The function of the concept

[Nikolai1]

is an abstraction a representation of something other than it?

[Karl]

is an abstraction a representation of something other than it?

 

It's a representation of existing concretes. We hold an immense number of concepts which are interlinked.

[Nikolai1]

It's a representation of existing concretes. We hold an immense number of concepts which are interlinked.

So how do you know that there are existing concretes to be represented? For example an idealist philosopher would say that experience only presents a constant stream, each moment annihilated by the next.  How do you refute this, and assert that there is a reality of concretes 'behind' the ever-chnaging tableaux?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

So how do you know that there are existing concretes to be represented? For example an idealist philosopher would say that experience only presents a constant stream, each moment annihilated by the next.  How do you refute this, and assert that there is a reality of concretes 'behind' the ever-chnaging tableaux?

 

Perceptually. It is an anxiom that existence exists. No words are needed for that to happen. You can see and touch a tree even if you have no words for it.

 

The idealist philosopher is controlling the definition of experience. The world is not changing at such a rapid pace and we can combine time/space in the definitions and concepts to allow elasticity. We don't perceive a newborn baby one moment and then are totally confused by the emergence of a toddler. We don't get baffled by something moving such as a falling raindrop.

[Nikolai1]

Hi Karl,

 

The world is not changing at such a rapid pace 

To the idealist, reality IS changing at a pace so rapid that it can't even be thought about.  Each moment comes faster than what we call instantaneous, and this new moment is a total annihilation of the previous.  A thought is gone as quickly as it came, as is the perception.  There are no remaining grounds for a distinction between the thought and the perception.  Both have passed in the very fastest instant.

 

How do you argue against this vision? Whence this reality of 'concrete things' that the concept represents?

[Karl]

Hi Karl,

 

 

To the idealist, reality IS changing at a pace so rapid that it can't even be thought about. Each moment comes faster than what we call instantaneous, and this new moment is a total annihilation of the previous. A thought is gone as quickly as it came, as is the perception. There are no remaining grounds for a distinction between the thought and the perception. Both have passed in the very fastest instant.

 

How do you argue against this vision? Whence this reality of 'concrete things' that the concept represents?

Concrete things are objects of direct sense perception. You are one of the objects of your own perception. Time and space are concretes. It's only when we integrate higher concepts where things break down and this is precisely what this vision advocates applying to common sense reality. So, we can only perceive a few trees but we can hold the concept of a forest. We can conceptualise changes to the forest over time and space. We can know the forest grows, dies, expands, shrinks.

 

If we can't define define a tree then we can't define a forest of trees. First perceive the tree.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Let's bring things back to experience.  Can you see this ever changing taleaux that the idealists speak of? A change so fast that even the word moment seems clunky?  An annihilation so deep and total that makes us think that there shall be at least ash after Armageddon?

[Karl]

Let's bring things back to experience.  Can you see this ever changing taleaux that the idealists speak of? A change so fast that even the word moment seems clunky?  An annihilation so deep and total that makes us think that there shall be at least ash after Armageddon?

 

I can witness change as it proceeds from positional and temporal memory. A thing A moves a distance B in a period of time C. I can hold those perceptions as concepts, so even an object moving too rapidly to follow can be known to have moved.

 

I don't know what you are meaning by 'moment' being 'clunky'. Neither do I understand 'deep annihilation' or 'Armageddon' except for the biblical references. You seem to have veered off into the wistfully poetic.

 

 

[Nikolai1]

 I don't know what you are meaning by 'moment' being 'clunky'. Neither do I understand 'deep annihilation' or 'Armageddon' except for the biblical references. You seem to have veered off into the wistfully poetic.

Ha, yes! Obviously I am attempting to describe a qualia which some either get or they don't.  The idealist, as the name suggests, sees the world as an idea.  And what are ideas like: dreamy not tangible, ephemeral, and when they are out of consciousness they are nowhere at all.  

 

When a car drives passed us, around the corner and out of sight...

 

The materialist thinks it still exists whether they think of it or not.

 

To the idealist, their not thinking of it IS its non-existence.

 

Why does this matter?

 

From the idealist position comes the idea that consciousness is sovereign and can create matter.  It is therefore possibble that the concept is entirely arbitrary.  They look for this arbitrariness in the syllogism and find it in the premise, which is the thing A, which is assumed a priori.  And if we try to validate A a posteriori, we must first assume B a priori and so on...

 

To the materialist matter inspires consciousness.  So every concept is based on, and is a kind of mirror of reality.  The conceptual scheme is not arbitrary and can be improved by a closer correspondence to reality.  If everything was arbitrary, the materilaist says, we would have no reason to favour one concept over another.

 

So which of these visions is the correct one? and why?

[Karl]

Isn't it obvious ?

 

The idealist is using the stolen concept fallacy. You cannot hold a concept if you declare all concepts are false. It's then impossible to hold any position at all.

[Nikolai1]

Isn't it obvious ? The idealist is using the stolen concept fallacy. You cannot hold a concept if you declare all concepts are false. It's then impossible to hold any position at all.

To this the idealist would say that because there is no representation occurring, the concept is an illusion.  Each concept is a moment of reality in itself.  How would you answer this?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

To this the idealist would say that because there is no representation occurring, the concept is an illusion.  Each concept is a moment of reality in itself.  How would you answer this?

 

The idealist is basing his reasoning on reasoning, then saying that reasoning doesn't exist. It's a sleight of hand. How can you discuss a concept such as 'concept is an illusion' if you are saying all concepts are an illusion.

 

A and not A

 

 

 

[Nikolai1]

The idealist is basing his reasoning on reasoning, then saying that reasoning doesn't exist. It's a sleight of hand. How can you discuss a concept such as 'concept is an illusion' if you are saying all concepts are an illusion. A and not A

As I tried to show you, the idealist bases his wordlview on a very, very, direct view of reality.  Namely, its ceaseless, remorseless, moment by monent change.  

 

The materialist only applies this vision to what he calls his mental life  which is why the idealist calles the vision idealism.

 

This idealist worldview made large makes us see that the concept is actually a fully valid reality in itself and cannot be in way said to conceptualise anything.  It is itself another moment in the stream. 

 

But let's get back to logic.

 

Are you able to demonstrate logically that the premise of the syllogism corresponds to reality.  How do you combat the claim that the premise is arbitrary, held up by nothing more logical than blind faith?

[Karl]

As I tried to show you, the idealist bases his wordlview on a very, very, direct view of reality. Namely, its ceaseless, remorseless, moment by monent change.

 

The materialist only applies this vision to what he calls his mental life which is why the idealist calles the vision idealism.

 

This idealist worldview made large makes us see that the concept is actually a fully valid reality in itself and cannot be in way said to conceptualise anything. It is itself another moment in the stream.

 

But let's get back to logic.

 

Are you able to demonstrate logically that the premise of the syllogism corresponds to reality. How do you combat the claim that the premise is arbitrary, held up by nothing more logical than blind faith?

Because it is defined and known as current reality. A thing is a thing. Existence exists and A is A.

 

Blind faith is exactly what you are holding out as reality. The church did the same thing by creating a priori premesis and putting logic before grammar so no one got the chance to question it.

 

Your idealist is using words and thus concepts he holds to be true. He is using premesis. He is basing is reasoning on logic, but saying logic isn't real. Surely I've said it sufficient times now ? The idealist has counted himself out of further discussion.

 

We are all using grammar even the idealist, but he wants to write his in disappearing ink. As such no conclusion can be possible where no premises exist.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Karl

[Nikolai1]

Your idealist is using words and thus concepts he holds to be true. He is using premesis. He is basing is reasoning on logic, but saying logic isn't real. Surely I've said it sufficient times now ? The idealist has counted himself out of further discussion.

No, the idealist would claim that he isn't reasoning at all.  Reasoning he says, is an illusion.  All there is, is the flow?  So how do you persuade him that this isn't the case?

 

And how do you stop him from thinking that your premise is arbitrary?  I mean, surely you can see that people Do argue over logical matters? To the idealist thy simply share a common delusion. That their concepts can capture reality.

[Karl]

No, the idealist would claim that he isn't reasoning at all.  Reasoning he says, is an illusion.  All there is, is the flow?  So how do you persuade him that this isn't the case?

 

And how do you stop him from thinking that your premise is arbitrary?  I mean, surely you can see that people Do argue over logical matters? To the idealist thy simply share a common delusion. That their concepts can capture reality.

 

How can he say anything at all, if its all an illusion ? I would ignore him completely as that appears to be what he thinks is true anyway. He's not here and I'm not here so I can insult him, punch him, spit in his face and screw his wife and he won't be able to do a thing.

[Nikolai1]

How can he say anything at all, if its all an illusion ?

The important point about idealims is that it is monistic.  What you call matter and what you call thought is the same thing.  Each are just monentary flashes in a stream.  Rather like individual frames on a movie reel.  So illusion doesn't really apply to this vision.  The thought of the spgahetti monster is as real as the sight of the badger.

 

Materialism can be monistic, but it is mostly dualistic.  There is a difference between thought and matter.  Thought behaves exactly like the idealist says, but matter endures regardless of any perceiving consciousness.  Only the dualist can think about the world logically because only the duallist belives that there is a separate world to think about.

 

The idealist says this separation is illusory.  The big clue that the materialist should see is that their is a mjor component of the syllogism that has nothing to do with the world and that is the premise.  The premise is a fiction, no different to the materialists dream.  Or, to put it another way, if the materialist believes in fantasy dreams then he has to accept that the premise is of the same nature.

[Karl]

The important point about idealims is that it is monistic.  What you call matter and what you call thought is the same thing.  Each are just monentary flashes in a stream.  Rather like individual frames on a movie reel.  So illusion doesn't really apply to this vision.  The thought of the spgahetti monster is as real as the sight of the badger.

 

Materialism can be monistic, but it is mostly dualistic.  There is a difference between thought and matter.  Thought behaves exactly like the idealist says, but matter endures regardless of any perceiving consciousness.  Only the dualist can think about the world logically because only the duallist belives that there is a separate world to think about.

 

The idealist says this separation is illusory.  The big clue that the materialist should see is that their is a mjor component of the syllogism that has nothing to do with the world and that is the premise.  The premise is a fiction, no different to the materialists dream.  Or, to put it another way, if the materialist believes in fantasy dreams then he has to accept that the premise is of the same nature.

 

You seem to be getting bent out of shape with all that clever jargon.

 

If you don't exist, then send me all your non existent money. Let's check to see how real you think things are. Have you an illusiory house/ car I could have ?

 

 

[Nikolai1]

You seem to be getting bent out of shape with all that clever jargon. If you don't exist, then send me all your non existent money. Let's check to see how real you think things are. Have you an illusiory house/ car I could have ?

When the existent and the non-existent have become the same, it does not mean that everything is no unreal.  It means that everything is now the same.  So the car is understood to be on the same level of reality as the dream.  

 

This does not relegate the car as much as you might think.  Nor is the dream promoted as much as you think.  

 

But this is the vision of idealism.  It is as old as the hills.  And like I said, it is the paradgim you use to understand your mental life, and that of others.

 

So perhaps we can appraoh the question of the premise from another angle.  If you and your interlocutor, both keen logicians, disagree on the premises you should adopt.  How, logically, should you determine whose is the correct premise?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Nikolai1

[Karl]

When the existent and the non-existent have become the same, it does not mean that everything is no unreal.  It means that everything is now the same.  So the car is understood to be on the same level of reality as the dream.  

 

This does not relegate the car as much as you might think.  Nor is the dream promoted as much as you think.  

 

But this is the vision of idealism.  It is as old as the hills.  And like I said, it is the paradgim you use to understand your mental life, and that of others.

 

So perhaps we can appraoh the question of the premise from another angle.  If you and your interlocutor, both keen logicians, disagree on the premises you should adopt.  How, logically, should you determine whose is the correct premise?

 

We keep at it until we agree. If we cannot find agreement then we have to shake hands, bid each other well and walk away. The aim isn't to persuade the other person to accept a point of view, the aim is to discover reality. If you begin with the idea that everything is illusion it's pointless to even enter the discussion. That's where we are.

 

I have no interest in persuading you at all, there is no value in it. It's far more rewarding if you picked up the sword you dropped and started to fence. Otherwise we just stand there looking like hapless half wits. I should really know better, but my previous indoctrination with this stuff makes me an indulgent idiot.

[Nikolai1]

I gather you realise that I am no idealist, not at all.

 

I see idealism and materialism as both halves of the same coin.  

 

The world is logical, and illogical or rather, totally and radically alogical.

 

You couldn't see my vision of radical change and annihilation.  It is what the spiritual practitioner comes to see as first-hand experience and is what allows him not to always fall into materialism or idealism.  With this vision comes the ability to see things from both sides.  A thing exists, and does not exist.

 

Existence is as provisional as whether the pub is on the right hand side or the left.  Come from one direction and its on the left, come from the other direction and its on the right.  Do we need to walk both roads to know if this is the case? No, there is a standpoint from where logical judgements can be made a priori.

 

I am a logician, just like you.  No flaky idealist.  But I am a logician working from a place where existence and non-existence are as perspectival as left and right.

[Karl]

I gather you realise that I am no idealist, not at all.

 

I see idealism and materialism as both halves of the same coin.  

 

The world is logical, and illogical or rather, totally and radically alogical.

 

You couldn't see my vision of radical change and annihilation.  It is what the spiritual practitioner comes to see as first-hand experience and is what allows him not to always fall into materialism or idealism.  With this vision comes the ability to see things from both sides.  A thing exists, and does not exist.

 

Existence is as provisional as whether the pub is on the right hand side or the left.  Come from one direction and its on the left, come from the other direction and its on the right.  Do we need to walk both roads to know if this is the case? No, there is a standpoint from where logical judgements can be made a priori.

 

I am a logician, just like you.  No flaky idealist.  But I am a logician working from a place where existence and non-existence are as perspectival as left and right.

 

They aren't, we have a concrete understanding of the pub being on the street we are walking down. It doesn't arbitrarily disappear for want of your awareness, it exists despite that. When you go to sleep you are unaware of your body but it persists, if it did not then you wouldn't exist.

 

You are pedalling rubbish to your own consciousness and one day you will discover this to be true. Playing both sides is almost worse than playing just the idealist. He at least isn't inwardly contradictory where as you are explicitly contradictory. You should take care of your consciousness.

[Nikolai1]

If I was to ask you what side the pub is on, you would play both sides. You would say 'it depends'. Wisdom is what sees that we can play both sides with the most fundamental categories of thought and still stay whole. Actually, what is more true is that becoming whole is what allows us to play both sides.

[Karl]

If I was to ask you what side the pub is on, you would play both sides. You would say 'it depends'. Wisdom is what sees that we can play both sides with the most fundamental categories of thought and still stay whole. Actually, what is more true is that becoming whole is what allows us to play both sides.

 

No I wouldn't. I would tell you if you were coming in one direction it would be on the left and from the other direction the right. Bloody hell, this isn't difficult. I don't need to go producing syllogisms and concepts over and over again to know where the nags head is and direct you to it.

 

You might see the problem here, because if you go on like this you will never, ever find the pub because it exists, but doesn't exist. I can tell you from experience that this kind of thinking can quickly go from a bit of intellectual noodling to problematic if it leaks into everyday life.

[Tibetan_Ice]

There is no 'projecting'. Everything appears in conscious awareness and subjective responses are attached and viewed in that same awareness. It isn't science, it's perceptual distortion and the dismantling of cognition.

First off the term "conscious awareness" implies that there is also an "unconscious awareness". Your term doesn't make sense.

Secondly, any "subjective responses" are ccnceptIons, thus part of Wolff's closed system which consists of symbols, painted onto reality.

Further, my definition of awareness is "Knowing" and nothing can attach itself to it. Awareness is a verb.

So tell me, what exactly is being attached, and to what?

And, then, what is doing the viewing?