Wellbeing: the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy. — Garrett Travers

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.

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

Prediction error minimization for emergence of altruistic behavior

Altruistic food sharing behavior by human infants after a hunger manipulation

Just first chapter. You think it's garbage after that, I'll never bother you about again, you have my word. — Garrett Travers

Not garbage, but let’s just say that I think there are at least two main ways we can approach concept formation. Rand appears to give primacy to quantitative integration, I give it to qualitative differentiation. I’ve encountered this difference with others in many discussions at this level, and I usually put it down to a general distinction in our value structures. It doesn’t contribute to the discussion to simply say that she’s wrong, because the very methodology she employs in concept development doesn’t enable an awareness of what I believe is missing.

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.

Now to her supposing an implicit concept on the level of sensation - this is where I think the difference in awareness between something and nothing is more accurately a qualitative sense of valence/arousal, not a ‘thing’ or object. It highlights the criticism I also have of Kant’s aesthetics: the unnecessary reliance on a pre-existing ‘object’ of attention. There is simply no need for a subject-object distinction here - that’s a function of conceptual language structure, not pre-linguistic concept formation.

Concept development, according to Rand, starts with an awareness of objects representing an implied concept, and then an awareness of particular properties of that implied concept, followed by grasping the relationships of similarity and difference between each instance of that concept...?

This is all back to front. It may be how most people are taught to logically construct or define concepts, based on a Cartesian illusion of certainty. 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.

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.

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.


I do enjoy the way Rand writes, though - no romanticism here... except for that niggling, quiet assumption that humanity constitutes the pinnacle of evolution.

“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.”

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.

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

Yes, I mean, this all sounds like interesting stuff. I had a buddy who was really into sacred geometry, and not in the woo kind of way either. Smartest guy I ever knew. I'll look more into all of this.

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

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.

Dude. You actually read it. Thanks man. Let me take some time to analyze your assessment and I'll respond to it in detail. I just got back after 2 days off of the forum. I'll have a response before today is out. This is great stuff, by the way. I'm impressed with you. Bravo.

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

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.

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

It rather does, in fact. They use the term recurrent neural networks to describe the process of information integration that we use to develop concepts with greater and greater sophistication. Here's a small article on it, but there is more science to go with it if this doesn't cover it, I'll be happy to grab them. https://neurosciencenews.com/recurrent-neural-network-frontal-cortex-19348/

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

Yes, she covers this in great detail throughout chapter 1 and 2. None of this is contradictory to Rand or modern science so far.

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

Yes, I've got a 2 year old nephew who won't stop saying "dirt" in exactly the same fashion. It's the first indication of the things we're discussing here as far as concept generation, but highly unrefined. They're missing the qualitative aspect you're highlighting.

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 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.

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

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?

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

Not contradictory. Backwards. But I’ll read the article and get back to you.

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

In Chapter 2 she starts with measurement - with quantity, not affect or quality. Then this ‘measurement’ is stripped of quantitative characteristics. 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.

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

It’s the assumption of ‘pinnacle’ that bothers me, as if there is nowhere else for us to go in terms of evolution.

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

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.

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

This may be correct. I may need to revisit chapter 2. She was very thorough, so I want to see what you mean specifically. I feel like there's no way she missed this, but she could have. I'll have to get back to you on it. It's been a minute since I dove in.

It’s the assumption of ‘pinnacle’ that bothers me, as if there is nowhere else for us to go in terms of evolution. — Possibility

Totally fair. I think it's a bit more on the side of "point that has been reached," rather than "could go." But, yeah, I see your contention.

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.

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

Yes, any sort of analysis that takes place beyond basic instinct that can be used to inform later behavior is basic reason that can only grow in sophistication from there. But, that basic position is where reason begins. Meaning, reason is encompassing all of this deliberation we've discussed. And I'm very glad to have had this conversation with you, friend. Really, I just wanted you all to walk away from this, at bare minimum, having relinquished this strange, and I do mean strange, idea that Rand was not a philosopher. Yes, she was, and a damn good one at that. However, as a defender of Capitalism, a good deal of politics cloud one's view of her. So, I get it. But, it's time to move on from that, methinks. Wonderful chatting with you, 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 get where you’re coming from, and I agree that the ongoing conceptualisation process is atemporal. I don’t doubt that modern cognitive science supports that. But Rand is referring here specifically to ‘building blocks’: first, second and third stages of a child’s initial concept formation. But her assumed sequence of ‘logic then quality’ is more obvious in chapter 2.

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.

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

Yeah, I think you're right about that. I'd say this is a dimension of the Epistemology that could use a neuroscience update. Maybe I'll write about this. I'm working on an ethical outline myself that is more aligned with modern neuroscience that could inform this process a bit better than what Rand could back in 1967. Good call.