Does the nature of concepts make human behavior incredibly difficult to predict?

[Neo-Aristotelian]

Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept). The decision-making process of choice involves considering concepts against other concepts. One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities. But what really adds to the complexity is that most human decisions involve higher level concepts, and higher level concepts are predicated upon other concepts, and those lower level concepts are predicated upon even lower level concepts and so on. So we have interrelated levels of infinitude that are parceled by conceptualization.

Lower animals, however, are easier to predict because they don't have this conceptual ability. They simply associate particulars with particulars, so their actions are relatively simplistic.

[moralist]

It's easy to predict the behavior of a mob, while difficult to predict the behavior of an individual. By avoiding mobs an individual can avoid becoming collateral damage from the collective consequences of the behavior of mobs.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept). The decision-making process of choice involves considering concepts against other concepts. One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities. But what really adds to the complexity is that most human decisions involve higher level concepts, and higher level concepts are predicated upon other concepts, and those lower level concepts are predicated upon even lower level concepts and so on. So we have interrelated levels of infinitude that are parceled by conceptualization.

Lower animals, however, are easier to predict because they don't have this conceptual ability. They simply associate particulars with particulars, so their actions are relatively simplistic.

The implication is infinity in opposite directions from a central, conceptual place. It works because concepts upon concepts upon concepts, starting at the most basic level of concepts from acknowledged facts, keeps on going forever as an idea but not actual concepts, just the idea of concepts. Going the other direrection, from where you start, concepts back to facts, one can image not the facts but an infinite number of concepts before the facts but not the actual concepts, just the idea of concepts.

What one really needs to focus on is the hierarchical nature of conceptual thinking and the lateral too off any hierarchical point. It has to do with the structure of knowledge and how what knowledge is valued by the structuralist.

--Brant

[Objectifish]

Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept).

Sure.

One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities.

No, no. There aren't infinite possibilities, at least not in any meaningful sense.

[Selene]

Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept).

Sure.

One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities.

No, no. There aren't infinite possibilities, at least not in any meaningful sense.

Welcome to OL Issac.

What drew you to this thread?

Are you a student?

A...

[Objectifish]

Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept).

Sure.

One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities.

No, no. There aren't infinite possibilities, at least not in any meaningful sense.

Welcome to OL Issac.

Thanks!

What drew you to this thread?

Are you a student?

I'm a programmer. How about you?

As for this thread, I was intrigued by the title but not so much by the content of OP.

[moralist]

Isaac writes:

As for this thread, I was intrigued by the title but not so much by the content of OP.

It does allude to a physical principle that can be applied personally.

While it's easy to predict the behavior of large quantities of molecules...

... it's impossible to predict the behavior of an individual photon.

Become an photon and you're free.

Hope you enjoy your visits here.

Greg

[Selene]

Concepts reference an infinite number of permutations of species (i.e. particulars subsumed under the concept).

One can begin to fathom the infinite possibilities in consideration, but it's the power of conceptualization that divides and conquers these infinite possibilities.

I'm a programmer. How about you?

As for this thread, I was intrigued by the title but not so much by the content of OP.

I am a mediator.

You will find some fine minds here.

Just watch yourself in the clinches, especially with those Canadians...I mean they think that Hockey and Curling are real sports!

A...