutes one symbol (one word) for the enormity of the perceptual aggregate of the concretes it subsumes. In order to perform its unit-reducing function, the symbol has to become automatized in a man’s consciousness, i.e., the enormous sum of its referents must be instantly (implicitly) available to his conscious mind whenever he uses that concept, without the need of perceptual visualization or mental summarizing—in the same manner as the concept “5” does not require that he visualize five sticks every time he uses it.
We compress all the instances of the particular squatter men into a single unit that reduces the amount of cognitive bandwidth required to reference the group. We simply say "squatter man". The word itself is not a concept but merely the symbols that stands for the actual referent SM.
Dave said:
A symbol is a reflection of some aspect of a prior experience. As such it does not, on its own, disclose the full character of that experience.
Velikovsky's comet Venus
Now we need to talk about definitions:
A definition is a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept.
It is often said that definitions state the meaning of words. This is true, but it is not exact. A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units. It is not words, but concepts that man defines—by specifying their referents.....
The purpose of a definition is to distinguish a concept from all other concepts and thus to keep its units differentiated from all other existents.....
Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence...
The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were differentiated—by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s)—from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a Conceptual Common Denominator. A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated. The distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units becomes the differentia of the concept’s definition; the existents possessing a Conceptual Common Denominator become the genus.Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents.
A definition:
A squatter man is a petroglyph or painting that looks like a man with extended arms and legs usually bent and usually with a dot on either side.
Note that the purpose of a definition is to help point one to the units that the word refers too. Its another tool of "unit-economy". Just as the words squatter man differentiates the concept from say, diocotron instability, a definition does the same thing by stating the genus and differentia.
The above is an extremely "reduced" account of the process and I "omitted" certain things for brevity. I recommend anyone wanting the whole account read ITOE. I also could have spent much more time organizing Dave's method but opted to merely sketch the similarities.
Now, how does all this relate to the debate about creativity?
In response to my comment:
The above is predicated on the idea that "creative" thinking is somehow irrational or "emotional (more "Kirk vs spock"), which I do not accept and you have not argued for. (quoting books that assume this usage is not an argument). You want to make an argument for such a dichotomy? (the onus is on you) Its been several posts and no clarification or answers to my questions.
Chris replied:
Psychology research uncontroversially demonstrates that the subconscious mind contributes a form of problem-solving which is generally associated with creativity. That is not to say that the rational mind cannot perform the same functions. What it does mean is that people who learn how the subconscious mind tends to work, in practice, can get better at putting it to work, in service of their rational goals. Some of the most compelling arguments that creativity exhibits an important non-rational, subconscious component to it are the stories of people who have solved complex problems in the midst of sleeping
My goal here is to show that my request of Chris reduces to a request for a definition, a statement that identifies the generative context of differentiation that Chris has abstracted the units of the category/integration "creative" from. What Chris has done above is to
mis-integrate creativity with the subconscious processes of cognition as well as the concepts non-rational with the subconscious. Oist call this type of mis-integration a
'package deal"
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/packa ... cy_of.html
“Package-dealing” is the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value."
To point out this mis-integration/category errors we can use an
If-then question.
1).
If the rational mind is capable of creativity,
then why do you insist that is an essential characteristic of the subconscious? What then differentiates the subconscious from the conscious?
2).
If conscious creativity is a rational process,
then why is it irrational when the subconscious does it?
The point here is that clearly creativity is not defined by being a subconscious process. The concept of subconscious is non-essential.
Its becoming obvious that the real issue is Chris' conception of the
subconscious. Again we'll see this "recurring theme" is an extension of the false dichotomy of "Kirk vs Spock", reason vs emotion, logic vs illogic, rational vs irrational. I will elaborate on this soon....
I want to stress that I do see the subconscious as relevant as well as what Rand called "psycho-epistemology" I will elaborate soon.
Sorry for the caps. when I pasted it from works it changes part of the text.
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle