humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 10, 2:32 pm, Jim Klein wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:55 pm, TC wrote:

> > From "Developing Concepts in Infancy: Animals, Self-Perception, and
> > Two Theories of Mirror Self-Recognition"
> > Author: Robert W. Mitchell
> > Psychological Inquiry, Volume 3, Issue 2 April 1992 , pages 127 - 130

> No, I caught that. I thought it was interesting too.

> You should understand first that so-called scientific studies
> have been making dubious claims about this sort of stuff
> for decades at least...hundreds of years, probably.

I would have expected this attitude.
Philosophy knows best, eh?
.....
> And then there's the matter that it's not discussing what we're
> discussing. You're talking of specific concepts, not general
> "psychological capacities" like "intersubjectivity."

I think we have different concepts of "concept".
Mine is more like 1, yours I suspect like 2

From Webster.com
1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

> > > So you'll give examples
> > > of inborn concepts that include at least one that can be
> > > discarded at will?

> > Uniformity of time and space.

> Holy shit! I assume that means we're born with the
> concepts and too, yes?

In my sense, I think so.

> So not
> only do we have those, but we have
> too. Golly, that's remarkable...we must have
> as well, being opposed to uniformity, right?

Silly. According to my example variety is learned
later.

> Do we have too?

Not sure how you got there.

> > > Are there some that can't be discarded
> > > at will?

> > Good question.

> > I would guess the self. But Buddhists no doubt
> > would differ.

> Why? How could they "overcome" the self, without
> holding the concept for it?

I'm not a Buddhist but they talk of Anatta,
the Buddhist concept of no-self
www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/notself.asp

.....

> > > I'm sure one of the things they taught you was that not
> > > everyone can have the high standards of proof that
> > > experts have, as you're demonstrating to us here.

> > That I do believe qualifies as ad hominem.

> You believe wrong. Ad hominem is when someone
> says that because the other guy is ________________
> (something bad), that therefore his argument doesn't
> hold water, or is fallacious.

Your implication was that I am demonstrating a low
standard of proof. Them's "fighting words". QED

...............

> > Try to be flexible. Or do you really think Rand knew
> > all about how the mind works?

> 'Scuse me? I don't think Rand knew very much at all
> about that, at least in any detail. And I don't recall
> her claiming that she did.

Did you read ITOE?

................
> I thought we were talking about concept formation.

Where do concepts form?

> FWIW, I do happen to think that Rand laid out perhaps
> the best explanation I've come across, at least in a
> general paradigmatic sort of way, but I didn't come
> to my conclusions based upon her writing, hardly at all.

You found your error all by yourself?
Good for you!

> > > > and, yes, some are inborn and discarded
> > > > in the light of evidence.
> > > Cool. And I'm not even asking you to prove anything,
> > > like you were of me.

> > You are the one making absolute claims.

> What absolute claims?

You assert there are NO, none, nada, inborn concepts.
No is absolute.

> I'm willing to take a look at
> these "inborn concepts" you keep mentioning.

I'll accept that there are none if there is a proof that
there must be none.

> Gordon says it's okay to offer his fetching experience
> with dogs. Why isn't it okay to offer my experience
> with babies and humans?

Babies come with mental contents so far as I can tell.
I guess your results differ.

Tom
.