Comparison. That's the essence of the mind.

Whenever we think or perceive something, we are making comparisons. When we look at an apple, we identify it as an apple because we compare it with everything surrounding the apple. When we look at an apple and an orange, we are comparing and contrasting them in order to determine what is an "apple" and an "orange". When we analize cause and effect, we are comparing something in terms of time- what it was before and what it is now.

All logic comes down to comparison. From comparisons come all the logical subjects such as epistemology, semantics, etc.

So why don't we use a logic system based specifically on comparison?

"So why don't we use a logic system based specifically on comparison."

You're talking to a dumbass, truthseeker.
But, I can tell you that the majority of dumbasses, so to speak, have sence.

You, are master of no nonsence. Funny that.

You are asking a question that is already known.
All logic doesn't come to comparison.
I believe you need to re-think before you post.

Just my opinion.

"Comparison. That's the essence of the mind........
.....................................When we look at an apple,......."


You said , "When we look at an apple ,we identify it as an apple" . this is
perfectely true for a person having a normal vision. but it is not applicable
to a person who is blind since his/her birth. He doesn't know what shape
apple has ?and neither of orange .

So how can he compare between apple and orange ?

well answer is simple ,
Though he doesn't have his eye sight he can use his other sensory
organs and he will find differences between them.
i.e [Shape by touch ]
[ Smell by nose ]

So your statement "Comparison. That's the essence of the mind "
remains true even for blind,deaf, physically challenged person and even
animals too .

But when he finds some new information which is completely differ-
ent from his previous knowledge , he still tries to compare it with his old
information and if he doesn't find anything comparable then he will store
that information as a new knowledge and he will use his new knowledge for
further comparison.

art_dex,

Yes. When I spoke about the apple, my point was the comparison specifically. I'm aware that a blind person would also use comparison. :)

All logic doesn't come to comparison.
Prove.

All I am saying is your points are very slippery. They are not logical.

A...ha..... :rolleyes:

How about an argument, logic king? :rolleyes:

I suppose your points make sence, but you can't have everything steming from just a comparison. Everything as in, what is logic? Do you know?

Comparison is the first step of a mind percieving the external world. Not the essense of the mind in my opinion. Internal thinking, or meditation on the inner working of the body, mind, and soul is not based on comparison. It cannot be compared to anything fleeting, material, or uneternal. The essense of the mind is god, is eternity and cannot correctly be compared to anything else. The deepest external thinking brings internal thinking to the external world and tries to understand the god, the miracle within everything and everyone. I guess you could call that comparing the material to the unchanging... if so then we are really saying the same thing.

btw... my first post!

love, y'all

"blaablaablaa god is great" yeah, that sums it up nicely.

Anyway Truthseeker, your theory is kinda vague. Or rather, you propably used comparative logic on it and jumped some points. A=B would be this. Since there's no absolutes, ~a=~b. But a+b=c requires something else. Whoops. Comporative is essential but not THE essence.

So the answer: Cause we really like learning new things. :P

When you say "a+b=c", you are analizing the relationship between the variables by comparing them. It's impossible to say "a+b=c" without comparing those variables!

Comparison. That's the essence of the mind.

Whenever we think or perceive something, we are making comparisons. When we look at an apple, we identify it as an apple because we compare it with everything surrounding the apple. When we look at an apple and an orange, we are comparing and contrasting them in order to determine what is an "apple" and an "orange". When we analize cause and effect, we are comparing something in terms of time- what it was before and what it is now.

All logic comes down to comparison. From comparisons come all the logical subjects such as epistemology, semantics, etc.

So why don't we use a logic system based specifically on comparison?Comparison is the essence of value judgments.

Information is impossible without separation.

truthseeker, "It's impossible to say "a+b=c" without comparing those variables!"
yes but "a+b=c requires something else".
That is to say, yes, you have to compare them, but you would have also have to do something else. Comparison is the hammer, you still need the chisel. How does "+" reduce into comparison?



Also, you could just guess what 25*7+1058 is (randomly generating patterns until you figure out the one that compares), or you could logically figure it out. You need comparison to confirm the answer, but something else to get there.

Comparison. That's the essence of the mind.

Whenever we think or perceive something, we are making comparisons. When we look at an apple, we identify it as an apple because we compare it with everything surrounding the apple. When we look at an apple and an orange, we are comparing and contrasting them in order to determine what is an "apple" and an "orange". When we analize cause and effect, we are comparing something in terms of time- what it was before and what it is now.

All logic comes down to comparison. From comparisons come all the logical subjects such as epistemology, semantics, etc.

So why don't we use a logic system based specifically on comparison?
One may perhaps state reactivity is the essence of the mind. Before a comparative milieu can even be premeditated, the mind reacts to whatever stimulus it’s associated with. Therefore, one’s mind reacts to something, let’s say, the cooing of a pigeon. Once the mind, has reacted, neurologically transmitted messages are sent throughout the entire body, creating emotion, from which logic is primed. The mind truthfully proclaims, “That is the sound of a pigeon.” Subsequently, when one hears the cooing of the pigeon in reiteration, it is the substantiated reverberation of a pigeon. After this progression is industrious, comparison is implemented. A dove is heard, the mind is in the throes of reactivity, in replication the sound the dove emits is compared to that of the sound the pigeon produces.

It gets to the degree, one hears a pigeon, and needs not compare it to anything anymore. One might say, at an extreme rate anyways, one might still hear a pigeon, yet ignore it, and thus the sound of the cooing would become backdrop prattle. E.G. the sounds of the dove and pigeon would have already become discernable. The mastery of the minds reactivity is ostensibly perfunctory; a procession of reactivity for each modulated sound heard. If one is hearing many sounds, they are inductive of comparison, yet this equation is only formulated after the mind reacts and determines each distinguishable resonance. Comparison requires thinking, and thought is certainly not the essence of the mind.

How does "+" reduce into comparison?
I already explained that...

Comparison is relative.

Unless you are comparing specific numbers and values, two people will never come to the same conclusion based on comparison alone. It is illogical to attempt to find a rational and real answer to a question when the essense of the sum is based on personal interpretation. And comparisons (as opposed to real facts and figures) are relative to the person who is comparing them.

Your logic on this is flawed, and still doesn't explain who adding two things is the same as comparing two things. Comparison has no place in logic, as it places subjective value on the weight of two items using one human mind.

Comparison is relative.
...

Comparison has no place in logic, as it places subjective value on the weight of two items using one human mind.

Exactly.

I've been perusing this interesting thread for some time, while wondering when it's going to get on topic.
Comparison, if anything, is the essence of discrimination. Certainly not of Mind.

The 'essence' (if one is going to move in that ontological direction....) of Mind is Intention.

Intention is sort of broad for the existential realm of mind.

Intention is sort of broad for the existential realm of mind.

Exactly....

Given that it appears to be the case that what's of interest here is the mind (capital M mind...), the last thing we need to do is go on an existentialist trip...

Comparison is relative.

Unless you are comparing specific numbers and values, two people will never come to the same conclusion based on comparison alone. It is illogical to attempt to find a rational and real answer to a question when the essense of the sum is based on personal interpretation. And comparisons (as opposed to real facts and figures) are relative to the person who is comparing them.

Your logic on this is flawed, and still doesn't explain who adding two things is the same as comparing two things. Comparison has no place in logic, as it places subjective value on the weight of two items using one human mind.
Who cares? I never said comparison is always objective and valid. What I said is that this is what we do.

Exactly.

I've been perusing this interesting thread for some time, while wondering when it's going to get on topic.
Comparison, if anything, is the essence of discrimination. Certainly not of Mind.
Again, gross missinterpretation. "Comparison" does not concern itself with complex ideas. Whenever you identify an object, you are making a comparison. You cannot think without identifying objects. Therefore, comparison is the essence of thinking.

The 'essence' (if one is going to move in that ontological direction....) of Mind is Intention.
What? That's completely illogical! :eek:

Exactly....

Given that it appears to be the case that what's of interest here is the mind (capital M mind...), the last thing we need to do is go on an existentialist trip...
So you just accept that the mind exist and that we know everything about the mind, eh? :rolleyes:

nelson, I may actually think you, in some way, said something right.

if you must ask for a basic unit of thought to begin the chain of logic and mental capacities... ratio is a fairly good choice. comparison is a rather unspecific word, so I would choose ratio, but they are essentially the same.

But, I do think the question is ambitious. It seems much more natural to accept that the basis of logic - which we access through one area of our brain - is of unique elements and functions; while the basis for real analysis (math eq. to logic in class) is in ratio.

Well, I'm rambling now.

ogmios:

"That is to say, yes, you have to compare them, but you would have also have to do something else. Comparison is the hammer, you still need the chisel. How does "+" reduce into comparison?"

Well, to play devil's advocate...
It is definetly true that you could reduce '+' to comparison. For instance, produce the chart x + y = z and say you are comparing the positions on x and y and their corresponding z places.

Then the question is - why should we reduce in this way? I can't really think of any good reason. But then, I can't think of any good reason to try to reduce relations (such as +). Regardless, it's at least possible.

the essence of mind is "the abstract", or perhaps I should call it "meaning".

comparison doesn't exist without it.

substance would have no 'meaning' without ratio. both are necessary, you couldn't remove either.

Let's just say truthseeker is right, but just stated his thoughts in a way nothing can understand...(hence we cannot naturally accept it!)

Also if you say mathematics is about comparison, well, then it would just mean we already ARE using a thoughtsystem based on comparison. In a word, if you define logic as a system of comparison, then it means we already think in comparisons...
So, "So why don't we use a logic system based specifically on comparison?", we do.
(and if you're wrong, then we aren't, and shouldn't..)

If you think you're right, say it in a totally diffrent way. You might have explained the "+" thing, but since I asked it again, I clearly hadn't understood what you had said. (It doesn't matter wheter you send a message (or not) if it doesn't get through.)

nelson, I may actually think you, in some way, said something right.

if you must ask for a basic unit of thought to begin the chain of logic and mental capacities... ratio is a fairly good choice. comparison is a rather unspecific word, so I would choose ratio, but they are essentially the same.

But, I do think the question is ambitious. It seems much more natural to accept that the basis of logic - which we access through one area of our brain - is of unique elements and functions; while the basis for real analysis (math eq. to logic in class) is in ratio.

Well, I'm rambling now.
What do you mean by "ratio"?

Let's just say truthseeker is right, but just stated his thoughts in a way nothing can understand...(hence we cannot naturally accept it!)
"Nothing" can understand? You mean a box could understand something? :D

If you think you're right, say it in a totally diffrent way. You might have explained the "+" thing, but since I asked it again, I clearly hadn't understood what you had said. (It doesn't matter wheter you send a message (or not) if it doesn't get through.)
Maybe I think in a different way?

You see... I see evertyhing in the universe in terms of the relationships between variables, objects and hierarchies of objects. I have a whole system (which used to be subconscious) based completely on identifying objects and comparing them to find relationships between them. When I look at an apple, I don't see an apple. I see a whole bunch of atoms and molecules that distinguish themselves from the molecules around them to form the image of an apple. The properties of the apple are also defined by the molecules which compose it. Anything that happen to the apple, that involves the apple, is based on what the apple is and the relationships that are possible with the object which we perceive as "apple". That's how I see the world.

Yeah, you recognize patterns. That's really what everyone does, really. Some people see big patterns, others see smaller ones, but on general it's always just comparison to recognoze something. But people look for diffrent clues to draw their patterns. The thing is to understand what patterns others see, and communicate in those patterns. Apple is just a definition, or a pattern of atoms, formed in a certain way.

What I'm saying is the way you said it didn't seem to make sense to others, so you should say it in a diffrent way (using diffrent clues, or definitions or patterns..). There's no point, really, to say things the way you see them, as then you can only be understood by someone like you, ie. someone who already knows what you're saying.

I suppose you're saying the same thing as Chatha said here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56513&page=1) (and with as confusing terminology..). But what I think I'm saying is that comparison can't shape the way we think, so there has to be something more to it. An essential tool, but not the only tool..

Comparison. That's the essence of the mind.
I think the essence is brains... BRAINZZZ!!! FRESH BRAAAAAAINZ!

How do you get to the value of the comparison?

How do you value a in a + b = c?

It has to begin with a value outside of the comparison at all times. You can't compare an apple to an orange if you've never tried an apple or an orange.

So in your example, the essence of mind is knowledge or experience, not comparison. The comparison comes after an initial value is obtained through experience and knowledge. Relationships are important between two things, however it can work against you if your value of an object comes from assumption, ignorance or corrupt judgment. If you had an apple as a child, and it was a granny smith which is fairly sour and you compare it to a ripe navel orange, than the orange is going to seem sweeter and more succulent. Does that mean that oranges are sweeter than apples?

Comparison is a helpful tool, but it is NOT the essence of mind. Knowledge is the essense of mind, from birth until death. It all starts with that first experience that we learn from.

BRAINZ?!

Again, gross missinterpretation. "Comparison" does not concern itself with complex ideas. Whenever you identify an object, you are making a comparison. You cannot think without identifying objects. Therefore, comparison is the essence of thinking.


I fully agree. Except that, comparison is not a complex idea. It is a very basic one. The mind cannot but compare; comparison is the essence of discrimination.




What? That's completely illogical! :eek:

LOL...
You'd better tell that to the last 50 years most reputable philosophers on the concept of mind then.
Go read some Dennett and come back.

viz.: The ony means by which we can differentiate between entities that we will attribute 'mind' to versus those that we won't, is by the attribution of intentional behaviour.


So you just accept that the mind exist and that we know everything about the mind, eh? :rolleyes:


Interesting, illicit conclusion.

I accept that the concept 'mind' obtains. However, what we call mind, by it's very nature, defies being completely known.

ratio is a much more proper way of saying comparison. if what you mean is 'comparing' in the literal sense, then you've got a fairly empty argument. ratio fully contains all the meaning I think you're going for.

in math terms, ratio is much more precise a word.

Glaucon,

I seriously doubt that Truthseeker knows what you mean by 'intention'.


Truthseeker,

Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

Glaucon,

I seriously doubt that Truthseeker knows what you mean by 'intention'.


Truthseeker,

Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/


I concur.

Thanks for posting the link.

:-)

Yeah, you recognize patterns. That's really what everyone does, really. Some people see big patterns, others see smaller ones, but on general it's always just comparison to recognoze something. But people look for diffrent clues to draw their patterns. The thing is to understand what patterns others see, and communicate in those patterns. Apple is just a definition, or a pattern of atoms, formed in a certain way.

What I'm saying is the way you said it didn't seem to make sense to others, so you should say it in a diffrent way (using diffrent clues, or definitions or patterns..). There's no point, really, to say things the way you see them, as then you can only be understood by someone like you, ie. someone who already knows what you're saying.

I suppose you're saying the same thing as Chatha said here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=56513&page=1) (and with as confusing terminology..). But what I think I'm saying is that comparison can't shape the way we think, so there has to be something more to it. An essential tool, but not the only tool..
My goal was to define an universal brain pattern.

How do you get to the value of the comparison?

How do you value a in a + b = c?

It has to begin with a value outside of the comparison at all times. You can't compare an apple to an orange if you've never tried an apple or an orange.

So in your example, the essence of mind is knowledge or experience, not comparison. The comparison comes after an initial value is obtained through experience and knowledge. Relationships are important between two things, however it can work against you if your value of an object comes from assumption, ignorance or corrupt judgment. If you had an apple as a child, and it was a granny smith which is fairly sour and you compare it to a ripe navel orange, than the orange is going to seem sweeter and more succulent. Does that mean that oranges are sweeter than apples?

Comparison is a helpful tool, but it is NOT the essence of mind. Knowledge is the essense of mind, from birth until death. It all starts with that first experience that we learn from.
As I said, you identify objects by comparing them to other objects around them. Without that comparison, that awareness of difference, there is no distinction. If I would look at an apple and my brain wouldn't compare the able to the air and environment around it, all I would see would be a huge blur in which the apple and the environment would be one thing, indistinctically. Without that comparison and that distinction, there's no perception, no identification of objects, nothing!

I fully agree. Except that, comparison is not a complex idea. It is a very basic one. The mind cannot but compare; comparison is the essence of discrimination.
I rather use the word "distinction".

ratio is a much more proper way of saying comparison. if what you mean is 'comparing' in the literal sense, then you've got a fairly empty argument. ratio fully contains all the meaning I think you're going for.

in math terms, ratio is much more precise a word.
As I asked before, please define "ratio"...

Glaucon,

I seriously doubt that Truthseeker knows what you mean by 'intention'.


Truthseeker,

Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/
I agree. I got totally lost there... :p

As I said, you identify objects by comparing them to other objects around them. Without that comparison, that awareness of difference, there is no distinction. If I would look at an apple and my brain wouldn't compare the able to the air and environment around it, all I would see would be a huge blur in which the apple and the environment would be one thing, indistinctically. Without that comparison and that distinction, there's no perception, no identification of objects, nothing!

You have to learn what the apple is like before you can compare it to anything else. So the essence of the mind is learning and knowledge before comparison. Without knowledge, there can be no comparison.

Your logic is completely flawed, and you even stated just now that it begins with something other than comparison in this paragraph.

So the essence of the mind is learning and knowledge before comparison. Without knowledge, there can be no comparison.
Maybe it has to be seen in time or in development, a child has to get to know the world and learn to name al the things around him.
Then when he is familiar with that, he can use all that knowledge to earn a living.
Now if he is rather succesfull with that he might think the world as he sees it is the whole truth. Than at this point it is important to compare his own knowlegde with others.
So maybe comparison is not the essence of the mind, but it is a very important aspect as if this is not done it will lead to dogma’s as we see them all around us today.

You have to learn what the apple is like before you can compare it to anything else. So the essence of the mind is learning and knowledge before comparison. Without knowledge, there can be no comparison.

Your logic is completely flawed, and you even stated just now that it begins with something other than comparison in this paragraph.
You are missing the point entirely. You cannot identify the apple as a distinct object without comparing it with everything else. When you look at an apple, you automatically distinguishes it from everything else. The core of the process of identification (and therefore, knwoledge) is the comparison.

BRAINZ!! ZE EZZENCE IZ BRAINZZZZ!
And you can eat them, them tasty, tasty brainz... :'-)

You just want a greater post count, Avatar... :p

You're just ignoring my opinion of what the essence of the mind is.
For post counting accusations turn to spuriousmonkey

Oh yeah! "The BRAINZ"! Great opinion Mr. Avatar... :p

I agree with truthseeker. Comparison is an essence of the mind.
Outstanding epistemological fodder.
Outstanding ontological tonic.
Bravissimo.

I agree with truthseeker. Comparison is an essence of the mind.
Outstanding epistemological fodder.
Outstanding ontological tonic.
Bravissimo.

The claim was that comparision is the essence of mind. No one is arguing that comparison is not a mental event.

And this is hardly fodder....

And despite my efforts, no one has approached this from the ontological point of view yet....

Dear glaucon:
A thousand genuflecting pardons.

The claim was that comparision is the essence of mind. No one is arguing that comparison is not a mental event.

And this is hardly fodder....

And despite my efforts, no one has approached this from the ontological point of view yet....

*sigh*

I'm ignored so readily these days.

I DID offer an ontological attempt I do believe, but to you it's old hat... as we've been down this road a few times at least.

To me, the essence of mind is abstraction or "the abstract", or its propensity to bring past and future to the moment, allowing the capcity of "decision making". It is the very thing that no other object in the known universe possesses, and without it there is no potential for anything besides the absolutely mundane.

I'll read up to see what of yours I missed.

Ah I see:

"The 'essence' (if one is going to move in that ontological direction....) of Mind is Intention."

Ah hrmmmm.

*ponders*

Abstraction is, IMO, more fundamental than intention.

IMO, Abstraction is the consequential formation of conceptual links given circumstance and one's mental state at a given time.

I think it is arguable that "the ability to formulate concepts" is the essence of mind. There's probably a better way to say that. I find the notion implicit to the term "abstraction".

Wes,

Intention is deeper than abstraction. That is, abstraction is not possible without intention.

Intention, quite simply, is a thought's ability to be 'about' something.
This is fundamental to abstraction.
One must be able to think about rocks (intentional thought towards rocks) before one can abstract that concept to rock and/or roll, baby! Yeah!!


Now. You can argue that Abstraction is a higher order form of intention. That it is thus more important when one is trying to define human thought and what is unique about it.

But, intention underlies abstraction. No doubts about this.

Wes,

Intention is deeper than abstraction. That is, abstraction is not possible without intention.

Hmm.. I disagree on the basis that intention itself is an abstraction.

Intention, quite simply, is a thought's ability to be 'about' something.
This is fundamental to abstraction.

To me, intention is the directed focus of will. Thought is not always willful. It has its own momentum. Intention is the focused, decisive hijackage of thought. Thus, thoughts capacity to be "about something" is not dependent upon intention. It is dependent more upon circumstance and its state at a given time - which may or not be inclusion of "intention" as I see it. Perhaps you think of it more broadly. In the broadest sense I'd consider what you speak of to be "context", which is how a point of view relates to its circumstance... how it is framed it the historical record (what the mind has come to be give initial conditions and its shapage over time) brought into moment x by the mind in question.

One must be able to think about rocks (intentional thought towards rocks) before one can abstract that concept to rock and/or roll, baby! Yeah!!

IMO, the capacity/ability of separating the rock from the potential blur of its environment is conceptualization. Relating that to its place amongst the other separate objects in its setting is abstraction. To me, this necessarily predacates intention... but not instinct.

Now. You can argue that Abstraction is a higher order form of intention.

I could argue lots of things, but perhaps you'll sway to my current baffling bullshit.

That it is thus more important when one is trying to define human thought and what is unique about it.

I think I've shown how at least in my usage of the terms in involved, this is not the case.

But, intention underlies abstraction. No doubts about this.

I have plenty still. I'll see your rebuttal, then call.

As a note I find personally most interesting...

IMO, we can deduce from the notion of the "shape of concepts" or "the shape of language" if you will, how it must be by the nature of indivuality, that we perhaps cannot agree on what exactly mind is. Because to each of us, its components are tailored to our perspective.... the very language we use to describe our perspective of perspective itself, is so steeped in the inviduality of the terms in use that we may never... ever be able to dissect it with words.

But what fucks me up is that the observation as stated above should be very revealing.

Ah I see, ultimately, are all statements merely a twisted regurgitation of premise?

Well... perhaps sometimes them twists look perty.

First.
As always.
Let's have some definitions.

Intention is easy as it's a well-defined term.
Are we on the same page? Do you understand the sense of intention being used here? It's not like, "I intend to go down to that bar and kick that guy's ass." It's not an act of will.
Although, it could be seen as one. Really, it's such a simple concept but god damned slippery.

If you don't understand the form of intention being used, I provided a link a while back for Truthseeker to read. It might do you some good to read it.
But, in a nutshell, as I said, intention is 'aboutness'.


Abstraction is whole 'nother can of worms.
You give this definition which I don't really understand. Maybe you could elaborate?

"IMO, Abstraction is the consequential formation of conceptual links given circumstance and one's mental state at a given time."

Consequential to what? What type of conceptual links? What circumstance? What mental state? Etc...


To me, abstraction is a second order form of concept.
That is, primary intentional thought is about objective reality. Sensory perception. This rock. That chair. This pimple on my ass.

Abstraction goes from that to some higher form. The simplest form of abstraction would be to abstract from that rock to all rocks. To create a category rock. Or perhaps the Platonic Form. The ideal rock that is the binding unity of all rocks.

But, before we can move to the abstraction of Rock, we must first know rock.

Intention is before abstraction.

There are also other forms of abstraction that take us ever higher into the unreal. It is this chase that ends us in territories where concepts such as justice and ... (Why do I always come up with "justice" as my ideal of an abstract principle? Hmm.)
Anyway.
No need to take the road to these higher realms at the moment because the dependence of abstraction upon intention is clear already.

Hmm.. I disagree on the basis that intention itself is an abstraction.

Ah. But is this necessarily so?
The concept of intention is indeed an abstraction. But the concept is merely an explanation for what takes place without said concept.
The act of intention is natural and needs no definition to work.

To me, intention is the directed focus of will. Thought is not always willful. It has its own momentum. Intention is the focused, decisive hijackage of thought. Thus, thoughts capacity to be "about something" is not dependent upon intention. It is dependent more upon circumstance and its state at a given time - which may or not be inclusion of "intention" as I see it. Perhaps you think of it more broadly. In the broadest sense I'd consider what you speak of to be "context", which is how a point of view relates to its circumstance... how it is framed it the historical record (what the mind has come to be give initial conditions and its shapage over time) brought into moment x by the mind in question.

Yeah. Almost sure you don't know what intention means. Read it. It's pretty interesting and crucial to cognitive philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

IMO, the idea of separating the rock from the potential blur of its environment is conceptualization. Relating that to its place amongst the other separate objects in its setting is abstraction. To me, this necessarily predacates intention... but not instinct.

Hmm. Yes and no. Yes and no.
First. The mandatory experiment when dealing with rocks.
Kick it.
Hard.
Then come back and talk to me about seperating the rock from its environment and yaddah yaddah.
You don't need to understand the concept of Rock to break your toe on that rock.

What do you mean by predicates intention? And instinct? Lost me at the end.
Clarify.

I think I've shown how at least in my usage of the terms in involved, this is not the case.

As always, semantics.
Let's see what you have to say when you understand my usage of the term.

I have plenty still. I'll see your rebuttal, then call.

Heh. Reminds me of this SNL this weekend. Drunk Nick Nolte was playing celebrity poker and he raised by throwing up on the table. When... I forget who he was playing saw his raise, he raised again by a skunk he'd run over on the way to the studio....

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3641/imagesku7.jpg

IMO, we can deduce from the notion of the "shape of concepts" or "the shape of language" if you will, how it must be by the nature of indivuality, that we perhaps cannot agree on what exactly mind is. Because to each of us, its components are tailored to our perspective.... the very language we use to describe our perspective of perspective itself, is so steeped in the inviduality of the terms in use that we may never... ever be able to dissect it with words.

Which is why semantics are so important.
And why linguistics is so crucial in even beginning to attempt any understanding of mind.
I was amazed by this. I grew up thinking of mind as neurons and neurotransmitters. But, when I began to delve into the concept in earnest, it always leads back to language.
Every serious treatment on the subject inevitably leads to language and semantics.
And every serious treatment of language seems to diverge inevitably to mind (even if those speaking of it are unaware of it.)

But what fucks me up is that the observation as stated above should be very revealing.

Ah I see, ultimately, are all statements merely a twisted regurgitation of premise?

Well... perhaps sometimes them twists look perty.

The twisting is the alteration of premise. If one is unable or unwilling to alter his a priori then he might as well not even bother. The only way anything can be 'revealed' is by shaking the fucker down to the foundations.

First.
As always.
Let's have some definitions.

Yah okay then.

Intention is easy as it's a well-defined term.
Are we on the same page? Do you understand the sense of intention being used here? It's not like, "I intend to go down to that bar and kick that guy's ass." It's not an act of will.

Then why use the term intention? It's part of "intent" as in, to have purpose... so I don't see how the term is exactly relevant. I do see what you mean, I just tend to shy away from the particular usage... as to me it escapes the spirit of the term.

Although, it could be seen as one. Really, it's such a simple concept but god damned slippery.

Sure.

If you don't understand the form of intention being used, I provided a link a while back for Truthseeker to read. It might do you some good to read it.
But, in a nutshell, as I said, intention is 'aboutness'.

"aboutness" is context. Why not just use the more appropriate word? Bah, as I said.. to you it must be the appropriate word, and to me it obviously isn't.

Abstraction is whole 'nother can of worms.
You give this definition which I don't really understand. Maybe you could elaborate?

We'll see.

"IMO, Abstraction is the consequential formation of conceptual links given circumstance and one's mental state at a given time."

Consequential to what?

As in, as consequence of all the interactions taking place at the time in question. One's circumstance has consequence.

What type of conceptual links?

Like how bikes can be red, or rusty.. which can have a texture, which can be rough or smooth. Like how all those ideas were linked together in my mind such that I could flow between their relevance more likely than other concepts...

What circumstance?

All the different levels of circumstance that are relavent to the moment in question. The physics of the space you occupy and how you percieve it, all the way up to the most vacuous nuances your social concerns.

What mental state? Etc...

The aspects of mind that are active and pertinent to the moment in question.

To me, abstraction is a second order form of concept.
To me, its an ontological doodad that performed by a brain that shapes a mind, allowing it things like intention.

That is, primary intentional thought is about objective reality. Sensory perception. This rock. That chair. This pimple on my ass.

You seem to assume the rock exists apart from all the other shit bombarding your perception. How does it do so? It becomes a concept I spoze, and then is related to other concepts like pimples on your ass. The process of establishing that relationship is abstraction as I see it. I understand what you mean. Our disagreement to me seems to be mostly a result of our semantical choices.

Abstraction goes from that to some higher form. The simplest form of abstraction would be to abstract from that rock to all rocks. To create a category rock. Or perhaps the Platonic Form. The ideal rock that is the binding unity of all rocks.

I see what you mean, just to me the simplest form is separating one rock from the tao, or even categorizing a certain type of something you percieve as a rock in the first place. IMO, intention is not necessary for this to happen. It will happen through repetitious stimulous and a functioning mind introduced to language. I think it must also happen without language in a less specific, less clearly structured form.

But, before we can move to the abstraction of Rock, we must first know rock.

Again, our differences seem to be ramifications of semantical choices.

Intention is before abstraction.

I can see that as you use it, it must be.

There are also other forms of abstraction that take us ever higher into the unreal. It is this chase that ends us in territories where concepts such as justice and ... (Why do I always come up with "justice" as my ideal of an abstract principle? Hmm.)

Perhaps because it's such actually such a vacuous notion yet so very, very popular and appealing to most. I suppose to me it seems you've chosen an abitrary line to start using the term "abstraction". It seems like you've missed the fundamental place where it happens. But you use the idea of "intention" to bridge what would be a gap in the way I see things. As a consequence of my own choices of categorization, it seems somewhat arbitrary. It already makes sense to me! Lol. *sigh* Ah, ego.

Anyway.
No need to take the road to these higher realms at the moment because the dependence of abstraction upon intention is clear already.

To you I understand it is.

Ah. But is this necessarily so?
The concept of intention is indeed an abstraction. But the concept is merely an explanation for what takes place without said concept.
The act of intention is natural and needs no definition to work.

Ah I understand I really do, it's just that to me the content of the act is in and of itself of "the abstract", as in ... intention has no physicality other than some chemical signature in the brain perhaps. It's a pattern. It's meaningless unless of the nature of thought: the abstract. It in a way, transcends four space.. at least as I see it. It is IMO, an extra component, as I've argued at great length in the past.

Yeah. Almost sure you don't know what intention means. Read it. It's pretty interesting and crucial to cognitive philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentionality/

I do think I understand what you mean, but object to the usage as stated. It's just a personal thing.

Hmm. Yes and no. Yes and no.
First. The mandatory experiment when dealing with rocks.
Kick it.
Hard.
Then come back and talk to me about seperating the rock from its environment and yaddah yaddah.

Yes yes, you're very visceral and all... but I don't think you understand what I mean (shit maybe I dont' either, though it seems like I do - at least to me). You kick something and you get pain. You've classified the something you kicked and related it to something else in addition to that. I don't have to think of it as a rock to feel the pain it brings to my foot. I don't have to separate it from its environment at all to do that - but minds separate stuff from the environment.

Do you understand?

You don't need to understand the concept of Rock to break your toe on that rock.

Exactly.

You've only described the essense of a gnat though. It falls short of the glory of mind IMO. You describe instinct. You desribe undirected action/reaction, and still use the term intention. It makes no sense to me.

What do you mean by predicates intention?

Maybe you'll piece it together.

And instinct? Lost me at the end.

I thought I talked about instint's role at the beginning of the post or something. Bah, too much to explain, getting tired.

Clarify.

Blow me.

As always, semantics.
Let's see what you have to say when you understand my usage of the term.

If I were more intelligent, younger, or more willing to loose my tenuous comprehension I might be more flexible.

To me, intention if the fruit of ego, ego is the fruit of survival, and survival itself is an abstraction - the act of it, the ontologicalness of it. The "doing" of survival is itself an abstract substance.

Why?

Because:

"why survive"?

Dirt doesn't "survive".

Rocks don't "survive".

Life does, through reflecting on all else, internally.

I DID offer an ontological attempt I do believe, but to you it's old hat... as we've been down this road a few times at least.


wes,

My apologies. I didn't realize you were still involved in the thread. I've been away for some time, and quite frankly was surprised to see this one ressurected.



Abstraction is, IMO, more fundamental than intention.


After careful consideration, observering you and invert go back and forth, it occurs to me that, while the two are not quite the same, abstraction and intention are loathe to part. The two intermingle throughout any serious discussion of mind, and once we get down to the ontological 'nitty gritty', it seems that they are difficult to disentangle.
I grant to you wes, that it's difficult to remove abstraction from any act of intention, but at the same time, I cannot conceive of an unintentional abstractive act.

Hmmm...

I'll have to ponder more.

I wasn't involved in the thread again until I noted you'd posted here. As you are able to give actual consideration to the purported subject matter (which it doesn't seem the thread's author is really capable of considering), I thought I'd "bust a move", yo.

Here's a smidge on your comment:

"To me, intention if the fruit of ego, ego is the fruit of survival, and survival itself is an abstraction - the act of it, the ontologicalness of it. The "doing" of survival is itself an abstract substance."

In the relationships above, IMO - intention is in the vein of ego. And as such, "the abstract" is more fundamental, as it is "the abstract" itself that allows for the condition of mind or rather, that there exists a degree of freedom that allows perspective to which there can exist stimulous that is abstracted.

I have been pondering this topic for many days now and earlier this evening a thought hopped to mind: The essence of mind is mind. Antecedent to comparison, to identiy, to intention, there is the mind, without which identification, comparison, and intention could not exist. You will also note that this trinity of identification, comparison, and intention cannot exist apart from another. Comparison requires the intention to compare and the understanding of identity, identity requires the intention to identify and the ability to compare, whereas intention requires an understanding of identity to intend and the ability to compare to decide what to intend.

What is shared by all?

Mind.

What is shared by all?
braaaainzzz :m:

Comparison. That's the essence of the mind.

Whenever we think or perceive something, we are making comparisons. When we look at an apple, we identify it as an apple because we compare it with everything surrounding the apple. When we look at an apple and an orange, we are comparing and contrasting them in order to determine what is an "apple" and an "orange". When we analize cause and effect, we are comparing something in terms of time- what it was before and what it is now.

All logic comes down to comparison. From comparisons come all the logical subjects such as epistemology, semantics, etc.

So why don't we use a logic system based specifically on comparison?


I do not believe the basis of logic is simply comparing options. The basis of logic is also pattern recognition, intuition. You also have abstract thinking, where you don't compare, but you combine multiple movies in your mind to create something new. You cannot compare your way to a work of art, you have to creatively build and construct it brick by brick, note by note, stroke by stroke until you have what we call art. If you view humans as machines then you can dumb the mind down to a single function but every mind is different, we don't even have a standard set of functions, so just because you compare everything all the time does not mean everyone follows that strategy. The only time comparing is useful is when you are ranking and reviewing. In almost every other situatino I can think of, comparing does not play a major role. When I type here, I'm not comparing my thoughts to someone elses, or to yours.

Logic is more than either/or.

An interesting function of the mind is astral projection(compassion/empathy). This is when you leave your body to put yourself into the body and or position of someone else. If you see someone getting their ass kicked such as a battered wife, and she is crying, you CAN put yourself in her situation by projecting yourself into her body, to the point where you can feel her emotional pain, or even her physical pain. This is a function of the mind that not all humans have, and an example that everyones mind has unique functions.

How does a function like this help with decision making? If you want to compare properly, to make a more precise decision, you can view the problem from the position of everyone involved. This leads to game theory type of thinking, where you must make the one decision which allows for everyone to win. The all-win decision making strategy is not something everyone can do, and this is why a lot of the time even in situations where everyone could win 50 points, usually one person will try to win 100 points leaving someone with 0 points. If everyone simply accepted the 50 points, everyone would win forever and there would be no losers in the game.

Not that this is to the point, but...



I do not believe the basis of logic is simply comparing options.

...

Logic is more than either/or.

Actually, that's totally incorrect.
As proven in the Principia Mathematica all logic, from simple syllogisms, to reductio ad absurdam, to predicate and quantificational logic can be derived from the Law of Identity, the Negation operator and the Disjunction operator.

http://piparmetra.net/pagrabs/zoom24.gif

I have been pondering this topic for many days now and earlier this evening a thought hopped to mind: The essence of mind is mind. Antecedent to comparison, to identiy, to intention, there is the mind, without which identification, comparison, and intention could not exist. You will also note that this trinity of identification, comparison, and intention cannot exist apart from another. Comparison requires the intention to compare and the understanding of identity, identity requires the intention to identify and the ability to compare, whereas intention requires an understanding of identity to intend and the ability to compare to decide what to intend.

What is shared by all?

Mind.

What an utterly pointless psuedo-analysis.

The essence of butter is also butter you know.

And tacos are the essence of tacos.

:rolleyes:

Wesmorris:

"What an utterly pointless psuedo-analysis.

The essence of butter is also butter you know.

And tacos are the essence of tacos."

Your intention depends upon the existence of something that identifies and something to identify. This cannot be then "essential" in character, but a symptom or attribute.

Consider if we were to ask after the essence of "chair". Would we say "wood is the essence of chair!" or "leg is the essence of chair!"? No, certainly not, as not all chairs need be made of wood, nor have legs. Therefore an attempt at seeking the "prime attribute" is fallacious without considering that all attributes necessitate the existence of others and the existence of the whole.

wes, P_J,

I find myself in the odd position of moderator... :-)

We've run into this problem simply because the thread-starter failed to explicate terms.

P_J is correct when he says that the equivocation 'the essence of mind is mind' is utterly pointless.

wes can be correct if what he means is that when we say 'the essence of mind is mind' what we're saying here is that when we use the word mind correctly, and its use is understood, the 'essence' of the concept mind is thereby substantiated.

This confusion is simply due to the fact that we're using the word 'essence'. Hello? We're not living in the 3rd Century b.c.e here. Even Aristotle realized how silly Socrates' quest for the sine qua non was. There are no 'essences'; the term is epistemologically vacuous.


Unless... the thread-starter meant something very different and new when the word essence was used.

:-)

Whew.

We've run into this problem simply because the thread-starter failed to explicate terms.

Imagine that.

Don't have a whole lot of time here. So I just want to interject a not on intentionality. Glaucon has used the term 'intention'. I took this to mean 'intentionality' and so far, he has seemed to agree with that. However, upon reviewing that stanford page on intentionality, I now have the impression that it's not correct to use the term intention. Intentionality is the proper term.

Just a semantic nit pick.

Imagine that.

Don't have a whole lot of time here. So I just want to interject a not on intentionality. Glaucon has used the term 'intention'. I took this to mean 'intentionality' and so far, he has seemed to agree with that. However, upon reviewing that stanford page on intentionality, I now have the impression that it's not correct to use the term intention. Intentionality is the proper term.

Just a semantic nit pick.

You got me.

I should have used 'intentionality'.

:-)

Your intention depends upon the existence of something that identifies and something to identify. This cannot be then "essential" in character, but a symptom or attribute.

Ok.

Consider if we were to ask after the essence of "chair". Would we say "wood is the essence of chair!" or "leg is the essence of chair!"? No, certainly not, as not all chairs need be made of wood, nor have legs.

As "essence" is somewhat of a poetic term, it can be reflective of mood. I might, depending on my mood - indulge the question for sport. I may reply "comfort" or "sittage". Maybe I'd say "asspropulation". A craft'sman may decide that "wood" is the essence of chair with good reason, as his body of experience relates wood to chair on a fundamental basis. *shrug*

I think "certainly not" is a bit presumptuous.

Therefore an attempt at seeking the "prime attribute" is fallacious without considering that all attributes necessitate the existence of others and the existence of the whole.

The components of mind are at this time impossible to clearly identify. Each person will have their own impression thereof. Therefore it is implicit to the question that the list of attributes is not fixed, but comprised of the components of one's hypothesis of mind.

Thus, your original reply above is indeed pointless. Your reply to my objection however, makes the clear point that you refuse to indulge in speculation.
Fair enough.

We've run into this problem simply because the thread-starter failed to explicate terms.

See my response to the prince please. Do you agree that the failure in question implies directly that hypothesis is necessary? - I'd say it's necessary regardless, as I do not find the attributes of mind as something likely agreed upon en-masse.

P_J is correct when he says that the equivocation 'the essence of mind is mind' is utterly pointless.

Hey didn't I say that? Whatchooo talkin bout glaucon?

:stinkeye:

:P

glaucon:

Yes, you got our points backwards. But I shall respond if necessary after I adress any of WesMorris' objections.

wesmorris:

"As "essence" is somewhat of a poetic term, it can be reflective of mood. I might, depending on my mood - indulge the question for sport. I may reply "comfort" or "sittage". Maybe I'd say "asspropulation". A craft'sman may decide that "wood" is the essence of chair with good reason, as his body of experience relates wood to chair on a fundamental basis. *shrug*"

One need only point out that there exists chairs made of upholstry, metal, leather, et cetera, to show that wood is not needed for chair. Similarly, one can show that other things have comfort and are not chairs, as well as the fact that we can sit on other things besides chairs, to show that these qualities, too, are not the essence of chair.

But whereas essence does have a poetic meaning, it also has a philosophic meaning along the lines of "what makes something what it is".

"The components of mind are at this time impossible to clearly identify. Each person will have their own impression thereof. Therefore it is implicit to the question that the list of attributes is not fixed, but comprised of the components of one's hypothesis of mind."

It is abundantly evident that you are correct in that each person shall have a unique experience of their subjective states - that is why they are, in fact subjective - but you are utterly incorrect in your other point, that is, in your assertion that the other attributes of the mind are indeterminate owing to the subjectivity of viewpoint. Whether someone conciously analyzes it or not is irrelevant here, in that they manifestly experience intentionality (or will), identification, and comparison (as well as perhaps other things) even if they want to deny it. THat is to say, these attributes are common to all minds as it is the nature of mind and thought to have all these things, and without such, this person could not be able to think whatsoever. For if we assume that this trinity is the complete set of attributes, and if they are as I said interdependent on one another, then it stands to reason that the removal of -any- would necessitate the collapse of mind.

"Thus, your original reply above is indeed pointless. Your reply to my objection however, makes the clear point that you refuse to indulge in speculation.
Fair enough. "

If by speculation you mean "agree with wesmorris", then yes, I am not willing to engage in "speculation". Evidently you have taken to Truthseeker's propensity to get angry when someon presents an alternative viewpoint. If you mean I am not willing to put forth ideas about the essential nature of mind, then you are just wrong.

glaucon:

Contrary to concluding as you have regarding the irrelevance of essences, I instead put forth the view that without an understanding of essence, one cannot know anything. That is to say, were it not for somethings quality of being that something, we could not construe of it whatsoever, as our conception would be at best amorphous, and at worse completely vacant.

Lol.

Dude, I was not in the least bit angry when writing that.

"speculation" does not at all mean 'agree with wesmorris'.

"speculation" would imply however IMO, taking the idea of essence beyond an identity statement, which is in the context of the thread and my opinion - utterly pointless, as has been stated.

"As "essence" is somewhat of a poetic term, it can be reflective of mood. I might, depending on my mood - indulge the question for sport. I may reply "comfort" or "sittage". Maybe I'd say "asspropulation". A craft'sman may decide that "wood" is the essence of chair with good reason, as his body of experience relates wood to chair on a fundamental basis. *shrug*"
One need only point out that there exists chairs made of upholstry, metal, leather, et cetera, to show that wood is not needed for chair.

Of course one may point out many things, but to the individual in question - they may all be of little weight. To a subjective body of experience, "wood" may be indeed the essence of chair. IMO, there is no objective standard.

Similarly, one can show that other things have comfort and are not chairs, as well as the fact that we can sit on other things besides chairs, to show that these qualities, too, are not the essence of chair.

Again, you seem to imply there is an objective standard. I disagree.

But whereas essence does have a poetic meaning, it also has a philosophic meaning along the lines of "what makes something what it is".

Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective".

"The components of mind are at this time impossible to clearly identify. Each person will have their own impression thereof. Therefore it is implicit to the question that the list of attributes is not fixed, but comprised of the components of one's hypothesis of mind."

you are utterly incorrect in your other point, that is, in your assertion that the other attributes of the mind are indeterminate owing to the subjectivity of viewpoint.

That was not my point. My point was simply that there is no complete and accepted working model of mind. I'd think it would follow that there is therefore no perfect list of attributes of mind. Perhaps that point is debatable.

THat is to say, these attributes are common to all minds as it is the nature of mind and thought to have all these things, and without such, this person could not be able to think whatsoever.

Okay, but that is still not to say that it's a "perfect list" of attributes.

For if we assume that this trinity is the complete set of attributes, and if they are as I said interdependent on one another, then it stands to reason that the removal of -any- would necessitate the collapse of mind.

Doesn't "assuming" defeat the point of attempting to discern if they are correct? Perhaps its simply framed incorrectly. Perhaps it's incomplete. I'm just sayin.

"Thus, your original reply above is indeed pointless. Your reply to my objection however, makes the clear point that you refuse to indulge in speculation.
Fair enough. "

If by speculation you mean "agree with wesmorris", then yes, I am not willing to engage in "speculation".

*sigh*

No, by speculation I mean "willingness to indulge in a hypothetical set of attributes comprising mind, in a fashion where one attribute can be argued to be "the essence of mind". I derive your lack of willingness from the following statement:

"Therefore an attempt at seeking the "prime attribute" is fallacious without considering that all attributes necessitate the existence of others and the existence of the whole."

- in which you seem to imply that there exists a "perfect list" of attributes.

I took from what you said that you must present the perfect list of attributes (apparently, the one you offer, your "trinity") and show how one of them is more important than the others. I think this is wrong. First, I don't think the list you offered is framed correctly. "intentionality" is imo, a result of ego which is a result of instinct, which is all tied to the capacity for a POV to exist in the first place. While I'm not arguing that in this specific thing I am right and you are wrong, I am arguing that the fact that it can be framed differently at all negates your argument, which apparently relies completely on "assuming" your purported list of attributes is accurate and complete.

Evidently you have taken to Truthseeker's propensity to get angry when someon presents an alternative viewpoint.

And evidently you've decided to demonstrate you're not above cheap shots. Seriously, you're just wrong. What in particular made you think I was angry? Saying that you had no point? I didn't mean it as an insult. I meant it as an observation of statement. IMO, the identity statement is pointless - literally (in the context of the thread at least), as I've expressed repeatedly.

If you mean I am not willing to put forth ideas about the essential nature of mind, then you are just wrong.

I meant what I said above. The last part "in a fashion which... blah blah" being of particular relevance.

wesmorris:

"Dude, I was not in the least bit angry when writing that."

It sounded very Truthseeker angry, so do excuse me if I mistook things.

""speculation" would imply however IMO, taking the idea of essence beyond an identity statement, which is in the context of the thread and my opinion - utterly pointless, as has been stated. "

If you would prefer, take my statement less along the lines of identification, and more along the lines of critique of taking any of the three attributes of mind as prime.

"Of course one may point out many things, but to the individual in question - they may all be of little weight. To a subjective body of experience, "wood" may be indeed the essence of chair. IMO, there is no objective standard."

Considering that there are chairs beyond what is experienced subjectively, this does not stand to reason. Even a carpenter realizes that wood is not the only medium to work in. He might view it with superiority, though. And that is perfectly fine and acceptable, if not subjective.

"Again, you seem to imply there is an objective standard. I disagree."

Even someone who claims that "only wooden chairs are chairs" admits variety amidst the chairs and thus can be shown to be wrong in presuming that it is only wood chairs which comprise chairs. Similarly, the postulation that is essential also can be determined to be wrong, on the foundation that chairs have form. Clearly the essence then cannot be wood, for there is all ready an admitted other component without which the chair would not be, and which surely one could not say "all wooden structures are chairs" sensibly. This would imply that even trees are chairs, or pencils, or floors.

"Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective"."

If perspective was the guiding force beyond all things, it would stand to reason that one could not convince another of anything, by virtue of the fact that one's subjective experience would necessarily invalidate any arguments. Since this is not the case, this does not stand to reason.

"That was not my point. My point was simply that there is no complete and accepted working model of mind. I'd think it would follow that there is therefore no perfect list of attributes of mind. Perhaps that point is debatable."

This depends strongly on your definition. Do you mean "no complete and accpeted model of mind" relating to neurology? Or are you implying no more abstract analysis of mind? For if we analyze mind, we may not come to a "widely accepted working model", but we can at least attempt to present things in light of truth.

"Okay, but that is still not to say that it's a "perfect list" of attributes."

Agreed. I admit there could be more, although at the moment, I have not had the inclination to look deeper. I had actually hoped to spark that as the next phase of this debate.

"Doesn't "assuming" defeat the point of attempting to discern if they are correct? Perhaps its simply framed incorrectly. Perhaps it's incomplete. I'm just sayin."

I was simply trying to point out the logical conclusion of such if we assume completeness. Presumably other attributes would also be so interconnected, or if not, at least these aspects of mind would have to be present.

"No, by speculation I mean "willingness to indulge in a hypothetical set of attributes comprising mind, in a fashion where one attribute can be argued to be "the essence of mind". I derive your lack of willingness from the following statement:"

Well this is true, I am not willing to be part of said discussion, on the foundation that I think it erroneous to proclaim that any one attribute of mind could over ride the others.

"- in which you seem to imply that there exists a "perfect list" of attributes."

Yes. I did imply that and meant to do so.

"I took from what you said that you must present the perfect list of attributes (apparently, the one you offer, your "trinity") and show how one of them is more important than the others. I think this is wrong. First, I don't think the list you offered is framed correctly. "intentionality" is imo, a result of ego which is a result of instinct, which is all tied to the capacity for a POV to exist in the first place. While I'm not arguing that in this specific thing I am right and you are wrong, I am arguing that the fact that it can be framed differently at all negates your argument, which apparently relies completely on "assuming" your purported list of attributes is accurate and complete."

You misunderstood me in part. I was affirming that all of the three attributes are equally important and, as a trinity, codependent on one another to create a singular whole greater than even them, as all wholes are.

And wasn't it you who posited originally that "mind is intention"? And in what way do you affirm that ego is a result of instinct?

But no, as I noted above, you misunderstood me. I perfectly allow other attributes, I was only saying that if we did indeed presume we have what is right now, mind would have to be such and such. There could be other attributes and indeed, they may even be codependent with these things, or perhaps separate and maybe not even necessary for every mind. If you can put forth such things, please do.

"And evidently you've decided to demonstrate you're not above cheap shots. Seriously, you're just wrong. What in particular made you think I was angry? Saying that you had no point? I didn't mean it as an insult. I meant it as an observation of statement. IMO, the identity statement is pointless - literally (in the context of the thread at least), as I've expressed repeatedly."

No, it was just the way you responded, from my perspective - yes, I realize the irony - but yes. If I was mistaken, I am truly sorry for misjudging.

Prince_James:

Use [QUOTE] tags around the other persons quoted text, otherwise it is a goddamn chore to read your wisdom.

"mind" is a biochemically emergent phenomenological outcome of the interaction of billions of complexly interconnected and weighted elements. Dosen't that just say it all?

Superluminal:

I shall endeavour to do as such, but I often write responses in notepad as my internet browsers are often taken up by other things. I multitask a great deal, you see.

And wasn't it you who posited originally that "mind is intention"?

No.

*points at glaucon*

I said "the essence of mind is the abstract" or something to that point, and attempted to splain further.

Wesmorris:

"I said "the essence of mind is the abstract" or something to that point, and attempted to splain further. "

Then very, very sorry to have imposed such upon you mistakenly.

It sounded very Truthseeker angry, so do excuse me if I mistook things.

Meh, it happens. No problem.

If you would prefer, take my statement less along the lines of identification, and more along the lines of critique of taking any of the three attributes of mind as prime.

I gotcha. It just seems that is only relevant if you are sure that there are only three attributes or if those attributes really have anything to do with the fundamental blah blah blah.

Considering that there are chairs beyond what is experienced subjectively, this does not stand to reason. Even a carpenter realizes that wood is not the only medium to work in. He might view it with superiority, though. And that is perfectly fine and acceptable, if not subjective.

That it is the only medium is not necessarily the key factor of its essence from a particular point of view. He could see the history of chairs over time, blah blah and make a much more abstract assertion, kind of like viewing it with superiority, but more like viewing it as a "how has the modern chair come to be what it is?" kind of thing.

Even someone who claims that "only wooden chairs are chairs" admits variety amidst the chairs and thus can be shown to be wrong in presuming that it is only wood chairs which comprise chairs. Similarly, the postulation that is essential also can be determined to be wrong, on the foundation that chairs have form. Clearly the essence then cannot be wood, for there is all ready an admitted other component without which the chair would not be, and which surely one could not say "all wooden structures are chairs" sensibly. This would imply that even trees are chairs, or pencils, or floors.

But to different individuals, that which comprises an object can be extremely abstract. Certainly the materials involved are physical and for the purposes of the conversation I'll grant you, unquestionable - the materials of any particular chair to not necessarily reflect the history of how such objects came to be in the first place, which in the case of chairs would involve wood for thousands of years - especially to the wood chair crafts guy. He would argue that the art of chair making is an important aspect of what comprises a chair.

If perspective was the guiding force beyond all things, it would stand to reason that one could not convince another of anything, by virtue of the fact that one's subjective experience would necessarily invalidate any arguments.

I disagree. That I can or cannot be convinced of something else by someone else says nothing as to my statement "Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective"."

It is quite simple really. If you consider a "what makes something what it is", it is literally meaningless (it may exist ontologically, but in basically in an indeterminant state) until a perspective is involved. In fact, there is no means for it "to exist" (because that is differentiating between not existing and existing) without the involvement of a perspective. Its ontological status is necessarily indeterminant until observation.

Since this is not the case, this does not stand to reason.

This is something I think you should really reflect on for a while. It's deeper than your objection. It's subtle (I think). It's the "I" in "cogito ergo, blah". It's distinction. Imagine watching a movie with the curtains closed and speakers turned off. Sure something is probably going on behind the curtain, but what? You can't see unless you open them. You can't hear until the speakers are powered on. You cannot infer the smallest little thing about it besides that it's probably happening. You can hypothesize, but...well nevermind I've gone on enough. It is so very subtle though, observing that in any statement, any breath, any anything that there ever is - it is "to whom" first. It's so quick, so implicit that it's generally missed.

Isn't this all reports of observation? Isn't everything? If there were no observer what could be reported and to whom? Tao.

I don't mean to order you as to what to think of, sorry I didn't mean it like that. I just mean that from my perspective, I think you'd benefit from focusing on that particular point a bit. Honestly though, I do not know what's good for you. I only guess stuff.

This depends strongly on your definition. Do you mean "no complete and accpeted model of mind" relating to neurology? Or are you implying no more abstract analysis of mind? For if we analyze mind, we may not come to a "widely accepted working model", but we can at least attempt to present things in light of truth.

I mean an organizational block diagram, basically as you presented with the trinity thing, or whatever other submissions there are. I think there are pretty good "this stuff is physically the brain" types of info, but even that is short of explaining consciousness, etc. Blah, anyway.

"Okay, but that is still not to say that it's a "perfect list" of attributes."

Agreed. I admit there could be more, although at the moment, I have not had the inclination to look deeper. I had actually hoped to spark that as the next phase of this debate.

Cool, do it then. DO IT NOW!!!!. :) Go.

I was simply trying to point out the logical conclusion of such if we assume completeness. Presumably other attributes would also be so interconnected, or if not, at least these aspects of mind would have to be present.

Assuming completeness of course you'd be correct. Being the pain in the ass that I am however, I attack the assumption.

Well this is true, I am not willing to be part of said discussion, on the foundation that I think it erroneous to proclaim that any one attribute of mind could over ride the others.

Ah, the rigid thinker. Guys like you keep guys like me grounded.

Do you agree though, that you approach to explanation could be flawed? Perhaps this is wrong, but it's my opinion at the moment that if you start with an idea like "mind" and break it down into attributes that don't really reveal anything as to its essence... that tells you something about your list of attributes. *shrug*

You misunderstood me in part. I was affirming that all of the three attributes are equally important and, as a trinity, codependent on one another to create a singular whole greater than even them, as all wholes are.

But it is not greater than the source of the components. See what I mean? Hrmph.

Again though, would you not agree that since your trinity gives you no insight as to essence (merely reflecting you back to the source of inspiration of coming up with a list of attributes) - it has nominal value in the topic at hand?

And wasn't it you who posited originally that "mind is intention"? And in what way do you affirm that ego is a result of instinct?

My first post in the thread:

the essence of mind is "the abstract", or perhaps I should call it "meaning".

comparison doesn't exist without it.

But no, as I noted above, you misunderstood me. I perfectly allow other attributes, I was only saying that if we did indeed presume we have what is right now, mind would have to be such and such.

I understand. It's just that the well, I've splained enough. No worries.

There could be other attributes and indeed, they may even be codependent with these things, or perhaps separate and maybe not even necessary for every mind. If you can put forth such things, please do.

If you'd be so kind as to read the exhange between invert and myself, and my comments to glaucon, I've done so to some extent already.

No, it was just the way you responded, from my perspective - yes, I realize the irony - but yes. If I was mistaken, I am truly sorry for misjudging.

Don't worry about it.

glaucon:

Yes, you got our points backwards.

Arrrg.
My apologies to both you and wes.

Too little sleep for me that day I think...




glaucon:

Contrary to concluding as you have regarding the irrelevance of essences, I instead put forth the view that without an understanding of essence, one cannot know anything. That is to say, were it not for somethings quality of being that something, we could not construe of it whatsoever, as our conception would be at best amorphous, and at worse completely vacant.

Fair enough. Not that I want to reduce this all to semantics, but I truly believe that some mincing of words can help here...
I agree with you that, epistemologically speaking, we do indeed need to grant an 'essence' to a thing to even be able to construe it. However, note that I said "grant". For this is what I think we do. This is a mental act of attribution, necessary for us to comprehend a thing; we need to be able to fit it into our understanding of things. Basically what I'm going for here is a denial of an ontological definition of 'essence'.



Of course one may point out many things, but to the individual in question - they may all be of little weight. To a subjective body of experience, "wood" may be indeed the essence of chair. IMO, there is no objective standard.

...

Again, you seem to imply there is an objective standard. I disagree.


Indeed. Now this is pretty much what I was just saying (if I'm interpreting wes correctly).


"mind" is a biochemically emergent phenomenological outcome of the interaction of billions of complexly interconnected and weighted elements. Dosen't that just say it all?

Not at all.
For a number of reasons.

Don't get the wrong idea; I'm a Materialist through and through, but the fact is that all contemporary science cannot fully explain the mind.
Furthermore, you've made use of two philosophical terms (emergent, and phenomenological) that cannot yet be explained via neuroscience.

Another possible, though valid objection, would be that to the thinking of many, that definition simply does not suffice. That definition provides no means of explaining such phenomena as love, or fear. Moreover, and IMO more significant, is that this definition is just that: a definition has no power whatsoever beyond that of categorization. What is needed here is the ability to predict behaviour.





Do you agree though, that you approach to explanation could be flawed? Perhaps this is wrong, but it's my opinion at the moment that if you start with an idea like "mind" and break it down into attributes that don't really reveal anything as to its essence... that tells you something about your list of attributes. *shrug*

....

But it is not greater than the source of the components.



The kernel here you and P_J are discussing is perhaps the most significant element of this whole discussion.

We're getting into the 'qualia' problem here....

What makes a red thing red? et al.

Now, while I'm of the mind that qualia are contingently related to their objects (as I think wes is as well...), what's interesting about the whole 'qualia problem' is that they never seem to go away, and that we do indeed, often quite 'automatically' use them. I think there's significance in this behaviour.

Is it the case that qualia do have an ontological sense? If so, then this 'compositional' line of thinking must address wes' objections. Is a thing more than the sum of its parts? If so, how so? If not, then which part is the defining one?

Without granting an ontological status to qualia, we end up in a semantics discussion.



Man, you miss a lot when you miss a day...

:-)

Wesmorris:

"I gotcha. It just seems that is only relevant if you are sure that there are only three attributes or if those attributes really have anything to do with the fundamental blah blah blah."

Well it does not necessarily depend on whether or not there are only three-attributes, only if the three attributes listed connect with the reality of at least a portion of the mind.

"That it is the only medium is not necessarily the key factor of its essence from a particular point of view. He could see the history of chairs over time, blah blah and make a much more abstract assertion, kind of like viewing it with superiority, but more like viewing it as a "how has the modern chair come to be what it is?" kind of thing."

One could indeed postulate that "modern chairs stem from older wooden chairs" and then speak of "wood then being the prime material of which chairs have been made of historically", but even then, it would not follow the philosophic notion of essence.

"But to different individuals, that which comprises an object can be extremely abstract. Certainly the materials involved are physical and for the purposes of the conversation I'll grant you, unquestionable - the materials of any particular chair to not necessarily reflect the history of how such objects came to be in the first place, which in the case of chairs would involve wood for thousands of years - especially to the wood chair crafts guy. He would argue that the art of chair making is an important aspect of what comprises a chair."

One could not indeed separate the chair from its long tradition of chairmaking, no. Specifically if this carpenter comes from a storied tradition of chairmaking which is valued by collectors and other such things. But this would be tantamount to saying "all common human made creations have a genesis in a long traditin". That this would be part of what makes up "chair" is indeed indisputable, unless the chair was the first instance of "chair", although even then it would likely have some form of tradition in earlier "proto-chairs" or natural foundations and the like.

"I disagree. That I can or cannot be convinced of something else by someone else says nothing as to my statement "Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective"."

If two people are held to hold distinct views of what something is, would not it seem impossible for them to convince the other of their viewpoint? For in so allowing a "changing of mind", one's determination of an object would not be subjective at the core, but in fact, objective. That is to say, one would view the other viewpoint as containing truth or at least, more truth, than one's own viewpoint, thereby taking the subjectivity from one's viewpoint.

"It is quite simple really. If you consider a "what makes something what it is", it is literally meaningless (it may exist ontologically, but in basically in an indeterminant state) until a perspective is involved. In fact, there is no means for it "to exist" (because that is differentiating between not existing and existing) without the involvement of a perspective. Its ontological status is necessarily indeterminant until observation."

So you are saying, until a conscious entity perceives such a thing, the object does not exist? Or are you only saying we cannot know such whether such a thing exists or not? For considering much of what is unseen is necessary for the existence of this world, and can be inferred without direct perception of it, it would stand to reason that you are patently wrong. Moreover, for something to appear to the senses, demands that it had prior existence there. That is to say, it was either there or it was not. Or are you going as far as to say such things are utterly random?

"This is something I think you should really reflect on for a while. It's deeper than your objection. It's subtle (I think). It's the "I" in "cogito ergo, blah". It's distinction. Imagine watching a movie with the curtains closed and speakers turned off. Sure something is probably going on behind the curtain, but what? You can't see unless you open them. You can't hear until the speakers are powered on. You cannot infer the smallest little thing about it besides that it's probably happening. You can hypothesize, but...well nevermind I've gone on enough. It is so very subtle though, observing that in any statement, any breath, any anything that there ever is - it is "to whom" first. It's so quick, so implicit that it's generally missed."

That there is an "I" behind every empirical statement is something worthy of noting, but to take this one step further say that the I's create that object's existence, or there is no objectivity to be found, is not implied in this. What is implied is that there is a being (ourselves) which perceives a thing (which could be a being or could not be).

"Isn't this all reports of observation? Isn't everything? If there were no observer what could be reported and to whom? Tao."

That there'd be no report of a consciousness-less universe is certain. THere'd be no consciousness -to- report. But to go as far as to say "we'd be met only with Tao" is not to be found in this. What we'd be met with is the myriad unknown things which nonetheless exist and work even without our interference now.

"I don't mean to order you as to what to think of, sorry I didn't mean it like that. I just mean that from my perspective, I think you'd benefit from focusing on that particular point a bit. Honestly though, I do not know what's good for you. I only guess stuff."

It is a good line of inquiry, I admit. One must face this question and consider it in depth.

"I mean an organizational block diagram, basically as you presented with the trinity thing, or whatever other submissions there are. I think there are pretty good "this stuff is physically the brain" types of info, but even that is short of explaining consciousness, etc. Blah, anyway."

You are correct. We do not have such a thing widely-accepted yet. This means we must work extra hard to produce it, doesn't it?

"Cool, do it then. DO IT NOW!!!!. Go."

I shall be giving it some thought, actually, and posting later should I be able to think of anything else.

"Assuming completeness of course you'd be correct. Being the pain in the ass that I am however, I attack the assumption."

As you should, as even I admit it is a presumption. We must look into things more deeply before we can be certain.

"Do you agree though, that you approach to explanation could be flawed? Perhaps this is wrong, but it's my opinion at the moment that if you start with an idea like "mind" and break it down into attributes that don't really reveal anything as to its essence... that tells you something about your list of attributes. *shrug*"

Oh, most certainly it could be flawed. I am not God here. I am not infallible and beyond error.

However, let me give some reason for why I have adopted this method: How does one find out what an apple is? Well, one observes it with the senses, does not one? One looks at it, one smells it, one feels it, one tastes it...One cracks it open and checks out all the parts. And when one is done investigating, one gets a comprehensive view of what an apple is. Each of these things, however, is a different attribute. It has "roundness", it has "juicyness", it has "redness", and when put it all together, we have apple. Is the essence of apple, what makes it an apple, not then to be found in the relation of its attributes?

"But it is not greater than the source of the components. See what I mean? Hrmph."

What is the "source of the components" of what you speak?

"Again though, would you not agree that since your trinity gives you no insight as to essence (merely reflecting you back to the source of inspiration of coming up with a list of attributes) - it has nominal value in the topic at hand?"

In that it makes me analyze for what reason I postulated such? Or do you mean that somehow, when I take all three things together, I do not come up with mind?

" the essence of mind is "the abstract", or perhaps I should call it "meaning".

comparison doesn't exist without it.

If you'd be so kind as to read the exhange between invert and myself, and my comments to glaucon, I've done so to some extent already."

MIght you elaborate on this concept a bit more? Even after reviewing your posts, I am not sure I grasp the full extent of what you have put forth. In what way is the essence of mind to be construed as "the abstract"? You link this with conceptualization. Are you then saying that the essence of mind is the "inner eye" of the Cartesian theatre, as it were? That ability to view and analyze things internally? Do you link this also to the fact that all things in the mind are distinct from what is outside the mind? Or perhaps you think it is closer to imagination, where we can take one example, and somewhat mentally rearrange it, as it were?

I shall return to this in a few hours or so and see whether or not I can dig up some more concepts to consider.

Glaucon:

"I agree with you that, epistemologically speaking, we do indeed need to grant an 'essence' to a thing to even be able to construe it. However, note that I said "grant". For this is what I think we do. This is a mental act of attribution, necessary for us to comprehend a thing; we need to be able to fit it into our understanding of things. Basically what I'm going for here is a denial of an ontological definition of 'essence'."

Allow me to elaborat eon how I think we might give an actual ontological discussion of essence, rather than purely epistemological or phenomological:

In order to correspond essence to the "whatness" of something, I think it best to speak of how this thing came to be. That is to say, in what way is this thing what it is? Well, clearly, a thing is composed of certain attributes, is it not? And is it not the synthesis of these attributes in a certain relation what spawns the object itself? And is it not only when those attributes are assembled in such and such a way, that the thing appears, as a combination of them all, yet at the same time, surpassing each one? Well then, it would seem then that the "whatness" of the object, its essence, would then correspond to that very relation of its parts to create its gestalt.

Drawing from this, I cannot help but conclude that essence and existence are thus linked intimately. A thing does not exist until it fullfills its essence, and once said thing exists, its essence is manifest.

Give me your thoughts on that, Glaucon, whilst in my next post I shall attempt to give as thorough of an analysis of the mind as I can for this discussion.

I shall begin my analysis of the mind by going over what seems to me to be the full extent of the mind's processes:

Calculation
Cogitation
Imagination
Sensory perception
Emotional perception
Intention (or will)
Memory storage
Memory recollection
Decision
Personality
Preference
Identification
Ignoring

The mind also necessarily implies selfhood. The "ego" in "cogito ergo sum". This also implies an internal "mental world" or "Cartesian theatre" where thoughts are viewed with the "mind's eye".

Now, earlier I had claimed that a trinity of three attributes consisted of mind and created mind and were codependent. This trinity was composed of intention, identification, and comparsion. Their codependence, as argued before, is found in the fact that neither attribute could exist without the other two and, in turn, every attribute allows for the existing of the other two. Yet a word must be said of intention and whether the term "intention" suffices. For when we hear something very loud and very constant, which we cannot "drown out" by ignoring it, it can hardly be said that what we are doing incorporates intention in the same way as one intends to think about a subject or to do a thing. Yet if one broadens the concept to allow for intention on a subconscious level, to incorporate an intention to be open to sensory perception, then as a sort of "passive intention". That is, awareness then becomes a symptom of intention. This can be found in the fact that when wrapped up in other things, the mind can become blind to sensory perception, such as when day or night-dreaming, or even when sleeping without dreams.

Now, two questions:

1. What think you of the link betwixt intention and awarenesS?

2. Have I truly grasped all the processes of mind?

You fools! The essence of mind is identification. :eek:

The "ego" in "cogito ergo sum".

Forgetting Sartre? The Cartesian Ego is a second order awareness. There exists a pre-reflective ego which is more properly termed the self than Descartes' folly.

And, you're forgetting a very important, if not the most important, task of Mind.

Prediction.

Were you aware that it takes approximately a half second for sensory stimulation to enter conscious awareness? Do you realize that this discrepancy should be blatantly obvious in our lives as we should always be slightly out of synch with the world about us?

We're not and it's not.
Why?
Because the mind exists to predict what the world should be based on how it was a half-second ago.

Another feature of the brain is confabulation. This is tied integrally with prediction.
There are schools of thought which eradicate free will as an illusion because the body acts and the mind comes up with reasons for why it acted in a particular manner.
A revisionist history, you could say

Anyway.
Good try with the categories, but I think they're hopelessly tangled.

For instance. Personality? Doesn't this just about encompass the whole lot?

Invert Nexus:

"Forgetting Sartre? The Cartesian Ego is a second order awareness. There exists a pre-reflective ego which is more properly termed the self than Descartes' folly."

I must disagree. Even before the rational reflection of the self as a necessary consequence of the activity of the mind, the idea of mind, and the working within the mind, implies the Cartesian self. That is to say, even before we realize an "I", by thinking, by acting, by anything, we work within the "I". In fact, it is because of this immediacy that it took 4,500 years for human history to progress to the point where a Frenchman named Renee`realized this, for as so often the case, the most hidden things are to be found closest to oneself.

"And, you're forgetting a very important, if not the most important, task of Mind.

Prediction."

Is not a prediction a result of calculation? Things such as: If A is moving towards B, then at C, A will reach B.

But you are correct, I ought to have -specifically- noted such a thing. Thank you for getting me on that one.

"Were you aware that it takes approximately a half second for sensory stimulation to enter conscious awareness? Do you realize that this discrepancy should be blatantly obvious in our lives as we should always be slightly out of synch with the world about us?

We're not and it's not.
Why?
Because the mind exists to predict what the world should be based on how it was a half-second ago."

I was not aware of this, no. Have you any resources where I might read up on this fascinating phenomena? However, how is this possible in certain media? Such as, fo rinstance, in reading or watching television? Where the information cannot be so predicted?

"Another feature of the brain is confabulation. This is tied integrally with prediction.
There are schools of thought which eradicate free will as an illusion because the body acts and the mind comes up with reasons for why it acted in a particular manner.
A revisionist history, you could say"

This one I shall admit utterly that I left out. HOwever, it is hard to state that in all circumstances this is the case. For instance, I had just repeated in my mind for the last 30 seconds "I am going to move my left index finger" until I did, in fact, move my left index finger when I said "now!". This does not seem to be an example of "retro-rationalization", as it were.

"For instance. Personality? Doesn't this just about encompass the whole lot? "

What I had meant by perosnality is the capacity for the mind to have one. That is to say, the capacity to grow to develop propensities for certain methods of dealing with things, to develop certain tastes and wants, to want to act in such and such a way, to react in this and that ways, to be of a certain demeanor and outlook, to adopt even such things as religious viewpoints, et cetera, et cetera. This is not so much a "encompassing of other functions", but a different one all together, I would say. However, the addition of "preference" may have been superfluous, although one could say that "preference" in the list of attributes of mind references the acting of preference, whereas personality allows for the -development- of preference.

“That it is the only medium is not necessarily the key factor of its essence from a particular point of view. He could see the history of chairs over time, blah blah and make a much more abstract assertion, kind of like viewing it with superiority, but more like viewing it as a "how has the modern chair come to be what it is?" kind of thing."

One could indeed postulate that "modern chairs stem from older wooden chairs" and then speak of "wood then being the prime material of which chairs have been made of historically", but even then, it would not follow the philosophic notion of essence.

So the philosophical notion of essence must be based on the material components of the subject? More abstract constructs are necessarily off limits?

"But to different individuals, that which comprises an object can be extremely abstract. Certainly the materials involved are physical and for the purposes of the conversation I'll grant you, unquestionable - the materials of any particular chair to not necessarily reflect the history of how such objects came to be in the first place, which in the case of chairs would involve wood for thousands of years - especially to the wood chair crafts guy. He would argue that the art of chair making is an important aspect of what comprises a chair."

One could not indeed separate the chair from its long tradition of chairmaking, no. Specifically if this carpenter comes from a storied tradition of chairmaking which is valued by collectors and other such things. But this would be tantamount to saying "all common human made creations have a genesis in a long traditin". That this would be part of what makes up "chair" is indeed indisputable, unless the chair was the first instance of "chair", although even then it would likely have some form of tradition in earlier "proto-chairs" or natural foundations and the like.

Well, I’d think that it could be argued that “the essence of chair can be established by consideration of its history, and ultimately ‘wood’ was and is the most important element that could be, even though it’s not always used in chairs today”. Anyway, now I’m tired of thinking about chairs. I’m just attempting to establish what I think of as valid alternative thinking.

"I disagree. That I can or cannot be convinced of something else by someone else says nothing as to my statement "Indeed. I offer however, that there is no potential "what makes something what it is" without a necessarily implicit "to whom" or "from what perspective"."

If two people are held to hold distinct views of what something is, would not it seem impossible for them to convince the other of their viewpoint?

No. It does not seem so at all. Whatever viewpoint is adopted is distinct from all others by the nature of a POV, even if it seems borrowed. One can take from another what they will, but the act of taking makes it their own, even if they do not realize it.

For in so allowing a "changing of mind", one's determination of an object would not be subjective at the core, but in fact, objective.


That doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t get you. Wouldn’t that one’s determination of an object can change, well isn’t that subjectivity? Have you misspoken or have I misunderstood?

That is to say, one would view the other viewpoint as containing truth or at least, more truth, than one's own viewpoint, thereby taking the subjectivity from one's viewpoint.

That seems quite convoluted to me, and in violation of reference frames. By recognizing “more truth” in another point of view and adopting it as one’s own (so to speak), one’s point of view changes. This does not establish anything objective. What’s to say that the “more truth” is actually truthier? (Just wanted to say truthier, pardon)

"It is quite simple really. If you consider a "what makes something what it is", it is literally meaningless (it may exist ontologically, but in basically in an indeterminant state) until a perspective is involved. In fact, there is no means for it "to exist" (because that is differentiating between not existing and existing)