Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Concept-formation

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

On 5/24/2011 at 2:40 AM, softwareNerd said:

If one is beyond the most basic childhood level, one doesn't have to notice differences first. One notices similarities and/or differences. Imagine you see five dots, and they're not all identical. You might see the similarity between two of them, isolate that particular attribute and differentiate them from the other three dots based on that attribute. The various quotes you provided are all compatible. For instance, these could be the way one thinks about each (of course without using many of the words that are being used to describe the introspection)

Branden: We start by observing the similarities and differences among things, abstracting the similarities as distinguishing characteristics, isolating similar things from all others... .

They're all round, they're all the same size, but they aren't the same in this other way -- color [abstract that attribute out] -- that makes dot-A similar to dot-D.

 

Peikoff: We begin the formation of a concept by isolating a group of concretes. We do this on the basis of observed similarities that distinguish these concretes from the rest of our perceptual field.

I'll group dot-A and dot-D. They both have this one similarity, color.

 

Peikoff: The first step of the method is the mental isolation of a group of similars.

I'll group Dot A and dot-D because they have this particular similarity.

 

Gotthelf: In the formation of a concept, as we have seen, the units are first isolated from certain other objects by focusing on a distinguishing characteristic or characteristics.

Dot-A and Dot-D are similar to each other and different from the other dots, in this one way -- color.

 

Rand: All concepts are formed by first differentiating two or more existents from other existents.

Dot-A and Dot-D are different from the others,let's give this type of attribute a name: color.

 

Rand: In the process of forming [the first concepts] a child's mind has to focus on a distinguishing characteristic [is this not a similarity??] in order to isolate one group of entities from all others.

What's this thing that (focusing on one attribute here) that makes these two seem to belong together in the same group (this attribute distinguishing them from the other three)

 

All those can describe the exact same concrete instance of a person looking at five dots and isolating two by color. They don't necessarily describe 5 different ways in which a person might approach the issue. They describe the same exact mental process.

I think ITOE is a great book and a fascinating tool to grasp.  I wish it were re-written in a number of different contexts and ways, so that many could grasp it more easily ( I believe that would help).   The difficulty in understanding it (for me and I believe for many), is that it isn't presented in enough different frames of reference and/or the relevant frame of reference isn't clearly defined in presentation as often as needed.  

Let me give one example, from the above quote(s) and from the book.  You could say that all but the first paragraph of the quote above are taken out of context however what I am saying is that even within their context, it is not crystal clear and makes it difficult to grasp the concepts.  

Regarding "similarities and differences"

Page 42 ITOE 2nd edition "Concepts are not and cannot be formed in a vacuum; they are formed in a context; the process of conceptualizaton consists of observing the differences and similarities of the existents within the filed of one's awareness..."

From Above:

"Peikoff: We begin the formation of a concept by isolating a group of concretes. We do this on the basis of observed similarities that distinguish these concretes from the rest of our perceptual field."

What happens with presentations like the two above is that it leaves open the door for them to be easily misinterpreted.  That misinterpretation can been seen in the beginning paragraph of the above post where the poster states that "One notices similarities and/or differences"....

There is an inherent potential interpretation that one is noticing similarities by only comparing the two tables.  Peikoff's quote without a full understanding can easily read as follows:  We isolate a group of concretes based on observed similarities, by looking at those things alone, we notice something about them that is similar AND then also different than everything else.  The sentence is written in an order where you see the similarity among the units first and then they happen to also distinguish these items from other things.  

What hasn't been made explicitly clear whenever you use the term "similarities and differences", is what is similar to and what is different from.  It's the similarities and differences of the UNITS, IN RELATION to other items from the genus/ CCD/Foil.   Not similarities and differences in relation to only the units themselves.

Why is this important because the common person understands similarity as something common between the units - there is a historical Aristotle and Plato influence and although that is discussed in ITOE, it isn't shut down completely in the many descriptions of "similarities and differences".  

What you get is a post like the one above where a mistake is made such as this:  "If one is beyond the most basic childhood level, one doesn't have to notice differences first. One notices similarities and/or differences."

This is an example of not understanding the process of nature of the concept similarity.  You have to notice differences first to get to similarity.  Differences of the units in relation to the foil, those close by CCD items.

What do I mean when i said earlier "The difficulty in understanding it (for me and I believe for many), is that it isn't presented in enough different frames of reference and/or the relevant frame of reference isn't clearly defined in presentation as often as needed."

Take this  example from ITOE 2nd edition:  "The element of similarity is crucially involved in the formation of every concept;  similarity, in this context, is the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same charateristic(s), but in different measure or degree"

I know she doesn't stop there and immediately provides a discussion on genus and differentia examples, but I just wish and think it would help more people if this item was really clear.  While that "definition" is correct, it explains the end result, not the process.  You can't get there without differentiating those "two or more existents" in relation to a genus, foil, CCD on a larger scale (for induction).  I would just like to see at every step the differentiation between her theory and Aristotle highlighted better in regards to this particular item.  Keep it crystal clear from the beginning and every step through, understanding your audience and realizing what may need to be emphasized.  

Identifying the frame of reference i.e. the two options here for this example: process or end result, is important in understanding or helping to interpret the statement at hand.

 

Anyway, just my thought, not sure how many have had the same issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, mike o, and welcome to the forum.

Harry Binswanger has written a book How We Know and has done two presentations available at the Ayn Rand e-store, Consciousness as Identification, and Abstractions from Abstraction. For the process, consider starting with Consciousness as Identification.

You may also find Aristotle and the Problem of Concepts of interest (link provided to abstract). This is not a step by step comparison. It assesses the authors take on Aristotle using his understanding of Rand epistemology.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I    

    I've been working through the Objectivist Theory of Concepts and trying to get to the point where I grasp it first hand.

    Sharing my thoughts and progress.

 

    1)  A word is an audio, visual or tactile symbol that represents a concept. 

 

Purpose: A word converts a mental entity (concept) into a perceptual entity (hear it, see it, touch it).  Not only for communication purposes but to retain the concept and it’s meaning via a single, simple perceptual unit.

 

Example: “Car”

 

 

 

2)      A concept is a mental entity, a mental integration formed by isolating two or more existents (units) via a distinguishing characteristic(s), (that is certain aspect of those existents).

 

The distinguishing characteristic isolates the units from a wider field of existents that have at least one of the same non-distinguishing characteristic as the units themselves. 

 

Purpose: A concept converts unlimited units i.e. all Cars, into a single mental unit.  As Donald Broadbent discovered in regards to perception, the brain is a limited information processing (and storage) system.  Therefore, nature has created a way to deal with that limitation.  In perception it is “Attention” that allows us to limit the information in order to process it.  In conception, we limit the information required to process by converting a massive amount of information into a single mental unit.

 

Example:  The concept “Car” is created by isolating at least two items, say a 2016 VW Bug and a 1957 Cadillac from other types of motor vehicles (wider field i.e. Boats, Airplanes and Motorcycles, Trains).

 

 

 

3)      The definition of a concept is not the meaning of the concept.  The definition of the concept defines, that is it determines and fixes the boundaries (isolates those items) via the distinguishing characteristic(s) and also notes the wider category of items they are differentiated from. 

 

Purpose:  A definition maintains clarity and organization in one’s mind by isolating the essential/distinguishing characteristic(s) and the wider category of items that they were differentiated from.

 

Example:  A car is a motorized vehicle (genus) with wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people(differentia).

 

 

 

4)      The meaning of a concept is not the definition of the concept.  The meaning of a concept are those items in reality (past, present or future) no matter how different and unique each is to the other and includes all of their individual characteristics.  It is a big file folder with all of the entities and all of their individual attributes included under the concept.

 

Purpose:  The meaning of a concept ties the concept to reality.  It says I mean these things!  It identifies the existent or aspect of reality that the concept references.

 

Example:  The meaning of the concept “Car” would be every car which includes every item and attribute of each individual car.  All of the existents that the concept represents.

 

Edited by mike o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first I believe.  I find the information practical as a researcher and system builder.  I'm writing a book regarding a golf movement theory.  Appreciate the complement.  I have some other posts coming that I'm looking for feedback.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Measurement Omission

Ayn Rand states on page 141 of ITOE 2nd edition: “Similarity when analyzed amounts to: measurement omission.” 

What is measurement omission?  What is the purpose of measurement omission?  When is it not used?  When is it used?  When is one aware of it? 

1)      Measurement omission is a process/method used in creating a concept (mental entity). The cognitive role of a concept is unit economy and the process that provides that ability is measurement omission.

Purpose: To limit the information that one has to hold in mind, due to the limited information processing system i.e. the mind, in relation to the massive available information in the environment. 

When is it not used?

Measurement omission is not used in the meaning of the concept.  There are no measurements omitted in the meaning of the concept.  The meaning of the concept includes every attribute of the existents that the concept references in the world whether known or not.

When is it used?

During the process of creating a concept one omits measurements.  Therefore, since a definition retraces a couple of the essential concept formation steps, it doesn’t include all of the measurements of the existents that the concept references.  Compare the definition to the meaning of the concept (those items in reality) and one can quickly see the measurements omitted in the concept (mental entity).

When is one aware of it?

Page 140 ITOE 2nd edition:

Prof. B, “To describe the process of concept-formation on a conscious level, one wouldn’t have to refer to omitting measurements”.

Page 141 ITOE 2nd edition:

Ayn Rand, “…understanding of what [measurement omission] means has to be arrived at philosophically or scientifically.”

 

From a 1st person perspective measurement omission is not something that the person forming the concept is aware of.   Being aware that one is omitting measurement is not available during the process of forming concepts.  One is not aware of it because you are focusing in, attending to, abstracting out, a certain element of the total, the distinguishing characteristic(s).  Since you are only aware of what you attend to (see Donald Broadbent studies on attention), you are not aware of measurement omission from the 1st person perspective.

As Rand notes above, one understands measurement omission from a 3rd person perspective i.e. when analyzing the process.  But not from a first person perspective performing the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Edited: Revised the definition of measurement omission

Measurement Omission

Ayn Rand states on page 141 of ITOE 2nd edition: “Similarity when analyzed amounts to: measurement omission.” 

What is measurement omission?  What is the purpose of measurement omission?  When is it not used?  When is it used?  When is one aware of it? 

1)      Measurement omission is a process/method used in creating a concept (mental entity). The cognitive role of a concept is unit economy and the process that provides that ability is measurement omission.  Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category. 

Purpose: To limit the information that one has to hold in mind, due to the limited information processing system i.e. the mind, in relation to the massive available information in the environment. 

When is it not used?

Measurement omission is not used in the meaning of the concept.  There are no measurements omitted in the meaning of the concept.  The meaning of the concept includes every attribute of the existents that the concept references in the world whether known or not.

When is it used?

During the process of creating a concept one omits measurements.  Therefore, since a definition retraces a couple of the essential concept formation steps, it doesn’t include all of the measurements of the existents that the concept references.  Compare the definition to the meaning of the concept (those items in reality) and one can quickly see the measurements omitted in the concept (mental entity).

When is one aware of it?

Page 140 ITOE 2nd edition:

Prof. B, “To describe the process of concept-formation on a conscious level, one wouldn’t have to refer to omitting measurements”.

Page 141 ITOE 2nd edition:

Ayn Rand, “…understanding of what [measurement omission] means has to be arrived at philosophically or scientifically.”

 

From a 1st person perspective measurement omission is not something that the person forming the concept is aware of.   Being aware that one is omitting measurement is not available during the process of forming concepts.  One is not aware of it because you are focusing in, attending to, abstracting out, a certain element of the total, the distinguishing characteristic(s).  Since you are only aware of what you attend to (see Donald Broadbent studies on attention), you are not aware of measurement omission from the 1st person perspective.

As Rand notes above, one understands measurement omission from a 3rd person perspective i.e. when analyzing the process.  But not from a first person perspective performing the process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just started developing this idea for myself.  Therefore it is new, fresh, a rough draft without much of a review, or time to reflect on the ideas.  I'm sure it could be full of mistakes, mis-interpretations, etc.  However, with that said, I am open to feedback - positive or negative.  

Specifically, here is where I am stuck right now.  In relation to concept formation compared to measurement - I'm not sure if the "standard of measurement" is the genus or the distinguishing character, or if I just need to grasp that essential difference between concept formation and measurement.  I believe that the "standard of measurement" for the concept would be the distinguishing character(s) however if that's the case, then how is the distinguishing characteristic(s) represent the appropriate attribute?  Something I still need to work through - see below.

1)      Measurement

When I’ve read the portions of ITOE 2nd edition, that relate to measurement, I’ve taken that information in the context that; measurement is separate from concepts, yet that measuring is inherent in the formation of concepts.  On page 7 she states, “…. Conceptual level of cognition, which consists of two interrelated fields: Conceptual and the Mathematical.  The process of concept-formation is, in large part, a mathematical process”. Page 9 ITOE 2nd edition, “Man’s mathematical and conceptual abilities develop simultaneously”.  I always felt that, the context that measurement was presented in ITOE was a separate issue from concept formation that both had separate identities.  Because it is a vital part of concept formation, she covered it separately, to confirm that concept formation was objective (science - measurement) versus a vague, general, subjective similarity and therefore to bring it into the realm of science.  With that said, at the same time I understood that the number 27 did the same thing that the concept “Car” did, create a simple perceptual unit that subsumed many more items than man could handle at one time.  Obviously, there were some similarities such as Page 64 ITOE 2nd edition, “Conceptualization is a method of expanding man’s consciousness by reducing the number of its content’s units….” Via a number say 27 or a concept such as car.  However, regarding measuring, such as length, weight, etc. – that that was a different world than concepts, although I understood that you measured items to differentiate items and form concepts.  I just focused on how the concept measurement was applied in the process of concept formation.   

 

Upon further inspection I started to see how the process of concept formation not only uses measurement (wavelengths of light in the case of color, etc) but it also mirrors measurement.  They use the same principle.  It’s the same process in two different contexts.  I’d like to now look at how measurement and concept formation are similar.  By relating her discussion on measurement and transition it to concept formation.  She’s making the case, the similarity between measurement and concept formation in this regard because historically the sciences rich with math were the ones that made the greatest achievements and also were considered validated objectively, not subjectively.  She is saying if I can show you that concept formation follows the same principles as measurement, then you can be as confident and as objective with your concepts as you can with any of your measurements!

 

 

From page 7 of ITOE 2nd edition:

1)      “Measurement is the identification of a relationship – a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit.”

 

2)      “…the choice of a standard is optional, the mathematical rules of using it are not.”

 

3)      “The facts established by measurement will be the same, regardless of the particular standard used; the standard can neither alter nor affect them.”

 

4)      “The requirements of a standard of measurement are: that it represent the appropriate attribute, that it be easily perceivable by man and that, once chosen, it remain immutable and absolute whenever used.  (Please remember this; we will have reason to recall it.)

 

“Measurement is the identification of a relationship – a quantitative relationship established by means of a standard that serves as a unit.”  “The requirements of a standard of measurement are: that it represent the appropriate attribute, that it be easily perceivable by man and that, once chosen, it remain immutable and absolute whenever used. 

 

Let’s now convert these quotes into a concept context from a measurement context.

“Concepts are an identification of a relationship – a quantitative relationship among genus and species (the narrower group (species) that differentiates itself from the wider group (genus) in forming the concept), established by means of a standard (the commensurable characteristic) that serves as a unit (of measurement).”  

 

“The requirements of a standard of measurement are: that it represent the appropriate attribute (that the concept has the same attribute as the genus), that it be easily perceivable by man (based on perceptual data) and that, once chosen, it remain immutable and absolute whenever used (that once chosen, it is consistently identified and remains contextually absolute, that we are always differentiating from a wider group using the same attribute/ form of measurement). 

 

The distinguishing characteristic is a specific unit of measurement within the genus.

 

Forming the concept inch or foot, is the same as any other concept.  Inch is that unit of length which is an inch long.  You notice the wider group of existents i.e. length and then that particular distance [              ] is the distinguishing characteristic.  Then you use the distinguishing characteristic to measure and see which items are an inch long, any length which is an inch falls into the concept inch. Likewise, in concept formation, you use the distinguishing characteristic (of say “Car”, wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people) to measure motor vehicles and see which one’s fall into the concept car.

 

The standard for measuring cars from vehicles, is “wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people”. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to have a good idea of things, but I'm not sure what you're asking about measuring. You may look at car specs to make narrower distinction for figuring out if it's a BMW or a Honda, but the concept "car" isn't formed strictly by measuring. If you're asking about things like the first, then what you're doing is specifying the omitted measurements of the concept "car". In a way, forming concepts is the opposite of measurement, while measurement is how you identify an instance of a concept or figure out what can be omitted. After all, you can't omit what is not measurable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is measurable.  You can't produce an example of something that isn't measureable.  

The only "thing" that is not measurable, would be something you don't know about.  However, even that is measurable, you just haven't found it yet, to measure it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mike o,

From the edited second edition of measurement omission, the following was added:

Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category. 

The concepts of blue, red, and green were around long before the discovery of how to measure light waves and consequently segregate them by quantity along a specific axis. Easily added to this could be

Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category or the standard to be used as a unit.

 

Now about the "car", going back to your earlier Example(s): 

The concept “Car” is created by isolating at least two items, say a 2016 VW Bug and a 1957 Cadillac from other types of motor vehicles (wider field i.e. Boats, Airplanes and Motorcycles, Trains).

A car is a motorized vehicle (genus) with wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people(differentia).

Cars, trucks, vans, station wagons are examples of automobiles. Add, for a little extra spice motorcycles and trikes for differentiation based on number of wheels. As motorized vehicles with rubber tires mounted on rims serving as wheels, presumably a hood and doors, although at one stage, doors were added.

With color as a genus, blue, red, green serve as the differentia along the axis of hue - if memory serves me.

With automobile as a genus, car, truck, van, station wagon serve as a differentia along a more complex axis of body-style (which can be further sub-divided into more refined measurement distinctions.). Coming from the automotive industry, identifying all of the product lines as "cars" is likely to be met with a raised eyebrow.

To consider a less perceptual example, even the abstraction "justice" has an aspect which can be measured—e.g.: all of the available, relevant facts pertaining to a particular instance or case of justice, providing the threshold of proof is established. Examples like this can become pretty complex to reduce back to the perceptual level.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mike o said:

Everything is measurable.  You can't produce an example of something that isn't measureable.  

The only "thing" that is not measurable, would be something you don't know about.  However, even that is measurable, you just haven't found it yet, to measure it.

What I mean is that you would not find a baby for instance measuring how much radiation plutonium gives off. A baby doesn't even know that radiation is measurable, nor does it have a preconceptual means of measuring radiation (what a baby is able to measure preconceptually can only be determined by psychological science, though). That's also why "color" isn't omission of measurements of wavelength, it would be omission of measurements of hue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

mike o,

From the edited second edition of measurement omission, the following was added:

Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category. 

The concepts of blue, red, and green were around long before the discovery of how to measure light waves and consequently segregate them by quantity along a specific axis. Easily added to this could be

Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category or the standard to be used as a unit.

 

Now about the "car", going back to your earlier Example(s): 

The concept “Car” is created by isolating at least two items, say a 2016 VW Bug and a 1957 Cadillac from other types of motor vehicles (wider field i.e. Boats, Airplanes and Motorcycles, Trains).

A car is a motorized vehicle (genus) with wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people(differentia).

Cars, trucks, vans, station wagons are examples of automobiles. Add, for a little extra spice motorcycles and trikes for differentiation based on number of wheels. As motorized vehicles with rubber tires mounted on rims serving as wheels, presumably a hood and doors, although at one stage, doors were added.

With color as a genus, blue, red, green serve as the differentia along the axis of hue - if memory serves me.

With automobile as a genus, car, truck, van, station wagon serve as a differentia along a more complex axis of body-style (which can be further sub-divided into more refined measurement distinctions.). Coming from the automotive industry, identifying all of the product lines as "cars" is likely to be met with a raised eyebrow.

To consider a less perceptual example, even the abstraction "justice" has an aspect which can be measured—e.g.: all of the available, relevant facts pertaining to a particular instance or case of justice, providing the threshold of proof is established. Examples like this can become pretty complex to reduce back to the perceptual level.

 

 

Thanks, the automobile example is something specific that i can adjust.  I was really interested in the bigger picture, so not so concerned about the specific examples as long as the point is made, however the automobile example is something specific that I can adjust - thanks for that.

Regarding: "Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category or the standard to be used as a unit."  Can you elaborate on your addition "or the standard to be used as a unit", just a briefly for me.  Thanks.

 

Regarding - "The concepts of blue, red, and green were around long before the discovery of how to measure light waves and consequently segregate them by quantity along a specific axis."  Not sure the issue here.  I guess it makes me think that you are saying that one isn't aware of measuring?  If that is the case, I have no problem with that.  Whether one is aware of it, knows it or not, or has a standard to measure color, they are still making measurements, just in a perceptual grasp of it.  Help me if your point is different.  I guess I could clarify that while measurements are being made (3rd person perspective or in some general way i.e. strength of an emotion, etc., ) that it's always possible those measurements can become more precise via a more detailed understand of the nature of the identity of the entities.  Much like a definition though, that doesn't invalidate the previous form of measurement and differentiation.

Look forward to your feedback.

Thanks,

Mike

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

You seem to have a good idea of things, but I'm not sure what you're asking about measuring. You may look at car specs to make narrower distinction for figuring out if it's a BMW or a Honda, but the concept "car" isn't formed strictly by measuring. If you're asking about things like the first, then what you're doing is specifying the omitted measurements of the concept "car". In a way, forming concepts is the opposite of measurement, while measurement is how you identify an instance of a concept or figure out what can be omitted. After all, you can't omit what is not measurable.

Guess I just lost you here, maybe you could make it more specific or clearer for me, or rephrase it so I can grasp your approach.  I think I get the one point that - these two cars - initially I might not know the details about them - say they are two just very different cars, but you integrate them into a concept based on their differences from other motor vehicles.  Obviously, in real life you don't form a concept with just two examples, you need a great deal more cognitive data before you would feel the need to create a concept.  We just keep it brief on the examples to make the point/principle clear.

Your comment: "In a way, forming concepts is the opposite of measurement, while measurement is how you identify an instance of a concept or figure out what can be omitted. After all, you can't omit what is not measurable."  Can you write this in a different or more detailed format - possibly could help me but I didn't grasp the point that you were making.

Thanks,

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What I mean is that you would not find a baby for instance measuring how much radiation plutonium gives off. A baby doesn't even know that radiation is measurable, nor does it have a preconceptual means of measuring radiation (what a baby is able to measure preconceptually can only be determined by psychological science, though). That's also why "color" isn't omission of measurements of wavelength, it would be omission of measurements of hue.

"the attribute of a color by virtue of which it is discernible as red, green, etc., and which is dependent on its dominant wavelength, and independent of intensity or lightness "

You lost me in your quote above:  I'm no expert but from the internet source, it appears color is wavelength.  I read the last sentence of your post to say that color is a category of wavelengths.  

Again, maybe I'm missing something in regards to your comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Probably not relevant to any responding post made here yet.  

A specific measurement such as inch - omits everything except the one thing - the specific length of one inch.

It's related to the concept existent, in the sense that each covers one end of the wide end of the spectrum of concept formation.  One omits nothing, one omits everything except one item.  

When you omit everything except one item, it no longer can function in the role of unit economy.  It has a different function but the same principle in forming it.

That's what I am saying in my larger post above - they both use the same principle.  Maybe that's a new idea or maybe anyone that studying ITOE and knew it well, already knew that.  Or maybe I'm just off on a crazy tangent by myself, detached from reality! :o  Won't be the first time. B)

In summary, I'm saying that measurement, such as with an inch and concept formation are doing the same thing.  Each is using the distinguishing characteristic of the concept to measure certain items that have the same commensurate characteristic(s) as a similar group of entities.  

Edited by mike o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, mike o said:

 

“The requirements of a standard of measurement are: that it represent the appropriate attribute (that the concept has the same attribute as the genus), that it be easily perceivable by man (based on perceptual data) and that, once chosen, it remain immutable and absolute whenever used (that once chosen, it is consistently identified and remains contextually absolute, that we are always differentiating from a wider group using the same attribute/ form of measurement). 

The distinguishing characteristic is a specific unit of measurement within the genus.

Forming the concept inch or foot, is the same as any other concept.  Inch is that unit of length which is an inch long.  You notice the wider group of existents i.e. length and then that particular distance [              ] is the distinguishing characteristic.  Then you use the distinguishing characteristic to measure and see which items are an inch long, any length which is an inch falls into the concept inch. Likewise, in concept formation, you use the distinguishing characteristic (of say “Car”, wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people) to measure motor vehicles and see which one’s fall into the concept car.

The standard unit for measuring cars from vehicles, is “wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people”. 

 

 

 

Per Dream Weaver I'll update cars to automobiles.  For now I think I've cleared up something I was unclear about in regards to whether the genus or the distinguishing characteristic is the standard unit for measuring in regards to a concept, in my idea of correlating measurement and concept formation under the same principle.

From my previous post:

Quote

The standard unit for measuring cars from vehicles, is “wheels, rubber tires, hood and doors for transporting people”. 

And related it to this:

Quote

“The requirements of a standard of measurement are: that it represent the appropriate attribute (that the concept has the same attribute as the genus), that it be easily perceivable by man (based on perceptual data) and that, once chosen, it remain immutable and absolute whenever used (that once chosen, it is consistently identified and remains contextually absolute, that we are always differentiating from a wider group using the same attribute/ form of measurement). 

1) The automobile has the same attribute as motor vehicle.

2) That attribute and the distinguishing characteristic are grasped perceptually.

3) Once the concept is defined, you want to use the distinguishing characteristic as your measuring device when viewing any motor vehicle to determine if it is an automobile and falls into that category that the distinguishing characteristic provides.

 

Still to match up perfectly with the measurement analogy, I'd like the distinguishing characteristic to be the same attribute as the genus - I don't see that as the case.  It's a work in progress.

Edited by mike o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the car/automobile, n/p, and you're welcome.

mike o said:

Regarding - "The concepts of blue, red, and green were around long before the discovery of how to measure light waves and consequently segregate them by quantity along a specific axis."  Not sure the issue here.  I guess it makes me think that you are saying that one isn't aware of measuring?  If that is the case, I have no problem with that.

This would be a concrete that is supportive of what you are stating, as I understand it thus far. From earlier in this same post you asked:

Regarding: "Measurement omission is the process/result of creating a category of measurements without specifying any of the measurements within the category or the standard to be used as a unit."  Can you elaborate on your addition "or the standard to be used as a unit", just a briefly for me.  Thanks.

In an earlier post you cited:

Page 140 ITOE 2nd edition:

Prof. B, “To describe the process of concept-formation on a conscious level, one wouldn’t have to refer to omitting measurements”.

Page 141 ITOE 2nd edition:

Ayn Rand, “…understanding of what [measurement omission] means has to be arrived at philosophically or scientifically.”

Measurement is a means of counting. In addition to the implicit categories of length, weight, and color subsumed in forming the concept of table, implicit categories of shape, material and even "the yet to be discovered" are captured.

Length can be identified in units of millimeters, inches, etc., while weight is expressed in units of grams or ounces, etc.

Shape can complicate length with circular and elliptical construction, while material can reference the periodic table.

The more I elaborate, the more I see your original formulation as sufficient, as these are implicit in measurement omission per se.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mike o said:

Guess I just lost you here, maybe you could make it more specific or clearer for me, or rephrase it so I can grasp your approach.  I think I get the one point that - these two cars - initially I might not know the details about them - say they are two just very different cars, but you integrate them into a concept based on their differences from other motor vehicles.  Obviously, in real life you don't form a concept with just two examples, you need a great deal more cognitive data before you would feel the need to create a concept.  We just keep it brief on the examples to make the point/principle clear.

The start of the thread should answer some questions, too.

Concept formation, for forming the concept "car", wouldn't require only comparing vehicles. All you'd need is three objects - two things that are similar, one thing that's different. That's all you'd need. You may need more examples to learn what "car" is in English as opposed to a made up language, but those comparisons are enough for the concept.


Finding similarity and difference requires measuring. For color, your brain must be able to distinguish colors at least implicitly. But that's not the whole story. You need to integrate similarities, not just point out differences. So that's where measurement omission comes in. You get rid of all precise measurements of redness (e.g. pink roses, red cherries, bricks). What you have left is a conceptual common denominator, as in that range of "redness" all those entities share. As you can see, you must measure redness (it may happen automatically in a complex way that you aren't aware of doing) before omitting it. If I were omitting wavelength, it would imply that I am able to measure wavelengths - but this requires complex instruments. Babies learn colors fine, so it's safe to say -forming- "color" as a concept doesn't involve wavelength.

Identifying a concept after forming it would require measuring probably, but for forming a concept, measuring is only one part.

In principle wavelength could be more fundamental to color than hue, but luminance is a big part too. Besides, forming the concept "color" doesn't require measuring wavelength even if it were fundamental to color.

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!  Before I respond, there was really only one thing I didn't understand in your post.  

 

Quote

  Identifying a concept after forming it would require measuring probably, but for forming a concept, measuring is only one part.

Could you tell me - what the one part of measuring in a concept is and then if there is a part that doesn't measure, let me know that part.  or at least clarify that sentence.

Definitely appreciate the feedback - very helpful to run through these ideas for me.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mike o said:

Could you tell me - what the one part of measuring in a concept is and then if there is a part that doesn't measure, let me know that part.  or at least clarify that sentence.

Integration would not be measurement in the sense Rand means. As I understand it, integration is a creative act of combination or something similar. But, I don't think she gave a formal definition of measurement (as in completely laying out what qualifies as a quantitative relationship for example ), and I'd say you need to decide for yourself exactly how precise measurement is supposed to be. After all, ITOE is an introduction, not an exhaustive treatment, so there will be unanswered questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The start of the thread should answer some questions, too.

Concept formation, for forming the concept "car", wouldn't require only comparing vehicles. All you'd need is three objects - two things that are similar, one thing that's different. That's all you'd need. You may need more examples to learn what "car" is in English as opposed to a made up language, but those comparisons are enough for the concept.


Finding similarity and difference requires measuring. For color, your brain must be able to distinguish colors at least implicitly. But that's not the whole story. You need to integrate similarities, not just point out differences. So that's where measurement omission comes in. You get rid of all precise measurements of redness (e.g. pink roses, red cherries, bricks). What you have left is a conceptual common denominator, as in that range of "redness" all those entities share. As you can see, you must measure redness (it may happen automatically in a complex way that you aren't aware of doing) before omitting it. If I were omitting wavelength, it would imply that I am able to measure wavelengths - but this requires complex instruments. Babies learn colors fine, so it's safe to say -forming- "color" as a concept doesn't involve wavelength.

Identifying a concept after forming it would require measuring probably, but for forming a concept, measuring is only one part.

In principle wavelength could be more fundamental to color than hue, but luminance is a big part too. Besides, forming the concept "color" doesn't require measuring wavelength even if it were fundamental to color.

Quote

Concept formation, for forming the concept "car", wouldn't require only comparing vehicles. All you'd need is three objects - two things that are similar, one thing that's different. That's all you'd need. You may need more examples to learn what "car" is in English as opposed to a made up language, but those comparisons are enough for the concept.

Regarding my posts and examples - I used motorized vehicles (trains, boats, motorcycles) as the conceptual common denominator for cars.  And you are correct, you'd in that depending on your context of knowledge, you might only need one different thing that has the same characteristic that you use to isolate the two "cars".  However, whether your knowledge base only requires that or requires vehicles, it's just specifics - it's the principle that is important.  However, let's look if you only compare the two items that you'll integrate into the concept car against a boat.  Assuming that is the only knowledge you have or are forming.  Your definition could be a thing with tires.  Eventually you have to integrate and hold definitions, that is categorize your knowledge relative to everything you know, that necessarily gets your genus close to your concept.  When you say "two things that are similar, one thing that's different", just realize that's an example under a very isolated, specific, and beginning level knowledge base - a child, to isolate the mechanics of the process.  To say that you only need two items that are similar and one that is different, not really the case for most knowledge.  Because if you only had two items of a certain kind - you don't really need unit economy for that and therefore there isn't a need to form a concept to hold those two items.  So there is much more to take into account - than you just need two things similar and something different.  No doubt your description provides the essential nature of the process, however it's like pointing to a drawing of a stickman  and saying that is man and thinking that is all there is to it.

 

Quote

Integration would not be measurement in the sense Rand means.

On page 13, ITOEE 2nd edition.  

"Observe the multiple role of measurements in the process of concept formation, in both of tis two 3essential parts: differentiation and integration....."

Quote

If I were omitting wavelength, it would imply that I am able to measure wavelengths - but this requires complex instruments. Babies learn colors fine, so it's safe to say -forming- "color" as a concept doesn't involve wavelength.

Here's how I see many of your items, for feedback, in case you find it relevant or helpful.

Within a certain context, I think everything you say makes perfect sense.  So it's not the facts that are incorrect most of the time, but the context that you are viewing it from, isn't the relevant context from my perspective.  For example, I completely get the idea that babies learn colors fine and don't have the ability to scientifically measure wavelengths.  From a first person perspective, no one identifies or see wavelengths, that's a scientific discovery.  Understand though that the standard for measuring color, doesn't change the result, you can measure length in inches, feet, etc. but it doesn't change the result.  Likewise whether you observer color perceptually - which is what we all do - later grasping scientifically that it is the different wavelength that determines the hue and that is what you are perceptually identifying without knowing it, that doesn't change anything.  THE WAVELENGTH IS THE HUE!  THE HUE IS THE WAVELENGTH!  Just a different perspective.  So from a first person perspective, forming color doesn't involve a scientific understanding of wavelength - YES I agree.  That's the context that you comment makes perfect sense! :)  Understand though that wavelength is the hue, so from a 3rd person perspective, a scientific understanding of what color (hue) is, then it validates that you were implicitly aware of wavelength from a perceptual level.  From that perspective, indeed there is no way to separate out color from wavelength, so indeed forming the concept from that perspective does involve wavelength.  

Here in summary from Ayn Rand - is the issue that I am pointing out and it is an important one.  page 166 ITOE 2nd edition, she states:  A great number of philosophical errors and confusions are created by failing to distinguish between consciousness and existence, between the process of consciousness and the reality of the world outside, between the perceiver and the perceived.  That in my opinion is the best advice I could give you.  Understand that difference when you are analyzing information.  To put it in another way,  look at things from multiple frames of reference.  

The frame of reference or the relevant context will influence your conclusion.  The fork in front of you isn't moving (in relation to you), however it is moving around the sun at 67,000 mph.  You could deny it is moving all day long if you only looked at the one frame of reference and you would be 100% confident that you were correct and everybody else was an idiot!   However, when you change the frame of reference, all of sudden it takes on a different perspective.  What's the relevant context for you?  In that regard you can only understand your knowledge by looking at things from multiple frames of reference in order to see if you have made a mistake.  

 

Thanks for the reply - made  me think! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mostly describing the principal above without worrying about the details.  Trying to describe the bigger picture.

Quote

If I were omitting wavelength, it would imply that I am able to measure wavelengths - but this requires complex instruments. Babies learn colors fine, so it's safe to say -forming- "color" as a concept doesn't involve wavelength.

Your quote above, I get it.  Point well taken.  In reference to my post above, your quote above would be relevant in regards to a 1st person perspective:  

1st person perspective:  Babies learn colors fine, so it's safe to say -forming- "color" as a concept from a first person perspective doesn't involve the understanding or the direct visual of a wavelength as seen through a device that would measure the length of the wave.   

3rd person perspective: Babies learn colors fine, so it's safe to say -forming- "color" -as a concept doesn't involve wavelength. Your statement doesn't work from the 3rd perspective because if you didn't have wavelength you wouldn't have color.  You need wavelength first, then your brain sees that as a certain hue.  So if we say that a concept is an identification of a fact of reality, that your mind sees wavelengths of light, and that it perceives different wavelengths as different hues, then if you say that creating the concept doesn't involve wavelength - you are cutting it off from reality.

We have the identity of the object (existent) and then the identity of the process or nature of the mind (consciousness), it's important to understand the nature of both in order to grasp objective knowledge.

Edited by mike o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By lacking a formal definition, I mean that it works okay to talk about measurement, but I would prefer some more clarification about ordinal measurement for example. It's not a major dilemma, it would just help discussion a bit.

But I don't understand really how Rand could say integration is measurement, so reading that quote makes me think that her point is that measurement plays a role in integration, but is not all that integration involves. In my examples, I did mention measurements being made on the way to integration.

You are right about your explanation of gaining more knowledge. However, concept formation is not the same as learning about a concept. Learning about a concept would be a process of induction where you already have formed the concept in question. Forming a concept is only one step in the process of gaining knowledge.

Yes, I was only talking about first-person, because the topic under discussion is concept formation. Forming a concept can only be first-person. Finding out about wavelength later and incorporating that into your concept of color would be a type of induction. From there, you could find out that wavelength is more fundamental (i.e. explains the most) than hue. Since you brought it up, wavelength is not identical to hue actually. Wavelength alone is not enough for something to look red, there are many more factors, and factors that I would argue are more fundamental.

I'm fine with you saying that wavelength is there implicitly. My thinking is that measurement omission (which is a first-person action) can only directly involve what you are aware of, or what your mind can process on its own automatically. To be sure, wavelength is there, connected to the referent that you perceive, but wavelength is not accessible to your brain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...