ANNOUNCING STUDY GROUP ON INDUCTIVE METHOD OF THINKING, ITS FOUNDATION

[RohinGupta 0]

About the Platform: "Study Group For Objectivists"(SGO)[1] is for serious students of Objectivism from various age groups and professions. The study is specialized and involves particular texts(not necessarily Objectivists), mainly in the fields of philosophy and history. The student, after studying the text can give summary, outline, or detailed analysis and synthesis of select sections(referred to as chewing by Ayn Rand). Rigrous etiquettes, timebound schedules for various sections and advance notice enables better discipline, and therefore productive study. Based on personal experience, I can vouch for the same.

Purpose of Platform: These study groups intend to achieve for Objectivism, what various intellectuals and philosophers did post Acquinas in the West. Explore various writings to understand rational philosophy across length, breadth and depth of intellectual spectrum, and unleash the new era of Renaissance and Enlightenment. Spiritual awakening that begins with the minds of participants, fulfilling their lives with knowledge, understanding, wisdom and therefore joy. Unleashing "The New Intellectuals" into current ruins of philosophy, to redeem its lost foundations and for cultivating the seeds for future movements.
To put it succintly, this is the stock exchange for trading rational ideas, one text at a time.

Current Study Group: Coming to the current study group, it is on the subject of philosophy, epistemology to be more specific.

As Ayn Rand puts it,
"A political battle is merely a skirmish[small battle] fought with muskets; a philosophical battle is a nuclear war."

As is clearly communicated in many Objectivist forums, Epistemology is the foundation of more visible philosophical aspects like Politics, Ethics and Aesthetics. And ultimately foundation of every subject ranging from physical sciences to economics to history to psychology to even technology(like logic in computers).

Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology(ITOE), her other works to lesser extent, and portions of Dr. Peikoff's Objectivism : Philosophy of Ayn Rand(OPAR) focus on Epistemology. You can also add Dr. Peikoff's lectures on "Art of Thinking", "Objectivism through Induction", and recent How we Know by Dr. Harry Binswanger. Yet this important branch has largely been understudied in this potentially world changing movement.

This studygroup intends to take step in that direction. Attempting to redirect focus to its roots, Epistemology that is. We will study foundation of aspect that has been least touched in Objectivist epistemology, inductive method of thinking.

Very briefly, inductive method involves integrating universal generalizations like principles and laws from a set of particulars or lower level generalizations. The text will introduce and explore important terms of inductive method, and what these refer to. Primary referents of the terms being methods of discoveries of Galileo, Newton, and Benjamin Franklin's electricity.

We will study "The Logical Leap - Induction in Physics" by David Harriman. Chapter studied will be the first chapter "The Foundation".
Namely the following sections
1 09/08/2014 - 09/14/2014 The Nature of Concepts
2 09/15/2014 - 09/21/2014 Generalizations as Hierarchial
3 09/22/2014 - 09/28/2014 Perceiving First-Level Causal Connections
4 09/29/2014 - 09/05/2014 Conceptualizing First-Level Causal Connections
5 10/06/2014 - 10/12/2014 The structure of inductive reasoning
6 10/13/2014 - 10/19/2014 Review and summary

Apart from this central material, preperatory material can be
1. Chapter 1. "Cognition and Measurement" from "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".
2. Chapter 2. "Concept-Formation" from "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".
3. Section on "Causality as Corollary of Identity" from chapter 1 "Reality" of OPAR.
4. Introduction and Preface of "The Logical Leap - Induction in Physics".

Conclusion: So primarily for fulfilling your appetite of rational method, and changing course of civilization in the process, I urge you to consider participation here.
"Study Group for Objectivists" - http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com"

Note: After you register, activation can take few days. Please go through the etiquettes and archives once registered.

[1] Study group for Objectivists(SGO) - http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com
[2] Further details on the importance of SGO - http://aristotleadventure.blogspot.in/2008/08/study-groups-for-objectivists-sgo_29.html

[ewv 0]

Does this study presume that Leonard Peikoff's claimed solution to the problem of induction is true?

[RohinGupta 0]

Does this study presume that Leonard Peikoff's claimed solution to the problem of induction is true?

No such presumptions. We will go by facts. Therefore we plan extensive preparatory study of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" to build enough ground for the study-group.

[RohinGupta 0]

While actual study-group starts in September, related preparatory posts will start coming from next month.

[RohinGupta 0]

Please register and then participate through the following link.

http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com/

[RohinGupta 0]

As mentioned before, actual study-group starts on September 8, but the preparatory discussions will begin before. While in normal study group the preparatory discussions are not elaborate, I think much more elaborate preparation is needed for this topic. Given the newness of induction in Objectivism(serious study started almost 10-15 years after Ayn Rand's death), and the difficulty of Objectivist epistemology in general, I would encourage participants to contribute to prep sessions.

My posts on preperatory materials will start coming from July 14.

Here is the exact schedule

1 07/14/2014 - 08/27/2014 Chapter 1. "Cognition and Measurement" from ITOE.
2 07/28/2014 - 08/10/2014 Chapter 2. "Concept-Formation" from ITOE.
3 08/11/2014 - 08/17/2014 Section on "Causality as Corollary of Identity" from chapter 1. "Reality" of OPAR.
4 08/18/2014 - 09/31/2014 Introduction and Preface of "The Logical Leap - Induction in Physics".

[ewv 0]

You are right that understanding IOE is essential and that it is necessary to "go by facts", as opposed to a rationalistic following along, but the four sources you are relying on do not accomplish that.

Any detailed study of how induction has been accomplished in particular cases, the conceptual nature of the general principles established, and the general philosophical principles of what is required for induction requires a detailed knowledge of the facts of particular examples in physics (as well as more elementary examples from pre-science), and a detailed knowledge of concept formation and their use in propositions. Summaries claimed to be sufficient as the "solution to the problem of induction" because they are said to be the "essentials" are not enough.

The first two chapters of IOE do not explain levels of abstraction and how it works, and do not even distinguish between first and higher level concepts. "Levels" of concepts are not mentioned until the 3rd chapter on "Abstractions from Abstractions" and the distinction between first and higher levels is not thoroughly explained until the appendix. (Search for it on Phil's CD.) The types of abstraction from abstractions are not described until chapters 3 and 4. That and much more is essential before trying to understand induction, which is not possible without higher levels of abstraction. You need all of IOE, including the appendix.

The first chapter of The Logical Leap is stated to have been taken almost verbatim from parts of Leonard Peikoff's last lecture series on induction. It includes a very brief and condensed summary of concepts, and the lectures from which it was taken themselves stated that they presuppose IOE. It is not a substitute for the whole of IOE.

The account of concepts there also crucially misconstrues the meaning of first-level concepts as defined and explained in IOE, and argues from vague analogies with concept formation to claim "axiomatic" induction through passive perception and only "first-level" concepts as a strict requirement -- with none of the examples restricted to first level concepts.

It confuses the nature of generalization in concept formation with generalization in induction claimed to be "conceptualization" by the same process, and ignores that Ayn Rand explicitly rejected at the epistemology workshops the notion that scientific induction is the same as the generalization in her theory of concepts. It did not give detailed examples or explanation of how it is supposed to work, leaving it in the form of analogy and with a sweeping, unexplained claim of integration with all of one's knowledge, thereby relying on coherence (in an unexplained process) as the basis of the truth of generalizations.

You can't understand all this without a very thorough understanding of IOE, including the workshop appendix. The parts of Leonard Peikoff's lectures on the History of Western Philosophy on epistemology would also be very helpful.

On the complementary side of the subject is the matter of the facts of physics and the way in which specific generalizations were historically made. The Logical Leap describes the essentials of what some scientists did in specific cases, and those summaries serve to illustrate how specific generalizations were in fact successfully made. But it is not nearly enough to formulate or evaluate a philosophical theory of what is required in general. There have been detailed historical accounts and analyses which reveal serious matters in the thought processes that must be explained in detail.

The scientists succeeded in the end (sometimes in the form of formulations made much later), but all the steps must be analyzed in formulating and validating the general principles required. In validating a proposed method it must in particular be illustrated through all the steps, which requires knowing the details of what was scientifically done. But there isn't enough of that in The Logical Leap to do that, and in fact the book did not attempt it.

Nowhere was there an explanation of even one scientific case history that showed even what the concepts were in the hierarchy, let alone how the theory of omitted measurements worked to establish essential similarities. And there was no attempt to explain how the inductive generalization by "conceptualization" claimed in the first chapter applied to what "omitted measurements" and how they cohered with all the pre-existing knowledge held by the scientists to establish an inductive conclusion.

The book did a lot to explain how induction was successful in particular cases of science before modern physics, but the first chapter was unintegrated with the rest of the book, which did not contain the detail necessary to even attempt showing a general philosophical "solution to the problem of induction".

The "facts" required in your study therefore require much more material in the history of science, at least for a couple of cases, than you will find in the book. And once you have that, the real philosophical analysis is just beginning.

[RohinGupta 0]

Thanks emv for the detailed response. It is indeed quite insighful.

To summarize you point out following problems :

1. Meaning of first level concepts is misconstrued.

2. Difference between "induction" and "concept-formation" is not clarified.

And you think that remaining of IOE and more scientific history is required to achieve it.

Since I am leading the study group, I have already completed study of prep chapters and main content. Further, not as part of this study group, but I have read IOE completely twice before. Also, while I was formulating my posts, I got the opportunity to study excerpts of How We Know by Dr. Harri Binswanger.

While studying I faced confusions in exact same topics, but have been able to rectify these since. Dr. Binswanger's works played a major role in solving (1.). And some googling leading to inputs of another participant in this study-group lead to clarification of (2.).

In retrospect I agree some familiarity with subject like "Abstraction of Abstractions" is needed. But I also think that concepts like adverbs, which are described in second chapter, are indeed abstraction of abstractions, going by strict meaning of the term(selective focus). Even then I think knowing higher level concepts like furniture will help.

There is nothing stopping participants from studying and referring from outside, as long as they co-relate it to the main content. What I have prescribed is bare minimum.

Given the complexity of subject, it won't be possible to debate the subject in detail here. I would strongly urge you to participate. Given the knowledge you demonstrated in previous post, I don't think you need to spend much time there.

I sincerely think that both of us will miss a great oppurtunity to interact, if you don't participate.

[ewv 0]

Thanks emv for the detailed response. It is indeed quite insighful.

To summarize you point out following problems :

1. Meaning of first level concepts is misconstrued.

The meaning of 'first level concepts' is not only misconstrued. It is used incorrectly. Higher level abstractions are used in generalizations as if they were first level, automatically correct, through a passive reaction to the results of perception. Restriction to first level concepts was claimed to be necessary for the supposed infallibility of first level generalizations, even though they necessarily require higher levels of concepts.

We can perceive some attributes and actions like color and the motion of an object, but cannot conceptualize them without higher level abstraction based on previous abstraction, and cannot state propositions, let alone inductive generalizations, without that. Concepts and active thought in terms of them, not the passive, implicit conceptual material of perception of attributes and action, are required, and their use in generalization is not infallible.

That can't be understood without understanding abstractions from abstractions and its role in higher level concepts and generalization.

2. Difference between "induction" and "concept-formation" is not clarified.

It's not just a matter of missing clarification of how the method is supposed to work in the terms given. Propositional generalization and conceptual generalization are improperly equated: "A generalization is nothing more (or less) than an essential form of the method of concept-formation", which is not true and which was explicitly rejected by Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand described concept formation as a form of inductive generalization, but different than the generalization in propositions and scientific theory, which has different methods. The "problem of universals" is not the "problem of induction". Generalization is in terms of concepts, propositions and principles, not "measurement omission applied to causal connections." The process of generalization can include formation of new concepts, but requires much more than "conceptualization" and much more than "conceptualization of cause and effect" in particular, and it does not always even state or identify a cause (e.g., the general principle of conservation of energy).

And you think that remaining of IOE and more scientific history is required to achieve it.

Yes you cannot understand propositions, let alone generalization and scientific principles without abstractions from abstractions, and you cannot understand and analyze examples of generalization in physics and its validity, let alone a proposed general philosophical theory of induction in science, without reference to detailed knowledge of the experiments and the thought processes and considerations of what was included, what was dropped as irrelevant, the context of knowledge, at what point further investigation was regarded as irrelevant, and why. You can understand basic principles of physics without all that detail, but not the full basis of their validation and not the philosophy of how it worked and was valid by philosophical principal.

Since I am leading the study group, I have already completed study of prep chapters and main content. Further, not as part of this study group, but I have read IOE completely twice before. Also, while I was formulating my posts, I got the opportunity to study excerpts of How We Know by Dr. Harri Binswanger.

While studying I faced confusions in exact same topics, but have been able to rectify these since. Dr. Binswanger's works played a major role in solving (1.). And some googling leading to inputs of another participant in this study-group lead to clarification of (2.).

What did you find with google searches?

In retrospect I agree some familiarity with subject like "Abstraction of Abstractions" is needed. But I also think that concepts like adverbs, which are described in second chapter, are indeed abstraction of abstractions, going by strict meaning of the term(selective focus). Even then I think knowing higher level concepts like furniture will help.

Understanding the process of abstractions from abstractions in different forms is absolutely essential, and not just in the form of "some familiarity".

Examples of concepts of motion and attributes are mentioned at the end of the second chapter, but not in terms of levels of abstraction, and nothing is said there about the process of abstractions from abstractions or its role in those kinds of concepts.

Chapter 3 on "Abstractions from abstractions" discusses simple examples of basic symmetric classification through narrowing subdivision and widening combination of noun concepts like types of furniture and zoological classification, but not the more asymmetric process of abstractions from abstractions involving attributes and motion. They are a combination of concepts of entities together with perceptions, or with different levels of concepts, as one moves up the hierarchy (so, in the simplest form, part of the basis is perception of an attribute and another part a prior first level concept of an entity, making the result second level, rather than a basis of two concepts at the same level). This chapter also includes the crucial topics of concepts of mathematical and logical method.

It isn't until chapter 4 on "Concepts of Consciousness" that she discussed the kind of complexity required in the hierarchy of abstractions from abstractions, including concepts of method. For all the topics mentioned in that very important chapter, it was in some ways the least detailed because of its scope, requiring a lot of additional thought and exploration.

The last four chapters also provide important relevant insights for higher level concepts, including the cognitive role of concepts and definitions, for example, concepts of mathematics, and the changing nature of definitions in which contextual defining essences are not constant (which has important implications for how concepts are related to generalizations, in which the meaning cannot be regarded as definitional essences). The largest portion of the book is the appendix on the workshops, where all these ideas and more are explored in much more enlightening depth. The appendix also includes important discussion on mathematics, induction, and theory formation, which is essential to this topic. Leonard Peikoff's chapter on the Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy is also obviously crucial to understanding the process and cognitive status of propositional generalizing and its relation to concepts and their meaning.

All of that is essential for any attempt to philosophically analyze processes of scientific principle and generalization, which relies heavily on concepts of method, quantification of attributes and types of motion and action, theory formation in parallel with the development of concepts and principles, and a highly complex hierarchy of high level abstractions linking all of it together. Even analyzing Galileo's theory of simple pendulums requires much more than first level concepts and a simple idea of concepts of adjectives and verbs, and more than the idea of a simple symmetric hierarchy of types of furniture.

Ayn Rand emphasized the importance of abstractions from abstractions in Chapter 8, "Consciousness and Identity", in these terms:

Above the first-level abstractions of perceptual concretes, most people hold concepts as loose approximations, without firm definitions, clear meanings or specific referents; and the greater a concept's distance from the perceptual level, the vaguer its content. Starting from the mental habit of learning words without grasping their meanings, people find it impossible to grasp higher abstractions, and their conceptual development consists of condensing fog into fog into thicker fog -- until the hierarchical structure of concepts breaks down in their minds, losing all ties to reality; and, as they lose the capacity to understand, their education becomes a process of memorizing and imitating... The result is a mentality that treats the first-level abstractions, the concepts of physical existents, as if they were percepts, and is unable to rise much further, unable to integrate new knowledge or to identify its own experiencea mentality that has not discovered the process of conceptualization in conscious terms, has not learned to adopt it as an active, continuous, self-initiated policy, and is left arrested on a concrete-bound level, dealing only with the given,...[emphasis added]

If this is true in general knowledge it is all the more important in science and generalization.

There is nothing stopping participants from studying and referring from outside, as long as they co-relate it to the main content. What I have prescribed is bare minimum....

I think it is considerably less than the bare minimum required for this topic.

There has been a lot of discussion in more detail here on the Forum, of varying interest and quality, primarily in 2010 and 2011 in:

The Logical Leap and criticism

Induction, generalizations, and causality

Several topics brought up in those threads were left hanging because so much was going on at once in the threads. I myself started to write responses to several serious posts which I still have in draft form but didn't finish and post, intending to return to them, but didn't got back to for several reasons. If the Forum becomes inactive it won't happen at all, but there is a lot left in those threads to continue discussing in the context in which it appeared.

[RohinGupta 0]

To get the flavor of SGO, please check following threads. I think these will help in making the current "Study Group" more organized.

http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com/sgoApp/Anon/Sample2.aspx

--------------------------

http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com/sgoApp/Anon/Sample1.aspx

--------------------------

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=4059

--------------------------

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=3235

---------------------

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=2711

[RohinGupta 0]

Today systematic study of preparatory material has begun.

I posted questions from "CHAPTER-1 OF INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY[iTOE]" - "COGNITION AND MEASUREMENT".

Q1. Why is studying this chapter and next necessary for understanding the main subject being studied?

Q2. What are the essentials of Consciousness?

Q3. What are the 3 essential stages in development of man's consciousness? And why is chronological order of these stages different from logical order?

Q4. What is existent? What does its implicit grasp mean?

I will post my answers by Thursday or Friday.

[RohinGupta 0]

The initial response to the Study Group is quite encouraging. 8 participants have registered so far, and 5 of them(excluding me) have posted in response to questions I mentioned before.

Today I posted my answers to these questions. Sharing sample answer to one of the questions for wider audience.

Q4. What is existent? What does its implicit grasp mean?

Ans:
FROM ITOE
Existent is something that exists, be it a thing, an attribute, or an action. Since it is a concept, man cannot grasp it explicitly until he has reached the conceptual stage.

But it is implicit in every percept(to perceive thing is to perceive that it exists). And man grasps it implicitly on the perceptual level - that is he grasps the constituents of concept "existent".
It is this implicit knowledge that permits his consciousness to develop further.

MY FURTHER ANALYSIS OF EXISTENT

Here are terms I would be using in my analysis(later as well)
Existents:

1. T1,T2 are different tables. C1,C2 are different chairs. B1 is bowl.
Further A1,A2 etc. are spatial collections of these existents. A1 can contain (T1,C1,C2,B1). A2 can contain (T2,C2) etc.(A1 and A2 are also existents).

Percepts of existents:

2. PT10, PT11 are two percepts corresponding to T1 at different times. Similarly PT20, PT21, PT22 are perceptions corresponding to T2. Further there are PC10, PB11 etc.
In general, middle two characters signifying the existents being perceived.

3. L,L1,L2,L3 etc. are different locations in mind(memory part) that are storing percepts. Later these locations can also store concepts.

Analysis using the terms :
In general, any analysis of percept will contain two parts. The existent that is perceived, and how that existent is represented in consciousness.
While the existent like table T1 that is being perceived can remain same, representations in consciousness like PT10, PT11, PT12 can change.

The details of how existent is perceived, and how percepts stored in mind, can involve subjects ranging from biology, neurology, to psychology.
To explain briefly, variations between PT10, PT11 etc can involve type of sense organ(sight,touch,hearing), different angles for observing(or sensing in general) table, color of light etc.
And further, if other animals(or visually handicapped humans) viewing T1 are considered, it can also involve nature of senses(colored, black and white, or blurred vision, size of animal's sense organs - insect or giraffe etc).

Explaining the nature of implicit grasp of existent
So implicit grasp of concept existent involves perceiving existent like T1, that is integrating the corresponding inputs of senses to form PT10, and storing it in some location L in memory.

More details on Study-Group here

http://www.studygroupsforobjectivists.com

[RohinGupta 0]

Today I posted following remaining questions from "CHAPTER-1 OF INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY[iTOE]" - "COGNITION AND MEASUREMENT".

Q5. What are various stages "awareness of any existent" goes through in man's mind[after it is perceived]? And what is it that changes as the awareness moves in these stages?

Q6. For abstraction or selective focus to form unit of a concept, Ayn Rand says, "This method permits any number of classifications and cross-classifications....But the criterion of classification is not invented, it is perceived in reality. Thus the "unit" is a bridge beween metaphysics and epistemology."
How can the same entity be subsumed by multiple concepts?
[i personally think that though the content of question is available in chapter 1, complete answer involves comprehensive study of chapter 2. So I will be answering this question after we study chapter 2, rather than later this week. But if you think you can answer now, please go ahead.]

Q7. What are the entities involved in few of the scientific examples discuseed in "Chapter 1 - Foundation" of TLL? How are concepts of these entities formed?

There are four examples discussed in this chapter
a. Pendulum as an example of entity that is conceptualized.
b. Galileo's discovery that horizontal motion is unaccelerated.
c. Discovery that light travels in straight line.
d. Benjamin Franklin's kite experiment to determine that lightening is essentially electricity.

Q8. Is the unit described in concept formation same as traditional use of word unit(as in unit of measurement of length)? How is meter or foot, an abstract entity, similar(or different) to the concrete entity table being unit of concept table?

Q9. Can you give examples from science where concept enables us to grasp non-perceivable entity or event? And also the corresponding perceivable entity or event?

I will post my answers by Thursday or Friday, and one sample answer in this forum.

[RohinGupta 0]

Correction to Q8 in previous post

FROM,
Q8. How is meter or foot, an abstract entity and unit of length, similar(or different) to the concrete entity table being unit of concept table?

TO,
Q8. How is meter or foot, an abstract usage and unit of length, similar(or different) to the concrete usage where table is unit of concept table?

Clearly "meter or foot" are not entities but "specification of attributes". Due to my programming background, I became too open with the use of word "entity".

[RohinGupta 0]

Today I posted my answers to 2nd set of questions from ITOE. Sharing sample answer to one of the questions for wider audience.

Q5. What are various stages "awareness of any existent" goes through in man's mind[after it is perceived]? And what is it that changes as the awareness moves in these stages?

Ans: The three stages are :
1. Entity stage [ or attribute stage, action stage etc., if the existent being conceptualized is an attribute,action etc. - Existent stage in general (apart from Entity stage, remaining terminology is my own and I will use it later)]
2. Identity stage
3. Unit stage

Explanation of three stages:

1. Entity Stage:

From ITOE - The entity stage is described as "the first stage in a child's awareness of existents, of things - which represents the (implicit) concept entity".

My further analysis:

When T1 is perceived in A1, PT10 is created in conscious mind. But as soon as the focus shifts to other entity like C1, awareness of T1, PT10 that is, moves to subconscious mind.
The analogy can be data moving from computer memory to hard disk.

Later when T1 is recalled, PT10 moves back to conscious mind, and it can be further processed after this recollection. But as soon as the entity is perceived first time, entity stage is completed.
It will be stored in some location L1 in subconscious mind to enable later recall.

So representation of percepts in entity stage can be
Existents = {(PT10,L1),(PC10,L2),(PT20,L3),(PT11,L4),(PC20,L5),(PB10,L6)}
That is percept PT10 is in location L1 of mind/memory, PT11 is in location L2, PT20 in location L3 etc.

Further, while here I mention solid entity like table as the existent perceived. In most cases the first perception of existent involves perceiving array of existents like table, chair, flower vase, bowl in a single percept. Person's sense organ(particularly sight) focus on one entity after observing array. Implications of percept involving single entity or array will be considered later.

2. Identity stage

From ITOE - "
The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific, particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest of perceptual field - which represents the (implicit) concept "identity" .
"

My further analysis of identity stage

At the end of entity stage, the percepts of entities or arrays are distributed in various locations inside subconscious mind. However, since at the end of identity stage child has learned to distinguish entities, so their corresponding percepts should be stored differently.

Here if L is the location in mind where percept is stored, L+1 is the adjacent location where another percept is stored. L+2 being adjacent to L+1. (See footnote at the end of this section for further details).
The advantage with this arrangement is that if percept stored in location L is recalled, then percepts stored in L+1 and L+2 can get loaded into conscious mind without explicitly recalling these percepts.
That is, once the focus shifts from PT10, next percept will automatically come into focus. Philosophically, adjacent locations storing percepts or concepts can be referred to as "context" or prior knowledge.

So representation of percepts at the end of identity stage is as follows :
{(PT10,L),(PC10,L+1),(PT11,L+2),(PT20,L+3),(PC20,L7),(PB10,L8)}
(C2,B1 might still not be stored in locations adjacent to other percepts, and so their locations are represented differently ).

For brevity, I can represent above set simply as
{PT10, PT11, PC10, PT20, (PT30,L7),(PB10,L8)}
If no location is specified, we can assume that the percepts are stored together.

These sets illustrate that not "all percepts ultimately subsumed by concept" might be grouped together in mind at the end of identity stage(PT30 is still in different location), but only number large enough to enable distinction between percepts.

In general, grouping together of "existents that can be later distinguished" is the distinctive characteristic of identity stage.

Footnote to identity stage :

A. One might wonder how can different percepts stored in different locations get grouped together in adjacent locations in identity stage.
I think there are few possibilities for it :-
a.) The percepts like table and chair are seen together in A1, A2 etc. That is table and chair are together in the room, and therefore perceived as an array or one after the other. And hence get stored one after the other. Here the identity stage follows entity stage almost immediately.
b.) The grouping might happen when the child perceives some of the existents together indirectly, through mediums like books, television, charts, computer etc. Here the pictures taken at different times are placed together, and child can group the percepts of existents located in other locations and shot at different times.
c.) For more complicated concepts however, child and adult are able to co-relate existents that are not in same location or perceived one after the other. These I think are grouped while forming prior concepts. The identity stage of concept helicopter for example can have grouping of different helicopters perceived at different time and places, percepts of aeroplanes, percepts of birds etc. Here these may be grouped together under the concept flying objects(which would have to reach unit stage - see 3.), before these are further classified as helicopters, airplanes and birds.
d.) As adults we can actively seek grouping for forming concepts or other universals like generalizations ( described in later chapters ). For e.g. by designing experiments for study, writing outline for the book, making models of equipments or houses etc. This can help us to group existents that otherwise might rarely be together. For e.g while forming concept "acceleration as a vector quantity", Newton grouped circular motion of object tied to the rope, and circular motion of ball rolling in the bowl, because they had force pulling or pushing them inside.
[in the text, Ayn Rand refers to entity-identity-unit stages only at initial level. But for reasons given in b-c-d, I think these are applicable for all types of concepts and percepts].

B. Further, one might ask why am I supposiong that it is necessary for percepts (or even concepts) to be located together in order to be distinguished. My understanding is based on the study of data collection systems like hard disks, RAMs etc. And that if data is located in different locations, loading it is time consuming. So often, context switch is done when such situation happens. So in brain too, I think much more effort will be required for differentiating, if the data is not located together. Thats why I think when we start doing something for the first time, it is hard, as during that time corresponding existents(guidelines in this case) are not located together in mind.

3. Unit stage:

From ITOE - "The third stage consists of grasping relationships among these entities by grasping similarities and differences of their identities.
This requires the transformation of the (implicit) concept "identity".
When a child observes that two objects (which he will later learn to designate as "tables") resemble each other, but are different from four other objects("chairs"), his mind is focusing on a particular attribute of the objects(their shape), then isolating them according to their differences, and integrating them as units into separate groups according to their similarities.

Note that the concept "unit" involves an act of consciousness(a selective focus, a certain way of regarding things), but that it is not an aribitrary creation of consciousness: it is a method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality.

MY FURTHER ANALYSIS OF UNIT STAGE

Some more terms(apart from the ones introduced previously) that will be used in explanation.

TC refers to the set of concretes that are subsumed under concept table.
TS refers to the specification of concept table. Specifically, it includes the similar characteristics that child has identified in different concretes(or units) that he now subsumes under the concept table,once he has reached unit stage for concept table.
T refers to the concept table at the end of unit stage. As child does not have vocabulary at this point, it would be stored as pictorial symbol like lined drawing of table. Further, it will point to the locations of TS and TC.

So at the end of unit stage, percepts of entities are organized as follows

All existents = {PC10,T,PB10,PC11,PC20}
T={TS,TC}
TC={PT10,PT20,PT11,PT30}
TS={visual symbol of shape table} OR {Just PT10}

(Why the similarity may be stored as just one of the percept(PT10) will be explained later.)

While TC refers to collection, and TS to similar characteristics, I was trying to figure out how the fact that "T1,T2,T3" are similar to each other and different from "C1,B1" will be stored.
How can a mind of child that has no vocabulary or even symbols to represent "similar" and "not different" store these specifications.
So while at later stage TC={PT10, PT20,....} can be stored more optimally, in case of child(or primitive man) I think it would be something like
All Existents ={PC10,{TS,PT10, PT20, PT11, PT30}, PB10,...}.

So basically child reorders the percepts from order that was in identity stage. And further he creates a new virtual percept TS, which he will later identify as concept.
The virtual percept TS psychologically behaves similar to percepts like PT10, PT20 etc. That is it can be moved from one location to another, attributes and actions abstracted from it etc.
But unlike actual percepts it does not "directly" refer to any real world existents like T1, C1 etc. Instead it refers to a set of percepts PT10, PT20 etc.

And while the grouping of entities that can be distinguished happens in identity stage. Actually distinguishing the entities, and marking as similar entities that are less different is done in the unit stage. So tables or their percepts will be grouped together as units of concept table, because their differences when compared to differences with chair are negligible.

In general, grouping based on similarites is the distinctive characteristic of unit stage.

EXPANSION OF CONCEPT

After forming the unit for concept table, child observes that another table(T4) has a characteristic shape that is similar to specification of table. So now he adds PT40 also to TC for concept table

So after expansion of concept, the concretes subsumed by concept table will add PT40 as

TC = {PT10, PT11, PT30, PT20, PT40}

Further, he might also observe other similarities between the existents that are subsumed under concept table.

TS = {Shape of the table which is also abstracted as the visual symbol of concept, Use of table stored in the form of imagery like toys or food items on it}

Thus we see that concept formation involves forming concept from similar concretes by ordering percepts of these concretes together in mind, and also selecting similar characteristics ( in next chapter some of these similar characteristics are termed as "conceptual common denominator" or CCD ). Then adding new concretes based on those similar characteristics, or adding new similarities observed in the existing concretes.

[RohinGupta 0]

You can still participate in the study group.

Please check following link for details - http://studentofdrpeikoff.blogspot.in/2014/06/announcing-study-group-on-inductive.html

[RohinGupta 0]

Today I posted questions from CHAPTER-2 OF "INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY"[iTOE] - CONCEPT FORMATION

Here is an important quote on this text by Burgess Laughlin from prior study group.

"Ch. 2 is perhaps one of the most important sections of all of Ayn Rand's writings. Here she introduces the reader to her solution to the problem of universals.

The main point here is that concepts are objective, that is, they are drawn logically from sense-perceptible facts of reality. This is the core concept in Objectivism, and it is the concept that gives the philosophy its name. With this discovery, one could-- given genius and time -- recreate Objectivism even if all of Ayn Rand's other writings were lost."

The questions are as follows :-

Q1. "A concept is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition."
Based on the study of chapter1, explain the definition given above.

Q2. Assuming that the child has developed basic ability to read and write, with reference to example table, how does language provide identity to concept table?

Q3. Explain with examples - "Attribute like length must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify length as that attribute of any existent, posessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length without specifying quantity".

Q4. How Ayn Rand illustrates that a person need not know precise measurement methods while differentiating visually?

Q5. Example where higher mathematics has succeeded in the task of bringing the universe within the range of knowledge by identifying relationships in perceptual data?

Q6. "Conceptual common denominator" is identified as a commensurable characteristic(such as shape in the case of tables, or hue in the case of colors). It is an essential element in the process of concept-formation. It is designated as "the characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents posessing it".

With respect to units for concepts like table and length discussed so far, systemetically identify CCD.

[ewv 0]

Here is an important quote on this text by Burgess Laughlin from prior study group... The main point here is that concepts are objective, that is, they are drawn logically from sense-perceptible facts of reality. This is the core concept in Objectivism, and it is the concept that gives the philosophy its name. With this discovery, one could-- given genius and time -- recreate Objectivism even if all of Ayn Rand's other writings were lost."

Ayn Rand's philosophy is not rationalistically derived from a theory of universals and the philosophy cannot be recreated from it. All of her philosophy requires the facts within the particular relevant subject matter. Most of her philosophy was presented long before IOE, and the observations and explanations she provided in her essays were not expressed in terms of it.

The significance of her theory of concepts was specifically as a theory of concepts for epistemology, and as a validation of reason, on which her whole philosophy is based as a method and a requirement for man's survival.

The terminology "objective", as opposed to the intrinsic and subjective, has specific meaning within all the branches of her philosophy. "Objective ethics", "objective art", etc. does not mean objective universals, and that in turn, does not by itself give the philosophy its name. See, for example, OPAR and the lectures on Objectivism at the end of the history of western philosophy series for the meaning and significance of "objective" in Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Also, Ayn Rand's epistemology cannot be formulated in terms reduced to the language of computer programming and sets, which she rejected. She admired the precision of mathematics but rejected modern philosophy of mathematics as abysmal. This has been discussed on the Forum previously.

[RohinGupta 0]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is not rationalistically derived from a theory of universals and the philosophy cannot be recreated from it. All of her philosophy requires the facts within the particular relevant subject matter. Most of her philosophy was presented long before IOE, and the observations and explanations she provided in her essays were not expressed in terms of it.

The significance of her theory of concepts was specifically as a theory of concepts for epistemology, and as a validation of reason, on which her whole philosophy is based as a method and a requirement for man's survival.

The terminology "objective", as opposed to the intrinsic and subjective, has specific meaning within all the branches of her philosophy. "Objective ethics", "objective art", etc. does not mean objective universals, and that in turn, does not by itself give the philosophy its name. See, for example, OPAR and the lectures on Objectivism at the end of the history of western philosophy series for the meaning and significance of "objective" in Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Also, Ayn Rand's epistemology cannot be formulated in terms reduced to the language of computer programming and sets, which she rejected. She admired the precision of mathematics but rejected modern philosophy of mathematics as abysmal. This has been discussed on the Forum previously.

The above statement is based on long study by Burgess of evolution of ideas of Aristotle. How various discoveries in science and politics in Enlightenment were the result of epistemological ideas of Organon becoming dominant in culture in various forms during enlightenment.

While each subject has its own scope of facts, real challenge lies in organizing these facts to form terms and principles of the subject. And as is shown in DIM hypothesis, its epistemology that governs this organization. So while "Objective Ethics" and "Objective Arts" have different content, method of organizing them is "essentially same". For e.g. facts available to writers of American Constitution, Magna Carta, and Communist Manifesto were same. Its how they interpreted and organized these facts that made the difference.

I will consider your criticsm of my "set theory" based approach only if you provide me reasons that Ayn Rand gave for her rejection, and / or relevant steps used in other discussion to reach the conclusion. If concepts and concretes can be compared to folders and files in Objectivism, I don't see what is wrong in using different sets to represent units and CCDs. Symbolism has simplified Mathematics, Science, and even deduction. Why should induction be any different.

[RohinGupta 0]

Today I posted my answers to 3rd set of questions from ITOE. Sharing sample answer to one of the questions for wider audience.

Q3. Explain with examples - "Attribute like length must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify length as that attribute of any existent, posessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length without specifying quantity".

Ans: Child observes and conceptualizes the entity like ribbon. When the concept reaches unit stage and its specifications are later expanded, one specification of the concept ribbon can be stored as range of distance between the two edges of various concrete ribbons subsumed by the concept. Distance ranging from distance between his fingers to distance long enough to equal his height. Similarly, he stores one specification of the concept pencil as certain range of distance between his two hands.

So in the unit stage some specifications of ribbon can be

{Used for tying gifts and hair, Made of cloth material like silk, range of distance between hands as I hold it from edges - ranging from distance between my fingers to as long as my height}

Specification for pencil
{Used for writing, Shape of pencil, the corresponding distance between my hands when I hold the two edges}

The specifications of units ribbon, pencil, or also pillow, shirt are stored in different location of his mind. Among these specifications are few specifications that will be subsumed as concretes under the concept length. These specifications are range of distance between edges of different entities. Intially both these specifications will be stored visually instead of verbally for child.
So in effect, the concretes that will be subsumed by concept length are distributed in various locations when the corresponding entities have reached unit stage. That is, at this point concept length is in existent(attribute) stage, similar to what entity was when it is just perceived.

When he completes unit stage of length, he will have following concretes that are subsumed by concept by being grouped together.
{Range of distance between hands, same for ribbon, pillow, cloth etc.}
The specification will be as follows
{Unidirectional spread of hands for various entities, perceived from sense of touch and sight}

Later when length of room and street gets added to concretes subsumed by length, the concretes subsumed by concept length will become
{Distance between hands and visual perception in bigger direction for pencil, ribbon etc.; Distance between two edges in room or street etc.(both stored perceptually in mind)}

The specification will be as follows
{Spread of hands in one direction OR unidirectional spread of series of entities like rods. A single entity being expressed in terms of spread of hands or number of rods in one direction}

Since when the concept length is formed, it will have some concretes subsumed under it. So we can say that "attribute like length must exist in some quantity". Later, we can use the specification of length to subsume new concretes like length of room and street. Concretes that might not be initially perceived to be under the concept, because of their larger quantity. So we can say that attribute like length "may exist in any quantity".

Since both length of ribbon, and length of room can be specified in terms of spread of hands. Former as the fraction of the spread, and latter as the multiples of spread. And also while specifying initially in terms of spread, we need not specify the spread precisely, but just approximately as fraction or multiple. So we can say that "I shall identify length as that attribute of any existent, posessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length[spread of my hands] without specifying quantity".

[RohinGupta 0]

Today I posted 5 remaining questions from CHAPTER-2 OF "INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY"[iTOE] - CONCEPT FORMATION

The questions are as follows :-

Q7. Can you identify units and CCD in Newtonian concept like gravity ?

Q8. For concepts that are wider or narrower than particular concept (for table narrower concept is dining table and wider concept is furniture), how does units subsumed and CCDs differ from corresponding first level concept(like table)?
[i realized this question is necessary later. You may have to read chapter 3, "Abstractions from abstractions" to answer this]

Q9. For unit stage Ayn Rand mentions - "This is the key, the entrance to the conceptual level of man's consciousness. The ability to regard entities as units is man's distinctive method of cognition, which other living species are unable to follow."
Later she introduces the term "measurement omission", purpose of which is described as - "Tables, for instance, are first differentiated from chairs, beds and other objects by means of the characteristic of shape, which is an attribute posessed 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 mathematical measurements of shape is specified. Then, within that category, the particular measurements of individual table-shapes are omitted"

Explain role of measurement omission in concept formation based on the role it plays when the concept evolves from identity to unit stage?

Q10. Take an example of some object and identify concepts like entity, attribute like shape, action and adverbs using it? [ The chapter also involves concepts of relationships like prepositions, pronouns, conjunction. But these I think are not necessary for main study subject. Conjunction may be needed indirectly ].

Q11. Apart from use of unit for specifying similarities between concretes subsumed, what are other similarities between mathematics and concept-formation?

[RohinGupta 0]

The learnings from study-group are turning out to be much better than expected. Just yesterday I clarified my understanding of CCD. Posting the "Acknowledgement of error" little bit later in this post. Apart from that there have been debates on whether entities rather than attributes can be standard of measurement, and whether symbols in the form of sets should be used for concept formation. Primary focus still remains text though, and we are studying mainly through Q&A.

Number of participants has now increased to 10, and knowledge level of one of the new participant is really good. Here is the acknowledgement I posted after the new participant identified error in my understanding of CCD

Acknowledging error in my understanding of CCD

After reading post "A Couple of Observations", I have realized that my understanding of CCD was mistaken. I was indeed using it interchangeably with essence of particular concept like "table".

Having said that, there are few things that require explanation

1. If in my previous posts, we replace CCD with essence, I think that will more or less cleanse them. Little bit of restructring might still be needed though. Same error has penetrated some of my already finalized coming posts, I will try to rectify these as much as possible.

2. Now two questions that come to mind are
a. What is CCD ?
b. Why is it needed in concept formation ?

Here is what I have arrived at after trying to correct error in my understanding

a. As has been pointed in another posts, CCD is the "Genus" of essential characteristics of the concept. Further, that Genus has same characteristic in foil, "chair shape" in case of example table, as another unit of CCD "shape".
The concept of that "Genus", shape in this case, may be formed much later than the concept like "table" for which it is CCD. And therefore it is not part of concept explicitly, or even implicitly, as by implicit undertstanding we mean grasping existent which is the unit of concept.

As I mentioned before, concept will include its units, later it will add some more units, and also derive some characteristics from those units. These characteristics will further be classified as essential and epistemologically accidental(like color for table). So every concept, at any point of time can be described by its units, characteristics, and essence.
My stand on this aspect of concept formation remains unchanged.

b. Now coming to why is CCD needed. CCD I think has same role in understanding of "method of formation of concept", as concept has in understanding of reality(here I am referring to physical world of tables and chairs as reality). Concept economizes large number of tables we have seen, and the knowledge we have about those tables in the form of characteristics of those tables. Further it has symbol and definition, using which we can bring units and characteristics to consciousness through reduction.
Similarly, CCD of particular concept economizes large amount of knowledge we have gained about the "formation of that concept". So after recognizing CCD of table as shape, we can reduce to "shape of table" and "shape of chair" as the two units of shape. This will imply that these two attributes, even though not understood at the time of formation of "concept table", were used in isolating tables from chairs in identity stage.

Further, while in case of table and early concept of entities, concept of corresponding CCD shape was formed much later. In case of gravity, concept of corresponding CCD "cause" was formed before concept gravity. So in that sense, CCD is like a concept, enabling subsuming of new and more complex units, after it is formed. Therefore I used the sentence "The concept of that "Genus", shape in this case, may be formed much later than the concept like "table" for which it is CCD.

[ewv 0]

Here is an important quote on this text by Burgess Laughlin from prior study group.

"Ch. 2 is perhaps one of the most important sections of all of Ayn Rand's writings. Here she introduces the reader to her solution to the problem of universals.

The main point here is that concepts are objective, that is, they are drawn logically from sense-perceptible facts of reality. This is the core concept in Objectivism, and it is the concept that gives the philosophy its name. With this discovery, one could-- given genius and time -- recreate Objectivism even if all of Ayn Rand's other writings were lost."

Ayn Rand's philosophy is not rationalistically derived from a theory of universals and the philosophy cannot be recreated from it. All of her philosophy requires the facts within the particular relevant subject matter. Most of her philosophy was presented long before IOE, and the observations and explanations she provided in her essays were not expressed in terms of it.

The significance of her theory of concepts was specifically as a theory of concepts for epistemology, and as a validation of reason, on which her whole philosophy is based as a method and a requirement for man's survival.

The terminology "objective", as opposed to the intrinsic and subjective, has specific meaning within all the branches of her philosophy. "Objective ethics", "objective art", etc. does not mean objective universals, and that in turn, does not by itself give the philosophy its name. See, for example, OPAR and the lectures on Objectivism at the end of the history of western philosophy series for the meaning and significance of "objective" in Ayn Rand's philosophy.

The above statement is based on long study by Burgess of evolution of ideas of Aristotle. How various discoveries in science and politics in Enlightenment were the result of epistemological ideas of Organon becoming dominant in culture in various forms during enlightenment.

While each subject has its own scope of facts, real challenge lies in organizing these facts to form terms and principles of the subject. And as is shown in DIM hypothesis, its epistemology that governs this organization. So while "Objective Ethics" and "Objective Arts" have different content, method of organizing them is "essentially same". For e.g. facts available to writers of American Constitution, Magna Carta, and Communist Manifesto were same. Its how they interpreted and organized these facts that made the difference.

Burgess can study Aristotle until the cows come home (which he apparently has), but knowing Ayn Rand's theory of universals won't recreate the rest of her philosophy. That isn't the way she did it and is not the way she presented it for others to understand.

An emphasis on the importance of her epistemology of concept formation is good, but it concerns method, not the content of the rest of her principles and philosophy. The statement that with Ayn Rand's theory of universals as objective concepts "one could-- given genius and time -- recreate Objectivism even if all of Ayn Rand's other writings were lost" is not true and is no better than trying to "recreate" her philosophy from "A is A" or any other principle. It would take a lot more than that. Claiming otherwise is very misleading in implying a rationalist approach.

[RohinGupta 0]

Sharing questions I posted recently

Questions from OPAR - CHAPTER 1 - REALITY - "CAUSALITY AS A COROLLARY OF IDENTITY"

Today is Monday Aug 11,2014.

I am posting questions from CHAPTER 1 - REALITY OF OBJECTIVISM : PHILOSPPHY OF AYN RAND - "CAUSALITY AS A COROLLARY OF IDENTITY"

Q1. Why is studying this chapter necessary for the main study?

Q2. What are three inescapable primaries that act as foundation of human cognition, and make conceptual knowledge possible? How are they grasped?

Q3. Explain the role of entity in concept formation?

Q4. What is causality, that is the law of cause and effect? How is it useful?

Q5. What is the significance of the fact that all conceptual knowledge presupposes entities?

Q6. What does it mean to say - "only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of these are impossible".

Q7. Explain what this means - "The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action".

Q8. What relationship does "Law of Causality" establish between cause and entity?

Q9. What is the underlying metaphysics of causality, causality as it is used by Objectivists?

[RohinGupta 0]

Burgess can study Aristotle until the cows come home (which he apparently has), but knowing Ayn Rand's theory of universals won't recreate the rest of her philosophy. That isn't the way she did it and is not the way she presented it for others to understand.

An emphasis on the importance of her epistemology of concept formation is good, but it concerns method, not the content of the rest of her principles and philosophy. The statement that with Ayn Rand's theory of universals as objective concepts "one could-- given genius and time -- recreate Objectivism even if all of Ayn Rand's other writings were lost" is not true and is no better than trying to "recreate" her philosophy from "A is A" or any other principle. It would take a lot more than that. Claiming otherwise is very misleading in implying a rationalist approach.

I think anybody who reads through both the posts can infer who is being objective, and who is being rationalist.

I strongly condemn the disrespect to Burgess in previous posts. He has taken big strides in highlighting the heroic elements in intellectuals of present and past. And his contributions can go a long way in creating a cultural atmosphere where rational ideas flourish.