Ierrellus

John,

The Cartesian idea is "animals abstract not." Can we prove otherwise? Is my cat not abstracting in dreams?

Ierrellus

PV

Mr. Sammi

I am wondering if we as humans do not posess an inate "abstractor" (a module recognisable as capable of abstracting)? This way everything is an abstraction and only becomes attatched to "reality" when in direct correspondence (the determinist dream sequence).

Does partial recognition of phenomena not qualify for abstraction?

Sammi Na Boodie ()

madmax2976

I'd still be looking for definitions of "abstract", "real" and "object", before I started trying to find an answer to the question.

Take those definitions and then plug them into the question and see what, if anything, comes to light.

John Page

It seems pretty clear to me. Also animals can plan quite elaborate actions - maybe beavers were building more sophisticated dams than humans in the past. I read a book about beavers, pretty damn clever if you ask me.

I think there are different degrees of consciousness, though, just want to be clear that I'm not saying abstraction belies or equals consciousness.

Cheers, John

0n0w1c

to me, all abstract objects are thought models... templates if you will. if a real object will fit an existing template, it is then classified as an object of 'type' and we are able then to comprehend the object. if the real object does not fit any existing 'type' we then create a new 'type', imprinted in our brains as a real object of this new 'type'. we then can comprehend it and may now convey thoughts concerning it... after the transfer of the 'type' to whom we wish to convey.

if this makes an abstract object real... our 'type'ing of the object, the comprehending, the communicating, the memory of the object, then in that sense they are real... real thoughts of a material entity instantiated as an abstract object comprised of screaming electrons and neural receptors.

WJ

Math of course is an 'abstract' but can partially define and explain an object's existence. An engineer can create a wooden beam from a math formula, but it cannot be created exnihilo. So it only 'partially' describes/explains the 'real' object and not its nature nor its meaning in the thing itself.

Beyond this, phenominalism is another approach to 'abstracts'.

Walrus

John Page

Walrus:

Thought I'd take the liberty with a few updates to make your statement more factual (insertions in bold, deletions in parens):

Math of course is an 'abstract' discipline but can be used to partially describe (define and explain) an object('s existence). An engineer can create a wooden beam (from) using in part a math formula, but (it) a wooden beam cannot be created exnihilo. So math (it) only 'partially' describes/explains the 'real' object( and not its nature nor its meaning in the thing itself).

Cheers, John

excreationist

Of course we can differential between sense and nonsense!
About the associations:
Cows + western -> perhaps about their origin (from "the west") although I've never heard of the phrase "western cows" before.
"western cows" that "suck honey" -> I've only know cows that eat grass and maybe molasses... molasses is a sugar-based kind of treacle... maybe the first bit is making sense! This is implying that cows from the West sometimes suck honey.
"the world...better yellow" -> this implies the world is partly yellow but it isn't really.
And the conclusion doesn't seem to follow from the first statement. We can tell if things don't follow or not by seeing if it fits any of our generalized templates aka patterns in our brains. We can only search through a couple partially associated patterns at a time - that is why it can take a while for us to think.
The reply of butterflies not playing the piano is true in itself - butterflies are very tiny and not very intelligent - so they wouldn't be able to play the piano.
But it doesn't explain the first statement. What has missing was a mechanism that connects western cows not sucking honey with the outcome of the world becoming more yellow.

That nonsense you talked about isn't relevant to the external world so I guess it is "abstract" (or hypothetical).

excreationist

In <a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html" target="_blank">Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development</a>, the formal operational stage is the last stage.
"In this stage, intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. Early in the period there is a return to egocentric thought. Only 35% of high school graduates in industrialized countries obtain formal operations; many people do not think formally during adulthood."

I think this needs to be learnt and requires language (a set of symbols including logical [if/then] ones). I don't think people who have been kept in sensory isolation tanks their whole lives would reach this stage. (BTW the previous stage was called "Concrete operational stage")

As I've been saying... I think abstraction is just about associating words with patterns. e.g. associating "large" with the pattern of many objects being larger than the default size. If you abstract further, you could classify "large" as a kind of "size" and this "size" is a "property" of an object. That's about as far as I can abstract that... except to say that "property" is a "pattern" or a word. Perhaps abstraction means "is a"... so Fido is a dog is a mammal is an animal is a lifeform is a physical system is an object.

What do you mean? Immune systems and ants can recognize things...

Ierrellus:
Well I'd say that proper abstraction involves being in <a href="http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html" target="_blank">Piaget's Formal operational stage</a>. Earlier in my post is a quote. I think many apes can be taught to reach the third stage (Concrete operational stage) but as far as I know they aren't quite capable of becoming as intelligent as we are. (and reaching the fourth stage)

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Well said excreationist, I have never read Piaget but his ideas as you described them seem to tend towards completion, from my limited point of view.(He is now on my next year's list).

What I mean by partial recognition and its relationship to abstraction is, due to the recognition being partial, it may have been obtained through an abstraction - taking parts away OR putting more parts in than necessary, in order to admit success on the seek and search.

Good points about the immune system and ants. Without a complete thought process an ant might as well be abstracting its input in order to make the match. The immune system question may have to be redirected to my daughters, who are far more capable in this area than I...

SO Ladies and Gents, what consists of an abstraction? IS it some sort of stripping down and filling vacancies OR is it a deconstruction that ends in an Xism. I am greatly interested to hear all the capabable and various learned points of view.

Sammi Na Boodie ()