Comment?

a religion based on perceived natural consequences. Reason can be helpful in relating our ideas to each other. There are several relations including cause and effect, resemblence, contiguity, identity. The mind runs itself through these ideas and we assume that those relations which have seemed similar in the past will be likewise, although it is often not the case. It is still something we all do and will continue to do so, no matter that the ultimate causes continue to elude us and all we can hope to know for certain are our perceptions. The workings of the mind are not so mysterious as many would believe, much less so than the actions of nature. In its' searches for ideas, it often will settle on one that is close but not quite what it had originally intended and this will be the basis for many errors.

 

Mati

Really?..
Occam was silly enough to think ideas [structured concepts] were not even possible without reason.
language being one of its products..[also]

But you say this is not so?

Occam

 

ideas are copies of impressions. For every idea there is a corresponding impression. So first comes the impression, from which our ideas are derived and about which we reason. Many people use words for ideas but they are not the same thing.

 

I agree. Words are merely labels of ideas, and when used as they are today, those words often label more than one idea, and they also mislabel ideas. Which leads to confusion.

 

Hikaru and Mati
Wellmet

If words are mearly labels of ideas. And the 'impression comes first.
Then how is it possible for say.
A genetic biologist to have an idea about how to modify the protien
coating of a viral vector agent?

Such an idea cannot be had in the first place without a huge
amount of underpinning reasoning and an entire evolved language.
Occam considers ideas as structured concepts built appon empirical
experience and reason.
Ideas require structured thought.
To put things together in a new way.
Be they political factors or machine parts.
To decide to act this way or that.

To have an idea..BING..a flashing bulb over the head.
Means you've assembled/created a new 'structure' from existing parts.
Or deduced a new factor from the synergy of old factors.

None of which can be done without reason.

Occam

There is semantic greyness to the word idea...occam posits his own definitions.
Ps. for example..is a concept an idea that has already been had?

 

Fact/Object: Viral vector agent exists.
Word/Label: What we call "viral vector agent" refers to the concept of such an object above.

Fact/Object: Protein coating exists.
Word/Label: What we call "protein coating" refers to the concept of such an object above.

Fact/Relationship: Viral vector agents contain protein coatings.
Statement/Description: You'd describe the actuality of the above statement using somethign like "Viral vector agents contain protein coatings."

Sorry if that sounds really redundant, but I need to separate out "fact" versus "label" and "relationship" versus "description." Words mark objects or concepts, sentences and statements are descriptions of relationships between those concepts.

So, the genetic biologist comes across the protein coating and notices that "the protein coating is modifiable." That describes the relationship between two ideas or concepts: A protein coating, and the coatings modifiability. The description is affirmative (it's modifiable).

Language is merely the labelling and description of objects/concepts and the relationships between them. You do not need language to understand the objects and relationships, but it does help quite a bit.

You haven't "assembled" the structure. You have assembled a description of the structure. You don't necessarily need to know how to describe it in order to assemble it.

And we never said it was done without reason. Just pointing out that reason precedes language; language was based from reason, not the other way around; you can have reason without language, but not vice versa.

I presuppose that "concept" refers to the perception of a unique object, in all cases described above. There are other meaningful definitions of concept, but if you use them, you're only going to drown yourself in ambiguity.

 

Reason is an intuitive act of the mind to view relationships between ideas in way based on custom and experience. The mind follows the traditional and natural paths that it is accustomed to. There is nothing present to the mind at any time other than perceptions and ideas. As much as we might try to fix our attention outside of this sphere, it is not possible and at best can only be an idea relative to another, the world of the imagination.

 

Wellmet Hikaru.

You say a language is not needed to understand the objects..
viral vector agent.[ie: virii] or
Protien coating.
Or the relationships between them.

Unfortunately occam can think of no way one could come to an
understanding of such things in the first place.
Or further develop that understanding.
Without language. [the tool of reason]

Please
Explain to occam how you would manage such a thing?

Occam

 

Mati

Earlier you said
"reason is helpfull in relating our ideas to eachother."

Now Reason seems to have been elevated..It is THE way we view relationships between ideas/concepts.

Occams original objection was to the idea[] that you can have an
idea without 'reason'. ['reason is helpfull'..only]

It all seems a part of a tendency to discard reason and look for
a soul/self that is more than just rational mind.
Occam hates to say it.
But he thinks human beings of today and the human social world are basically nothing but a product of reason.

Without reason would we not be just another pack of homonids
grubbing for tubers in the undergrowth.?


Occam

 

I certainly do not want to underplay the role of reason. We use it everyday, sometimes better than others. I do want to understand the actions and nature of the mind in its' performance. I am of the opinion that the process is fraught with possibilities of errors. The mind is often susceptible to move in the direction that is easy or customary, mistaking ideas that resemble each other or believing one object to be cause and the other effect when in fact they are only contiguous to each other. We would do best to be sceptical of conclusions and reexamine the reasoning with a second reasoning and so on. It may be found that some of our most ardent beliefs are founded on inappropriate ideology. Ideas are after all, the more faint copy of our impressions. And though I would agree that great progress has been made, our ideas and reasons have still been preceded by our impressions.

 

Occam

Well, let me give you an example, since it's harder to explain.

I have a dog, he lives at my house away from college. He doesn't have any language, and yet he is capable of understanding simple concepts.

When he hears the specific engine noise of my dad's truck pull into the driveway, he knows that my dad is home, and he'll run over to the door and wait to be left outside to do his business.

He doesn't do this with other engine signatures, only with our family vehicles. When a different car pulls into the driveway, he barks and stays away from the door.

Clearly, he is rationally able to differentiate between engine signatures and is capable of understanding the relationship between the engine signature and the person who is driving the vehicle. And yet, he is incapable of describing that relationship to another dog, because he has no language.

While complex subject like virii and protein coatings would be far removed for a being of no language to understand them, that is not to say that all concepts are incapable of being understood without language.

While it is increasingly difficult to understand complex concepts without language, it is not impossible; just highly improbable. And simple concepts are easily recognized and understood without language.

Thus leading to the concusion that reason precedes description. =)

Hikaru

 

Hikaru
Wellmet

A valid example. Occam agrees...And also opinions that many more animal species than man in his arrogance will admit..
Have reason.

In your example..all is empirical..something experienced by the dog.
Becoming a concept through the process of reason.

But what of complex concepts?

Occam posulates that reason preceedes description to the
point where empirical experience no longer applies.
[you are now at a uni lecture..and listening,,or reading [or sleeping]
There is no epirical experience of virii or protien coatings..just words]
Past that point..reason cannot understand without a 'rational description'.

Occam

 

I offer the notion that, one could, by an extremely low chance, become aware through observation or intelligence, of the relationship between virii and protein coatings, but that this chance would be almost infintesimal, because the relationship between virii and protein coatings is one that is very difficult to percieve through observation unless you are specifically looking for it. And the process by which you are specifically looking for it would almost necessarily require language to describe the process in.

In other words, it's highly, highly improbable, but it could happen without language. As the complexity of the concept increases, the probability of knowing the concept without language decreases exponentially.