[MD] Percepts and Concepts

[Ham Priday]

Krimel --

> A percept is the byproduct of perception, something perceived;
> sense data.

That's like saying a sensation is a byproduct of sensibility, or knowing is 
a byproduct of knowledge.  Inasmuch as what we perceive encompasses value 
sensibility and the intellectual concepts drawn from experience, why not 
simply call the former "awareness" and the latter "precepts" and be done 
with it?  You and James are "taking relatively simple stuff and erecting 
complex unintelligible verbiage out of it."

> Not all sense data is of "otherness". When I am hungry or stub my toe
> for example. I have no idea why you think there is a "metaphysical"
> necessity for anything beyond a lack of food or a brick in the path
> to account for my perceptions.

Could you stub your toe without the brick (otherness) in your path or sense 
hunger without valuing food (otherness)?  Sure, hunger and a sore foot are 
unpleasant sensations.  But pain and discomfort are not values, it's their 
remedy that we desire and value.

> I think the term subject is a bad one. If we take this whole
> s/o business seriously it makes no sense at all to talk about "subjects".
> And I certainly do not think the environment has much to do with
> metaphysics.

How can you discuss S/O seriously without talking about subjects?  I agree 
that "environment" is the wrong term for objects or otherness.  I used it 
only because it seemed to be your vernacular.  You told Marsha "We do not 
have enough time to respond to the environment on the basis of reason,"  And 
you said to me that "Value arises from the interaction of the individual 
with the environment."

> But reflex responses are not all the simple. When first discovered
> it was thought that they could actually account for all of human behavior.
> That was in the 1800s and it turned out not to be true but they do
> explain a great deal of our behavior including the hot stove example.
>
> Value is what we make of stimulation. From one especially fertile point of
> view we are input/output systems. Sensation provides input. Output is
> behavior.

There's that objectivist word "behavior", again.  Tell me, Krimel, do you 
ever respond to Beauty, Freedom, Justice, Excellence, and Merit?  These are 
values too, not just "behavioral responses".   Value is what we feel, not 
how we act.  It's our subjective realization of moral or esthetic "goodness" 
You can't measure value-sensibility behaviorally.

[Ham]:
> ...Inasmuch as I don't view Value or its realization as an organic or
> synaptic process, I see little point in commenting on [a 
> neuro-physiological
> analysis].  Besides, the philosophical ground is covered in the 
> discussion.

[Krimel]:
> Right, you don't seem to have an aversion to the supernatural.
> Dave does. He wants to keep the supernatural baby by renaming it
> and drinking its bath water.

To cite the original cliché, be careful that you're not throwing the babe 
out with the bath water.  Much of what you academicians dismiss as 
"supernatural" or "theistic" have a valid place in philosophy.  Since all 
metaphysical theory is in some sense speculative you are denying yourself an 
opportunity to resolve the enigma of existence by rejecting it.

> I plan to spend the 4th watching our local fireworks. We go to the
> show and walk toward the blastoff site until a fireman tells us we are
> too close and makes us back-up a few feet. Then we spread our
> blankets, lay on the ground and watch the sky flowers bloom...
> or I guess that's boom.

We did the same until a couple of years ago when the township ran out of 
money to put on such displays.  Now we watch them from New York or Philly on 
hi-def TV.  I hear they're renaming this holiday "Dependents' Day" in honor 
of the Obamanation.

Now, there's a statement that's sure to bring on the fireworks!

Enjoy,
Ham