The function of the concept

[Nikolai1]

I started by asking:

 

Could you give an example of a clear definition of a concept or thing? Something that passes your own test of a good definition?

Karl then replied: 

 

That man possesses the faculty of reason does not mean he cannot misuse it. Man is not omniscient, he must learn to learn. Then he must also experience the world and the result of his actions. We are learning machines, but the old adage applies-RiRo. The clearer the reasoning the better the thoughts and actions will be. 

All communication is a trade in thoughts. The more defined the object of those thoughts, the easier will be the trade. Definitions can always be improved with new information and concepts can be integrated to form new learnings. If all the definitions are purely a feeling, then we have left reasoning behind and the words that describe concepts will appear as mere sounds backed by a mental fog. 

"I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing, due to crumble unless we grow and strengthen our communication". To quote the lyrics of a song. 

Learn and grow wiser. 

 

[Nikolai1]

There is a notion that goes back to Socrates that the logic of the statement is of secondary importance when it comes to its understanding.  That is, understanding is always a process of recollection.  If our own intuitive faculties are in good working order than we can understand our interlocutor's meaning even with the faultiest logic at the verbal level.

 

The concept, you see, is always subjectively defined.  There is no automatic and necessary correspondence between the symbolised and the words we use to symbolise it. It is impossible for us to know from experience what our interlocutor means when he says 'dog' because the situation and the mental state of the person is unique and unprecedented.

 

In order to understand, we need a very pure intuitive connection to our inner knowing, (or Ideal memory) as Plato would put it.  Chldren tend to have this in very good measure which is why they are very quick to learn languages.

 

As you've no doubt gathered, learning is something that we becomes worse at over time.  Our intution fades becuase we start to believe in logic as a means to learn, rather than intuition. This belief interrupts our intuition.  To develop logic is a form of corruption which weakend and ennervates the understanding rather than helps it.

 

Our intution only remains high-functioning into adults in those excanges where we believe that no logic is necessary.  This relates to what we believe as simple. everyday concepts like 'dog'.

 

As a general rule, it is best to follow the ancient Chinese advice to unlearn our learning and then we shall lways be without confusion.

[Karl]

I started by asking:

 

 

Karl then replied: 

 

Actually I said 'man is a rational animal' to which you replied 'then you have nothing to teach him'.

 

We hold millions of concepts which are ill defined. This can be useful for generalisation. We directly perceive an animal which we label 'horse' 'dog' etc. we don't always define these things because we see them and then can make generalisations about other members of the genus. We can perceive different types of dogs, wolves, horses, zebras etc and simply classify each one as it appears to us in that group. It's not likely to go far wrong unless we are so poor in our perceptual skills that we generalise a Tiger as a horse because it is an animal with four legs and a tail.

 

Where it gets more tricky is fundamental concepts such as freedom. If the state promises us freedom it might well mean 'freedom not to need to worry about making decisions for ourselves' an individual might have an image of streaking down a beach, stark naked with the wind blowing the curly hairs. For others freedom might not even have a definition, it might just be something that they have been told is a good thing and have not yet begun the process of deciding that for themselves.

[Nikolai1]

We directly perceive an animal which we label 'horse' 'dog' etc. we don't always define these things because we see them and then can make generalisations about other members of the genus. 

Given that all individuals are unique how do you know, logically, that it is related to the genus?

[Karl]

There is a notion that goes back to Socrates that the logic of the statement is of secondary importance when it comes to its understanding.  That is, understanding is always a process of recollection.  If our own intuitive faculties are in good working order than we can understand our interlocutor's meaning even with the faultiest logic at the verbal level.

 

The concept, you see, is always subjectively defined.  There is no automatic and necessary correspondence between the symbolised and the words we use to symbolise it. It is impossible for us to know from experience what our interlocutor means when he says 'dog' because the situation and the mental state of the person is unique and unprecedented.

 

In order to understand, we need a very pure intuitive connection to our inner knowing, (or Ideal memory) as Plato would put it.  Chldren tend to have this in very good measure which is why they are very quick to learn languages.

 

As you've no doubt gathered, learning is something that we becomes worse at over time.  Our intution fades becuase we start to believe in logic as a means to learn, rather than intuition. This belief interrupts our intuition.  To develop logic is a form of corruption which weakend and ennervates the understanding rather than helps it.

 

Our intution only remains high-functioning into adults in those excanges where we believe that no logic is necessary.  This relates to what we believe as simple. everyday concepts like 'dog'.

 

As a general rule, it is best to follow the ancient Chinese advice to unlearn our learning and then we shall lways be without confusion.

 

I'm sure you have gleaned by now that this is 100% in opposition to how I view things :-)That not withstanding it is necessary to prove that your argument is false.

 

The first part of that is to show that you are using the fallacy of the 'stolen concept' with which to put forward your assertion. You are not using intuition-all though you might well draw on it to form your concept. The problem is then how to test intuition, because if intuition worked that well, then you could never be wrong about anything. I don't see any people who make all decisions purely on gut feelings.

 

We should unlearn bad learning :-)

[Karl]

Given that all individuals are unique how do you know, logically, that it is related to the genus?

 

You mean how do we know a German Sheperd and a Poodle are in the same genus ?

 

By characteristics and environment. We haven't seen a dog that is as big as an elephant, we have books that explore nature and none of them show that to be the case. Neither have we seen dogs as small as a cricket. We know generally dogs have owners and walk with their pets. We have little evidence that much in the way of cat or pig walking takes place although I'm sure it does, but pigs and cats have their own particular characteristics that differentiate them form dogs. We can make an inductive leap which we do through reasoning that a hairy, four legged, barking animal on a lead is most likely of the genus canine.

[Nikolai1]

You mean how do we know a German Sheperd and a Poodle are in the same genus ? By characteristics and environment. 

When we take any given German Shepherd, it has a well-nigh infinite set of characteristics.  Physical, emotional, bevioural traits are being demonstrated in each moment, and each one is uniquely configured.  By what process do we decide which of these are common with the Poodle? For example, in my street there is one of each.  They are a different colour and size, but they do have the same address?

 

Does their shared address justify placing them in the same genus? If not, why not?

[allinone]

Game who has better answer eventually will lead to a single answer, and who has it is the winner.

[Karl]

When we take any given German Shepherd, it has a well-nigh infinite set of characteristics.  Physical, emotional, bevioural traits are being demonstrated in each moment, and each one is uniquely configured.  By what process do we decide which of these are common with the Poodle? For example, in my street there is one of each.  They are a different colour and size, but they do have the same address?

 

Does their shared address justify placing them in the same genus? If not, why not?

 

Here I am making an inductive leap, or educated guess.

 

I don't need the address as the genus, unless I was making different claims. I don't necessarily think 'canine' either as I see a dog, but I have the stored mental images, sounds and textures which I can reference.

 

Every car that I drive has lots of differences but I can easily adapt to drive any car despite these differences. Every door I open shares characteristics with other doors, I don't need to explicitly state the genus and the reasoning process I have used. If a door does not exhibit these common characteristics then I can be stumped for a while until I learn this new type of door and add it to my repertoire of doors.

[Nikolai1]

 I don't necessarily think 'canine' either as I see a dog, but I have the stored mental images, sounds and textures which I can reference. 

 You are saying that mental images, sounds and textures arise, but how do you know they are 'stored'?   Let's assume that they might be intuitions.  Why would this be a false step?

[Karl]

 You are saying that mental images, sounds and textures arise, but how do you know they are 'stored'?   Let's assume that they might be intuitions.  Why would this be a false step?

 

Then we must define intuitions to our satisfaction.

 

My understanding is that intuition is purely a feeling that something is true.

[Nikolai1]

Then we must define intuitions to our satisfaction. My understanding is that intuition is purely a feeling that something is true.

Reality is always a flow of thought and feeling, so we can't define intuition thus.  My question is which we should seek to cultivate and which we should seek to reject.  Is it correct to say that we recollect when we understand, or is corect to see that we understand through developing concepts?

[Nikolai1]

Just to say you have already avoided one question about the logical approach by suggesting that our logic may not be consciosuly or explicitly stated.  This allows you to move on to explicitly defining another concept, intuition, to which the same will happen.  You will say that intuition needs to be understood ith reference to another concept.  This is what Derrida called deference.

 

My advice would be to stick to the poodles and the alsatians address.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

Reality is always a flow of thought and feeling, so we can't define intuition thus.  My question is which we should seek to cultivate and which we should seek to reject.  Is it correct to say that we recollect when we understand, or is corect to see that we understand through developing concepts?

 

I refer you to the stolen concept. You cannot make these assertions without using reason. If you say that you cannot define your concepts then why would I continue the discussion. I would be a fool to argue with the wind.

[Nikolai1]

I refer you to the stolen concept. You cannot make these assertions without using reason. If you say that you cannot define your concepts then why would I continue the discussion. I would be a fool to argue with the wind.

Don't worry about the stolen concept for now.  I know that we are both equally guilty of that and will show you where you are and where I am.

 

But for now, lets go back to the dog. Why isn't the Alsatians address part of the genus dog?  I assume that the logic you love can be verbally stated because that, you say, is how knowledge and rationality spread and benefit the people.  

[Karl]

Just to say you have already avoided one question about the logical approach by suggesting that our logic may not be consciosuly or explicitly stated.  This allows you to move on to explicitly defining another concept, intuition, to which the same will happen.  You will say that intuition needs to be understood ith reference to another concept.  This is what Derrida called deference.

 

My advice would be to stick to the poodles and the alsatians address.

 

I haven't avoided the question. What you are trying to argue is that logical reasoning itself is in error, whilst using logical reasoning to argue. That's the fallacy of the stolen concept.

 

Everything is conceptual. This is exactly what I have already said. If you base your arguments on unproven or misty ideology then you bake a sponge cake without the flour. You cannot intuit the flour into a sponge cake, or intuit a sponge cake which requires no flour. This is why accurate definitions are so important because they allow us to integrate experiences directly.

 

 

[Karl]

Don't worry about the stolen concept for now.  I know that we are both equally guilty of that and will show you where you are and where I am.

 

But for now, lets go back to the dog. Why isn't the Alsatians address part of the genus dog?  I assume that the logic you love can be verbally stated because that, you say, is how knowledge and rationality spread and benefit the people.  

 

Genus is just a formal grouping. For a definition we are trying to get the genus sufficiently wide enough without it being so wide it becomes meaningless. 'An Dog is an object in the universe' would be an example of a genus which was too wide. If the differentia would include the specifics of an address then it would be part of the definition.

 

A child might say "A dog is that hairy thing called tricksy and he lives at number 4" that's an adequate definition for a child until more experience is gained.

[Karl]

Formal definition of logic : Logic is the method by which a volitional, non automatic consciousness can ensure that its content corresponds to the facts of an independent reality.

 

Putting logic to work is called proof.

 

Formal definition of proof: process of deriving a conclusion from anecdotally known truths, to and in the laws basis of logic.

 

And before you ask, you can never have proof of proof.

 

[Nikolai1]

So why is the hairiness if this being called Tricksy used to define the concept 'dog'?

[Karl]

So why is the hairiness if this being called Tricksy used to define the concept 'dog'?

 

Blimey, I think you are going to have to be a tad more explicit.

 

I said this might be how a child defines a dog, he might fine humans as A pink blob that make noises. Take a look at a child's drawings.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

Ok we'll go back to the unique Alsatian with an infinite number of traits and attributes. How do we know which of them logically allow it to be called a dog, and which of them don't. Does the Alsatian's address logically qualify? You've suggested that it might do in some situations. Is is then wrong to deny the Labrador In the next village dog status because it lives at the wrong address?

[Karl]

Ok we'll go back to the unique Alsatian with an infinite number of traits and attributes. How do we know which of them logically allow it to be called a dog, and which of them don't. Does the Alsatian's address logically qualify? You've suggested that it might do in some situations. Is is then wrong to deny the Labrador In the next village dog status because it lives at the wrong address?

 

Not an infinite number, it is clearly a finite number, some of which-within our knowledge base define it as a dog. A biologist would define it further, he might discover that our definitions were erroneous-but that's what happens with inductive reasoning and all science is based on it.

 

Your adding a host of complexity where there is none. Each dog has a separate identity beyond its genus. It is this identity which is objective fact and it's that reality that washes your argument away. I see precisely where you are going, but you are going to fall into the same trap when eventually you are forced to confront identity and you will then have no where to go but back to the subjective. I assume you will see that flaw before it comes up and body swerve :-), but I'm several steps ahead of you and pointing it out ahead of the event.

 

[Nikolai1]

You cannot possibly conceive where I'm going with this, but I assure you there will be no body swerve. In the meantime, I can ask from a different angle. How might the biologist realise that a definition might be erroneous?

[Brian]

 

You cannot possibly conceive where I'm going with this, but I assure you there will be no body swerve. In the meantime, I can ask from a different angle. How might the biologist realise that a definition might be erroneous?

One possible way would be for the biologist to realize the entire structure is arbitrary and capricious. If the biologist stops there, it all becomes meaningless. If, however, the biologist moves beyond that state of futility then it becomes a model which is simultaneously erroneous & valuable.

[Karl]

You cannot possibly conceive where I'm going with this, but I assure you there will be no body swerve. In the meantime, I can ask from a different angle. How might the biologist realise that a definition might be erroneous?

 

Ok cool.

 

We once defined a dolphin as a fish, but later it was reclassified as an air breathing mammal. Inductive logic isn't as reliable as deductive logic, it's a leap to a generalisation.