Pre-Cal...
Estudia: Tell me some more, Phi, about this topic of concepts.
Philo: Well, first you need to be aware of the fact that there are two main processes involved on the perceptual level. One is the process of realizing that there are differences between objects. This is differentiation, telling one or more things apart from all the others. The second process is integration and it is the process of joining elements into an inseparable whole. We move from sensations to perceptions when our brains can do these two steps for us automatically. It analyses the sensory qualities of an object and then it synthesizes these qualities into entities which we grasp.
Estudia: Can our brains to the same thing going from this perceptual stage to the conceptual stage? Does it work automatically too?
Philo: No the processes of differentiation and integration occur but the process is not done automatically by our brains. First we isolate a bunch of concrete objects. We notice differences and similarities about these objects that we observe and we group them together as different from all the other entities that we perceive. This is for lower stages of concepts which are developed around the things we can observe. There are much higher level concepts built on these lower level ones and to understand a higher concept we are going to have to reduce it back to the lower level, but I’ll discuss that later.
Estudia: Okay, so we mentally take out the objects we are differentiating and consider these objects separately.
Philo: Yes and this power of abstraction is where we differ from animals. They can perceive objects and notice similarities and differences, but it can’t do anything with its knowledge. We do something with this observation. We take this information and organize our mind by isolating a group of similar entities.
Estudia: And so that’s a concept?
Philo: No, we have to integrate these precepts into a whole. We blend all the relevant ones into a whole that is not divisible. For example we see chairs. Big ones, little ones, high ones, and low ones, but we notice all of them seem to have places to sit and maybe backs and usually four legs or feet or a base of some sort. The blending on all the percepts of chairs into a whole new entity called “chair” creates a new mental entity. This mental entity is the concept and it is help in the mind with a word. What you can do that no animal is capable of is abstract or take out and consider apart the similarities from the differences. You can selectively focus on the similarity of all trees having leaves while ignoring the fact that they differ in size, color, shape and so on. You can isolate lots of similarities about trees and group them together perceptually. Once you have isolated a group of similarities you are able to integrate them into an inseparable whole and this new entity, which is mental, is the concept. In this case the concept is tree. When you use the mental concept tree you are able to include in that entity all sorts of trees from pigmy pine to redwood, prehistoric trees to trees that haven’t been planted yet.
Estudia: How do we do that? Obviously the concept tree does not specify a specific number of trees, but is like a multi-dimensional matrix of trees going off in all directions from any tree you want to picture. Pine trees here from this one to all that have existed, do exist, and will ever exist, then willow trees there, and redwoods, then plastic ones, and painted ones and on and on. The concept tree specifies only characteristics of trees and means any number of entities possessing these characteristics.
Philo: That’s right and all those entities are identified as trees. What allows us to make this kind of integration is a special tool of integration called language. A word is what you use to retain that whole matrix of concretes in your mind.
Estudia: But what is a word? Isn’t that a concept too?
Philo: Sure, but a word is a symbol, auditory at first, that denotes a concept. It takes the place of that multi-dimensional matrix you envisioned. Without a word to condense that image you’d have to recall at least some of it to abstract the next tree you want to identify. The word is a concrete, perceptually graspable symbol. It takes that matrix of similars and lets you treat them as a single mental concrete.
Estudia: So language is just a code then. It is an auditory and/or visual code of symbols that convert concepts into mental concretes.
Philo: And words are essential to the process of thought. You couldn’t conceptualize efficiently without words. You would just have some sort of mental matrix image, but with a word you transform that concept into a mental entity.
Estudia: But if words are entities then they must have identity, no?
Philo: Correct, and definitions provide words with their identity.
Estudia: Hummm... that’s interesting, but what is what here? Do concepts refer to words or do words refer to reality or what? A percept is direct sensory awareness of an entity, but a concept is a mental thing and I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to teach me.
Philo: That’s a good question. Philosophers have to answer it so you can be sure your rational conclusions are related to reality. One school of thought holds that concepts refer to things that aren’t in this world but in some higher dimension. These mystics hold that revelation is the only way to know the real truth. Another school, the skeptics, holds that concepts are arbitrary constructs and have no objective basis in any world. Like the mystics they separate concepts from concretes and this affects what that think of rational thought. The mystics say words are only abstractions, while the skeptics say they are only semantics.
Estudia: And how do we know what the truth is? We have to use concepts to reach the truth don’t we? I can see that if concepts refer to things in some other realm or are just social conventions then our arguments are not grounded in reality. We are just using words arbitrarily. What do the concepts really refer to?
Philo: Ah, that is the question. But it will have to wait. Arrivederci.
Philo: Well, first you need to be aware of the fact that there are two main processes involved on the perceptual level. One is the process of realizing that there are differences between objects. This is differentiation, telling one or more things apart from all the others. The second process is integration and it is the process of joining elements into an inseparable whole. We move from sensations to perceptions when our brains can do these two steps for us automatically. It analyses the sensory qualities of an object and then it synthesizes these qualities into entities which we grasp.
Estudia: Can our brains to the same thing going from this perceptual stage to the conceptual stage? Does it work automatically too?
Philo: No the processes of differentiation and integration occur but the process is not done automatically by our brains. First we isolate a bunch of concrete objects. We notice differences and similarities about these objects that we observe and we group them together as different from all the other entities that we perceive. This is for lower stages of concepts which are developed around the things we can observe. There are much higher level concepts built on these lower level ones and to understand a higher concept we are going to have to reduce it back to the lower level, but I’ll discuss that later.
Estudia: Okay, so we mentally take out the objects we are differentiating and consider these objects separately.
Philo: Yes and this power of abstraction is where we differ from animals. They can perceive objects and notice similarities and differences, but it can’t do anything with its knowledge. We do something with this observation. We take this information and organize our mind by isolating a group of similar entities.
Estudia: And so that’s a concept?
Philo: No, we have to integrate these precepts into a whole. We blend all the relevant ones into a whole that is not divisible. For example we see chairs. Big ones, little ones, high ones, and low ones, but we notice all of them seem to have places to sit and maybe backs and usually four legs or feet or a base of some sort. The blending on all the percepts of chairs into a whole new entity called “chair” creates a new mental entity. This mental entity is the concept and it is help in the mind with a word. What you can do that no animal is capable of is abstract or take out and consider apart the similarities from the differences. You can selectively focus on the similarity of all trees having leaves while ignoring the fact that they differ in size, color, shape and so on. You can isolate lots of similarities about trees and group them together perceptually. Once you have isolated a group of similarities you are able to integrate them into an inseparable whole and this new entity, which is mental, is the concept. In this case the concept is tree. When you use the mental concept tree you are able to include in that entity all sorts of trees from pigmy pine to redwood, prehistoric trees to trees that haven’t been planted yet.
Estudia: How do we do that? Obviously the concept tree does not specify a specific number of trees, but is like a multi-dimensional matrix of trees going off in all directions from any tree you want to picture. Pine trees here from this one to all that have existed, do exist, and will ever exist, then willow trees there, and redwoods, then plastic ones, and painted ones and on and on. The concept tree specifies only characteristics of trees and means any number of entities possessing these characteristics.
Philo: That’s right and all those entities are identified as trees. What allows us to make this kind of integration is a special tool of integration called language. A word is what you use to retain that whole matrix of concretes in your mind.
Estudia: But what is a word? Isn’t that a concept too?
Philo: Sure, but a word is a symbol, auditory at first, that denotes a concept. It takes the place of that multi-dimensional matrix you envisioned. Without a word to condense that image you’d have to recall at least some of it to abstract the next tree you want to identify. The word is a concrete, perceptually graspable symbol. It takes that matrix of similars and lets you treat them as a single mental concrete.
Estudia: So language is just a code then. It is an auditory and/or visual code of symbols that convert concepts into mental concretes.
Philo: And words are essential to the process of thought. You couldn’t conceptualize efficiently without words. You would just have some sort of mental matrix image, but with a word you transform that concept into a mental entity.
Estudia: But if words are entities then they must have identity, no?
Philo: Correct, and definitions provide words with their identity.
Estudia: Hummm... that’s interesting, but what is what here? Do concepts refer to words or do words refer to reality or what? A percept is direct sensory awareness of an entity, but a concept is a mental thing and I’m not sure I get what you’re trying to teach me.
Philo: That’s a good question. Philosophers have to answer it so you can be sure your rational conclusions are related to reality. One school of thought holds that concepts refer to things that aren’t in this world but in some higher dimension. These mystics hold that revelation is the only way to know the real truth. Another school, the skeptics, holds that concepts are arbitrary constructs and have no objective basis in any world. Like the mystics they separate concepts from concretes and this affects what that think of rational thought. The mystics say words are only abstractions, while the skeptics say they are only semantics.
Estudia: And how do we know what the truth is? We have to use concepts to reach the truth don’t we? I can see that if concepts refer to things in some other realm or are just social conventions then our arguments are not grounded in reality. We are just using words arbitrarily. What do the concepts really refer to?
Philo: Ah, that is the question. But it will have to wait. Arrivederci.