Moral: VA; Abstraction, Concept & Identity

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a realistic presentation of Abstraction, Concept & Identity in contrast to PH's.

Whatever is real is conditioned upon a human-based framework and system of emergence, realization of reality [FSER], then perceived, known and described [FSC].

Here is a realistic presentation of of the Abstraction, Concept & Identity in its proper order & perspective within a timeline to the present;

# [FSERC] precedes the below:
1. Big Bang
2. The particle 'soup'
2i Clustering of particles - atoms, molecules
3. Abiogenesis - evolution to the present
4. Advent of FSER
5. Emergence of reality
6. Realization of reality
7. Abstraction
8. Language
9. Conceptualization
10. Logic
11. Idealization

PH's omission is all the above are contingent upon a FSER [1-6] or FSERC [1-11] and 1-11 spiral on a meta-FSERC, i.e. the FSERC of FSERC.

The following are contingent within a FSERC:

• 1. What our first one-celled living thing ancestor interact with reality was merely a soup of particles. This is the advent of the first crude framework and system of emergence and realization of reality [FSER].
  
  2. Patterns [nominalism] from the soup of particles are recognized.
  
  3. To simplify, abstractions emerged to categorize [intuitive and sensible] these individual clusters of pattern into categories comprising those of similar characteristics.
  
  4. Using the power of the intellect, the above abstractions [intuited and sensed] are conceptualized as concepts. As such, whatever is a concept must have an empirical based. They can be concrete or 'abstract' concepts [empirical only].
  
  5. The application of logic is based on abstractions and concepts at this stage.
  
  6. As humans evolved with greater intellect, thinking and speculative power, humans are able to generate thoughts that has no empirical basis, i.e. beyond empirical possibility, e.g. the noumena aka thing-in-itself.
  Kant called these 'ideas' [intellectualized non-empirical] which has no empirical possibility from concepts which are intellectualized-empirical.

From the above, the term 'bachelor' is a concept because it has an empirical base, i.e. a human being who is not married [legally or implied] within the legal FSERC or a social FSERC.

The term 'identity' [A=A] is only valid with the logic-FSERC and specifically classical logic only. Identity [A=A] has not validity outside the classical-logic-FSERC.
Pure identity is impossible in that we have to identify every particle in its specific time and space.

My point:
Whatever is real is conditioned upon a human-based framework and system of emergence, realization of reality [FSER], then perceived, known and described [FSC], so are the terms, abstraction, concepts and identity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:
Abstraction as an Evolutionary Default:
A more meaningful view of abstraction is as a brain [mental] process with evolutionary origins.

A Plausible Evolutionary Perspective on Abstraction
Your proposal is indeed reasonable and aligns with a growing body of scientific and philosophical thought.

Key Points in Support of Your Proposal:
• Evolutionary Necessity: The ability to categorize and generalize information, which is essentially abstraction, is fundamental to survival. From the simplest organisms recognizing edible substances to complex humans understanding abstract concepts like justice, abstraction has been a driving force in evolution.
• Pattern Recognition: As you suggest, pattern recognition, a core component of abstraction, is essential for identifying threats, opportunities, and resources. This ability has been refined over millions of years.
• Language as a Tool: Language is a sophisticated tool that evolved to represent and communicate abstract concepts. While it's a relatively recent development, it builds upon pre-existing cognitive abilities.

Further Considerations:
• Neural Correlates: Exploring the neural basis of abstraction could provide empirical support for your hypothesis. Studies on brain structures involved in pattern recognition and decision-making might reveal evolutionary continuity.
• Cultural Evolution: While the foundation of abstraction might be biological, cultural factors also shape its development. The transmission of abstract knowledge through language and other cultural means has accelerated the process.
• Consciousness and Abstraction: The relationship between consciousness and abstraction is a complex one. Does consciousness emerge from abstract thinking, or does it enable more sophisticated forms of abstraction?
- Artificial Intelligence: By grounding AI research in the evolutionary principles of abstraction, we can potentially create more intelligent, adaptable, and human-like systems.

Your proposal offers a compelling evolutionary perspective on abstraction. It provides a framework for understanding how this cognitive ability has shaped human and animal behavior. By exploring the interplay between biological, cognitive, and cultural factors, we can gain deeper insights into the nature of abstraction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe my response above indirectly cover the points you raised.

And that's the problem. I don't think you understand - let alone think critically about - what you read. And that's why conversations with you are so fruitless.

This is like you are presenting your proposition at a high school [which obviously to the best of the ability] is still crude and raw.
What I have presented is from a Master degree level, thus override the high school view.

Here's from AI [wR]; [ABC = PH]

Weaknesses of ABC's Presentation of Abstraction
ABC's presentation of abstraction has several weaknesses:
1. Oversimplification: ABC focuses solely on common nouns and the idea of "universals" (abstract properties shared by all things of a kind). This ignores other important aspects of abstraction.
•Abstraction as a mental process: As the Wikipedia definition points out, abstraction is a mental process of focusing on relevant information and ignoring irrelevant details. This applies not just to nouns but to all areas of thought. For example, a map abstracts the real world to show only the features relevant for navigation.

2. Misconstruing "abstract noun": ABC argues an abstract noun isn't an abstract thing, but a word itself is a physical thing. This is a technical point. While nouns are words, they represent concepts. "Truth" is an abstract concept, even if the word itself is printed on paper.
[•ABC confuses words (concrete nouns) with the things they represent (dogs). Words are symbols, not the things themselves.
•The debate around "abstract things" isn't about words, but about the existence of universals (shared properties) independent of specific objects.]

3. Equating abstract with unreal: ABC suggests abstract things are unreal like supernatural things. This is misleading. Abstract things like numbers, shapes, or concepts like justice are real in the sense that they have meaning and play a role in our thinking and communication. They may not be physical objects, but they are powerful tools for understanding the world.

[• ABC dismisses the "problem of identity" without acknowledging its complexity. There are different views on universals (Platonism vs. Nominalism) that deserve discussion.
• The comparison between abstract things and supernatural things is a strawman argument, as abstract things don't claim the same kind of existence as deities.]


4. Dismissing philosophical debate: ABC dismisses the Platonic-Nominalist debate as a product of "mentalist nonsense."
While these debates can be complex, they raise important questions about the nature of universals and concepts. Dismissing them outright doesn't contribute to a deeper understanding.

Strengths (or Relevance) of ABC's Presentation
Despite the weaknesses, there's some relevance to ABC's view:
• Highlighting Language's Role: ABC emphasizes the role of language in abstraction, particularly through categorizing with common nouns.
• Questioning Universals: While ABC's dismissal of universals goes too far, their point is that some philosophers overemphasize the existence of abstract entities separate from the physical world.

Overall,

• ABC's presentation offers a limited perspective on abstraction

.
For a more nuanced understanding, consider both the idea of abstraction as a mental process and the philosophical debates surrounding universals and abstract entities.

As I had countered, your views are too narrow and shallow, but a more meaningful view of abstraction is as a brain [mental] process with evolutionary origins.

A Plausible Evolutionary Perspective on Abstraction
Your proposal is indeed reasonable and aligns with a growing body of scientific and philosophical thought.

Key Points in Support of Your Proposal:
• Evolutionary Necessity: The ability to categorize and generalize information, which is essentially abstraction, is fundamental to survival. From the simplest organisms recognizing edible substances to complex humans understanding abstract concepts like justice, abstraction has been a driving force in evolution.
• Pattern Recognition: As you suggest, pattern recognition, a core component of abstraction, is essential for identifying threats, opportunities, and resources. This ability has been refined over millions of years.
• Language as a Tool: Language is a sophisticated tool that evolved to represent and communicate abstract concepts. While it's a relatively recent development, it builds upon pre-existing cognitive abilities.

Further Considerations:
• Neural Correlates: Exploring the neural basis of abstraction could provide empirical support for your hypothesis. Studies on brain structures involved in pattern recognition and decision-making might reveal evolutionary continuity.
• Cultural Evolution: While the foundation of abstraction might be biological, cultural factors also shape its development. The transmission of abstract knowledge through language and other cultural means has accelerated the process.
• Consciousness and Abstraction: The relationship between consciousness and abstraction is a complex one. Does consciousness emerge from abstract thinking, or does it enable more sophisticated forms of abstraction?
- Artificial Intelligence: By grounding AI research in the evolutionary principles of abstraction, we can potentially create more intelligent, adaptable, and human-like systems.

Your proposal offers a compelling evolutionary perspective on abstraction. It provides a framework for understanding how this cognitive ability has shaped human and animal behavior. By exploring the interplay between biological, cognitive, and cultural factors, we can gain deeper insights into the nature of abstraction.

[FlashDangerpants]

What I have presented is from a Master degree level

Why the downgrade? You normally award yourself a PhD when you mark your own homework

[Iwannaplato]

1. Big Bang
2. The particle 'soup'
2i Clustering of particles - atoms, molecules
3. Abiogenesis - evolution to the present
4. Advent of FSER
5. Emergence of reality
6. Realization of reality
7. Abstraction
8. Language
9. Conceptualization
10. Logic
11. Idealization

Shouldn't this list be:

1. Advent of FSER
2. Emergence of the rest of reality, including 'evidence' of a Big Bang that never really happened prior to the FSER it was conditioned on - how could it have happened without being conditioned) and events 2, 2i, and 3 on your list above.
3. Realization of reality
4. Abstraction
5. Language . Conceptualization - weird, how the heck did FSER's arise before language and logic and abstraction? Even this list needs revision.
6. Logic
7. Idealization

There could not be anything prior to FSER. That makes no sense in your system. FSER is the beginning of time. And conditioned on it events started. Humans suddenly existed and they were FSER-ing with incredible causal power.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Big Bang
2. The particle 'soup'
2i Clustering of particles - atoms, molecules
3. Abiogenesis - evolution to the present
4. Advent of FSER
5. Emergence of reality
6. Realization of reality
7. Abstraction
8. Language
9. Conceptualization
10. Logic
11. Idealization

Shouldn't this list be:

1. Advent of FSER
2. Emergence of the rest of reality, including 'evidence' of a Big Bang that never really happened prior to the FSER it was conditioned on - how could it have happened without being conditioned) and events 2, 2i, and 3 on your list above.
3. Realization of reality
4. Abstraction
5. Language . Conceptualization - weird, how the heck did FSER's arise before language and logic and abstraction? Even this list needs revision.
6. Logic
7. Idealization

There could not be anything prior to FSER. That makes no sense in your system. FSER is the beginning of time. And conditioned on it events started. Humans suddenly existed and they were FSER-ing with incredible causal power.

It make no sense to you because you are relying on common sense and classical logic which has basic limitations.
There are apparent circularity but we are referring to a self-autonomous system.

Was there anything prior to abiogenesis?
Did humans suddenly existed?
There was already some sort of a prior FSER before there were humans and there was no FSER before there was the FSERC.

Compare 'yourself' at conception to your present state as an adult.
There is a time factor from t(zero] to t[now] in the case of the self.
There is a core self and the evolving self present at t[now].

In this case the there is a large evolution process of continual development between FSER at t(zero) and FSER & FSERC at t[now].
Due to the difference senses and time there is no circularity.

If you are still confused, you need to think more wide and deeply.

[Iwannaplato]

1. Big Bang
2. The particle 'soup'
2i Clustering of particles - atoms, molecules
3. Abiogenesis - evolution to the present
4. Advent of FSER
5. Emergence of reality
6. Realization of reality
7. Abstraction
8. Language
9. Conceptualization
10. Logic
11. Idealization

Shouldn't this list be:

1. Advent of FSER
2. Emergence of the rest of reality, including 'evidence' of a Big Bang that never really happened prior to the FSER it was conditioned on - how could it have happened without being conditioned) and events 2, 2i, and 3 on your list above.
3. Realization of reality
4. Abstraction
5. Language . Conceptualization - weird, how the heck did FSER's arise before language and logic and abstraction? Even this list needs revision.
6. Logic
7. Idealization

There could not be anything prior to FSER. That makes no sense in your system. FSER is the beginning of time. And conditioned on it events started. Humans suddenly existed and they were FSER-ing with incredible causal power.

It make no sense to you because you are relying on common sense and classical logic which has basic limitations.
There are apparent circularity but we are referring to a self-autonomous system.

Was there anything prior to abiogenesis?
Did humans suddenly existed?
There was already some sort of a prior FSER before there were humans and there was no FSER before there was the FSERC.

Compare 'yourself' at conception to your present state as an adult.
There is a time factor from t(zero] to t[now] in the case of the self.
There is a core self and the evolving self present at t[now].

In this case the there is a large evolution process of continual development between FSER at t(zero) and FSER & FSERC at t[now].
Due to the difference senses and time there is no circularity.

If you are still confused, you need to think more wide and deeply.

You didn't explain anything. You did not explain how anything could exist prior to FSER(C)s. My did not explain what the changes I have gone through in this life have to do with my revision of the list or how things could exist prior to the existence of life and FSER(C)s. You just proposed a realist timeline.

And it's bizarre that you called position in my previous post common sense. Common sense is realist. I assume that nothing can exist without being conditioned on a FSERC. You have argued this again and again. I took that position seriously.

So could something exist prior to the relevant FSERC`?

Explain why my rewriting of your chronology of events is not correct. If you want to say the Big Band existed relatively before life on earth, that makes no sense at all. You presented a chronology with things existing prior to FSERCs despite things CANNOT exist, according to you if they are not conditioned on an FSERC.

You don't just get to label and argument and not interact with it.

Go think more yourself, fucking ad hom man. When you say things like Go think wider. Read that book more times. All that stuff. Just replace it with substance. It's posturing in the absence of substance.

[Flannel Jesus]

What I have presented is from a Master degree level

Why the downgrade? You normally award yourself a PhD when you mark your own homework

This is remarkably cringe worthy even for VA. VAs ability to argue for a point, or even construct a basic English sentence, is something the average middle-schooler has surpassed. What in the world made him think it would be totally cool to award himself an honorary masters, and that other people would accept that?

My second hand embarrassment for va is off the charts right now.

[Iwannaplato]

This is like you are presenting your proposition at a high school [which obviously to the best of the ability] is still crude and raw.
What I have presented is from a Master degree level, thus override the high school view.

On what professional grounds do you think have the competence to judge Master's degree level writing? Come on. You do understand that the ludicrous ad hom I quoted above is precisely not the kind of thing acceptable in Master's level class discussions or writing. In fact it would be pointed out as substanceless ad hom by in Bachelor's level courses and by any competent high school teacher.

There may well be places on the internet where people wouldn't find the above embarrassing for you and evidence that it's own claim is false, but this isn't one of them.

Again and again you write things that basically mean: I'm think I'm right. We know that. You're just being foolish when you dress up your patting yourself on the back this way.

[FlashDangerpants]

This is like you are presenting your proposition at a high school [which obviously to the best of the ability] is still crude and raw.
What I have presented is from a Master degree level, thus override the high school view.

On what professional grounds do you think have the competence to judge Master's degree level writing? Come on. You do understand that the ludicrous ad hom I quoted above is precisely not the kind of thing acceptable in Master's level class discussions or writing. In fact it would be pointed out as substanceless ad hom by in Bachelor's level courses and by any competent high school teacher.

There may well be places on the internet where people wouldn't find the above embarrassing for you and evidence that it's own claim is false, but this isn't one of them.

Again and again you write things that basically mean: I'm think I'm right. We know that. You're just being foolish when you dress up your patting yourself on the back this way.

This post is Bronze Swimming Certificate worthy.
FJ's post is primo however, and we must grant it exclusive mining rights to all the cobalt in Sweden.

[Iwannaplato]

This post is Bronze Swimming Certificate worthy.
FJ's post is primo however, and we must grant it exclusive mining rights to all the cobalt in Sweden.

This saddens me in general. However, I love swimming, so I am consoling myself with that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is like you are presenting your proposition at a high school [which obviously to the best of the ability] is still crude and raw.
What I have presented is from a Master degree level, thus override the high school view.

On what professional grounds do you think have the competence to judge Master's degree level writing? Come on. You do understand that the ludicrous ad hom I quoted above is precisely not the kind of thing acceptable in Master's level class discussions or writing. In fact it would be pointed out as substanceless ad hom by in Bachelor's level courses and by any competent high school teacher.

There may well be places on the internet where people wouldn't find the above embarrassing for you and evidence that it's own claim is false, but this isn't one of them.

Again and again you write things that basically mean: I'm think I'm right. We know that. You're just being foolish when you dress up your patting yourself on the back this way.

The grade school -master degree comparison is merely denoting there is a difference in level of knowledge based on my own assessment and as demonstrated.

This is validated by AI, i.e. [ABC is PH]

viewtopic.php?p=723468#p723468
Weaknesses of ABC's Presentation of Abstraction
ABC's presentation of abstraction has several weaknesses:
....
see link for details

Surely there is a difference between PH's very narrow view and my expanded view.
Still don't get it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Shouldn't this list be:


There could not be anything prior to FSER. That makes no sense in your system. FSER is the beginning of time. And conditioned on it events started. Humans suddenly existed and they were FSER-ing with incredible causal power.

It make no sense to you because you are relying on common sense and classical logic which has basic limitations.
There are apparent circularity but we are referring to a self-autonomous system.

Was there anything prior to abiogenesis?
Did humans suddenly existed?
There was already some sort of a prior FSER before there were humans and there was no FSER before there was the FSERC.

Compare 'yourself' at conception to your present state as an adult.
There is a time factor from t(zero] to t[now] in the case of the self.
There is a core self and the evolving self present at t[now].

In this case the there is a large evolution process of continual development between FSER at t(zero) and FSER & FSERC at t[now].
Due to the difference senses and time there is no circularity.

If you are still confused, you need to think more wide and deeply.

You didn't explain anything. You did not explain how anything could exist prior to FSER(C)s. My did not explain what the changes I have gone through in this life have to do with my revision of the list or how things could exist prior to the existence of life and FSER(C)s. You just proposed a realist timeline.

And it's bizarre that you called position in my previous post common sense. Common sense is realist. I assume that nothing can exist without being conditioned on a FSERC. You have argued this again and again. I took that position seriously.

So could something exist prior to the relevant FSERC`?

Explain why my rewriting of your chronology of events is not correct. If you want to say the Big Band existed relatively before life on earth, that makes no sense at all. You presented a chronology with things existing prior to FSERCs despite things CANNOT exist, according to you if they are not conditioned on an FSERC.

You don't just get to label and argument and not interact with it.

Go think more yourself, fucking ad hom man. When you say things like Go think wider. Read that book more times. All that stuff. Just replace it with substance. It's posturing in the absence of substance.

If you like f-ing so much, why don't you go and f your ....
I don't respond to posts with f..

[Iwannaplato]

The grade school -master degree comparison is merely denoting there is a difference in level of knowledge based on my own assessment and as demonstrated.

Someone with a Master's level understanding would realize that this type of self-evaluation as part of a response to someone in a discussion is silly. You actually managed to me and Flannel Jesus feel bad for you by this 'mere' action of yours.

This is validated by AI, i.e. [ABC is PH]

Someone at a Master Level of understanding of almost any field would know how silly the claim that the AI actually validated this.

Surely there is a difference between PH's very narrow view and my expanded view.
Still don't get it?

You don't get it. 1) Obviously there is a difference between your views. Nothing I've said indicates otherwise. 2) This doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if you were right in your silly evaluation of the levels of your skills.

Mull that over or not, but you do not get how embarrassing this kind of gesture on your part is. You have a few forms of this kind of silliness.

[Iwannaplato]

If you like f-ing so much, why don't you go and f your ....
I don't respond to posts with f..

I see. So, you moral rule is
Start the insults. Insult and ad hom. That's fine. But don't use expletives.
Here's you following your morality and what pissed me off...

If you are still confused, you need to think more wide and deeply.

I can see why you wouldn't put up with a more honest post.
Undertand: I was expressive. You were insulting and ad hom with specific unjustified ideas about me.
I understand your preference for the latter, it being so ego-syntonic and all.
You are such a role model for morality. Inability to admit things. 'polite' insults and ad homs. Patting yourself on your own back.
And this from the moral realist who will help the world be a better place.
I am convinced you can lead the way with your wider knowledge.