humanities.philosophy.objectivism

In article <7ed4b14d-737a-47fa-9a7d-1717d0da44cf@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, rumin8@ix.netcom.com says...
> On Apr 7, 12:22 am, Gordon Sollars wrote:
>
> > I would have to know something about why they turned.
>
> Why do you have to know that about the plants, but not
> about the dogs?
>
> Do you figure you already know it about the dogs?

Yes.


> > What's an "abstract reference to a non-perceived event"? Look, a head
> > fake may get a human being to move in the wrong direction - are you
> > going to say that the person did not expect the ball carrier to move in
> > the direction of the fake? If he did expect it, then why doesn't the
> > dog expect the ball to be thrown when he moves in the direction of the
> > fake?
>
> I'd have to know something about why they moved!

You didn't answer my question.
>
> Notice that if you asked either an observer, or even the player
> involved (if he had time for contemplation), that they'd likely
> say they expect the runner to go the other way since faking
> is a fundamental move of ball carriers.

This is silly. I'm obviously talking about a fake that works. If you
have never seen a head fake work, then I can understand your confusion.
You will either have to trust me or get more experience.

> If anything, I'd say
> that supports my POV that expectation is built of higher
> abstractions and not just instinctual action.

I never said expectations were "just instinctual" - although some of
them are. Another dogma is that human beings are born tabula rasa.


--
Gordon