Objectivity is Our Shared Subjectivity

[jedaisoul]

Quickie from Wiki:

 

“Fingerprint identification (sometimes referred to as dactyloscopy[5]) or palm print identification is the process of comparing questioned and known friction skin ridge impressions (see Minutiae) from fingers or palms or even toes to determine if the impressions are from the same finger or palm."

That's the problem with relying on Wiki alone. It seems to suggest that the term "fingerpint" relates exclusively to the impression made by the ridges on the finger(s).

 

Whereas the Cambridge dictionary says:

 

fingerprint noun

. (informal print) the pattern of curved lines on the end of a finger or thumb, which is different in every person, or a mark left by this pattern

Which indicates that the term relates to the lines on the ends of the fingers as well as marks made by them. This would not matter except that you said:

 

Fingerprints are very subjective in that they can change substantially as result of very subjective circumstances. My fingerprint can change significantly today from what they were yesterday.

 

The reference to a fingerprint changing from day to day does not match the quote from Wiki:

 

"The flexibility of friction ridge skin means that no two finger or palm prints are ever exactly alike (never identical in every detail), even two impressions recorded immediately after each other.”

 

The latter makes it clear that it is the impression that is referred to. However, I accept that it was your intention to refer to the impressions varying from mark to mark, rather than the pattern of ridges on the finger changing from day to day (which was the inference I got from your comment).

[jedaisoul]

This comes from the book Philosophy in the Flesh

And that shows the risk of relying on one source for the definition of a term, particularly when the author explicitly disagrees with the stated view.

 

Also I quote Stanford:

 

Whether information from cognitive science about our formation of conceptual and linguistic categories has any import for our understanding of what ontological categories there are is itself, of course, a contentious issue...

You seem to be taking as authoritative views that are not widely accepted philosophically. If the remaining quotes I questioned come from the same source, then the same comments apply. Can you provide any reference from a recognised philosopher other than Johnson that these claims apply to Objectivism?

[Eclogite]

Thank you for your focused reply.

 

Faculty psychology is the notion that there is an autonomous faculty of reason that functions independent of the body capacities such as perception and movement. Within this autonomous faculty of reason there is supposed to exist somewhat separate modules such as imagination and perception.

I am very comfortable with this statement, but it is at odds with what you said previously:

 

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body.

In this quote you very specifically state that faculty psychology invokes the mind-body dichotomy.

 

In your reply (the opening quote in this post) you correctly define it in a way that considers mind and body to be one, though with modular functions. Which of these two versions are you adhering to?

 

SGCS informs us that reason is embodied; that is to say that there is no mind/body dichotomy. Human reason is a form of animal reason.

This would be the way science has thought of these matters for many decades, if not many generations. Are you suggesting that this is a new idea?

 

We can see today that Western philosophy is basically an adherent to this Cartesian mind/body dichotomy.

I ask you again: are you declaring that Hobbes and Spinoza are not important contributors to Western philosophy? If you believe they are how can you claim Western philosophy follows the mind/body dichotomy? If you think Hobbes and Spinoza are not timportant, can you explain why you reject them? (Please note I am interested in why you reject them, not why Lakoff or any other authority reject them.)

[coberst]

 

You seem to be taking as authoritative views that are not widely accepted philosophically. If the remaining quotes I questioned come from the same source, then the same comments apply. Can you provide any reference from a recognised philosopher other than Johnson that these claims apply to Objectivism?

 

SGCS is challenging Western philosophical tradition and would thus not agree with that tradition. I do not know if academic philosophy has accepted the challenge or not. I suspect they will not accept the challenge seriously until a new generation of college professors come on the scene. Therein lay the destructive rub. New human science theories are not quickly put into the main stream because it takes generations before they can force them self onto the scene.

 

These claims of SGCS are supported by empirical evidence from many sources.

[coberst]

 

This would be the way science has thought of these matters for many decades, if not many generations. Are you suggesting that this is a new idea?

 

I ask you again: are you declaring that Hobbes and Spinoza are not important contributors to Western philosophy? If you believe they are how can you claim Western philosophy follows the mind/body dichotomy? If you think Hobbes and Spinoza are not timportant, can you explain why you reject them? (Please note I am interested in why you reject them, not why Lakoff or any other authority reject them.)

 

 

The embodied mind theory is a new theory.

 

I reject the mind/body dichotomy for many reasons. But primarily I do so because SGCS provides me with the empirically justified theory that supports my thoughts. Hobbes and Spinoza are iconic figures with whom I have no quarrel.

[Rade]

Coberst. You use the word "objectivism", and then you say

 

Objectivism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It believes that reality is something external to the brain and that the task of the brain is to gain knowledge about this external reality

 

Well, this may be one definition, but it is not the Ayn Rand philosophy that she specifically termed "Objectivism". (as an aside, Rand would say her philosophy is not a "belief" there is something external to the brain, but "knowledge" of the fact).

 

Now, I take it that the "Second Generation Cognitive Science" you study uses your definition of objectivism--in that case--I will argue that the method of thinking used by "Second Generation Cognitive Science" reaches a false conclusion about the relationship between the Objective and Subjective. The simple reason that the method is based on a false premise of what "objective" means as relates to the brain (which I take they mean, brain = consciousness). The fun part is that many may not agree with my argument--that's what this forum is all about--so fire away.

 

As I see it, the false premise used in "Second Generation Cognitive Science" thinking is failure to recognize the logical fact that the "brain" (consciousness) also is real, that is, consciousness has a very specific identity vis-a-vis Rand. It is incorrect to claim that only what is external to the brain is real, the brain has an identity as valid as the computer screen we all now see in front of us. If the brain is not real, then reality does not exist and neither is the computer in front of you real, and talking about cognitive science is a moot point. This is of critical importance because it gets to how one defines subjective and objective--the two topics of the OP thread.

 

As a faculty with a specific identity, consciousness uses a very specific operation on "external reality" (called reason) that follows certain rules (logic) in order to "understand external reality". Thus we see a 1:1 operation between two entities that exist, both objects (both objective by definition), and it is this operation between two objects that leads to a subjective understanding within at least one of them (think of example of operation of human brain on chair), or both (think of operation of one human brain on another--that is, I look into your eyes). If a human brain interacts with an external object and there is 0.0% understanding, it is the state termed brain dead (society usually pulls the plug).

 

The "task of the brain" (as you say) is not to decide what is "right or wrong" about the object of reality, nor to create it---reality is not right or wrong, nor red or orange, it "is", reality exists. The fundamental axiom of all philosophy is that "existence exists"--one does not attempt to prove an axiom, that is why it is called an axiom. Humans have no knowledge of how objective reality in the universe (existence) came to be--only hypotheses, all humans can claim is that "existence exists" then they do philosophy on the axoim. The function of the brain is not to create the universe and what may be within it, but to "know" (to come to understand with uncertainty) that which exists--two completely different operations. Creating and understanding are not the same.

 

The Objectivism philosophy of Rand does not claim that one can ever have 100% certain knowledge of anything that exists (reality)---all knowledge of reality comes with a degree of uncertainty at a level of probability--this is what is called Science = Uncertain Knowledge. The HUP of physics forces humans to the logical conclusion that knowledge of two aspects of a quantum entity is impossible simultaneously (such as position and momentum of electron). There are then limits to knowledge, knowledge is NEVER absolute. A claim of complete and absolute knowledge of an object of reality is possible only if one takes a position that the human brain DOES create reality--this is called "naive reality". This view holds that the senses reproduce an mirror image of the pure reality-in-itself essence (create reality). Thus naive realism holds that there exists within objects pre-exisitng quantities that are independent of the means of perception. Objectivism philosophy rejects naive realism as a false premise, it rejects the position that the brain "creates" a mirror reality (or any reality) of reality-in-itself. According to Objectivism, the function of consciousness is to "perceive reality" as one object to another object, not to "create reality" as object to subject. To perceive and to create reality are two completely different operations. The brain creates concepts about reality not reality itself, again, two completely different operations.

 

For Rand, the first task of the brain is to conduct a mental operation on external reality, to bring unknown reality as object into the first stage of knowledge via perception, that is, to know via pure perception that some object exists as an identity (to unite object + object, the external as object to the brain as object). This is done via the senses. The second task of the brain is to take what is perceived (the object + object mental superposition) and then use reason to conduct an operation on reality--to differentiate it from other forms of reality perceived and transform it into a concept. To do this the brain will need additional information derived from reason based on the object + object superposition (experiments via science). The third task of the brain is then to take the concepts formed about the external object and place a label on them (a definition) so the concepts created can be stored and recalled and used for future operations. The forth task of the brain is to use reason to recall past concepts stored and "integrate" these past concepts formed (that now have defined labels) to look for new logical ways to combine them (we call the end result of this process, invention). In summary, the function of the "brain", as a form of reality with identity, is to "perceive" external reality (for vision, the photons of light from the object reach the optic nerve), to unite with the external to form a mental superposition (beginning of the subjective part of the process), to conduct operations on it (first differentiation, definition, integration), and the result of this process (what we call epistemology) is that each human brain forms a subjective "veiled reality" understanding of the object perceived. The reality at the final stage of the process (what is subjective) is called veiled because it is always in a form of a superposition of the objective reality of the external object and the objective reality of the brain. Pure reality in-of-itself is NEVER put before the consciousness -- this is the key to understanding Objectivism philosophy.

 

Now, logically, each human brain must form a different version of the subjective "veiled reality" of what is the external reality (the object)--it must be for two reasons. First, reality-in-itself (the object) is an "undefined set", and any one human brain (and all humans combined) can only "know" or form an object+object superposition with a small aspect of this set (for example, can we say we know all possible protons in the universe--or is it more correct to say we have future potential to know, assuming there are a finite number of protons in the universe set). Second, each brain has a unique genetic identity that makes it a real thing that exists (each brain receives perception input differently), thus the perception of the exact same member of an object from a set of external reality MUST differ for each brain, the object+object superposition must be different for each perceptual operation on reality.

 

To conclude, objectivity (that which is external to the brain) is not fully explained as being the "Shared Subjectivity" of all humans, past and present = "our shared understanding of veiled reality". There is also an aspect of undefined reality (the objective) that is not veiled reality (the subjective) but is unknown in the present (no object+object operation has been conducted) and coexisting with our shared subjectivity from the past.

 

This is how I see it, fire away.

[coberst]

Rade

 

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) has introduced a new paradigm for cognitive science based upon four decades of empirical research. This empirically derived paradigm rejects the a priori rationalizations of objectivist philosophy.

 

An expression in a language is considered to be semantically autonomous if that expression meaningfully stands alone on its independent terms. There are two variations of semantic autonomy: conceptual autonomy and nonconceptual autonomy.

 

Conceptual autonomy assumes that expressions in a language, i.e. words and phrases, express concepts, which are part of human cognition; thus it is concepts that contain meaning. Words and phrases are thus semantically autonomous provided the concept noted is semantically autonomous.

 

Nonconceptual autonomy assumes that concepts either do not exist or that concepts have nothing to do with meaning. Thus words and phrases acquire meaning by means of what they designate in the world.

 

Literal Meaning Theory:

 

The literal meaning theory is about language and not concepts. This theory argues that all literal language, i.e. conventional language, is semantically autonomous. This theory rests on objectivist philosophy, which argues that objective reality is independent of human cognition, i.e. it is ‘mind free’. Objectivist philosophy argues that “statements made in ordinary, conventional language are capable of being objectively true or false

The notion of “literal meaning” presupposes the truth of the Literal Meaning Theory… This is in accord with the common philosophical view that all concepts are reflections of objective reality, and hence cannot be metaphorical.”

 

The Objectivist Claim:

 

“The world comes structured in a way that is objective—independent of any minds. The world as objectively structured includes objects, properties of those objects, relations holding among those objects, and categories of those objects, properties and relation.”

 

The objectivist claim takes for granted that “Conventional expressions in a language designate aspects of an objective, mind-free reality. Therefore, a statement must objectively be either true or false, depending on whether the objective world accords with the statement.”

 

SGCS claims that the Objectivist Claim is fallacious because it does not recognize “that truth and falsity are relative to conceptual frameworks…Thus it fails to recognize that a statement can be meaningful only relative to its defining framework, and it can be true or false only relative to the way we understand reality given that framework.”

 

The point of SGCS’s claim is that the objectivist does not recognize that what we call mind and body is an integrated unit. There is not a duality in reality. What we think is essentially an aspect of our complete unit which I will call the body-self.

 

SGCS has empirical evidence that what is called objectivity is in reality a shared subjectivity of the body-self. The truth that we know is not a mirror of something out there but is a creation in the brain that is a function of sensory data received from out there plus our structuring of that sense data by the body-self.

 

The reason that I say objectivity is shared subjectivity is that each human shares a common type of body-self. We all structure our creations in the same way and thus impart a shared objectivity on the sense data.

 

Descartes’ duality of mind/body lingers within our philosophy and our common sense view of the world. If the claim of SGCS is correct, and I think it is, then our common sense view and our philosophical objectivist view causes us to view the world in a dangerously incorrect manner.

 

Quotes from More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor by Lakoff and Turner

[Rade]

Coberst...your reply confirms my concerns. Your quotes from Lakoff and Turner DO NOT represent what they claim is the objectivist philosophy. Whatever they claim they are against, it is NOT objectivism as Rand has presented it. Again, Lakoff and Turner claim that "reality" is external to the brain and that this is an objectivist position--but, this is a false claim of Lakoff and Turner concerning how Rand defines objectivism--that was the purpose of my last post--to show where Lakoff and Turner are in error. All reality is NOT external to the brain--the brain (mind) is real. Objectivity is not shared subjectivity, the claim rest on MANY false premise about the nature of objectivism. A claim is only as good as the premise(s) it rest on, and Lakoff and Turner, from what you present, appear to have no true premise claims as relates to objectivism. That is my concern with this thread discussion, you continue to provide quotes from Lakoff and Turner that are based on false premise--thus--how can they be of any value ?

 

So, in your last post, we find many other examples that whatever it is Lakoff and Turner are talking about, it is not Rand's objectivism. One example of how off base Lakoff and Turner are as to what objectivist philosophy claims is your quote from them

 

" the objectivist does not recognize that what we call mind and body is an integrated unit"

This is a nonsense claim. Rand's objectivist philosophy does recognize that the mind and body is integrated. Thus it seems likely that you have never read Rand, and most likely neither have Lakoff or Turner, and if they did, they have absolutely no idea what she claims. So, here, since this thread appears to give weight to dialog based on quotes of others, read what Rand has to say about mind and body (plus, please in future, please put your use of quotes from others in italics--it is very difficult to know what you claim and others):

 

"The new intellectual ...will discard...the mind(soul)-body dichotomy. He will discard its irrational conflicts and contradictions, such as: mind vs heart, thought vs action, reality vs desire, the practical vs the moral. He will be an integrated man, that is, a thinker who is a man of action. He will know that ideas divored from consequent action are fraudent, that action divorced from ideas is suicidal. He will know that the conceptual level of psyco-epistemology--the volitional level of reason the thought--is the basic necessity of man's survival and his greatest moral virtue" quote from Ayn Rand,"For the New Intellectual".

 

And then, we have this false claim concerning the relationship of literal meaning theory and objectivist philosophy of Rand:

 

The literal meaning theory is about language and not concepts. This theory argues that all literal language, i.e. conventional language, is semantically autonomous. This theory rests on objectivist philosophy

Again, more nonsense--this literal meaning theory does not derive or rest on objectivist philosophy of Rand. So, let us read what Rand has to say about the relationship between language and concepts, which I highlight so you see how the words relate:

 

"In order to be used as a single unit, the enormous sum integrated by a concept has to be given the form of a single, specific, perceptual concrete, which will differentiate it from all other concretes and from all other concepts. This is the function performed by langauge. Langauge is a code of visual-auditory symbols that serves the psyco-epistemological function of converting concepts into the mental equivalent of concretes. LANGUAGE is the exclusive domain and tool of CONCEPTS.... quote by Ayn Rand, "Introduction to Ojectivist Epistemology".

 

And yet another false claim of Lakoff & Turner

 

SGCS claims that the Objectivist Claim is fallacious because it does not recognize “that truth and falsity are relative to conceptual frameworks

Again, this is nonsense, of course the objectivist recognizes that truth is relative to concepts. So, again, rather than accept the nonsense claims of Lakoff and Turner, read what an Objectivist Philosopher has to say about the relationship of truth and concepts:

 

"Truth is the recognition of reality...truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the fact(s) of reality. MAN IDENTIFIES AND INTEGRATES THE FACTS OF REALITY BY MEANS OF CONCEPTS. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions..he organizes concepts into propositions THE TRUTH OR FALSEHOOD of his propositions rest, not ONLY on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them" quote of Ayn Rand, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

 

I could go on and on about the false claims of Lakoff and Turner...

 

So, you see Coberst, it does absolutely no good at all for you to continue to quote Lakoff and Turner as if they have anything to say of importance about objectivist philosophy, at least as it is defined by Ayn Rand. Whatever they claim to be objectivist philosophy they need to give it another name--Rand has priority to the name (1961), unless they can document another philosopher that specifically stated that the name of their holistic philosophy is called "Objectivism".

[coberst]

Rade

 

I consider Ayn Rand’s objectivism to more of an ideology than a philosophy; it appears that many academics agree with me. I consider Randism as being a cult, i.e. a form of religious beliefs.

 

Beware of glasses of colored liquids.

 

Quickie from Wiki:

 

“Main article: Objectivist movement

According to Rick Karlin, academic philosophers have generally dismissed Rand's ideas and have marginalized her philosophy.[105] Online U.S. News and World Report columnist Sara Dabney Tisdale states that academic philosophers dismiss Atlas Shrugged as "sophomoric," "preachy," and "unoriginal."[106] Because of Rand's criticism of contemporary intellectuals,[107] Objectivism has been called "fiercely anti-academic."[108] David Sidorsky, a professor of moral and political philosophy at Columbia University, says Rand's work is "outside the mainstream" and is more of an ideological movement than a well-grounded philosophy.[109]

 

In recent years Rand's works are more likely to be encountered in the classroom.[108] The Ayn Rand Society, dedicated to fostering the scholarly study of Objectivism, is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association's Eastern Division.[110] Since 1999, several monographs were published and a refereed Journal of Ayn Rand Studies began.[111] In 2006 the University of Pittsburgh held a conference focusing on Objectivism.[112] In addition, two Objectivist philosophers (Tara Smith and James Lennox) hold tenured positions at two of the fifteen leading American philosophy departments.[113] Objectivist programs and fellowships have been supported at the University of Pittsburgh[114] University of Texas at Austin[115] and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[116]

 

Rand is not found in the comprehensive academic reference texts The Oxford Companion to Philosophy or The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. A lengthy article on Rand appears in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy;[117] she has an entry in the Dictionary of Modern American Philosophers and one forthcoming in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,[118][119] as well as a brief entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy which features the following passage:

 

The influence of Rand’s ideas was strongest among college students in the USA but attracted little attention from academic philosophers. … Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.”

[jedaisoul]

I consider Ayn Rand’s objectivism to more of an ideology than a philosophy; it appears that many academics agree with me. I consider Randism as being a cult, i.e. a form of religious beliefs.

This, and your quote from Wiki are totally irrelevant to Rade's (and my) point that you have described a completely false interpretation of objectivism. Whether that is your or Lakoff's error I cannot say, because I have not read his works, but it IS false.

 

Character assassination, and conflating the philosophy with the ideology that was founded on it, are not helpful in a discussion of her philosophy. Please stick to the subject. Do you have any pertinent comments about the quotes from Rand that clearly show that Lakoff (via you) presents a false interpretation of Rand's ideas?

[coldcreation]

Rade

 

I consider Ayn Rand’s objectivism to more of an ideology than a philosophy; it appears that many academics agree with me. I consider Randism as being a cult, i.e. a form of religious beliefs.[...]

 

That's as nonsensical (and false) as saying that atheism is a form of religion.

 

Rejecting faith as antithetical to reason, Rand embraced philosophical realism and opposed all forms of mysticism or supernaturalism, including organized religion.

 

 

CC

[coberst]

That's as nonsensical (and false) as saying that atheism is a form of religion.

 

CC

 

I also consider anti-theism, some call it atheism, to be an ideology like religion. I consider religion to be an example of ideology in its most pure and strongest form.

[coberst]

This, and your quote from Wiki are totally irrelevant to Rade's (and my) point that you have described a completely false interpretation of objectivism. Whether that is your or Lakoff's error I cannot say, because I have not read his works, but it IS false.

 

Character assassination, and conflating the philosophy with the ideology that was founded on it, are not helpful in a discussion of her philosophy. Please stick to the subject. Do you have any pertinent comments about the quotes from Rand that clearly show that Lakoff (via you) presents a false interpretation of Rand's ideas?

 

I do not have any thing more to add to this discussion of Rand's work except for this quote from Wiki:

 

"Rand’s political theory is of little interest. Its unremitting hostility towards the state and taxation sits inconsistently with a rejection of anarchism, and her attempts to resolve the difficulty are ill-thought out and unsystematic.”

[coldcreation]

I also consider anti-theism, some call it atheism, to be an ideology like religion. I consider religion to be an example of ideology in its most pure and strongest form.

 

You can consider whatever you like. That doesn't make it true (or sensical).

 

 

“If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color”

(Mark Schnitzius)

 

 

“Atheism is a non-prophet organization”

(George Carlin)

 

 

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785) Source.

 

 

 

CC

[Rade]

Rade,I consider Ayn Rand’s objectivism to more of an ideology than a philosophy; it appears that many academics agree with me. I consider Randism as being a cult, i.e. a form of religious beliefs.

Dear Coberst, of all the possible responses you could have given to my post---this is it ? The above comments of others say most of what needs to be said about your response.

 

But, I do want to clarify one thing for the readers. Yes, Rand is not in the mainstream of Philosophy--but her thinking is a valid topic for academic philosophers.

 

The college used textbook by Robert P. Wolff, Dept. of Philosophy, U of Mass (Philosophy, A Modern Encounter) includes a section from Rands Atlas Shrugged and he pitted Rand against Jesus Sermon on the Mount because Rands philosophy is that of a radical atheist !

 

Acedemic philosopher David Kelly, Vassar College, has a textbook on Rand philosophy "The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception.

 

Two academic philosophers, Douglas J. Den Uyl, Dept of Philosophy, Bellarmine College, and Douglas B Rasmussen, Dept of Philosophy, St. John's U. have edited a book titled THE PHILOSOPHIC THOUGHT OF AYN RAND ! In this book are contributions from seven other professional philosophers that discuss the philosophy of Rand.

 

Chris M. Sciabarra, Philosopher professor at Penn State U wrote a book titled: Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (it is his take on her philosophy).

 

Harry Binswanger, Ph.D. in Philosophy from Columbia U, taught at Hunter College wrote a book on Rand.

 

Leonard Peikoff, Professor of Philosophy at New York University wrote a book titled OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND !!!!!!

[coberst]

 

 

"[A]n objective account is one which attempts to capture the nature of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. An objective account is, in this sense, impartial, one which could ideally be accepted by any subject, because it does not draw on any assumptions, prejudices, or values of particular subjects. This feature of objective accounts means that disputes can be contained to the object studied." (Gaukroger, 2001, p. 10785) Source.

 

 

 

CC

 

This, I judge, is a very good statement of the objectivist philosophy. SGCS has developed theories that seek to show that an objective account of reality cannot exist because any account of reality must be from a subject wherein it is impossible to bracket (to eliminate from consideration) completely that subject’s "assumptions, prejudices, or values". Because human thought is 95% unconscious it is impossible for any subject to completely cleanse his or her history.

[Rade]

This, I judge, is a very good statement of the objectivist philosophy. SGCS has developed theories that seek to show that an objective account of reality cannot exist because any account of reality must be from a subject wherein it is impossible to bracket (to eliminate from consideration) completely that subject’s "assumptions, prejudices, or values". Because human thought is 95% unconscious it is impossible for any subject to completely cleanse his or her history.

Ok, we have something to work with, but I have not read Gaukroger so I can only respond to what is posted. So, Gaukroger says that the nature of an "objective account" is "to capture the nature" of the object studied in a way that does not depend on any features of the particular subject who studies it. There are a number of ways to take this since words can have so many meanings. If he means that a subject can capture anything about an object without use of the evidence of the senses, then I find that his claim is useless. What he would claim then is that I can capture photons of light without using my eyes (eyes being a feature of me as a subject) and that I would then have an objective account of the photon--clearly nonsense.

 

Given that such an interpretation is so illogical, it must be that Gaukroger is saying that an "objective account" by a subject allows for the senses of the subject to capture the nature of an object" via perception, and that this capture action does not depend on any other features of the subject. That is, Gaukroger is claiming that consciousness or the processing of information does not have anything at all to do with making an "objective account". Now, it seems logical to me that Gaukroger would contrast this with making an "subjective account". I would think he would say that for this type of account the subject must process as a secondary action the "objective account" obtained from perception via consciousness, and here is where the "subjectivity" would enter the picture. If this is not what Gaukroger is saying, then his idea of "objective account" has nothing at all to do with objectivist philosophy as presented by Rand and I really have no idea what he is talking about.

 

One way the Gaukroger idea of "objective account" would present problems for SGCS philosophy is for his definition to mean that no matter who the subject is, the "nature of the object" as "objective account" enters the human unconscious via the senses, before it is processes by the conscious. That is, the objective account perception that the nature of an object exists as object, perhaps as a chair, is independent of the assumptions, etc. And this is what research on the brain informs. The initial research in this area was conducted years ago by Benjamin Libet (Google him), more recent experiments have confirmed his findings (although they offer controversy concerning free will). In short, Libet showed experimentally that all perception by the human brain of objects (that is, all objective accounts) are first filtered by the unconscious before it is given to the conscious to consider, a neural process that has been reported between 500 msec to ~ 10 sec delay. Thus, experiment suggests that a subjects assumptions, prejudices, etc are not in active play at the moment the subject forms an "objective account" of an object. Now, SGCS claims that such is impossible, yet experiments on brain function by Libet and other would appear to falsify the SGCS claim.

 

Finally, I see a philosophic problem with SGCS. Like Kant, it appears to me that the authors of SGCS philosophy claim that "objects" depend on the "subject" as an a priori truth about the nature of "account making" (thus your statement that .....any account of reality must be from a subject....). However, by claiming such absolute and certain knowledge that an "account" of anything MUST BE and is known to be a priori from the subject, while at the same time then holding that it is not possible for the subject to have knowledge of itself as object, the SGCS philosophy makes claim to have absolute and certain knowledge (your MUST BE) of that which, by their own thesis, they cannot know (i.e., the subject as object). There is no such concept as "MUST BE" in science as claimed by SGCS authors, by definition science = uncertain knowledge. Of course, the failure to recognize that consciousness itself is an OBJECT, that is has IDENTITY, is one that has plagued idealists for years.

 

I really see no reason for me to continue to respond to this thread. I have presented my objections to SGCS as to the false claims it makes about objectivism philosophy. If anyone wants to understand the topic, they will have to read Rand directly and the references on her philosophy that I provided in my previous post.