IRC log started Fri Nov 3 22:08 > Welcome to #GeekSpeak. The topic for tonight's discussion is: > Essentials of Concept Formation. Before we begin, I'd like to > remind you that #GeekSpeak is owned and operated by Tom Wright > and Pankaj Saxena. Channel logs are the copyright of the > channel owners and may not be copied or publicly distributed > without the prior permission of the channel owners. > The discussion will be held in +k (keyword) mode. You are free > to invite anyone you know to the discussion, if you think that > they will not disrupt the conversation on the channel. > If you have any questions about joining the channel during the > discussion or helping someone else join the channel, please > message Tom Wright (Wright on IRC) with your question. > On to the discussion. This is what I'd like to cover > tonight: > 1. Types/Levels of Consciousness: Sensation, Perception > and Conceptual consciousness. > 2. What is a concept? What does it subsume? How is it > related to reality, i.e., to existents. > 3. What is the process of concept formation? What does > it involve? Are concepts arbitrary? > 4. Concepts of consciousness. > 5. Axiomatic concepts > Since we'll be using these terms frequently during the discussion, > I'd like to start with some definitions: > Percept: A group of sensations automatically retained and > integrated by the brain of a living organism. > Concept: A mental integration of two or more units which are > isolated according to a specific characterstic(s) and united by > a specific definition. > Measurement: The identification of a quantitative relationship > established by means of a standard that serves as a unit. > Definition: A statement that identifies the nature of the units > subsumed under a concept. > I'll start the discussion by asking: what is the process of > concept formation? What kind of mental action(s) does it > require? Concept formation is a two step process that consists of differentiation and integration. differentiation is the breaking down or separating characteristics. And Integrating is the uniting of the similar characteristics into a new whole. > Lee: Okay. So you abstract certain characterstic(s) from two or more entities and unite them into a new concept? > Which characterstics do you pick? What's the criterion? Yes, but the characteristics are not arbitrary...:) They have to be commensurable (commonly measureable). They have to have a common denominator (AR calls it the Conceptual Common Denominator). > Aren't those two the same thing? > What's the difference? I thought that a concept subsumed all of an entity's characteristics. > Quick definition: > The Conceptual Common Denominator is the characterstic(s) > reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man > differentiates two or more existents from all other > existents possessing it. > So the CCD is by definition, a commensurable characterstic(s) Subetai: Yes, I agree. > Gilles: Yes. Subetai: Okay. > Okay. What's the relationship between the CCD and "distinguishing characterstic" C.C.D of a table would be its general shape, and the distinguishing characteristic would be it specific shape. The CCD is the relationship of the units to each other, while the distinguishing characteristic shows the relationship of the units to the wider group from which the were differentiated. > Lee: In other words, the CCD is "shape" while the DC is the particular shape common to tables? Subetai: Yes, that is what I am saying. Sube - I think "shape" would define it as table, and "particular shape" gives it "what kind of table" > Gilles: That would be differentia and genus, which are similar but not identical. Subetai: What's the difference? Subetai: the distinguishing characteristics of a table would be a flat surface and and at least one support. LeeS : a raised flat surface, perhaps? Lee - may have to go a step back "bed" is a flat surface too > Gilles: A genus generally refers to a larger group of entities of which the subset is the species. The CCD is the commensurable characterstic. The genus is the group from which the units were differentiated, the CCD is the characteristic that united them into a group in the first place. Is that correct? Lurch: Ok, well add hard to that. > Gilles: yes A raised flat surface x distance above the ground? Lee - you haven't seen my bed, have you? 8-{) Bill - no. > Gilles: So there is a difference, right? A subtle one, but it exists. I think what you have is basically "flat surface" is exactly that - a flat surface.. then DC comes into play to tell you what kind of flat surface it is The x indicates measurement, missed that one... > Lurch: In that case you are separating table from other existents with flat surfaces. How about separating them from *all* other existents? Subetai: When you say "conceptual common denominator" what exactly is it that you're referring to? > Gilles: Some commensurable characterstic common to all elements in the genus, a particular range of which is used to define the concept. Subetai: Can you give us an example? Subetai - I'm not sure what that means (I'm not even a rookie yet).. but why do you have to distinguish it from all other existants? It seems to me that "flat surface" pretty well does that fine > For example, shape is common to all entities. It is the CCD. A range of shapes (flat surface, supports, etc) is used to narrow down to "table". Subetai: But the genus of table is furniture, isn't it? > Lurch: The purpose of a definition is to separate a group of existents from all other existents. > Gilles: Yes. However, furniture is a higher level concept than table. How would you define a table if you didn't know about furniture? Subetai: In other words, a defintion gives a concept indentity. > Lee: yes objects and classes Subetai - so far, I follow. familiar subjects :) you have to define level and surface, before you can define "table" > Lurch: absolutely. Subetai: That would make "shape" the CCD of all entities, wouldn't it? > Gilles: Yes. But not necessarily the DC. Gilles - I dunno.. does an electron have "shape"? physical form is irrelevant for concepts > Gilles: For example, you define a "magnet" as something that attracts ferrous metals. Shape is irrelevant. jinx Subetai: What's the CCD in that case? > However, shape is essential for the concept table. > Gilles: all material entities. Gilles, at a guess, it's the point where all you have left is the aggregate definitions of other existants Subetai: And in the case of table the CCD is shape? for "Table" that point would be where you have to define "level", "surface" "support" etc subetai- are you implying that all concepts are dependant on physical objects? > KJ: no way ok > I said the CCD for table is shape: all objects have some shape, tables have a particular shape. The C.C.D establishes an implicet background. This background pushes into the foreground the very big differnece between the two concretes and the foil. 'object'=='physical object' ? > KJ: Although I'd say that all concepts are dependent on existents. Here's how Ayn Rand defines CCD: "The characteristic(s) reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man differentiates two or more existents from other existents possessing it." subetai- i'm confused now...please define existents > It's easy to see this: define a table: an object with a flat surface and supports used to place other objects on. Any thing wrong with the definition? > KJ: Anything that exists in reality. > The Conceptual Common Denominator is the characterstic(s) > reducible to a unit of measurement, by means of which man > differentiates two or more existents from all other > existents possessing it. > What I said. subetai- but since nothign exists outside of physical reality, they are all physical 'things' > KJ: There are mental entities. > KJ: That's where concepts of consciousness come in. mental isn't physical? it's metaphysical? > KJ: Nope. It's dependent on it though. hmm i would say thought is like magnetism > Okay. On the the next question. > What is the relationship between concepts and existents? > To what does a concept refer to in reality? would that be correct? > KJ: an attribute of a physical entity? subetai: To the object. It refers to reality. > Lee: What does the word table subsume? Concepts are integrations of the characteristics of particular types of existents. A concept refers to any of the particular existents. Subetai: All of the characteristics of a table, past, present or future. > Lee: a table? > All tables, you mean. does it refer to the whole existant singly, or to each included definition separately as well? Subetai: Sorry, yes. > So even though a concept is defined in terms of essential characterstics for reasons of economy, it actually subsumes all characterstics of the entities, including non-essential ones. > Lurch: say again? never mind - you just answered me Subetai: Yes. > What's an "essential characterstic"? > How do you pick one? Subetai: Yes it does. This point will come up later in measurement- omission, but by only focusing on some of the characteristics, you are not exluding the others--but you are really inluding them. part of what defines teh existant as a class in the case of tables, level surface,, for instance The characteristic which distinguishes the units of a concept from all other existents? Subetai: You have to pick the one that most of the conretes rest on. They would be the widest characteristics and be at the root of the others. > Gilles: How about if you can find more than one attribute that distinguishes a set of existents from all others? > Lee: Right. The principle of fundamentality. > So what is fundamentality metaphysically? Subetai: Aristotles principle of fundamentality. ;) > The one characterstic that allows the most other characterstics to exist? > And what is it epistemologically? Subetai: It could be more than one though. Subetai: Is fundamentality implied by "essential?" Subetai: FOr example, Objectivism has many fundamentals. > Lee; Sure. It would be true for all of them that are picked. > Gilles: Yes. Subetai: Epistemologically it is the characteristic which explains the rest. > Epistemologically, it's the characterstic that explains most others. > jinx :) > We've been reading. :) Subetai: Oh, essential is an epistemological concpet and are dependent on the context. :) * LeeS is doing this lecture without any books. :) > Lee: Right. You're saying that the concept is defined in a context, and the definition must fulfill the purpose required by the context before you would even bother to make it. Subetai: Yes > Okay. Why are concepts not arbitrary? > proper cencepts, that is Lee made a good point. "Essential" is an epistemological concept." You agree, Subetai? > Gilles: I do indeed. Subetai: Because they represent classification of observed extents according to their relationships to other observed existents. Subetai: They're not arbitrary because they are based on real, quantitative similarities and differences. > Lee; That's one thing - they're derived from reality. What else? got it... > So they're not arbitrary because (1) they're derived from real things, and (2) they're derived using a methodology that ...... They are formed withint the specifications of our consciousness. They're based on _quantitative_ relationships -- commensurability most importantly. > There are definite rules for making concepts. Are these rules arbitrary? What are they based on? Subetai: The nature of man's mind as it grasps existence. Subetai: The necessity of unit-economy. Consciousness isn't God, you know. > Tom: And also on the identity of the entities being grouped? Subetai: Are you asking for the crow? Subetai: sure, but that was already mentioned (though i'm a bit late). > crow? I think he's asking for the crow. Concept formation is based on man's mind as he grasps the identity of the entities being conceptualized. They are based on the principle of unit-economy. We need unit-economy because of the crow epistemology. Subetai: The crow epistemology. > Lee: Okay. I was going to get to unit economy in a minute. * LeeS is lagged bad. Sorry. Subetai: What were you getting at? > Gilles: I was pointing out that concepts are not arbitrary because (1) the existents are not arbitrary, and (2) the rules for forming concepts are not arbitrary. Subetai: Ok. What's next. the rules are derived from reality then, aren't they? > Okay. Let's move on to concepts of consciousness. What's particular to them? Rdomn: yes, all the way around. Subetai: They require introspection. > Gilles: Okay. What's the CCD? Concepts of consciousness are derived from man being away of the functioning of his mind and organizing these observations. oops away=aware :) Subetai: States or actions of consciousness? > Gilles: content and action of consciousness? Gilles: Those are one and the same, overall. TomMiovas: Because consciousness is an active process? One does not have a state of consciousness with no action of consciousness. Yes. Subetai: That's it. I left out content. :( (sorry for the long nick, but TomM and Tom are taken) ;) > Define "state of consciousness", Gilles. TomMiovas: We'll call you Tom. > The state involves the content and the action being taken, right? Subetai: I can't. Subetai: The action itself involves the content, right? The content is percepts. But what about "happiness?" That's a state of consciousness. It's not an action. > State seems to imply the condition it's in at a given momement. At a given moment, there is some content and some action being taken. > Gilles: The action is evaluation. "Happiness" is an action of *evaluating* something, which once done is considered *for* one's code of values. > So what's the CCD for concepts of consciousness? Subetai: Isn't happiness an emotion that *proceeds* from that evaluation? Gilles: It is the end result, but is due to an action of consciousness (as an ongoing process). The ccd is actions of consciousness. > Tom: What's an example? Concept formation ;) Unit economy ;) Tom: Wait a second -- I think the emotion *is* the evaluation. I think I was wrong. But what you just said about it being the end result was more along the lines of what I had originally said, no? > Tom: name a concept: thinking. What's the CCD? Gilles: No, the emotion is not the evaluation...the evaluation is the conceptual process of evaluating. > Gilles: The emotion follows the evaluation. But that was what I said in the first place. And in that case, the emotion is not an action, but a state. ccd of thinking...the mind in the act of coming to conclusions. > Gilles: What's the action involved with emotion? > Tom: And what's specific to it? Gilles: It is a state, but a state in human consciousness is an active process. > The action involved is perception, right? Dealing with the facts of existence in a cognitive rather than an evaluative process. Subetai: In that case, it's wrong to say that the emotion follows the evaluation. The emotion *is* the evaluation. But I thought the emotion followed the evaluation. Gilles: No, the emotion is the *result* of an evaluation. > Gilles: There is a subconscious evaluation. It produces the emotion. Then one perceives the emotion. (though, it too, is active). So what's the action?! > Perception. Gilles: **evaluation** > Evaluation, followed by perception. Subetai: Perception comes first. > Tom: Perception of the emotion. Perception -> evaluation -> emotion. Oh...as a concept of consciousness identification, yes. > You say you *feel* an emotion. To *feel* is to perceive the emotion. > Okay? Don't you realize that your speaking of the emotion as a state and not an action? Perception -> evaluation -> emotion <- (Observed) -> "emotion" You're speaking of it as a "product" and something that you feel. > Gilles: Every concept of consciousness has a content and an action. The content is the nature of the emotion, and the action is its perception. Gilles: yes, but that state requires a constant input of action of evaluation. Tom: You mean you say to yourself "Hey look, I'm happy." And only *then* you feel happy? Gilles: No. > Okay. Discussion is officially over. Please continue anyway. Subetai: Why is the discussion officially over? One evaluates, feels the emotion, then can conceptualize that. The discussion officially ends at 12 mid EST > Gilles: When you say you *feel* happy, what does the "feeling" involve? "Feel" is a verb, right? One had to experience happiness before one could for the concept "happiness". Right. I understand that an emotion involves an action of consciousness, but that doesn't mean that it is an action, does it? > Gilles: A verb describes an action. What is the action? is emotion part of consciousness, or an external that affects it? Lurch: Ever see a happiness walking around??? Subetai: What is which action? Gilles: A feeling is an active process of evaluating some aspect of existence. > Gilles: I said that you *feel* happiness. To "feel" is a verb, implies an action. What is the action? Subetai: Oh, sorry, I see. Tom, nope.. I meant an external process... separate from consciouslness,but happening in the mind/brain as well Gilles: once that action of consciouness stops, so does the feeling. Lurch: It is occuring throught the being. Subetai: The action is to feel. How else would you state it? > Lurch: It's origin is in the subconscious - that is what evaluates. The result of that process is the emotion, which one is consciously aware of. Gilles: We've said it many times...the *action* is **evaluating**. > Gilles: I called it *perception* - because *feel* implies sensation, and humans can't really feel pure, isolated sensations. > Tom: That's an interesting question: is there a persitence of emotion, that is, does it persist some time after one stops evaluating? Subetai: I don't think so. That's why I said it requires a constant action of evaluation. > Tom: Then all the time that one feels happy, the subconscious is busy evaluating away the same situation over and over? Subetai: yes. > Tom: What made you reach that conclusion? Subetai: introspection...ever notice how fleeting an emotion is? As soon as one focuses on something else, it changes. is it evaluating the same situation,or is it evaluating the current situation, and not finding anythig to make it change? Lurch: Same thing (if the situation has not changed). > Tom: What changes an emotion into a mood (mood being something longer lasting)? Subetai: A more ready focus on the situation that one evaluates. (over time) > Is mood the remanent (persistence) of emotions felt some time ago? TOm - but you can still feel happy if other aspects have changed.. you've moved, talked to other people, read other words.. etc. Granted, the original situation hasn't changed, but the current situattion has. Subetai: only if you keep the evaluated situation in the back of one's mind. > Lurch: Is that emotion or mood that persists? Subetai... I'd say both. Lurch: That sounds more like sense of life, which is an on-going evaluation of man and his place in existence. Hmm.. many particulars may have changed, but so long as the evaluation brings the same general result, the emotion will remain (and become a mood). > Tom: Is it still being evaluated over and over when it's at "the back of one's mind"? What's the difference between "back of one's mind" versus not, seeing how it's a subconscious process we're talking about that we're not aware of except indirectly in the first place? Subetai: All emotins are due to a subconscious evaluation of something...so, in a sense, it's all in the back of one's mind anyhow. > Then what's the difference? > Why couldn't an emotion persist the way a memory can? Evaluation is like a sub-routine...if it runs often enough, one gets into a mood. > Tom: And when one gets in the mood, it doesn't have to run anymore? the memory of it can persist...maybe that's what you mean? Tom- ok.. (I was thinking of a few periods in my life in particular - when I asked Aline to marry me, when we got married, when the kids were born..) Subetai: no, it must be running at all times one is in the mood. > Tom: No, not the memory of the emotion, the emotion itself. > Tom: How do you know that? > Lurch: That sounds like the memory of an emotion. Subetai: When I introspect on my emotions, I can identify what it is that I am evaluating...there is always an object. > The memory of happy events can provoke a happy emotion in the present too. But it's a new emotion. A mood comes about when one remembers the object, or similar thing to it (like Lurch's example). > Tom: Maybe when you introspect you're starting a fresh cycle of evaluations. What makes you think the old ones are gone? Subetai: Same emotion, but evaluation works on the memory, not the perception of the object. > Tom: Right. That's in reference to Lurch's example. What about my question. Subetai: If I am not evaluating, i ahve no emotions. (Like when I'm tired). > Tom: I'm asking how you know that the emotion can't outlast the evaluation by a few minutes. Emoting is an active process...without the action, the emotion no longer exists...it's like the sensation of hot not being there when the body is not touched by something hot. > Tom: So you're saying that sensations don't persist? An emotion is a psyco-sematic response. but the mind can remember sensations (ask just about any amputee) ok Perception -> Evaluation -> Conception ? Sensations do not persist...without the object leadidng to the sensation, it's gone. > KJ: what? > Tom: That makes sense. Kj: Yes. If one is not evaluating anything, how could one have an emotion (very contrary to the definition of "emotion"). That would be like saying one can see with one's eyes closed. > So by analogy to sensations, emotions do not persist beyond the stimulus (object being sensed for one, evaluation for the other). Subetai: Yes. Sense of life is very dependent on memory. One selects certain things to evaluate over and over again. > That's good reasoning, if the analogy holds. There's nothing I know that says it might not hold, so I guess it does in my context. (according to one's standards). (metaphysical standars) oops standards > That brings up something intersting about the subconscious, that is, it can continue to "cycle" for prolonged periods. Subetai: yes, indeed.... > Tom: Any other examples of such a phenomenon? Subetai: Depression of the psychological type is like that. > That's emotion too. > What about some other function of the subconscious? Yes, unless there is a bio-chemical failure. Thinking is on-going. > right *** Window LOG is OFF IRC log ended Fri Nov 3 23:28