John Page

Having considered th OP a little more, I'm coming to a conclusion that categorization is a necessary feature of mental activity (otherwise we couldn't tell the difference between things), but this does not necessarily require or imply a hierarchy.

Here's an example hierarchy: Universe, Galaxy, Solar System, Planet, Moon.

Using such strict hierarchies (that have 1:n relationships from top to bottom) we can share orderly views of reality. My issue is that a strict hierarchy is self-serving - we have defined the entity types to conform to a hierarchical view.

I believe that the categorization process performed by the mind/brain "types" instances of things so there is (and must be) a 1:n relationship between the concept of a thing and actual appearances (that are perceived as) of the thing. However, these realtionships can be networked to become many-to-many relationships.

Example network: A Mind contains a number of Points Of View (a.k.a. systems), Points of View contain or are driven by one or more Axioms, Axioms employ one or more Concepts, Concepts may be found in one or more Minds.

A network or relationships can thus be used to describe reality as n:n relationships (as for minds:concepts above).

Does anyone agree that minds that think only in hierarchical (1:n)concepts will tend to result in points of view that include a god (because there is a hierarchy of beings therefore there must be a supreme being at the top of the hierarchy), whereas individuals that subscribe to points of view that comprise multi-lateral (n:n) realtionships between entities won't see any need for a specific answer to the universe, life and everything?

Cheers, John

spacer1

John,
Influenced by the determinism thread, I had a few related ideas while reading this. Note that in the above hierarchy there is a level of dependence upon the highest level (universe), without which the other subsets could not exist. Given that (assuming that) consciousness gives us a degree of independence may be what allows us to even conceive the concept of n:n relationships.

Luiseach

Hi John! Thanks for drawing attention to your thread here!

I agree that categorisation is necessary for mental activity as we understand it.

As for hierarchies being necessary or not...I would suggest that the hierarchical organisation of data is necessary for certain kinds of mental activities. Just what these mental activities are...perhaps the following would come under the umbrella term 'hierarchical thinking' ---> prioritising and valuing. Wouldn't hierarchicies be necessary for evolution? (I don't know the answer to this, mind you, but at first glance it would seem that evolution necessitates hierarchical organisation)

Agreed. Furthermore, even the idea of something being 'self-serving' is part of a hierarchical thought process ---> 'self' and 'not-self' (the first part of the binarism is prioritised). Of course, we would need to determine if binaristic organisations are mini-hierarchies. I think they are, since one is always 'privileged' over the other.

Ack...I need to ask for clarification here: what do you mean by a '1:n relationship'?

Ah...so the mind (which is a brain's concept of itself?) is organised in an intrinsic hierarchy?

Ah! I understand what you're saying now...yes, definitely, I agree that the 1:n relationship is characteristic of theistic 'points of view,' or systems. I would suggest that the 1:n hierarchy is also characteristic of logocentric thinking, which underlies thinking that is not necessarily theistic.

As for the n:n 'multi-lateral relationships,' I would argue that this way of organising thought (or thought itself, for that matter) is characteristic of the postmodern point of view.

Excellent post, System J.

Luiseach

Just a thought I had: even though the hierarchical 1:n relationship may be characteristic of theistic systems, I don't think that non-theistic systems of thought are necessarily non-hierarchical.

The multi-lateral n:n relationship in organisation is perhaps a less frequent phenomenon than the n:1 relationship. What do you think?

Luiseach

Darn, I just realised that your main point is to draw a fine distinction between the hierarchical n:1 relationship and strict hierarchies.

Would you mind elaborating on this difference? (I was mistaken to think of n:1 as equivalent to hierarchy, wasn't I...)

John Page

By strict hierarchy I was refering to an inviolable order of things in which there is a strict 1:n relationship at each "level". Under a strict hierarchy, for example My dog rover, breed, dog, animal, vertebrate, living organism....

Issues can arise at the border between categories - gender testing of athletes is evidence of this. In an hierarchy you couldn't have an athlete that was classified as both male and female (and I understand that transgender issues result from a mismatch between different criteria). I hope this example is suitable to show that the world is not organized into nice neat categories, rather, it is our mind that categorizes and a predominance of sets of characteristics makes a 1:n relationship "appear".

Cheers, John

P.S. I'm trying to stay with accepted definitions of hierarchical (layered 1:n), network and (yet to be mentioned) relational views of data. If anyone thinks I'm screwing up please let me know.

Luiseach

I completely agree with this view.

If you have the time and inclination, would you mind expanding on the theme of 'relational views of data'?

spacer1

John,
Very nice connection. It does seem to fit, especially with the "arms race" theory of the evolution of consciousness. I will give it some more thought.
What do you propose is at the foundation(s), though, in our case? What is the hierarchy ultimately dependent upon? I would associate greater complexity with the ability for greater discrimination between similar objects and also between similar concepts (where concepts mirror our experiences of objects), and lesser complexity with the more obvious features, such as temperature, size, consistency, etc., in a way representing the history of our conscious evolution.

Would you agree that survival is the "1" in the 1:n relationship, that lies at the base of our complexity? Or, is it closer to Luiseach's astute observation, that:
Following this thought, perhaps, instead, the "I" (the concept of ourselves as separate from others) is the "1" in the 1:n relationship, which experiences itself as being merely under the influence of the survival needs posited above (e.g. "I'm hungry"; "I have to go to the toilet"; "I'm tired.")

Additionally, as was your suggestion last time, perhaps, again, the subjective "I" is concomitant with the objective "survival"??

Unrelatedly: (And perhaps the recognition of "I" is where the concept of "1" is originally derived, possibly giving birth to mathematics!!)