The thing about the human animal is the abstract component. I've heard seemingly reasonable arguments that demand that there "the abstract" as in, that which is purely imaginary - does not exist. It is by this rational, purely material. Thoughts are chemicals dancing around in the brain, etc. I can't accept this for a number of reasons. Generally I argue that "meaning" itself is not material, but is reflective of material. Note that humans need reasons for things. "why did that happen?" -> some reason. What is the material component of a reason? Why is it needed? How is it "real" in any other means than an abstract? I contend that "a reason" is purely abstract. It is an arrangement of concepts (which are also abstract IMO, while being reflective of a biochemical interaction) that attempt to resolve abstract discontinuities. Show me the error in my thinking please.
There is the thing (material) a reflection of the thing (material) and the relationship between the two (abstract). In the material world, there is no such thing as a relationship. There is just unconscious stuff. Relationships are established abstractly. In "an imaginary space", or "the space of all possible concepts" or something like that.
every cause has an effect i cannot conceive of any effect without the corresponding cause the only exception i can think of is time one would say that time started with the big bang but is that true?
Reality, then, Wesmorris, or the reason for things, relates to states of energy in space, which conscious beings can control. An abstraction being a state of energy that we refer to as 'good' or 'bad' then? Then why is there gravity, and social order etc.? What do you mean by the reflection of the thing?
I've thought about this too, Wes. How do our abstract ideas work? How do we 'model' things in our mind? The 'abstract', I think, is just a grouping together of actual real-world stimuli, a template. For example - the abstract concept of a cat: what is a cat? Seems like a simple question, but becomes non-trivial when you think about the specifics. If you see one, you don't care about the colour of it's fur in determining what it is. In fact, you throw away a huge amount of data. It is a collection of attributes, not all of which need to be present, that brings you to believe you have seen a cat. I have argued a lot with my dad, who believes that the 'world of information and ideas' has an existence of its own separate from physical existence. I do not think this is the case, because at every stage information is simply a reflection on something physical - ultimately ending in the neurons of our brains. Let me think about your topic... 'a reason' in our minds, is linked with our modelling of the world around us. Certainly, our minds have extensive associative linking. It is this, I think, that different concepts are linked with related ones which gives us abstract concepts - the templates I referred to earlier. If we are pondering over a particular scenario, then 'cause' or 'a reason' is another scenario we try to ascertain, linking it with the original by any acceptable associations. But the concept of 'a reason' (which is what you were talking about, right?) is no different to any other concept, such as a cat, except that being totally 'abstract' it's not associated with physical properties and, of course, 'exists' no more than any other concept we may draw up in our heads. <hr> Sorry for shitty spelling, punc, grammar. I hope that doesn't read too retardedly.
But that it relates to it does not explain it in terms of the material that comprises it, or the "need" for it. "a reason" is however, an aspect, or a "building block" of the control mechanism, allowing the mechanism flexibility. I still contend however, that the "requirement" felt subjectively for such "reasons" has a non-material component. Hmm.. I see "an abstraction" as a resultant of the integration of stimulous into one's conceptual framework. I don't see the connection between your question and the statement that inspired it. Could you please elaborate? Broadly, anything that isn't the thing but refers to it. In this particular case, I'm thinking of it as "perception" in the sense of raw material interaction of stimulous - like the light that hits your eye, the sounds that hit your ear and induce vibration, etc.
Hehe, I've gone on at great length here at sci as to how this must work. How can that be? A "pattern" does not stand out from the background without an observer, a perspective to "care" about the difference between this and that. The grouping together of actual real-world stimuli is performed all the time in computers, yet they only have an abstract component when observed by an entity that lends "meaning" to the pretty pictures and sounds. Indeed the devil is in the damned details. Definately non-trivial in terms of attempting to create an algorithm to perform the function, yet a brain seems to do so with little problem. Of course it's not 100% accurate, but it's extremely reliable in a practical sense. True enough... I don't know if it exactly ends there. I agree at least that "information" specifically is generally a reflection of something physical... but it is not a direct reflection at all. In fact, it starts as such, but it twisted and integrated into a pre-existing matrix of conceptual inter-connections in a myriad of ways. The data that is "thrown away" simply "falls out" really. These concepts are basically as far as I see it, like "abstract keyways", where information is organized in a manner that it goes down the hole that it fits into if you follow the bad analogy. What is information though? Does it really exist? I would say no (materially). There is no such thing as information in terms of the material world. There is only the material world, a bland, uniform infinity of grey. Color, flavor, style, meaning... differentiation all comes only from something to appreciate that it's there. NO!!!!!!!! er... I mean, okay. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm not sure we're on the same page so I want to clarify to be sure. By "abstracts" I mean basically "anything that isn't material (physical), yet can be shown to exist". Actually I think different concepts are linked basically through keyways like I mentioned before. The keyways are formed when stimulous comes through that has no keyway. When you're a baby for instance, perhaps there are a few keyways like "food->content" - which isn't conscious. However there is a combination of sensory stimulous formulating a signature of particular events. As events repeat, keyways are formed. A mother's face for instance, is a very repeated stimulous which eventually (a few months I presume) is attached to the keyway of the voice associated with it from with in the womb.... rather to say that there is a keyway for a voice with no face... then the familiar voice now with visual information, which ends up tied into the voice through the attachment of one keyway to another, forming a more complicated, flexible keyway thingy. All keyways are simply a combination of neurons that respond in a particular way to particular stimulous. For instance, say you have 10,000 nuerons in a ball and you shock them. This causes a reaction in the nuerons that effects their arrangement, rather, they react to teh stimulous by re-wireing themselves. With no directed feedback, the "keyway" formed by such a shock will have little effect. However, in the context of a developing mind, they interact and form complicated relations in all kinds of manners, stacking on top of one another, effectively forming both a material and an abstract record of the history of the host - allowing such history persistence in the now. I hope that made some semblance of sense. If I follow your semantics, I think I pretty much agree... yeah. I look at it froma geometric angle, whereby "the shape" of the concepts in question yeild a consequential set of "potential reasons" from which we may will (based on a gazillion possible motivations" a particular one from the set and apply it to the scenario. But that's exactly my point I think (if I follow you exactly). None of the concepts in our heads are "real" from a content perspective. There is a material aspect of all of them in that a bunch of nuerons are interconnected, etc.... but from such interconnections, what can be said of what they represent without the person whom they comprise to provide a report? They are meaningless physical goop. While they are representative of the abstract - they are not it. The abstract is the relationships... the differentiation, that there can be differentiation (which isn't material)... grrr. It's like trying to see air. Ultimatley what I'm trying to show is proof of "the abstract dimension" so to speak, in that there exists a degree of freedom that is completeley ignored by physics/science. Np, same here.
The material aspect is only the medium, not the message. Meaning exists as sets of relationships, interactions and intersections, between various identifiable patterns processed within the medium. All that's required is a mechanism for exchange, such as text, to allow the patterns in my mind to intersect with yours. You're then stuck with the age old problem of dualism: Where / how does the material realm intersect with the immaterial? ~Raithere
"Abstract", as defined by me can mean: A simplified form of something, e.g. a stick man is an abstraction of a real man A portion of something that can be used to reference it (of an idea or concept) some or all parts consisting of non-physical references or other abstract ideas. E.g. 'revenge' (no essays please. Actually, don't even comment on this example or we'll get carried away) Yes, a pattern or template does not really exist outside of our thoughts. If I split a pile of rocks into two groups and call one moo and one baa I have made an arbitrary abstraction. There is nothing about them that can be used to check which group they once belonged to. However, if I put all red ones in a separate pile to all the blue ones (only red/blue) then this represents something that does exist. This is what I meant by 'real world stimuli' (which was a careful wording to make the distinction between what we experience and what is supposed to 'actually exist' - again, mustn't tangent, no matter the temptation). When I talk of 'information', I mean giving 'semantics' and 'meaning' to binary codes, symbols etc. (and any physical manifestations thereof like an actual picture or contents of a block of RAM). This definition instantly brings the human into the picture - you cannot have information without someone to ultimately interpret it. Like a 'one-time-pad' cipher, all codes can decrypt to all messages, so the interpreter is an inseparable component. But this does not separate it from the physical world. Our brains are still neurons and no 'data' in them spontaneously formed by anything other than random, sensory or feedback. Ah, this I'll need to think about or have someone shout at me about for a bit, perhaps. I certainly agree that the rules of logic are so concrete that they could be considered to exist seperately from the physcial world. Although, I'm not sure what it means to say 'seperate' since the physical world is constrained by the essence of logic. hmm... In fact, I don't think we can progress. Consider this: Perhaps we're in a box so to speak, which even that though has rules and a framework is completely enclosed and does not contain enough necessary links to determine what that framework is for certain and, indeed, what is out side of the box. A bit like a 'bot' in a computer game with no player - there are rules which determine how the computer works, but that bot - no matter how intelligent or with any 'tools'- can figure out how the world outside the computer works. He can only make models on how things work inside. So whether we talk of 'this dimension' or 'that plane of existance' is just moo and baa, seeing as we are trying to work it out from the inside.
this reminds me of that consciousness problem, how does a brain create a mind. see the article http://consc.net/papers/facing.html
what kind of things constitute an abstract? i was thinking like hope, belief, trust. these are things that are real but dont have a purely physical existence. i imagine that it would be hard to even pin those qualities in neurological terms. i would definitely like to understand this better myself.
First of all, thank you Jason (if I remember correctly, pardon if I didn't), for participating... I was hoping you would. But where does that set of relationships, interactions or intersections between whatever exist? It has no substance, yet it exists. I would hypothesize it to be perpendicular to space-time, as in perhaps hawking's proposed "imaginary time". Why is it dualism? My suggestion is that the relationships exist (per above), yet don't exist indicates that indeed there must be something perpendicular to space-time such that they may, or they wouldn't/couldn't, because there'd be no place for them to do so. There is no reason that a point in space-time is just a point besides our perspective of it, and that to the best of our technical abilities that's the way it seeeeems. From a variety of experimental evidence, like the encoding of information in to electrons in a quantum state, to quantum entanglemant and the exclusion principle (I think, you know that thing where as position is known, spin is indeterminate and vice versa)... I surmise that a distinct part of our universe is hiding from us in plain, but very very tiny sight.
I'm saying that hypothetically, the space in which they are possible is part of space, but not part of the general view of space as in the typical "space-time".
would you say that the mind is part of the brain? or maybe that where mind exists is part of the brain?
I'd say brain is a subset of mind. I'd say the details of the brain's wiring are at least partially a consequence of mind. IMO, mind includes material and asbtract components, where brain is the material component.
Within the medium(s) that carry them. In our case the neurological network that comprises our brains. Meaning is the interaction. The reason you cannot translate this meaning directly is because it only exists as the relationships of patterns within that particular mind. If you remove the substance you destroy the pattern. It turns into meaningless physical goop, as you stated. Even if you could translate the pattern intact it would be meaningless unless you translate all the patterns in that mind together. Otherwise it would be like trying to run a Mac program in Windows, the code would just be so much nonsense in that OS. Upon what do you base the assertion that it has no substance? I think we need to clarify; you begin with abstraction and reason but I'm also seeing references to consciousness and qualia. Which are you aiming at... or is it all of them? I guess it wouldn't be dualism in this case. But then I'm not sure what you're aiming at. ~Raithere
If your thinking were correct then abstract notions such as conclusions of the 'causes' of experiences would be largely unsuccessful, but it is these 'abstract notions' that have successfully put satellites and humans into orbit. Put simply, if cognitive thought are without relation to reality, then why are people largely successful at navigating the world and living successful lives with relation to physics? You may declare "trial and error" to be the cause; i.e. that the infant crawls, pulls a tablecloth, and gets hit on the head by an object from the table, or stands and immediately falls, and so the child concludes that something is pulling everything down, but the fact that this constraint is remembered, and can successfully be predicted, shows the reverse to be true. The material component for a cause is the cause itself, and perhaps the reason is 'needed' so that it may be encouraged, or prevented, in the future.
The error is in mixing up discourses which are used to describe and analyze a phenomenon. If, for example, you kept your reasoning strictly within the discourse of a particular chemistry theory, the problems as you pose them would not exist. Or, if you kept your reasoning strictly within the discourse of a particular philosophical theory, the problems as you pose them would not exist. Mixing discourses may seem to give some revelations, and interdisciplinarity certainly can be interesting. However, if you mix up discourses of various sciences or theories, there may emerge unsolvable problems. This is due to the holistic nature of each discourse, which renders mixing discourses ultimately meaningless; and due to the meaning of terms not being possible to define atomistically (ie. with a finite, verbalizable set of analytical descriptors), and thus terms not being possible to be understood accordingly outside of their native discourse.
