Moo Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 A forest is a concept, and concepts don't exist in physical reality, I think we can all agree on that. Human groups, in a similar vein, don't exist. They to are concepts and in reality are just a collection of individuals. So is a human not a concept as well? Is it not just the term we give to a collection of atoms. An atom is just a concept..... If everything is a concept, does it not lose all meaning? And if concepts don't exist in physical reality and everything is a concept......then that must mean I'm not actually sitting here typing out this question As you can tell I'm a bit stumped by this, what am I missing? 2
twinklingwinter Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 Concepts do not exist in empirical reality, but what the concepts refer to do exist. You make a mistake when you say that "everything is a concept". That's not true. Concepts are made to describe real things with similar properties. You can define "chair" as "a separate seat for one person, typically with a back and four legs". When I point at a chair and say "That's a chair", the concept "chair" is abstract. It doesn't exist. But the thing I'm pointing to does exist as an instance of the concept "chair". You can feel it, see it, sit on it, etc. Concepts are there just to communicate what you're experiencing. They don't describe what they refer to with perfect accuracy, but they're extremely useful nonetheless. Otherwise, I wouldn't understand anything that you said 2
Slavik Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 Concept is an idea, physically it does not exist as a thing by itself. Concepts however can be separated into grouping and those that point or describe something or descriptors. Grouping concept such as (forest, crowd, etc.) points to a combination of singular things. Concepts that are descriptors point directly at something, well those that describe singular things (tree, chair etc.) Language by itself is indeed a concept, if you think about it this way, if there were no humans on earth, would things around us still exist? Yes, just because we gave something a name doesnt mean that we have brought it into existence. 1
shirgall Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 Every useful concept relates back to the world, but like analogies, you have to be careful not to make an error in the translation or you spend all of your useful time talking about the errors and edge cases.
rosencrantz Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 Concepts are both mental representation and abilities. The concept of dog allows you to recognize dogs, the concept of addition allows you to add numbers. Representation and ability are not distinct, but they reinforce each other. First you apply a concept succesfully to an instance, then you formulate it in your mind. By applying and delineating it from other concepts you learn more and are able to use it more properly. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted August 29, 2016 Posted August 29, 2016 A forest is a concept, and concepts don't exist in physical reality, I think we can all agree on that. Human groups, in a similar vein, don't exist. They to are concepts and in reality are just a collection of individuals. So is a human not a concept as well? Is it not just the term we give to a collection of atoms. An atom is just a concept..... If everything is a concept, does it not lose all meaning? And if concepts don't exist in physical reality and everything is a concept......then that must mean I'm not actually sitting here typing out this question As you can tell I'm a bit stumped by this, what am I missing? You're a monad. Everything substantial is a monad, a locus of mentality with appetition (desire) and perception. So you are not a concept, you are a subject-of-experience. However, there is a concept of you as a species, that only perfectly applies to one thing in the world, namely you. Strictly speaking, you are part of a species of one. More loosely, the species-of-you can be applied imperfectly to images of you, pictures, statues, voice recordings, etc.. So there is you (monad), there is the concept of you (species) and there are things to which the concept-of-you applies. Forests, human groups, humans, atoms, all monads. Not all equally developed, but monads. Monad............Sample Species Forest..............forests, yellow, woody, birdsong Human group...human groups, parade, uniformed, musical Human............humans, white, long-haired Atom................atoms, motion, charge
RichardY Posted August 31, 2016 Posted August 31, 2016 What isn't a concept? Extremism, Radicalism, God, Ghost, Collectivism, Society, The State, Atheism, Belief. Anything that is an end and not a means, or anything that does not integrate with existing knowledge(Analytic–synthetic distinction). I think sometimes referred to as anti-concepts or beliefs. Then a separate category for senses that aren't beliefs, but aren't exactly concepts either; Vision, touch, sound, taste and smell. Maybe emotion could be included. Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology goes into the theory on concepts.
Fudo Manu Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 All thought is conceptual. Man does not experience his sense data on a perceptual level. When mans senses are excited they leave an imprint, a phantasm, in mans mind, from which mans faculty of abstract reasoning automatically begins abstracting, or "taking away" attributes from it. These attributes are then catagorized into concepts. A symbol (word) is assigned to allow man to recall the concept. Man can only work from these phantasm in conscious thought, and the strength of the phantasm is a product of ones level of focus and concentration. So yes, all is conceptual in mans mind, and all concepts must originate from sense data. 1
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 You can't break of a piece of a forest but you can break of a piece of a tree. 1
Donnadogsoth Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 You can't break of a piece of a forest but you can break of a piece of a tree. Why not?
Maciej Bembnista Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 I think about your question for 5 years, almost everyday... My understanding: to understand the idea of the concepts is to understand the relationship between language and reality. concepts are words. (see comments above) to begin to describe the world (in our minds) using the words means that we create the whole new artificial world in our heads this world have only its roots in reality, but it is NOT a reality any more it is pretty easy to mislead others using storytelling- in these stories concepts are being used as containers for projection of our feelings (of ourselves), they also begin to live their independent from reality, collective (in collective mind of the society, carefully controlled by storytellers like shamans, priests, historians, politicians etc.) lives. we live our lives in these artificial worlds of stories, which we are told as a children we constantly have a dialogue or monologue in our minds- in this world we live in the future, in the past and in the present, but through the intensity of the thoughts and through reality distortions being caused by words/concepts which are independent from reality, we loose a contact with a reality of the moment- there is never "now", we rush with our thoughts, so we don't feel(!) the reality of our moments in this world and we cannot connect with other people (since they live their lives also in their heads). Concepts are very useful, but very very dangerous- the price is well known: unhappiness (since more reality means more happiness) if you want to know, how it could be to live without the concepts- try mindfulness meditation in this way you can grasp the reality without thinking in words that is an explanation why meditation improve our happiness 1
Pod Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 Why not? Can you break a tree without breaking a forest? Can you break a forest without breaking a tree? I think that's what he means.
Fudo Manu Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Why does more reality equal more happiness? For most philosophy, and through it a clearer perseption of reality, equals strife. For one most likely grew up with beliefs and values that are contradictory to the true nature of things, and to see otherwise forces a choice, to live in contradiction or to abandon past held beliefs and all relationships founded in them.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 Can you break a tree without breaking a forest? Can you break a forest without breaking a tree? I think that's what he means. He said You can't break of a piece of a forest but you can break of a piece of a tree. I say, why can't you break a piece of a forest? Go up to it and cut down a copse worth of it. How is that not breaking a piece of the forest?
Pod Posted September 12, 2016 Posted September 12, 2016 He said I say, why can't you break a piece of a forest? Go up to it and cut down a copse worth of it. How is that not breaking a piece of the forest? You could effect the forest but a forest isn't an instance. A tree is an instance and can be directly physically effected.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 You can't break of a piece of a forest but you can break of a piece of a tree. A forest is concept. He said I say, why can't you break a piece of a forest? Go up to it and cut down a copse worth of it. How is that not breaking a piece of the forest? Yeah, I have a nice shed made out of forest. It's really good forest.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 A forest is concept. A forest is associated with a concept called "forest" just as a tree is associated with a concept called "tree". You are associated with a concept "you", etc..
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 A forest is associated with a concept called "forest" just as a tree is associated with a concept called "tree". You are associated with a concept "you", etc.. That's an equivocation. To say "A forest is associated with a concept called "Forest"" is to assume your first usage of forest is the same as your second usage. But in order for your first usage to be associated with the second there would have to be some essential difference. Otherwise it would just be a tautology. But there is no essential difference between forest and the concept called forest. However there is an essential difference between tree and the concept called tree. A tree is a singular configuration of matter and energy that is distinct form from other trees. The concept of "tree" is is a concept we apply to that singular configuration. "Forest" is a concept we apply to an aggregate of of singular configurations. If we add more trees it's still just forest (because the concept only exists in our minds). But if we add more trees to a tree it's not still one tree. It's several trees. 1
EclecticIdealist Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 That which is inconceivable is not a concept. That which has never been imagined is not a concept.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 That which is inconceivable is not a concept. That which has never been imagined is not a concept. Sure they're concepts, they're just waiting. That's an equivocation. To say "A forest is associated with a concept called "Forest"" is to assume your first usage of forest is the same as your second usage. But in order for your first usage to be associated with the second there would have to be some essential difference. Otherwise it would just be a tautology. But there is no essential difference between forest and the concept called forest. However there is an essential difference between tree and the concept called tree. A tree is a singular configuration of matter and energy that is distinct form from other trees. The concept of "tree" is is a concept we apply to that singular configuration. "Forest" is a concept we apply to an aggregate of of singular configurations. If we add more trees it's still just forest (because the concept only exists in our minds). But if we add more trees to a tree it's not still one tree. It's several trees. By "concept" I mean "mental picture". I can have a mental picture of a tree or of a forest, and those pictures are distinct from the actual tree or the actual forest being referenced. Or, I can have a mental picture that isn't referencing anything. A tree is an aggregate of tree cells and so could be treated like you're treating forests.
EclecticIdealist Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 By "concept" I mean "mental picture". I can have a mental picture of a tree or of a forest, and those pictures are distinct from the actual tree or the actual forest being referenced. Or, I can have a mental picture that isn't referencing anything. A mental picture of that which is not mentally picturable or has never been mentally picturable is still mentally picturable? Oh yeah, I forgot. Whatever you say is so.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 A mental picture of that which is not mentally picturable or has never been mentally picturable is still mentally picturable? Oh yeah, I forgot. Whatever you say is so. You've never imagined anything that doesn't exist in the physical world? I suppose any mental picture has pedigree, original Platonic forms that were encountered earlier in life and that are put together in a novel way.
EclecticIdealist Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 You've never imagined anything that doesn't exist in the physical world? I suppose any mental picture has pedigree, original Platonic forms that were encountered earlier in life and that are put together in a novel way. I never said anything about imagining something that doesn't exist in the physical world. I said, "inconceivable" or in other words, "unimaginable" in the first case, and "never imagined" (yet) and therefore not a concept (yet) in the second.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 13, 2016 Posted September 13, 2016 Sure they're concepts, they're just waiting. By "concept" I mean "mental picture". I can have a mental picture of a tree or of a forest, and those pictures are distinct from the actual tree or the actual forest being referenced. Or, I can have a mental picture that isn't referencing anything. A tree is an aggregate of tree cells and so could be treated like you're treating forests. A concept is an abstract idea. Mental pictures are incidental. The aggregate of tree cells have a distinct configuration. The forest doesn't. A forest is not a distinct object in reality. A tree is. That's why you can break a piece of the tree but not the forest. It's a misuse of language to refer to the parts you remove from a forest like trees or undergrowth or the space and call that breaking of a piece of forest. I already pointed out how silly it would be to claim your shed was made from forest. It might be colorful to say that but it's not accurate.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 A concept is an abstract idea. Mental pictures are incidental. The aggregate of tree cells have a distinct configuration. The forest doesn't. A forest is not a distinct object in reality. A tree is. That's why you can break a piece of the tree but not the forest. It's a misuse of language to refer to the parts you remove from a forest like trees or undergrowth or the space and call that breaking of a piece of forest. I already pointed out how silly it would be to claim your shed was made from forest. It might be colorful to say that but it's not accurate. Every concept has some sort of mental picture associated with it, however abstracted. Just because you may not be able to draw what "justice" means inside your mind doesn't mean that "justice" has no associate picture. No one navigates through mental space without having touchstones and arrangements and architecture. Someone like that would be said to be "empty headed". If a giant came and squeezed the forest together into a single solid block of wood would you then consider it a legitimate object you can break a piece off of? So your problem is one of density?
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 Every concept has some sort of mental picture associated with it, however abstracted. Just because you may not be able to draw what "justice" means inside your mind doesn't mean that "justice" has no associate picture. No one navigates through mental space without having touchstones and arrangements and architecture. Someone like that would be said to be "empty headed". I'm not sure very object has a mental picture associated with it but that's irrelevant. A "mental picture" is not the same as a concept. you can't just change "concept" to "mental picture". A concept might also have an emotion or aesthetic quality associated with it but we don't say "By concept I mean emotion". A concept is an abstract idea that refers to something. If a giant came and squeezed the forest together into a single solid block of wood would you then consider it a legitimate object you can break a piece off of? So your problem is one of density? Sure and if a giant alien came and squeezed all society or justice together we could break of bits of society and justice. Make a nice society burger or justice table. Just like my pencil is made out of high quality forest pre-squeezed by a radioactive canoe beast from idiotron 2.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 I'm not sure very object has a mental picture associated with it but that's irrelevant. A "mental picture" is not the same as a concept. you can't just change "concept" to "mental picture". A concept might also have an emotion or aesthetic quality associated with it but we don't say "By concept I mean emotion". A concept is an abstract idea that refers to something. Concept: 1+1=2. How can a person think this concept without using the mathematical characters?
EclecticIdealist Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 Concept: 1+1=2. How can a person think this concept without using the mathematical characters? A single item grouped together with another single item form a group that is equivalent to a group of two items. Additionally, If I gather rocks and clay from the forest and build a foundation upon which I then erect a structure made from rocks and trees from the forest, and then thatch the roof with boughs and branches of evergreen trees, and then cover the roof with mud and leaves and straw with which to water-proof it. Have I not just built a shed from the forest?
Tundra Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 Concept is an idea, physically it does not exist as a thing by itself. Concepts however can be separated into grouping and those that point or describe something or descriptors. Grouping concept such as (forest, crowd, etc.) points to a combination of singular things. Concepts that are descriptors point directly at something, well those that describe singular things (tree, chair etc.) Language by itself is indeed a concept, if you think about it this way, if there were no humans on earth, would things around us still exist? Yes, just because we gave something a name doesnt mean that we have brought it into existence. But all the concepts we have are arbitrarily defined, and also part of multiple concepts, multiple levels of abstractions. For instance we have a concept of 'atom' and there is an 'atom' that makes up another concept we have called 'molecule' and there are bunch of those things that make up a 'cell' and a bunch of those that make up that piece of wood which makes that chair which is a piece of furniture which is a consumer good which is a part of the economy etc. etc. etc. To give an example, In america we label streets and we rarely give the regions between streets names. But we could easily imagine a world where streets have no names and blocks are named. Would that be 'wrong' or invalid or whatever? Without humans on earth, there would be no trees, there would be no water, no dirt, no rocks, no sky, no clouds. There would be nobody to draw lines to distinguish these things from their surroundings, there would be nobody to solidify these concepts in their mind and then identify them as separate things. The thing we call a cloud would still exist, in the sense that there would be whatever fundamental particles there arranged in what ever way that we identify as 'cloud like' but there would be no cloud. To make another analogy, imagine you are hiking through the woods and you climb to the top of a foothill and in the distance you see a massive boulder and you think "wow what a massive boulder" and you are pretty excited because you see that the trail descends that foothill and then wraps around another one in the distance and goes right past the boulder. You continue hiking, make your way to the second foothill, you're walking around it and you turn a corner and you see it. It's a pile of rocks, some the size of basketballs, some the size of marbles. Does the boulder exist? Most people would say no, because a boulder is a solid object, 1 piece of rock. Like the boulder, all objects we come in contact with, including other people, are made up of lots of lots of little 'rocks' that we just can't make out from such a great distance.
Donnadogsoth Posted September 15, 2016 Posted September 15, 2016 A single item grouped together with another single item form a group that is equivalent to a group of two items. Additionally, If I gather rocks and clay from the forest and build a foundation upon which I then erect a structure made from rocks and trees from the forest, and then thatch the roof with boughs and branches of evergreen trees, and then cover the roof with mud and leaves and straw with which to water-proof it. Have I not just built a shed from the forest? In order to think about 1+1=2 you need to have a mental picture, whether that picture is of remembered or idealised physical items or else abstract symbols, whether or not you can see (a blind person might have audio or tactile "pictures"). I will allow that a person advanced enough in math will reduce the operation of 1+1=2 to instinct, to action without thought, and so the mental pictures employed would be going by very very quickly, virtually reflexively.
RichardY Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 A forest is a concept, and concepts don't exist in physical reality, I think we can all agree on that. I disagree, a forest is NOT a concept. A forest is a cultural visual association. For example, if I plant 3 trees in my garden, calling it a forest would not suffice. If I plant a 100 trees on a field "maybe", some people would call it a forest. In Australia I think they use the term bush rather than forest to refer to an area of land culturally suggested. Both Bush and Forest also have a Naturist as opposed to Naturistic meaning, again a cultural visual association. I kind of think concepts do exist in physical reality, just in your head, are they constructed the same for everybody no. Perhaps as a thought experiment constructed the same way as a water-coloured painting, something analog rather than digital, you can still listen to and understand, radio or TV on analog if the signal gets disturbed, but with digital its there or it's not. Or perhaps its like having multiple digital backups running concurrently like a Web Browser? in any case wouldn't there be an analog interpretation of memories? perhaps it's possible to alter memory through environmental pressure like the movie The Manchurian Candidate.
EclecticIdealist Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 In order to think about 1+1=2 you need to have a mental picture, whether that picture is of remembered or idealised physical items or else abstract symbols, whether or not you can see (a blind person might have audio or tactile "pictures"). I will allow that a person advanced enough in math will reduce the operation of 1+1=2 to instinct, to action without thought, and so the mental pictures employed would be going by very very quickly, virtually reflexively. I simply answered how one could conceptualize rudimentary addition without any of the characters supplied. "Mental pictures" as you pointed out, need not be visual concepts, although our minds which are based in brains evolutionarily developed for complex visual stimuli are more adapted to manipulated visual concepts than manipulating complex concepts of smell, or taste, or touch, or hearing. I have no doubt it could represent addition as "mental pictures" in any of these ways, and more than one mathematical savant has expressed "seeing numbers" with sound and color, taste, smell, and texture, suggesting synesthesia aiding in their arithmetic computational abilities.
shirgall Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 I disagree, a forest is NOT a concept. A forest is a cultural visual association. "cultural" is a concept, "visual" is a concept, and "association" is a concept. Taken together "cultural visual association" is also a concept. A related collection of trees (of sufficient number) might be physical, but their grouping is a concept, whatever source is used to define that grouping. The fact that you illustrate that "forest" has different meanings to different people underscores it as a concept. You don't have to hold a perfect platonic form to have a concept. I made a point about translation of concepts to reality early in this thread, but I don't think it was taken to heart. I will reiterate: Every useful concept relates back to the world, but like analogies, you have to be careful not to make an error in the translation or you spend all of your useful time talking about the errors and edge cases.
RichardY Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 A related collection of trees (of sufficient number) might be physical, but their grouping is a concept, whatever source is used to define that grouping. The fact that you illustrate that "forest" has different meanings to different people underscores it as a concept. You don't have to hold a perfect platonic form to have a concept. So would 2 trees suffice as a forest because I say so? What if someone/s in the Government or in the past feudal Aristocracy said this piece of land next to Nottingham shall be called "Sherwood forest" and none but the kings men shall hunt there. In the past when more of Europe was covered with trees, forest was just the wilderness surrounding the settlements. As you say the fact "forest" has different meanings to different people underscores it as a concept, does this mean that universality is not necessary in concepts? My point being that in order for a concept to exist, is a Nietzschean Will to Power sufficient to "persuade" through incentives. "Kind of like how many lights do you see?" but instead of that, "2 Trees are a forest, (with an electric shock for a reply of "no")(N Korea style) I made a point about translation of concepts to reality early in this thread, but I don't think it was taken to heart. I will reiterate: Every useful concept relates back to the world, but like analogies, you have to be careful not to make an error in the translation or you spend all of your useful time talking about the errors and edge cases. If every useful concept relates back to world, are there un-useful concepts that don't? "cultural" is a concept, "visual" is a concept, and "association" is a concept. Taken together "cultural visual association" is also a concept. "Cultural" is interpersonal experience, "Visual" is experience, "association" inclined to say concept, relating it back to the world as a whole though not so sure, more of an internal process. Having a "concept" dependent on culture, does that not subtract from the purpose of philosophy? Whether you go with Ethics as stated by Stefan, or not so much of a purpose, but a Will to Causa Prima by Nietzsche. Or perhaps some other purpose.
shirgall Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 My point being that in order for a concept to exist... I don't mean to be rude, but concepts don't exist. They are merely abstractions that once related to someone else can be shared. Yes, someone can give a name to a concept that doesn't match what that name means to you. So what? One of the first steps in debate is making sure you are talking about the same thing (or "not thing").
Recommended Posts