abstractions

[Xray]

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.

Good points, GS.

[tjohnson]

Good points, GS.

It is just general semantics 101 - I can't take credit. See http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mary,

You have been doing just fine.

Part of the confusion comes when people try to divorce abstraction from the process of thinking. ("How can you know something unknown" kind of stuff.) That is a pure stolen concept. It's like presuming that a shirt isn't an article of clothing, then asking how do you know it is supposed to be used for covering the human body. If a thing isn't clothing, it can't be a shirt. The more specific concept rests on--and arises out of--the broader one.

Abstraction is a form of thinking. Without thinking, abstraction does not exist. An abstraction is a form of knowing something.

(All this stuff is really obvious except to those who try to outwit reality all the time.)

I need to read your radio talk show example in more depth to comment further, but on a skim, it appeared essentially correct.

Michael

[Xray]

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.

"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." (JS)

One can only now of similarities AFTER an entity is known to exist by mentally abstracting via difference.

No matter what the efficiency of eyesight, or what one feels to be true, chronologically and logically, entity identity by difference must precede awareness of similarities.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

"Abstraction (process of)

The act of isolation involved [in concept-formation] is a process of abstraction: i.e., a selective mental focus that takes out or separates 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.)." (Rand)

Rand seems to regard "concept" as category only, and again the question: how can one know of similarities BEFORE mentally abstracting two or more entities with each mentally abstracted by difference?

GS wrote in # 16:

"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." (GS)

So both humans and animals have the ability to perform mental abstractions.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Mary,

You have been doing just fine.

Part of the confusion comes when people try to divorce abstraction from the process of thinking. ("How can you know something unknown" kind of stuff.) That is a pure stolen concept. It's like presuming that a shirt isn't an article of clothing, then asking how do you know it is supposed to be used for covering the human body. If a thing isn't clothing, it can't be a shirt. The more specific concept rests on--and arises out of--the broader one.

Abstraction is a form of thinking. Without thinking, abstraction does not exist. An abstraction is a form of knowing something.

(All this stuff is really obvious except to those who try to outwit reality all the time.)

Mother to little Johnny: "Please get yourself a teaspoon from the drawer."

That is, she asks him to get a finite object belonging to the category "fork".

To perform the act, Johnny must have a mental image in mind associated with the sound chain "teaspoon".

How did, per Rand's theory, Johnny arrive at forming that mental image?

Edited September 25, 2009 by Xray

[Stryder]

Cristopher-- "...The act of isolation involved is a process of abstraction.."

I'm not sure it's that simple. The act of isolation seems to be of the process of abstraction as the pre-abstraction process for the calculation of the potential of an entity as usable, non-usable or unknown relative to the base inqury.

Come to think of it, the concept 'abstraction' seems more like a supposition for conception. To abstract something is to actually pull it out of something but in the realm of epistemology, one can only use and add to their knowledge. This makes 'abstraction' a metaphore, analogy, or supposition when used episemologically as nothing is actually removed. An passable example, and to touch on a personal qualm, is how the word "objective" is used as a supposition for the concept 'being-of-reason' when its actual form is a subjective stance. (..an intentioned basis to guide activities, a goal or one's 'personal drive' so to speak..) If one didn't know or understand the actual integral basis of the concept 'objective' then the supposition is seen as the definition which in turn distorts all creations relative. The word "subjective" is also used as a term with similar suppositional complications.

Mary and Christopher,

It seems like you two are bouncing around known aspects of the concept in your posts about the radio show without getting to the heart of the matter. The reason I came to the conclusion above was because I formed a question that I think you could ask, "When is an abstract no-longer abstract?". The answer is that it can't because it is actually a 'concept', nothing changes its episemological structure once it is, it can only be added to. What can change is your judgment of what it is and how it should be used which is outside the context that abstraction is "mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s) and united by a specific definition"(<--Christopher) because that judgement doesn't change it's original form, it adds to it by using it. Discarded or integrated, the orginal form is still in memory and usually has something like a time stamp.

Concept formation is a natural process of the brain than that of consciously imposed principals like Focus, Payment of Attention, and various other misunderstood suppositions. To use forced processes to do what the mind naturally does dictates that there are bromides within the basis for the acts and that use of those forced processes prior to finding out how it actually works and mastering it leaves one's integrity fragle. I don't know about you but it sounds funny to me that such a thing hasn't been mastered and that most people go on as if it really doesn't matter when it is the fundamental basis of most people's epistemological problems and possably much of the seemingly biological ones too. The problem about abused suppositions that I stated above applies as suppositions and other plausabilities are used as the basis of concept formation thus distorting the tree of knowledge that grows from such seed. As far as I can tell this is the purest form if an ideological bromide's structure.

Did you ask you parents or teachers what that their basis for "Pay Attention!" was? I always got a half-assed, ambiguous or an indeciferable (when asked to explain they also didn't know how) 'just' answer. Thus I was forced like everyone else to use my best guess... wish I could remember what it was.. I think it was along the lines of "Just do your best sweety."... shit.

Xray--"My question to poster Stryder:

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?"

I'll just do my best sweety.

An entity which is unknown is defigned by attributing aspects of relatively comparable existents. Mistakes abound but relevent perfection will always be had.

For instance, a child sees the table's physical representation but has no way to communicate it in words and needs to convey that a parent is sleeping on it to its grandparent on the phone. The unknown word of identity is found and that child can now search for it.

She tells her grandma, "Dady is sleeping on.. the..".

Grandma picks up on the hesitation, "Bed? Couch? Floor?" and to each the grandchild replies, "Noo...".

"Then tell me what it looks like dear." said grandma.

"Wellll.. it has legs and...and a top.. and a bottom.. and we eat on it!"

"Thats called a table dear. Now go wake up you father and put him on the phone."

Both the grandma and the grandchild have thus defigned the grandchild's unknown entity.

Was that enough? Why did you ask?

[Xray]

Xray--"My question to poster Stryder:

How can an entity which is unknown be defined?

Could you illustrate with a brief example?"

I'll just do my best sweety.

An entity which is unknown is defigned by attributing aspects of relatively comparable existents. Mistakes abound but relevent perfection will always be had.

For instance, a child sees the table's physical representation but has no way to communicate it in words and needs to convey that a parent is sleeping on it to its grandparent on the phone. The unknown word of identity is found and that child can now search for it.

She tells her grandma, "Dady is sleeping on.. the..".

Grandma picks up on the hesitation, "Bed? Couch? Floor?" and to each the grandchild replies, "Noo...".

"Then tell me what it looks like dear." said grandma.

"Wellll.. it has legs and...and a top.. and a bottom.. and we eat on it!"

"Thats called a table dear. Now go wake up you father and put him on the phone."

Both the grandma and the grandchild have thus defigned the grandchild's unknown entity.

Was that enough? Why did you ask?

I asked because I want to check your premises, since it was not at all clear what you meant by an "unknown" entity.

But in your example, the entity is not "unknown" at all, since the child has not only isolataed the entity by mentally abstracting it from its surroundings, the child is also able to define it. ("...we eat on it").

Therefore it is highly unlikely that the child has had no encounter yet with the linguistic audivisual symbol 'table' used to denote the entity.

Edited October 12, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

Hi Stryder,

Interesting questions. I've had a very long day, so I'm a little exhausted, but let me see if I can answer the questions you're asking clearly.

1. You suggesting abstraction is a metaphor for a process that doesn't occur because it removes data, whereas knowledge is the gathering of data? I might think of it this way: when you look at a globe, you see a spherical shape with a bunch of symbols on it. If you abstract the presence of continents, oceans, and national borders, you gain more knowledge within the "sphere" of your current knowledge (chuckle chuckle). So abstraction has given you more knowledge without reducing that which is present in your sensory field. Another way to think about abstraction is a process of organization. Like filing a pile of books alphabetically... abstraction makes things neat and tidy I think, but nothing is removed when you focus on alphabetization.

2. I think what you're asking on the second point is: isn't all knowledge based on abstraction? According to Objectivist definition, all concepts are based on abstraction, and I think GS pointed out that abstraction takes place automatically. I think abstraction is (as you say?) automatic given that you make the effort to focus on the objects from which you want to abstract from. That's probably why higher level abstractions are less organized or developed in some people - not that these people are bad at abstracting per se, they're just bad at paying attention to their knowledge long enough for their mind to automatically perform good abstractions. Also, I'm not sure animals "abstract" knowledge. We can know about the world through more than just concepts, so abstraction is not a requirement of all knowledge..... (actually, I don't recall if Rand stated that abstractions are strictly functions related to concept-formation, or whether abstraction is also the process of identification that goes on at the perception level)

[RightJungle]

Here is a pretty cool quote from Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto (found in the Ayn Rand Lexicon):

There are many special or “cross-filed” chains of abstractions (of interconnected concepts) in man’s mind. Cognitive abstractions are the fundamental chain, on which all the others depend. Such chains are mental integrations, serving a special purpose and formed accordingly by a special criterion.

Cognitive abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is essential? (epistemologically essential to distinguish one class of existents from all others). Normative abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is good? Esthetic abstractions are formed by the criterion of: what is important?

“Art and Sense of Life,” The Romantic Manifesto, 36.

It's been probably twenty years since I read that book. It might be worth while to have another go at it.

What do you say we get a little less esoteric in this discussion? Some of the sentences are causing blood to shoot out of my eyes. Of course, if that's what makes it fun then go ahead, but I am unable to devote anymore real effort to this right now. So, I'll just look in every once in while to see how it's going. Wish we'd hear from the instigator of this topic.

[tjohnson]

From what I can gather, I would say that 'concept formation' is a kind of abstracting. When you see a bunch of different trees but notice some similarities then you are able to form a mental image of 'a tree' in your mind. I believe this is what is meant by 'concept formation'. This is also what is meant by abstraction. In general semantics it is theorized that abstraction occurs at other levels in the nervous system as well, for instance, when you go from a concept to a definition you again include certain similarities while ignoring other characteristics.

[Xray]

From what I can gather, I would say that 'concept formation' is a kind of abstracting. When you see a bunch of different trees but notice some similarities then you are able to form a mental image of 'a tree' in your mind. I believe this is what is meant by 'concept formation'.

This would actually be categorizing, i. e. grouping by similarities. It looks like Rand called "concept" what is in fact category.

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 general appraisal.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray: But in your example, the entity is not "unknown" at all, since the child has not only isolataed the entity by mentally abstracting it from its surroundings, the child is also able to define it. ("...we eat on it").

Therefore it is highly unlikely that the child has had no encounter yet with the linguistic audivisual symbol 'table' used to denote the entity.

ETA: even in case the child does not know the linguistic term referring to a specific object, it is wrong to assume that an objective thing has not been identified by the child just because it can't put an audiovisual linguistic symbol to it.

Edited October 13, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

From what I can gather, I would say that 'concept formation' is a kind of abstracting. When you see a bunch of different trees but notice some similarities then you are able to form a mental image of 'a tree' in your mind. I believe this is what is meant by 'concept formation'. This is also what is meant by abstraction. In general semantics it is theorized that abstraction occurs at other levels in the nervous system as well, for instance, when you go from a concept to a definition you again include certain similarities while ignoring other characteristics.

Before concept formation at the level of entities and identities, is a "process of abstraction" occurring perceptually, or is there a different process used to denote entity+identity formation?

[tjohnson]

Before concept formation at the level of entities and identities, is a "process of abstraction" occurring perceptually, or is there a different process used to denote entity+identity formation?

Well, IMO perceiving an entity is also a process of abstraction. You nervous system abstracts "a concrete" from the energies it is immersed in. In general semantics the whole process is summed up with the aid of a diagram. called the structural differential. See http://esgs.free.fr/uk/sd.htm

There is a circularity of abstraction as follows - event => object => label => description => inference => event.

The inferences are concerning the structure of the event (science).

[Xray]

General Semanticist: Well, IMO perceiving an entity is also a process of abstraction.

I have often asked myself why Ayn Rand presented her theory on "concept formation" as if she had invented the wheel, quite obviously ignoring the development in linguistics where (as opposed to Rand's wrong asumptions on how language is acquired) people like F. De Saussure (often called the founder of modern linguistics), had already presented a theory whose central notion is that language may be analyzed as a formal system of differential elements. Examples of these elements include the notion of the arbitrary linguistic sign composed of two parts, the "signifier" being the chain of sounds/letters, the "signified" the mental image created in mind on hearing/reading the chain of sounds/letters. The "referent" is the actual object.

Reading ITOE creates the impression that Rand had never heard of De Saussure and linguistic research.

As for "concept", it means "an idea of" and is a general term. Since all thinking occurs in concepts, there can exist no such thing as an "unconceptual mentality".

From my experience as a mother and teacher, as well as from my linguistic background, I disagree with Rand's theory as to how people mentally integrate language symbols. For they don't have to go around and group by similarites first, which per Rand allegedly is necessary for them to get an idea of what a term (e. g. "dog") refers to.

It is exactly the other way round: What comes first is always the confrontation with a finite object accompanied by the sound chain and THAT's what makes the mental connection. This connection has already been established before an individual later does comparisons with similar objects and categorizes.

Example: toddler Susie is on the playground with her mother and has her first 'conscious' enounter with a dog. "Look, a DOG!", her mother tells Susie. The combination of the finite object (the "referent" in Saussurean terminology) accompanied by the sound chain is already being mentally wired in Susie's brain.

"Where is the dog, Susie?" Susie points to the dog, smiles, making happily excited sounds. "THERE is the dog!" mother continues. "Look, now it makes "bow bow, bow wow, bow wow!!" Back and forth goes the communiciation between Susie and her mom.

That is, Susie need not be confronted with several dogs and collect similarities (four legs, hairy, barks etc.) before being able to get an idea of what the audiovisual symbol 'dog' stands for. For she already got that idea in her first encounter with the finite object.

For one can only recognize similarites if one has a basis for reference first, that is, at least mentallly abstracted at least one object before comparing it to another.

Why did Rand make such great fuss about "conceptual faculty" and other self-created terms?

Imo the reason is that she made a lot of claims about the correctness of her thinking. This called for explanation via epistemology. But do the (often confusing and contradictory) claims held in ITOE stand up to linguistic scrutiny? I can't see evidence of that.

Just curious: has Rand ever had any debates with linguists regarding her claims about "concept formation"?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

I agree that when a child learns how to speak they learn to associate one kind of nervous activity (images) with another (sounds). Of course it doesn't need to be images or sounds, a blind person could associate sounds with other feelings, and deaf people images with signs, etc. The common denominator is that we learn a symbol system that represent a perceptual activity. As you say this has been done for the most part for children but it is by abstraction that the language was produced in the first place.

[Xray]

I agree that when a child learns how to speak they learn to associate one kind of nervous activity (images) with another (sounds). Of course it doesn't need to be images or sounds, a blind person could associate sounds with other feelings, and deaf people images with signs, etc. The common denominator is that we learn a symbol system that represent a perceptual activity. As you say this has been done for the most part for children but it is by abstraction that the language was produced in the first place.

That's correct.

As for the linguistic sign, the audiovisual symbol, it is arbitrary, and categorizing is arbitrary as well. That is, when learning a language, an individual is already confronted with the categories used in that language.

For example, the English language is particularly rich in terms categorizing movement - having an e. g. a special term "nudge" for pushing with the elbow, which the German language does not have.

So there is no "necessity" to have a special term for 'pushing with the elbow', it is just arbitrary categorizing.

In Rand's lexicon, she states:

"The same principle directs the process of forming concepts of entities — for instance, the concept "table." The child's mind isolates two or more tables from other objects, by focusing on their distinctive characteristic: their

shape. He observes that their shapes vary, but have one characteristic in common: a flat, level surface and support(s). He forms the concept "table" by retaining that characteristic and omitting all particular measurements, not only the measurements of the shape, but of all the othercharacteristics

of tables (many of which he is not aware of at the time)." (Rand)

Ayn Rand is talking about categorizing. She goes on and on about the development of a child's mind in pretense that learning to form categories ("concepts") is some complicated intellectual feat. She ignores the fact that all brain-endowed entities form categories, many automatically without conscious thought of the process.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

That's correct.

As for the linguistic sign, the audiovisual symbol, it is arbitrary, and categorizing is arbitrary as well. That is, when learning a language, an individual is already confronted with the categories used in that language.

For example, the English language is particularly rich in terms categorizing movement - having an e. g. a special term "nudge" for pushing with the elbow, which the German language does not have.

So there is no "necessity" to have a special term for 'pushing with the elbow', it is just arbitrary categorizing.

In Rand's lexicon, she states:

"The same principle directs the process of forming concepts of entities — for instance, the concept "table." The child's mind isolates two or more tables from other objects, by focusing on their distinctive characteristic: their

shape. He observes that their shapes vary, but have one characteristic in common: a flat, level surface and support(s). He forms the concept "table" by retaining that characteristic and omitting all particular measurements, not only the measurements of the shape, but of all the othercharacteristics

of tables (many of which he is not aware of at the time)." (Rand)

Ayn Rand is talking about categorizing. She goes on and on about the development of a child's mind in pretense that learning to form categories ("concepts") is some complicated intellectual feat. She ignores the fact that all brain-endowed entities form categories, many automatically without conscious thought of the process.

Of course concept formation is something humans do and is very important but, as you say, this is nothing new and, with children learning a language, the concepts are already formed for them. This part of Objectivism I would call "much ado about nothing".

[BaalChatzaf]

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

Let A be a non-empty set of things. For each x in A let Q(x) be the set of properties or predicates that apply to x. Let I = intersection of Q(x), x in A. I is the set of properties possessed by all elements of A. I is an abstraction which defines the set A. It is a set of predicates.

If I is empty, then there is no abstraction which defines A. One must use a membership list.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

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

Let A be a non-empty set of things. For each x in A let Q(x) be the set of properties or predicates that apply to x. Let I = intersection of Q(x), x in A. I is the set of properties possessed by all elements of A. I is an abstraction which defines the set A. It is a set of predicates.

If I is empty, then there is no abstraction which defines A. One must use a membership list.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Abstraction is derived from Latin "abstrahere" ('pull away from').

In the Wikipedia article, it says:

"In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas are distanced from objects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

Could you flesh out your formalized presentation with a concrete example?

A lion in the Serengeti sees a gazelle and mentally abstracts this entity from its surroundings as a member belonging to the category 'likely to yield a meal'. How would you formalize this?

Edited October 25, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

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

Let A be a non-empty set of things. For each x in A let Q(x) be the set of properties or predicates that apply to x. Let I = intersection of Q(x), x in A. I is the set of properties possessed by all elements of A. I is an abstraction which defines the set A. It is a set of predicates.

If I is empty, then there is no abstraction which defines A. One must use a membership list.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Abstraction is derived from Latin "abstrahere" ('pull away from').

Could you flesh out your formalized presentation with a concrete example?

A lion in the Serengeti sees a gazelle and mentally abstracts this entity from its surroundings as a member belonging to the category 'likely to yield a meal'. How would you formalize this?

Be careful you don't get into an argument here. 'Abstraction' can mean different things in different cases. Xray is talking about abstraction at a non-verbal level. Baal is doing it on a verbal level with defining properties. Both are examples of abstraction but are quite different operations.

[Xray]

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

Let A be a non-empty set of things. For each x in A let Q(x) be the set of properties or predicates that apply to x. Let I = intersection of Q(x), x in A. I is the set of properties possessed by all elements of A. I is an abstraction which defines the set A. It is a set of predicates.

If I is empty, then there is no abstraction which defines A. One must use a membership list.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Abstraction is derived from Latin "abstrahere" ('pull away from').

Could you flesh out your formalized presentation with a concrete example?

A lion in the Serengeti sees a gazelle and mentally abstracts this entity from its surroundings as a member belonging to the category 'likely to yield a meal'. How would you formalize this?

Be careful you don't get into an argument here. 'Abstraction' can mean different things in different cases. Xray is talking about abstraction at a non-verbal level. Baal is doing it on a verbal level with defining properties. Both are examples of abstraction but are quite different operations.

One can easily provide an analogous verbal example; the principle remains the same: John Doe sees an entity which he mentally abstracts from its surroundings as a member belonging to a category labeled (in English) with the audiovisual symbol "dog".

The category itself is not an entity, but also an abstraction, a mental invention composed of arbitrarily selected similalities.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

One can easily provide an analogous verbal example; the principle remains the same: John Doe sees an entity which he mentally abstracts from its surroundings as a member belonging to the category "dog".

Yes, but the lion has no word for his abstraction, the human does. The human is abstracting on 2 different levels, one to see the entity and one to define it.

[merjet]

That is, Susie need not be confronted with several dogs and collect similarities (four legs, hairy, barks etc.) before being able to get an idea of what the audiovisual symbol 'dog' stands for. For she already got that idea in her first encounter with the finite object.

I agree somewhat with Xray here. In ITOE Rand had little to say about the role of conspecifics in learning words and concepts, especially children learning from their parents.

On the other hand, a concept is not a mere word. The toddler Susie does not have the concept dog until she recognizes various things that are sufficiently similar are called 'dog'. On first encounter Susie very likely has not discerned that 'dog' is a proper name or a general term. Sufficient grasp of the concept also requires that Susie not bind the concept to non-dogs.

The category itself is not an entity, but also an abstraction, a mental invention composed of arbitrarily selected similalities.

I have little doubt this is how Xray herself operates. There is plenty of evidence on OL of her using categories based on arbitrarily selected "similalities."