abstractions

[otemporaomores]

could someone give, as exhaustive as possible, an explanation of an 'abstraction.'

[BaalChatzaf]

could someone give, as exhaustive as possible, an explanation of an 'abstraction.'

Here is a starting place

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Abstraction

and here:

http://plato.stanfor...stract-objects/

Ba'al Chafatz

Edited September 4, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[RightJungle]

The best source for understanding Objectivist Epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. If you don't have the book, it is usually available at Barnes and Noble as well as on Amazon.com. If you just want an answer right now without going in search of the book, let me know and I will write it up for you. My reference, given that this is an Objectivist site, will be from Rand's book.

[Philip Coates]

To find out what an abstraction is, use standard reference works (dictionary, encyclopedia) before tackling ITOe. I would have read pretty extensively in Rand's writings before tackling ITOE as well.

OIHTT (Objectivism is Hard...& Takes Time)

[Stryder]

I don't like the current difinitions so I'll show you what I've deduced.

Abstraction is the process of defigning an unknown entity for use as a concept. As such, all concepts are epistemological representations of abstracts based on the relative knowledge base used to create it. The creation of the Abstraction process is by the natural biological function of the brain as it traverses its own existence. Through life, without a completed definition, this process can be distorted by many influences. I believe autism is a product of some of these distortions as well as various learning deficiencies, like dyslexia, and many sensory interperetation issues.

Another word for abstraction is "conception" since to conceive something is to create a concept with the same process.

An abstract is an identified entity's potential for the process of abstraction.

[Christopher]

I don't like the current difinitions so I'll show you what I've deduced.

Abstraction is the process of defigning an unknown entity for use as a concept. As such, all concepts are epistemological representations of abstracts based on the relative knowledge base used to create it. The creation of the Abstraction process is by the natural biological function of the brain as it traverses its own existence. Through life, without a completed definition, this process can be distorted by many influences. I believe autism is a product of some of these distortions as well as various learning deficiencies, like dyslexia, and many sensory interperetation issues.

Another word for abstraction is "conception" since to conceive something is to create a concept with the same process.

An abstract is an identified entity's potential for the process of abstraction.

ITOE:

Concept: mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

...The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction..

Abstraction: a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.)

----

You seem to have defined abstraction well in your post...

[RightJungle]

I don't like the current difinitions so I'll show you what I've deduced.

Abstraction is the process of defigning an unknown entity for use as a concept. As such, all concepts are epistemological representations of abstracts based on the relative knowledge base used to create it. The creation of the Abstraction process is by the natural biological function of the brain as it traverses its own existence. Through life, without a completed definition, this process can be distorted by many influences. I believe autism is a product of some of these distortions as well as various learning deficiencies, like dyslexia, and many sensory interperetation issues.

Another word for abstraction is "conception" since to conceive something is to create a concept with the same process.

An abstract is an identified entity's potential for the process of abstraction.

ITOE:

Concept: mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition.

...The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction..

Abstraction: a selective mental focus that takes out or separates a certain aspect of reality from all others (e.g., isolates a certain attribute from the entities possessing it, or a certain action from the entities performing it, etc.)

----

You seem to have defined abstraction well in your post...

I like your definition Chris. I have made an effort to show the principles of concept formation and abstraction in that definition using the example that follows. Please correct any logic errors or application errors that I might have made.

Politically Oriented Talk Radio

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

Then you notice something else about these folks. Some are crooning into the microphone in very sexy voices, “All county all the time”. Others are talking in a very serious manner about politics and the economy. By mentally focusing on their focus on subject matter you are able to isolate the people talking about politics from those talking about music and you can then integrate the individual people thus isolated from the group designated as “Radio Personalities” back into two integrated concepts, one concept being “Talk Show Hosts” and the other concept being “Radio Disk Jockies.” Again you have just indulged in concept formation. In addition, your process of isolating the people who are focused on politics and the economy into “Talk Show Hosts” as separate from those focusing on music is a process of abstraction.

Then you notice something else about the talk show hosts. The men and women include Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Thom Hartmann, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin. You notice that some Radio Talk Show Hosts according to their political convictions into two distinct groups. Ignoring the Radio Talk Show Hosts’ genders, weights, and hair color, you apply your mental focus to the political convictions of Al Franken, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Alan Colmes, and Rachel Maddow. Thus you can separate them from the rest of the Radio Talk Show Hosts and form the concept of “Liberal Talk Show Host”. Once again you have indulged in concept formation. The act of isolation on the basis of the hosts’ political convictions is a process of abstraction. Your mental focus has separated the attribute of liberal from the persons of the hosts themselves. By the same process you can designate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, and Mark Levin as “Conservative Talk Show Hosts” by the abstract process of separating the attribute of conservative from the persons of the hosts themselves.

To once again clarify: the units are persons. The abstractions are Radio Personalities, Radio Disk Jockies, Talk Show Hosts, Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. This process also demonstrates the process of moving from a wide abstraction (Radio Personalities) to the more narrow abstractions of Disk Jockies and Talk Show Hosts, and thence to the even more narrow abstractions of Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. You could look at it as a demonstration of studying a specific subject of interest.

Chris, please feel free to correct any of my mis-conceptions.

[Christopher]

Objectivist Epistemology is an excellent book. Very dense work by Rand, and something that I have to read about once a year just to keep a handle on her thinking here. You sound like you've got it.

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

In Rand lingo:

You have a "conceptual common denominator" (CCD): The characteristics reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it.

The CCD in this case is speech (through some medium). Some people speak in person, some on the television, still others on the radio. You have perceptual memories of all of these different events. Therefore, when you hear someone on the radio, you think: "Gosh, that is different than speech through television." Voila! Abstraction.

All speech through radio is united by coming through the radio. Now you define it. A definition is: a statement that identifies the nature of the units subsumed under a concept. Here you are building off the earlier concept of speech, of which a subgroup is through the radio. Therefore, your definition should include both the CCD "speech" and the differentiating subgroup label. In this case, you create the definition "radio speech" or "speech through the radio." Since you are interested in defining people who produce speech through the radio, you simply create the subgroup of humans who are performing this action, which can be defined as "humans speaking through the radio." You can call it "radio talkers" if you like, since talkers implies speaking humans.

Now you are continuing to build concepts off concepts by differentiation and integration. Eventually you find that some people talk on the news, some on commercials, some on political talk shows. The CCD is the program on the radio in which people are speaking. Talk show speakers represents a new subgroup, so you think: "ah! these are radio talkshow hosts." The importance of this definition is that it still captures the concept it was built upon (people talking on the radio), and then adds a label that signifies their subgroup - talk show hosts. And so on and so forth with political views...

All of this is essentially Rand's work.

Anyone is free to add their input -

[RightJungle]

Well, Chris, do you think that we've all given the topic originator the answer that he was looking for?

[tjohnson]

Abstracting is what our nervous system does. When we form the image of an object it is a process of abstraction whereby our nervous system ignores differences while noticing similarities in the sensory data it receives. So terms like 'tree' represent abstractions.

[Xray]

Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept.

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

This is actually categorizing. Categorizing is always arbitrary, like e. g. "radio personality"; for example, one could as well have categorized these people as "sound makers", "noise makers", "talking mammals", whatever, or focused on the snatches of sound only, categorizing them as one sees fit.

To once again clarify: the units are persons. The abstractions are Radio Personalities, Radio Disk Jockies, Talk Show Hosts, Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. This process also demonstrates the process of moving from a wide abstraction (Radio Personalities) to the more narrow abstractions of Disk Jockies and Talk Show Hosts, and thence to the even more narrow abstractions of Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. You could look at it as a demonstration of studying a specific subject of interest.

Again, it is about categories and subcategories.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The best source for understanding Objectivist Epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. If you don't have the book, it is usually available at Barnes and Noble as well as on Amazon.com. If you just want an answer right now without going in search of the book, let me know and I will write it up for you. My reference, given that this is an Objectivist site, will be from Rand's book.

P. Coates:

To find out what an abstraction is, use standard reference works (dictionary, encyclopedia) before tackling ITOe. I would have read pretty extensively in Rand's writings before tackling ITOE as well.

OIHTT (Objectivism is Hard...& Takes Time)

Two differing opinions here.

It is important not to confuse entities and categories:

As basic, one may look out and see a grassy lawn, trees, utility poles, houses, driveways at a glance. It takes no conscious effort to do this. Each item is mentally abstracted from all other items. We could also call it separating, isolating or distinguishing from.

We then hold a concept (conceived idea) of each as well as a concept of the whole of this viewing.

No matter what label is put on the mental operation, identity by difference is demonstrated.

While all this is going on, seemingly at the same instant, we observe similarities between the items that have been mentally abstracted.

But first, entity identity by difference has been established.

That's all there is to it.

Since similar characteristics imply similar entity and similar relationships, categorizing is invaluable. It works quite nicely, keeping us from looking for shoelaces in a bakery, and gets us to put deep-frozen food in the freezer.

However, BEFORE the category comes into play, one must first identify an entity to be compared. The category has no immediate use unless and until one encounters a similar entity belonging to said category providing a quick, general appraisal.

For instance, one may hold in mind the category, dog, as a quadruped with hair, head, teeth, etc. One may also hold within this category that a dog is gentle, or vicious.

In the end, the general appraisal is never the exact equivalent as each dog is a separate entity. The relationship is with the objectively actual, not the subjective category.

The long and short of it is that categorizing on similarities is a mental action by all brain-endowed animals including human individuals. Although human beings can contemplate categorizing if so desired, categorizing is in large part automatic.

A dog that has an unpleasant encounter with a skunk is likely to shy away from any similar entity. A child (or adult) who suffers pain from a particular flame will know what to expect from another flame.

Categorizing itself has not been, and is not, a problem. Imo Rand in ITOE, with its claim of "proper categorizing", unnecessarily creates confusion about a simple process.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Xray

[RightJungle]

Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept.

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

This is actually categorizing. Categorizing is always arbitrary, like e. g. "radio personality"; for example, one could as well have categorized these people as "sound makers", "noise makers", "talking mammals", whatever, or focused on the snatches of sound only, categorizing them as one sees fit.

To once again clarify: the units are persons. The abstractions are Radio Personalities, Radio Disk Jockies, Talk Show Hosts, Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. This process also demonstrates the process of moving from a wide abstraction (Radio Personalities) to the more narrow abstractions of Disk Jockies and Talk Show Hosts, and thence to the even more narrow abstractions of Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. You could look at it as a demonstration of studying a specific subject of interest.

I didn't enter the line "Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept." That was from an earlier post. You're right, though, with your question. Anyway, I don't know how that happened, but please don't credit me with stuff I didn't write. Your discussion of categories reminded me of a line from Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine, The Power of Ideas, "Savages acquire information without making categories by the attributes or qualities of things." Isn't that a unique way to differentiate civilized people from savages? I don't know why that struck me on the first reading, but it stayed with me.

Again, it is about categories and subcategories.

[RightJungle]

The posts on this topic are getting confusing to me. I'm going to read the section on how to use this forum. In the meantime, I think we can put this topic to bed unless someone can explain very clearly how my example doesn't work as a demonstration of "abstraction". I would like to hear that critique because it would show me the error of my ways. Right now, I don't know what the error of my ways might be.

[jeffrey smith]

The posts on this topic are getting confusing to me. I'm going to read the section on how to use this forum. In the meantime, I think we can put this topic to bed unless someone can explain very clearly how my example doesn't work as a demonstration of "abstraction". I would like to hear that critique because it would show me the error of my ways. Right now, I don't know what the error of my ways might be.

Mary--

As I understand it (although I hardly qualify as an expert on Rand and Objectivism) abstraction is the process of forming a definition of a concept through the process of analyzing key similarities and differences among entities. For instance, when faced with three entities: a whale, a chimpanzee, and a lizard, we analyze them to find out what each has in common with the other and what are their differences. The key similarities and differences are indentified through the process of abstraction, and based on those we conclude, for instance, that whales and chimpanzees are mammals while lizards are not; or, if our focus is different, we may conclude that the whale is an aquatic animal while the other two are terrestrials; or, again on a third view point, that two are suitable as circus type acts while lizards are not.

Hope that helps.

[tjohnson]

Entities themselves are abstractions. We only register a fraction of the available energies with our senses. From this "sea of energy" we abstract objects. From the unique individuals we abstract groups. From unique events we abstract invariance and "laws". We are abstracting "machines" - it's what we do best. The difference between man and animals is that man can be aware that he is abstracting but animals cannot.

[Christopher]

Mary,

I think we've all done a sufficient job discussing abstractions. This topic is pretty much done as you say. Quite enjoyable.

Chris

Edited September 24, 2009 by Christopher

[Xray]

Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept.

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?

You are sitting in your easy chair, feet up, radio remote control at the ready. You begin to wander through the stations and you hear snatches of men and women talking. You integrate these men and women (units) which are isolated from all other men and women in the universe by their action of “speaking on the radio” and then you unite these men and women (units) by the specific definition of “people talking on the radio” into the concept “Radio Personalities”. You have just indulged in concept formation. Your process of isolating these people from all of the other people in the universe is a process of abstraction. The actual existents are the units called “persons”. The concept “Radio Personalities” does not designate an existent, but instead designates a type of existent that is defined by its action of “speaking on the radio”. This process of abstraction was achieved by the action of your mental focus separating the action of “talking on the radio” from all of the other actions of a person that defines his personhood.

This is actually categorizing. Categorizing is always arbitrary, like e. g. "radio personality"; for example, one could as well have categorized these people as "sound makers", "noise makers", "talking mammals", whatever, or focused on the snatches of sound only, categorizing them as one sees fit.

To once again clarify: the units are persons. The abstractions are Radio Personalities, Radio Disk Jockies, Talk Show Hosts, Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. This process also demonstrates the process of moving from a wide abstraction (Radio Personalities) to the more narrow abstractions of Disk Jockies and Talk Show Hosts, and thence to the even more narrow abstractions of Liberal Talk Show Hosts and Conservative Talk Show Hosts. You could look at it as a demonstration of studying a specific subject of interest.

I didn't enter the line "Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept." That was from an earlier post. You're right, though, with your question. Anyway, I don't know how that happened, but please don't credit me with stuff I didn't write. Your discussion of categories reminded me of a line from Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine, The Power of Ideas, "Savages acquire information without making categories by the attributes or qualities of things." Isn't that a unique way to differentiate civilized people from savages? I don't know why that struck me on the first reading, but it stayed with me.

Again, it is about categories and subcategories.

Mary Lee, from the way you quoted our posts one would think it was me who wrote:

Quote "I didn't enter the line "Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept." That was from an earlier post. You're right, though, with your question. Anyway, I don't know how that happened, but please don't credit me with stuff I didn't write. Your discussion of categories reminded me of a line from Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine, The Power of Ideas, "Savages acquire information without making categories by the attributes or qualities of things." Isn't that a unique way to differentiate civilized people from savages? I don't know why that struck me on the first reading, but it stayed with me." (ML)

But it was you who had written this, not me.

This mistake can happen quite easily here when several posts have been quoted in the 'embedded' mode.

Mary Lee H: I didn't enter the line "Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept." That was from an earlier post. You're right, though, with your question. Anyway, I don't know how that happened, but please don't credit me with stuff I didn't write.

Mary Lee, I made the same error as you when accidentally quoting you as the source indstead of poster Stryder who had written this line in # 5. My mistake. Here is the post with the correct source:

Stryder: (# 5)

"Abstraction is the process of defining an unknown entity for use as a concept."

My question to poster Stryder:

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Mary Hee Harsha Your discussion of categories reminded me of a line from Isabel Paterson's God of the Machine, The Power of Ideas, "Savages acquire information without making categories by the attributes or qualities of things." Isn't that a unique way to differentiate civilized people from savages? I don't know why that struck me on the first reading, but it stayed with me.

It looks Ms. Paterson forgot to check her premises when stating this.

For in fact "savages" fare far better in that field. Our biological ancestors survived splendidly since they knew at glance how to "mentally abstract" a bear from a roe and assess which entity belonging which category was most likely to get them in danger. They were able categorize effortlessly and effectively.

A cousin of mine has travelled a lot in jungles - whom do you think he consulted to guide him through the wilderness?

A philosopical volume on "making proper categories"?

No, he hired a native (whom Paterson would probably called "savage"). The "civilized" man would have been lost without the native's special knowledge by far exceeding his own in that field, a knowledge based on the abilitiy to effectively categorize one's environment for survival purposes.

How on earth can the native achieve this without tying himself in mental knots by studying volumes on "proper categorizing"?

Down on earth, similar characteristics indicate similar relationship.

This simple truth is hard-wired not only in the minds of human individuals, but also into the minds of apes, chimps, dogs, horses, lions, etc. although human beings can consciously deliberate on categories as well.

The evidence from this is that the non-human animals fare much better in this department since they don't tie themselves in mental knots in complicating the obvious.

A lion couldn't care less about Aristotle's ten classes. The lion knows enough to mentally "abstract" a gazelle from an adult cape buffalo and knows which entity from which "category" is more likely to yield a meal.

Set before a hungry dog a hamburger and a platter of steel nails, the dog with go for the hamburger every time.

In short, categorizing poses no problem at all for both human and non-human animals.

So if I. Paterson and others had looked up from their scholarly papers here, they may have noticed that dogs, cat and hyenas had already beaten them to the punch.

So why try to tackle a steel ball with a rubber hammer?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[RightJungle]

O.K. You realize that this means war!

Maybe we should all take a couple of days off and go re-read David kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

[Xray]

O.K. You realize that this means war!

Maybe we should all take a couple of days off and go re-read David kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

No, I'm afraid I don't realize it means "war". War about what? As for me, I don't feel 'belligerent' at all.

If you think I'm in error on something I posted in # 19, could you quote the alleged error and explain why. TIA.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I know I have my infra red sniper scope in the attic. Puts it on to do list.

[RightJungle]

Actually, I was just trying to be funny by quoting my other favorite philosopher, Bugs Bunny.

See you all in a few days. Gotta take a break.

[Xray]

Actually, I was just trying to be funny by quoting my other favorite philosopher, Bugs Bunny.

I'm relieved to hear that, Mary. For that sudden declaration of war sure gave me something to "chew" on.

My knowledge of cartoons is very limited, but since the hare (or is it a rabbit?) Bugs Bunny keeps popping up in internet discussions, the character is beginning to interest me.

So to get me 'rabbitly' informed on BB, I went through the Wikipedia article and found some of BB's puns so hilarious that I'm tempted to call him "Bugs Punny", bun intended. Mary, I hope you forgive me if I have have switched the P and B letters here - Ayn Rand would sternly have disapproved of all that, I know I know, probably suspecting the switching letters as the prelude to - dare I name it -- a "stolen concept!!"

In short, pure "hare-sy". ;)

So BB is one of your favorite philosophers. Not a bad choice imo.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"In short, pure 'hare-sy' <<<good one