About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 40

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 3:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

You are just jealous that I and everyone around me -- and everyone I know (and everyone they know) -- perform "measurements" on a daily basis without any man-made devices such as rulers, thermometers, and clocks. It gets your goat. It burns you. You rail against it. You try to denigrate it. You try to associate it with complete and total subjectivity -- with "feelings."

My body constantly registers temperature changes, and you hate that. You hate that I can use my skin cell receptors to "measure" such changes. It makes your blood boil (if you will kindly pardon the pun). You want to wall me off from the rest of the world and say that I exist inside a closed ball of subjective feelings. That I only get impressions of the outside world. That I will never get anything other than a vague impression of the world until and unless I pull out a ruler and put it beside a flower or a stone (or whatever has my attention).

You want me to go back to Plato's cave (or was it Socrates' cave?). But I will have none of that. Perception is performed subjectively but that does not make it inherently subjective. We can utilize the subjective process of perception (admixed with logic) in order to attain full objectivity -- though your line of reasoning precludes that possibility (or isolates that kind of thing as something that only occurs in a laboratory with specialized measuring devices).

Bullpucky.

Ed


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 6:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed T. wrote:
You are just jealous that I and everyone around me -- and everyone I know (and everyone they know) -- perform "measurements" on a daily basis without any man-made devices such as rulers, thermometers, and clocks. It gets your goat. It
burns you. You rail against it. You try to denigrate it. You try to associate it with complete and total subjectivity -- with "feelings." 
Why the first scare quotes? Are you admitting to metaphor? Do they all fabricate numbers for their feelings like you? By the way, how do you plead to the allegation of hijacking? LOL, anyway. 

My body constantly registers temperature changes, and you hate that.
So does mine, but you are wrong about my hating it. I simply face up to the cold (no pun intended), hard facts that you don't want to admit in this discussion. You even fabricate numbers to justify calling your sensing/feelings "measurements."  And it gets your goat that I don't do the same. 

My body can also sense/feel different temperatures of different objects, for example, X is warmer than Y, which is ranking. But there is no measuring go on, since there is no standard like a degree F or C.  No real numbers, either. My sensing/feeling can't compete with a thermometer.

Suppose you are given are 4 containers of water. Unknown to you the temperatures are 40 degrees F for #1, 150 F for #2, 90 F for #3, and 90 F for #4, all measured by the same good thermometer. You put your right hand in #1 and left hand in #2 for a while. Then you put your right hand in #3 and your left hand in #4. You say #3 feels warm and #4 feels cool. What a concept -- the same temperature water is both warm and cool! No thermometer will give such conflicting information. Nor could you accurately tell the temperature differences in degrees F. Next do the experiment again, except this time #4's temperature is 95 F. Of course, neither you nor I would sense the difference from the first experiment, but the thermometer can. Such are the cold, hard facts, and many more experiments could be done to show how subjective your feelings are. I readily admit how subjective my sensing/feeling is and it doesn't stack up compared to measuring with a thermometer. But you find it more convenient to evade such facts for the sake of arguing.

Other species of animals can sense different temperatures, too, some probably better than humans. Do you say they "measure", too? If yes, do they fabricate numbers like you do?
You want me to go back to Plato's cave (or was it Socrates' cave?). ... though your line of reasoning precludes that possibility (or isolates that kind of thing as something that only occurs in a laboratory with specialized measuring devices).
LOL. 
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

A Fable

There was once a guy named Eddie who lived in Lake Wobegon. He thought everything could be measured. He would fabricate numbers as "proof." He was very persistent, so the folks of Lake Wobegon made a new concept to honor Eddie and they labeled it "mezshur". After a while the word even appeared in dictionaries. The folks of Lake Wobegon recognized that on rare occasions Eddie's use of "mezshur" fit their concept MEASURE. However, his meaning of MEZSHUR was very vague and far wider than MEASUREMEASURE was a small subset of MEZSHUR.

The folks of Lake Wobegon even followed Eddie in adopting a new scale for mezshuring temperature. They abbreviated it E after Eddie, similar to Fahrenheit abbreviated F and centigrade C. There was no common standard that different people used. So whenever one person said, "the ambient air temperature is 12 degrees E", nobody else had much of a grasp of what that person meant. Each person had his/her own personal scale. E was used very subjectively. There was no objective meaning or standard, akin to using a thermometer, that almost anyone could use, and by which people could understand one another.

Some folks came up with various formulas to convert F or C and even K to E. Some were quite creative, using exponents, trig functions, and wind velocity. An entrepreneur re-engineered mood rings to give E readings. There were several versions. They began using E on television weather forecasts, along with F. They even had a lottery to pick who could say what the high E would be the next day. It was a lot of fun.

For a few years this kind of talk and behavior was viewed lightheartedly. However, eventually the humor wore off. People began to say "What is E?" to express frustration or futility or despair, similar to people saying "Who is John Galt?" in the famous novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Nobody knows what happened to Eddie. Legend has it that Eddie made some miscalculations when flying his airplane in stormy weather conditions and crashed into Lake Superior. Some dictionaries still include "mezshur", always designated as archaic. A typical definiens is "to devise numbers in a vague way by subjective methods."

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/22, 5:58am)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 42

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 - 7:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I wanted to mention to you something that I have found a great many philosophers of perception do not know. When we sense warmth or coolness, what those receptors actually pick up is the rate of heat transfer. That is why on a hot day the metal of a shovel that has been lying out exposed to the sun and hot air will feel hotter to the touch than the wooden handle. Heat is able to flow faster out of metal into one’s cooler body than heat can flow out of wood into one’s cooler body. The metal and the handle and the air are all the same temperature as each other if the shovel has been lying out for a while.

We have a different set of receptors in the skin for indicating wider differences from our body temperature, such as scalding. I don’t remember now what physical attribute is gauged by those sensors.

The sensors for warmth are directly detecting a physical quantity (rate of heat flow) that affords ratio-scale scientific measurements. Rate of heat flow is a function of temperature difference together with thermal conductivity of media. So in directly sensing rate of heat flow, we indirectly get some indication of temperature differences. Sticking with a single medium such as water, our sensation of different levels of warmth is pretty directly a gauge of temperature difference since the rate of heat flow is directly proportional to temperature difference and we are holding the proportionality constant more or less to a single value (since water is more or less water).

The same story goes for sense of coolness. I have found it funny that sometimes, for a second, I can’t settle whether what I am feeling is something warmer or cooler than me although I sense it is something appreciably one or the other. So in that second of ambiguity, some instrumentation or processing in my mind is getting straight on which direction the heat was flowing back at those sensors.


Post 43

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 5:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen, thanks for adding some illumination on the topic. And cooling the "temperature" of the thread a little. :-)

The Wikipedia links on temperature and heat might help, too.  Reading only to the table of contents is probably enough.

I believe the following analogy works. Temperature is to speed as heat transfer is to acceleration or deceleration. If you are riding in a car blindfolded, you can easily sense acceleration or deceleration. What the numerical rate is or sensing speed as measured by the speedometer is much harder.



Post 44

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 5:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is this about measurement for control, or measurement for recording?

Measurement for controlling something can be made without recording, and measurement for recording can be made without controlling anything. THose are two orthogonal uses of 'measurement.'

Infants learn to control their multi-axis manipulators very early, for the purposes of control and exploration and pleasure and well, for the reason we have multi-axis manipulators.

Eventually, they learn to use those multi-axis manipulators so finely that they can do things like record measurements.

But, long before they record, they control.

How is control achieved without measurement, even if it is simply binary measurement of success/failure, too much/too little, too far, too close? Crudely -- as an infant -- but an early example of the process of measurement for control?

More importantly, how is control achieved without concept formation, at the very least, formulation of a goal requiring control to achieve it?


(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 7/22, 6:00am)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 45

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 6:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Driving a car requires control. It would be ludicrous to allow infants to drive cars, we don't allow that. Hypothetical alternative universes that tried that experiment have long snuffed themselves out of existence. As well, they could never pass a sobriety test. Some can't even touch their nose. They for sure can't walk a straight line, I'm almost positive.

So, we let them control kiddy cars, and before that, the toys in their crib, and so on. What doesn't work, doesn't work, but it's an incremental process of learning to control(and measure)at higher skill levels, a process, a continuum.

Do you ever wonder why cars have numerical instruments for speed and motor rpm? Who is staring at those numerical gauges when they should driving? We sense 'faster/slower.' We gauge by road conditions and other traffic. We listen to the sound of the engine, we sense the torque curve giving out by feeling the drop in acceleration, we shift. We don't stare at the tach.

Occasionally, we glance at the speedometer; 'How am I doing? Am I speeding...too much?' That informs our driving control, but very late in the game. It is 'control' only at a very high level of abstraction -- not literal 'control' of the car.

Even the literal controls -- 'accelerometer' -- provide a hint as to how we actually sense and control a cars performance. Not by measuring and controlling 'speed', but by measuring and controlling acceleration. We indirectly sense speed, we directly sense acceleration. Faster, slower until we reach some goal, not often 'what is my speed now? faster, slower. We have 'cruise control' for that. But we don't drive like cruise control. We still, however, 'measure.'

There was an experiment with a vehicle, and they replaced the 'accelerometer' with a pedal that attempted to control 'velocity.' (Electric cars could be made to be controlled this way, but are not.) It was totally not drivable by most people who tried it. Our bodies weren't given any effective direct means of measuring velocity against which to measure differences, more or less, those must be arrived at artificially, via a speedometer. We sense 'more or less' acceleration, not 'more or less' speed. We must intellectually arrive at the concept 'more or less' speed, and process that into control of 'more or less' acceleration. And yet, we still measure acceleration, 'more or less', and infants begin that 'more or less' learning process -- for the purpose of control, not recording (as on a speeding ticket or auto log).

There is no way an infant can drive a car. It would be ludicrous. Cars would be crashing left and right.

We only allow such nonsense with economies, which are also crashing left and right, driven by economic infants who are given not so much as an economic driving test before being handed the keys not just to an economy, but 'the' economy.

Are we f'n nuts? Or, are we one of those hypothetical alternative universes, getting ready to snuff ourselves out with our own whacky experiments in letting insufficiently skilled drivers behind the wheel?

regards,
Fred

Post 46

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 6:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

*****************
My body can also sense/feel different temperatures of different objects, for example, X is warmer than Y, which is ranking. But there is no measuring go on, since there is no standard like a degree F or C.
*****************

Yes, there is. I said it before. For instance, the standard for environmental temperature measurement is 98.6 degrees F (or ~75 degrees for surface skin temp.). Re-read Rand's writings regarding the sentence "Man is the measure of all things." being accurate and correct, if only perniciously so.

Ed

Post 47

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 6:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

***********************
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

A Fable

There was once a guy named Eddie ...
***********************

Very funny!

Ed

Post 48

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 6:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen,

Thanks for the input.

Especially regarding the point that some of the time (e.g., rate of heat flow in a water medium) I am correct -- and Merlin is ... wrong -- regarding the fact that I can objectively measure differences in temperature with my very own skin receptors.

Ed
[I am not cut-off from the world; I am not blind without a ruler, etc]

Post 49

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 6:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred,

Good questions.

Ed

Post 50

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 7:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed T. wrote:
Yes, there is. I said it before. For instance, the standard for environmental temperature measurement is 98.6 degrees F (or ~75 degrees for surface skin temp.).
No, there isn't. When I said "X is warmer than Y", I meant that I decided that by touch, not by using a thermometer.

You hijacked again, this time to my feeling/sensing. That's count #2. Also, the fact that a measurement is possible does not imply it is made.

Don't you mean "body temperature"? 98.6 degrees F is an average. Mine is usually about 97 degrees. Does that make me cool? :-)

Here is some trivia about pregnant women and women in general.

The folks here say your ~75 degrees is wrong.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/22, 11:59am)


Post 51

Thursday, July 22, 2010 - 8:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

You hijacked again, this time to my feeling/sensing. That's count #2.
Well, keep that counter going, Merlin, because I ain't stoppin' ... Hey, maybe after the count gets high enough, we can measure it (but not until then)!

Also, the fact that a measurement is possible does not imply it is made.
Okay, but how's that relevant?

98.6 degrees F is an average. Mine is usually about 97 degrees. Does that make me cool? :-)
Wah, wah, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

The folks here say your ~75 degrees is wrong.
Thankfully, there are only a couple times a year where I have to do this but:

"Merlin, I admit, you are right and I was wrong (about average surface skin temp)."

Ed

p.s. Now, if only I could get you to admit that naked humans can objectively measure heat transfer through a water medium. No, wait, that didn't sound quite right. Let me try that again. Now, if only I could get you to admit that humans, with their bare hands, can objectively measure heat transfer through a water medium.


Post 52

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 4:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In addition to your conceptual errors and mistakes of fact, do I now need to point out your spelling errors?
Hey, maybe after the count gets high enough, we can mezshur it (but not until then)!
Now, if only I could get you to admit that humans, with their bare hands, can subjectively mezshur heat transfer through a water medium.
I stand corrected if you intended to say "bare hands holding a thermometer." Also, the heat transfer is not through the water, it is from the hand to the water, or vice-versa. Such sloppy wording!

With those fixes, Ed, I admit it.  You win! LOL.
(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/23, 4:35am)


Post 53

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 3:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

What do you say to the 'argument from infinite regress'?

Applied to your measurement theory, it would say that you could never know if a measurement is right. First, we start with your implicit claim that only object-aided (e.g., ruler-aided, clock-aided, thermometer-aided, etc.) measurements are objective -- i.e., they are the only thing that we can and should all come to a complete and total agreement on. But how do we know what the ruler "tells" us?

We have to use the 'naked eye.'

But this is not acceptable. The human sense-perception powers of awareness are inherently subjective. We cannot trust them to be objective. So, before we can agree on what the ruler says, we have to set up other measurement devices in order to measure the shade, or the angle of view, or if any light is bent (as through a medium) before it reaches our naked eyes, etc.

If we don't do this, if we don't take these extra steps, then we can't claim objectivity in our measurement.

So what do we do?

We add all of the extra instruments requested.

Can we proceed then?

No, because the same objections arise, and now we need a new set of machines to make sure that this 2nd set of auxillary equipment is performing the job correctly, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.

Ed

p.s. As I alluded to earlier in the thread, a similar argument has been made against the "sense-data" theorists here:

http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/W&K(1984).htm

Which I took from here:

http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/Appendix1.htm

Your theory -- which is what I refer to as a "scientism" --  is eerily close to that of Indirect Realism.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/23, 3:16pm)


Post 54

Friday, July 23, 2010 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed T. wrote:
What do you say to the 'argument from infinite regress'?
Applied to your measurement theory, it would say that you could never know if a measurement is right. First, we start with your implicit claim that only object-aided (e.g., ruler-aided, clock-aided, thermometer-aided, etc.) measurements are objective -- i.e., they are the only thing that we can and should all come to a complete and total agreement on. But how do we know what the ruler "tells" us? 
Said argument carries no weight against my position. I have not said anything about everybody completely agreeing on what an instrument "tells" them. That is interpersonal. The sort of comparisons I have made are your sense of touch to your using a thermometer. That is not interpersonal. We know what a ruler or other instrument "tells" us simply by looking at it. Of course, the degree of precision depends on the instrument and there is some amount of tolerance inherent with using any instrument.

We have to use the 'naked eye.'
But this is not acceptable. The human sense-perception powers of awareness are inherently subjective. We cannot trust them to be objective. So, before we can agree on what the ruler says, we have to set up other measurement devices in order to measure the shade, or the angle of view, or if any light is bent (as through a medium) before it reaches our naked eyes, etc.
If we don't do this, if we don't take these extra steps, then we can't claim objectivity in our measurement
I don't hold and haven't said anything remotely like your last two sentences. You are reading far too much into my use of "subjective" on this thread. I don't mean what Ayn Rand said about it the Lexicon. I mean dependent upon an individual's perspective, state, etc., such as the same temperature water feeling warm to one of your hands and cold to your other hand because of where each had been. Your sense of touch is a crude indicator of temperature, and no known inherent numbers comes with it. I have not said our perception is inherently subjective nor we cannot trust our senses. Why do you make up such stuff? On the other hand, your sense of touch is "less objective" than using your eyes and a thermometer.

Of course, there are other situations where more subjectivity enters. Suppose you and I were to rate the same list of several movies on a scale of 0 to 10. It would be pure coincidence we would agree. You might call that "measuring" simply because numbers are used; I don't.
Your theory -- which is what I refer to as a "scientism" --  is eerily close to that of Indirect Realism.
Then you misunderstand me, a lot.

Addenda

I wrote (post 50):
Also, the fact that a measurement is possible does not imply it is made.
Ed T. replied (post 51):
Okay, but how's that relevant?
I wrote that about your hijacking numbers from a thermometer and attributing those numbers to your sense of touch. On the other hand, in scenarios 2 and 3 (post 34), you put your hands in water with no knowledge of what the temperatures are. You could guess about the temperature readings a thermometer would give based on your prior experiences. Regardless, your unaided sense of touch has with it no inherent numbers. You would be hijacking them from your past experience with a thermometer.

My statement is also relevant to Rand's example of a child forming the concept LENGTH in ITOE. The fact that a match, a pencil and a stick are measurable -- by somebody who knows how to do it -- does not imply the child did it. A child could recognize they do have different intrinic lengths by sight and can omit or ignore that such lengths differ. However, assuming more is not warranted without violating Rand's assumption that the child is forming the concept for the first time.

My statement is also relevant to animal cognition.

If you want to use "measure" as a synonym of "identify", or simply perceiving intrinsic size, or "devise a number by any means", I can't stop you. Adam Reed, who used to post on RoR, used "measure" as widely, maybe even more so than you do. I once asked him about using "measure" as a synonym of "identify" and he answered in the affirmative. (I couldn't find the posts, looking only a few minutes.)




(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/24, 7:41am)


Post 55

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 9:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

I have not said anything about everybody completely agreeing on what an instrument "tells" them.
Well, okay, but wouldn't you (be able to give an opinion of the proper scope of agreement between all reasonable persons regarding instrumental measurements)? Perhaps, as you say, this is a separate issue. I would have to think more about it in order to conclude one way or the other.

You are reading far too much into my use of "subjective" on this thread. I don't mean what Ayn Rand said about it the Lexicon. I mean dependent upon an individual's perspective, state, etc.,
This confuses me. Rand used subjective as it should be used -- in contrast to objective. Objective is that which is independent of "an individual's perspective, state, etc.", so subjective is ... [just what you describe above].

Your sense of touch is a crude indicator of temperature, and no known inherent numbers comes with it.
But numbers -- just like universals -- come into play during a mind's process of concept formation. Numbers -- just like universals -- aren't found anywhere out there in extra-mental reality (nor are they found anywhere inside a human brain or mind). So, when you say that no known inherent numbers come with a sense of touch, you are not really making a strong point. There is no such thing as "inherent numbers" -- as Plato would have us believe. It'd be like complaining that some piece of artwork doesn't have any "square circles" in it.

That's because there's no such thing as a square circle in the first place. The criticism is actually not really a deficiency to be found in the artwork. Rather, it is anomolous or spurious, and stems from a prior deficiency in the critic's understanding of reality.

I wrote that about your hijacking numbers from a thermometer and attributing those numbers to your sense of touch. On the other hand, in scenarios 2 and 3 (post 34), you put your hands in water with no knowledge of what the temperatures are. You could guess about the temperature readings a thermometer would give based on your prior experiences. Regardless, your unaided sense of touch has with it no inherent numbers. You would be hijacking them from your past experience with a thermometer.
But Joe's point about ratios still holds. I do have an initial unit (body temperature). And I, with my sensory apparatus, can measure ambient temperature against that unit -- forming a measurement ratio. This is the part that you miss, that I can effectively measure ratios without any man-made devices. I could increasingly tell you how close to (or far from) body temperature something is getting. That is -- to be sure -- just little ole' unaided me, measuring with a potentially-numeric unit (in the form of a numeric ratio).

Now, you can keep complaining about how the process is inexact, or relatively inexact, but -- as I showed above -- that same criticism can be levelled at measuring with a device (leading to infinite regress). You are trying to say that 'measuring" with the naked eye is categorically different than measuring with an instrument. That argument breaks down because of the existence of man as the primordial "unit" and of ratios as the primary means of measurement. 

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/24, 9:36am)


Post 56

Saturday, July 24, 2010 - 12:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Do you ever wonder why cars have numerical instruments for speed and motor rpm? Who is staring at those numerical gauges when they should driving? We sense 'faster/slower.' We gauge by road conditions and other traffic. We listen to the sound of the engine, we sense the torque curve giving out by feeling the drop in acceleration, we shift. We don't stare at the tach.

The main use of the speedometer is to regulate your speed so you don't get speeding tickets, since most of the time using your judgment works fine for keeping you safe. On unfamiliar roads, monitoring your speed can be useful, since a curve can be more dangerous than it initially looks.

The tachometer is less useful unless you have a stick shift, and can be dispensed with without affecting safety. I mainly use it to achieve better fuel economy, backing off a bit on the gas sometimes to get the automatic transmission to shift into a taller gear when it is on the verge of shifting but stuck in a lower gear than necessary. If the transmission was reprogrammed to have more conservative, fuel-efficient shift points, I wouldn't use a tach at all.

If you have a CVT transmission, a tach is a complete waste of money, since there are no gears to shift up or down to.

/nerd tech talk

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 7/24, 12:27pm)


Post 57

Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Measurement is so easy even a caveman can figure it out.

Imagine a caveman waking up another caveman in order to tell him something. While an outsider would only hear loud grunts and groans, accompanied with jerky and sporadic movements, this is what the other caveman "hears":

"Reginald, whilst partaking in my usual early morning stroll, I happened upon a creature of the most unusual proportions. Its was spotted numerously and had twice the number of legs of a man. Its neck alone was twice the length as is a man tall, its torso -- in and of itself -- was the height of half of a man, and its legs were on average the length of a whole man; the front legs being ever-so-slightly longer than those found in the rear!"

[Reginald is fervently counting on his fingers while listening]

Reginald lets out a long, loud groan. Here is what the other caveman "hears":

"Dear heavens, William! That which you describe seems, upon first exposure, to be a true abomination of a creature! Let us partake in investigatory maneuvers, approaching this creature with the hope of abstaining from startling it and thereby causing it to flee. From the measurements -- oh thank you, dear William, for bringing back appropriate measurements! -- from the measurements I have calculated on the 5 fingers of the hand attached to the right side of my body, this creature ought to be able to run at approximately twice the speed of a full grown man."

[Both cavemen prepare to further and stealthily investigate the measured giraffe]

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 7/25, 8:25am)


Post 58

Sunday, July 25, 2010 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed T. wrote:
This confuses me. Rand used subjective as it should be used -- in contrast to objective. Objective is that which is independent of "an individual's perspective, state, etc.", so subjective  is ... [just what you describe above].
From the Lexicon: "Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims." I wasn't using subjective to mean that.
But numbers -- just like universals -- come into play during a mind's process of concept formation. Numbers -- just like universals -- aren't found anywhere out there in extra-mental reality (nor are they found anywhere inside a human brain or mind).
Okay, I think. Regardless, you used "process of concept formation." Sensing heat by touch is perception.

Different quantities are found out there in extra-mental reality. Numbers are one way to refer to those quantities. (Some words -- e.g. some, many, bigger, colder -- refer to those quantities, too.)
But Joe's point about ratios still holds. I do have an initial unit (body temperature). And I, with my sensory apparatus, can measure ambient temperature against that unit -- forming a measurement ratio. This is the part that you miss, that I can effectively measure ratios without any man-made devices. I could increasingly tell you how close to (or far from) body temperature something is getting. That is -- to be sure -- just little ole' unaided me, measuring with a potentially-numeric unit (in the form of a numeric ratio).
Without a man-made device? Yes and no. Where will you get the numbers for the initial temperature and every time you want a ratio? Will you guess what a thermometer would say? If yes, that is not "unaided" and you are hijacking again. 
You are trying to say that 'measuring" with the naked eye is categorically different than measuring with an instrument.
Please stop telling me what I am trying to say. Ask or use "seems." You often guess wrong anyway.

I don't know what you mean by " categorically different." Estimating the height of X by comparing it to Y with a known height, such as Joe's lighthouse example in post 27, differs from measuring with an instrument such as a ruler. But it is also similar -- a measuring unit is used, even if unconventional and used roughly. Is that what you mean by "measuring with the naked eye"?

Measurement is categorically different than ranking. Improvised measuring and imaginatively measuring are categorically different than measuring actually using a ruler, etc. However, each of the three is a subcategory of measuring.
That argument breaks down because of the existence of man as the primordial "unit" and of ratios as the primary means of measurement.
That's as clear as the Mississippi River.
Measurement is so easy even a caveman can figure it out.
Whoop-de-do. Could he measure rates of radioactive decay? I haven't said measuring is hard, so what's your point? On the other hand, MEZSHURING is easy. Just fabricate whatever numbers strikes your fancy. :-)


(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 7/26, 5:39am)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Monday, July 26, 2010 - 6:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

This confuses me. Rand used subjective as it should be used -- in contrast to objective. Objective is that which is independent of "an individual's perspective, state, etc.", so subjective  is ... [just what you describe above].
From the Lexicon: "Subjectivism is the belief that reality is not a firm absolute, but a fluid, plastic, indeterminate realm which can be altered, in whole or in part, by the consciousness of the perceiver—i.e., by his feelings, wishes or whims." I wasn't using subjective to mean that.
Well, okay. But subjective still means observer-dependent and objective still means observer-independent. I won't bother finding a Rand quote on that, though. I presume we understand each other.

But numbers -- just like universals -- come into play during a mind's process of concept formation. Numbers -- just like universals -- aren't found anywhere out there in extra-mental reality (nor are they found anywhere inside a human brain or mind).
Okay, I think. Regardless, you used "process of concept formation." Sensing heat by touch is perception.

I know. But this is the old argument by the "sense data" theorists, though (conflating conceptual judgments with perception in order to use conceptual error to indict the process of perception). I'm going beyond the mere sensation of heat. My skin receptors don't light up with LED lights with a numerical value for the temperature.

The sensors give me the information and then I go forward with that. I use my conceptual ('extra-perceptual') powers of awareness in order to get a temperature measurement (related to my understood body termperature). The process is imprecise, but it functions to give me a ratio within a margin of error -- just like measuring with an instrument does.

Where will you get the numbers for the initial temperature and every time you want a ratio? Will you guess what a thermometer would say? If yes, that is not "unaided" and you are hijacking again.
Because I'm talking about tracking reality -- and a thermometer tracks reality -- yes, I will have to say that every temperature record that I give would be, also, a guess about what a thermometer would give.

Now, for the ratio, I actually don't need "thermometer-numbers" (I don't need to have ever witnessed a thermometer-measured body temperature of 98.6 degrees F). I could, instead, just say that this pot of water over here is half (0.5 times) body temperature and that that pot of water over there is twice (2.0 times) body temperature. That's all a ratio really ever is (a multiple of a unit).

You are trying to say that 'measuring" with the naked eye is categorically different than measuring with an instrument.
Please stop telling me what I am trying to say. Ask or use "seems."
I apologize.

Estimating the height of X by comparing it to Y with a known height, such as Joe's lighthouse example in post 27, differs from measuring with an instrument such as a ruler. But it is also similar -- a measuring unit is used, even if unconventional and used roughly. Is that what you mean by "measuring with the naked eye"?
Yes.

That argument breaks down because of the existence of man as the primordial "unit" and of ratios as the primary means of measurement.
That's as clear as the Mississippi River.

Let me see if I understand you. Using "Mississippi River" as a unit and then measuring the clarity of what I said against that unit -- you come up with a value of one unit (of Mississippi-River-clarity)?

I'd want to know how that measurement was performed and what is the standard error of measurement. I can't see how that could be an accurate measurement.

Measurement is so easy even a caveman can figure it out.
Whoop-de-do. Could he measure rates of radioactive decay? I haven't said measuring is hard, so what's your point?
My point was that William's description of the giraffe to Reginald was adequate -- without instruments. The measurements William performed and conveyed to Reginald informed Reginald enough for him to be able to adjust his behavior in light of the evidence of a giraffe. Reginald did not need to see the giraffe -- which harks back to Rand saying that the purpose of measurement is to allow man to conceive of the unperceived:

Now what is the purpose of measurement? Observe that measurement consists of relating an easily perceivable unit to larger or smaller quantities, then to infinitely larger or infinitely smaller quantities, which are not directly perceivable to man.
--http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/measurement.html

Ed


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.