Concepts and Percepts

[tjohnson]

Well, if you accept that terminology, then what he says is broadly true. But I would use different words, (again, primed recognition versus inductive discrimination) and I think you could easily go wrong by conflating identification and recognition as "abstraction."

Hawkins does address how a pre-existing pattern-recognizing brain circuit can prime us to recognize a pattern we have previously identified and learned. Still, the pattern must first be learned, and this is done without pre-existing knowledge.

Hawkins too fails to make certain necessary distinctions. Nevertheless, he is quite worth reading. As is David Kelley's Evidence of the Senses where he introduces the notion of a perceptual judgment as the link between percepts and concepts.

One of Korzyski's main goals was to create a language and a method to differentiate between words and what they represent. For example, when you speak about 'concepts' are you speaking about a word or a mental image?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

In Objectivism, a concept is a mental category. (This mental category can also be treated as an abstract entity, but that is at a higher level). Rand uses other words to describe this (she likes the word "integration" to mean making a category), but this is the essence. A concept is not an image. It is a purely mental existent--an abstraction.

You slap a word on it to give it an easy to use concrete form, but the word is not the concept. It is a name for the concept.

Once words are present, you then can define the concept with words. But before words are attached, concepts start as mental categories for existents that are perceived. You can literally form a concept by pointing to something that can be categorized (meaning that more than one is perceived) that you are unfamiliar with.

Michael

[tjohnson]

A concept is not an image. It is a purely mental existent--an abstraction.

I don't think this is any clearer. If I imagine a tree it is a mental image that exists in my brain, is it not? I could be imagining a tree like a pine tree but you could be imagining an oak tree, right? If I said imagine an oak tree specifically then we probably would have more similar mental images. It seems to me that 'concept' must be restricted to meaning a mental image.

[anonrobt]

A concept is not an image. It is a purely mental existent--an abstraction.

I don't think this is any clearer. If I imagine a tree it is a mental image that exists in my brain, is it not? I could be imagining a tree like a pine tree but you could be imagining an oak tree, right? If I said imagine an oak tree specifically then we probably would have more similar mental images. It seems to me that 'concept' must be restricted to meaning a mental image.

The image is visualizing the concept, is it not, not being the concept itself?

That is why the images are different, yet the concept remains the same...

Edited March 15, 2009 by anonrobt

[tjohnson]

The image is visualizing the concept, is it not, not being the concept itself?

That is why the images are different, yet the concept remains the same...

What you describe here means the concept is non-existent. If it isn't a word and it isn't a mental image then what exactly is it? There aren't any other choices I can see.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

We have five basic senses and a whole lot more awareness senses (like balance for detecting gravity and so forth). The abstraction for tree not only has to be an integration of all of them (to the extent they provide sensory input of the existent, or things emanating from the existent, or things reflecting off the existenty), it also has to make room for units. "Image" is only visual.

Once again, why not read ITOE?

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

We have five basic senses and a whole lot more awareness senses (like balance for detecting gravity and so forth). The abstraction for tree not only has to be an integration of all of them (to the extent they provide sensory input of the existent, or things emanating from the existent, or things reflecting off the existenty), it also has to make room for units. "Image" is only visual.

Once again, why not read ITOE?

Michael

I'm fine if you prefer integration instead of image, it doesn't change my argument, however the visual cortex is by far the largest and most complex. The integration exists in our brains and in any given case my integration will be different than yours or anyone else's. This integration is what a concept is, as far as I'm concerned. BTW, what I have read of Rand's doesn't make much sense to me and I can't argue with her so that's why I am here.

[syrakusos]

... what I have read of Rand's doesn't make much sense to me and I can't argue with her so that's why I am here.

And that's why I don't write off your boy Korby as a nutcase... there might be somethign there that I do not understand. So, as we are discussing here, what image, GS, would you associate with "the square root of minus-1"? I mean, it has been called an "imaginery" number.

I am also leery of "wiring" diagrams for the brain. Those are also constructs or analogies that help us (ahem) "visualize" the processes of the brain, but they are chemical and holistic. Our digitized age has its limitations.

Mike M.

[merjet]

So, as we are discussing here, what image, GS, would you associate with "the square root of minus-1"? I mean, it has been called an "imaginery" number.

There is a visual image for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_num..._interpretation

I am not saying there is an image for every concept.

[Brant Gaede]

GS,

We have five basic senses and a whole lot more awareness senses (like balance for detecting gravity and so forth). The abstraction for tree not only has to be an integration of all of them (to the extent they provide sensory input of the existent, or things emanating from the existent, or things reflecting off the existenty), it also has to make room for units. "Image" is only visual.

Once again, why not read ITOE?

Michael

I'm fine if you prefer integration instead of image, it doesn't change my argument, however the visual cortex is by far the largest and most complex. The integration exists in our brains and in any given case my integration will be different than yours or anyone else's. This integration is what a concept is, as far as I'm concerned. BTW, what I have read of Rand's doesn't make much sense to me and I can't argue with her so that's why I am here.

This seems to be the epistemological equivalent of the metaphysical you can never step into the same river twice. I say that's only true if you drown the first time.

--Brant

Edited March 16, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

This seems to be the epistemological equivalent of the metaphysical you can never step into the same river twice. I say that's only true if you drown the first time.

--Brant

If you define a river as a set of water molecules constrained and bounded on the sides, then one is very unlikely to step in the same river twice. The contents have changed and erosion and meanderikng have modified the constraining sides.

Heriklites was right.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

And that's why I don't write off your boy Korby as a nutcase... there might be somethign there that I do not understand. So, as we are discussing here, what image, GS, would you associate with "the square root of minus-1"? I mean, it has been called an "imaginery" number.

I am also leery of "wiring" diagrams for the brain. Those are also constructs or analogies that help us (ahem) "visualize" the processes of the brain, but they are chemical and holistic. Our digitized age has its limitations.

Mike M.

What I am saying here does not apply to mathematics, we don't perceive i, the root of -1, we define it. It is a purely symbolic exercise. There are many mathematical structures that cannot be visualized (integrated?). Complex numbers (imaginary is a poor nomenclature) came about because there was no general solution for quadratic equations like x^2+1=0. To get around this one defines i^2=-1 and voila, the equation is solved!

[Selene]

GS:

Grrr I still detest imaginary numbers, I attempted to understand it semantically which did not work at 13.

However, I have also had my general approach to understanding reality and teaching immeasurably increased by the Count's ideas.

"It is a purely symbolic exercise." < by this you meant??

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The integration exists in our brains and in any given case my integration will be different than yours or anyone else's. This integration is what a concept is, as far as I'm concerned.

GS,

What's wrong with that? It's a vast oversimplification to find this to be imprecise or a defect or subjective. Your hand is different than my hand. Does that mean that the idea of extremity or hand is subjective? Is my hand any more or less of a hand than your hand because they are on different arms and have different sizes? Let me paraphrase your statement:

The hand exists on our arms and in any given case my hand will be different than yours or anyone else's. This hand is what an extremity is, as far as I'm concerned.

This said, of course, in the sense of showing the reasoning behind considering extremities to be subjective. When we discuss abstractions, mental images, concepts, etc., a person can get away with such an aspirant to a paradox. But when we discuss something really obvious like a hand, which we all can see, it becomes ludicrous.

Still, the principle is the same for both. An existent has a specific unchanging nature and oodles of small changing components. An abstraction is an existent qua abstraction, so it has a specific unchanging nature, especially with respect to how it operates, and oodles of small changing components, like the specific referents perceived by the person.

This is what I call top-down and bottom-up thinking. I often get the impression that you essentially say that since the bottom is different than the top, the top is subjective (or arbitrary, by extension). In other words, since the specific referents processed by the brain are different from person to person, the abstraction is subjective (or arbitrary). That's not true. Our brains are made to form abstractions in an identical manner from person to person and we all encounter different specific referents to form abstractions with. Both top and bottom are necessary and each operates according to specific principles. You simply can't have a top without a bottom and vice-versa.

Michael

[tjohnson]

Does that mean that the idea of extremity or hand is subjective?

What I'm trying to say is that there is not one absolute idea or integration etc. of a hand, for example. So yes, it is subjective to some extent.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Then do you mean that a human hand can have, say, 245 fingers for one person and 5 for another and that both are valid since both are "subjective"?

Sorry. I can't go there.

To me, a healthy human hand has 5 fingers. The concept will always include 5 fingers so long as healthy human beings have hands with 5 fingers. A defective hand has more or fewer fingers, but the defective idea does not exist without the standard of the normal healthy hand. Even then, there are limits to the defects. These limits are set from objective observation, meaning anyone can verify by looking, not by "subjective" speculation, meaning anything goes and what one speculates (without observation) is just as valid as what one observes.

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS:

Grrr I still detest imaginary numbers, I attempted to understand it semantically which did not work at 13.

However, I have also had my general approach to understanding reality and teaching immeasurably increased by the Count's ideas.

"It is a purely symbolic exercise." < by this you meant??

Adam

At one time there were no rational numbers either and they were created in a similar fashion. Suppose you were a mathematician then and you wrote this equation 2x=3 but there was no such thing as a fraction, 3/2. These new numbers look different, they have a top and a bottom - they come in pairs just like complex numbers. Rational numbers look like this a/b and complex numbers look like this (a,b). As long as they satisfy the basic requirements of a number system then they are bonafide numbers. If (a,b) and (b,c) are 2 complex numbers then multiplication is defined as (a,b)(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc) . So if the numbers were (0,1) and (0,1) then it becomes (-1, 0) which shows that i squared = -1. See it all follows from the definition, it's purely symbolic, manipulation of symbols!

[Selene]

G.S.

That I can go forward with.

However, a hand, defined within parameters exists as described. Michael makes a correct argument concerning "hands".

There is another poster who calls " " , scare quotes which makes no sense to me. I am not using the " " that way.

Adam

[tjohnson]

To me, a healthy human hand has 5 fingers. The concept will always include 5 fingers so long as healthy human beings have hands with 5 fingers.

See I think you mean the definition "will always include 5 fingers so long as healthy human beings have hands with 5 fingers" .There is nothing to prevent one from conceiving of hands with more or less fingers.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

You think wrong. I mean concept. You can verify it with looking and touch.

Michael

[DavidMcK]

It has been pointed out that if you can't step in the river twice you can't step in to it once either.

[tjohnson]

It has been pointed out that if you can't step in the river twice you can't step in to it once either.

The saying goes like "you can't step into the same river twice".

[tjohnson]

You think wrong. I mean concept. You can verify it with looking and touch.

Are you saying you cannot imagine a hand with 6 fingers??

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Are you saying you cannot imagine a hand with 6 fingers??

GS,

You stopped reading my posts. Please read (or reread) the part about defect.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

GS:

Grrr I still detest imaginary numbers, I attempted to understand it semantically which did not work at 13.

What is your problem. The imaginary numbers (so-called) are what you have to add to the reals to make all polynomials with real co-efficient have roots. The complex field is the algebraic closure of the real polynomial ring. What is detestable about that?

If that is too rare for you consider the set of matrices:

- ............-

| a, b |

| -b, a |

_............._

where a and b are real. Algebraically they form a field in which the polynomia x^2 + 1 = 0 has a root.

If I recall correctly, you are a master of statistics. I cannot comprehend why you have this difficulty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited March 16, 2009 by BaalChatzaf